Over the past few months I've read quite a bit on a variety of blogs about the ego. Generally speaking, most Buddhist and Taoist writers believe that ego is responsible for all of our suffering and that we can transcend this life by casting the ego aside. While, in an esoteric sense that is all well and good, what in the heck does that really mean?
If I traveled many miles and hiked up a mountain for a spiritual meeting with an ancient guru and he/she said to me, "Taoist, let go of the ego and you will be free", it would affect me in the same way as if he/she said, "Taoist, cut off your left leg and right arm, and you will be free."
From my perspective, the ego ain't such a bad thing. We each have to have one to survive in this realm. If a person had no ego, then he or she would be lost. Thinking would be almost impossible and communication would be far beyond us.
Besides, in my mind's eye, there is an appropriate time when the ego leaves us -- death. We no longer need it and so we shed it like a snake sheds its skin. Up until that point, we need to keep it tucked into our toolbox.
For me, the biggest point about our egos is to keep them in balance with the various aspects of ourselves and others. When the ego takes center stage and blots out other parts of what we call the self, then that's when we have a severe problem on our hands. When any one element predominates a being, the other elements are lessened.
So, my goal is to balance ego, not destroy it.
If I traveled many miles and hiked up a mountain for a spiritual meeting with an ancient guru and he/she said to me, "Taoist, let go of the ego and you will be free", it would affect me in the same way as if he/she said, "Taoist, cut off your left leg and right arm, and you will be free."
From my perspective, the ego ain't such a bad thing. We each have to have one to survive in this realm. If a person had no ego, then he or she would be lost. Thinking would be almost impossible and communication would be far beyond us.
Besides, in my mind's eye, there is an appropriate time when the ego leaves us -- death. We no longer need it and so we shed it like a snake sheds its skin. Up until that point, we need to keep it tucked into our toolbox.
For me, the biggest point about our egos is to keep them in balance with the various aspects of ourselves and others. When the ego takes center stage and blots out other parts of what we call the self, then that's when we have a severe problem on our hands. When any one element predominates a being, the other elements are lessened.
So, my goal is to balance ego, not destroy it.
Buddhism and Taoism are not about destroying the ego. Only fools talk non-sense like that. They are about abandoning the obsessive attachment to ego. The ego is a function of nature and serves it's dependently arisen purpose. Your left leg and right arm are functions of nature as well and as such are not separate from that nature. But if you were convinced that your left leg and right arm were independent entities which you called Bob and Tom and that Bob and Tom were entitled to rights under the constitution including civil union, this might be an obsessive attachment that would certainly cause you to suffer. As absurd as all this sounds our identification with our ego is no different.
ReplyDeleteYour own attachment to this imaginary entity you have named ego has you convinced that thinking and communication would be next to impossible without it. That is pure hooey that stems from your cultural conditioning which puts an over important emphesis on the ego.
And while it is true that the modern dominant culture of violence and hatred is completely dependent on an over inflated ego. Anthropologists have shown time and again that peaceful primitive cultures have no need for an ego and find our obsessive attachment to identity disturbing. But then again the dominant culture has wiped these indigenous cultures off the face of the Earth, so what do they know. I mean how can you really argue with the results of dominant culture, things are going so good.
I have issue with the ego thing, because an egoless person is supposed to be all forgiving, never take offense, be always happy and calm.
ReplyDeleteBut, if everybody is like that who is going to fight crime, work for the rights of the disadvantaged, stand up for what's good.
If we not have an ego to alert us of the danger around us, the "bad" guys are going to run all over us and we are going to let them, with a smile on our faces.
Frankly, I don't see how that is better than what Christians preach about forgiving everyone.
TB,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to me to be arguing both sides of the equation. First, you write, "Buddhism and Taoism are not about destroying the ego", but later on you write, "peaceful primitive cultures have no need for an ego".
So, on one hand, you seem to be saying the ego is okay, but then you turn around to say, shed your ego.
Lorena,
I agree with your point, in general. That said, there is one variable you didn't account for. If EVERYBODY is ego-less, there their wouldn't be any "bad guys". :)
Ego is a great tool, and with certain techniques, you can turn ego upon itself and annihilate it through using ego like dynamite. But before you are ready to annihilate ego, it is very useful in getting things done. Ego is very tricky, but not bad unto itself. You can use it for leverage, rather than ego using you to fortify ego. Part of the path is honesty, and really looking at your ego, and the patterns it has, for you. Recognizing these patterns will eventually help you decode what ego is for you, and the pain points that ego thrives on. Then, after a period of time, you begin to disassemble ego with ego.
ReplyDeleteR.T,
ReplyDeleteNo, primitive cultures were free of attachment to ego. They each had an individual identity but when the obsessive attachment is not present intuitive living spontaneously unfolds. It is what Taoist call Wu Wei. And Buddhist call Buddha nature. Furthermore, What we call primitive peoples the old Taoist's called the ancient immortals.