avatarUlf Wolf

Summary

The provided text delves into the concept of the ego, its illusory nature, and its role in the human-centric view of life, drawing on religious and philosophical perspectives.

Abstract

The article "The Ego Battle" discusses the ego as a central theme, portraying it as an entity that perceives itself in constant struggle against the world. It explores the Buddhist perspective that the ego does not exist as a separate entity but is part of a greater sentience. The narrative extends to the concept of Maya or Samsara, the illusion of life, and critiques the anthropocentric view that places humans above other living beings, particularly examining the teachings of figures like Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The text also cites biblical passages that have been interpreted to justify human dominion over animals and reflects on the ethical implications of this worldview, contrasting it with the compassionate poetry of William Blake. The author ultimately suggests that transcending the ego leads to a profound sense of relief and questions the validity of the zero-sum game of survival that the ego perpetuates.

Opinions

  • The ego is portrayed as an illusory construct that creates a sense of separation and struggle against the world.
  • The Buddha and various Buddhist traditions deny the existence of a separate ego, emphasizing the concept of sentience without individual entities.
  • The article criticizes the anthropocentric views of Christianity and other religions that justify human superiority and exploitation of animals.
  • Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are cited as proponents of the belief that animals exist solely for human use and benefit.
  • Biblical references are provided to support the notion of human dominion over the Earth and its creatures, which the author challenges.
  • The author, Ulf Wolf, aligns with William Blake's perspective, showing empathy towards animals and questioning the morality of human actions against them.
  • The text suggests that the dissolution of the ego, as experienced by Buddhist meditators, brings about a significant sense of liberation.
  • The author implies that karma may serve as a moral accounting system for the zero-sum game of life, where one's gain is another's loss.

The Ego Battle

Ruler of Nothing

Image by Author

It alone against the world, the ego — its illusory life

It’s a grim scenario, this; grimmer still for being utterly real to the poor Ego, all the while struggling to keep up (and out of trouble), or keep down (and in trouble).

Ever thumping its own chest in defiance of all alien forces or scurrying for cover hopefully ahead of them, the Ego (in its heart of hearts) knows that it’s him (or her) against the rest of the planet: unfair odds to be sure, but what’s a poor Ego to do.

The Buddha Gotama was very specific. And all his spiritual offspring (the many different Buddhist strains that sprung up after his death some 2,500 years ago) that while disagreeing on many petty (in my view) details do agree. There is no such thing as Ego.

There are no sentient beings, only sentience.

Which, as the ultimate aside, naturally begs this question: how on earth did the One Ultimate Sentience (some named it Emptiness or Brahman or Tao or The One Mind) manage to fragment itself into a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillon trillion (et cetera) little bits, each called Ego and each with its own unique viewpoint?

And how is it that this fragmentation still seems to hold water?

I guess the answer to that question is that clear light at the end of the Samadhi Tunnel, to be reached one beautiful day by one and all.

Meanwhile, however, back to the Ego and its Illusion.

Concluding Herman Hesse’s “The Glass Bead Game” you will find “The Three Lives” written by the book’s main character Joseph Knecht (Magister Ludi). The last of these lives is “The Indian Life” which is as great a rendition of Maya (the illusion of Life) as I have ever read.

While the Buddha spoke of Samsara, the Upanishads spoke of Maya. Same concept: the illusory life we’re all trying (and mostly failing) to come to grips with, starring: yes indeed: The Ego.

But one thing when it comes to Maya or Samsara: it is a zero-sum game.

On this Earth, for you to live someone or something else must die. This is obviously true of food but also of much else. Their bad luck, really, all those critters (and fish and fowl) that fall prey to our appetites daily to keep us strong. But, lucky for us (far too many maintain), the Bible specifically tells us to lord over all things non-human, so that’s all there for our taking (and digesting) then, isn’t it?

Indeed. It would seem that, according to Scripture, the Ego game is very much rigged in our favor.

Christianity, for one, views animals without much compassion and has held human beings as greatly superior to all other animals, and, has, in a word, held all lives non-human as food.

This being the amazing case, let me digress a little to illuminate this human-supremacy fallacy with the views of some celebrated Christians; after all, human beings were made in the image of God, and God chose human form for his (Jesus’s) earthly life and God has decreed that human beings shall lord it over all animals.

Yes, indeed.

First, let us turn Sain Augustine, who (for all his virtuous attributes) taught that animals existed entirely for the benefit of humanity. Why? Because:

· Human beings are rational;

· Rational beings are entitled to rule irrational beings;

· Human beings can tame animals — animals can’t tame human beings;

· Animals are not rational;

· Animals don’t even know that they are alive.

So there. Though the strain in his somewhat simplistic (sleight-of-hand) logic echoes even today.

Another church father, Thomas Aquinas, was equally unconcerned with the welfare of animals, and taught the following:

· Animals were created to be used by human beings;

· Animals do not have the ability to reason, and are therefore inferior to human beings;

· The status of animals is demonstrated by the fact that the punishment for killing someone else’s animal is a punishment for despoiling that person’s property, not for killing the animal.

(Excepting, of course, the Old Wild West, where they hung you for stealing a horse, while for killing some other cowboy in a brawl one might get a night in the smaller and a fine).

Thomas Aquinas taught that the universe was a hierarchy with God at the top. Each layer in this hierarchy existed solely to serve the layer(s) above it. Humanity came above the animals, so animals existed to serve humankind. Point proven.

Again, I’m not overly impressed by the water-tightness of this logic.

Aquinas also stressed the view that animals do not have immortal souls, whereas man, naturally, does.

In modern times, Karl Barth, some say the greatest theologian of the 20th century, towed the dogma line and taught that God’s choice of human form for his (Jesus’s) incarnation showed that human beings are more important than non-human animals — a wild assumption, if you ask me, but I’m not a great theologian.

The Good Book itself weighs in on this, naturally.

As follows:

Genesis 1:26–28: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

And Genesis 9:2–3: The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

And who can argue with God.

This, in essence, is a cart blanche for humanity to do with the Earth as it sees fit and pleases — and it does. And it is good. God said so.

So there. The meat industry, for one, clearly and heavenly justified by the Holy Book and its many masters.

Ever seen the wide-open, wild eyes of a cow lead to slaughter in one of these meat factories? She knows she’s going to die. She knows.

I really don’t believe that this was God’s plan, no matter what the Bible says.

Now, William Blake, on the other hand — a more compassionate soul, if you ask me — has this to say about his fellow animals:

A Robin Red breast in a Cage Puts all Heaven in a Rage A Dove house filld with doves & Pigeons Shudders Hell thro all its regions A dog starvd at his Masters Gate Predicts the ruin of the State A Horse misusd upon the Road Calls to Heaven for Human blood Each outcry of the hunted Hare A fibre from the Brain does tear A Skylark wounded in the wing A Cherubim does cease to sing The Game Cock clipd & armd for fight Does the Rising Sun affright Every Wolfs & Lions howl Raises from Hell a Human Soul The wild deer wandring here & there Keeps the Human Soul from Care The Lamb misusd breeds Public strife And yet forgives the Butchers Knife The Bat that flits at close of Eve Has left the Brain that wont Believe The Owl that calls upon the Night Speaks the Unbelievers fright He who shall hurt the little Wren Shall never be belovd by Men He who the Ox to wrath has movd Shall never be by Woman lovd The wanton Boy that kills the Fly Shall feel the Spiders enmity He who torments the Chafers sprite Weaves a Bower in endless Night The Catterpiller on the Leaf Repeats to thee thy Mothers grief Kill not the Moth nor Butterfly For the Last judgment draweth nigh

Let me state for the record that I come down firmly on the side of Blake; very, much so. His contemporaries, interestingly, completely ignored him while History, that 20/20 hindsight wonder, seems to hold Blake in much higher esteem, and for good reason.

But then (let’s get back to the Ego), but then, someone else’s survival — someone who is far bigger than you and far more powerful than you (be it man or animal) — suddenly hinges on you losing, on you taking one in the minus-column, and here comes scurry time.

Oh, please, please not me. I’m just an innocent little ego who wouldn’t hurt a fly (you lie, scurrying), while the survival needs of the greater than you don’t give a damn, arranging their napkin and cutlery just so.

I sometimes wonder if Karma is not this zero-sum game’s official scoreboard.

I have read more than one account of Buddhist (both Pali and Zen) meditators reaching the point in their practice where the Self dilutes into a virtual nothing and with it (naturally, since they’re one and the same) the Ego. And they all agree: there is no sense of relief more profound.

Stepping out of the zero-sum game.

Shedding that little beast.

Good riddance, Ego.

P.S. If you like what you’ve read here and would like to contribute to the creative motion, as it were, you can do so via PayPal: here.

© Wolfstuff

Ego
Self
Bible
Blake
Buddhism
Recommended from ReadMedium
avatarPeter D'Autry
Our Sense of Self is an Illusion

Where Psychology, Philosophy, and Mysticism agree

10 min read
avatarMatthew
The Problem of Evil

And the unavoidable religiousness of reality

8 min read
avatarDeepak Chopra
The Universe Is Inviting You to Participate

By Deepak Chopra, MD, FACP, FRCP

5 min read
avatarAri Love
3 Shocking Things You Didn’t Know About Past Lives

Your past life didn’t happen to you; it’s happening for you.

4 min read
avatarAndy Murphy
The World’s Greatest Lie (According to Paulo Coelho)

And then the world’s greatest truth

2 min read
avatarAlberto García 🚀🚀🚀
5 Signals Your Soul Sends You When It Wants to Alert You of Something (or Someone)

#5. The cry-a-river moments.

3 min read