- Joined
- Jul 3, 2023
- Messages
- 5,317
- Reaction score
- 26,714
- Awards
- 16
In forums such as this one, the question crops up now and again what the ego really is and how to deal with it. Here is an interesting Buddhist perspective I've recently come across:
The term ego—or ego-self—is frequently used to describe the self-centered, fabricated outer layer of self, and we often speak of letting go of the ego, or dissolving it, or transcending it […]. However, the common usage of ego, both within Buddhist teachings and in the world at large, makes ego sound like an entity that has a shape and a size, and that can be extracted like a tooth. It doesn’t work that way. Ego is not an object; it’s more like a process that follows through on the proclivity for grasping, and for holding on to fixed ideas and identities. What we call ego is really an everchanging perception, and although it is central to our narrative story, it is not a thing. It therefore cannot really die, and cannot be killed or transcended. This tendency for grasping arises when we misperceive the constant flow of our body and mind and mistake it for a solid, unchanging self. We do not need to get rid of the ego—this unchanging, solid, and unhealthy sense of self—because it never existed in the first place. The key point is that there is no ego to kill. It is the belief in an enduring, nonchanging self that dies. The term ego can still provide a useful reference; but we need to be careful not to set ourselves up for battling something that is not there. Ironically, when we go into combat with the ego, we strengthen the illusions of self, making our efforts to awaken counterproductive. Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, Helen Tworkov - In Love with the World (p. 54)
I understand this to mean that the ego is an acquired, habitual behavioural pattern of deed, speech and thought that doesn't originate from a seperate (and unwanted) part of ourselves but that simply is and acts; it's how our everyday selves function. By much the same token, I also wonder whether the concept of the Jungian Shadow as a static seperate entity is incorrect as well… and now we're even told that God is a verb. Curiouser and curioser.
The term ego—or ego-self—is frequently used to describe the self-centered, fabricated outer layer of self, and we often speak of letting go of the ego, or dissolving it, or transcending it […]. However, the common usage of ego, both within Buddhist teachings and in the world at large, makes ego sound like an entity that has a shape and a size, and that can be extracted like a tooth. It doesn’t work that way. Ego is not an object; it’s more like a process that follows through on the proclivity for grasping, and for holding on to fixed ideas and identities. What we call ego is really an everchanging perception, and although it is central to our narrative story, it is not a thing. It therefore cannot really die, and cannot be killed or transcended. This tendency for grasping arises when we misperceive the constant flow of our body and mind and mistake it for a solid, unchanging self. We do not need to get rid of the ego—this unchanging, solid, and unhealthy sense of self—because it never existed in the first place. The key point is that there is no ego to kill. It is the belief in an enduring, nonchanging self that dies. The term ego can still provide a useful reference; but we need to be careful not to set ourselves up for battling something that is not there. Ironically, when we go into combat with the ego, we strengthen the illusions of self, making our efforts to awaken counterproductive. Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, Helen Tworkov - In Love with the World (p. 54)
I understand this to mean that the ego is an acquired, habitual behavioural pattern of deed, speech and thought that doesn't originate from a seperate (and unwanted) part of ourselves but that simply is and acts; it's how our everyday selves function. By much the same token, I also wonder whether the concept of the Jungian Shadow as a static seperate entity is incorrect as well… and now we're even told that God is a verb. Curiouser and curioser.
