How to practically force your ego to die?

Originally Posted by davidsun

Ahh ... BUTT the word/idea of something being invented may (and often is, in 'truth'-talking venues) be understood and mucky-muck-smugly used to imply that something or other is not 'real', or to suggest that it just 'distracts' attention from what is 'really' (i.e. 'supremely' or 'absolutey') valuable - like when something is thought of and labeled as being an illusion or illusory.

The FACT (in my opinion it IS a fact!) is that the words invent and invented references an act of and consequence of Creation (a/k.a LIFE!!)( whereby something or other is brought (i,e, vented!) into really BEING and thenceforth may be used/deployed to augment to the Flow of Love and Joy in that LIFE-BEING-and-DOING context.

I haven't studied what people who use the Ahamkara word actually mean, but my overall judgment' being that Hindo-Vedic philosopy has generally hisprically been focused on getting 'out' of LIVING here rather than on creatively 'making' LIVING here more Love and Joy productive, I think it indicates an nose-held-high-in-the-air eschewal of 'judgment' as a desirable activity (albeit if done it ha d better be done wisely) in favor of a no-[u]new[u]-in[/i]vention, 'escapist' LIFE-style.

Hence my rejection of many of the premises of said philosophy (note: I was born and experienced LIFE growing up in tradition-bound Hindu-Veda land, albeit I had a 'British' mother) so I have a gut-feeling for the philosophical contrasts what I speak of).

This is a Spiritual forum and a thread about the ego, and generally in these threads - not so much this one I should point out - people negate Jung and Freud because they are not Spiritual people and their subjects have nothing to do with Spirituality. yet Spiritual people talk about the ego - a word imported from psychology then proceed to psychoanalyse generally about people's egos. Notwithstanding Jung was well-versed in Eastern philosophies and based not just his model of the ego on Eastern philosophy but also other aspects of psychology too. So, no contrasts after all as regards this particular subject. 'Ego' is the wrong word, technically, because there is an existing Sanskrit word that is well documented and provides wisdom and insight into this particular subject that is almost Universally ignored. As far as I'm aware, only two people in this entire thread - granted I haven't ploughed though every single post - have mentioned it. That's out of - at this point - 58 pages-worth of wisdom.

How many 'invented things' in that tale of pseudo-Spirituality? Can we talk about what is illusory or not in that context? Or is the flow of love and joy merely the bliss of intentional ignorance? As far as I'm concerned Jung and Freud were the go-to guys for the ego, and psychology is the go-to subject. In a Spiritual context Ahamkara/Ahamkara is the go-to Eastern philosophy, in a forum where Eastern philosophy is revered. Yet people would rather come up with their own definitions and express that as wisdom.

Thinking that you've escaped the ego-trap is a trap the ego has you in, it's an 'invented thing' that comes from thinking you're free of the other 'invented thing'.

You were saying about the contrasts?