Ego Inflation - aka Secret Narcissism

[Marblehead]

.... eh.... it's not thought that binds, it's one's inward interpretation of the occurrence that binds or liberates as thought occurs.

 

Okay. Hehehe. Then I will rephrase it: All too often you think you have thought something unique while what it was was only an alternative interpretation of the redundant occurrence of the thought process - no matter the binding or liberation.

 

What are we supposed to be talking about? Hehehe.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Oh OH! We are supposed to be talking about ego. You and I shouldn't say much in this thread lest someone find us out.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Happy Trails!

Oh OH! We are supposed to be talking about ego. You and I shouldn't say much in this thread lest someone find us out.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

I've dug myself a hole in the earth, but my fat head keeps sticking out!! Darn it!!

 

I can't hide this big thing!!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, ego inflation is a problem in all these spiritual practices that promise enlightenment. You are bound to develop a giant ego. How can you not? You can shoot electricity into people! You can feel blissful at any moment! You have awesome sexual abilities! You can fly for gods sakes! .

 

So really the only way to avoid this is to realize that the joy in cultivation does NOT come from these self achievements, but the way of developing means to share and give that joy to others. Breaking the blockages within you cannot be differentiated from setting others free. And so all efforts, whether you eat, sleep, shit, meditated must be oriented towards this virtuous intent. So there is a "turning about" of your intent from being directed towards "I" to "all." . And really, 10 enlightened beings is always better than 1. .

[Marblehead]

I've dug myself a hole in the earth, but my fat head keeps sticking out!! Darn it!!

I can't hide this big thing!!

 

Hehehe.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Lucky posted so I will go read that now.

 

'Tis true, Lucky. Every time we reach a goal, no matter what it is, there is the tendency toward ego inflation. And I agree with the rest of what you said. At some point we need to stop and deflate that thing back to a managable size and use what we have gained to help others.

 

Happy Trails!

Edited October 2, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, ego inflation is a problem in all these spiritual practices that promise enlightenment. You are bound to develop a giant ego. How can you not? You can shoot electricity into people! You can feel blissful at any moment! You have awesome sexual abilities! You can fly for gods sakes! .

 

So really the only way to avoid this is to realize that the joy in cultivation does NOT come from these self achievements, but the way of developing means to share and give that joy to others. Breaking the blockages within you cannot be differentiated from setting others free. And so all efforts, whether you eat, sleep, shit, meditated must be oriented towards this virtuous intent. So there is a "turning about" of your intent from being directed towards "I" to "all." . And really, 10 enlightened beings is always better than 1. .

 

That's so awesome!! I love you!!

 

p.s.

 

You can have no greater ally in the war against your greatest enemy, your own self-grasping and self-cherishing, than the practice of compassion. It is compassion, dedicating ourselves to others, taking on their suffering instead of cherishing ourselves, that, hand in hand with the wisdom of egolessness, destroys most effectively and most completely that ancient attachment to a false self that has been the cause of our endless wandering in samsara. That is why in our tradition we see compassion as the source and essence of enlightenment and the heart of enlightened activity. - Sogyal Rinpoche... probably a guy that can fly... ya know?

Edited October 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Since I brought up Sogyal Rinpoche and Lucky was talking about flying and super powered yogicness. I have a friend who got Dzogchen initiation from Sogyal Rinpoche. He told me that when he was giving the transmission of mind to mind Rigpa, that he literally before his very eyes saw Sogyal Rinpoche split into two people... I mean in a tangible way right in front of his eyes. He then said that Sogyal Rinpoche actually said to everyone in the class that some people see him split into two beings and he said that this is just a manifestation of him and his root Guru, but they appear as the same person to someone looking on.

 

Amazing!!

 

Here is my Rinpoche ChNNR with Sogyal Rinpoche on the left.

 

Sorry... I couldn't help but share...

 

Sogyal Rinopche is the short and funny Rinpoche who laughs a lot for no reason in the movie the Little Buddha with Keanu Reeves. He's the one that comes up to Bridget Fonda as she is watching her son through the fence and he talks about astrology to her for a second? I think that was the topic.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Since I brought up Sogyal Rinpoche and Lucky was talking about flying and super powered yogicness. I have a friend who got Dzogchen initiation from Sogyal Rinpoche. He told me that when he was giving the transmission of mind to mind Rigpa, that he literally before his very eyes saw Sogyal Rinpoche split into two people... I mean in a tangible way right in front of his eyes. He then said that Sogyal Rinpoche actually said to everyone in the class that some people see him split into two beings and he said that this is just a manifestation of him and his root Guru, but they appear as the same person to someone looking on.

 

Amazing!!

 

Here is my Rinpoche ChNNR with Sogyal Rinpoche on the left.

 

Sorry... I couldn't help but share...

 

Sogyal Rinopche is the short and funny Rinpoche who laughs a lot for no reason in the movie the Little Buddha with Keanu Reeves. He's the one that comes up to Bridget Fonda as she is watching her son through the fence and he talks about astrology to her for a second? I think that was the topic.

 

This is very unrelated, but is there a specific reason for both teachers looking quite...plump. I don't mean at all to be disrespectful. I know qi gong masters also develop big bellies. There is an accepted notion of masters having big "Buddha" bellies showing their great compassion.

 

Just thoughts. .

[Vajrahridaya]

This is very unrelated, but is there a specific reason for both teachers looking quite...plump. I don't mean at all to be disrespectful. I know qi gong masters also develop big bellies. There is an accepted notion of masters having big "Buddha" bellies showing their great compassion.

 

Just thoughts. .

 

Genes I guess. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu only got plump after spending a long time in the hospital dealing with his cancer and also he did dark retreat on the elongating of life terma which he received from ancient Buddhas. It worked, because he defeated the cancer and overcame his fate that was said to occur by a divination expert when he was young. The divination expert said he would become very ill at this age by an affliction and he did and that he would die by this age, and he overcame the affliction and lived passed the allotted karmic time. So, through effort he overcame his karma.

 

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu used to look fit as a fiddle until I think the 90's. He used to do lots of Yoga postures regularly...

 

I don't know the full story, but I was told a reason some time ago?? I can't tell you about Sogyal Rinpoche.

[goldisheavy]

Don't waste your time. Everything is selfish, everything. Buddha was selfish and an egomaniac. I am certain so was Lao Tzu. The flip side is that everything is also selfless. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

I'd say don't bother avoiding anything and don't guard anything. Be yourself. Be happy. Be proud. Be free.

 

It's possible that some problems will develop, but you have to adapt as you go. For example, if you are too arrogant, you stop questioning yourself and it becomes easier to make a mistake. However, what happens if you don't care about being right or avoiding mistakes? That's right. In that case you can be as arrogant as you like. If you are too arrogant in front of another arrogant person, that other person may not want to share information or wealth with you. However, if you are too humble, you may not make a move, deeming yourself worthless and unimportant to even make an attempt.

 

In Buddhism conceit is any comparison. So if you think you are less than others, that's conceit. If you think you are the same as others, that's also conceit. Nothing is perfect, but if anything, this is a good way to look at it. Many people strive for humility while in Buddhist view their efforts would be considered conceited, and to me this makes sense.

 

Just be decent. You don't have to be an angel, just avoid being a total ass and that's good enough already. Don't obsess on it. You'll never be 100% accepted by society anyway, because there are many very diverse people and you won't be liked by all. In some cases, if someone likes you, you need to start questioning yourself. Being universally well liked could be a very bad trait too. For example, if some idiot likes you, you need to worry. If greedy people like you, again, this is a cause for worry. Some people really should dislike you to some extent if you have any amount of character. For example, an individualist dislikes someone who likes to share. Someone who thinks sharing is a virtue dislikes someone who thinks "every man for himself" and so on. Someone who is generous dislikes someone who is greedy. This is all natural and you cannot eliminate it.

 

People want to feel good. This is why they enter on a path to begin with. Then whey they finally do feel good, they feel they don't deserve it, that it's just their ego getting in the way, and they go back to being miserable because they believe misery is all that they deserve. Some people think that misery is an essential quality of being alive and that if you don't feel miserable, you are dead. This clinging to misery is as egoistic as anything else out there.

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddha was selfish and an egomaniac.

 

Only when mirroring you. Other than that... you really have no idea.

[Trunk]

I don't know the full story, but I was told a reason some time ago??

Folks look different in their 50's+,

than they did when they were 14.

Things change.

[Vajrahridaya]

Folks look different in their 50's+,

than they did when they were 14.

Things change.

 

Yes, but some people stay skinny even in their 50's. I think it had something specifically to do with his run in with cancer and his prolonged lessening of physical activity.

[Marblehead]

Yes, but some people stay skinny even in their 50's. I think it had something specifically to do with his run in with cancer and his prolonged lessening of physical activity.

 

I was still wearing waist size 32 inch when I broke my hip at age 61. I now wear size 38 because the broken hip drastically modified my mobilty. It also added 25 pounds to my weight.

 

But it is true that most people will carry excess fat after the age of 50 because their lifestyle changes to include less active exercise.

 

Happy Trails!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I was still wearing waist size 32 inch when I broke my hip at age 61. I now wear size 38 because the broken hip drastically modified my mobilty. It also added 25 pounds to my weight.

 

But it is true that most people will carry excess fat after the age of 50 because their lifestyle changes to include less active exercise.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Actually, the most frequent cause of abdominal fat accumulation in middle age and beyond is Metabolic Syndrome also known as Syndrome X or insulin resistance. The fat is often intra-abdominal, that is, exists in the abdominal cavity around the organs. This often gives rise to the skinny arms, legs and butt with a big belly look.

 

There is a lot one can do proactively with Integrative or Alternative modalities to address this.

[Vajrahridaya]

I was still wearing waist size 32 inch when I broke my hip at age 61. I now wear size 38 because the broken hip drastically modified my mobilty. It also added 25 pounds to my weight.

 

But it is true that most people will carry excess fat after the age of 50 because their lifestyle changes to include less active exercise.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Also the metabolism slows down drastically. But peoples eating habits don't. I've seen my Rinpoche eat and he eats very little.

[Marblehead]

Also the metabolism slows down drastically. But peoples eating habits don't. I've seen my Rinpoche eat and he eats very little.

 

I agree that this is one of the key factors.

 

Happy Trails!

[goldisheavy]

Only when mirroring you. Other than that... you really have no idea.

 

Anyone can say this about anything and be right. Don't you understand anything? You're like the dumbest smart kid I know. You can understand half of the equation but you have trouble seeing it from the other angle. 1+1=2 -- you get this, but when someone writes 2 = 1 + 1 you are confused. Always defensive of your precious little Buddha instead of killing him. Well, so be it.

Edited October 3, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Anyone can say this about anything and be right. Don't you understand anything? You're like the dumbest smart kid I know. You can understand half of the equation but you have trouble seeing it from the other angle. 1+1=2 -- you get this, but when someone writes 2 = 1 + 1 you are confused. Always defensive of your precious little Buddha instead of killing him. Well, so be it.

 

LOL! I'm just saying... how can you call Buddha egotistical when he expounded the doctrine of anatta and fully realized anatta? He had a personality for sure, but that's different from ego clinging. So when you say things like Buddha had a big ego, you come off sounding full of crazy projections.

[Sunya]

hey serene, i don't know how I have this idea in my head, maybe I read somewhere in your practice journal where you mentioned it? but i've thought about this for the past couple days and want to get some opinions. the validity of spiritual guides in an objective sense.

 

so i'm taking an upper level philosophy class focused on mysticism taught by a physicist/philosopher who sees minds as separate. what he says is pretty interesting. when you experience reality, for example visually, the eyes receive light and that light is transferred to information (no light actually travels to the brain) and that information is then transformed into "Reality", the same goes for all the senses. It is not known how that transformation happens (pure information into a phenomenal world), nor is it known if that subjective phenomenal world is the same as the 'Objective' world. nor is it known if my phenomenal world is the same as your phenomenal world.

 

so.... i'm thinking that if everything you experience is your own world then anything you experience is inside that world including visions and out of body experiences and spiritual guides. none of that is 'outside' your mind. it's all within your phenomenal world. so we are all just separate interdependent phenomenal worlds (minds)

 

now for the case of Gurus.. we have experiences sometimes where the teacher comes to visit in dreams, or visions, and sends us energy or gives us teaching. but is that separate from us? now I have no doubt that its possible for a teacher to visit your dreams and convey a message, or to do it during the waking state, but I also think its equally as plausible to say that the teacher is just the outside form and during a vision can just be a representation/manifestation of your own inherent wisdom, a quality of your true nature.

 

what do u guys think?

Edited October 4, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

hey serene, i don't know how I have this idea in my head, maybe I read somewhere in your practice journal where you mentioned it? but i've thought about this for the past couple days and want to get some opinions. the validity of spiritual guides in an objective sense.

 

so i'm taking an upper level philosophy class focused on mysticism taught by a physicist/philosopher who sees minds as separate. what he says is pretty interesting. when you experience reality, for example visually, the eyes receive light and that light is transferred to information (no light actually travels to the brain) and that information is then transformed into "Reality", the same goes for all the senses. It is not known how that transformation happens (pure information into a phenomenal world), nor is it known if that subjective phenomenal world is the same as the 'Objective' world. nor is it known if my phenomenal world is the same as your phenomenal world.

 

so.... i'm thinking that if everything you experience is your own world then anything you experience is inside that world including visions and out of body experiences and spiritual guides. none of that is 'outside' your mind. it's all within your phenomenal world. so we are all just separate interdependent phenomenal worlds (minds)

 

now for the case of Gurus.. we have experiences sometimes where the teacher comes to visit in dreams, or visions, and sends us energy or gives us teaching. but is that separate from us? now I have no doubt that its possible for a teacher to visit your dreams and convey a message, or to do it during the waking state, but I also think its equally as plausible to say that the teacher is just the outside form and during a vision can just be a representation/manifestation of your own inherent wisdom, a quality of your true nature.

 

what do u guys think?

The vision of guru is also a dependently originated vision, all of which are manifestations of the nature of mind, luminosity and emptiness inseparable. That vision is non-dual without subject and object and is dependently originated. But however that vision is occuring in your individual mindstream. That experience is simply what is happening in your mindstream at the moment without subject-object division, however it does not mean 'you are him'. In the same way in waking you see other people. The vision of other people are simply pure vision without seer. Auditory consciousness, visual consciousness, etc etc all dependently originate and happens without a separate cognizer. It is occuring in/as the individual mindstream, doesn't mean you are the person you see just because there is no subject/object duality. However, we certainly are interdependent. Edited October 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

now for the case of Gurus.. we have experiences sometimes where the teacher comes to visit in dreams, or visions, and sends us energy or gives us teaching. but is that separate from us? now I have no doubt that its possible for a teacher to visit your dreams and convey a message, or to do it during the waking state, but I also think its equally as plausible to say that the teacher is just the outside form and during a vision can just be a representation/manifestation of your own inherent wisdom, a quality of your true nature.

 

what do u guys think?

 

I'd say both can be true, it depends on whether the Guru was conscious of the occurrence and willed it, or it was merely the reflection of the disciples longing and a self projection into a subjective projection into an objective vision of a wisdom occurrence. As in seeing one's own merits manifest on a seemingly external screen for the sake of dualising clarity.

[Marblehead]

Nice posts Guys. Thanks for bring up the subject Mikaelz.

 

There is stuff about this in NA spirituality but my understanding is too weak to be able to present anything.

 

Happy Trails!

[JustARandomPanda]

I don't know. I need training. Santi suggested I ask Tao but I got my days mixed up and so missed the latest class. The thought has crossed my mind on many occasions that it's ALL just play-acting of my mind. I've had a LOT of odd things happen - the vast majority of which I will never post about because A) it gets back to this thread's theme (i.e. posting about it can lead to ever increasing Ego Inflation) and B ) because people will likely begin to think I'm an appropriate candidate for Psychiatric treatment and sedation.

 

I'm hoping Tao will see my latest post and still be able to help. This coming Saturday is our last class. So I hope he sees my appeal for help in time. But if not..I may have lost my chance to learn how to find out. I don't know how to tell if my Spirit Guides are in fact real, separate mindstreams or just my Ego gone haywire.

 

Just to clear it up Ego Inflation *IS* Narcissism and with all that that implies - including feelings of grandiosity and feeling very superior to all the "little people" one meets in life and on TaoBums. I fear this very, very greatly and discovering it is unavoidable on the way to Enlightenment was not something I enjoyed finding out about.

 

He (or She) who seems the most egotistical - well at least that person's Ego Inflation is available for all to see.

[Marblehead]

Well, I will make this point once again just to express my opinion on the subject of ego.

 

We need our ego. It is what allows us to defend ourself. It identifies who we are in the Manifest world.

 

Yes, it is not good to allow one's ego to over-inflate. When we do that we start thinking that we are 'better' than others. Sure, we might have different capacities and capabilities but we are all just as important but not more important than any other aspect of the Manifest.

 

Maintaining a healthy ego will allow us to prevent others from subjugating us.

 

Happy Ego!

[goldisheavy]

LOL! I'm just saying... how can you call Buddha egotistical when he expounded the doctrine of anatta and fully realized anatta?

 

Because I also realize it? So I know what I am talking about, unlike you.

 

He had a personality for sure, but that's different from ego clinging. So when you say things like Buddha had a big ego, you come off sounding full of crazy projections.

 

No, it's not substantially different. The whole point of anatta doctrine is that differences are insubstantial. The process of delineation is the root of identity. Buddha has philosophically attacked the notion of a stable identity in many ways. This then includes attacking the idea that there is a solid difference between suffering and Nirvana, between Buddha and a non-Buddha, and so forth, and Suttas and Sutras say as much, if you care to read them. So then, the difference between ego-clinging and liberation is null and void. It is imaginary. It's ephemeral. Ego is itself void. Void is itself ego. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.

 

You need to redouble your contemplation. I detect mental sloth in you.

Edited October 5, 2009 by goldisheavy