EGO: BELIEF SYSTEM CREATOR?

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Yes it is, with the perseveration of these unfounded irrational distortions - “nappies” & forced feeding a major theme. These evident fixations probably originate in areas that become problematic to discuss on a public forum including Gs’s repeated autobiographical references in his own posts, which would tend to confirm this perspective, but out of respect and compassion we need not pursue that direction further.

However there are the by-products in discussion as projected incessantly in posts evidencing debased and distorted conception, persistent disparagement of, and (apparent) personal aversion to legitimate spirituality.

Also similar in repeated sheer deliberate evasion of legitimate spiritual resources and cogent explanation within both well established theory and practice in various spiritual traditions, in favor of:

The constant demand on others for revision, validation, and rationalization through non-spiritual “professional” and utterly irrelevant contexts (quite odd on a “spiritual forum”), while often leaning heavily on a chaotic diffusion of far-out pop-culture new-age, science-fiction conspiracy theories, and arbitrary scientist name-dropping posed as unimpeachably relevant - it seems that this train of thought will persist.


~ J

"Ego" is not a Spiritual word, if you are looking for some kind of Spiritual integrity then using a word that comes from psychology and redefining it for your own agenda is not conducive to superconsciousness. You said yourself that we shouldn't redefine established meanings because they cause confusion, and all you're doing here is perpetuating and exacerbating confusion of the urban myth - because really, as far as Spirituality is concerned, the nonsense that's surrounding the ego is nothing but the very definition of the 'bad guy'.

If you want to really understand the ego then I suggest you research Jung or Freud, since those are the fathers of psychoanalysis and those are the ones who borrowed the Latin word and used it in their field. If you want Spiritual integrity then I suggest looking into Ahamkara/Ahankara, which are Sanskrit word that should be more agreeable to the Spiritual Adept. Unfortunately for those that are clearly intentionally ignorant, the Jungian model and the Sanskrit one are the same.

You see Jyotir, it takes a certain kind of ignorance to put across that one is an expert regarding the ego and it's machinations when clearly one isn't and then psychoanalysing those who are resistant to Spirituality.

All you have achieved here is to demonstrate that you are your own definition of ego. Well done you.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Yes it is, with the perseveration of these unfounded irrational distortions - “nappies” & forced feeding a major theme. These evident fixations probably originate in areas that become problematic to discuss on a public forum including Gs’s repeated autobiographical references in his own posts, which would tend to confirm this perspective, but out of respect and compassion we need not pursue that direction further.

However there are the by-products in discussion as projected incessantly in posts evidencing debased and distorted conception, persistent disparagement of, and (apparent) personal aversion to legitimate spirituality.

Also similar in repeated sheer deliberate evasion of legitimate spiritual resources and cogent explanation within both well established theory and practice in various spiritual traditions, in favor of:

The constant demand on others for revision, validation, and rationalization through non-spiritual “professional” and utterly irrelevant contexts (quite odd on a “spiritual forum”), while often leaning heavily on a chaotic diffusion of far-out pop-culture new-age, science-fiction conspiracy theories, and arbitrary scientist name-dropping posed as unimpeachably relevant - it seems that this train of thought will persist.


~ J

When I read this, I thought you were talking about yourself.

If you really dislike Greenslade, you can always put him on you ignore list.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by iamthat

This is a very limited and erroneous understanding of ego and egolessness.

Peace

I don't see a problem with the idea of the working of ego given. Ego is the thought one has. Ego is individual and experienced as I. Can an example of how that is deficient be given in terms of consciousness? One of the questions I think relevant that has not been acknowledged is and what I have noticed is Ego is also patterned thinking and included in every decision we make. Ego is or holds the thought (and act) of the self by the brain. The view of I am also have attachments to it, I am not worthy or even I am worthy, I deserve, I do not deserve. I am right, I am not right. Ego tells us I am alive. Ego tells me there is nothing else. Ego is limited in the spiritual sense in that we think I is here and I am not anywhere else. Some would say who we are are souls of course, that is the real I. The body is temporary! The Ego wants the body to be real. The Ego perfers the body to the soul. The Ego cannot think beyond itself and does not want to. It will die if it does and so it is based on conscious survival that actually is from the limbic system. In fact ego is something we don't have to think about and is the conscious view of self, important in creating and don't even know we are making it up. What's important in the statement made before of I am this or or that or I need recognizes Ego to creates reality. We talk about this all the time. Who was doing that, why was it done?


So adding to the thought I am, we can add ego is cause and effect related. I am not important, I need to be important. Ego influences decisions to. There are many things ego does. When we say we create reality it is important to know it could have happen anyway. Ego is an illusion in that it is the thinker and doer in that it creates "the" events fulfilling that creates cause and effect. Ego gives rise to what we do and why. Our desires are seen in Ego. Many for whatever reason don't mention Ego is nothing more then thinking.

Originally Posted by lemex

So adding to the thought I am, we can add ego is cause and effect related. I am not important, I need to be important. Ego influences decisions to. There are many things ego does. When we say we create reality it is important to know it could have happen anyway. Ego is an illusion in that it is the thinker and doer in that it creates "the" events fulfilling that creates cause and effect. Ego gives rise to what we do and why. Our desires are seen in Ego. Many for whatever reason don't mention Ego is nothing more then thinking.

Pretty much. The ego essentially gives you a focal point for your existential experience, and because of that you have a relationship with yourself and the external world - and Spirituality. Spirituality comes from - as Jung put it, "a sense of I am." It is that relationship that gives rise to beliefs if you're taking this from a purely Spiritual perspective and therefore the rest of the belief system that any individual is a part of. Identification with Spirituality and any associations from that identification is a part of ego.

Spirit doesn't think it's Spiritual.

The belief that ego has nothing to do with Jung or Freud and that a Spiritual person is 'above' ego is a sign that the ego is out of balance, because an ego that can identify with itself in a stable way is healthy.

Spirituality tends to think it exists in splendid isolation and for the most part Spiritual people have identified with the Spiritual Self rather than the human self. The problem there is that their human self is the 'filter' through which they construct their Spiritual framework and conscious reality, and denying it by annihilating it isn't going to change anything, because often it's very obvious that it's still there.


I was watching a YouTube earlier today that stated that the mind/brain mechanism - and therefore the ego - is an agent of consciousness, which is a top-down approach.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

When I read this, I thought you were talking about yourself.

If you really dislike Greenslade, you can always put him on you ignore list.

Yes to both of those. What we express is an expression of our own consciousness and is seldom the way things really are. A healthy, balanced ego would have been able to process that.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

When I read this, I thought you were talking about yourself.

Big John, (imo) there is no support whatsoever for your conclusion based on what I wrote - including or especially that my comments have never indicated an obsession with involuntary defecation being an ultimate result of legitimate spiritual practice which is utterly absurd, although that is Greenslade‘s repeated and fallacious assertion. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but if your statement were a bridge, it would collapse, e.g., poor engineering. You may need to consider applying increased, some? any? rigor to the processing and evaluation of ideas and concepts vs. simply reacting with hit-and-run one-liners. Or if you want to explain how your statement holds-up - besides supporting like-minded cohort on a forum (which I understand) - I invite your explanatory comment, assuming you are actually capable and so disposed. But I’m not holding my breath on that, and likewise on my original reply (post # 17) to your OP this thread you yourself initiated.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

If you really dislike Greenslade, you can always put him on you ignore list

Let’s be clear, there is no social problem as I am not here for repetitive sterile arguments or personality conflict (and that could be taken as a hint to a relative, per your own signature: 'newbie' on the forum). Further, my comments were directed and responsive to member Iamthat, and were related to post content deposited in the thread and relevant to discussion, factually descriptive, analyzed and discussed conceptually, and deliberately avoiding personality issues - including those autobiographical personal self-references often introduced by Greenslade himself (as his prerogative, but for reasons mentioned, extracted by me).

I do not “dislike Greenslade”. Nor would I put him or anybody else on an ignore list, have never done so, and never will. That’s childish imv. Rather, I simply don't respond to him, as I find - and this has been true for at least a few years now - that his posts are largely not credible whether in their internal consistency as reasoned (or not, as is often the case), as practical truth in terms of veracity, or applicability of content to discussion (or real life), and in their apparent motive for interaction as consistently demonstrated…often all 3 (imho!). Meanwhile Greenslade often responds to my posts which is his prerogative as a member and that is fine with me, even if it is a dead-end as far as I'm concerned, the determination of which is my prerogative, which I hope you will respect.

Hope that helps to clarify my position vis-à-vis your comments.


~ J

.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but if your statement were a bridge, it would collapse, e.g., poor engineering.

Are you, or were you an engineer? If not, you are not qualified to make such a statement.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

I do not “dislike Greenslade”. Nor would I put him or anybody else on an ignore list, have never done so, and never will. That’s childish imv. Rather, I simply don't respond to him, as I find - and this has been true for at least a few years now - that his posts are largely not credible whether in their internal consistency as reasoned (or not, as is often the case), as practical truth in terms of veracity, or applicability of content to discussion (or real life), and in their apparent motive for interaction as consistently demonstrated…often all 3 (imho!). Meanwhile Greenslade often responds to my posts which is his prerogative as a member and that is fine with me, even if it is a dead-end as far as I'm concerned, the determination of which is my prerogative, which I hope you will respect.

Hope that helps to clarify my position vis-à-vis your comments.~ J . [/color][/indent]

On most sites, attacking another member personally is frowned on.

Peace.

NAMASTE.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

obsession with involuntary defecation being an ultimate result of legitimate spiritual practice which is utterly absurd, although that is Greenslade‘s repeated and fallacious assertion.

Just for the record, I've worked in mental health where people have people have lost any sense of themselves whatsoever, which includes their having to to have a nappie and being spoon fed - not force fed. It is not fallacious and it is not a belief, it happened. I also have it on good authority from another member I trust that this is indeed the case.

As for the other information, here is any amount of information on the Jungian ego and Ahamkara/Ahankara which you may ignore to your heart's content so that you can reinforce this very false agenda-based reality you have of me. I'm happy to be the subject of the discredit/disdain that creates your false reality.

Talking of respect, at least don't misrepresent what I've said, nor take the representations of others and ascribe them to me. It's immature.

[Altair]

I don't use the word 'ego' much, because truth be told I don't really believe in its existence. There is action and reaction. You get angry or irritated about something, or fearful, and some people will claim that's your *ego*, or you are attached to something or someone, and they will say ''It's your ego''. However, there's not a single credible reason to invoke such a thing as an ''ego'' as some kind of identity. The whole concept of *ego* can be dismantled if you observe yourself and how your ''mind'' operates..