Ego is a good thing

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Is there a good/experts recommended way to develop perception in better manner enrich the experience of all involved.

In psychology it's called constructive cognitive behaviour. In most threads the ego is defined/portrayed as the bad guy and, because people don't want to think of themselves as having a demon inside they declare ego-death. And let's not even think about ego being a term from psychology, not Spirituality. That's destructive cognitive behaviour. Using a word from psychology and making up one's own meaning because one thinks one knows is also destructive cognitive behaviour. From a Spiritual perspective, what is perceived is not real.

Constructive cognitive behaviour in this instance would be to hit Google and find out from either Jung or Freud, since they are the founding fathers of modern psychology. Or, if you're really Spiritual and you want some genuine Spiritual understanding you could search for Ahamkara and get your head around that. That is constructive cognitive behaviour, that is the Right Thinking of the Eightfold Path that nobody talks about but leads to Right Understanding.

The Right Understanding means understanding that the psychology is based on the Spirituality. So, Spiritually what you have here is a thread-full of 'invented things' that so many 'I's are made of. It's also Maya, by the way, and this thread is Maya in action. That then forms the basis of eastern teachings about reality, the Atman and a whole host of other understandings. From that point so many other things are understood rather than just being repeated.

What most people don't realise is that they don't talk about THE ego, they talk about the contents of THEIR OWN egos. Not good self awareness, folks.

[Hexagon222]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You can't 'eradicate' your ego, it's that simple, and despite what the ideologies tell you it's not any kind of practical. According to a documentary the monks that actually succeeded had to be spoon fed and have their daipers changed.

I'm thinking you've combined psychoanalysis theory with Ahamkara using Freud's theory of ego. Ahamkara is indeed about getting rid of ego. However if you get rid of Freud's version of ego I'm guessing, as he describes it, you really would have a mental break, some type of collapse. And there is the conflict, the two don't mix.

I suggested a happy medium or middle ground here. And since you like psychology this is coming from a psychiatrist:

"It is not ego, in the Freudian sense, that is the actual target of the Buddhist insight. It is, rather, the self-concept, the representational component of the ego, the actual internal experience of one’s self that is targeted." "What is being transcended here is not the entire ego."

https://tricycle.org/magazine/freud-and-dr-buddha/

As the above states you can keep Freud's model removing only an aspect of the ego but not the entire ego. So you can eradicate an aspect of ego and still have the rest of ego intact and have the awareness to use the bathroom, and yes even say "I am free, I have overcome ego" or "I am enlightened", but saying that and actually being free of ego is another story. If you want to see ego look no further than some of the conversations on this forum, look at our conversation, ego is there and clear to see! Even the motive of this conversation itself is ego driven. The back and forth, "I'm right, your wrong," that is ego! It's easy to see ego once you know what to look for. And if you can see it in others you can see it in yourself too. If you can do that, that would be an example of self awareness. Whereas for example making contradictions and not seeing those contradictions would be an example of lack of self awareness. You can skip the monks that need their diapers changed and that have to be spoon fed, that is something else. There is always extremism. Does the story of Buddha's enlightenment reduce him to having to have his diapers changed and being spoon fed?

Anyway that's just off the top of my head. I would have to read up on Freud, Jung, Ahamkara. So maybe Ahamkara is the original ego dropping teaching but you can easily get the same thing in a much more simple and easy to understand format from modern teachers. Speaking of modern teachers my gf jokingly asked me the other day if I was going to write a children's book on ego. I said it's already been done and to her surprise I went and pulled out a book from the bookshelf called "the little Me and THE GREAT ME", a 1957 copy by Lou Austin. My mom actually read that to me as a kid, too bad it didn't take. On the first page it says that there are two forces and two wills in everybody. 1st will is the will of the human self and the 2nd will is the will of the divine self and between the two of them there is a constant running battle. He says you can save your child from needless frustration as they become aware of their ego if you teach them there is not one but two separate wills. The book is even designed in the front to be taught to children in school, imagine that! Supposedly for children ages 3 to 10. So there it is, a simple and easy to understand book about ego and how to overcome it made for children.*

Originally Posted by Hexagon222

"It is not ego, in the Freudian sense, that is the actual target of the Buddhist insight. It is, rather, the self-concept, the representational component of the ego, the actual internal experience of one’s self that is targeted."

Yup. No-self. Emptiness. To me it's more of a shift in perspective and the funny thing is it's really subtle but the implication is monumental. Same thing with Ramana Maharshi's "Who Am I?" Self-inquiry. One will not find a self regardless how deep one looks.

I would also say the hard part to overcome is sense of doership.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

In most threads the ego is defined/portrayed as the bad guy

True. I will always define it as bad (with a good ultimate purpose.) If someone defines it as good, to me that just means they are defining it differently than most which is fine. What the word "ego" actually is or is to us is defined by us. It's like one cat killing birds and another purring in it's owners lap. Someone may say cats are bad and someone else may say cats are good, both are defining what a cat is differently. Both are true if you are looking at different things, different cats.

Ultimately though, the source of ego is the physical brain which by design is bad, delusional, full of self interest, self centered. If a "person" is good, that is not a result of a "good ego" it is a result of the spirit or soul dominating the human brain produced mind. A "mind" so dominated by spirit only manifests the good. In that process, mind is a tool of soul or consciousness and not the other way around, where soul is a passive witness to the mess the solely mind created ego creates.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

What most people don't realize is that they don't talk about THE ego, they talk about the contents of THEIR OWN egos. Not good self awareness, folks.

I think most people don't know what they are so "ego" to them tends to be conceptualized as some aspect of themselves, like their personality or how they self imagine themselves. That's why they would insist ego is good. They see ego as themselves in some way. They think "ego" determines what we are and what we do. Not so, consciousness determines that. Ego is something consciousness may incorporate as the "person" but it is not consciousness itself.

Normally ego is defined as a false bloated self important sense of self. Like the common phrase "He or she has a big ego." It means they are vain, believe themselves better than others etc. But then culturally we don't have a popular phrase, "He or she has a small ego" to mean the opposite. Why not? Well because generally ego is seen as only negative. As a bloated vain self important self centered sense of self. A good person would be said to not have an ego at all. But then like I said, now days we have some defining ego as themselves. So the word becomes meaningless in that way. Basically the whole word is being redefined. If one can have a good ego, then ego is no longer defined as a bloated vain self important self centered sense of self. It has been redefined as a part of us that determines who and what we are and how it can be good or bad.

I would say that's delusional. We decide what we are, not some part we have like an ego. Consciousness is the one in charge if it reaches a point of self awareness and understanding of what is. Otherwise, it becomes pushed about by the brain and thought. It's like a tiger on a leash being pulled here and there by the zookeeper. When the tiger realizes it doesn't have to be pulled around like that, that realization ends it. In this bad metaphor, the tiger always had the power over the person pulling the leash, it just did not have the awareness or understanding needed to realize that. Once realized, whoever was pulling that leash ceases to have any power at all.

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

One will not find a self regardless how deep one looks.

The one not finding one is the self. The only self.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The Right Understanding means understanding that the psychology is based on the Spirituality. So, Spiritually what you have here is a thread-full of 'invented things' that so many 'I's are made of. It's also Maya, by the way, and this thread is Maya in action. That then forms the basis of eastern teachings about reality, the Atman and a whole host of other understandings. From that point so many other things are understood rather than just being repeated.

Why we need to worry about invented things . If invented things are good , we use it . IF invented is bad we should just scrape it .

Also why afraid repetition . Repetition and understanding have 'chicken and egg' story . People can not tell what comes first . People dont get into debates of that . They just rear chicken . Same repetition too can lead to understanding . Understanding does not come out of vaccum .

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Spirituality is mostly about changing the 'contents' of the ego.
....
We are not one nor the other, we are both.

Contents of ego can change for good or bad . If its for good , its called sublimation in spirituality . In psychological sense ego can not be killed . That's an exercise in futility and can lead to dysfunctional behaviour you describe . However most who talk here about 'killing ego ' are actually talking about sublimating the ego . While they can frame their sentences to psychologically accepted way , they dont really mean to destroy the ego, they simply mean to change the contents of ego ie to sublimate the ego.

[Hexagon222]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yup. No-self. Emptiness. To me it's more of a shift in perspective and the funny thing is it's really subtle but the implication is monumental. Same thing with Ramana Maharshi's "Who Am I?" Self-inquiry. One will not find a self regardless how deep one looks.

I would also say the hard part to overcome is sense of doership.

Interesting about the shift in perspective. Could you elaborate a little on sense of doership?*

[Hexagon222]

Originally Posted by Maisy

I will always define it as bad (with a good ultimate purpose.)

Same! It's there for a purpose. Like you mentioned on another thread "to be born again"

Originally Posted by Maisy

Consciousness is the one in charge if it reaches a point of self awareness and understanding of what is. Otherwise, it becomes pushed about by the brain and thought.

Agree here as well and that was a good metaphor about the tiger.

[Hexagon222]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

However most who talk here about 'killing ego ' are actually talking about sublimating the ego . While they can frame their sentences to psychologically accepted way , they dont really mean to destroy the ego, they simply mean to change the contents of ego ie to sublimate the ego.

Agreed and well put.