The writer of the first blog seems whiney and smarmy and ironically very egotistical and butthurt. It does not read like someone enlightened or self aware. And of course they are asking for donations to the blog--which is primarily a venue for the writers complaining about people...
As the writer of the blog in question, I'm admittedly biased here, but I have to ask...let's say you're right. Let's say I am indeed whiny, smarmy, very egotistical and very butthurt. Let's say every last thing you accuse me of is correct. What on earth does that have to do with the content of my ideas and whether they're true or false? I could be all of those things and still be correct about the ego trap concept and may still be saying something of value.
What you just did was nothing but an arrogant, egotistical, smarmy, butthurt strawman attack. How is the fact I ask for donations relevant to the actual content of the piece? What is the point of pointing it out other than to advance some more evidence for my supposed inferiority, and by implication, you supposed superiority? Me asking for donations is totally irrelevant to my article and it's irrelevant to the discussion the OP wants to have. You just brought it up, along with the rest of your strawman attacks, to boost up your already inflated ego. The whole comment is just smug and arrogant, which is maybe why my own smugness and arrogance struck such a chord in you. Jung's shadow and what not.
In fact, the writer aptly, yet unknowingly describes their own efforts:
Kind of like how your whole post is an exercise in egotistically displaying your own superiority and being smug and judgmental, yet you are criticizing others for those traits. It seems I'm not the only one who ironically describes traits I'm guilt of. Although to your credit, what you are doing may not be an example of the ego trap. The ego trap is when a person is trying to act enlightened and that attempt to be enlightened ends up just becoming another way to be smug and arrogant and superior. You on the other hand don't even seem to be trying to be anything but smug, arrogant, judgmental, and superior, so you may actually be more intellectually honest than most of us in a weird way.
The second article is presented in a way that may give it more credibility, but it was nothing mind blowing. The word ego trap to me means anything one uses to avoid truly facing themself. It creates overcompensation.
Again, a passive-aggressive way to brag.
First you say: "The second article is better, but it's nothing mindblowing." [Translation: "To YOU peons this may be saying something, but to superior mind like mind it's barely even worth the effort to click my mouse."]
Second: "The word ego trap to me means anything one uses to avoid truly facing themself. It creates overcompensation." [Translation: "Now that I've dismissed the two links as being inferior, and implied that the rest of you are inferior for seeing anything of value in them, let me display my own superiority by lecturing you with my own, obviously better definition."
Your whole comment wasn't so much interested in advancing the content of the discussion but in using the content of the discussion to advance the case for how superior to everyone you are.
To the original poster Triloilium: that second article was pretty good. Thanks for sharing it.