Who Are You? Using Self-Inquiry To Wake Up (w/ Dr. Angelo DiLullo)

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

Making you creator of consciousness.

You're doing that all the time anyway.

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

They want to be believed and proven right if they
have not come to terms with the archetype of magic residing in human consciousness.

In later works Jung was slated for delving more into the esoteric knowledge rather than staying with the scientific, and if he had mentioned the Ahamkara to his colleagues in the science society at the time, modern psychology would most likely still be in the dark ages. But there is no difference between that and Eastern religion/philosophy really, because compromises have been made between the original texts of books like the Rig Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita compared to the texts that are currently used in the West as a basis for knowledge and understanding. On top of that, Western minds base their understandings on their own Western minds, not Eastern minds.

Jung was slated in later works for his excursions into the esoteric, when his writings began to include Gnosticism too openly. I guess he might have been tired of keeping up appearances in order top advance science and human understanding of humans. Jung's work remains the mainstay of modern psychology and yes, the science does evolve and should evolve. Interestingly Spirituality is an entropic system in comparison. The delicious irony is that the more Spiritual people remain ignorant of psychology, the more they stay ignorant of Spirituality because they are ignorant of the fact - not a belief, an historically-documented fact - that they are one and the same.

No threads regarding the self are going to make any kind of sense or be any kind of Spirituality until such time as they depart from ego-based pseudo-understandings that have been made up from what they make up.

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You're doing that all the time anyway.

You're right, but still don't know how it's possible.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Jung's work remains the mainstay of modern psychology and yes, the science does evolve and should evolve. Interestingly Spirituality is an entropic system in comparison.

You seem in disagreement with the term Spirituality ? Why do you dislike the
term ? And is it just the term Spirituality that you are in disagreement with ? It seems from your posts
that you are settled on or have explored the term 'ego' and what it means to you from a psychological
theoretical perspective and don't like how 'Spiritual' people portray the phenomenon of the ego ?

Is it as you suggest that Spirituality and Psychology are one and the same thing ? And if so, is it the idea of the 'Ego'
where they diverge ? Do you know how and why the word 'Ego' began it's usage in popular discourse or even before
it's usage as a designator in modern theoretics ?

************************************************** ****

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

You're right, but still don't know how it's possible.

Maybe when we start being conscious of what we are conscious of instead of using the intellect we might get somewhere.

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

It seems from your posts that you are settled on or have explored the term 'ego' and what it means to you from a psychological
theoretical perspective and don't like how 'Spiritual' people portray the phenomenon of the ego ?

This is the problem I have right here. "Psychological theoretical perspective?" No I don't like how people portray the ego, most Spiritual people make up some superstitious nonsense and talk about it as though it's the truth. But it's not just about the ego, if they're doing that with the ego what else are the just making up? That's not my Spirituality. If Spiritual people are so Spiritual why aren't they talking about the Ahamkara?

Where does your Spirituality come from? How does it get from what you read on these forums or what you see on a YouTube and become your Spirituality?

Understanding the ego/Ahamkara and the self/Atman - the psychology and the Spirituality are the same - lays the foundations for so much Spirituality. If the foundations aren't 'solid' everything else that comes after that is flaky at best. Psychology is the "How?" of Spirituality.

The psychology of the ego and the Spirituality are one and the very same thing, barring translation there is no divergence. And if the psychology is modern theoretics what do you call so many threads that have appeared on this forum about the ego? It's not just theory it's people who think they know what they're talking about making things up, people who don't know the difference between Spiritualty and psychoanalysis.

Jung took his model of the ego from the Ahamkara and was invited by the head Swami of Advaita Vedanta so they could pat him on the back for Westernising Eastern philosophy. Similarly with his model of the self, which is based on the Atman. Not belief, recorded historical fact. He would have used the word 'ich' since he spoke German and ego was taken from the Latin word 'I'. And by the way, Aham is Sanskrit for 'I'.

This is also the reason threads based on the self will never glean anything sensible, because the reference point - what the self is according to Spirituality - is something people make up to suit themselves. Start a thread on "What is the self?" and how many mentions of Atman do you reckon will appear?

It's not even Right Thinking of the Eightfold Path, which is roughly equivalent to constructive cognitive behaviour. It's all very naughty cognitive behaviour.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

No I don't like how people portray the ego, most Spiritual people make up some superstitious nonsense and talk about it as though it's the truth.

What would Jung say about dislike?

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Maybe when we start being conscious of what we are conscious of instead of using the intellect we might get somewhere.

I am aware of awareness, and I am here and now. Where do you wanna get?

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Where does your Spirituality come from? How does it get from what you read on these forums or what you see on a YouTube and become your Spirituality?

Thanks for your detailed reply. Although I sense alot of dispute in what you are saying rightly or wrongly. The dispute between what spirituality
might deem to be he ego and what psychology might deem to be the ego the person or the self, it's been a good while since I have been
engaged on the level you are with the definitions theories and implications of such a conflict. The last thing real serious intellectual debate I was
engaged in with myself was to do with Catholicism/Christianity and Buddhism and how it seemed at the time that they just flatly contradicted each
other in terms of doctrines and beliefs and how they even condemned each other. It wasn't till I started to meditate a bit more that the edge seemed
to go off that apparent contradiction for me and I was led to more mystical and personal ideas contained within the context of LOVE and HATE.

In terms of mental illness and suffering we could probably say, at least to some degree, that persons who are shown LOVE in life do better than persons
who are shown HATE. Like a plant that is given the right conditions flourishes and vice versa. From personal experience when I have encountered loving
persons in the form of Spiritual Teachers, Counsellors, Guides, Friends etc. along the way, my life always benefitted in some way or other. Almost as empirical
fact this has been the case.

So I suppose the question comes up what if you enter the doorway of LOVE through Psychology or Spirituality, what does it really matter ?
Or if you find some loving support in some other field of study etc. ? Your journey continues whether you know what the 'Ego' is or isn't 100 percent
definitively or not. Who knows anything like that in this world anyway ? Are there any 100 percenters in the world of Semantics, theoretics and discourse ?
I don't think there are. Wouldn't that be like saying that if there were a group of signs all over planet earth pointing into the sky and saying Sirius Minor
that some of them are wrong and some are right based upon some conditions. Forgive my brilliant analogy ...lol. Thanks.

************************************************** *********

[Gem]

In spirituality 'ego' is generally defined as a false sense of self, but the Buddhist notion of santana (loosely means individual) is a bit more subtle. Overall, Buddhism has no self (anata) which shifts meaning depending on context. Those sorts of discussions are not going to lead to any answers, but can become highly nuanced. This is my favorite article on the subject http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm. Just remember it is a discussion piece; not 'the answer'.

I just think in practice, the thing that pretends to be me, but is not, eventually becomes exposed as a rather horrid phantasm. By that stage, however, one is indifferent toward its antics, while still knowing, best not let it get by unawares.