They are words, and what they are relating to is a concept but only in the mind. Buddhist teachings say, outside the mind none of these concepts exist. The mind is made up of the 5 precepts, all of which are empty of individual existance. What you are then left with is the body, but even that doesn't exist independently from it's own side.
The 5 precepts are not the same as what we consider to be the 5 senses. What I 've written is an extremely basic explanation of a very complex subject. 'Emptiness' is really quantum science being taught 2500 years before it was even considered in the west.
There is a separation between perception and consciousness. Perception is 'that which identifies.' The object perceived may be physical or mental, such as an idea. The consciousness is the awareness or sensitivity to an object but without any conceptualisation. If you look to find the self, (observer) in which of these precepts is the observer to be found? They cannot be separated but in reality, as an entity on their own, they do not exist, they are empty of shape, size, form, smell, colour or mass and volume. It's a very difficult subject to realise, I resist calling it a concept because it isn't, it's an awareness that has to be experienced.
To look at it from a different perspective we could consider the Buddhist view of no-self, called anatman or anatta. This is central to Buddhist beliefs, yet it's probably the most difficult to comprehend. I tend to get a simple understanding but I'm far from fully aware of it's true meaning, but it's a fascinating subject for me. Fundamentally Buddhism teaches that an individual is a combination of five aggregates of existence, also called the Five Skandhas or the five heaps:
Form Sensation Perception Mental Formations Consciousness
The first Skandha is our physical form. The second is our feelings -- both emotional and physical -- and our senses -- seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling. The third, perception, takes in most of what we call thinking -- conceptualization, cognition, reasoning. The fourth skandha, mental formations, includes habits, prejudices, and predispositions. This also includes things like our desires, vindictiveness, and many other mental states both virtuous and not virtuous. It's from this skandha that our karma is formed, which becomes cause and effect. The fifth skandha, consciousness, is awareness of or sensitivity to an object, but without conceptualization. Once there is awareness, the third skandha might recognize the object and assign a concept-value to it, and the fourth skandha might react with desire or revulsion or some other mental formation. The fifth skandha is explained in some schools as a base that ties the experience of life together. The important thing to understand and realise about the skandhad is that they are empty. They are not qualities that an individual possesses because there is no-self possessing them. If these qualities contain no real form and none of them can exist independently from their own side, it should be clear that what we call the self, in reality, does not exist.
"Very basically, the Buddha taught that "you" are not an integral, autonomous entity. The individual self, or what we might call the ego, is more correctly thought of as a by-product of the skandhas.
On the surface, this appears to be nihilistic teaching. But the Buddha taught that if we can see through the delusion of the small, individual self, we experience that which is not subject to birth and death."
I'm not sure there is any specific definition, I take it to mean self-torment, so that would include things like jealousy, hatred, anger and all such unwanted emotions.
I don't know how many people are familiar with the TV series Killing Eve, but I am in awe of Jodie Comer's incredible ability to mimic so many accents, especially when you hear her talk in her native Liverpudlian accent. It's little wonder she was awarded a Grammy......
In the world of psychology the ego, it's functions and it's 'foibles' are well researched and documented. It's not some kind of mysterious force that we speculate about, it's actually very basic psychology.
I don't think ego can be labelled as good or bad, that would just be someones opinion. From the ego's narrow view of the world the task is security, dominance andthe cessation of conflict, in a balanced mind at least. But the proper role of the ego is to have a collaborative relationship with the Self, the observer I mentioned earlier. Due to it's need for autonomy the ego will try to resist openess and can lack the will to negotiate with the Self, it really wants to rule the roost and remain in control. The ego then becomes an attachment to the wrong image of my Self or belief about my Self. Ego becomes the the Self, the 'I' that says 'I am' attaching itself to an image or belief which I then mistake for my Self..... Consequently, the ego becomes the false self, the 'I" attaching to and identifying with an image that is not the Self. If the observer, (the true Self) sits quietly for long enough and observes, this will become fully apparent.
Well for most of us, for most of the time playing a role is what we do. The name of the actor is ego and the characters played are many. It's possible to sit back and observe this actor by being very still and mentally very quiet, then we will learn so much' and maybe even no longer need to act but just be.
bodleing2 Forum Posts (6,132)
RE: Say .... Nothing, ... STF Up Thread #2