Ego - what is it?

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

So, the term comes from Latin meaning I. Egoic means being selfish. And then we have Freud who said something about the id, ego and superego. I have a sense that the way the term is used in an eastern context, don’t correspond to any of these, correct?

 

So what is it in a «spiritual» context? What is the original term used that we translated into ego?

[Cobie]

Εγώ (Greek) means "I" 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

1 minute ago, Cobie said:

Εγώ (Greek) means "I" 

Right, but it is often talked about in Buddhism and Hinduism to, isn’t it? What is the Sanskrit (?) term we’ve translated into ego?

[Maddie]

37 minutes ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

So, the term comes from Latin meaning I. Egoic means being selfish. And then we have Freud who said something about the id, ego and superego. I have a sense that the way the term is used in an eastern context, don’t correspond to any of these, correct?

 

So what is it in a «spiritual» context? What is the original term used that we translated into ego?

 

If we are going to use "ego" in the way the Buddha meant anatta then it is the misunderstanding of the five aggregates as being the self when they are not.  

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

Just now, Maddie said:

 

If we are going to use "ego" in the way the Buddha meant anatta then it is the misunderstanding of the five aggregates as being the self when they are not.  

I could ofc do my own research, but would you like to expand on anatta?

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

I could ofc do my own research, but would you like to expand on anatta?

 

The term Anatta in India means "self" or "soul", basically an unchanging essence. The Buddha taught that there are five aggregates that we tend to assume are us, but in reality are not. They are physical form such as the body, feeling meaning the six senses making contact with objects and our perception of them as being good, bad, or neutral. Perception which is our recognition of classification of objects based mainly on past experiences. Volition which is the decision making part of the mind, and consciousness which is our awareness of these other experiences. The Buddha taught that these five things were commonly assumed to be the self but are not. 

Edited yesterday at 05:55 PM by Maddie

[idquest]

7 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

The term Anatta in India means "self" or "soul", basically an unchanging essence. The Buddha taught that there are five aggregates that we tend to assume are us, but in reality are not. They are physical form such as the body, feeling meaning the six senses making contact with objects and our perception of them as being good, bad, or neutral. Perception which is our recognition of classification of objects based mainly on past experiences. Volition which is the decision making part of the mind, and consciousness which is our awareness of these other experiences. The Buddha taught that these five things were commonly assumed to be the self but are not. 

 

Did Buddha teach further what to do with them? Like, discarding them or dissolving them like modern teachers teach?

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

10 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

The term Anatta in India means "self" or "soul", basically an unchanging essence. The Buddha taught that there are five aggregates that we tend to assume are us, but in reality are not. They are physical form such as the body, feeling meaning the six senses making contact with objects and our perception of them as being good, bad, or neutral. Perception which is our recognition of classification of objects based mainly on past experiences. Volition which is the decision making part of the mind, and consciousness which is our awareness of these other experiences. The Buddha taught that these five things were commonly assumed to be the self but are not. 

So «detaching» from these is the goal/enlighenment?

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, idquest said:

 

Did Buddha teach further what to do with them? Like, discarding them or dissolving them like modern teachers teach?

 

Yes, he taught to see them for what they actually are (mindfulness) and realize these things are not the self. This is what he taught the eightfold path for. 

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, idquest said:

 

Did Buddha teach further what to do with them? Like, discarding them or dissolving them like modern teachers teach?

 

More like realizing that they are not what you assume them to be. 

[old3bob]

 

an analogy that could be used is that ego is like ram memory in a computer that changes per the program that is running, while rom memory does not change.

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

The Buddha taught that there are five aggregates that we tend to assume are us, but in reality are not. They are physical form such as the body, feeling meaning the six senses making contact with objects and our perception of them as being good, bad, or neutral. Perception which is our recognition of classification of objects based mainly on past experiences. Volition which is the decision making part of the mind, and consciousness which is our awareness of these other experiences. The Buddha taught that these five things were commonly assumed to be the self but are not. 

 

Nicely said.

 

We essentially have become in the habit of collecting certain types of phenomena into a mental model of a "self", then attributing this mental model as having some separate reality. It is a mistaken supposition. 

 

My experience is that all phenomena in the world, the so-called aggregates and everything else, simply happen, where they are, by themselves and don't have any sense of belonging to anything separate, or any real story that connects them to the past or future. All of that "context" is invented by the (m)ind. 

 

Sounds weird right? It's just the world as it is. Looks just like what you are seeing in this moment.

[old3bob]

the catch is that great sounding doctrine via a smart ego can not get rid of ego, but...  

Edited 21 hours ago by old3bob

[Cobie]

individuation

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Cobie

[wstein]

I have my own view on ego, not really the norm.

The ego is a part of the mental (body) that monitors the how beneficial the environment is to the self. Its job is to inform the rest of the mind/body system about how beneficial or harmful the environment (situations, events) are to the survival of the self.

 

Quite often in western spiritual material the term 'ego' refers only to when the ego is damaged and out of control. If the ego's messages are ignored too long by the rest of the body, it can get corrupted and start to try to take control to preserve the whole or in extreme cases itself.