Ego.

[django]

Originally Posted by Baile

The ego is a product of, and necessary aspect of, material existence. Once the human being becomes self-realized, there is no longer the need to incarnate. Thus no more ego. In the future, the race of beings we identify as "human" will no longer require incarnating in the physical-material realm. That part of the evolution journey will be complete. And at that point, there will be no need for the ego any longer. And no longer a need for the planet Earth, for the ego-incarnation plane itself.

Once we become 'ego-realized', I think we can create a different form of ego, a superior version, one that cares about our own survival but with infinite compassion for all other's survival as well.

And then there might be more to learn in the physical-material realm beyond transcending and recreating a more spiritual ego?

[Baile]

Originally Posted by django

Once we become 'ego-realized', I think we can create a different form of ego, a superior version, one that cares about our own survival but with infinite compassion for all other's survival as well.

And then there might be more to learn in the physical-material realm beyond transcending and recreating a more spiritual ego?

I agree with your first comment. I don't know what you mean with your second comment though. A spiritual ego? Do you mean having an ego while in spirit form? I have a tough time understanding why a being of pure spirit would require an ego of any kind.

I've had fully-awake metaphysical experiences whereby I experienced being in a place of unity consciousness. I was aware of my soul, and my soul was part of everything. Yet it still felt like I was an individual and unique soul. But I didn't have any experience of ego attachment to any of that. Just pure union with everything. So again, I don't see how the concept of a spiritual ego fits in with being in spirit.

[jonesboy]

Should this thread even be in a Buddhism section since nobody is looking for a Buddhist answer to ego?

[Somnia]

Originally Posted by Baile

One listen to a week-old child screaming for food or a diaper change would answer that question. Some babies quietly fuss, and some shriek so hard they change color and look like they'll explode. Yeah, I would say the ego is already active at birth, long before the parents ruin the poor kid.

Which is why I'm perfectly content with being "Child-Free" for the rest of my life,

I have enough on my plate dealing with my own ego, I'm not going to deal with raising a kid and having to deal with their own ego...Heh...

[django]

Originally Posted by Baile

I agree with your first comment. I don't know what you mean with your second comment though. A spiritual ego? Do you mean having an ego while in spirit form? I have a tough time understanding why a being of pure spirit would require an ego of any kind.

I've had fully-awake metaphysical experiences whereby I experienced being in a place of unity consciousness. I was aware of my soul, and my soul was part of everything. Yet it still felt like I was an individual and unique soul. But I didn't have any experience of ego attachment to any of that. Just pure union with everything. So again, I don't see how the concept of a spiritual ego fits in with being in spirit.

No I mean a more spiritual ego as a material human being. I don't really know what would happen next, but I do like the idea that there is just more evolution on the physical plane. Things we can't conceive of yet because we remain fixed within ego attachment most of the time.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Somnia

Which is why I'm perfectly content with being "Child-Free" for the rest of my life,

I knew that at age 14! Gosh I was a young prophet.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by django

No I mean a more spiritual ego as a material human being.

Yes I understand and agree, I have come to understand it in my life as the higher self. Some paths refer to it as the "I." The ego or lower self, and the I or higher self.

[sky]

In the Buddhist view any wall created to protect the self from others is the creation of ego or a false sense of self. At the same time Buddhism does not deny the uniqueness or the different experiences of each human being. The task to hold both relative and absolute understanding of self and no-self is embraced on the path of liberation.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by sky123

In the Buddhist view any wall created to protect the self from others is the creation of ego or a false sense of self.* At the same time Buddhism does not deny the uniqueness or the different experiences of each human being.* The task to hold both relative and absolute understanding of self and no-self is embraced on the path of liberation.**

This muddles to question for me because I read: self, ego, false sense of self, and no-self. And the idea that human beings are unique. So the question went from looking at two aspects of being human - lower (ego) and higher (I) - to four or five aspects. It's confusing to me, I don't understand it now.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Baile

This muddles to question for me because I read: self, ego, false sense of self, and no-self. And the idea that human beings are unique. So the question went from looking at two aspects of being human - lower (ego) and higher (I) - to four or five aspects. It's confusing to me, I don't understand it now.

Buddhism teaches ' not self ' rather than ' no self '
We are unique because we have the capacity for moral choice.