8 ms·

Ironically, the biggest evidence of this here might be the idea that the ego should be kept as small as possible. Whether or not it's a real thing, it still nee

• ianai 8y ago
  It’s walled so I can’t read it. But my impressions make this sound like yet another concept ripped from religion or philosophy into psychology/sociology - and not kept whole, in context, or even given an honest consideration.
• hosh 8y ago
  My understanding of Adyashanti's teachings is that... the ego doesn't really go away. It is clearly seeing through the ego (that the ego is not the source of identity) that allows the egoic impulse to stop interfering with experience. That individuality does not go away with unity consciousness, and then there is "no-self", that is, no inherent self. I speak about Adyashanti's teachings, but I find this echoed in many teachers. It's just that his words seem to convey some of this better for me. "Ego" is a fairly loaded word too. Most people don't use that word in the same sense that psychologists do, and psychologists don't have a consensus view on what ego means. In the vernacular, it tends to refer to pride, arrogance, and defensiveness.
• creep 8y ago
  The ego is a tool. Ego death is temporary and should not be aimed for 24/7. In a 3D, physical world, the ego is what you use to differentiate your actions from others, to take responsibility, and to make changes. We can recognize and feel deeply that we are all connected, but an ego-less person in a physical world is like a formless void, and has forgotten it's point in being alive.
  • ethn 8y ago
    Yes, it's necessary to live in the world.
• wellboy 8y ago
  Having no ego isn't really a good thing. Before modern times it makes you starve and die, because you didn't feel like you need to be selfish to take precautions for winter and put the needs of others first. Today, it'll prevent you from becoming well off and free from corporate bullshit, because you don't really have ambition. So you have to work for the rest of your life in some middle class job. Having a big ego is bad, having no ego is bad. You need to figure out in which situations you need a big ego and in which you need none.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• lambdasquirrel 8y ago
  I would say that you’re onto something. I personally spent years finding myself, doing all sorts of things from dance, to drawing, and of course yoga and meditation. What struck me — regardless of whether I was amongst engineers or artists — is how many of us never advanced our sense of self, even though we became better and better at what we did. You know what happened after all of that? Well we generally became more and more condescending towards people less accomplished than us, and all that impostor syndrome became directed outward. Maybe I’m a little annoyed at the simplistic view towards “ego.” Ego is not just good or bad. Even in Western thought, the Jungians had a deeper treatment of the self than most would ever read, and there’s an idea that the best parts of ourselves are also related to the worst parts of ourselves. This is where someone with Buddhist inclinations might say it’s important to be able to see past/through the ego. Losing the self is important. Among other things, it helps you get in touch with your own mortality. Just as important is accepting one’s inevitable death, and for that, one must find some peace with the sense of self. So I wouldn’t read too much into it if some scientist, trying to stick verifiable labels onto things, mistook finding the self for “self-enhancement.” Then a journalist continued with their interpretation of the paper, and now we have a game of telephone. Last but not least, it is possible to do yoga and meditation badly.