Forum encouraging Ego

[VagalTone]

I am sorry Vince, but you seem like a cool wise guy !

[VinceField]

LOL VagalTone my ego is bursting with pride! NOOOO look what you've done!!! Must purify immediately.

[OpheliaBlue]

Not sure if it was said here before or another thread, but the +like system is a handy tool for staff when you want to "sign off" that you read something and a reply isn't necessary. Probably 90% of my +likes are from staff-related posts. Or when I would post the totm threads in the past. "Oh look, I see the new totms '+like' ". Nothing says "I read your post. I have no reply, but yoh, I read it." like a +like.

[Mzzkc]

Not gonna lie, I treat the like system here exactly the same way I do the Facebook like system. Sometimes I'm disappointed I can't like my own posts for comedic effect.

[DeletePlease]

I don't think anyone gives a pocketful of fuck when it comes to likes tbh. Maybe the first 100 or so, but even then it's pretty meh. =/

[patches]

Not everyone cares about eliminating or reducing the ego. And you can be selfless while having a self. Personally, I like my self. I know it was created by a mixture of biology and the environment/socialization. I try to be kind to people and help people because seeing them happy makes me happy. So I like it when I receive likes. The likes are like real life smiles. Another person, say, Mrlikemaster85 might make helpful posts simply to rack up the likes. It's a game to them, where 'whoever has the most likes' wins. This tends to lead to a negative attitude and negative actions because they don't view the likes as other people being happy, they view them as something to hold over other people. Similar people exist on Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook, where the goal is to get the most reblogs/retweets/likes and so on. Mrlikemaster85 and me both have egos. Yet the like system feeds them in completely different ways, and I don't think how it 'feeds' mine is a bad thing.

[Kaan]

I am sorry but this thread is also reminding this vidéo (again) I can tell this cause I had been trying to fight against my ego for years swallowing the words of Eckhart Tolle and all the Non duality gurus, meeting people, going to satsang, and so on. Until I understood that it was a kinda silly thing because who is wanting to kill the ego if not the ego itself? The Ego is what keeps you alive. Without the ego you just let you die, you can't make the difference between you, the bridge, the ground, the train, and you jump from the bridge to the ground when the train is passing by. The self is absolutely vital, it gives you motivation, goals, it urges you to defend yourself when you are attacked or in a danger. it is what forces you to take care about yourself, about how you are looking like, it prevents you from being a freak, and even when it makes you become a freak, it has always a psychological reason Sometimes Ego is growing to much, too fast, and it can become TOO BIG, and once again, there is a psychological reason, it probably prevent yourself from crossing a deep depression. "Likes" enhance a little bit of Ego, so what? Do you really think this can distort any spiritual path? If it does, that can mean only one thing : this so called spiritual path is bullshit. We are what we are, trying to be different, by a spiritual work, is ok, but is comes from the Self and from nowhere else, a Self that is as real and accurate as every other parts of us, including consciousness. This video really well summarizes how so called spiritual people often really are. Ego is part of you. Wanting to have less Ego is wanting to be better. Wanting to be better can only come from, and feed the Ego. And this is OK, but killing Ego... It is beforehand lost.

[patches]

Personally, I accept that by allowing my self, my ego, to exist and become attached to things, I receive both pleasure and pain. I buy a teddy bear. I become very attached to this teddy bear. It makes me incredibly happy, comforts me, and so on. That teddy bear gets caught on something causing it to lose an arm. I feel sadness, pain, loss for that teddy bear. That teddy bear burns in a house fire. I feel incredible sadness. But I accept that the above is both the reward and price for being sentimental. Me being very sentimental means I can get happy at the littlest of things. I often laugh for 5-10 minutes at a small joke that makes me happy. I don't understand much how the Buddhist concept of ego relates to the above. But for me, I would rather take both pleasure and pain rather than having neither. (though this all could belong in another thread).

[VinceField]

Personally, I accept that by allowing my self, my ego, to exist and become attached to things, I receive both pleasure and pain. I buy a teddy bear. I become very attached to this teddy bear. It makes me incredibly happy, comforts me, and so on. That teddy bear gets caught on something causing it to lose an arm. I feel sadness, pain, loss for that teddy bear. That teddy bear burns in a house fire. I feel incredible sadness. But I accept that the above is both the reward and price for being sentimental. Me being very sentimental means I can get happy at the littlest of things. I often laugh for 5-10 minutes at a small joke that makes me happy. I don't understand much how the Buddhist concept of ego relates to the above. But for me, I would rather take both pleasure and pain rather than having neither. (though this all could belong in another thread). This pleasure you speak of is impermanent and unsatisfactory in nature. By eliminating the attachments of the ego, one finds a pleasure that is not dependent upon external conditions. This is a higher form of pleasure that is unconditioned, arising from the natural state of peace and joy that consciousness exists in when it is not being manipulated by the false pains and pleasures of the ego. It's not about having neither pain nor pleasure. It's about eliminating suffering and finding a pure and lasting form of happiness.

[patches]

This pleasure you speak of is impermanent and unsatisfactory in nature. By eliminating the attachments of the ego, one finds a pleasure that is not dependent upon external conditions. This is a higher form of pleasure that is unconditioned, arising from the natural state of peace and joy that consciousness exists in when it is not being manipulated by the false pains and pleasures of the ego. It's not about having neither pain nor pleasure. It's about eliminating suffering and finding a pure and lasting form of happiness. Impermanent? Why is this bad? Impermanent pleasure is a necessary pair to impermanent pain. One does not have permanent pain (usually) thus one does not have permanent pleasure. Unsatisfactory? Perhaps to you and others, but not to me. The love I feel for my boyfriend is not unsatisfactory, and it is definitely not unsatisfactory by nature. I wouldn't exactly call my love for my boyfriend 'false'. I also don't know why a pleasure that resulted in me not loving him would be necessarily 'higher' because of it. Also, the only reason why 'unconditioned' would be desirable is if you wanted something that doesn't depend on external conditions, which, I don't get the point of? Life is conditional. We exist in a conditional world, so why are conditional things so unacceptable to you? Feel free to correct me, but I really don't understand this.

[VinceField]

Impermanent? Why is this bad? Impermanent pleasure is a necessary pair to impermanent pain. One does not have permanent pain (usually) thus one does not have permanent pleasure. Unsatisfactory? Perhaps to you and others, but not to me. The love I feel for my boyfriend is not unsatisfactory, and it is definitely not unsatisfactory by nature. I wouldn't exactly call my love for my boyfriend 'false'. I also don't know why a pleasure that resulted in me not loving him would be necessarily 'higher' because of it. Also, the only reason why 'unconditioned' would be desirable is if you wanted something that doesn't depend on external conditions, which, I don't get the point of? Life is conditional. We exist in a conditional world, so why are conditional things so unacceptable to you? Feel free to correct me, but I really don't understand this. The downside to impermanent pleasure, aside from the fact that many times it arises from attachment and delusion and is a product of a hungry ego (in other words it is born from unwholesome mind states, false beliefs, and lack of wisdom), is that often times what is left when the pleasure is gone is suffering and craving for more. This leads to a cycle of attachment, craving for pleasure, seeking pleasure, loosing pleasure, suffering, craving, seeking, and so on. Your statement "One does not have permanent pain (usually) thus one does not have permanent pleasure" is illogical. It basically stipulates that permanent pain is necessary to achieve permanent pleasure. The love you feel for your boyfriend may seem satisfactory, but it is dependent upon several conditions, some of them outside of your control, and will inevitably lead to your suffering (unless you are able to let go of your attachment). Your statement "I also don't know why a pleasure that resulted in me not loving him would be necessarily 'higher' because of it" bears no relation to anything that I've said. It seems you really don't understand what I'm saying. I would take this as a sign that these concepts are currently not for you, or you are not ready to personally explore them. Take care.

[patches]

Yes, the love for my boyfriend is dependant on the condition that my boyfriend exists and, when he dies, the condition that he has existed. Perhaps you feel it's wrong to feel attached to temporary things, but I do not. My love for him is satisfactory. Yes, many relationships are unsatisfactory, but that does not logically mean that all relationships are. What I don't understand is that you seem to be incredibly attached and troubled by the fact that all things are temporary and seem to think that because you feel this that this is true for everyone. While when my boyfriend dies, I will feel great grief and suffering, that grief will be far less than the joy that he brought me when he was living. Once that grief is dulled, I hope that I will remember him fondly and find pleasure in living the rest of my life in a way that I know he, and I, would like. As for the statement on pain and pleasure, it seems that you do not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that in a universal context, pleasure causes pain when what caused the pleasure is gone. If you had permanent pleasure based on one source, you would not receive permanent pain since that pleasure would not end. Pleasure could be compared to life, while pain could be compared to death. If you are immortal, thus, have permanent life, you'll never experience death.

[VinceField]

Yes, the love for my boyfriend is dependant on the condition that my boyfriend exists and, when he dies, the condition that he has existed. Perhaps you feel it's wrong to feel attached to temporary things, but I do not. My love for him is satisfactory. Yes, many relationships are unsatisfactory, but that does not logically mean that all relationships are. I don't think it is wrong to be attached to temporary things. Unwise is the word I would use. It is very possible to have a loving relationship without forming attachments. It's a matter of understanding the impermanent nature of the relationship, accepting it completely, and allowing that which is inevitable to be so without desiring to control that which is uncontrollable. What I don't understand is that you seem to be incredibly attached and troubled by the fact that all things are temporary and seem to think that because you feel this that this is true for everyone. All I have displayed is a recognition of the impermanent nature of things and an understanding that it is illogical and unskillful to form attachments to them. Anything else is likely your own projection. As for the statement on pain and pleasure, it seems that you do not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that in a universal context, pleasure causes pain when what caused the pleasure is gone. If you had permanent pleasure based on one source, you would not receive permanent pain since that pleasure would not end. Pleasure could be compared to life, while pain could be compared to death. If you are immortal, thus, have permanent life, you'll never experience death. Thank you for clarifying that, you are making some sense now. Your initial statement was much different from this. I think it's important to distinguish pain from suffering. Physical pain is probably unavoidable. However, depending on the mind's response to this pain, it can also lead to suffering, which is more of a mental state of agony than it is a physical condition.

[Rallan]

Though maybe we're a little off topic, I feel compelled to contribute. It's a common misunderstanding amongst Westerners who learn about Buddhism to see the 'ego' or 'self' as something that is bad and must be destroyed. It's much safer to think instead of trying to expand the self until it includes all of life and nature. When you identify with all beings then the old self you were so desperate to protect in a certain sense is no longer there. The more we feed the neurotic desires of this 'small self', the less open we are to others and to life in general, and we then suffer more. At least, this is how I currently understand it!

[VinceField]

Though maybe we're a little off topic, I feel compelled to contribute. It's a common misunderstanding amongst Westerners who learn about Buddhism to see the 'ego' or 'self' as something that is bad and must be destroyed. It's much safer to think instead of trying to expand the self until it includes all of life and nature. When you identify with all beings then the old self you were so desperate to protect in a certain sense is no longer there. The more we feed the neurotic desires of this 'small self', the less open we are to others and to life in general, and we then suffer more. At least, this is how I currently understand it! I agree, although there are various definitions of ego, so it's all relative to the particular meaning that one assigns the word. Some simply take "ego" to be a person's sense of identity, their sense of self, and in this way ego is simply a tool which we use to navigate and relate to this reality. Nothing wrong with that, right? Of course, some create an identity based on delusions and attachments, and this is usually problematic to say the least. Others take "ego" to be the egocentric aspect of mind. This kind of ego is harmful to oneself and others. I don't believe that the ego necessarily needs to be "destroyed." Rather, I believe that for one to achieve the highest degree of spiritual growth possible, the ego needs to be purified of its defilements. Attachment, greed, aversion, ill will, delusion, ignorance- these qualities serve no one.