Is your Buddhism just an ego trip?

[RongzomFan]

Which of the 5 skandhas is ego? I'm not understanding this whole discussion.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Which of the 5 skandhas is ego?

 

Mental formation

[Maddie]

What I want to know is what exactly is EGO? I know this word gets thrown around so often, but what is it from a Buddhist point of view?

[konchog uma]

Self concept basically. The word doesn't translate directly to what Shakyamuni was talking about, being conceived by Freud much later. Ahamkara in sanskrit is usually translated as "identity" and i think the Buddha was using the Pali word which correlates to that. Perhaps some more knowledgeable scholars can be of greater help than I, my knowledge is very limited.

[RongzomFan]

What I want to know is what exactly is EGO? I know this word gets thrown around so often, but what is it from a Buddhist point of view?

 

Its some sort of western concept.

 

Just remember you are merely a bundle of 5 skandha, and you will be fine.

 

[Maddie]

Its some sort of western concept.

 

Just remember you are merely a bundle of 5 skandha, and you will be fine.

 

 

That's the five senses right? could you elaborate please?

[RongzomFan]

That's the five senses right? could you elaborate please?

 

 

No I'm talking about the 5 skandha or aggregates. You are a bundle of 5 skandha.

 

The 5 skandha can be dumbed down to body and mind.

Edited May 1, 2013 by alwayson

[Maddie]

No I'm talking about the 5 skandha. You haven't heard of the skandha?

 

The 5 skandha can be dumbed down to body and mind.

 

i'm not sure, maybe I have, but I'm still not too up to speed with the Sanskrit terminology for things yet. Also the fact that I find some concepts of Buddhism confusing is why I'm at the Buddhist forum asking questions in the first place.

[RongzomFan]

Ahamkara in sanskrit is usually translated as "identity"

 

Atman is definitely identity

[hydrogen]

The ego will never do that. It will always exaggerate our accomplishments and tell everyone how awesome we are. It knows deep down that it is artifice and so because it does it always feels small, so it always postures and grandstands.

 

Really? How do you know that? If it's not your "ego" who wrote these above paragraph, who wrote it? Are you beyond "ego"?

 

Is "ego" that "bad"?

[RongzomFan]

Mental formation

 

 

no its not. the question was facetious. ego is a western concept.

Edited May 1, 2013 by alwayson

[Harmonious Emptiness]

no its not. the question was facetious. ego is a western concept.

 

Tricky you. Well, what I meant by it was related to the mental formation side.

[Maddie]

So I had this unintentional kundalini experience yesterday and now my entire life seems like one huge ego trip lol.

[konchog uma]

Really? How do you know that? If it's not your "ego" who wrote these above paragraph, who wrote it? Are you beyond "ego"?

 

Is "ego" that "bad"?

 

Find out for yourself. Don't believe what others say.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

So I had this unintentional kundalini experience yesterday and now my entire life seems like one huge ego trip lol.

 

gotta eat to live; gotta live to learn

 

I'd suggest reading some Leih Tzu for guidance

 

 

[Maddie]

Why do you think the ego likes notoriety? Why does it dislike the lack there of?

[Simple_Jack]

Do you mean "ego" in Freudian terms? This is a Western concept with no counterpart in Indian philosophy.

[Jetsun]

Why do you think the ego likes notoriety? Why does it dislike the lack there of?

 

I think it is always trying to affirm its existence in any way it can

[Maddie]

Do you mean "ego" in Freudian terms? This is a Western concept with no counterpart in Indian philosophy.

Well what ever that aspect of us is that wants notoriety and exhalation, the false sense of self? I'm not even sure what to call it.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Well what ever that aspect of us is that wants notoriety and exhalation, the false sense of self? I'm not even sure what to call it.

 

Not sure, but it's a great question to ask one's self!

 

 

[p.s. - assuming you meant exhalation of exaltation..]

[Tibetan_Ice]

Do you mean "ego" in Freudian terms? This is a Western concept with no counterpart in Indian philosophy.

I would argue that Freud's ego is very similar to the descriptions in Indian philosophy.

Here is Freud's definition of the ego:

Ego [edit]The ego acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief.[17] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the Ucs. [unconscious] commands of the id with its own Pcs. [Preconscious] rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess ... to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[18] The reality principle, that operates the ego, is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings and buy them instead.[19]

 

The ego comprises the organized part of the personality structure that includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions. Conscious awareness resides in the ego, although not all of the operations of the ego are conscious. Originally, Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory.[1] The ego separates out what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us.[1] "The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world.... The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ... in its relation to the id it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength, while the ego uses borrowed forces."[20] Still worse, "it serves three severe masters ... the external world, the super-ego and the id."[18] Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives and reality while satisfying the id and super-ego. Its main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal. "Thus the ego, driven by the id, confined by the super-ego, repulsed by reality, struggles ... [in] bringing about harmony among the forces and influences working in and upon it," and readily "breaks out in anxiety — realistic anxiety regarding the external world, moral anxiety regarding the super-ego, and neurotic anxiety regarding the strength of the passions in the id."[21] It has to do its best to suit all three, thus is constantly feeling hemmed by the danger of causing discontent on two other sides. It is said, however, that the ego seems to be more loyal to the id, preferring to gloss over the finer details of reality to minimize conflicts while pretending to have a regard for reality. But the super-ego is constantly watching every one of the ego's moves and punishes it with feelings of guilt, anxiety, and inferiority.

 

Is not the 'ego' the "I", as per Nisargadatta? Is not Nisargadatta Indian philosophy?

 

From "I AM THAT":

 

According to some learned commentators, the Nath Gurus propound that the entire creation is born out of nada (sound), the divine principle, and bindu (light), the physical principle and the Supreme Reality from which these two principles emanate is Shiva. Liberation according to them is merging of the soul into Shiva through the process of laya, dissolution of the human ego, the sense of I-ness.

 

...

 

Q: Is not God the all-doer?

M: Why do you bring in an outer doer? The world recreates itself out of itself. It is an endless process, the transitory begetting the transitory. It is your ego that makes you think that there must be a doer. You create a God to your own Image, however dismal the image. Through the film of your mind you project a world and also a God to give it cause and purpose. It is all imagination -- step out of it.

 

...

 

Q: I know what prevents -- my ego.

M: Then get busy with your ego -- leave me alone. As long as you are locked up within your mind, my state is beyond your grasp.

Q: I find I have no more questions to ask.

M: Were you really at war with your ego, you would have put many more questions. You are short of questions because you are not really interested. At present you are moved by the pleasure-pain principle which is the ego. You are going along with the ego, you are not fighting it. You are not even aware how totally you are swayed by personal considerations. A man should always revolt against himself, for the ego, like a crooked mirror, narrows down and distorts. It is the worst of all the tyrants, it dominates you absolutely.

Q: When there is no ‘I’ who is free?

M: The world is free of a mighty nuisance. Good enough.

Q: Good for whom?

M: Good for everybody. It is like a rope stretched across the street, it snarls up the traffic. Roll up, it is there, as mere identity, useful when needed. Freedom from the ego-self is the fruit of self-enquiry.

So you see, there is the concept of the ego in "Indian Philosophy", and it is part of the key to realization. Dissolving the "I AM".

 

Further, here is another "Indian" text that refers to the ego as the Ahamkara.

 

http://indianphilosophy.50webs.com/samkhya.htm

The second evolute is ahamkara (ego). It arises out of the cosmic nature of Mahat. Ahamkara is the self-sense. It is concerned with the self-identity and it brings about awareness of “I” and “mine”.

 

With reference to Buddhism, here is some clarity about the ego:

The Five Skandhas

 

The Buddhist doctrine of egolessness seems to be a bit confusing to westerners. I think this is because there is some confusion as to what is meant by ego. Ego, in the Buddhist sense, is quite different from the Freudian ego. The Buddhist ego is a collection of mental events classified into five categories, called skandhas, loosely translated as bundles, or heaps.

 

If we were to borrow a western expression, we could say that "in the beginning" things were going along quite well. At some point, however, there was a loss of confidence in the way things were going. There was a kind of primordial panic which produced confusion about what was happening. Rather than acknowledging this loss of confidence, there was an identification with the panic and confusion. Ego began to form. This is known as the first skandha, the skandha of form.

 

After the identification with confusion, ego begins to explore how it feels about the formation of this experience. If we like the experience, we try to draw it in. If we dislike it, we try to push it away, or destroy it. If we feel neutral about it, we just ignore it. The way we feel about the experience is called the skandha of form; what we try to do about it is known as the skandha of impulse/perception.

 

The next stage is to try to identify, or label the experience. If we can put it into a category, we can manipulate it better. Then we would have a whole bag of tricks to use on it. This is the skandha of concept.

 

The final step in the birth of ego, is called the skandha of consciousness. Ego begins to churn thoughts and emotions around and around. This makes ego feel solid and real. The churning around and around is called samsara -- literally, to whirl about. The way ego feels about its situation (skandha of feeling) determines which of the six realms of existence it creates for itself.

 

Hopefully that clarifies a few things.

 

[thelerner]

ego trip, nah.

My Buddhism is about tripping my ego.

 

<warning label: Michael is not and should not be considered a Buddhist

despite great respect for the system and philosophy>

Edited June 4, 2013 by thelerner

[Simple_Jack]

 

I would argue that Freud's ego is very similar to the descriptions in Indian philosophy.

Here is Freud's definition of the ego:

 

Is not the 'ego' the "I", as per Nisargadatta? Is not Nisargadatta Indian philosophy?

 

From "I AM THAT":

So you see, there is the concept of the ego in "Indian Philosophy", and it is part of the key to realization. Dissolving the "I AM".

 

Further, here is another "Indian" text that refers to the ego as the Ahamkara.

 

http://indianphilosophy.50webs.com/samkhya.htm

 

 

With reference to Buddhism, here is some clarity about the ego:

 

Hopefully that clarifies a few things.

 

 

Ummmmm, no.

[Maddie]

Ummmmm, no.

explain please!! lol I want to know.

[三江源]

explain please!! lol I want to know.

ditto