Reconstruction Of The Ego

[lenin32]

Pardon me for asking another question and not actually bringing any wisdom of my own into the fray. Please bear with me.

While contemplatin the nature of the ego, I came to the conclusion that the ego itself is not something to be destroyed, as most eastern religion is directed towards. This is because of the absolute neccesity of a reference point (which is all the ego really is) in order to function. Without an ego of some sort, how is a being supposed to be able to survive. When the time came to nourish onesself, there would be no means of differentiating between the consumed and the consumer, and no way to attribute hunger to the body. The only thing left is a bunch of random thoughts and perceptions.

Since I assume this is true, is it correct for me to then say that enlightenment would not be a destruction of ego, but a renovation?

[namtso]

Pardon me for asking another question and not actually bringing any wisdom of my own into the fray. Please bear with me.

While contemplatin the nature of the ego, I came to the conclusion that the ego itself is not something to be destroyed, as most eastern religion is directed towards. This is because of the absolute neccesity of a reference point (which is all the ego really is) in order to function. Without an ego of some sort, how is a being supposed to be able to survive. When the time came to nourish onesself, there would be no means of differentiating between the consumed and the consumer, and no way to attribute hunger to the body. The only thing left is a bunch of random thoughts and perceptions.

Since I assume this is true, is it correct for me to then say that enlightenment would not be a destruction of ego, but a renovation?* - lenin32

I think it may be that it is the strong attachment to ego that is the problem or that which should be reduced. I agree with you that if the ego is equated with the personality, then eliminating it would essentially turn a person into a useless zombie. I think it's BIG ego due to exaggerated attachment that is to be avoided. I should maybe get started on that assignment, ha ha. Tonglen practice addresses this by the meditation of exchange of self and other.

Tonglen, Suffering's Benefit! - TBV
http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...t=ST&f=4&t=1154 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=1154)

http://www.lamrim.com/riburrinpoche

Tonglen - http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/pema/tonglen1.php

[______]

Since I assume this is true, is it correct for me to then say that enlightenment would not be a destruction of ego, but a renovation?
Enter Trevor stage left. :D

Speaking of Trevor, Trevor says this, in the Mining the Genius Forum thread: "An enlightened being is egoless." :huh:


...think it may be that it is the strong attachment to ego that is the problem or that which should be reduced.
Yes, every text I've read that refers to the ego, it was the attachment to the said ego that was the thing being "destroyed".

Tonglen practice addresses this by the meditation of exchange of self and other.
I've been practicing Tonglen here lately. It really brings about a wonderful feeling of being whole. Odd that since it derives from one's suffering. :D

[namtso]

I've been practicing Tonglen here lately. It really brings about a wonderful feeling of being whole. Odd that since it derives from one's suffering. - SFT
No doubt. I would personally approach Tonglen practice with some trepidation I think. I can totally see how it would develop compassion though. Essentially "putting yourself in another person's shoes".

[Trevor Salyzyn]

SFT,
Speaking of Trevor, Trevor says this, in the Mining the Genius Forum thread: "An enlightened being is egoless."
Strictly speaking, all beings are egoless. The ego is an illusion. There is nothing that separates me from the rest of the universe: I do not inherently exist.

The egolessness of an enlightened man comes from him seeing the ego as illusion. In actual fact, he never did have an ego, so there was nothing to lose or alter, only to realize.

So yes, an enlightened being is egoless. An unenlightened being is also egoless, but it dwells on the illusion that it is somehow separate.

[bito]

Strictly speaking, all beings are egoless. The ego is an illusion. There is nothing that separates me from the rest of the universe: I do not inherently exist.

The egolessness of an enlightened man comes from him seeing the ego as illusion. In actual fact, he never did have an ego, so there was nothing to lose or alter, only to realize.

So yes, an enlightened being is egoless. An unenlightened being is also egoless, but it dwells on the illusion that it is somehow separate.

For me, as it is with most, this is a most difficult realization to face. That the universe simply happens, and all definitions by man of this happening are purely relative and subjective, which means that there is no actual point of reference anywhere. It is thinking that creates this point of reference, and what is thinking but a temporary grasp at emptiness?

Man was not always a thinking animal. Before thought, there was no division between self and environment. You witnessed cause and effect and behaved accordingly. It was only when language arrived on the scene that the separate "I" was created, and then once created, became a full blown entity within the minds of men.

We fear this knowledge until we choose not to run anymore. We stand on the truth and let fear simply burn itself out. The truth also is that we are thinking animals. We also cannot run from this.

Buddhists call this awareness of emptiness 'sky mind'. I like this, for it points to a reference point, without actually creating a reference point.

We fear our sky mind. Perhaps we should be discussing this fear, not bickering about who or who has not achieved this or that.

[scameter]

I think that to be enlightened in the Buddhist sense requires destruction of the ego so as to become totally passive to cause and effect, and thus to eliminate karma and to enter enlightenement and subsequent Nirvana, but in a more general sense of enlightenment (although I would like it if the maker of this thread could specify his definition for us, if he would), I think that the ego cannot actually be destroyed, even if it can be ignored; and I don't think it should be ignored. I think the ego is inescapable, and is what makes us individual humans as being aware. But, to be truly enlightened is to be truly aware/perceptive and truly thinking freely and truthfully, and to do this requires not putting the desires of the ego in the primary. Modern society has done this: to modern people, the ego and the self are all that matter, and it is what we promote above everything else, and it is also what our addiction to pleasure is centered around. Societies of the past and of the East tend to be much less like this, and more about giving of it's self to something else. For instance, a Buddhist monk of Tibet had given himself up entirely to the way of the Buddha, and had thus forsaken the desires of the self in place of the duties of being a Buddhist monk. His ego still existed, and even was often satisfied even by his being a monk, but his desires for pleasure and for power primarily, both being very much of the ego, were to be put aside.

[clyde]

Lenin32;

You wrote,
Without an ego of some sort, how is a being supposed to be able to survive.
This supposes that there is an ego entity separate from the being entity!

When the ego is conceptualized as a non-physical entity, often associated with acquiring, clinging, desirous, grasping, and needy, or sometimes as self-aggrandizing, I agree with Namtso that the teachings of non-attachment and impermanence are effective. If the ego is conceptualized as the personality, then I know of no direct teachings, though there are teachings regarding morality and appropriate conduct and communication. There is no single personality for awakened human beings, though some persons are easier and more pleasant to be with.

Regarding survival, our bodies experience hunger; there is no need to “attribute” hunger to the body. Further, the body of a human being does survive without a separate conceptualized ego entity, in the same manner that other beings survive without a separate conceptualized ego entity.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[bito]

I do think Trevor's point that the ego is an illusion is an important one, for as long we believe we have an ego, we will be trying to do something with or about or for this make-believe fixed-point of reference.

Some want it killed, some want it dissolved (me :D ), some want it to be transformed, some want it renovated - it is ironic that we spend so much of our energy thinking about this 'thing' that isn't even there!

We say "I" am ill" or "I am happy". We do not say "my ego is ill" or "my ego is happy".

What would happen if we dropped the term 'ego' altogether?

[Steven Coyle]

The ego acts as a point of reference for the emotion-feeling complex.

Depending on the personality, the ego can be a vital ally or a potential enemy.

If you can learn from your ego, then you have learned how to subdue it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

bito wrote:
What would happen if we dropped the term 'ego' altogether?

I was just thinking that just before I read your post.

If the ego is just a reference point, then reconstruction of what the ego means to the individual might be the idea. Attachment to a reference point? Some sorts of attachments are a good idea just for simple continuity which does not derail the train to Truth. Attachments to universal meanings of terminology maintains better communication, but that should be an intellectual attachment, not an emotional one. The intellectual attachment raises an objection if one says "left" meaning "right" and just expects everone else to know what he means. An emotional attachment would get upset if one says left, meaning right, and distract the individual from logical persuits.

I don't remember if it was Aristotle, Plato, or someone else that said something like "the key is to be the right amount of angry at the right person for the right reason." Whatever an ego is or is not, the important point does seem to be the same - eliminate whatever it is getting in the way of rationality - whether you call it ego, attachment to ego, attachment, or whatever - eliminate that which impedes you on your path to the Goal.

[CSwriter1]

This is a strange question, considering I just answered one about thoughts of a past incarnation. I do not have a sense of being that personality, but have some vague thoughts about what that personality did think, feel, and experience.

I am not sure I am this personality either. Like if we can experince several live times, than our sense of being any personality is only temporary. There does seem to be a continuity, but we can have completely perspectives in different life times. Like agree with the reasoning of my past personality, but would not repeat her life today.

I am learning about finding inner peace and better communication, and when this new information is fully asborb, I will not be the same person I have been. It is really important to give up who I have been to be who I can be.

How about acknowledging our personalities, and our relationships, as having something to do with our ego's, but not being overly attached to them? Leaving open the possibility that who we really is not the personalities we experience.

[Fool Zero]

What if instead of some kind of thing, the ego, we were to speak instead of an activity, egoing?

-- Fool Zero, channeling Alan Watts

[clyde]

Fool;
What if instead of some kind of thing, the ego, we were to speak instead of an activity, egoing?

-- Fool Zero, channeling Alan Watts
I think that sounds like Thich Nhat Hanh. I think Alan Watts might have said:
The ego is a con-game we play on ourselves.

-- clyde, channeling Alan Watts
Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[namtso]

For me, as it is with most, this is a most difficult realization to face. That the universe simply happens, and all definitions by man of this happening are purely relative and subjective, which means that there is no actual point of reference anywhere. It is thinking that creates this point of reference, and what is thinking but a temporary grasp at emptiness?* - bito
What if instead of some kind of thing, the ego, we were to speak instead of an activity, egoing?
* - Fool Zero
I am not sure I am this personality either. Like if we can experince several live times, than our sense of being any personality is only temporary. There does seem to be a continuity, but we can have completely perspectives in different life times. Like agree with the reasoning of my past personality, but would not repeat her life today.

I am learning about finding inner peace and better communication, and when this new information is fully asborb, I will not be the same person I have been. It is really important to give up who I have been to be who I can be.

How about acknowledging our personalities, and our relationships, as having something to do with our ego's, but not being overly attached to them? Leaving open the possibility that who we really is not the personalities we experience.* - CSwriter1
The ego acts as a point of reference for the emotion-feeling complex.
Depending on the personality, the ego can be a vital ally or a potential enemy.
If you can learn from your ego, then you have learned how to subdue it.
* - Steven Coyle

Quicksilver. Fluid, malleable, definitely a reference point and a ground of continuity. I agree with Steven Coyle in this. Also art. My Grandmother often said "life is art". That doesn't mean false or contrived like an actor portraying someone else but what it does mean is that you focus on things you value and believe in and then continually steer your awareness in that direction. You are "artfully" developing or reshaping your identity, ego. It's a conscious choice and always subject to change. Consequently the "go with the flow" sort of inaction in regard to purposefully pursuing things is also a choice. Still art I guess but you are not so much the artist as is your reactive mind and pretty much all external forces and influences. I am not the same person I was ten years ago and definitely not the same person I was 20 years ago, 30 years ago. namsto is just a central reference point for my sphere of awareness. Sky mind is a great phrase. But at the same time, recognizing that does not all of the sudden liberate my mind although it can have the effect of loosening the grip on self-identity a little bit, and that can be a continuing process. It can allow a person to be less protective of the "ego" which is just vapor of sorts anyways. What are we protecting? My feeling is that personality, ego, self, self-identity, center, ground of being, me, namsto, the name that's on my driver's license are all pretty much the same thing and are just reference points for that sphere of awareness and activity that is experienced by "my" mind. We are essentially born with it although I do believe that if you do not live and grow up with other human beings, the fully developed ego is largely not present, it remains dormant to some extent. But when you take that same person and put them in a communal setting and expect them to start interacting with other human beings, learning the language etc., the awareness of that individual's ego is also developed. That's my guess anyways.

I would question whether or not that ego is merely a highly refined system that contains all the core instincts that a person is born with, aversion to pain, enjoyment of pleasureable sensation, need for food and water, sex drive. In other words a "wolf boy" might have his own ego even though he doesn't even realize it and it's still very rudimentary. I'm not sure about this, the thought just now presented itself.


I think that to be enlightened in the Buddhist sense requires destruction of the ego so as to become totally passive to cause and effect, and thus to eliminate karma and to enter enlightenement and subsequent Nirvana
* - scameter

Scam brings up an excellent question. From the Buddhist perspective, as an individual goes through the process of enlightenment and then enters into nirvana, does the ego dissolve and if so, when? I know that there is a cessation of attachment but does that also include dissolution of identity? I think I heard in a recorded talk recently that it is something like a reabsorption into some all encompassing life force while at the same time not totally losing a sense of identity. It includes all encompassing awareness (omniscience) but at the same time some sort of identity is still retained. It is just infinitely expanded. Mind blower. Can't entirely wrap my head around that one yet.

Apologies, as usual I ramble, as if I've got something important to say, ha ha. Very interesting thread.

[scameter]

Scam brings up an excellent question. From the Buddhist perspective, as an individual goes through the process of enlightenment and then enters into nirvana, does the ego dissolve and if so, when? I know that there is a cessation of attachment but does that also include dissolution of identity? I think I heard in a recorded talk recently that it is something like a reabsorption into some all encompassing life force while at the same time not totally losing a sense of identity. It includes all encompassing awareness (omniscience) but at the same time some sort of identity is still retained. It is just infinitely expanded. Mind blower. Can't entirely wrap my head around that one yet.

Well, I think it again comes to the point where there are many different ways in Buddhism to explain this, depending on the school doing the explaining. But, I have most often heard and come to understand it as that to become enlightened, and thus to be liberated from karma which is produced by acting based on the desires of the ego, one needs to act with entire selflessness to generate good karma, which in a sense replaces the bad karma, and once this is entirely done, and only good karma remains, the individual will no longer have rebirths, and will become enlightened, escaping the endless cycle of birth and death afforded by negative karma. They will then lose their ego entirely, as the ego is the fundamental generator of negative karma, when they enter Nirvana.

[scameter]

No mind is great mind.

[Fool Zero]

What if instead of some kind of thing, the ego, we were to speak instead of an activity, egoing?
-- Fool Zero, channeling Alan Watts

I think that sounds like Thich Nhat Hanh. I think Alan Watts might have said:

The ego is a con-game we play on ourselves.
-- clyde, channeling Alan Watts
:thumbsup: And so he might. He's at least come close to saying both, in one context or another.

I think it's near the beginning of In My Own Way that Watts compares his numerous books to the spokes of a wheel, each starting from a different place on the rim but all pointing toward the same hub.

Oh, by the way -- Buckminster Fuller once wrote something (book or essay? I've forgotten) called "I seem to be a verb".

[CSwriter1]

Plan on having Alzheimers Disease. With this disease we can forget who our family members are and the details of our lives. What will come up is mental habits. We know who we are by feeling. Like in dreams we are free floating, but when we are awake, we know we are awake and who we are by feeling. It is mental habits that generate a feeling that confirms we are in the right body and are who we think we are.

Now if we forget the details of our lives, all we have left is the mental habits. One person may become paranoid, another will fully trust s/he is in good hands and everything will come out okay. If you are carrying any unpleasant baggage, you better dump it before you get Alzeimers, because you will be trapped with want you have.

So if we are carrying many unpleasant memories, recreating our lives as painful, that is what we will have, until we reincarnate and can create a different reality for ourselves. This is a guess. I read it is easier to process through stuff in this life time, than when we don't have material reality for the processing. I am just now learning, we can focus on virtues and the language of virtues, and recreate ourselves in a positive way. See the "ego" difference? I am all these bad memories, or I am virtueous and part of this loving energy that some call God, Allah, Nirvana.