What does spiritual development actually mean?

Originally Posted by janielee

And this is where we differ (I am smiling completely)

1. It's not ideologies I worship or care about, don't you know that? It's Truth that I care about first and foremost, and those words and echoes of incredible synchronicity, consistency and application, are those that are similarly touched. You've always assumed, I believe, and I haven't really cared to comment, that it's people or texts I look up to. LOL Far from it but when you've been to Wonderland, and someone speaks, you know without a doubt that's simply true. It helps to be in the company of spiritual adepts across traditions. Love loves company IMO.

2. The argument seems to be coming up a lot recently - ohhh you are neglecting yourself, ohhh you are not looking at your evil little dark side etc. Really, it's a moot point. Anyone who does the spiritual thing (if this is what we're gonna call it) has and will always be looking at all that is, and arises within. No-one need to fret there.

3. Those that are enarmored by the proposition that ego is all there is, and spiritual development is just about better morals and thoughts, runs a fine story - but to imagine it's what the traditions - Jesus, Buddha, Meister Eickhart, Rumi, Hafiz, Auribindo, Lao Tze etc talk about - is far from correct, regardless of agreement or otherwise.

In friendship and happy that you have found what works for you

JL

1. I haven't assumed anything JL, it's something I don't do. The truth is relative to one's own agenda.

2. Incorrect. But then what do I know about my own experience? it seems not much as you yourself have pointed out on occasion.

3, As you said yourself, everybody has their own definition for what is Spiritual or not and what Spiritual development is or not.

Be safe out there.

Originally Posted by iamthat

Does the concept of ego come from psychologists? In the West, Freud certainly came up with the threefold id, ego and superego, but he was not the first.

Ahaṃkāra (अहंकार) is a Sanskrit term that is related to the ego and egoism - that is, the identification or attachment of one's ego. Ahamkara may be translated as the tendency to self-reference.

The term ahamkara comes from an approximately 3,000-year-old Vedic philosophy, where Ahaṃ is the "I" and kāra is "any created thing" or "to do". The term originated in Vedic philosophy over 3,000 years ago, and was later incorporated into Hindu philosophy, particularly Saṃkhyā philosophy.

Peace.

If Jung's definition had been written in Sanskrit this would have been a very different story, quite a few on this thread would be discussing the definition as truth and defending it just as vigorously. And the Hindu Masters didn't use the word 'ego', those Western scholars who were trying to interpret Eastern philosophies and language used the words. The strange thing is that here is a thread that has missed the point completely.

Freud defined the word 'ego' - very simply - as deceit. Jung is credited with coining it first and defined it as a sense of 'I am', and this is where it begins to make sense. What he also said is that what most call the ego is not the ego itself but the contents of the ego - and that's the key understanding. In Spirituality, nobody wants to hear about Jung and psychology and it's already been summarily dismissed in this thread.

The understanding I'm trying to come to - which has already happened in this thread - is that beyond the definitions and semantics there's no real difference between what the Hindu Masters were saying and what Jung was saying. As far as I can see the misunderstanding comes from people's own interpretations and often that is based on agenda and not the search for understanding. For me personally, it doesn't matter who invented what but what understanding can come from it all. Jung conducted much detailed analysis of the ego and its constructs and when you understand those constructs you have a much clearer picture of what's going on.

Your "Ahamkara" is Jung's 'self'
Your Aham is Jung's 'ego'
Your kāra or "any created thing" is Jung's 'contents' of the ego.

I'll stay with Jung because that's what I'm familiar with. Jung said that the most common mistake is that what people call the ego is not the ego itself but the 'contents' of the ego. The ego is I am/Aham and the contents are kāra or "any created thing/s". As Jung would have it, "I am" is the ego/Aham itself and "I am Spiritual" is the contents/kara. It's in the misunderstanding of this that everything falls apart.

The ego itself is quite a complicated beastie and its constructs go back to the time when we came out of the trees, then it was a survival mechanism when we were prey to lions and tigers and bears, oh my and has been with us ever since. In many ways it's still a survival mechanism but that's another long psychological story that nobody wants to hear because it doesn't have a label that says 'Spiritual. But anyways..... When there is understanding of the ego construct from a Jungian perspective there is a far better understanding of the Sanskrit, IMHO.

You see, what we're not looking at here is that one is right and the other is wrong, what we're looking at is an unwillingness to reconcile Spirituality with anything else. Very often that comes down to egoic agenda. There seems to be a struggle with Yin and Yang when it comes to Spirituality and anything else, so I guess Triplex Unity has little chance. I also guess that 'Unity Consciousness' has gone interstellar.

Originally Posted by iamthat

in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says to Arjuna that ahamkara must be removed - in other words, it should be subordinated to the Divine. The reason for this is that the Self is not (cannot be) present when one is in a state of ahamkara.

Well yes, and again it parallels Jung when the egoic construct is dismantled and I wonder if it's also referring to vibrations, which would help understanding from the modern-day Spiritual vernacular. "Surrendering to God's Will" is another way to put it.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Hi there Daz


I think everyone comes to the stage where they either do something about it or they fall into the abyss, it's called the "Precipice Principle" and it's something us humans do so enjoy. many years ago I asked myself one question - "What do I want to Live with in my heart?" From there I started thinking about all the baggage that was lying around and U started to empty the bottom of the closet. Even the pink frilly undies had to go. But it's times like those when the Universe conspires and comes to your aid in whatever shape or form that takes.


I really don't want to dwell on the past, other than to acknowledge that it happened and while I was immersed in the experience it wasn't much fun. Those 'bad experiences' still aren't much fun but they don't have the same effect any more, I grit my teeth and simply get on with it. The good news is that those past experiences have given me quite the useful toolbox that can be used to empathise with people - the downcast and the downtrodden. And there comes the realisation of self that I had almost forgotten.



It's when the 'bad times' do indeed become a lesson and not a reason to collect more baggage along the way that the experience of those 'bad times' becomes very different. There is still a certain amount of attachment to the experience energetically but consciously not so much, it's as though there is one part of me that is immersed in the experience and the other not, both inhabiting the same space.


Other than that it becomes an 'opportunity' for others to play out certain oles. Those that are compassionate find a focus for their compassion, those that are strong inside find a reason to use their strength and so on. It becomes the basis of human experience.


I Love synchronities and that particular piece has provided me with some doozies, in particular "The more you want to be Spiritually Enlightened, the more self-centred and shallow you become in trying to get there.” That has certainly come shining through in this thread.


I guess if you perceive that you need some serious Spiritual development then.......

Hey Mr G ..

Sure, I hear you … it’s a point of contemplation to do something about things like clearing out one’s baggage . This does come from a place of lack so to speak in reflection of wanting to feel better in someway . This I would say ties nicely into the meaning of spiritual development . Understanding a process of how one feels and how one can feel not only in the immediate but in time to come if they follow a specific process . This process can be associated similarly with a weight loss program just for examples sake . First of all one feels a lack of something within themselves and then does something about it . It’s that simples . What I find a little odd is that there is a new age concept not to feel lack lol while one is fighting with their self image and body weight or ill health .

There are many ways to look at this and look into this of course but from various sources that I see quotes for here and there including Tolle is this disassociation .. which in my eyes is just putting your head in the sand hoping that things just go away if you but a distance between oneself and one’s thoughts and feelings where they don’t belong to you in some shape or form ..

In my eyes it is about owning one’s mind-body-soul aspects in order to fully integrate the experience, not to say to oneself that none of this ‘baggage’ belongs to me lol ..

One feels lack because one needs to self enquire into why they do, not to put a distance between themselves and the reason ..

Just of late I have listened to a few short healing videos of Abraham Hicks .. Haven't listened to anything more than that but I resonate not only with the healing processes she speaks about but the whole 'allowance' process ..

In this respect it's about allowing the 'lack' and the past associations into the now and allow the change to become you ...

This resonates more with me than the approach of putting a distance between how you feel now whether is lack or not ..

(Thanks Anne for you kind words)


x daz x

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Altair

I don't know all of that either, but it feels nice to be able to share it with people. I think it might help to talk about it face-to-face with others. I think I may recall somewhere that you are lacking this a bit. My conversations with others who do yoga are invaluable, it really helps. Online world just isn't remotely similar, it's just words written down, words that demand interpretation without facial cues, sufficient context, tone, etc. If you connect with others it's just much easier to think of forgiveness and compassion. I'm not so sure that you can't relate Shivani..

Interesting by the way that you are learning about East African languages. May I ask why an Aussie is doing that..?!

Yes, I can relate, but I have only ever connected even remotely with only two people in my entire life...and that was a very long time ago...I have forgotten what it is like to connect with another person...so I try to do it online...big mistake.

What is an Aussie doing studying West African and Polynesian languages?

It all has to do with the lost continent of Lemuria or Kumari Kandam, which joined the land masses of India, Australia and Madagascar which sank (reportedly) as a result of the last polar ice melt some 11,000 -15,000 years ago during the Neolithic Age.

According to both Tamil scripts and lemur fossil dating, the "Out of Africa" rift-valley theory is incorrect. Humans and animals migrated out of Lemuria just before or during the time the continent sank...As also evidenced by Australian Aborigines having the same DNA as the Gond tribes of India (hence why the southern continents were all called "Gondwanaland').

Now, if you compare the scripts from about 7,000 BCE from three different places on earth being Easter Island, Mojendro Daro and Tifinagh (Africa), you will notice they are almost identical...but nobody really knows what they are saying despite that.

I am trying to trace all languages back to a common source...The first spoken language, which the Tamil people of India have declared occured in Lemuria after the very first Tamil sangam (language symposium) some 20,000 years ago...and the language spread out from there across the globe.

Besides which, I was revisiting a YouTube video on Kundalini and the Chakras from a Tamil perspective I saw a few years ago..and thought to myself "I wonder what else this guy does?" So I decided to look at all his videos and follow his channel...which lead me to yet another person...and another..

I follow trails of thought from person to person..

Here is the video I saw a few days ago which got me started doing this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=myWd_muzTRQ&t=1277s

I have made correlations between the Indus Valley Script and the Rongo Rongo script of Easter Island before this...it is an ongoing project I have been working on for years (just out of curiosity).

When I see an etymologist who can make lightning connections between root words and ethnicity, I sit up and take notice! This is such a dude.

If anybody is interested in Lemuria and the ancient Gods who taught agriculture...this person's channel is awesome!

It is a pity I cannot speak Tamil...I can only speak Hindi and Sanskrit...I have also already understood the Brahmi script and some of the proto Asian languages.. especially proto Thai..

Here is part 1 - the Indus Valley Script and Rongo Rongo:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-5gbMAryAZ4

Here is part 2 - the African Berber connect (Barbar is a Tamil word which means 'dry land' or 'desert') and I am trying to establish a link with the English name, Barbara..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m9VKz0g239U

I just jump around wherever my mind and intellect takes me...from concept to concept. This is how I learn things.. and once learned, I never forget it.

This is what an Aussie is doing studying a tribal African dialect...to try and date the destruction of the continent of Lemuria with more precision.

You had to ask, didn't you? LOL

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey Mr G ..

Sure, I hear you … it’s a point of contemplation to do something about things like clearing out one’s baggage . This does come from a place of lack so to speak in reflection of wanting to feel better in someway . This I would say ties nicely into the meaning of spiritual development . Understanding a process of how one feels and how one can feel not only in the immediate but in time to come if they follow a specific process . This process can be associated similarly with a weight loss program just for examples sake . First of all one feels a lack of something within themselves and then does something about it . It’s that simples . What I find a little odd is that there is a new age concept not to feel lack lol while one is fighting with their self image and body weight or ill health .

There are many ways to look at this and look into this of course but from various sources that I see quotes for here and there including Tolle is this disassociation .. which in my eyes is just putting your head in the sand hoping that things just go away if you but a distance between oneself and one’s thoughts and feelings where they don’t belong to you in some shape or form ..

In my eyes it is about owning one’s mind-body-soul aspects in order to fully integrate the experience, not to say to oneself that none of this ‘baggage’ belongs to me lol ..

One feels lack because one needs to self enquire into why they do, not to put a distance between themselves and the reason ..

Just of late I have listened to a few short healing videos of Abraham Hicks .. Haven't listened to anything more than that but I resonate not only with the healing processes she speaks about but the whole 'allowance' process ..

In this respect it's about allowing the 'lack' and the past associations into the now and allow the change to become you ...

This resonates more with me than the approach of putting a distance between how you feel now whether is lack or not ..

(Thanks Anne for you kind words)


x daz x

Hey there Daz

I'm with you all the way there. I came to Spirituality because there was 'something missing' in my Life and I didn't know what it was at the time. Then Spirituality kinda happened, and as luck (loosely) would have it I found myself with people who could explain what was going on inside my head. I'd had all kind of weirdness 'downloaded' into my brain that didn't make any sense at the time - names, stories, places.... It wasn't until I found that particular group of people that could make sense of it that I could find some kind of peace. The other thing I wanted to know was what made me tick, as well as some of the fundamental existential questions that most people ask. So yes, wanting to feel better in some way because what feels like a Soul-deep restlessness is no fun at all.

I'm not sure the need to feel a lack is so New Age, many of the attitudes that were around in the early days are still very relevant today, and bear in mind that - largely but not exclusively - Westren culture is based on Christianity in many ways. If you were religious and worshipped God you had a front sow seat in heaven, if not you were going downstairs. That same fear seems to be present - however mildly - when people are talking of trying to keep their vibrations high.

I'm a trainer/assessor by trade and one of the things I've done is assist in the training of trainers. Part of that was understanding Maslo's Hierarchy of Needs and Pavlov's dogs. No, what you eat after the main course is a pavlova. It actually very surprising how much Spirituality embodies both of those - self actualisation being at the top. Isn't that what Spiritual Development? And raising those vibrations so as not to be stuck in purgatory and ignorance has those dogs slavering - metaphorically of course.

The irony of all this though is that there are quite a few Spiritual maxims that contradict the idea of Spiritual development - the concept of time notwithstanding.

What's conveniently forgotten in all of this is that sometimes people are just people. man, and that's after they've professed their Spiritual advancement. Your reality is defined by your definitions, simply, and that acts as a filter or blinkers. So when you define yourself as a 'Spiritual person' you filter or you don't see anything beyond your own definition. B y extension, when you define what is Spiritual you define what is not Spiritual. Feelings and emotions are then set against definitions of Spirituality and if they are not compatible with the definition they are rejected and/or denied. It's really that simple.

But guess what, there is nothing that isn't Source but there is plenty that isn't Spiritual. Everything is interconnected but your cognitive functions and emotions have nothing to do with a Spirituality that exists in splendid isolation. Lets' not talk about Jung even though he's using the same principles that were used some 3,000 years ago.

If we are 'here to learn the lessons' then shouldn't we be owning the experience? If the baggage isn't ours then where did it come from and if we reject it aren't we simply rejecting our own creations? No wonder we're a long way from God.

Everything happens BECAUSE of you, nothing happens TO you so you are the reason not the victim. Matter is emergent of consciousness and consciousness is re-emergent of matter. Tolle said that there is only the Now; the past is memory and the future is expectation. All of time is happening all of the time, and all of time affects all of time all of the time. I guess that kicks the 'development' part into touch.

But then it's more fun being a play within a play

[Miss Hepburn]

What does spiritual development mean...my second time dropping in here.
Funny the different things you say a couple weeks later.


For me...I know I am developed spiritually so much more than in the past...by 2 things...
1. When something pretty darn bad/catastrophic happens (as it did 3 days ago) and I can just laugh
and 100% forgive someone and help them forgive themselves and move on...like a big sister or mom.
2. When I feel 'not so great', rarely, and can not care one iota saying to the Divine Presence,
the All That Is, (I call my Dad or Father)...'You are having me feel this way for a reason...ok'.
'It's all about You, not me.'
And continue on merrily down the stream.


Summary: Putting Him first. Also, seeing this place as unreal, an illusion...the temporary dream that it is.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I am trying to trace all languages back to a common source...The first spoken language, which the Tamil people of India have declared occured in Lemuria after the very first Tamil sangam (language symposium) some 20,000 years ago...and the language spread out from there across the globe.

Blavatsky refers to the lost language Senzar, the roots of ancient Sanskrit, and supposedly the language of the Book of Dzyan, the basis for The Secret Doctrine. Unfortunately, being a lost language, there are no known examples of it available, and no other references apart from Blavatsky.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Here is part 2 - the African Berber connect (Barbar is a Tamil word which means 'dry land' or 'desert') and I am trying to establish a link with the English name, Barbara..

A more simple connection would be the Barbary Coast (also called the Berbery Coast or the Berber Coast) stretching from Morocco to Libya, inhabited by the Berber people. This terminology came from the Arabic barbariyy which in turn comes from the Greek βάρβαρος (bárbaros, “non-Greek, foreign, barbarian”). The Greek feminine is Barbara.

Interesting if the Tamil word Barbar also refers to a desert.

Peace.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

1. I haven't assumed anything JL, it's something I don't do. The truth is relative to one's own agenda.

2. Incorrect. But then what do I know about my own experience? it seems not much as you yourself have pointed out on occasion.

3, As you said yourself, everybody has their own definition for what is Spiritual or not and what Spiritual development is or not.

Be safe out there.

2 was not inferred

3 I said so only on this forum - which is a free for all forum, and thereby allows any and all theories to be postulated for the most part as long as peeps get along. The reference to spiritual masters/adepts is to reference the synchronization of those guys.

As I've said many times before, I think I understand why you see and say what you do. It works. It's what some need. We all have enough. If you're happy, I'm happy too.

Be safe also.

JL

Originally Posted by Greenslade

“Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions.” (Carl Jung)

How interesting to bring the quote of the eminent psychologist Carl Jung to the table, and in seeing that, helps me see how you formed your world views - and that of many others.

I am grateful to know there is much more to life and a person than that which psychologists may see, just as I do believe there is more to this existence than a scientist may purport.

Namaste,

JL

Originally Posted by Emm

Thank you janielee, its nice of you to say so

'Tis so, 'tis all



JL