4 ms·

Wasn't it Freud only 100 years ago who popularized the modern usage of the word 'ego' as everyone uses it today?

blueprint 8y ago
Yes, however, people a long long time ago have used variations of the term. Why do you think deteriorated forms of Buddhism nowadays have attached themselves to the term ego? The term has got a certain characteristic which those who propagate deteriorated truth need to use. They talk about losing your ego for a reason. So, I wonder if you've done this exercise before... have you ever tried to come up with as concrete and rigorous a statement of the definition of the term ego as you can? It doesn't have to be so profound nor complicated. When people lose their ego and don't gain a true ego in replacement it means in real life they lose themselves and die forever. (Buddha taught people to save their own self, remain themselves, and live forever.) Therefore people's usage of the term must be understood to be imprecise and subtextually cover too wide a range. You never hear of a mathematician being fairly called egotistical for insisting it's incorrect to state 1+1 = 1 or 3. Buildings and bridges made by those who believe it can be so will collapse. Then why do we accept this lack of rigor in subjects so important as our mental and spiritual health? Only because we've been compromised by something already. However, many influential people still aren't willing to admit this.
- Pimpus 8y ago
  I'm finding your posts intriguing despite disagreeing with you. Do you have any sources for further reading? > Why do you think deteriorated forms of Buddhism nowadays have attached themselves to the term ego? Is it deterioration or just accepting new ideas? I don't think that 2000-year-old Buddhism had all the answers, or would even be useful to a Westerner (I do feel that we are mostly exposed to "deteriorated" forms of Buddhism, but maybe it's for the better).
  - blueprint 8y ago
    > I don't think that 2000-year-old Buddhism had all the answers Buddha while alive only gave answers to the level of the questions people at that time were able to bring to him. No one from modern times asked Buddha about gravity, or electromagnetism, or calculus, or about Bernoulli's principle, nor is he alive in modern times to inform us of what we ourselves can't recognize right in front of ourselves. However, if, hypothetically, someone were to bring questions about black holes or dark matter to Gautama Buddha, then I feel very confident based on my understanding of philosophy that his reply would be to the effect or meaning of "if you can tell me or point out exactly what X from your question is, concretely, then I will be able to tell you whether it exists or not in reality, by placing that matter upon the formula that operates the world, and checking the result". > would even be useful to a Westerner (I do feel that we are mostly exposed to "deteriorated" forms of Buddhism, but maybe it's for the better) What is left is not helpful to us ordinary people for discerning or learning Buddha's teaching. We lost his truth through the process of it being handed down. His teaching is not meditation, four noble truths, eightfold path, nor precepts. It's not that you go to sleep, abandon yourself, stop suffering, and die forever. He taught people what exists, and how it exists, because he knew that was the way to enlighten people. Nevertheless he didn't explain about the steps to achieving enlightenment. First, falsehood must disappear (you must be free of lies). That means you have to open your eyes to the truth. Secondly, you have to be able to see 'what is'. You have to know where right and wrong exist: facts. Third, you need conscience and courage. You wouldn't go to people and teach them through terrible treatment without conscience and courage. Fourth, there must be endless love in yourself to go teach people 'what is' repeatedly. Through the process, you burn up the karma in your consciousness. Anyone who teaches enlightenment can be achieved without agony and love is telling a lie.

Yes, however, people a long long time ago have used variations of the term. Why do you think deteriorated forms of Buddhism nowadays have attached themselves to the term ego? The term has got a certain characteristic which those who propagate deteriorated truth need to use. They talk about losing your ego for a reason. So, I wonder if you've done this exercise before... have you ever tried to come up with as concrete and rigorous a statement of the definition of the term ego as you can? It doesn't have to be so profound nor complicated. When people lose their ego and don't gain a true ego in replacement it means in real life they lose themselves and die forever. (Buddha taught people to save their own self, remain themselves, and live forever.) Therefore people's usage of the term must be understood to be imprecise and subtextually cover too wide a range. You never hear of a mathematician being fairly called egotistical for insisting it's incorrect to state 1+1 = 1 or 3. Buildings and bridges made by those who believe it can be so will collapse. Then why do we accept this lack of rigor in subjects so important as our mental and spiritual health? Only because we've been compromised by something already. However, many influential people still aren't willing to admit this.

Pimpus 8y ago
I'm finding your posts intriguing despite disagreeing with you. Do you have any sources for further reading? > Why do you think deteriorated forms of Buddhism nowadays have attached themselves to the term ego? Is it deterioration or just accepting new ideas? I don't think that 2000-year-old Buddhism had all the answers, or would even be useful to a Westerner (I do feel that we are mostly exposed to "deteriorated" forms of Buddhism, but maybe it's for the better).
- blueprint 8y ago
  > I don't think that 2000-year-old Buddhism had all the answers Buddha while alive only gave answers to the level of the questions people at that time were able to bring to him. No one from modern times asked Buddha about gravity, or electromagnetism, or calculus, or about Bernoulli's principle, nor is he alive in modern times to inform us of what we ourselves can't recognize right in front of ourselves. However, if, hypothetically, someone were to bring questions about black holes or dark matter to Gautama Buddha, then I feel very confident based on my understanding of philosophy that his reply would be to the effect or meaning of "if you can tell me or point out exactly what X from your question is, concretely, then I will be able to tell you whether it exists or not in reality, by placing that matter upon the formula that operates the world, and checking the result". > would even be useful to a Westerner (I do feel that we are mostly exposed to "deteriorated" forms of Buddhism, but maybe it's for the better) What is left is not helpful to us ordinary people for discerning or learning Buddha's teaching. We lost his truth through the process of it being handed down. His teaching is not meditation, four noble truths, eightfold path, nor precepts. It's not that you go to sleep, abandon yourself, stop suffering, and die forever. He taught people what exists, and how it exists, because he knew that was the way to enlighten people. Nevertheless he didn't explain about the steps to achieving enlightenment. First, falsehood must disappear (you must be free of lies). That means you have to open your eyes to the truth. Secondly, you have to be able to see 'what is'. You have to know where right and wrong exist: facts. Third, you need conscience and courage. You wouldn't go to people and teach them through terrible treatment without conscience and courage. Fourth, there must be endless love in yourself to go teach people 'what is' repeatedly. Through the process, you burn up the karma in your consciousness. Anyone who teaches enlightenment can be achieved without agony and love is telling a lie.