How to practically force your ego to die?

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I have already told you (meaning folks here) what I specifically think about relared issues - I evaluate the comprehensiveness and possible uselfulness (as well as miss-usefulness) of anyone's statements, including those of smugly 'stuck' in 'ancient' 'traditions' on their own merits and/or demerits, and share my views.

Whom do u attribute for those stuck in ancient traditions ?
People or ancient tradition .

Originally Posted by LadyMay

I also recently learned about a term called "spiritual bypass", using spiritual concepts to justify dysfunctional behaviour, which perhaps could also be part of this trap.

There are a few of these terms floating around and many of them relate to cognitive behaviour disorders. The other issue is that they have the word 'Spiritual' tagged on the front and that means anyone can redefine them for their own agenda. I've seen the term 'Spiritual bypassing' defined as using Spirituality to bypass people's own inability or refusal to deal with reality. Spiritual bypassing happens when people use Spirituality to 'turn a blind eye' to their own shortcomings. Becoming a 'Spiritual Being' means that you can ignore all of your human aspects and pretend you're a Spiritual Adept.

Originally Posted by LadyMay

Also see my post just now about spiritual bypassing. I think this is part of the narcissism.

Spiritual narcissism is the same as 'regular' narcissism but in a Spiritual context, they come from the same place. What many Spiritual people don't want to acknowledge is that Spirituality is subject to what's floating around their skulls, it's not a gift directly from God.

Originally Posted by LadyMay

Especially now knowing I have multiple ego states

There are great Spiritual understandings to be had there.

Originally Posted by iamthat

Perhaps the apparent lack of meaningful discussion of how the ego relates to Spirituality is to do with the fact that we cannot come to any agreement on the nature of the ego and the nature of spirituality.

You have your ideas and I have mine. It is very clear to me how ego relates to spirituality, and for me spirituality is definitely not a product of the ego. But experience has shown me the futility of trying to engage in such a discussion. We just end up disagreeing on what the ego is and what spirituality is. We never get beyond this to discuss how the two relate to each other.

Peace

The word 'ego' belongs to psychology not Spirituality, and that's where everything begins to crumble. It's just another word that is 'imported' into Spirituality and redefined for the sake of personal agenda. There's no agreement because people can think they can make their own definitions and meanings up to suit themselves, and it seems none of them have actually thought about what they're doing. The discussion of the ego is one of psychoanalysis, not Spirituality and if Spiritual people can't understand that - or don't want to - then there's something badly wrong.

Saying that I have my ideas is just another tactic as far as I've concerned, and it comes from a very typical mind pattern. Your definition of the ego is 'protection' and considering your degree in psychology, well...... We've already had this discussion and you're always going to come from place of superiority and not understanding.

If we're going to do the 'Spiritual thing' then we shouldn't be discussing the ego at all, because that's not an ideology or a theology. The 'Spiritual thing' to do is to discuss Ahamkara, on which Jung's model of the ego is based. So while Spiritual people are dismissing Jung -yourself being one of them - he was actually very well versed in Eastern philosophies. So many Spiritual people display their ignorance of that in the discussion of the ego. In terms of wisdom, the ancients didn't separate psychology and religion/philosophy at all, so I have to wonder when the Spiritual people in this forum do so. Jung was very Spiritual after all.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Ahamkara, puts everything into more spiritual perspective. Ahamkara, is the mental sense of I/self/thinker that likes to use and believe in mental subjective/abstract concepts/ideas/myths etc for existence that he/she can not see with his/her own 2 eyes, is blind/ignorant of because he/she does not see existence for what it is with his/her own 2 eyes. So, in this context, the death of the ego/Ahamkara is when a person stops perceiving his/her "reality" with mental subjective/abstract concepts, ideas, myths, dreams etc etc and starts seeing existence with his/her own 2 eyes that is outside of him/her. By existence, I mean the non-physical and the physical. We would not have physical existence in the first place, without the energetic non-physical existence.

Your Ahamkara/ego provides you with a frame of reference through which you perceive reality, and this is the point that's very much misunderstood. Ego and Ahamkara means 'I' and if there is no 'I' to experience there is no experience - that's about as simple as it gets. Nothing happens TO you, everything happens BECAUSE of you. It's that 'I' that generates those subjective/abstract concepts but you also have to remember that the objective reality is that reality is subjective. Both objective and subjective can only exist in relation to 'I', an "I perceive this reality as subjective and that as objective." In the perception of Spirit, is it reality at all? If you stopped calling it subjective or subjective reality, what then? If you stopped calling it anything at all? What if there were no words, only conscious experience?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Please note: The energetic non-physical existence is physical because energy is physical, we just can't see the physical energy (except for visible energy, such as light) with our human eyes. I just use the word non-physical for explanation purposes only. Consciousness, prana (life force energy), Atman, our true inner self (feeling of I AM) are all the same thing that animates our physical bodies and is conscious/aware of physical existence in the quantum physics model so the absolute/"god" can express and enjoy itself and become physical. This is why we can destroy matter but, we can not destroy the energy that is inside matter.

Can we not simply exist?

Originally Posted by Anala

So, maybe we are not supposed to kill our ego, practically or otherwise. (Sorry for the word play, but I brought my silly self to the forum tonight.)

Maybe if people spent the time to understand what they're really trying to kill it would make sense and lead to some wisdom. Killing off the objectification of their judgements, prejudices and discriminations would make them more 'Spiritual' than trying to put themselves across as ego experts.


It seems a few others brought their silly selves too.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Maybe if people spent the time to understand what they're really trying to kill it would make sense and lead to some wisdom. Killing off the objectification of their judgements, prejudices and discriminations would make them more 'Spiritual' than trying to put themselves across as ego experts.

Practice vs. intellectualizing. Meditation vs. reading, watching videos and trading opinions.

In short there's talking the talk and there's walking the walk. There's thinking, doing and being. Thinking will never get one to being. Getting to being requires doing (practice).

It's really as simple as that and there's no other viable alternative.

There might be alternative practices to meditation, however I'm not familiar with them and certainly don't have first-hand experience so I won't speak to them or their efficacy.

[Anala]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Maybe if people spent the time to understand what they're really trying to kill it would make sense and lead to some wisdom. Killing off the objectification of their judgements, prejudices and discriminations would make them more 'Spiritual' than trying to put themselves across as ego experts.


It seems a few others brought their silly selves too.

I like this answer from a thread on ego.

11-01-2020
no1wakesup

The ego begins early on with the assumption of separation and ends up with the idea that you think that you think. And EVERYTHING within that dynamic unconscious process gives you a perception of a reality you believe to be primary. Once that experience collapses an authentic state remains yet can still play pretend and patty cake when its wants too.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The word 'ego' belongs to psychology not Spirituality, and that's where everything begins to crumble. It's just another word that is 'imported' into Spirituality and redefined for the sake of personal agenda. There's no agreement because people can think they can make their own definitions and meanings up to suit themselves, and it seems none of them have actually thought about what they're doing.

All of which illustrates my previous point that we cannot agree on the nature of ego nor the nature of spirituality, so we will never come to any sensible understanding of the relationship between the two.

But you have decided that the term ego belongs to psychoanalysis and cannot therefore be used in a spiritual context. Perhaps you are the one coming from a place of superiority and not understanding. Never mind. As I said, you have your ideas and I have mine.

And I am curious - where did I ever define ego as 'protection', whatever that might mean? This is news to me.

Peace

I'll point out none other than Swami Vivekananda used 'ego' in his speeches and lectures.

https://www.azquotes.com/author/1512...ananda/tag/ego

There are 48 references to ego in these quotes. Granted it's often misunderstood and misused but that doesn't mean it's outside the realm of spirituality. Nothing can be further from the truth. Here's just one example and perhaps a prime example.

"Truth will never come into our minds so long as there will remain the faintest shadow of Ahamkâra (egotism). All of you should try to root out this devil from your heart. Complete self-surrender is the only way to spiritual illumination."

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Your Ahamkara/ego provides you with a frame of reference through which you perceive reality, and this is the point that's very much misunderstood. Ego and Ahamkara means 'I' and if there is no 'I' to experience there is no experience - that's about as simple as it gets. Nothing happens TO you, everything happens BECAUSE of you. It's that 'I' that generates those subjective/abstract concepts but you also have to remember that the objective reality is that reality is subjective. Both objective and subjective can only exist in relation to 'I', an "I perceive this reality as subjective and that as objective." In the perception of Spirit, is it reality at all? If you stopped calling it subjective or subjective reality, what then? If you stopped calling it anything at all? What if there were no words, only conscious experience?

Can we not simply exist?

Don't we simply exist in the first place?