LordOfGoblins

Hi everyone.
I want to start this thread for really hard or moderately hard questions relating to the Bahai faith and how to relates to reality and philosophy and also to try and iron-out any contradictions that might seem to exist in the writings.
I want to start with this general question.
One of the virtues of the virtues guide is confidence. We are meant to be confident, as I understand it in our dealings with every day life and also in teaching the faith especially.
On the other hand we are told to eliminate our egos and be humble.
So here is the question.

"What is the difference between confidence and ego?"

We dont want to go through lives with low self-esteem mistaking it for low-ego right??
cheers

cire perdue

Sorry, but that is very unclear. Ego is not the opposite of confidence. I say rephrase the question. Ego is with us and will be with us until we die. There are better ways to phrase that. I can't suggest the better word at the moment due to my limitations. I tend to think one should accept and make peace with the ego. Ego by itself is not an enemy, nor are thoughts, ideas, and feelings.

LordOfGoblins

Hi CP.
What is unclear?
I meant to say ego seems to resemble confidence. In other words. Ego traditionally is used to describe someone with a "big-head". Meaning they think themselves a great person. To me this also resembles a confident person. On the other hand we are told that humility is a virtue, which is the opposite of arrogance. So you see, there seems to be a small amount of conflict.
I know there shouldnt be a conflict.
When you say Ego is not the enemy, I am not sure what to reply to that. Are we not supposed to diminish our egos as Bahais to obtain perfection?

"When a thought of war comes oppose it by a stronger thought of peace. A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of love".

Does that verse from Abdul'Baha sound a little like we are at war with our lower nature?

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins "What is the difference between confidence and ego?"

I agree these are in no way opposites.

Perhaps you should match confidence with "certitude" instead.

Peace,

Bruce

cire perdue

I'm sorry, but I in no way understand the ego as such. Desires are to let die as well as passions, but not the ego. The ego is here to stay until we die in my understanding. I say acceptance is the most important practice. It does not matter what one feels or thinks or wants only what one does with it. Fighting anything makes it worse, accepting it allows choice. I say that would make the ego pretty important as that is part of the doer that contributes to the choices to be spiritual or base. However when I was 20 I would have been very comfortable with the idea of eradicating the ego by yoga, mediation, and works of karma such as carrying cockroaches out of the house. However the virtues are about making choices and developing them over time, not eliminating the ego. The Writings do not talk about removing the ego. Do they? I think you think we thought like that about the ego, we don't. We don't diminish our egos, we increase our spritual virtues, if anything we learn tolove and are at eace with our egos. Tosay that one is going to diminish one's ego is like saying one is lesseing one's intelligence. It's a faculty or part of one, not a virtue or vice. To use ego in that way is confusing. ONe would do more good by loving one's ego, any other approach would seem to be an ascetic practice that is to me of no use. Asceticism is extreme practice that will not live well in the world requiring too much effort too maintain with questionable results.

LordOfGoblins

hmmm.
Do you have ocean??
type in ego and see what you get. You will be surprised!
As long as we are talking about the lower ego and not the higher ego which is something different entirely.

"
The only people who are truly free of the "dross of self" are the Prophets, for to be free of one's ego is a hall-mark of perfection. We humans are never going to become perfect, for perfection belongs to a realm we are not destined to enter. However, we must constantly mount higher, seek to be more perfect.

The ego is the animal in us, the heritage of the flesh which is full of selfish desires. By obeying the laws of God, seeking to live the life laid down in our teachings, and prayer and struggle, we can subdue our egos. We call people "saints" who have achieved the highest degree of mastery over their egos.

(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 453)

Anyway I have the feeling we are not on the same page...

cire perdue

I see exactly what you are saying. We aren't on the same page.

However in practicality I still cannot get rid of "I" until I die. To root out my ego makes no sense. I still say the ego is part of the decision making in my life and to make peace with it is to conquer it. We can subdue the ego, but I don't see it as the evil of my life. I see it as part of me to be trained as a child and known as an adult. That subdues it. We subdue it with virtures for instance.

Yeshua

Abdu'l-Baha, in Paris Talks, explains more about the concept of "Sainthood" (ie overcoming ego/lower nature) in the Baha'i Faith. He says that we should all strive to become Saints. Its worth a deep read. He is reflecting on the Catholic holy day of "All Saints" (one of my favourite days on the liturgical calendar). In Catholicism, All Saints' Day is a Holy Day of Obligation, meaning going to Mass on the date is required unless one has a good reason to be excused, such as illness. The concept of the "Saint" is very important within Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, as it is certain forms of Islam (particularly Sufism) and it is no less important, clearly, in the Baha'i Faith:


"...Today is a day of rejoicing in Paris! They are celebrating the Festival of 'All Saints'. Why do you think that these people were called Saints'? The word has a very real meaning. A saint is one who leads a life of purity, one who has freed himself from all human weaknesses and imperfections. In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man's spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man's Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint. Man has the power both to do good and to do evil; if his power for good predominates and his inclinations to do wrong are conquered, then man in truth may be called a saint. But if, on the contrary, he rejects the things of God and allows his evil passions to conquer him, then he is no better than a mere animal. Saints are men who have freed themselves from the world of matter and who have overcome sin. They live in the world but are not of it, their thoughts being continually in the world of the spirit. Their lives are spent in holiness, and their deeds show forth love, justice and godliness. They are illumined from on high; they are as bright and shining lamps in the dark places of the earth. These are the saints of God. The apostles, who were the disciples of Jesus Christ, were just as other men are; they, like their fellows, were attracted by the things of the world, and each thought only of his own advantage. They knew little of justice, nor were the Divine perfections found in their midst. But when they followed Christ and believed in Him, their ignorance gave place to understanding, cruelty was changed to justice, falsehood to truth, darkness into light. They had been worldly, they became spiritual and divine. They had been children of darkness, they became sons of God, they became saints! Strive therefore to follow in their steps, leaving all worldly things behind, and striving to attain to the Spiritual Kingdom...God sent His Prophets into the world to teach and enlighten man, to explain to him the mystery of the Power of the Holy Spirit, to enable him to reflect the light, and so in his turn, to be the source of guidance to others. The Heavenly Books, the Bible, the Qur'an, and the other Holy Writings have been given by God as guides into the paths of Divine virtue, love, justice and peace. Therefore I say unto you that ye should strive to follow the counsels of these Blessed Books, and so order your lives that ye may, following the examples set before you, become yourselves the saints of the Most High!"

- Paris Talks, p60

LordOfGoblins

Evil are vices to be gotten rid of. Perhaps its the emphasis on wording that does not appeal to you but I think if you put aside what sounds "nice" you will see that pretty much the ego is bad and we are meant to diminish it in order to become perfect. Yes we are not meant to despise ourself in the process of that, at least I dont think we are because self-loathing leads to depression(been through that) and depression leads nowhere but being inactive and useless.
Thats another tough question.
But anyway I guess I will just have to leave the topic alone.
THanks for your responses...

cire perdue

Lemme tell ya something. Some depression is physiological, bipolar is physiological, NOT pyschological.

Baha'is do not believe we are "bad". I still say ego is just there. I would not overemphasize it or underemphasize it. It actually ceases to be a useful term. The psych realm is not going to talk about the ego. I think the most basic ideas are what one should focus on: What do I feel? What do I think? What do I need? What do I want? I think being aware of these 4 questions daily in one's life is the opportunity to apply virtues. How are you going to get rid of ego anyway? I saw love it (yourself) and make peace with it (yourself).

Rani

I see the word 'ego' in two ways.

In one sense, ego is just our sense of self. In that sense there is no judgement attached to it. Rather it is intrinsic to us, and is not to be disparaged.

On the other hand when 'ego' is used in the Writings in a negative sense, I think it relates to pride, arrogance, rejection of God, or reliance on other things apart from God, whether it be (the) self, or on material things, or an inordinate pursuit of status perhaps. etc.

On the other hand, confidence is a positive quality when it is rooted in our acceptance and knowledge of God's love for us, and our expression of that Love in our lives; in our carrying out of our purpose, our jobs, and in the way we treat and care for others.

If (self) -confidence has its roots in other things though, such as the way we look or on our achievements, this can be temporal in this life.. anything can be taken through accident or a change in circumstance; but even if it lasts a long time, this kind of confidence usually helps the person who has it, but I don't think it will be that helpful to others.
Confidence with a good source will have positive effects in service and love for others.


"Regarding the questions you asked: Self has really two meanings, or is used in two senses, in the Bahá'í writings; one is self, the identity of the individual created by God. This is the self mentioned in such passages as 'he hath known God who hath known himself etc.'. The other self is the ego, the dark, animalistic heritage each one of us has, the lower nature that can develop into a monster of selfishness, brutality, lust and so on. It is this self we must struggle against, or this side of our natures, in order to strengthen and free the spirit within us and help it to attain perfection."

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 113)

These tests, even as thou didst write, do but cleanse the spotting of self from off the mirror of the heart, till the Sun of Truth can cast its rays thereon; for there is no veil more obstructive than the self, and however tenuous that veil may be, at the last it will completely shut a person out, and deprive him of his portion of eternal grace.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 182)

LordOfGoblins

Thanks Rani. Its nice when someone actually attempts to answer the question.. lol..
I will read your post in greater detail later.
love to you dear sister.

Xue

It seems that the writings quoted here are using the term 'ego' in the everyday - and what I would say - mistaken sense. It would be nice to have any forum members who are psychologists to comment on this term ego. The ego, as we know, is part of Freud's concept of mind - and it is given to us via translation at that. I am certainly not a Freudian expert but my understanding is that the ego is the sphere of the mind which mediates between our id, and the external world.

The ego operates according to the reality principle: it tries to find solutions to our inner (primarily biological needs) in a manner which is befitting to our society, and in ways which are efficient. In the Freudian sense I do not think the ego is any where near the 'animalistic' side of our mind. If anything, the 'id' seems to be the sphere which resemble the 'animalistic' and it is actually the ego which tries to control those drives.

As for the difference between confidence and arrogance, that is a tough one. I'm not sure what to say.