Forum encouraging Ego

There are two aspects of this forum which seem cool and fun, but may actually be detrimental to the members' overall spiritual development. These are the "like" feature and the "achievements" feature. These two elements have the potential unfortunate side effect of bloating a person's ego. I do see a degree of usefulness to these features, but at the same time I believe this usefulness is countered by the risk of inflating the ego. I myself would initially sometimes find a feeling of pleasure arising when my posts got "liked," and although luckily I have developed the mindfulness to understand the source of this unskillful pride and am able to quickly eliminate it to the point where it no longer arises, I'm not sure everyone here is capable of this, or even sees the benefit in doing so. I'm willing to bet that some members actually feed off the likes and achievement awards. In this way, these features are not conductive to spiritual growth.

I realize that this is not a Buddhism forum, or even a spirituality or self development forum, although there are certainly elements of these imbued in the practice of lucid dreaming and some of the related sub-forum topics. All the same, there is a good reason why many spirituality-related forums do not include such features.

I don't expect these elements to be removed. I simply wanted to bring light to the potential detrimental perspective that members may develop towards these features so that they may be more mindful of these unskillful feelings of pride, or even hurt feelings (in the case of there being a lack of "likes" or "achievements") that may arise from time to time (or every time!).

Take care

I understand what you are saying, VinceField.

Not everybody here is for personal growth and spiritual development. Or goal of their growth is different than yours. And those that are, will have to come to same conclusion as you on their own. And for those that reached same level of develoment as you, existence of features as likes and achievements won't matter.

happy travels

I agree with gab. And getting likes doesn't have to make someone prideful. For example, if I made a post that got likes, that means what I said helped some people, which is great, helping people feels good by itself, there's no need to be prideful about it.

I use the 'likes' feature as a reminder of where I am: if I get wound up in fruitless, and very heated, debates about something, I will generally not receive any likes (because likes are normally not given in battle), and so my ratio of posts to likes goes the wrong way. If on the other hand, I help people out by giving useful and friendly responses, this ratio goes the right way.

This actually helps me keep on track, and avoid futile exchanges of opinions.

And, yes, receiving likes makes me happier - but in in a very clean and immediate way, like a short burst of joy. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mimihigurashi

I agree with gab. And getting likes doesn't have to make someone prideful. For example, if I made a post that got likes, that means what I said helped some people, which is great, helping people feels good by itself, there's no need to be prideful about it.

---

That's right, it doesn't have to cause pride. It's a matter of belief and perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

And, yes, receiving likes makes me happier - but in in a very clean and immediate way, like a short burst of joy. :)

---

This may very well be a response of the ego, and if so, is exactly what I'm talking about. We get attached to the feeling of joy that arises when others agree with us and like us, because we are conditioned to judge ourselves based on the opinions of others, and this tends to sway our emotional tendencies in unskillful ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VinceField

We get attached to the feeling of joy that arises when others agree with us and like us, because we are conditioned to judge ourselves based on the opinions of others, and this tends to sway our emotional tendencies in unskillful ways.

---

From a strict Buddhist view, feeling such joy may indeed be unskillful. But it sure helps move society along peacefully.
Compare it to experiencing joy from being unliked by others ... mwa ha ha ha :evil:

:)

In a long or ongoing thread, I sometimes use "likes" as bookmarks so I can remember how far I've gotten when I come back to the thread later. Otherwise I can end up re-reading a lot of the same posts without remembering I've already done so!

It's also a useful way to alert someone that you've responded to their post or thread. I know there are also email alerts, but when you end up juggling dozens of active threads, that's not such a useful way to keep track anymore.

I'll frequently "like" the posts of new people who are introducing themselves to the forum to help them feel welcome here.

And of course, a lot of times I just like things! So it's complicated. Or very simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gab

I understand what you are saying, VinceField.

Not everybody here is for personal growth and spiritual development. Or goal of their growth is different than yours. And those that are, will have to come to same conclusion as you on their own. And for those that reached same level of develoment as you, existence of features as likes and achievements won't matter.

happy travels

---

I think Gab made an excellent point, so I'm going to "like" her post. Great point, Gab! :goodjob:

Yes, I agree that there is a degree of usefulness to these functions, and I myself use the "like" button. Of course, I never use it to make a person feel special in some way, as that is just instigating a false sense of pride for the recipient. I use it to express agreement, as I believe this provides evidence to the person that their view is correct and beneficial.

I think some positive reinforcement is not such a bad thing. Provided that the "good" thing we are rewarded for is truly good in universal sense, not just a narrow cultural thing. How else would a child learn what is righ and wrong?

I know the goal in buddhism is to get rid of the ego. Ego being the emotions and feelings that define us. It is not our true self, it's not our core. Ego is formed by environment. It consists of many thing, like yearning for material riches, jelousy, unhappines if we don't get our way, but also good things, like love. At least this is my simplistic understanding of the ego, and I very well may be wrong. But I try to look at things and events not as good or bad, but as simple existing. And it's up to us to decide if it's good or bad. For example when we are recieving criticism from a boss or a friend. We can get hurt, upset, offended, embarrased. Or we can be grateful and take it as a learning experience. Something positive that will help us grow.

Sorry for my rant. I guess this is something I'm struggling with every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gab

But I try to look at things and events not as good or bad, but as simple existing. And it's up to us to decide if it's good or bad. For example when we are recieving criticism from a boss or a friend. We can get hurt, upset, offended, embarrased. Or we can be grateful and take it as a learning experience. Something positive that will help us grow.

---

I don't view things as "good" or "bad" either, but rather as "skillful" and "unskillful." That which is skillful leads to the further development of wholesome and pure states of mind, whereas that which is unskillful leads to a further defiling of the mind, or in other words, encouraging the development of attachment, aversion, and/or delusion and thus increasing the mind's harmful egoic tendencies. The concepts of good and bad are irrelevant from this perspective.

I forgot to mention the "LD Count" category under the member's profile pictures can also foster unskillful attachments. One could easily develop identification issues surrounding this, becoming attached to a fabricated sense of a self who has had x amount of lucid dreams and the rest of the labels that go along with it, or developing a desire to increase the number of lucid dreams they have simply to give the impression of being a skilled lucid dreamer.

Of course, my reason for not including this information in my profile was not because I didn't want to deal with this temptation, but because to me this information is insignificant. My goal in exploring consciousness is not about numbers and figures, it is about personal growth. A person's value on this forum is not in the amount of LDs they've managed to add up, but rather it comes from the quality and helpfulness of their contributions here. A person who claims to have had hundreds or thousands of lucid dreams is still only as valuable to this community as their words are of benefit to others. It's really nothing more than a number for other people to see with the objective of influencing their perceptions. Silly.

^^ I don't know. I've found some value in the "LD Count" field that does not include an ego boost. For instance, it is a real time-saver when responding to a posted question, as I will tend to answer a member with a very low count differently than a person with a very high count, because I have a feel for their experience. It also lends a note of credibility to a post (i.e., if someone asks, say, a difficult WILD question, and a member with little to no experience responds, there is a good chance that that response might be lacking -- and it often is). Yes, all this depends on those counts being honestly posted, but to date I've encountered very few members who inflate their numbers just to impress (their inexperience is invariably betrayed in their posts, BTW), and no, I've never gotten the impression that the majority of members are doing this for an ego boost, though I am sure that happens.

Of course, this is all said by someone with "3k+" listed in that field, you might note. Keep in mind though, that that number represents well under 100 LD's per year, which is not impressive. When I joined I did spend some time ruminating about whether to fill in the field at all, mostly because i was concerned that people would think I was lying, or trying to impress (nothing about ego entered my thoughts, BTW). Eventually I decided to fill it in (with "2k+," which was a careful understatement), because I felt that the credibility attached to an honestly listed high number would save some time in explaining my experience, and I feel it did. Oh, and I never felt my ego being inflated, either by others or by looking at the number myself.

As long as I'm here, I agree with most of the reasons for "liking" posts, especially yours, Vince:

Quote:

---

I use it to express agreement, as I believe this provides evidence to the person that their view is correct and beneficial.

---

I also use it to acknowledge to a person who has thoughtfully responded to a post of mine, just to let them know I read it.

I think you might be reading too much into this stuff, Vince; the people who use DV seem much more interested in improving their LD'ing than they are in inflating their egos... they have Facebook for that.

Yes, I agree that there is some usefulness in all of these features. All the same, the risks I speak of are real and can go undetected if one is not mindful.

The ego's influence is generally a consistent imposition if left unchecked and untamed, and even when one puts forth effort to lessen one's ego and is successful, it still has the tendency to arise when the right triggers are present. One can come here to improve their lucid dreaming and easily find these features bringing out some unskillful emotions and states of mind. My message is simply to be mindful of these triggers.

OP is jelly cause other people have more lieks. Pls don be salty OP, i like you, just post more. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

OP is jelly cause other people have more lieks. Pls don be salty OP, i like you, just post more. =)

---

Hahahahaha. I was gonna say "you da man," but it seems you have a gender mixup and I don't want to offend! I think my posts to likes ratio is more than satisfactory for any thirsty ego! Thanks for the laugh.

I think it's probably a moot point on this forum. I'll also say I've joined a couple of forums dedicated to meditation when I first became more serious, and it doesn't take Likes, Achievement Icons or any other such thing to bring out ego. Even in some very hard-core and well-versed practitioners.

Considering the purpose of this venue is lucid dreaming I see no problem, even if what you say is perfectly valid and true. After all, it's an imperfect world. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I think it's probably a moot point on this forum. I'll also say I've joined a couple of forums dedicated to meditation when I first became more serious, and it doesn't take Likes, Achievement Icons or any other such thing to bring out ego. Even in some very hard-core and well-versed practitioners.

---

So if people who diligently train to eliminate their ego are still so easily swayed by it, imagine the potential influence of an ego with no imposed restrictions or monitoring.

Quote:

---

Considering the purpose of this venue is lucid dreaming I see no problem, even if what you say is perfectly valid and true. After all, it's an imperfect world. :wink:

---

If what I say is valid and true, then by the very definition of what I've said, the problem has nothing to do with what the purpose of this venue is, but rather is entirely dependent upon whether the members value mindfulness and desire spiritual development and freedom from unskillful egoic tendencies and behaviors. Being that lucid dreaming in it's purest form is a spiritual practice that enables personal growth, and being that there are members here who use this practice towards that end, I'd say that there is at least a small population here whose goals are in alignment with the ideas that I've presented. I'd like to think that not everyone here simply lucid dreams for entertainment purposes only.

My understanding of ego (self)

Some say the sense of self is a delusion. They say senses are real (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking). But liking or disliking what is sensed creates the sense of self (ego). They say that the self don't exist and while we are a self, (an I or me) we are trapped in a delusion.

Liking and disliking what we see, hear, taste etc forms the delusional self. When the delusion disappears (by hearing without judging what is heard and so on) we become one and a whole lot more, that cannot be imagined ... only experienced.

Iiking and disliking leads to "greedily wanting more of what is "liked" and angrily moving away from what is disliked.

So we are constantly greedy and angry but can't recognize the painful hell we are in.

....

Often I "like" a reply to my post to let the replier know I read their post, without me having to waste a post to say I read it and might get back to them later.

I also "like" a post so that I can find it later for research. Ive been here 5 years are finding a fascinating post, posted 5 years ago, is easy if I "liked" it by searching through my "likes" given.

Oh

and I can keep the file of "likes given" down by "unliking", months later so the person doesn't know I "unliked" their post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebbtide000

oh

and i can keep the file of "likes given" down by "unliking", months later so the person doesn't know i "unliked" their post.

---

*gasp*

YOU MONSTER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

*gasp*

YOU MONSTER

---

When your +like count gets lower by one few month from now, DONT'T BE SURPRISED.

That's a great explanation of ego, EbbTide. +1

Very interesting! I'm glad people are taking the time to think about this stuff. It's healthy to know why we do things and why we respond in certain ways.

I feel there are many ways I can approach the use of forums unskilfully, but for me I don't believe the like feature is one of them. In real life conversations I consider it an act of kindness to express appreciation for something someone has said, and I approach the use of the like button in forums with a similar attitude. And just like real life, receiving appreciation or a compliment does have the potential to inflate the ego, but the responsibility for that is with the receiver. That said, I can see how the more impersonal medium of internet posting which cuts off direct human contact makes it much easier to be sucked into status seeking.

However! Having just written all that, I remembered that the number of likes are displayed under each person's avatar. I feel if anything is contributing to ego inflation it is that, not so much the basic ability to like each other's posts. But then again, having that on display with the number of posts does encourage me to want to make sure I'm not writing pointless posts...

I'll stop now :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EbbTide000

Iiking and disliking leads to "greedily wanting more of what is "liked" and angrily moving away from what is disliked.

---

It can but doesn't have to. There are lots of shades of gray between total attachment & aversion and total lack of attachment and aversion. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with likes and dislikes, so long as they aren't controlling and acting against our best interests.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the "likes" system, or the achievements, or the LD Count. It is our relationship to them which determines their benefit or detriment. If we allow this information to get to our heads and construct a sense of self around them so that we begin to identify with the amount of LDs we've had or our Posts to Likes ratio, then this information is obviously not serving us.

Here's a fun twist:

I think that the people who allow their egos to be inflated (or take charge, as it were) will be the same people who lack the self-awareness necessary to become lucid in the first place. So these people will have very low LD counts and because their LD-related posts will not have any of the wisdom of experience behind them, they also will not get a substantial number of likes.

By the same token, accomplished LD'ers who allow their egos to get out of hand because of lots of likes or a high LD count might find their sense of self bruised, and lucidity more difficult to come by.

Just a thought...

^^ It's true. My ego is bloated as a whale and I only get like 5 full-awareness LDs a month these days.

MY SENSE OF SELF WORTH HAS NEVER BEEN SO LOW.

D'X

j/k I'm still awesome.

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

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

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.

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.

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. =/

Not everyone cares about eliminating or reducing the ego. :whistle: 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.

I am sorry but this thread is also reminding this vidéo (again)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kDso5ElFRg

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VinceField

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patches

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.