How to practically force your ego to die?

Originally Posted by davidsun

According to Anil Sooklal, Vivekananda's neo-Advaita "reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism". [168][note 7] Vivekananda summarised the Vedanta as follows, giving it a modern and Universalistic interpretation:

Vivekananda is considered a Neo-Vendantist. Whereas Neo-Advaita dispenses with everything except self inquiry into "Who am I" Neo-Vedanta embraces all the practices of traditional Advaita, however subscribes to the possibility of attaining realization by following the Yoga path most attuned to one's temperament. Even so, Vivekananda recommended at least some practice of all four Yogas and the order he founded certainly does.

And yes, even though he was an adherent of Advaita Vedanta he also was a devotee of the Divine Mother (Kali), and as devotion (Bhakti) is one of the four Yogas there's no inherent conflict and traditional Advaita insists it's a necessary practice.

[Hilary]

Fall in love with a sociopath, and survive.

Yep. That'll do it.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yup. I think I have a reasonable understanding of the difference. In the psychological sense ego is the integrated sense of self whereas Ahamkara is the sense of doership and ownership. They aren't exactly analogous but close enough for general discussion.

I think the only difference is the expression within the context of the culture. The ego does and owns, it 'does' Spirituality and owns it's beliefs, which it guards jealously and woe betide anyone who pokes a stick at them. If you plough through this discussion the weight of the wisdom is in the definition and not the understanding, which is the surface layer of the ego. And, of course, people own their definitions because they are what defines their reality. If you're looking for an understanding you still have a sense of "I am......" but it means your ego is more balanced. In Jungian, the 'contents' of your ego is more of a "I am a learner" than "I am the owner of my beliefs/knowledge."

Spiritual knowledge and understanding is as much status as wealth to the ego - as in the term "A wealth of knowledge." The ego is not interested in the money/knowledge per se but the perceptual status that's 'invented' by the perception. but As with everything else, it's the intentions behind them that matter.

This is where ego and Ahamkara come together. Jung says that when people talk about the ego they're actually talking about the 'contents' of the ego, and that's when all this comes together both psychologically and Spiritually. You being Spiritual is as much the 'contents' of ego as you having much wealth. For illustration purposes only, I should add. To Westerners that's perceptual reality and cognitive behaviour, to an ancient Easterner it's kara or an 'invented thing' (perceptual reality to them is 'invented'/not real) and Chitta or lower mind. Cognitive behaviour 'operates' at a more base level, as does Chitta. Or close enough to make no real difference, culture aside.

One of the places where Jung's model of the ego meets Spirituality is in the understanding of the Observer vs the Observed - the self is the Observer and the ego is the Observed. When you understand what are the actions of the ego you pretty much automatically move past them and become more of an Observer in daily Life. That helps you understand what are not the actions of the ego. It's not as ideal as an Adept would achieve I guess, but it means you're not trapped in the ego.

And the Observer knows that there is no Observer without an Observed. But then, "I am an Observer."

Originally Posted by Anala

I simply pick up the pearls, hold them in my hand, observe, learn and put them done, back on the path, this is a journey.

There are pearls that you can carry with you in your heart.

Originally Posted by davidsun

Yah - I'm just saying that I think (and so experience) there's much more to (what I call) 'Life' than 'Peace' - 'Growth' and 'Evolution', for example. Also 'cautioning' folks to be wary of its 'sweet' taste - if and as 'Peace' is perseveratively indulged in will end up being stultifying.

I remember the song, that takes me back quite a long time. In the same vein you can fight against the tide of Fate or you can be at peace within yourself as you ride the waves. Being at peace as you break down, knowing that the breaking down is the forerunner of rebuilding better and stronger. Being at peace with each time having its raison d'etre.

Originally Posted by iamthat

So you never said that the ego cannot be used in the context of a spiritual discussion? Hmmm.

From a previous post:



Perhaps you don't pay too much attention to your own offerings either? Or perhaps you just say whatever suits your mood at any particular moment.

Peace

I never used the word 'cannot' and the ancients couldn't have used the word 'ego' because Latin wasn't invented until many years after Sanskrit was the common language. The word entered the common vernacular with Freud and Jung in its present context and entered Spirituality sometime after., and was used in translation of the religious and philosophical texts. The word came from psychology not Spirituality. Jung himself said that what most people were talking about when they talked about the ego was not the ego itself but the 'contents' - and this misunderstanding of the original Jungian definition is what Spiritual people talk about in threads like these. They don't realise that when they wax Spiritual about the ego they are not aware that they are not talking about the ego, but a misconception.

The people who talk about "The ego is..." and "The ego does...." are psychoanalysing and not being Spiritual, and if they can't tell the difference then I guess that says so much about them. So no, I never said that it cannot, if anything I was implying that - from the perspective of Spiritual integrity and understanding - it shouldn't be discussed in a Spirituality that has no truck with anything beyond the label.

"Aham" means "I", "ego" means "I" and I'm a huge fan of irony.

The interesting thing to note is that the ancients made no distinction between religion/philosophy and what has come to be known today as psychology, and what I find interesting is the correlations between Jung and Eastern religion/philosophy given that Jung was an avid student of those and they clearly influenced his thinking. Also given your degree (was it?) in psychology, your third-party expertise of mental health practices (I used to work in mental health, by the way) and your wealth in Spiritual knowledge, what do you think? For instance, a narcissistic personality is more concerned with its own perceived status and will go to any lengths to maintain that 'high ground regardless of the ridiculous lengths they go to. How do you think that affects Spiritual understandings? If we're going to have a discussion of the ego within Spirituality, shouldn't we come to these understandings? Shouldn't we talk about aspects of the ego and how it 'operates' so that we can understand ourselves better?

Peace

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You tell me. Simply existing to me means not having to think about Spirituality or anything other than living moment-to-moment in the here and now. And not trying to force my ego to die, not thinking that I should..... anything.

Physical Existence is spiritual because the "non-physical" existence, which creates and is responsible for physical existence is energy, this non-physical existence energy is spirit or the holy spirit.


Yes, not thinking about spirituality in the context of not literally believing in any false and misunderstanding concepts, ideas, beliefs, analogies, metaphors, myths etc etc and not wanting/desiring any self interest, benefit and/or outcome from spirituality/being spiritual, which includes bliss, going to an afterlife or ultimate reality when we die- heaven/nirvana etc etc.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

And the Observer knows that there is no Observer without an Observed. But then, "I am an Observer."

Well that's the thing, isn't it? Just what is doing the observing?

Is it the sense of self or is sense of self being Witnessed too? If it's sense of self that's the Observer Trap. If sense of self is itself being Witnessed that's the breakthrough.

However one thing... Even if there is no thing to be observed there's still a Witness. Think deep sleep. Witness is still there. Experience is still there. It's not an absence of experience but an experience of absence. Same can be said for the deepest level of Samadhi.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Vivekananda is considered a Neo-Vendantist. Whereas Neo-Advaita dispenses with everything except self inquiry into "Who am I" Neo-Vedanta embraces all the practices of traditional Advaita, however subscribes to the possibility of attaining realization by following the Yoga path most attuned to one's temperament. Even so, Vivekananda recommended at least some practice of all four Yogas and the order he founded certainly does.

And yes, even though he was an adherent of Advaita Vedanta he also was a devotee of the Divine Mother (Kali), and as devotion (Bhakti) is one of the four Yogas there's no inherent conflict and traditional Advaita insists it's a necessary practice.

.......................

For those who only think of 'Kali' in her 'gory', as in her Blood and Gore! 'image' as I once did (from Wikipedia):

Kali's earliest appearance is that of a destroyer of evil forces. She is the most powerful form of Shakti, and the goddess of one of the four subcategories of the Kulamārga, a category of Tantric Saivism. Over time, Kali has been worshipped by devotional movements and tantric sects variously as the Divine Mother, Mother of the Universe, Adi Shakti, or Adi Parashakti. Shakta Hindu and Tantric sects additionally worship her as the ultimate reality or Brahman. She is also seen as the divine protector and the one who bestows moksha, or liberation. Kali is often portrayed standing or dancing on her consort, the Hindu god Shiva, who lies calm and prostrate beneath her. Kali is worshipped by Hindus throughout India.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Hilary

Fall in love with a sociopath, and survive.

Yep. That'll do it.

I'd bet that that was the result of pre-incarnation possibility/opportunity 'contract' you made with 'him'. Hopefully, your 'survival' wasn't too 'rough' on the 'guy' when/if he realized that you 'won'! Hopefully he will also learn and be 'better off' as a result of the co-incidence - if he doesn't, his next life (assuming he even has one) will surely be doozy! .

From my book:

The demoralization and demise of those who don’t accede to and accord with the prescriptions of conscience is assured by their own apprehensiveness—they are simul*taneously afflicted from within. Particularly when others around them increasingly suffer, because they then cannot escape knowing that selfish excess is unjustified and denying others their due is a sin [sin=anti-Life], personal misgivings and anticipation of retributive misfortune overshadow their thoughts and feelings.