4 ms·
Sometimes "ego" is used to refer to the self, but I think the distinction we're going for here is between "self" (soul) and "sense of self importance" (ego.) So
by cnees 5y ago
Sometimes "ego" is used to refer to the self, but I think the distinction we're going for here is between "self" (soul) and "sense of self importance" (ego.)
So you can feed your ego with praise and self-centered narratives, but it takes wholesome thoughts, good deeds, and self-giving love (both received and given) to nourish a soul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
— Phillipians 4:8
- denton-scratch 5y ago"Ego" is a very loose term (nowadays). Freud intended the term "ego" to refer to conscious awareness, basically. Jung used it to mean the focal point of conscious awareness - he treated awareness as being a lot more "smeary" than Freud did. Western Buddhists use the term to refer to attachment - to the body, emotions, feelings, and the sense of selfhood. I think the closest term might be "atman" - the selfhood that is derived from Vishnu in hindu thinking (I really don't know). Atman sounds like "atmen" - german for breathing. I assume they have the same root. Anyway, the Buddhist notion is a notion of something of which they deny the existence - the term "anatman" refers to the fundamental Buddhist notion that there is no enduring self (or "soul"). I was raised a Christian, and spent a number of decades as a Buddhist; I've never known what the term "soul" was supposed to refer to.
- loopz 5y agoYou have self, your identified being. You also have Self, everything interconnected, which includes self also. It's about dispelling ignorance about identity. This is easier being a bit dim. By generalization, there's less need to clarify more coarse concepts.