A Critique of "Kill The Ego"

A Critique of "Kill The Ego"

To talk with any authority about the ego, one must know what an ego is. Therein lies the difficulty.

Discovering the ego for the sake of examination is actually quite impossible. At least to my knowledge, nothing called an ego has ever been witnessed, and I would wager that no such entity or substance exists to be discovered. Yet, perhaps I am blind, because there is quite the dogma surrounding the idea that everyone, including myself, is endowed with this entity or substance, and that we should go to great lengths to suppress, and sometimes kill, this illusive spirit.

What is it that we label “ego”?

The only thing we ever point at in regards to an ego is to ourselves. This can be proven by trying to point out one’s own ego. Even when we think about our ego, we are really only thinking about ourselves. When we think of a friend’s ego, we really only think of that friend, or at least, the experiences we’ve had of them. We have yet to behold or perceive anything other than these beings.

The ego has been synonymous with the “self”, which is simply another noun to which we give ourselves at our own leisure, which, like all labels, changes really nothing of what it is we label. Why we need to reapply labels on ourselves in such ways is unclear, but it is a commonplace occurrence throughout various cultures. Souls, selves, egos, bodies, spirits, minds, consciousnesses, humans, Homo Erectus, I, me, she, we—there is really only one entity found beneath these labels at all times. However, what we choose to call this being is entirely up to the one speaking.

The ego is also synonymous with personal identity, which really amounts to no more than how we look, how we talk, how we dress and, sometimes, how we think. When we are speaking about identity, we are once again only really talking about ourselves, our clothes, our names and whatever other baubles and fancies we’ve gathered along the course of our lives. Is the ego our clothing? Is the ego our name?

Suppose one wanted to do away with the “ego”, and in doing so changed his name, chose to wore rags, grew a beard and began to wander the earth as a sage. Has he killed or in any harmed an ego? He hasn’t. He merely grew a beard. His “identity”, his “self”, is not only still alive, but has taken it upon itself to change its appearance. The sage merely looks different and chooses, by the power of his own faculties, to think of certain things and act a certain way. If anything, the ego in this instance has triumphed, as only egotism would inspire one to change his appearance.

Imagine Buddha, dressed in rags seated lotus beneath a tree. Then, if you can, imagine him in synthetic shorts playing tennis. Yes, he appears different, but can we say the man beneath the clothes, beneath the “ego”, is any different? Only superficiality would garner a response.

When one tells me I should check my ego, I get the odd feeling that they don’t like the way I act, and they would rather see that I instead act like them, as their "ego" would. When one tells me to kill my ego, they must offend themselves by my very sight, enough so to want to see me remove my clothes, my name, and my identity, my "ego", so that I may instead, once again, act like them. They therefore must hold themselves in higher regard than I to state this with such conviction. Well...isn't that a glaring instance of egotism?

Sadly, I cannot find any ego to critique, as end up only critiquing myself, and others.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip



Yes, I have been wanting to maybe start a thread like this one, but from past experiences of trying to point this out to other "enlightened" or "egoless" people (those who claim they are anyway) has not had positive responses.

IMO, to kill one's ego is to kill oneself. And also IMO, this cannot be achieved without literally dying or ceasing to exist. There is in no way to actually "kill" your ego and still be alive.

The desirable effect that one should be trying to achieve is the balance of self with the so-called "super-self" or the universe. However, this, in my opinion, does not simply mean you give yourself over to the universe. One must learn to achieve a balance a sense of timing. To know when to work for the self and to know when to work for others. To know which people you should be helping as well, so that you do not lend assistance to nefarious individuals and become an accessory to the malign.

Symbiosis.

Another thing one should point out is killing one's desires and how detrimental this really is to someone. If one killed all their desires, then one eventually loses the very want to live at all.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


Don't let anyone BS you.

The Self is also the self.

One is nearly timeless.. the other timeful.

Neither more important than the other.

Every part of a whole being plays an important
role.

Be whole, and no part will seem to have a role
more important than another.. and neither
will any part be despised.

If you stare into the sun, you won't be able to
see the moon.

If you howl at the moon, you won't notice the
sun.

Live as the wholeness that you already are..
and no one will ever BS you about 'ego'
ever again.

KPB

This akin to critiquing snipe hunting.

I believe that the ego is not a bad thing, necessarily (I've posted about this ad nauseam in other threads, in my short time here). From the school of thought that has the most influence on my thinking, the ego is a physical expert. It helps us survive by gathering observations of the physical world and giving it to our conscious mind in a way that we can make sense of it. The ego is not bad, but obviously our civilizations of late have placed an obsessive importance on it, subconsciously. It is this obsessive focus that I believe we are going to step beyond in this century. But that's just what I've gathered for myself from different places (not necessarily physical locations). I hope that this adds to your thread.

This subject is always a round about muck up. Nobody seems to agree on what the ego is, which makes discourse next to impossible.

The "ego killing" crowd usually has something in common, I percieve-
That their concept of what ego is, is usually whatever characteristics they consider negative or undesireable.

The exercise of trying to do this, though, seems to have the effect of magnifying and feeding exactly those elements of psyche. I guess like gazing into the abyss......and having it gaze back into you.

The ego is not a bad thing to have. It's actually something your body needs. The ego is basically just a defense mechanism. It tries to promote your well being. People typically do not want to be considered "wrong" so their ego speaks up and denies reality. The reason for this, is to keep your psychological well-being intact. Which is why when people are caught in a lie, or doing something considered "wrong" they almost always deny it. Or become angry at the thought someone thinks they are wrong. Because when you are wrong about something it will effect your emotion and psyche. Because when people are caught doing something wrong, this results in embarrassment, sadness, etc. And obviously those are not things your body wants for itself. Since it can have negative side effects mentally,physically, and psychologically.

Sometimes people actually literally believe their own lies, because their ego has manipulated their perception in order to maintain that mental well-being. And when this happens to often, the ego may be considered something "bad." And it can further their disconnection from reality. A good example of this would be someone who is considered a compulsive liar. Their egos are so out of whack, that their brain does not want to ever be wrong, and it begins to condition itself to believe it's own nonsense. And that obviously can be considered some form of mental illness in some respects.

reply to post by coquine


In my experience, the 'ego killing crowd' actually have the
nastiest egos in the entire world. It may take a lot of
poking and prodding.. but when you finally force it
into the open, old swamijji will try to take your head
off with a spoon.

KPB

reply to post by coquine


I find in my observations that those who think they have no ego turn a blind eye to it and actually have a greater ego because of it. They consider themselves "egoless" but they really aren't. Usually it is when we think we've overcome something like the ego that we become more "puffy."

On another matter, seeing as this is a conspiracy forum, I think that the "kill the ego" concept, you know, Buddha being born into high society and then leaving it behind to learn all he could, was kinda formulated more as a way of controlling others. It is easier to control the masses if they feel they have no sense of "self" to speak of and have simply given themselves over to the forces of the universe. If they more or less feel everything that happens to them is just some unconditional state of the universe and are programmed to just sit back and be as unfeeling as a tree, they are less likely to revolt against a tyrannical government.

Yes, as I have said: "We are all as droplets, cast adrift in a storming sea. Each one individual and still existing collectively," I do not mean that we are so "one" that there is no distinction between each one of us. We have our individuality as the "droplets" or "molecules," which come together and form the vast Sea, and each one is vastly as unique and different as snowflakes are to each other.

Still however, certain things should not be tolerated and one should fight back. Some monks train in self-defense and are highly skilled warriors. Others just make themselves easy prey.

reply to post by AsherahoftheSea


en.wikipedia.org...

At the very end, after solving the problem of evil,
you ride down the mountain and surround yourself
with regular people.. with a full and healthy ego
intact. There is in fact no stage after this.

But granted, most people sell out to little lights or
the words of others and wait many lifetimes of
universes to make the ride themselves. Which
is just fine too.

KPB

reply to post by AsherahoftheSea


I like that! Good one.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


To 1 from experience it seems the ego can hold some back where its not even realized, yet...

Can you visualize many here for example on EA*RTH seeking spiritual advancements doing metaphysical practices that originally are practiced to enlighten. And them not being aware of potential TEST associated with these practices and or advancements. Some test which may challenge the heart compassion mental empathy & intent of a seeker. And then its found upon challenge test or temptations of the Soul/Spirit/Internal energy of the CREATOR Creation being tested as they practiced... that an area exist (ego) where these seekers may be weak or vulnerable unknowingly as they continue metaphysical practices that may cause ENCOUNTERS they didn't consider.
Example some may feel they can do it all alone ascend w/o a elder already experienced Ascended guide.

Test to make sure the seeker that is seeking more metaphysical understanding of reality or enlightenment and or ascension is benevolent in nature. And not just seeking to be better then others to gain power over them why practicing. As other realms are encountered and the inhabitants there.

For what would happen if many DID Ascend into their more powerful self why others did not and the Ascended had egos? Since they feel more advanced then others who ARE as much part of the whole as them. It would seem there would be potential for MASSIVE malevolent access to the looked down upon by the ego driven. What would that cause? TODAY?


some lower ascended with uncontrolled egos would feel they are God over others they didn't even CREATE since they ascended w/o recognizing LOWER ascension and the others looked down upon may view the malevolent egos as NATAS acting and minions related... As their consciousness are attacked by those who feel they ARE better then ALL*

This is why 1 personally recommends / shares that the ego be controlled if not eliminated to prevent SOME seekers that may be practicing metaphysically and advancing from allowing a weak/vulnerable point to exist within the.
But if some ATTRACT to feeling it is their duty to have an ego then may they see the TESTers testing their practices for once fully weakened all that ascension practice may be null/void because the has entered realms not understood where OTHER Ascended may exist and is now lower ascended.

For their protection or for others now the testers are validated... By the ego driven.
Something's to consider

NAMASTE*******

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


KPB, I know real evil exists, as I have encountered it. It will not change and it will not stop until it has achieved what it wants. You cannot fight it by submitting to the universe or giving it love. Love is but a weakness to it. It's either it or us.

the ego is different from the soul.

the ego is what you want others to perceive you as (physical and social properties) and that can be good or bad. but since so many see themselves a victims of subjective reality it is often seen as bad.

the soul(aka consciousness) is your perception. it perceives the ego. it dosent have physical qualities and is always constant through out life and death. because the soul transcends time and space reality viewed from this perspective becomes objective. objective reality isn't understood as much because most people live life using only there ego. hints of objective reality are things like deja vu, intuition, astral projection, etc

when people say ego death they mean to strengthen the connection with the soul. the ego is video game character and the soul is the player. the ego is meant for customization. its your job to make the coolest character and beat the game of life and death.

reply to post by duesprimusvictorimmortali


The intro and body were good. The conclusion to me was iffy. But then again, I'm not the judge of you. I'm not sure how anyone at this point in time can beat the game of life and death. I'm just being honest.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


the ego and human body are avatars of the soul. belief systems are like computer programs that change your perception of reality. you choose what to believe in and how to act who to know how to dress and where to go with the objective of living a fulfilled life. a truly fulfilled life is the physical,mental, and spiritual realization of your true self. the ego may account for physical realization but that is nothing without the spiritual and mental. so you have to balance these aspects to win. that why i say life is like a role playing game in that sense.

the game of life and death is called "samsara" souls are born and reborn into this reality until they experience all they need to transcend reality and enter heaven or nirvana.

you say you don't understand how anyone can beat the game of life and death at this point?

that seems strange to me. anyone can beat the game at anytime they choose once they learn how. everything that decides whether or not you enter nirvana is based on the individuals soul and is strictly based off individual perception.

why do you think no one can win the game? and what "point" are talking about? no matter how bleak the future seems winning the game is up to the individual only.

reply to post by duesprimusvictorimmortali


Yeah, I've heard of samsara. I didn't know you were talking about reincarnation. I actually had no idea what you were talking about when I read that. Sorry! From my perception, you phrased it in such an obscure way to make me not understand it. I got it now, though.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


yeah. but to reincarnate is not beating the game. the game isnt just a single life but many lifetimes. beating the game is ending reincarnation. and to do that you would have to know the difference between ego and soul. death is like starting the game over with a different character or ego but the player or soul never changes. maybe it more accurate way to describe nirvana is to say the objective is to realize your soul is playing the game and once your are tired of it you can walk away. the ego is the one concerned with beating the game.

reply to post by duesprimusvictorimmortali


I meant that I didn't know at first that your post was about the concept of reincarnation in general. I know that the end point of reincarnation is to not reincarnate anymore. Trust me, I know. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're in your twenties I've been studying the subject longer.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


oh no. my first post was just describing the difference between the ego and soul. the op was talking about understanding what the ego was before talking about it. but then said the ego and soul were the same thing proving he didn't know what he was talking about.

you say you've been studying longer than i have probably. but im willing to bet ive experienced more than you

i still dont understand how you can say "I'm not sure how anyone at this point in time can beat the game of life and death"