Should we even be spiritual while incarnated in the physis? And why do we incarnate?

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I believe that the consciousness' experience in physical goes through the following stages of evolvement: instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition.
...
We, humans, need to learn to master our emotions, and developing our intellect will help us.

I think if you want to apply your sequence to the development of our souls in general, the order of your fist two steps must be reversed: Our souls developed instincts after they already had emotions. Instincts are mental mechanisms that guide an individual’s behavior toward positive emotions (e.g. food).

Currently I think what most people on this planet need mostly is indeed the development of their cognitive abilities. Ego and rational mind make up the highest form of conscious evolution. And most people are far from having realized their highest intellectual potential.

Originally Posted by janielee

I would say 1. I have transcended nothing but 2. Don’t project your own experience and limitations on to the world and 3. You subscribe to psychological theories, all well and good and safer territories for those whom still need words, but that’s not the spiritual practices of the greats - even if that thought hurts your ego

You saw some things and figured spirituality is a mind game, something to be understood and noted through conceptual mind. I’m with a few others, the ones people like Altair disbelieve

Did I disturb your Spirituality by association?

Originally Posted by janielee

Indeed. This is you to a tee, I would say there are those who no longer operate from egoic mind, as hard as it is to believe for the many who can’t even understand what that even means

Namaste

JL

It means anything you want it to. FYI, the model as described in Sanskrit is the same as the Jungian model - Ahamkara/Ahankara. The Sanskrit translation for what Jung calls the 'contents of the ego' is 'any created thing'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamkara

Ignorance as in being nescient is excusable, a lack of knowledge someone might have simply because they haven't been exposed to it is quite understandable. Ignorance based on what is ignored is not excusable, and it only serves to fortify the ego - that's both the ego the Ascended Masters would have talked about and the Ju8ngian one - not one's Spirituality.

You once defined 'ego' as cognitive function and not long afterwards you derided me to another member over it so you could score brownie points. A very Spiritual non-ego action. The argument was that the Ascended Masters didn't have egos and that they clearly weren't mental cases because of their lack if it. Can you please explain then, if the Ascended Masters had no cognitive function how did they manage to do ll the things humans with cognitive functions do?

Originally Posted by Siemens

- Positive Emotion (Nice place to live in)
- Engagement (A job and income)
- Relations (Meaningful relationships)
- Meaning (Purpose in life)
- Accomplishment (A job and income)

Have a look at Maslo's Hierarchy of Needs, it sounds very similar.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Siemens

I’m studying psychology and the things you listed are (almost) exactly what Positive Psychology, the scientific study of happiness, postulates respective happiness. One central model (Martin Seligman's PERMA-Model) postulates the following fife dimensions:

- Positive Emotion (Nice place to live in)
- Engagement (A job and income)
- Relations (Meaningful relationships)
- Meaning (Purpose in life)
- Accomplishment (A job and income)

Cool. I don't have a psychology background but I followed a number of Psychology electives during my uni years. I haven't heard of that model before, but I can see the similarities. I think, speaking from a personal point of view [and observing people] it's pretty obvious what humans need in order to be satisfied [perhaps a better word than ''happiness''?]. I'm also aware spiritual teachings and communities can be trapped in flawed thinking, like ''I don't need all those worldly things. If I just meditate every day than my problems or desires will magically go away''. But that doesn't work. Only for a short while, or maybe when you're old and purposeless. We really have to work with the basics. In that sense Maslow [which Greenslade referred to] is correct, although Maslow's Pyramid can be problematic too if you analyse it.

Originally Posted by Siemens

I myself developed another model according to which there are primarily two things that makes us happy:
(1) Perception of the Beauty (music, films, nature, architecture, cars, furniture, smell of food, taste of food, other people’s appearance, pleasant feeling of oneself….)
(2) Using your Talents or Being Expressive (being creative, being productive in your job life, doing sports, playing games, having a purposeful mission in life, volunteering...)

Interesting.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Siemens

I think if you want to apply your sequence to the development of our souls in general, the order of your fist two steps must be reversed: Our souls developed instincts after they already had emotions. Instincts are mental mechanisms that guide an individual’s behavior toward positive emotions (e.g. food).

Currently I think what most people on this planet need mostly is indeed the development of their cognitive abilities. Ego and rational mind make up the highest form of conscious evolution. And most people are far from having realized their highest intellectual potential.

We probably use those words with different meanings.

I think minerals, plants, animals, humans, ...

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Did I disturb your Spirituality by association?

No, you humour yourself with such an assertion

Originally Posted by Greenslade

[It means anything you want it to. FYI, the model as described in Sanskrit is the same as the Jungian model - Ahamkara/Ahankara. The Sanskrit translation for what Jung calls the 'contents of the ego' is 'any created thing'.

I’m familiar with many teachings and it’s simple that your definition of it does not resonate. I’m not interested enough to determine whether it’s your definition or Jung’s but my experience bears out the truth of the spiritual teachings I’ve learnt from

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You once defined 'ego' as cognitive function and not long afterwards you derided me to another member over it so you could score brownie points. A very Spiritual non-ego action. The argument was that the Ascended Masters didn't have egos and that they clearly weren't mental cases because of their lack if it. Can you please explain then, if the Ascended Masters had no cognitive function how did they manage to do ll the things humans with cognitive functions do?

I derided you for brownie points is your interpretation. Even today there are Great Awakened Ones and although you can’t see it, it’s true they no longer operate with ego as the guiding light. Reactivity, and grudges is a good example of ego. (Of which I operate under too)

As Starman or was it Bartholomew or John32241 once said, it’s all good though, everyone is at the stage of development they are.

That’s fine. What I find unhelpful is people who postulate the impossible because they can’t grasp it. It’s like a bird who insists that there is no true water animal.

As to the so called Masters, ‘tis very clear that we are fortunate they utilize the physical to help those still mired in the worldly ways of harm and suffering,

JL

Originally Posted by janielee

No, you humour yourself with such an assertion

I learned from the best.

Originally Posted by janielee

I’m familiar with many teachings and it’s simple that your definition of it does not resonate. I’m not interested enough to determine whether it’s your definition or Jung’s but my experience bears out the truth of the spiritual teachings I’ve learnt from

The truth is anything you want it to be, and it seems you're quite happy to paddle in the shallows. Perhaps it's more of your ego not wanting to know. There must be some deep Spirituality in ignoring the more profound understandings for the shallower ones - which for the most part are merely mentions. I did read through a list you once gave me, which only served to show what your truth is based on.

Originally Posted by janielee

I derided you for brownie points is your interpretation. Even today there are Great Awakened Ones and although you can’t see it, it’s true they no longer operate with ego as the guiding light. Reactivity, and grudges is a good example of ego. (Of which I operate under too)

I know there are Great Awakened Ones, I simply choose not to name-drop. However, that doesn't mean I don't understand their teachings so your tactics won't work.

The first post you ever sent me was to slate me for thinking I was always right, and every post since - including this one - has been a tactic to demean me so that you can gain the Spiritual high ground.

Originally Posted by janielee

As Starman or was it Bartholomew or John32241 once said, it’s all good though, everyone is at the stage of development they are.

That’s fine. What I find unhelpful is people who postulate the impossible because they can’t grasp it. It’s like a bird who insists that there is no true water animal.

As to the so called Masters, ‘tis very clear that we are fortunate they utilize the physical to help those still mired in the worldly ways of harm and suffering,

JL

The world is full of Masters and many aren't even Spiritual, but I guess that's as much down to the ability of the perceiver to recognise them as such.

In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna says "Air, water, earth, fire, sky, mind, intelligence and ahankaar (ego) together constitute the nature created by me."

It's not your Spirituality that makes you Spiritual and if you paddled out further than ankle-depth you'd realise that.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The first post you ever sent me was to slate me for thinking I was always right, and every post since - including this one - has been a tactic to demean me so that you can gain the Spiritual high ground.

The world is full of Masters and many aren't even Spiritual, but I guess that's as much down to the ability of the perceiver to recognise them as such.

Without going back, I’m pretty sure that’s not true.

But what is more revealing, IMO, is the way you took the objection to your assertion that there if real Masters didn’t have ego, they would be unable to function/live as a personal offence, and it couldn’t be true that these people don’t live from ego. The grudge, the resentment, the offence.

I see it as that the ego become a tool, an interface of the Greater Self, and the tail no longer wags the dog.
Only those who have the Awakened Eye see this and live it, the rest of us not so much.

That you would choose only one definition has more to do with your need to feel spiritually awakened; when there is no problem, All is well.

And yes, there are many good people of this world who may not have learnt “spirituality”.

Doesn’t take away from any of it, but nor is that a Spiritual Master - as a SM has a very specific and transcendental insight and vantage including for many aspects of omniscience.

You see this not from the words they speak only, but by their approach to life, others, their reactions, their clarity and the ease with which such ones speak from Truth. Which doesn’t deviate from the teachings of the spiritual teachers of acclaim, so that’s nice. How consistent Masters and students of Truth really are at core...

Sure - I don’t see things the way you do hopefully you will be able to forgive the perceived offence to your good self

Originally Posted by Greenslade

It's not your Spirituality that makes you Spiritual and if you paddled out further than ankle-depth you'd realise that.

A nice radio bite, but (and here I go name dropping again, oh the shame!!) Rumi, Buddha, Jesus, Hafiz, Ramana Maharsri, Rinzai, Bodhidharma, Milarepa, Meister Eckhart - these are the compasses not because they do nice easy sound bites, but because they live and penetrated Truth (which has specificity) and manifest from the same core truths.

And it’s not stuff you just make up (although I appreciate it’s easier to turn spirituality into a self driven ego hobby and say whatever we like about it - how’s that for setting a test we mark for ourselves?) Every student’s dream, except what have you learnt except to stay in a place of offence?

JL

This seems relevant here

Originally Posted by Jyotir

It is not really true that it is "hard to define spirituality", even if that premise makes for protracted and indeterminate discussion.

Spirituality can be and has been defined, importantly and significantly by its own masters, progenitors, and proponents.
Not a big deal unless it’s important to make it so difficult for one’s (ego’s) diversionary agenda that conveniently ignores the former, and focuses primarily on the limited means and methods of the latter.

Definition of spirituality:
In human beings (individually or collectively), spirituality is the awakening to the possibility of, and subsequent undertaking of a conscious deliberate acceleration of the evolution of consciousness occurring generally in Nature, by some practice or method which is effective for accomplishing that intention, e.g., Yoga, through the application of the self-conscious intelligent will.

Done.

And it doesn’t matter by which effective method. Truth is One, paths are many. Truth is both the way and the goal.
However, intrinsic to human life which is predominantly mental, there are some intermediate problems:

1) The mind rejects the definition because by nature, it doesn’t want to be spiritual. Spirituality represents too much of a sacrifice of status quo of the familiar acquired habits and prerogatives of superficial mind-bound limited life, regardless of how unsatisfying it is. The now developed mental faculty, the mind, reasons to remain untransformed as a ‘superior’ mode of being (because by its limited cognition, it is - or superficially seems to be), and this is the pre-eminent problem of human life. It’s a threat to the sovereignty of dominant ego-mind, which has developed its separative objective consciousness in many previous incarnations and has reached a culmination whereby post-awakening, it may then potentially consciously surrender to higher principle within, which is what spirituality is.

2) Disagreement about various approaches and forms of practice appear to, (or, per #1, need to) invalidate the general premise or definition. The fact that there are many ways to practice and realize the goal and purpose of spirituality does not necessarily invalidate its possibilities or eventualities.

3) Similarly, an equivocation of the general unconscious cosmic evolution as spiritual, with what is the conscious application of the intelligent will in specific individuated human beings to accelerate the general process. They are not mutually exclusive to each other. Technically, the general evolutionary process is ‘spiritual’ in its procession, - but very very very slow. This is why the self-conscious opportunity to accelerate the general process, while also spiritual - is therefore especially spiritual as a concentration of the self-same tendency.


~ J

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by janielee

This seems relevant here

Great 'retrieve' of J's post, JL!