GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth,

DQ: So what do you mean by eliminating the ego, then? What is this ego that you have eliminated?

Elizabeth: There are many parts to the ego:

Entitlement: The first manifestation of the ego is that which prompts an infant to cry louder when it is hungry, thirsty, wet, in pain, etc. and those needs are not getting met. That is the part of the ego that states “I’m entitled to have everything in my world be pleasant.” If this manifestation is left unchecked, as the infant ages and develops a bigger perception of the world, the being develops a growing sense of entitlement (such manifestations as “people should be nice to me” fall in this category, as well as the levels of desire that would lead to pain if the desire is not met). When one eliminates this part of the ego, one accepts that sometimes things just don’t go your way, and sometimes there just isn’t anything you can do about it.

Control: This part of the ego also emerges at the infant stage, and is the delusion that what the individual does has great cause on the world. This delusion grows when every time an infant cries, a parent shows up. The infant is mis-learning cause and effect here because it can not differentiate between what it is actually causing and what a parent is allowing it to prompt. If this is left unchecked, this part of the individual’s ego grows the delusion that they have more control over their environment, and the environment of others, than they do. If this part of the ego is eliminated, the individual has a realistic concept of what his or her actual abilities to cause various effects are.

Inherent Self Worth: Toddlers naturally have a feeling that they are somehow important just because they are them. They will interrupt their mothers no matter who the mother is talking to and demand her attention, often just because they want attention. If this is left unchecked, as the toddler ages, this part of the ego feeds delusional self-importance. If this part of the ego is eliminated, a person recognizes and accepts that the world does not really care about that individual.

Correctness/Shame: This is the most dangerous part of the ego in terms of what would keep one from becoming wise; paradoxically it is the driving force to become wise – so it should be the last part of the ego to be eliminated. It is also the last part of the ego to develop. It may even be a part of the ego that is imposed on the individual by others – particularly by punitive parents, teachers, and other children – by shaming the individual for not being right. This part of the ego drives one to want to never be wrong (which can set them on the path to the realization of Ultimate Reality). Small children are more okay with being wrong than older children, which is how they are more easily taught new things. This was particularly evident with the advance of computers, as people noticed that children caught on more quickly than adults – and it was discovered that adults are more afraid to make mistakes which inhibited their experimentation and direct contact time with the computers.

This aspect of the ego also poses a barrier to being truthful because people do not want others to know about their errors and shortcomings. This could cause a person to become deceitful.

When this aspect of the ego is eliminated, one becomes free as a small child to learn, to discard old opinions when new evidence indicates that another view is more likely to be closer to reality. It is important to note the difference between being as free to learn as a small child and being childlike because it takes a mature strength of character to permanently eliminate shame. With the elimination of shame, the person also becomes able to speak truths that are unpopular or for whatever reason difficult for others to believe (or predictably so).

What you are talking about here are certain superficial aspects of ego, which is different from addressing the very core of the ego itself.

A person who decides to lead a submissive and passive existence, for example, can succeed in eliminating all the traits you list above without making even the slightest dint in their ego. They abandon their more individualistic ideas of entitlement, control, etc, and become so inert and unassertive that they might as well be dead. And yet the reason they are hiding away in this inertness is because of an egotistical fear of the world. Their passiveness and submissiveness is still a form of egotism.

-

Unidian wrote:In the Eastern and mystical tradition, ego is the false sense that one has inherent existence; that one is "independently real" and "substantial" rather than a conditioned, mind-dependent distinction within the infinite. It is the root of all delusions related to separation from Nature.

In common usage, ego refers to an inflated sense of self-importance. Although understanding the "Eastern" definition of ego can sometimes be useful in diminishing the common sort of ego, this is not always the case, as the innumerable abusive gurus of the world demonstrate.

It's not that we don't know that this whole world can be illusory, but you might as well make the most of it.

What do you mean by seperation from nature?

So can the ego have an accurate sense of self-importance? Surely anyone who searches for truth is somewhat important.

Toilet brush.

So what is the core of the Ego? What is it comprised of?

David Quinn wrote:This pose of mock-triteness is getting rather old, don't you think?

Don't you have anything more interesting to contribute?

Unidian wrote:Yeah, I suppose. Your English is a little rough in places, so I'm not sure I "got it," but if you're saying that the Eastern approach undermines the false sense of inherent existence without requiring the impossible feat of functioning without a conventional sense of "self," I'd agree.

Could you please make that any more simple?

Unidian wrote: It means the individual self is an illusion, but so is everything else, so it's the same as if the self and everything else were "real."

Siddhartha bent down, lifted a stone from the ground, and held it in his hand.

“This,” he said handling it, “is a stone, and within a certain length of time it will perhaps be soil, and from the soil it will become plant, animal or man. Previously I should have said: This stone is just a stone; it has no value, it belongs to the world of Maya, but perhaps because within the cycle of change it can also become a man and spirit, it is also of importance. That is what I should have thought. But now I think: This stone is stone; it is also animal, God and Buddha. I do not respect and love it because it was one thing and will become something else, but because it has already long been everything and always is everything. I love it just because it is a stone, because today and now it appears to me a stone. I see value and meaning in each one of its markings and cavities, in the yellow, in the gray, in the hardness and the sound of it when I knock it, in the dryness or dampness of its surface. There are stones that feel like oil or soap, that look like leaves or sand, and each one is different and worships Om in its own way; each one is Brahman. At the same time it is very much stone, oily or soapy, and that is just what pleases me and seems wonderful and worthy of worship. But I will say no more about it. Words do not express thought very well. They always become a little different immediately they are expressed, a little distorted, a little foolish. And yet it also please me and seems right that what is of value and wisdom to one man seems nonsense to another”

Govinda had listened in silence.

“Why have you told me this about the stone?” he asked hesitantly after a pause.

“I did so unintentionally. But perhaps it illustrates that I just love the stone and the river and all these things that we see and from which we can learn. I can love a stone, Govinda, and a tree or a piece of bark. These are things and one can love things. But one cannot love words. Therefore, teachings are no use to me; they have no hardness, no softness, no colors, no corners, no smell, no taste – they have nothing but words. Perhaps that is what prevents you from finding peace, perhaps there are too many words, for even salvation and virtue. Samsara and Nirvana are only words, Govinda. Nirvana is not thing; there is only the word Nirvana.”

Govinda said: “Nirvana is not only a word, my friend; it is a thought.”

Siddhartha continued: “It may be a thought, but I must confess, my friend, I do not differentiate very much between thoughts and words. Quite frankly, I do not attach great importance to thoughts either. I attach more importance to things. For example, there was a man at this ferry who was my predecessor and teacher. He was a holy man who for many years believed only in the river and nothing else. He noticed that the river's voice spoke to him. He learned from it; it educated and taught him. The river seemed like a god to him and for many years he did not know that every wind, every cloud, every bird, every beetle is equally divine and knows and can teach just as well as the esteemed river. But when this holy man went off into the woods, he knew everything; he knew more than you and I, without teachers, without books, just because he had believed in the river.”

Govinda said: “But is that what you call things, is it something real, something intrinsic? Is it not only the illusion of Maya, only image and appearance? Your stone, your tree, are they real?”

“This also does not trouble me much,” said Siddhartha, “If they are illusions, then I also am illusion, and so they are always of the same nature as myself. It is that which makes them so lovable and venerable. That is why I can love them. And here is a doctrine at which you will laugh. It seems to me, Govinda, that love is the most important thing in the world. It may be important to great thinkers to examine the world, to explain and despise it. But I think it is only important to love the world, not to despise it, not for us to hate each other, but to be able to regard the world and ourselves and all being with love, admiration and respect.”

“I understand that,” said Govinda, “but this just what the Illustrious One called illusion. He preached benevolence, forbearance, sympathy, patience – but not love. He forbade us to bind ourselves to earthly love.”

“I know that,” said Siddhartha smiling radiantly. “I know that, Govinda, and here we find ourselves within the maze of meanings, within the conflict of words, for I will not deny that my words about love are in apparent contradiction to the teachings of Gotama. That is just why I distrust words so much, for I know that this contradiction is an illusion. I know that I am at one with Gotama. How, indeed, could he not know love, he who has recognized all humanity’s vanity and transitoriness, yet loves humanity so much that he has devoted a long life solely to help and teach people? Also with this great teacher, the thing to me is of greater importance that the words; his deeds and life are more important to me that his talk, the gesture of his hand is more important to me than his opinions. Not in speech or thought do I regard him as great man, but in his deeds and life.”

It may be important to great thinkers to examine the world, to explain and despise it. But I think it is only important to love the world, not to despise it, not for us to hate each other, but to be able to regard the world and ourselves and all being with love, admiration and respect.

Also with this great teacher, the thing to me is of greater importance than the words; his deeds and life are more important to me than his talk, the gesture of his hand is more important to me than his opinions. Not in speech or thought do I regard him as a great man, but in his deeds and life.

He basically has Siddhartha saying, "I know that love contradicts the Buddha's teachings and the truth of emptiness, but stuff it, I'm going to indulge in it anyway because it just gives me too much pleasure."

Nature contains no contradiction beyond that existing in human minds.

clyde wrote:David;

You showed me. I thought to respond to your reply in Critique, but you demonstrated the futility of doing so. That and the ‘official’ attitude and tone of this forum leads me to say,

Good-bye.

Do no harm,
clyde