How to practically force your ego to die?

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Xactly!

To the point (of Life!), and excellent-succinct-ly said.

Thanks for appreciating feedback
I c ur ( n even others) responses too are life oriented n have similar perspective n u all too deserve appreciation.

Originally Posted by KonrD111

How can you kill your ego to be happy in life and unveil the truth by stopping your mind? Some creative ideas please.

I'm guessing you haven't spent time with Jung or Freud, the fathers of psychoanalysis and the guys who coined the word 'ego' in the first place?

I'm also guessing that you want to be Spiritual and find the truth and all of that. 'Ego' is the wrong word, the word you're looking for is the Sanskrit Ahamkara/Ahankara. If you don't check it out and think you know best then you still have an ego, regardless of anything you write in this thread to the contrary. If you do Google Ahamkara you will find out that 'kara' is an "invented thing", which is just what the non-Jungian/non-Freudian 'ego' is - it's an urban myth that's no more than an objectification of collection of judgements and character flaws that many people personify so that they can point the finger and think they have no ego - which is egoic in any definition of the word.

If you're going to force your ego to die or talk about it as though you know what you're talking about, you'd better know what you're talking about first. Anything else is nothing more than hubris.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'm also guessing that you want to be Spiritual and find the truth and all of that. 'Ego' is the wrong word, the word you're looking for is the Sanskrit Ahamkara/Ahankara. If you don't check it out and think you know best then you still have an ego, regardless of anything you write in this thread to the contrary. If you do Google Ahamkara you will find out that 'kara' is an "invented thing", which is just what the non-Jungian/non-Freudian 'ego' is - it's an urban myth that's no more than an objectification of collection of judgements and character flaws that many people personify so that they can point the finger and think they have no ego - which is egoic in any definition of the word.

GS.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

... So in effect we need sublimation of ego n not killing of ego.

Speaking of what HS references as the 'sublimation' of ego, here are some more hopefully thought-stimulating wors from my treatise:

When a soul reaches the point where it truly grasps and fully embraces the fact that it really is an integral aspect of The Entity of (all!) Life, as Jesus (clearly!) did, it just ceases to psychospiritually ‘i’dentify with the physiosocial constellation of its personal self and/or whatever galaxy of affiliated selves (or philosophical constructs pertaining thereto) it may currently have the most immediately consequential involvement with and affiliation to, and so (logically then) stops being 'egotistical' (i.e. selfish in the ‘petty’ sense of the word) and commits itself to living with the aim of maximally fulfilling its Love and Joy imperative in relation to others in the context of The Flow of Life-at-Large, doing whatever it can (given its present situational context as a self) to optimize and augment not just its own or any particular set of associates’ immediate Love and Joy processes, but environmentally (hence ethically in the most comprehensive sense of the word) taking into account any and all ‘ripple effects’ which might conceivably stem from its ‘doings’ in ways that (ultimately) impact the Love and Joy processes of everyone around, the well‑being of future generations also being included in said calculus of course!

and

Any and every soul’s developmental ‘journey’ merits ongoing introspective review and reevaluation and, when and where appropriate, the refinement – this is what conscious evolution is all about! – not just of the ‘content’ of what one personally thinks, feels, believes and does in relation to others and Life‑at‑Large, but also of the ‘significance’ one places on and so ‘ascribes’ to one’s self and other selves, in your case the very ‘self’ that thinks, feels, believes and does so.

Wishing y'all a fruitful Jnana-ing!

[davidsun]

Re the concept of 'sublimation', From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology) :

"Sigmund Freud believed that sublimation was a sign of maturity and civilization, allowing people to function normally in culturally acceptable ways. He defined sublimation as the process of deflecting sexual instincts into acts of higher social valuation, being 'an especially conspicuous feature of cultural development; it is what makes it possible for higher psychical activities, scientific, artistic or ideological, to play such an important part in civilized life'. Wade and Travis present a similar view, stating that sublimation occurs when displacement 'serves a higher cultural or socially useful purpose, as in the creation of art or inventions'."

It's most meaning-full association is with what the word "sublime" references.

[Jyotir]

For those interested, there is (imo) a very thorough 10 page discussion of this subject by Sri Aurobindo in “The Synthesis of Yoga”, which I enthusiastically recommend as an eminently worthwhile resource for spiritual aspirants, available in PDF format for free (scroll down to Vol 23-24 after linking), here:

https://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/s...o/writings.php

In Part II, The Yoga of Integral Knowledge; Chapter IX, , The Release from the Ego, on pg.356, he starts off with the following premise:

Originally Posted by Sri Aurobindo

THE FORMATION of a mental and vital ego tied to the body-sense was the first great labour of the cosmic Life in its progressive evolution; for this was the means it found for creating out of matter a conscious individual. The dissolution of this limiting ego is the one condition, the necessary means for this very same Life to arrive at its divine fruition: for only so can the conscious individual find either his transcendent self or his true Person.

As readers of Aurobindo’s writings are familiar, he then breaks down and addresses the various familiar historically traditional, conventional, and expected views, and orientations on the subject, and proceeds to cogently explain or refute those positions clearly in spiritual terms why they are limited, partial, deficient - or, simply available to be superseded by a natural evolution of new possibilities, the presentation of which are his express purpose in the contemporary milieu.

Members of SF making cases for their particular view or speculative opinion will no doubt find their chosen preference referenced among these various expositions as they are thoroughly covered and discussed.

[…] human thought falls apart towards two opposite extremes: one, mundane and pragmatic, regards the fulfilment and satisfaction of the mental, vital and physical ego-sense individual or collective as the object of life and looks no farther, while the other, spiritual, philosophic or religious, regards the conquest of the ego in the interests of the soul, spirit or whatever be the ultimate entity, as the one thing supremely worth doing. Even in the camp of the ego there are two divergent attitudes which divide the mundane or materialist theory of the universe. […]

After the major division he breaks it down further…

One tendency of this thought regards the mental ego as a creation of our mentality[…] Another trend of thought, more vitalistic in its tendencies, fixes on the conscious ego as the supreme achievement of Nature […] In the more numerous systems that take their stand on some kind of religious thought or spiritual discipline there is a corresponding divergence. The Buddhist […]The Adwaitin […] Other systems assert, in flat contradiction of this view, the eternal persistence of the human soul; a basis of multiple consciousness in the One or else a dependent but still separate entity, it is constant, real, imperishable.[…]

And then begins to summarize and redirect to the essential…

[…]Amidst these various and conflicting opinions the seeker of the Truth has to decide for himself which shall be for him the Knowledge. But if our aim is a spiritual release or a spiritual fulfilment, then the exceeding of this little mould of ego is imperative. In human egoism and its satisfaction there can be no divine culmination and deliverance. A certain purification from egoism is the condition even of ethical progress and elevation, for social good and perfection; much more is it indispensable for inner peace, purity and joy. But a much more radical deliverance, not only from egoism but from ego-idea and ego-sense, is needed if our aim is to raise human into divine nature. […]

[…]cosmic self is spiritual in essence and in experience; it must not be confused with the collective existence, with any group soul or the life and body of a human society or even of all mankind. The subordination of the ego to the progress and happiness of the human race is now a governing idea in the world’s thought and ethics; but this is a mental and moral and not a spiritual ideal. For that progress is a series of constant mental, vital and physical vicissitudes, it has no firm spiritual content, and offers no sure standing-ground to the soul of man. The consciousness of collective humanity is only a larger comprehensive edition or a sum of individual egos. Made of the same substance, in the same mould of nature, it has not in it any greater light, any more eternal sense of itself, any purer source of peace, joy and deliverance. It is rather even more tortured, troubled and obscured, certainly more vague, confused and unprogressive. The individual is in this respect greater than the mass and cannot be called on to subordinate his more luminous possibilities to this darker entity. If light, peace, deliverance, a better state of existence are to come, they must descend into the soul from something wider than the individual, but also from something higher than the collective ego. Altruism, philanthropy, the service of mankind are in themselves mental or moral ideals, not laws of the spiritual life. [...]

[…]If into the spiritual aim there enters the impulse to deny the personal self or to serve humanity or the world at large, it comes not from the ego nor from the collective sense of the race, but from something more occult and profound transcendent of both these things; for it is founded on a sense of the Divine in all and it works not for the sake of the ego or the race but for the sake of the Divine[…]

[…]The greatest service to humanity, the surest foundation for its true progress, happiness and perfection is to prepare or find the way by which the individual and the collective man can transcend the ego and live in its true self, no longer bound to ignorance, incapacity, disharmony and sorrow. […]

[…]to find, know and possess the Divine existence, consciousness and nature and to live in it for the Divine is our true aim and the one perfection to which we must aspire. […]

Hope this is helpful

~ J

[HITESH SHAH]

Speaking of what HS references as the 'sublimation' of ego, here are some more hopefully thought-stimulating wors from my treatise:

When a soul reaches the point where it truly grasps and fully embraces the fact that it really is an integral aspect of The Entity of (all!) Life, as Jesus (clearly!) did, it just ceases to psychospiritually ‘i’dentify with the physiosocial constellation of its personal self and/or whatever galaxy of affiliated selves (or philosophical constructs pertaining thereto) it may currently have the most immediately consequential involvement with and affiliation to, and so (logically then) stops being 'egotistical' (i.e. selfish in the ‘petty’ sense of the word) and commits itself to living with the aim of maximally fulfilling its Love and Joy imperative in relation to others in the context of The Flow of Life-at-Large, doing whatever it can (given its present situational context as a self) to optimize and augment not just its own or any particular set of associates’ immediate Love and Joy processes, but environmentally (hence ethically in the most comprehensive sense of the word) taking into account any and all ‘ripple effects’ which might conceivably stem from its ‘doings’ in ways that (ultimately) impact the Love and Joy processes of everyone around, the well‑being of future generations also being included in said calculus of course!

and

Any and every soul’s developmental ‘journey’ merits ongoing introspective review and reevaluation and, when and where appropriate, the refinement – this is what conscious evolution is all about! – not just of the ‘content’ of what one personally thinks, feels, believes and does in relation to others and Life‑at‑Large, but also of the ‘significance’ one places on and so ‘ascribes’ to one’s self and other selves, in your case the very ‘self’ that thinks, feels, believes and does so.

Wishing y'all a fruitful Jnana-ing! [/quote]

Thanks DS , it's nicely elaborated

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Speaking of what HS references as the 'sublimation' of ego, here are some more hopefully thought-stimulating wors from my treatise:

If you're going to use the Freudian terms then you need to do your homework, otherwise the word simply becomes another term that's 'imported' to Spirituality and redefined to suit agenda and not understanding, and for all the words of wisdom it's simply another egotistical out-pouring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI1dKJ06cjA

It's also helpful to understand what you're 'sublimating', otherwise you're only turning a blind eye and using what Freud defined as a defence mechanism for the ego -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfrrl8_U1Ac

Y'know, in all the thread-fulls of wise and waxing-Spiritually words of wisdom, I have yet to see an actual definition of the word 'ego'. Do yu have one handy?

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

not just of the ‘content’ of what one personally thinks, feels, believes and does in relation to others and Life‑at‑Large, but also of the ‘significance’ one places on and so ‘ascribes’ to one’s self and other selves, in your case the very ‘self’ that thinks, feels, believes and does so.

Here you're using the Jungian model of the ego, which is very different to the Freudian one you were talking about previously. That only leads to confusion because the ego as described by Jung has no defence mechanisms as such. Jung was actually very religious and his self>ego>'contents' of the ego are all but identical to the Sanskrit Ahamkara/Ahankara>Aham ('I' or ego - 'ego' is Latin for 'I') >kara or 'invented thing' - which is what the mainstream depiction of the ego seems to be.

Waxing Spiritually is augmented by using the appropriate terms in a way that promotes understanding and wisdom, and don't perpetuate and become what the urban myth seeks to dispel. For instance, ascribing 'significance' is something the urban legend ego would do because it reinforces it's own sense of importance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2wANHmXJec

[Miss Hepburn]

I don't have a definition of ego, but it is that 'thing' in me that wants me to do
all bad things for the wrong reasons LOL!!!!!!

It wants me to hold a grudge ( aka, ,not forgive and forget), have an extra
helping of food, feel indignant, feel frustrated - like if someone is rigid and closed, be selfish,
feel anything that has to do with depression, ie, shame, low self-esteem,
worthless, unproductive, failure, lazy, or hurt.
All from the egoic mind.

And you know what? That is not 'me' or who I really am.
I'm sure that just muddled things up.

If something is wonderful, good, kind, charitable, forgiving and carefree ...
that is something other than the ego, for me.
I have a name for it ---
but, labels are unnecessary here. 'Higher self', tho, may be generically acceptable.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Here you're using the Jungian model of the ego, which is very different to the Freudian one you were talking about previously. That only leads to confusion because the ego as described by Jung has no defence mechanisms as such. Jung was actually very religious and his self>ego>'contents' of the ego are all but identical to the Sanskrit Ahamkara/Ahankara>Aham ('I' or ego - 'ego' is Latin for 'I') >kara or 'invented thing' - which is what the mainstream depiction of the ego seems to be.

Waxing Spiritually is augmented by using the appropriate terms in a way that promotes understanding and wisdom, and don't perpetuate and become what the urban myth seeks to dispel.

I appreciate the 'distinctions' you have made. GS - albeit I don't think that the reality-referencing concepts of 'ego' can be functionally limited to any particular definition (de-finite-ion) of 'it' just as the reality-referencing concepts 'god' or 'love' , for example, cannot be. The best one can do is to specifically describe the way(s) in which one is using the term in any given context.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

For instance, ascribing 'significance' is something the urban legend ego would do because it reinforces it's own sense of importance.

I used the terms 'significance' to mean actual contextual functionality, not 'sense' of 'importance' (or lack thereof) which it strikes me is what you are into 'big time', GS.

I think you would arrive at truly communal (i.e. 'friend'ly - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwtaTR9VESs ) meaning-sharing if you didn't (egotistically? ) lay your 'trip' on what I or others say.

[davidsun]

[…]If into the spiritual aim there enters the impulse to deny the personal self [there's that idealization/idolzation of self-abnegation again!] or to serve humanity or the world at large, it comes not from the ego nor from the collective sense of the race, but from something more occult and profound transcendent of both these things; for it is founded on a sense of the Divine in all and it works not for the sake of the ego or the race but for the sake of the Divine[…]

[…]The greatest service to humanity, the surest foundation for its true progress, happiness and perfection is to prepare or find the way by which the individual and the collective man can transcend the ego and live in its true self, no longer bound to ignorance, incapacity, disharmony and sorrow. […] [this statement clearly a [false IMO) belief that 'ego' automatically/inevitably results in one's being 'bound' to ignorance, incapacity and sorrow'.]

[…]to find, know and possess the Divine existence, consciousness and nature and to live in it for the Divine is our true aim and the one[???] perfection [this is a false/ideal concept, IMO] to which we must aspire. […]

The 'problem' I 'see' as being 'built into' the above kinds of statements is that the meaning of the word 'Divine' is smugly [violationally IMO] co-opted by the author's implicit 'claim' to know what 'Divinity' really is. Same problem exists when you talk about doing (hence implicitly really knowing) "God's Will" is.

Here's a relevant excerpt from my treatise which ID's the source and nature of 'the problem' I reference, which I have quoted before but which, on the basis of the terminology you use, I think you still haven't 'heard': "In all of the foregoing regards, as well as others not categorically mentioned: It may take quite a while (possibly more than a lifetime even) for all of the implications of what is thereby realized to be fully absorbed, integrated and functionally implemented in soulful terms. Breakthrough insights along such lines may be extremely impressive, "light bulb getting turned on in a previously dark room with the flip of a switch" kinds of events, so impressive that said ‘room’ itself, as then seen, may become a “nothing could possibly be ‘better’ than this” kind of logistically self‑reifying, hence soul-growth confining and further spiritual-evolution stopping, belief ‘box’, which not infrequently leads to folks becoming ensconced in grotesquely demoniacal (as seen by anyone who isn’t similarly deluded, that is!) box‑smugness☺ wherefrom they regard and relate to others who don’t live in the same ‘box’ in condescending (hence ultimately Love‑and-Joy-in-relation-to-and-with-others diminishing!) ways. To make sure such an attitude doesn’t ‘infect’ you, especially when and as you hear others reinforcingly describing ‘enlightenment’ experiences similar to yours in ‘glowing’ terms, be sure to always remind yourself of the fact that every soul’s ‘journey’ is unique and that said evolutionary journey never ends. Infinity extends in every direction. The projection that there is some kind of ‘ultimate’, or ‘greatest’ possible, realization beyond which there is nothing more or different to realize is delusional!"

S/he that hath ears that 'hear', let her/him 'hear'."