Dharma Wheel

In fighting the ego, certain things come up, and certain things are let go. We learn equanimity in the process. However, I've noticed something else. I suffer from low self-esteem, and have my whole life. Leaning to deal with certain things in relation to low self-esteem, it seems that some correspond, or at least are very similar, to getting rid of the ego. So my question, is how can one tell the difference if one is letting go of something because of low-self esteem, or because one is progressing on the path?

What you let go on the path are the bad things, unwholesome emotions. They are like: greed, anger, ignorance, arrogance, doubt (about the Dharma), envy, deceit, harmfulness, etc. Here is one list from the Theravada tradition: akusala cetasika. Another list under klesa (Mental Disturbances) and upaklesa (Secondary Mental Disturbances) that is used in Mahayana: The One Hundred Dharmas.

At the same time, you cultivate all the good qualities: kusala cetasika. Similar list under kusala (Advantageous) in the 100 dharmas collection.

All estimation over you,only estimation over the self,but maybe changed,are we on the same way.It is an different thing,the psychologist estimation and the non-conceptual understanding.

First mistake.
Ego is a fact of samsara. Fighting it, trying to stop it is pointless. Your ego just becomes the one doing the fighting.
Instead, just let loose of attachment to ego.
That's practically effortless by comparison.
Then, you can even be a famous celebrity and not be burdened by ego.
.
.
.

Speaking from past experience whose broad outlines can't really be unique, very low self-esteem (a.k.a "self-hatred") can involve one's sense of oneself appearing to point to some kind of impostor, and this generates intense cognitive dissonance and anger against the situation. In other words, *ego* ignorantly misapprehends a distorted reflection of what others see of oneself, with aversion, and likely also attaches to an ideal image of how oneself should be in all respects. Other more subtle or underlying forms of low self-esteem can be generated in other ways, such as by avoiding challenges (typically in order to avoid the risk of downgrading one's self-image), but it's ego -in the literal sense of "one's sense of an irreducible self"- that can be shown to be the common factor behind such strategies.

Seeing that minute, momentary currents and eddies of holding back and flowing forward, determined by inborn, ingrained, or still-unfolding habits as well as by the situation, are all that's needed to define how oneself and others will see 'you' -rather than any "self-substance"- suggests that low self-esteem is absurd by definition. The "spanner in the works" that triggers the "self-esteem" issue in this picture, and which might be seen as "weaponized" by vipakas such as autism, a nervous disposition, or whatever other subtler or less-subtle factors may present in different cases (to the point that perhaps only enlightened beings are completely free from it)- is a thought pattern that runs along the lines of "to really be me, I need to secure x, y, and z etc. etc.". We can hopefully all appreciate from experience (never mind meditation) that this is all that's needed to take one's mind off life as it unfolds from moment to moment, and that the makeshift solution one happens upon (based on past habits and experience) could be anything from the blocking of fleeting perceptions (by obsessive thoughts) to uncontrolled hedonistic indulgence. The particular form this distraction finally takes in relation to the surrounding world -and this need be no more substantial than the shape in which a wave happens to brake on a beach- can then be labelled 'Self'.

Erring by a hair's breadth, one misses by a thousand miles.

{From http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/ ... 7p024e.pdf}

Once you've seen through the illusion of self in this way, you may realise you don't need to discover all the conditions for being some kind of superman, still less to experience constant pleasure. This sounds like enough, in theory, to defuse what can only be a self-destructive process in the case of self-aversion. One could then re-focus on what's happening externally as well as internally, and on living to the best of one's ability without the barriers set by fear. If you still have your youth, this might be nerve-wracking atfirst, but it'll make a more useful difference.

Nonetheless, habits run deep, and I will be judged as drifting out of my depth here. I wonder, though, whether or not any "realised beings" have "present-life" experience of this kind of problem that they could draw on - As long as one has atleast a superficial (i.e. intellectual) grasp of the relevant dharma, it seems fair for people to try and help each other along where it's difficult to hear and be heard by the people at the 'top'.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:First mistake.
Ego is a fact of samsara. Fighting it, trying to stop it is pointless. Your ego just becomes the one doing the fighting.
Instead, just let loose of attachment to ego.
That's practically effortless by comparison.
Then, you can even be a famous celebrity and not be burdened by ego.

- As usual you seem to have packaged a vajrayana-level perspective in terms a beginning meditator can understand, this being a maha/vajra-yana forum and all. But -because I see *a lot* of stepping stones between "here" and "there"- this can be infuriating at times; for example, I can't see how you're not fighting ego by loosening attachment to it -if you know that this will 'unburden' and ultimately free you of it-

The level of energy and commitment involved in desiring things to be a certain way has to be a problem here. I feel this is on-topic, because of how self-esteem seems to gravitate less to extremes the older people get, by which time any damage has already been done - Dharma practice becomes easier as life's energy becomes less intensely physical, but when it's easier then it's unlikely to be as beneficial

I guess this is where anatta/sunyata comes in - There's little sense in 'energetically committing' to being attached to something you've learned is a fraud

dyanaprajna2011 wrote:In fighting the ego, certain things come up, and certain things are let go. We learn equanimity in the process. However, I've noticed something else. I suffer from low self-esteem, and have my whole life. Leaning to deal with certain things in relation to low self-esteem, it seems that some correspond, or at least are very similar, to getting rid of the ego. So my question, is how can one tell the difference if one is letting go of something because of low-self esteem, or because one is progressing on the path?

All just in the context of personal experience regarding meditation:

I think that honestly letting go of something will by necessity lead to what would be defined as "higher self esteem" in modern terms. I haven't been able to fight the ego either personally, just look closely at it until there was a humble bit of insight into what it actually is. I don't know how letting go, in a Buddhist context would ever be the result of low self esteem..letting go is not the same thing as avoidance, it's acceptance.

You can start to see that since there is no "me", but only this collection of inter connectivity, "you" are actually just kind of collections of nodes of that inter connectivity, which both frees you from the need to be anyone specific, but it also shows you what is possible, and that maybe there is some freedom involved in what you previously thought was a self. Since there's nothing really fixed, there is alot of room to be whatever you want, or to to not be anything at all.

At any rate, there's nothing to be ashamed about or to try to forcefully change, outside of those 'external' actions which harm others and create demerit of course.. if you don't like yourself start by accepting that fact. It's my experience (and mine only of course) that you are better off just accepting what's there and looking at it until you see it more clearly, than you are trying to actively go in an re-arrange what you think of as yourself. The problem with doing that is that since we really have no ontological certainty whatsoever about what we really are, trying to change it from such a deluded viewpoint will only lead to the creation of something newer, with the exact same flaws we were trying to escape.

If I can share the simple thing that I feel (hope i'm right) has helped me, it was just sitting and allowing myself to be bored, and trying to look deeply at the bad feeling I got every time a thought would arise about "myself", if this happen you can use your thoughts to direct you to the appearance of your ego or whatever you want to call it, and you can see it a a little better. Boredom and ennui are a great tool.

Usual disclaimer applies, all this is sophomoric nonsense i'm sure;)

Johnny Dangerous wrote:The problem with doing that is that since we really have no ontological certainty whatsoever about what we really are, trying to change it from such a deluded viewpoint will only lead to the creation of something newer, with the exact same flaws we were trying to escape.

The proverbial 'bull in a china shop' seems likely too - Whatever good you possessed is likely to get trashed unless you can see through the seeming solidity (to the fluidity you hint at) enough to tinker around. Even then, there's nothing that's being changed - It's more a case of shedding new light on different areas, and the deeper matrices of one's being won't be stirred up atfirst.

I guess enlightenment would come much quicker if it weren't for the problem of acceptance. Nietzsche defined acceptance -which he called "Amor Fati" ("Love of Fate")- as being prepared to tolerate the same conditions being repeated *for ever*. Buddhism "cheats" by reassuring us that we won't have to put up with any one condition for long, but we're still left with the end of suffering coming about by our *no longer wanting it to happen*, in a context in which any straightforward resignation racks up enough severe negative karma to knock you off the Path (unless you starve to death first ).

There again, it seems we wouldn't be in whatever mess we may be in if it our minds hadn't always done the same old same old _ _

I think the ego and self-esteem is everyone's problem whether they acknowledge it or not. If our physical appearances look good, then we might now worry about how ugly we look. But now the ego tells us that we are beautiful and better than ugly looking ones. Or something like that. So the ego manifests itself in all forms whether we acknowledge it or not. Psychologically speaking, when our expectations of our self image are not met, we don't feel measured up. I think then it is best to be aware of our own thoughts as they arise, and not feed into them. Don't give those thoughts attention. And lastly, all is created by our mind. We have the power to change. We don't have to feel this way or be this way if we don't want to. Who can stop us?

dyanaprajna2011 wrote: Leaning to deal with certain things in relation to low self-esteem, it seems that some correspond, or at least are very similar, to getting rid of the ego. So my question, is how can one tell the difference if one is letting go of something because of low-self esteem, or because one is progressing on the path?

In western terminology, ego and self-esteem are regarded as practically the same thing. We say that somebody who has a big ego thinks very highly of himself. But In Buddhism, ego is a little bit different. In fact, Low self-esteem is also a type of ego clinging.

It comes down to fixating on "this is me...this is who I am...this is the way I am" ...and solidifying that in the mind. That makes it very hard to shake loose all of the problems that arise as a result of that solidifying.

Everybody has doubts about their abilities, about what they can achieve, about how they will be regarded by others. The problem is not that we have these doubts, but the problem is that we regard these doubts as real, as having some real power, when we know really that they are just habits of thinking.

There is the story by Aesop about the fox and the grapes. The fox wanted to eat grapes but he couldn't reach them, so he said. "Well, they are probably sour anyhow" and walks away. This is, of course, just a kind of rationalization. We don't get what we want, so we frame it in such a way that not wanting it is what we want. That's ego. That's the need for everything to be okay. Because if things are not okay, we feel off balance and that is a confrontation to who we think we are. The fox doesn't say, "oh well, I am really disappointed that I couldn't get those grapes", and acknowledges that disappointment, and let's go of that disappointment. No, he doesn't do that. But that would be practicing non-attachment. Instead, he blames the grapes.

So, this can happen in dharma practice. We want something, but we don't get it, so we say, "well then, I just won't have any attachment to that". So, the result is we don't get what we want, but we give ourselves a big shot of ego juice for being such good little detached Buddhists. It's really just an excuse. Ego hates losing, so we rewrite the situation so that we win.

Which comes back to your question. How do you know if you are really letting go, or just giving up?
Sometimes giving up can be good, because it can break us out of habits of always wanting more and more.
If you are happy with where you are and don't really need to change anything, then this might be a sign that your dharma practice is effective.

But if you are feeling miserable as a result of having not accomplished things, and having all sorts of self doubt is keeping you from being happy, then this is not a sign of dharma accomplishment.

But, it can be a sign that you can recognize as ego clinging, and that's a good start.
.
.
.

dyanaprajna2011 wrote: So my question, is how can one tell the difference if one is letting go of something because of low-self esteem, or because one is progressing on the path?

Giving something up out of low self-esteem is an attempt at psychological suicide/nihilism. Giving something up as one progresses on the path is because one is opening up to the unconfined spaciousness of one's empty nature.

Getting rid of the ego should not feel similar to low self-esteem. Loss of the ego is a loss of reference to a self, so any sense of high or low self-esteem will diminish.

Low self-esteem is a part of an ego.
It exists as a problem only because of differentiation, when we think that it should be like this, or like that. When we don't see high self-esteem as something good, and low self-esteem as something bad, then the source of the problem is removed, and low self-esteem is gone. Easier said then done because, through interactions with environment and society, we see that high self-esteem is something good. It is rewarded directly, or indirectly. The question is, how do we value those rewards, and why.
Self-esteem is conditioned. We can redesign is through conditioning, or uncondition it completely.

dyanaprajna2011 wrote:In fighting the ego, certain things come up, and certain things are let go. We learn equanimity in the process. However, I've noticed something else. I suffer from low self-esteem, and have my whole life. Leaning to deal with certain things in relation to low self-esteem, it seems that some correspond, or at least are very similar, to getting rid of the ego. So my question, is how can one tell the difference if one is letting go of something because of low-self esteem, or because one is progressing on the path?

What have you had to let go?

SunRay wrote:

dyanaprajna2011 wrote:In fighting the ego, certain things come up, and certain things are let go. We learn equanimity in the process. However, I've noticed something else. I suffer from low self-esteem, and have my whole life. Leaning to deal with certain things in relation to low self-esteem, it seems that some correspond, or at least are very similar, to getting rid of the ego. So my question, is how can one tell the difference if one is letting go of something because of low-self esteem, or because one is progressing on the path?

What have you had to let go?

I just realized I haven't checked on this thread in awhile. I apologize for the late response.

I've had to let go of things that would normally constitute the good life to someone...um..."normal" (which I know is a bad term to use, but I'm not sure what else to call it, hopefully the gist of what I'm saying gets across). I've let go of the fact that I'll never be happy with "things", material things that I'd likely never have, due to the idea that, because of my low self-esteem, keeps me from "getting ahead in the real world" (re: materialism). I know I'm never going to have a big house, fancy car, large bank account, things like that. And now, I'm ok with that. But my question: is this due to me progressing on the path, or because of my low self-esteem that keeps me from achieving worldly success?

dyanaprajna2011 wrote: I know I'm never going to have a big house, fancy car, large bank account, things like that. And now, I'm ok with that. But my question: is this due to me progressing on the path, or because of my low self-esteem that keeps me from achieving worldly success?

The fact is, we never know what lies ahead.
A big car, fancy house, etc. are just things. They are only "signs of success" to people who impute that value to them.
Of course, millions of people do, but that doesn't make it true. Millions of people often believe complete lies.
If you want a big car and fancy house or whatever,
and you are using dharma (or anything...society...low self esteem...childhood trauma...whatever)
as an excuse for not trying to get what will make you happy,
then whether those things really bring happiness or not isn't the point,
and an excuse is an excuse no matter what it is.

Consider this:
If lying on the ground watching clouds float by is enough to make you happy,
That's great. You don't have to try very hard to do that.
You may be happier doing that than somebody is floating in their private swimming pool.
That is success for you.
But if you say, "Oh, it might rain" or whatever,
you are not taking responsibility for your own happiness.
you are leaving it up to the weather.

But, we never know what will lie ahead. maybe it will rain and maybe it won't.
So, the point is not the objects that you think are making you happy,
but what is going on in your own mind.
That is where happiness, and thus success, comes from...from your own mind.

If "worldly success" as you call it, matters to you, then that's one thing.
If it doesn't, then that's different.
Does it really matter to you, or not?
.
.
.

Low self-esteem is very much a western concept. In the past it was just called 'being shy' Now the clinician speak has taken over with low self-esteem, anal retentive, closure
confident type A personality...... loser, winner etc it goes on and on.
If we constantly compare ourselves with others, we are forever in the past or the future. If we remain still in the now there are no comparisons, no others to judge and no feeling of being inferior or superior.

dyanaprajna2011 wrote: But my question: is this due to me progressing on the path, or because of my low self-esteem that keeps me from achieving worldly success?

I don't know, but I suspect it is most likely a combination of both. The fact that you are even asking the question is a very good sign, IMO. Keep watching. . .

is this due to me progressing on the path, or because of my low self-esteem that keeps me from achieving worldly success?

Progress on the path allows the option.
So for example low self esteem can manifest as arrogance or humility. So we may consider ourself progressing or arrogantly assume we are 'humble' or are becoming 'more advanced'.
Be confident in yourself. If you can not, you have as I feel you already know, low self esteem. Now it is confirmed. You did not even have the confidence to confirm it to yourself . . .

What can be done? Many things. Did you require suggestions? Of course you do. However you already know so many potential practices and resources . . . so get on with it . . .

dyanaprajna2011 wrote:

SunRay wrote:

dyanaprajna2011 wrote:In fighting the ego, certain things come up, and certain things are let go. We learn equanimity in the process. However, I've noticed something else. I suffer from low self-esteem, and have my whole life. Leaning to deal with certain things in relation to low self-esteem, it seems that some correspond, or at least are very similar, to getting rid of the ego. So my question, is how can one tell the difference if one is letting go of something because of low-self esteem, or because one is progressing on the path?

What have you had to let go?

I just realized I haven't checked on this thread in awhile. I apologize for the late response.

I've had to let go of things that would normally constitute the good life to someone...um..."normal" (which I know is a bad term to use, but I'm not sure what else to call it, hopefully the gist of what I'm saying gets across). I've let go of the fact that I'll never be happy with "things", material things that I'd likely never have, due to the idea that, because of my low self-esteem, keeps me from "getting ahead in the real world" (re: materialism). I know I'm never going to have a big house, fancy car, large bank account, things like that. And now, I'm ok with that. But my question: is this due to me progressing on the path, or because of my low self-esteem that keeps me from achieving worldly success?

IMHO the best way to look at it is this:

Are you doing what you want to do on some level, or are the afflictions keeping you from being fulfilled somehow?

In a basic worldly sense, a fulfilling life, as much as one can exist in samsara, is one where you get to pursue temporal happiness with a mind that somewhat has the afflictions at bay. For some people, afflictions drive them to crave and pursue "success", for some of us, it's opposite, we are kept from pursuing anything by them.

If your practice is allowing you to understand (albeit in a completely worldly sense) what is fulfilling for you and to do that without the afflictions making your decisions for you, whether it fits the norms expected of you or not, then in the worldly way it is working correctly...I think.