What’s all that fuss about ego?

[waechter418]

…..after all ego (Latin: I) is just a viewpoint, a reference term – which might irritate, when overly used - but so does “you know”
“Egoists, Egocentrics & Egomaniacs” stem probably from the need to project and label something beyond the I – at least it would explain why ego is supposed to be synonymous for self. But what is self? – certainly not I, otherwise psychologists, mystics & gurus couldn’t make so much ado about it.
To me the term self encompasses what I am – including my ignorance about it – which doesn’t bother me, since I am what I do & I do what I am – thus having no problem with my self, and no desire to be someone else, or to go to a monastery to get rid of my self – which in my opinion requires an ego much larger than I can afford.

[Timothy]

Some people do have a problem with the status-quo, and seek to describe the meanings (to themselves)

Pink Floyd's Echoes speaks to me in that regard:

"And no one showed us to the land
And no one knows the wheres or whys
But something stirs and something tries
And starts to climb towards the light"

[Miss Hepburn]

My take...any bad feeling, any bad emotion, any terrible action done...
say, stealing, pride, jealousy, indignation, vengeance,
...comes from the lower egoic mind....the ego thought system..
coined by A Course in Miracles, I think.

Anything that is kind, patient and loving...comes from the
Holy Spirit Thought System or from the Higher Self...
or the higher ego-self.


My 2 cents.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by waechter418

…..after all ego (Latin: I) is just a viewpoint, a reference term – which might irritate, when overly used - but so does “you know”
“Egoists, Egocentrics & Egomaniacs” stem probably from the need to project and label something beyond the I – at least it would explain why ego is supposed to be synonymous for self. But what is self? – certainly not I, otherwise psychologists, mystics & gurus couldn’t make so much ado about it.
To me the term self encompasses what I am – including my ignorance about it – which doesn’t bother me, since I am what I do & I do what I am – thus having no problem with my self, and no desire to be someone else, or to go to a monastery to get rid of my self – which in my opinion requires an ego much larger than I can afford.

The ego being talked about is not as per your definition. Its really a shortening of 'problem ego' or 'out of control ego'. Basically its an observation that for many the 'ego' is to use your term 'overly used'. This leads to 'it' causing/inducing one to take actions that are counter productive and even destructive for the self as a whole.

Ego (as fussed about) is also part of the 'reactive mind' which reacts in ways not in alignment with people's identities and image of self (as a whole). Defusing the ego and using it only in the role of a 'viewpoint' allows one to act in a deliberate and considered position rather than merely reactive in the moment.

So, if you find yourself 'instantly' reacting to real or perceived events and doing things you later regret, then there is a good chance you have the kind of ego there is 'fuss' about. This includes most people.

[Timothy]

Yeah, I have an uphill battle with dishonesty. Everything is fine until I'm tired and uncomfortable and some one will ask me if I did something and I'll say yes instantly, as a defense, like swatting a mosquito or squashing a bug...

[waechter418]

How about this one:

We can't get rid of a self that only exists as a point of view....all points of view or interpretations are empty of any thing, the self is always a phantom self since it only exists as a thought, or a point of reference, view.. The self arises in reference to where the attention is, be it on some object, sound, bodily sensation, or thought...all of which are empty. So in essence there is nothing actually here, there is only ever emptiness within which emerges a sense of self fullness which is really empty at it's core.

Everything springs from the silence and returns to the silence. The silence is like a constant presence - it doesn't move, go anywhere, or change, we can call this silence.. awareness or attention, There is no difference between the contents of silent awareness and awareness itself,they are each other one and the same thing, both are empty at the core. When we communicate with another person we are literally talking to nothing.

Attached to a point of reference is the belief there is something here, as in something seen, heard, felt, smelt, tasted, which become known experiences, which in turn spawn a knower. But there is no knower apart from the experience. There is nothing here having the experience of bodily sensations, thoughts, sounds, and objects seen, all empty of an experiencer. There is just 'what is' with or without the interpretation of it.

by: "dontaskme"

[Timothy]

ahh, nihilism.

[WabiSabi]

The issue with words is that the word may be the same, but what a person means by the word may be very different.
There are as many different views of 'God' as there are people who speak the word, and yet the word 'God' is singular.
It is the same with the word 'ego'.
So since this is a spiritual forum, this is my answer.
The 'ego', as it is referred to in many religions, is all parts of the mind that many people falsely identify as their 'self', and by 'self' I mean that unchanging, unceasing center of being that experiences existence.

[Uma]

Here's what I've been taught -

We can't enter total self annihilation without getting enlightened first.
EGO is the glue that holds our energy field forms together - body and mind.
People often confuse egotism or narcissism with what is simply "ego", the "I" maker. I am this. I am that. I am...
Total self annihilation comes after enlightenment.
Enlightenment is a larger "I" - I am everything.
In enlightenment there is only one desire, "to help wake up the rest of the great me".
When the enlightened one is 100% desireless and leaves all dimensions of existence and enters the void of nothingness without a mental body or a physical body.
Then when the yugas are recycled and there is another big bang, this "I" comes back into existence all over again.
We can't escape eternity.

[H:O:R:A:C:E]

Originally Posted by waechter418

…..after all ego (Latin: I) is just a viewpoint, a reference term – which might irritate, when overly used - but so does “you know”
“Egoists, Egocentrics & Egomaniacs” stem probably from the need to project and label something beyond the I – at least it would explain why ego is supposed to be synonymous for self. But what is self? – certainly not I, otherwise psychologists, mystics & gurus couldn’t make so much ado about it.
To me the term self encompasses what I am – including my ignorance about it – which doesn’t bother me, since I am what I do & I do what I am – thus having no problem with my self, and no desire to be someone else, or to go to a monastery to get rid of my self – which in my opinion requires an ego much larger than I can afford.

there is a definition of ego as "the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious".
i believe that bridging two aspects of mind together can be viewed as "good".