IMPORTANT: DOCTRINE UPDATE

Question. I am about to do the Breakdown portion of my IP and want to know if the council wants to add the 21 maxims to that analysis, or keep it the way it is.

Please add it...

It is now a part of the official doctrine...

We will ask folks to go back and do it if it is not completed as the other parts are...

Thanks for asking!

I will also be going back and suggesting it to those who have completed the IP, but are still awaiting Masters...

I might do it with the new doctrine, even though I HAVE a Master.

Ok. Good stuff. Thanks for the quick reply as well. I am looking forward to breaking that one down!!

Jestor wrote: Please add it...

It is now a part of the official doctrine...

We will ask folks to go back and do it if it is not completed as the other parts are...

Thanks for asking!

I will also be going back and suggesting it to those who have completed the IP, but are still awaiting Masters...

The 16 teachings are completely different as well...

No problem...

Remember, your journal is yours...

You can post pretty much what you like...

The maxim 'Humility' has been changed.

Old wrote: Humility: To have no ego.

New wrote: Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

Akkarin wrote: The maxim 'Humility' has been changed.

Old wrote: Humility: To have no ego.

New wrote: Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

I have often explained humility to others as "not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less." I'm not sure it's entirely accurate, but it helps get the gist of it across sometimes.

steamboat28 wrote:

Akkarin wrote: The maxim 'Humility' has been changed.

Old wrote: Humility: To have no ego.

New wrote: Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

I have often explained humility to others as "not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less." I'm not sure it's entirely accurate, but it helps get the gist of it across sometimes.

this was more or less the point behind "Humility: To have no ego.", as opposed to what is generally understood of humility (the kind Nietzsche dislikes).
Egolessness is a core concept/virtue/goal in some religions: it is the rejection of the idea we are separate from the whole. For us it's the Force, for Buddhists it's anata, for sufis (kind of muslims) I don't remember if it is called anything but the idea is that the believer, the world and allah are all one...
And then there's samadhi meditation, which is about focusing one the subject (of meditation) so much that the mind is no longer separate from the subject: it has no ego.

This relates to old fashioned (2001 original maxim) humility how?
A Jedi isn't boastful of their actions, because while it would be accurate to say you are responsible for, say, feeding someone, it is not truly your action:
The Force made it inevitable (for example, there was someone to be fed in the first place), and the result isn't a change in you (your ego), but a change in the Force (the whole).
To have no ego is to understand this... Which is true humility, not the absolute refusal of materialism, or the denial of one's actions or place. This would be in violation of the "honesty" and "harmony" maxims.

I dissent.

If you know what the ego is, if you recognize it then it ceases to be. If you feel there's something to accept it's still with you.

It is my opinion that the ego isn't the problem itself; like your appendix, it's only a problem if it gets out of control.

My opinion doesn't really count for much (still trying to peel off this n00b sticker I found on my keyboard) but...

Is this an argument about what "ego" refers to?

Until a week or so ago I used "ego" as reference to someone who was arrogant (etc). That is, having a big ego.

I've only just started reading Watts and now I have a new, wider use of the word. That is, ego represents the way humans separate themselves from the world. Ego is a (foolish?) sense of individuality when, in truth, we are all one/connected/cosmos. It is a genetically determined construct, I suppose.

So when I read "Old wrote: Humility - To have no ego." I'm seeing that as "understanding we are all one/connected/cosmos" but when I read "New wrote: Humility - To accept the ego for what it is." it reads more like "no matter what you do, there will always be a part of you that views itself as separate from the world".

Both are true enough.

Akkarin wrote: The maxim 'Humility' has been changed.

Old wrote: Humility: To have no ego.

New wrote: Humility: To accept the ego for what it is.

All of these definitions, which do not seem to have any relation to reality, seem to miss out the relational and social aspects of humility. Who is without an ego? I would really be interested to know that? Any offers? Also if my name were Adolf Hitler and I accepted the superior arian meglamaniac who I am then I am humble? Well there seems to be hope for that guy after all. After all this talk about our egos what about the other? If I were the last being on earth what further use does humility have? Strange, but I always considered humility, a kind of doing word, in light of how we interact with each other and not as a sterile definition of what we are. Humble would be more accurate, at least that is what I always thought.

I wouldnt have thought it possible to have "no" ego, but I think humility is not operating from ego.

But i could be wrong. Im not 100% i understand it myself.

If it is possible Brenna then tell me who this person is who has no ego?

Jon wrote: If it is possible Brenna then tell me who this person is who has no ego?

I said that I wouldnt think it was possible.

Apologies Brenna.

Jon wrote: Apologies Brenna.

Thats ok

Its an interesting question though. Is there such a thing as no ego. I think it was Watts (correct me if im wrong) who said that even an attempt to kill the ego is the ego in disguise... so is it possible at all? Or are those who seem egoless simply operating separate from their ego?

or perhaps they are completely indifferent?

Ego is a concept. What Watts said was something like (I'm paraphrasing) : 'trying to get rid of one's ego is the biggest ego-game there is ... and the funny thing is - the ego doesn't exist'.

That was also illustrated by the lack of 'inches' ; 'we can't do any building today, we have no 'inches'. We have wood, hammers and nails - we even have tape-measures and rulers - but because we have no 'inches', we can't build today.' (yep ... I'm paraphrasing again). The 'inches' have the same basic reality as our ego. These are the same relationships wealth to money (or these days finance as we really do have no more 'money' ), dinners to menus and so forth ...

There are many definitions of the ego. But right at the base of all of them is a feeling of being separate from the rest: an individual conscience. And for as long as that conscience feels separate from the rest, whether its actions are beneficial or noxious to itself, it will have an ego.