It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well i'm not worried about me
i feel my ego is in check and i'm a pretty selfless person. The whole ego thing is just confusing to me at times. why is it talked about as if its something that wants to take you over. If the ego isn't separate from ourselves then why would it be afraid of annihilation and, how or would it fight to the death to preserve itself? I don't know, maybe I'm asking the wrong questions...
Originally posted by Bluesma
I always thought of it as just our self awareness- meaning if I speak or write or express physically anything, it is my ego doing so. It is neither good nor bad.
But listening to how others describe it I have come to the conclusion that it is often used to refer to any part of ourself (our ego) that we don't like or judge as undesireable.
Originally posted by Bluesma
What the other non-ego part is which proclaims this, I have not figured out yet what they refer to that as.
This is another example of what the ego tries to do...
The OP can find the definition of ego from wikipedia. That's not why he's asking.
It seems more likely that he's trying to get a clearer picture of how philosophy is portraying it.
Please don't make this thread confusing by telling him that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
And you have to use what works with people.
Telling them that they have 3 divisions of the mind doesn't help.
Psychologists in academia would like to say they are helping society when in fact they've done not much less than hurt it. In fact much of the help they've lent to society, they'd gotten from studying the way mystics work with the mind. This stuff is ancient. It goes back to Jesus and even way beyond him.
I just have issues with the rise of the supposed value of academia if left unchecked.
"What part of you wants this in your life?"
"I want to speak to the part of you that is...."
You know what I mean?
This definition is more of the aim the posters on this thread were going for...
Hindu and Vedanta traditions refer to Ego as Ahamkara (अहंकार), a Sanskrit term that originated in Vedic philosophy over 3,000 years ago, and was later incorporated into Hindu philosophy. It is one of the tattvas, or principles of existence.
Buddhist traditions view Ego not as a single principle, but rather aggregates of conscious energy which create each individual's consciousness. These aggregates, or "heaps," are referred to in Sanskrit as skandhas.
The mystic G.I. Gurdjieff, as well as the self-described neo Gnostic writer and teacher of occultism Samael Aun Weor, posits that the ego is inherently constituted by many "I's
The spiritual teacher Meher Baba stated that the ego is a expression of separateness that hinders spiritual growth