Charity and the Ego

Hello All! This post is longer than I hoped but stick with me . . .

So V-Tog and I had a bit of a discussion earlier this week about vlogs and how helpful we think they can be (e.g. in humanising the Temple, although many would argue that's not necessary). A potential trap from posting videos though is that it is really easy for them to become an ego trip, for the poster. You get nice feedback, and so on . . .

She suggested I might turn that topic into a thread on its own - we can discuss it and share some thoughts and potential ways of avoiding or neutralising the ego trip. I'd be really keen to hear what people think about this, whether they've encountered similar issues and how they've dealt with it.

However, instead of talking about just posting videos - I thought we might up the ante a bit. Its the same conundrum, but I've faced exactly the same question when it comes to charitable giving or charitable work. In my previous career I encountered spectacularly large superficial egos, but even they paled into comparison compared with the egos I encountered in the charity "business". For obvious reasons I've never spoken of this before, I assumed it was my ego playing games with me! But, of all people, Prince Harry came out late last year and said what I'd been thinking for years:

"There are so many charities that are, dare I say it, built around egos. A lot of charities survive on those egos."

My thought evolution over the years has roughly gone like this:
a) I would like to give to charity because I'm fortunate and I'd like to help those less fortunate
b) Publicize charity "events". Raise money for charities. Brilliant - that went well, BUT that was a mahussive ego trip and I've taken plenty of otherwise innocent people on what is effectively a guilt trip
c) OK - I know. No more publicity. I'll just donate completely anonymously and never tell anyone about it. Fine - but that is an even bigger ego trip. The more you give, and the more anonymously the worse it gets + the charity doesn't get any publicity which is what it really needs for long term effectiveness
d) give up and stop giving to charity
e) that can't be the right answer
f) don't worry about what other people think, don't worry about your ego - let it get off on your "good works", but let those emotions go
g) Ego gets trip of the century by being able to let those emotions go
h) accept that giving to charity and undertaking charitable works is the greater good and that having a megalomaniac ego is maybe something I just have to live with. Its going to be there whether I give to charity or not - in some shape or other.
i) the ego disappears when I meditate, or am present. Focus on that, and continue charitable works

So there we go - any thoughts or experiences of yours on this matter would be really interesting, and very helpful.

I've helped raise money for various charities. I think there's a difference between raising money because it's what you think is the right thing to do, versus raising money because it makes you look good, or solely because it makes you feel good.

We're only human, so we have to deal with our ego whatever, but I think it's wrong to suggest that getting a little boost to ego is always a bad thing. It can help confidence, and if our ego feels a bit better, then we'll work harder to help raise money.

I'm in the 'don't worry so much about it' boat.

j) ... give without ever thinking it was 'yours' to begin with.


Our societies - especially in the West, but not only - are pretty screwed up about our notions of entitlement. As it were, 'tat tvam asi' means also that if my neighbour is starving, I'm starving. If I'm living in a grand house with all the comforts doesn't though necessarily mean that my neighbour is. "For in the greater the lesser is ; in the lesser, the greater is not." Starving neighbours are the 'greater', whereas fortunate, privileged, entitled ... are not as numerous.

You're right : charities and philanthropy in general are surprisingly deceptive festivals for the "I" to feel moral, superior (to those who don't 'help' as much or certainly to the 'helped'). Could it be that the fortunes that 'help' people themselves cause the suffering they are given generously (sic) from to alleviate ?

It is just a question, but one I've been pondering for at least 35 years.

EDIT : one of these days I'll actually memorise the order of the alphabet.

I've always disliked the "Thank You" button (yet I still use it, haha, though I do like to use when I'm reading a journal to let me know I read an entry). But in regards to V-logs, I think it's pretty benign.

Where I really dislike the "Thank You" button is during debates (again, guilty for using it). I get the sense that it has a poor effect and it seems like it's a passive-aggressive "ganging up" on whomever you don't share a view with. And it's usually not the way person to person dynamics work in real life.

Ok, end of that aside.

In regards to charitable giving, as the teacher Jesus said, "let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth" which means, give anonymously, not to be seen or praised of others.

The problem isn't ego itself. The problem is when the ego becomes over-emphasized or comparative. When "I" is always first in one's thoughts, or when "I" compares itself to others to feel superior, then ego is an issue. We cannot vanquish ego and live healthy lives; while we may all be "one" ultimately, our sense of individuality and self form the core of our worldview and understanding of the cosmos, and that diversity should be cherished. Ego is a problem when we stroke it for its own sake only, and even then (in the case of charities or other actions) the end result is really all that can be judged. Do you feel better when you give? Do you feel better than others when you give? At the end of the day all that matters is if you're happy with your place in the cosmos and if other people are better off because of something someone did to help them.

A lot of time is spent talking about "ego" and how it should be "reduced" or "eliminated." It's become one of those tropey witch-hunts in the spiritual community because people don't understand that you are Ego, and to destroy it is to undo yourself. Rather, be mindful of it, its goals--your goals--and the effect they have on the people around you.

I have wrestled with this as well. What I came to recently (as oppossed to all the other times) is that I can do the good, pro-social thing as a matter of course. I can allow it to be my natural action rather than something extra for which I should be rewarded.

And if I find that I want to pat myself on the back about it, I just let myself laugh good naturedly. "Oh, look, I still have room to grow. Ha ha." It's okay.

No fame, no shame. Just do the do.

im not really saying anything new

the egomaniacal are going to be egomaniacal whether we/they give or dont give whether they/we are over here or over there

if what is given is good then let it be given and let it be recieved

its each of our personal responsibility to keep our own egos in perspective

"youre on an ego trip" is the last the thing any ego wants to hear

but a "healthy" ego will allow itself to consider the possibility in an objective manner

being able to be honest with oneself without taking sides either for or against the self is the definition of a "healthy honest ego"

Sorry LTK - couldn't resist hitting the Thank You button on your comment!

Steamboat28 I hear you - my skill with the English language normally breaks down about now (it is my only language ). But isn't that well-behaved, well trained ego an interim step to a realisation that the ego is actually fictitious? I'll spare quoting Alan Watts at you!

:pinch:

Listening to the rumbles as Alan Watts turns over in his grave ....

:whistle:

Loudzoo wrote: Steamboat28 I hear you - my skill with the English language normally breaks down about now (it is my only language ). But isn't that well-behaved, well trained ego an interim step to a realisation that the ego is actually fictitious? I'll spare quoting Alan Watts at you!

Is it fictitious?

Philosophically we can theorize that it may be, but the problem with that in "reality" is that the entire whole of your worldview is viewed through the lens of your ego. If the ego is fictitious--if the "I" doesn't actually exist--then how is it that it can perceive an unprovably objective reality in such a unique, exclusive, subjective manner?

If I am my ego and my ego is me, and my ego is fictitious, then so is the whole of my reality and the whole of my experience. And yet, I perceive that reality and have those experiences. Can fiction exist with no author?