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.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.

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

...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.

[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 ), 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.