Is the ego inherently bad? Should we abandon it?

[Revenant]

hmm...
is the ego the same as the survival instinct?
no...right?

Nah, In my opinion the ego are the lower 3 chakra's.

why does the ego want to survive?
why is it so afraid of being annhilated?

I don't know, I think that our creator(s) put this in place to ensure our survival.

[being human]

maybe the creator point is "correct."

the 3 chakra thing I dont understand at all...
care to elaborate?

[Revenant]

Some theory:
http://www.chioshealing.com/HealingLeve ... system.htm

To simplify it:
As you can see is that the chakra's are divided into frequencies/color spectrum.
red(chakra 1), orange(chakra 2), yellow(3), green(chakra), etc.

Each chakra has a function in the human energy field, and so does every frequency associated with a certain chakra.

Chakra 1, 2 and 3 are associated with:
1: physical body, location at the base of your spine, color red, element earth, etc.
2: lower emotional body, genitals, orange, element water.
3: lower mental body, yellow, solaris plexus, element fire
4: spirit (or perhaps astral body...I am not sure), heart, green, air
5: higher physical body
6: higher emotional body
7: higher mental body

Bascially chakra 1-3 are Earth frequencies and 3D. (lower dense frequencies)
Chakra 5-7 tuned to spiritual realms.
and the spiritual body(chakra 4, your heart) the bridge between heaven and Earth.

So, the ego is our vehicle/tool here on Earth to make life on Earth possible.

The ego is therefor not bad and we should not abandon it because it will make you very sick if you treat your body like shit. Or other lower bodies in that perspective.

[bee]

....hi Chris, Andre, been a while so i'll bite lol!

i would ask - what is there to abandon? nothing in the sense used in the topic question is inherently anything.

imo, the problem occurs in that so often a notion of self amounts to eternalism....and yet a denial of self amounts to nihilism. both extremes and (surprise surprise lmao!) i prefer the middle path.

Chris, in another topic round here you mentioned that ignorance stems from fear. this i wholeheartedly agree with. often a sense of self cherished and clung to leads one to fear. lets get morbid and use the example of death lol. really death is not an end of anything other than perhaps form but so often people fear it as this sense of self is identified with form and thus seen as threatened with extinction. similarly, when we identify and think - this is self, mind is self, self is mind, form is self, feelings is self, perception is self...anything that threatens this causes fear. the worst outcome is we become aggressive and cling to these notions ie. people kill each other for their beliefs because they see their beliefs as self. or, to flip it over and deny self outright...people think what is the point of anything? i'll end my life by my own hand...or, nothing matters i can murder, kill, abuse etc. because their is no self to take responsibility.

i prefer the teaching of anatman...non-self...nothing exists inherently in and of itself. everything is dependent on multiple causes and factors for its existence...this keyboard...my words...the fingers i type with....etc. and everything arises, fades, arises, fades, arises, fades.

i could break it down further into skandhas (aggregates) and the process of cittas (consciousness states) arising and fading but i'm at work and on a break at the mo so it's probably best to leave it there for the time being....

laters

[Angeleyes]

I know I'm late getting to this conversation but I was hoping to offer some fresh perspective from a psychological standpoint.

According to Freud... (fresh from a recent psychology class)
There is the id, which is the unconscious, nonsensical, irrational aspect of our selves. The id gives way to the ego, allowing it to operate within the parameters of society in order to fulfill the desires of the id.

We need the ego. When someone makes us angry, the id wants to act out in aggression, no matter how passive of a person we are (remembering this is all unconscious). The ego says "no, no, look, I understand you but we can't do that" and acts in a rational way.

Without our egos, we would all be irrational, impulsive babies with no self control.



Remember that the term "Ego" was coined by Freud. However, the term has been used in different ways meant to carry different meanings in new age and especially Eastern religion. It is also somewhat incorrectly--at least with different connotations-- used in modern Western civilization ("what an overdeveloped ego").
That said, prior discussion in this thread about that other meaning we have for the word ego are equally valid and correct in their own right. I think in that context the word is meant to be synonymous with personality whereas in psychology the ego is just one part of a person's psyche.

[Angeleyes]

The ego is the part of us that deals with our daily existence in our reality, it is a natural part of our consciousness. I find no reason to think that it's bad. What is "bad" after all? I don't know how we'd be able to function without it, kind of like sleepwalking I guess.

I re-read this post after I posted and thought "hmm that is a great analogy" (for the Freud ego lol). Essentially, since the id operates on purely the pleasure principle, we would not be able to function in society without the ego because it operates for the id on the reality principle, meaning it functions in rational terms.

[being human]

I cant dig it...
I dont see a reason for an ego to counter balance the id...
what good is the id if we need some other part to control it?
What are the desires of the id exactly, if its all unconscious?
So the ego operates to fulfill the needs of a nonsensical, irrational portion of ourselves?
What good would come from fulfilling those types of needs?
Both of them sound like spoiled children to me...lol...
they need a good spankin yo..
I think we perceive the both of them, and other portions of our minds
in these ways because weve been told to.
This is only Freuds opinion.
And people backed it because it stood out for some reason.
I dont think there is any reality to it aside from what the believer believes....
like everything else.

and shit

[redheed]

my idea of an ego is not the same as some, my ego is a counter balance to my self doubts a part of my personality its a power struggle between the two. to get rid of or deny ego would leave me shy and intrevert and the oppisite would make vain and foolhardy. i do not belive instinct comes into it animals i belive have instinct and no ego,(haven't seen a proud sheep or a shamed chicken) but thats my opinion.

[Ildi]

why does the ego want to survive?
why is it so afraid of being annhilated?

I never noticed my ego being afraid of getting annihilated. When I was younger I thought that when we die we'll be no more. Simply won't exist anymore. It never bothered me.

[alchemistic]

My post was eaten!

redheed...I dunno, I had a pup that when you shaved him down and he looked like a doof, he walked like he was ashamed...when he had a fly haircut and looked all pretty and cool, he strutted his stuff, no kidding

I do think they can feel shame, loss, sadness, depression, happiness, strut their stuff like they think they're all that, appear to be very proud, but I don't believe it's ego...so what then?
And, you'll never see a wild thing feel sorry for it's self...where as humans do have ego's and quite often feel sorry for them selves ('cept Ildi )

Oh and dito Ildi, no fears of that, 'cept I always figured I would transform into a star or some other form of energy (kid you not, thought that as a kid! Still do )