Ego is a good thing

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

and yet by merely following that path, you negate the following of that path.

the only way to attain the ideal perhaps being in the end to let go of the ideal entirely.

It's like tending a fire with a stick, carefully pushing any unburned wood into the fire until even the stick is consumed.

[ocean breeze]

Neither good nor bad.

[Heightend-Awareness]

Originally Posted by Ahriman

I know the general consensus on these forums and in the spiritual community as a whole is that ego is bad and should be reduced/avoided/destroyed, but I think this is just extremely narrow-minded. Your ego is what allows you to enjoy life as it is, it's what gives you that good feeling when you receive praise, or that satisfaction you feel after eating a whole pint of delicious ice cream, and it's even active when you play or cuddle with your dog.

Good post.
When you consider our true nature as spiritual beings ego takes a different twist. As we experience life using our bodies as the vehicle in this material physical world, ego plays the part that anchors us to the lower levels of consciousness. As we grow and learn and expand our consciousness through these experiences and lives lived we find things that are apart of ego start to fall away. When things that mattered to you before no longer do. It is like an old unhealthy habit. As you get older and wiser you learn that a bad habit is no longer a healthy option so you teach yourself to live without it as we move into higher levels consciousness, ego takes a back seat. Eventually, our existence will not require a body and that ego will follow.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yes, more or less, that is so. From the point of view through the person who consciousness has melded itself into. Whether and to what extent any awareness is present about consciousness that is not, or was not, or will not in the future be, that person, I suppose is hard to say. Perhaps it depends on the extent of how immersed and melded with that ego that consciousness is in that present moment. IDK.

A lot of confusion, misunderstanding and misinterpretating comes from people misunderstanding and misinterpretating the concepts of atman (universal soul or spirit) and jiva (individual soul or spirit). The true and original unadulterated hindu meaning of atman is the inert energy in the nervous system that gets converted into consciousness/awareness, while the individual jiva is the consciousness/awareness. Thus as you can see, atman and jiva are one and the same. Both atman (inert energy) and jiva (individual consciousness/awareness) are concepts of (the same) brahman.

Due to ignorance, many people relate atman and/or jiva to the individual mind, body, ego etc in a negative or indifferent kind of way, while at the same time they praise consciousness/awareness, which is jiva/atman.

Originally Posted by Heightend-Awareness

As you get older and wiser you learn that a bad habit is no longer a healthy option so you teach yourself to live without it as we move into higher levels consciousness, ego takes a back seat.

Ego is "A sense of I am" according to Jung so it's always at the forefront. Ego is individual consciousness. While Spirituality talks of "We are One" and phrases of that ilk, there's a very different story going on -
https://www.thesap.org.uk/resources/...-and-religion/

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Ego is "A sense of I am" according to Jung so it's always at the forefront. Ego is individual consciousness. While Spirituality talks of "We are One" and phrases of that ilk, there's a very different story going on -
https://www.thesap.org.uk/resources/...-and-religion/

Yuppers!

Ego or sense of Self/self, atman, jiva etc are differrent mental intellectual concepts or labels of Brahman/inert or internal energy that animates all living things. This inert or internal non-physical energy is what powers (like a power generator or solar panel connected to a rechargeable battery) the mind, physical body, the physical universe/matter etc or gives them life/physical existence, this goes for both conscious and unconscious systems/processes.

Non-animated objects, like rocks are also made out of the same inert energy but simply are not animated and conscious by inert energy through a heart, brain and/or central nervous system. Everything physical and non-physical is (made out of) the same inert/internal energy, which is brahman. This is why labels, concepts (which create opposites), and even differiating do not mean much after a certain point, in the context of brahman, oneness, non duality etc.

The food and drink that we consume gets converted into inert energy, which includes consciousness/awareness inside our bodies. The spiritual teachers, gurus, sages etc etc that say not to have any worldly attachments/maya/relationships etc etc, do have an involuntary need, attachment and relationship with the worldly food and drink they consume, for them to be alive to be spiritual teachers, gurus, sages etc etc.

The hindu vedas, which includes the Upanishads where written (and translated into english) by intellectuals for intellectuals, thus people dismissing the intellect inside an intellectual system is false, misleading, and is a contradiction, and this is the primary source of misunderstanding and misinterpretation usually subjectively while a person dismisses/disregards the intellect.

I found a few places on the web in the past week that are a very interesting read, which I will share below:

what-are-the-differences-between-mind-intelligence-and-ego

What-is-the-most-accurate-and-reliable-English-translation-of-the-Vedas?

The above is a question asked on quora. One of the answers to the question was given by Ranjiv Kurup and a part of the answer he gave was metaphrasing vs paraphrasing. Quoting or pointing to others (i.e gurus, teachers, sages) works, texts, scriptures, books etc etc is a form of metaphrasing. Metaphrasing is not directly experiencing something or is indirectly directly experiencing something because that experiencing and/or knowing came from someone else and is in that someone else's own words and perceptions, whereas paraphrasing is the complete opposite:

translation-techniques-paraphrasing text=The difference between metaphrase,be considered translation technique.

"The difference between a metaphrase and a paraphrase is that the first attempts to translate a text literally, whereas a paraphrase conveys the essential thought expressed in a source text even at the expense of literality."

What-is-the-difference-between-Jiva-and-Atman

COSMIC-ENERGY-IS-ATMAN-IN-THE-BROADEST-SENSE

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

What-is-the-difference-between-Jiva-and-Atman

COSMIC-ENERGY-IS-ATMAN-IN-THE-BROADEST-SENSE

Edit to correct the link of what-are-the-differences-between-mind-intelligence-and-ego

[Izz]

It all comes down to balance

Those who say we should bury our egos in order to be spiritually 'complete' or 'evolved' - forget that in order to be complete, the ego needs to be allowed its right place and provide the right purpose.

The ego is part of the integral whole for human. To tear it down completely is self repression so what is key is balance

Balance, for the sake of fulfilling meaningful relationships and sufficient creative expression in life. With finding the proper balance in our lives, one's ego can complement the spiritual evolution or awakening

It's a process

(Just my opinion)

[Justin Passing]

I think ego, like most things, can be good or bad. And maybe, like Izz says, balance is the key. But there's one thing I do know.

Life requires separateness. It requires "I am". If you eliminate that "I am" completely, are you truly living? I don't think so. Not in any practical sense.

I don't know about anyone else, but I came here to live. And yeah - my ego can be a pain in the butt sometimes. But we can work that out. That "I am" that separates me from everything else doesn't have to be a monster. Sometimes I might even "leave it home" when I go "traveling". But as long as I'm alive I'm always going to return to it because I'm alive. Living is what I came here to do, and that's what I intend to do until I'm not alive anymore.

Originally Posted by Justin Passing

If you eliminate that "I am" completely, are you truly living? I don't think so. Not in any practical sense.

There was a BBC documentary that featured monks who have successfully transcended their egos. They had to have their nappies changed and were spoon fed. This is the reality that nobody want to deal with.

In cases of severe emotional trauma the ego can 'collapse' into the self, leaving the person dysfunctional. That is probably the closest most people will come to 'ego-death' if they're lucky.

When there is no 'I am', there is neither I nor am.

And by the way, the discussion of the ego is psychoanalysis and not Spirituality. The 'real' Spirituality is Ahamkara and it's worth a Google. From a strictly Spiritual perspective the ego, what it does and what it is is a 'collection' of karas or 'invented things' that creates the 'I'. Welcome to a deeper understanding of Maya, folks.