Ego is a good thing

Originally Posted by BlueElephant

It is obvious that you have not met an actual True Guru. It is ashame though, you have no idea of what is possible for a human being to accomplish in this regard.

It seems to be a natrall reaction for people to have when someone steps out of the group belief and holds to a view point that isn't commonly shared
That the group will instantly write off the situation as ignorance on the individual part as opposed to complexity or new discovery and instantly categorize it as false ignorant and unsafe for the herd this is Standard Group thinking and it's a biological safety mechanism all mammals have.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

From an Advaita perspective that's a classic example of the function of the I-maker. Advaita would state all experiences are transient content of Consciousness and Ahamkara makes it its own. The I-maker, and even it is but a transient event within Consciousness.

Confusing or conflating Ahamkara with Consciousness is superimposition, the power of Maya to veil.

Jung 'stole' his model of the ego from Ahamkara, he was a scholar of ancient Eastern philopsphy/religion. Aham is Sanskrit for 'I' and ego is Latin for 'I', a kara is an 'invented thing' and perceptual reality - the 'contents' of the ego - is 'invented'. The 'contents'/karas are created by Chitta or 'Lower Mind', roughly speaking the unconscious. The ego, as the Jungian centre of consciousness, can superimpose onto the self and the ego can think it is the self. The ego can 'think' that, since it is the centre of consciousness is 'all there is' and remains unaware of the self and its 'contents', which includes the ego and its 'contents'. This is where so many Spiritual people become egotistical, it's because they think they are consciousness itself, but they are not self aware because they can never be conscious of what they are not conscious of - the self is actually a 'layer above' the conscious amd thje unconscious is called the unconscious for a reason.

So really, we're both talking about the same thing but in a different language.

Originally Posted by BlueElephant

I agree. Also, the pure ego of I-ness is what enables us to stay in physical form, if there were actually No ego, we would not be in a body. Pure, truthful, humble, compassion-in-action peace-filled, joy-filled ego is quite fine and helpful in living in this existence. yes?

Close but no cigar. There is the ego and the 'contents' of the ego, so your "pure, truth, humbleness....." are what would be construed as the 'contents' of a balanced or healthy ego. It is from that 'position' that you would relate to the external world and have your sense of "I am," which is one of the ways Jung describes the ego. The ego is where you put your perceptual 'feet' and how you perceive both what is 'out there' and 'in here' is relative to that ego/position. How people talk to you and how they treat you is also relative to their ego/position and is a reflection of themselves. While the ego is the centre of the conscious it is not consciousness itself, the two are very different.

"Pure, truth, humbleness....." is the context in which and the lens through which you experience and create your reality, and there's a 'feedback loop' happening between your ego, your perceptions and the external reality. So yes, it is helpful to have while living in this existence.

If you can imagine floating in space with no idea which way is up, that's how you would float around in consciousness without an ego.

Originally Posted by BlueElephant

Yes, there is no fear and only a sliver of attachment, which one would feel there is no attachment.

Yes, Enlightenment can still be embodied... like the Buddha and Mahavir and a host of others. Ramana included.

Fear is nothing more than the imagination 'filling in the blanks' and the mind does the rest. Enlightenment can still be embodied, and it's the ego that seeks Enlightenment in the first place. That doesn't make it wrong, it simply means there is inspiration because it's the ego that aspires to become more/bigger/better/Enlightened. Being Enlightened is one of the 'contents' of the ego and when you are no longer attached to your ego and its 'contents', you begin to understand how they are a part of your framework and you can work with it rather than against it. Even being thinking you should be Enlightened/Spiritual can be an attachment.

Originally Posted by BlueElephant

It is obvious that you have not met an actual True Guru. It is ashame though, you have no idea of what is possible for a human being to accomplish in this regard.

According to what you believe the ego is, which is essentially Chinese Whispers unless you've spent time with pyschology. If you really want to understand the ego - both Spiritually and psychologically - go spend some time with Freud. Or look up Ahamkara or talk to JASG about it if you prefer something ancient Eastern. If not then....... But as I said before, this is a reflection of your ego, nobody else's and that's the shame and having no idea.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Jung 'stole' his model of the ego from Ahamkara, he was a scholar of ancient Eastern philopsphy/religion. Aham is Sanskrit for 'I' and ego is Latin for 'I', a kara is an 'invented thing' and perceptual reality - the 'contents' of the ego - is 'invented'. The 'contents'/karas are created by Chitta or 'Lower Mind', roughly speaking the unconscious. The ego, as the Jungian centre of consciousness, can superimpose onto the self and the ego can think it is the self. The ego can 'think' that, since it is the centre of consciousness is 'all there is' and remains unaware of the self and its 'contents', which includes the ego and its 'contents'. This is where so many Spiritual people become egotistical, it's because they think they are consciousness itself, but they are not self aware because they can never be conscious of what they are not conscious of - the self is actually a 'layer above' the conscious amd thje unconscious is called the unconscious for a reason.

So really, we're both talking about the same thing but in a different language.

I'm only familiar with Jung on the surface level, however I do see the synergy with the Samkhya psychological model and I don't pretend to be an expert on it either.

That being said I'd be interested in your take on Jung's interpretation of Samkhya. For instance while most (all?) of the Hindu schools of thought recognize/use it, their interpretations differ. Yoga and the dualistic schools view Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (nature) as being co-equal realities and there are many consciousnesses. Many Selfs.

The Advaita interpretation is there's only (one) Consciousness and Prakriti is an appearance of and within It. Many selfs are appearances of and within Self so the consciousness the self perceives and makes its own isn't of the self, but merely a "reflection" of Self.

Did Jung subscribe to one or the other or perhaps a hybrid, or was his interpretation purely secular, materialistic?

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Jung 'stole' his model of the ego from Ahamkara, he was a scholar of ancient Eastern philopsphy/religion.
Aham is Sanskrit for 'I' and ego is Latin for 'I', a kara is an 'invented thing' and perceptual reality - the 'contents' of the ego - is 'invented'. The 'contents'/karas are created by Chitta or 'Lower Mind', roughly speaking the unconscious.

The ego, as the Jungian centre of consciousness, can superimpose onto the self and the ego can think it is the self.
The ego can 'think' that, since it is the centre of consciousness is 'all there is' and remains unaware of the self and its 'contents',
which includes the ego and its 'contents'.
This is where so many Spiritual people become egotistical, it's because they think they are consciousness itself, but they are not self aware
because they can never be conscious of what they are not conscious of - the self is actually a 'layer above' the conscious and
the unconscious is called the unconscious for a reason.

So really, we're both talking about the same thing but in a different language.

This was one excellent post! Thank you.
(OH! And your next one Post #53!)

Btw, a little known movie, "A Dangerous Method", 2011 - recommended to this group- about Freud and Jung.
3 TOP actors!


Hi Maya El.

[BlueElephant]

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

It seems to be a natrall reaction for people to have when someone steps out of the group belief and holds to a view point that isn't commonly shared
That the group will instantly write off the situation as ignorance on the individual part as opposed to complexity or new discovery and instantly categorize it as false ignorant and unsafe for the herd this is Standard Group thinking and it's a biological safety mechanism all mammals have.

"It seems to be a natrall reaction for people to have when someone steps out of the group belief and holds to a view point that isn't commonly shared
That the group will instantly write off the situation as ignorance on the individual part as opposed to complexity or new discovery and instantly categorize it as false ignorant and unsafe for the herd this is Standard Group thinking and it's a biological safety mechanism all mammals have." M.E.

[BlueElephant]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Close but no cigar. There is the ego and the 'contents' of the ego, so your "pure, truth, humbleness....." are what would be construed as the 'contents' of a balanced or healthy ego. It is from that 'position' that you would relate to the external world and have your sense of "I am," which is one of the ways Jung describes the ego. The ego is where you put your perceptual 'feet' and how you perceive both what is 'out there' and 'in here' is relative to that ego/position. How people talk to you and how they treat you is also relative to their ego/position and is a reflection of themselves. While the ego is the centre of the conscious it is not consciousness itself, the two are very different.

"Pure, truth, humbleness....." is the context in which and the lens through which you experience and create your reality, and there's a 'feedback loop' happening between your ego, your perceptions and the external reality. So yes, it is helpful to have while living in this existence.

If you can imagine floating in space with no idea which way is up, that's how you would float around in consciousness without an ego.
Fear is nothing more than the imagination 'filling in the blanks' and the mind does the rest. Enlightenment can still be embodied, and it's the ego that seeks Enlightenment in the first place. That doesn't make it wrong, it simply means there is inspiration because it's the ego that aspires to become more/bigger/better/Enlightened. Being Enlightened is one of the 'contents' of the ego and when you are no longer attached to your ego and its 'contents', you begin to understand how they are a part of your framework and you can work with it rather than against it. Even being thinking you should be Enlightened/Spiritual can be an attachment.
According to what you believe the ego is, which is essentially Chinese Whispers unless you've spent time with pyschology. If you really want to understand the ego - both Spiritually and psychologically - go spend some time with Freud. Or look up Ahamkara or talk to JASG about it if you prefer something ancient Eastern. If not then....... But as I said before, this is a reflection of your ego, nobody else's and that's the shame and having no idea.

Thank you GS. Especially for elaborating. ( I really did want that cigar though, boo woo. (smiley face and hugs )).

I have a degree in Psych and studied Jung with a phenomenal professor, however she lead us equally on the experiential path of Jung.

Plus I do know Sanskrit to some degree and have studied Yoga Sutras with a Master Yogi. As you might understand my English is not the best. Freud was proved wrong about some things. I think Jung is a better study myself. Cheers.

Originally Posted by BlueElephant

Thank you for your response.

What you said in your post is true, however, there are exceptions - this is what I was pointing out - that is all. I am sorry you feel threatened by that - or at least your ego does - and so it is not you, but your ego that seems not to be able to open up enough to see what I am saying, rather it chooses to inspire or motivate a small rant to keep my ego in check - obvious defense mech.

Why you live in a world with such blanket statements (atitudes)? You might have been hurt by a phoney Guru? You might have met very few in your lifetime? and possibly indulging a defensive mind to begin with?

You make lots of assumptions and i mean lots.
Im not offended and certainly not threatened
I was just expressing my perspective on how the mind of an individual seems to play tricks on itself and how there also seems to be a very common defiance mechanism that people seem to have as part of are group instincts
Which is to view new or unpopular information as inadequate/ wrong /ignorant/tech as opposed to thinking that perhaps this new information being better /tech (just an example).

It's a survival mechanism we all have so i can't get upset over you expressing it .
However I was (and am) explaining it to you so that you hopfuly will become aware of it and maybe one day overcome it . but take it or leave it it's your path not mine . have a good day.

[BlueElephant]

Thank you all for being a mirror for my arrogance. I am sincerely appreciative.

[BlueElephant]

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

You make lots of assumptions and i mean lots.
Im not offended and certainly not threatened
I was just expressing my perspective on how the mind of an individual seems to play tricks on itself and how there also seems to be a very common defiance mechanism that people seem to have as part of are group instincts
Which is to view new or unpopular information as inadequate/ wrong /ignorant/tech as opposed to thinking that perhaps this new information being better /tech (just an example).

It's a survival mechanism we all have so i can't get upset over you expressing it .
However I was (and am) explaining it to you so that you hopfuly will become aware of it and maybe one day overcome it . but take it or leave it it's your path not mine . have a good day.

Thank you explaining this, However what you have said is not new to me. It is a reality that has existed for a long time. and so your basis for your response to me is out of line. We are having a mis-understanding of some kind - I personally see a dis-connect. Like you are accusing me of being of herd-mentality - when I am quite outside the herd sharing with you a profound grace I have received by being in the company of the True thing. In fact a number of True things. Many people, especially Westerners have not been able to find and live with the True thing (i. e a true Guru).

I appreciate your sincerity Maya - but your responses seem mis-placed. Regards.