The nature of The Ego.

Originally Posted by Iamit

I know many mental health workers, a minority of which are interested in the dynamics of conditions, (rather than just the chemical approach), and the effects of the fragmentation of Ego, and the origin and meaning of the term which is certainly relevant to the concerns in spiritual circles to eliminate the Ego. There is no agreement about the meaning of the word to facilitate discussion. There is no point simply repeating different definitions. Be well and good luck.

And this is why the Spiritual discussion is such a mess with no clear understanding of what's being discussed. Elimination of the ego is only the mainstream definition of the ego on steroids, which people are intentionally ignorant of.

Good luck with that, because it's not Spiritual.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

So from a Spiritual perspective, what happens when a Spiritual person takes a word from another area of understanding, redefines it for the sake of their own agenda of superiority and simply causes confusion and ignorance? When there is another Spirituality correct term that gives understanding and insight but is ignored so that people can use there own definitions of the Spiritually incorrect word?


What are the reasons you use the word 'ego' and not the Sanskrit 'Ahamcara'? Or are you so unaware that you're not talking about ego after all, you're talking about yourself?

Many of us are quite comfortable using the term ego in a spiritual context pertaining to the limiting identification with the illusory personality. It is you who insists that the term ego should only be used in a psychoanalytical context. People are free to use the term however they understand it.

I avoid using the term ahamkara (meaning the tendency to self-reference) precisely because it is a Sanskrit term which will mean little to most people.

I suspect that when you talk about an agenda of superiority you are simply projecting onto others that which exists within yourself.

Peace

Originally Posted by iamthat

Many of us are quite comfortable using the term ego in a spiritual context pertaining to the limiting identification with the illusory personality. It is you who insists that the term ego should only be used in a psychoanalytical context. People are free to use the term however they understand it.

I avoid using the term ahamkara (meaning the tendency to self-reference) precisely because it is a Sanskrit term which will mean little to most people.

I suspect that when you talk about an agenda of superiority you are simply projecting onto others that which exists within yourself.

Peace

The personality isn't illusory. Where does your beliefs come from? And you can't do anything but self-reference because it's all you.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

And this is why the Spiritual discussion is such a mess with no clear understanding of what's being discussed. Elimination of the ego is only the mainstream definition of the ego on steroids, which people are intentionally ignorant of.

Good luck with that, because it's not Spiritual.

No-one knows so cannot judge the internal life of another particularly in terms of what may or may not be a spiritual concern for them. If you feel you can and wish to indulge in doing so, I have no interest in that.

Originally Posted by Iamit

No-one knows so cannot judge the internal life of another particularly in terms of what may or may not be a spiritual concern for them. If you feel you can and wish to indulge in doing so, I have no interest in that.

Interesting that you see it as judgement. Creating your own definitions for words and ignoring established definitions and understandings is no longer a Spiritual concern, it's not Spirituality but personality. Perhaps you'd like to discuss how Spiritual the practice of creating a reality based on what is intentionally ignored impacts on self-awareness?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Interesting that you see it as judgement. Creating your own definitions for words and ignoring established definitions and understandings is no longer a Spiritual concern, it's not Spirituality but personality. Perhaps you'd like to discuss how Spiritual the practice of creating a reality based on what is intentionally ignored impacts on self-awareness?

Explore your conditioning that has resulted in this desire to undermine all opposition to your point of view rather than simply reach mutual understanding which is already clear between us. No point in repeaing it. My own guess is that you project onto others what has been condemned as unacceptable in yourself. Reflect on this on your own as there will be no further response from me, no matter what your reply. We are done. Be well and good luck.

Originally Posted by Iamit

Explore your conditioning that has resulted in this desire to undermine all opposition to your point of view rather than simply reach mutual understanding which is already clear between us. No point in repeaing it. My own guess is that you project onto others what has been condemned as unacceptable in yourself. Reflect on this on your own as there will be no further response from me, no matter what your reply. We are done. Be well and good luck.

Yes we are, and thank you for the judgement.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Many of us are quite comfortable using the term ego in a spiritual context pertaining to the limiting identification with the illusory personality. [...]

Not a controversy in spiritual context. Including...

[...] talk about an agenda of superiority[...] simply projecting

Yes...This is a common and fascinating phenomenon.... the inverted significance of ego for staunch atheists.

In that case, God is the illusory "Personality" who must be dismissed as "unreal", because God would therefore be a challenge to ego/ahamkara (<- take your pick as they are the same for purposes of spiritual discussion).... while ego is elevated by its own exclusive (i.e., superior) existential necessity for self-perpetuation, etc. In that case it is anathema that personality could be illusion, e.g. I wouldn't exist!!! (scary). Thus the confusion persists:

God doesn't exist; ego is my God; human personality cannot embody illusion; rather, God is the illusion.

Peace

Perhaps only an illusory personality would see peace as a problem.



~ J

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Not a controversy in spiritual context. Including... Yes...This is a common and fascinating phenomenon.... the inverted significance of ego for staunch atheists.

In that case, God is the illusory "Personality" who must be dismissed as "unreal", because God would therefore be a challenge to ego/ahamkara (<- take your pick as they are the same for purposes of spiritual discussion).... while ego is elevated by its own exclusive (i.e., superior) existential necessity for self-perpetuation, etc. In that case it is anathema that personality could be illusion, e.g. I wouldn't exist!!! (scary). Thus the confusion persists:

God doesn't exist; ego is my God; human personality cannot embody illusion; rather, God is the illusion.

Perhaps only an illusory personality would see peace as a problem.



~ J

You should leave the psychoanalysis alone Jyotir, because you're only perpetuating ignorance. If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that the ego derives status from its belief in God as much as it derives status from thinking it knows what the ego is.

What so many don't seem to realise is that ego is a reflection of their own judgements and limitations.

[Iamit]

Whatever definition of Ego is preferred, from a nondual spiritual perspective, it will be Oneness manifesting as such so no need to overcome Ego for wholeness purposes.