Buddhists would say this is a far greater state of being to achieve than the egocentric counterpart. But for me, to have no ego, I would feel like a completely devoid person. I would feel like a walking empty canvas. That canvas needs a beautiful picture painted on it to give it life. It needs the ego. There is the good ego and the bad ego. The bad ego causes us suffering, hates others, etc. But the good ego brings us joy, wishes to express itself, etc.
So I would have a better solution. Give up the bad ego, but keep the good one. Having no ego at all is like being a devoid person who is completely detached from any beautiful experience he/she is having in his/her life. Instead of looking at these experiences and thinking/saying:
“I feel such life and beauty. I am filled with indescribable joy.”
It would now instead be a matter of not giving any attention at all to such experiences and ignoring them. This is because without the I (the self), then any joyful, beautiful, etc. experience you have in your life would no longer involve you.
Buddhism-proper do not discard the concept of the ego which comes in a hierarchy of selves [egos, “I”, entity etc.] which are impermanent and conditioned by dependent origination.
What Buddhism do not recognize is a permanent ego, self, entity, individual being, that survives after physical death. i.e. anatta.
What Buddhism recommend is the efficient and optimal management [based on the principles of the Middle-Way] of the various levels within the hierarchy of selves.
It’s easier to try and achieve Nirvana where you have not a sense of self but everything around… It’s being completely adept at living and having a social and moral justice as Socrates once said.
It’s an attainment of true perception, enlightenment, and absolute awareness. If experience be that which is lived than that is self-taught experience, and another way of the exact opposite of anatta.
The true and most intense experiences are not connected to yourself, to your ego. Oppositely, if you have ever experienced them, you would know that they are completely detached from it.
These experiences come in a state of mediation, or other states when you come to a short-term (but nearly complete) detachment from yourself, and experience the connection with the Universe.
Buddhists, in general, tend to be life-denying. This isn’t to say that there isn’t healthy aspects of Buddhism, such as meditation and compassion, but overall the philosophy is morbid; they seek to escape life and eliminate consciousness. Yes, there is a good and bad ego. You can’t really be entirely egoless, or else you would just be a zombie. Mystics try to eliminate the qualities of the bad ego in turn for the good ego, e.g., Christ/Buddha, Krishna consciousness.
Erik, hi.
I don’t necessarily think that buddhists or buddhism preaches or advocates life-denial.
I think that they advocate denial of things which can lead to great suffering like addictions, inordinate pleasures, hedonism. Even mysticism can be considered to be an inordinate pleasure. Anything which is sought to such a large degree, without balance, is an inordinate pleasure.
I rather think that buddhism stands for balance - trying to achieve enlightenment and knowledge through discipline, balance, et cetera.
There is a good kind of self nihilism, I think, which doesn’t touch on pessimism or gloominess. The other kind IS just plain gloomy and selfr-denying.
We have to know what to hold onto and what to let go of.
Yes, Buddhism does teach the practice of balance or “the middle way”, but it’s a means to an end: oblivion.
Buddhists see life as something negative, which is why they seek to escape reincarnation; they’ve had enough of it all and they just want out.
It’s a pessimistic philosophy at its core, but if you cherry-pick certain aspects, it proves to be beneficial.
I think that you have the wrong idea about it, Erik. You misunderstand its essence. You see it one way and I suppose lol others see it in another way.
Maybe people sense “oblivion” because they are afraid that they will lose the essence of their ego but I don’t believe that we actually lose our “selves”. For me, I sense that we actually gain ourselves, truer selves, our more optimal selves. I think that the term “oblivion” is based on an emotional fear and a nihilistic one at that.
Take the time to read this, the above, if you will. How does it translate into “oblivion” for you?
I think that its a wise and practical way to live. It is of course a process. Sure, at first, one may feel a sense of suffering from the letting go of mental and emotional cravings and from the discipline of balance and perhaps even from the learning to reach out to others.
How could any true and noble warrior lol not want to march to this drummer?
These are perfect examples of disruptive ego… To have a good and bad perceptive incline on the subject is where they could do both, destroy and heal a conversation. Let’s see how this works out…
