IMPORTANT: DOCTRINE UPDATE

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.

Well, with those definitions in mind (please be aware this n00b sticker is really damn sticky it simply won't peel off) I'm going to stick my neck out here and say I don't like either the old or the new maxim that much.

Warning! n00b messing with maxims. Code red!


I'm not saying my bit of blah hiding in there should be the new-new form. It's just that, it seems the recently updated version is causing some grumbling.

To have no ego is to exist in a perfect state of humility and enlightenment - that certainly is an unreasonable demand on Jedi.

A reasonable demand however would be trying to get people to understand what the ego is and in doing so to understand the reasons behind their actions.

A Jedi does not boast of their accomplishments and knows that their accomplishment is its own reward.

In Buddhist and Hindu traditions, of which Buddhism emerged from ascetic Hindu traditions, the idea of being one with the world is represented by the term 'Atman' which means 'Self'.

There is no separate self from the universe, because we are all manifestations of the Force.

The maxim should be read in terms of its additional description.

A Jedi does not boast of their accomplishments and knows that their accomplishment is its own reward.

Accepting the ego for what it is, well what is it? The ego in this maxim is referring to a particular type of greed, that is to say egoistic (selfish) greed. There is more to that however, because if one is being greedy then one is elevating their self-worth above that of others. This elevation of self-worth is mistakenly thinking of your 'Self' as being greater or better than another and hence not realising that there is no 'Self' within the Force.

bard wrote: What about something like:
Humility: To be mindful of the ego.

THis is how I read the new version....

How, it translated into my the definition of words in my head...

I dont have to 'accept it' as 'well now I am stuck with it, and cant get rid of it'....

I read it as 'I understand I have one at times, and am seeking to do my best to not pay attention to it'...

lol...

Jestor wrote: I dont have to 'accept it' as 'well now I am stuck with it, and cant get rid of it'....

I read it as 'I understand I have one at times, and am seeking to do my best to not pay attention to it'...

That's the difference between 'accepting' something and 'tolerating' something.

Tolerating just just putting up with something that exists.
Accepting is going beyond just putting up with it to truly understand why it is the way it is.

Akkarin wrote: That's the difference between 'accepting' something and 'tolerating' something.

Tolerating just just putting up with something that exists.
Accepting is going beyond just putting up with it to truly understand why it is the way it is.

For the most part I agree with that Akkarin. I would also add (for myself) that it is not limited to understanding. But that it is a part of being at peace with something. In theis case the ego. And I realize that when I say "being at peace" people will auto associate this with the opposite of conflict. But it can also be like a comfortable recognition that can be embraced for what it is.

When we fight with something to understand it we rarely make the kind of progress we would like. And I will give an example. Marriage counseling. Often times people go to marriage counseling when their marriage is in trouble. But that is not when marriage counseling works best. It's true beauty is when the couple is happy. Then they can go to counseling to help grow their relationship together, maybe work out little quirks that bother eachother. (notice I said work out and not change. Maybe it is the one noticing the quirk that needs to be resolved) the point is that when two people love eachother it is far easier to understand and resolve then when they are fighting and unreceptive. And they are more likely to grow apart at that point then grow together.

Akkarin wrote:

Jestor wrote: I dont have to 'accept it' as 'well now I am stuck with it, and cant get rid of it'....

I read it as 'I understand I have one at times, and am seeking to do my best to not pay attention to it'...

That's the difference between 'accepting' something and 'tolerating' something.

Tolerating just just putting up with something that exists.
Accepting is going beyond just putting up with it to truly understand why it is the way it is.

Now it is getting silly....

Really?

So, accepting cant mean 'tolerating'?


Here is the thing....

We have these maxims, teachings, and ask for what they mean to the individual...

And, I understood all of these to basically mean the same thing, looking at the spirit of the words, rather than the 'Webster' defintions....

IF I have an ego (I do occasionally), then I should seek to not have it...

and Jon

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

One who has left this plane of existence...

My thinking, anyway... lol...

To have no ego is to exist in a perfect state of humility and enlightenment - that certainly is an unreasonable demand on Jedi.

The maxims are not demands. They are a statement of belief in what is good/wise. the explanations are a small guide on how a Jedi can get there, or better understand the meaning of the maxim. If they were demands you'd expect to see Jedi meditating 24/7. A maxim is an aphorism after all.

Akkarin wrote: To have no ego is to exist in a perfect state of humility and enlightenment...
There is no separate self from the universe, because we are all manifestations of the Force.

As long as we're locked in these meat-suits, we're *going* to have a concept of "I, myself" that is at least nominally separate from everything else. We can know otherwise, experience otherwise, and live as though this "I, myself" doesn't exist, but it will until we actually rejoin the whole, or it wouldn't take an act of doing to commune with it.

steamboat28 wrote:

Akkarin wrote: To have no ego is to exist in a perfect state of humility and enlightenment...
There is no separate self from the universe, because we are all manifestations of the Force.

As long as we're locked in these meat-suits, we're *going* to have a concept of "I, myself" that is at least nominally separate from everything else. We can know otherwise, experience otherwise, and live as though this "I, myself" doesn't exist, but it will until we actually rejoin the whole, or it wouldn't take an act of doing to commune with it.

Well of course, that is why we must accept that this is the way things are. We can know that there is such a thing as enlightenment without experiencing it, we can know that the ego is an illusion we create ourselves while still being bound by that illusion. But we accept that it is an illusion and work to overcome it.

As for tolerance as opposed to acceptance:

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/sermons/1976-08-july-2012-on-tolerance

Ace explained it wonderfully in that sermon.

Aceboizer wrote: So don’t tolerate anyone. That is not a mutually beneficial way to coexist. We should get to know each other, be civilized but honest. Humanity has learned to tolerate others, to peacefully ignore one another and hope neither side gets fed up with the farce.

Instead, we ought to learn about each other. Witness how the same concepts can be given alternative names which once peeled away reveal a rather familiar concept. If we shed our ‘tolerance,’ we might just find us staring at a reflection of ourselves. Put any name on a belief: religion, politics, science…they’re all just another label for our attempts at understanding some Universal Truth.