What does spiritual development actually mean?

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I used to work in mental health. Your own experience is???

Yes, you keep on saying that you used to work in mental health, as if that makes you some kind of authority on the nature of the ego.

My own experience is 40+ years of self-examination and meditation and study.

Again, the real issue is that different people are using the same label of egoless to describe different states. So we fail to find agreement.

Peace.

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Siemens

Most of you consider yourselves as being spiritual or spiritual evolving. But what does spiritual development actually mean? Is there a difference between spiritual development and other kinds of development a human can go through (like learning how to drive a car, how to use a credit card, or things you learn at school)? Or entails literally each kind of development a person undergoes - no matter how profane or earthly it is - inevitable a form of spiritual growth? Is spiritual development the same thing than character development?

And what is the goal of spiritual development? What is it good for? For what purpose should we develop?

For moi, it’s about living and being/becoming the potential of myself ongoing. It’s a mindful self aware life practice, that’s inclusive of everything I participate in as I am. Always witnessing, noticing myself one with all life. I don’t hold myself up against goals that mean ‘I am attainng’ to be something, but rather an awareness, I am a participant of life, both through a human/spiritual awareness of myself. In my ongoing process I notice i walk through cycles and self awareness that opens me to life aware of myself and others and to integrate those findings as myself. I let life open me.

With an awareness we are all connected, I allow life to open me, reveal and deepen my awareness, connect me to my potential in this way. Through the realisations, (in peace and clarity)it’s a creative constant source of opening, moving as that opening. So the self work is most important to ones quality of life and connections with other life. The wisdom gained becomes the source of giving as yourself.

Spiritual development deepens my experience of life.

It allows me to know the truth from moment to moment, to hold that truth lightly and in a state of surrender to know more as life moves through me.

The state of whilolness or true self of which I know myself as now, understands life seeks more life. So what I am as life will naturally move to those places where life seeks more life through me.

There is intellectual knowing of spiritual knowledge, there is a conscious practice to become all that and radiate it as a total integration of self as that.

The quality of life comes through, openness, inclusiveness, loving kindness, mindfulness, compassion and peace at the centre of ones being.

There I am.

Originally Posted by iamthat

Yes, you keep on saying that you used to work in mental health, as if that makes you some kind of authority on the nature of the ego.

My own experience is 40+ years of self-examination and meditation and study.

Again, the real issue is that different people are using the same label of egoless to describe different states. So we fail to find agreement.

Peace.

I do think our friend Greenslade is using a different concept and idea of ego, because for the GS the idea that someone can be without is synonymous with being a vegetable, unfortunately.

This leads me to believe GS believes ego = cognitive function primarily. There is some overlap with the spiritual definitions I believe that others such as Shivani Devi, yourself, myself etc are utilizing.

And it is my assumption or inference that GS has worked in mental health such that he has seen people unable to function - and believes that that is what loss of ego means.

And therefore is not a supporter, for obvious reasons.

If we did say ego = cognitive function and capability, then I see what he means.

But certainly in spiritual terms, there is more depth and nuance to this - and most meditators will see it different such that it is not one loses any capability or function per se, but one is much clearer in what remains, what is brought forth, and who rules what.

Sort of what Tolle was saying in some of his books.

JL

Originally Posted by janielee

I do think our friend Greenslade is using a different concept and idea of ego, because for the GS the idea that someone can be without is synonymous with being a vegetable, unfortunately.

This leads me to believe GS believes ego = cognitive function primarily. There is some overlap with the spiritual definitions I believe that others such as Shivani Devi, yourself, myself etc are utilizing.

And it is my assumption or inference that GS has worked in mental health such that he has seen people unable to function - and believes that that is what loss of ego means.

And therefore is not a supporter, for obvious reasons.

If we did say ego = cognitive function and capability, then I see what he means.

The clinical definition of ego means an inability to function according to Jung, not me. It is not my definition. Thing is JL, you've never really asked me so anything you can surmise is purely assumption.

Ego was a term taken from Jung, and any reference to ego as regards to Spirituality has been translated from primarily Sanskrit. As such it's open to interpretation.

Originally Posted by janielee

But certainly in spiritual terms, there is more depth and nuance to this - and most meditators will see it different such that it is not one loses any capability or function per se, but one is much clearer in what remains, what is brought forth, and who rules what.

Sort of what Tolle was saying in some of his books.

JL

The issue arises in the translation because most of it was written in Sanskrit and I doubt translators made a perfect job of it. As I understand it, the main thrust of what the Hindus were talking of (and I'm not claiming to be an expert) is non-attachment. By the way, the depth and nuance is not lost on me.

The clinical definitions of ego can be ignored as not being compatible to the Spiritual p.o.v. until the cows come home, but regardless it still has its impact. Spirituality does not exist in splendid isolation and it is interconnected (a word you yourself have mentioned) to what's flying around in your noggin. If you have no cognitive function and capability you have no Spirituality, if you have cognitive functions and capability you have ego.

"Who rules what" is a term of the ego because it implies a hierarchical structure that isn't there. Again it's understanding the interconnectivity/relationship between the physical and the Spiritual. The full alchemic term is "As Above, So Below. So Below, As Above." The ego is essentially a 'point of reference for experiential existence', what's in the ego - or as Jung would put it the 'contents' is a different story. If you are Spiritual then your ego has 'Spiritual contents', if you think you are better than everyone else then you have 'self-deceitful contents'. That's the understanding for the phrase 'Spiritual ego' and where many Spiritual people go wrong - they ignore this understanding to consider themselves more Spiritual but they only deceive themselves. They're still attached to their sense of 'I am'. It's easily argued that Spiritual development is ego-based. According to Tolle there is only the Now, the past is memory and the future is expectation so Spiritual development is an expectation that you will attain some imaginary Spiritual level sometime in the future.

When you understand the ego construct and what's going on inside and the tactics it uses you begin to understand what is or isn't of the egoic mind. Then you understand what isn't mind and you can drop your attachments. There is no ruler and nothing needs to be brought forth, there is the understanding that the process brings about a re-emergent consciousness, or divinity if you want to use that term. The false self or Maya falls away and you connect to your own I Am. Terms such as 'depth' and 'nuance' have no meaning there. Meditation is also 'not there', meditation is a change to the brain's wave patterns/frequencies.

While you're talking about Tolle, he talks of 'object consciousness' and 'space consciousness'. 'Object consciousness' he describes as being anything to do with the brain/mind process - electrical/chemical signals, memories, knowledge, cognitive functions..... are all 'object consciousness. He doesn't go into too much detail about 'space consciousness' but to say it is 'higher'. Personally I think he's talking about Gnosis, which is beyond knowledge, knowing, thinking..... Spirituality....

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The clinical definition of ego means an inability to function according to Jung, not me. It is not my definition. Thing is JL, you've never really asked me so anything you can surmise is purely assumption.

Ego was a term taken from Jung, and any reference to ego as regards to Spirituality has been translated from primarily Sanskrit. As such it's open to interpretation.

Without rehashing the words of Jyotir and Shivani Devi (and also because I am lazy and not as learned )

I would say that it's not so "open to interpretation" in many spiritual paths, but acknowledge and note that the definition you subscribe to is Jung's.

Best wishes,

JL

[Altair]

Enjoyed reading the points you made GS..

Honestly, all this faith in guru's and scriptures makes modern spirituality just religion 2.0, and not this whole ''I'm spiritual, not religious'' bonkers. People are already creating agreed-upon ''truths'' and structures, with the ''right'' practices they agree upon and the ''right'' masters and scriptures they agree upon. What we are witnessing is the active formulating of a new religion, and damned be anyone who comes to different conclusions.. those will be ''of the ego'', they will not be ''the absolute truth'' etc.

Essentially, I often see little difference between much of modern spirituality and a group of evangelical Christians who all come to the same ''conclusion'' of ''the truth of the Bible'' and ''we all had the same mystical experience of Jesus''. Advaitists and other similar paths are just same old, same old. I find all these ascetic, Advaitists to be little different from Christian evangelicals. They re-invigorate one another, convinced that they ''have the same experience'' because they use the same language and the same scripture to interpret a subjective experience, just like evangelicals do..

There's also a general disdain for knowledge outside of their context, and I suspect your decades of experience in mental health might be seen as frightening to belief systems as it can demystify the God-men. What if the great guru will indeed be in diapers and has to be fed with the spoon? Shouldn't they just stay completely intact with all their memory and just fly to the sky..? What if they are just humans?

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by janielee

I do think our friend Greenslade is using a different concept and idea of ego, because for the GS the idea that someone can be without is synonymous with being a vegetable, unfortunately.

This leads me to believe GS believes ego = cognitive function primarily. There is some overlap with the spiritual definitions I believe that others such as Shivani Devi, yourself, myself etc are utilizing.

And it is my assumption or inference that GS has worked in mental health such that he has seen people unable to function - and believes that that is what loss of ego means.

And therefore is not a supporter, for obvious reasons.

If we did say ego = cognitive function and capability, then I see what he means.

But certainly in spiritual terms, there is more depth and nuance to this - and most meditators will see it different such that it is not one loses any capability or function per se, but one is much clearer in what remains, what is brought forth, and who rules what.

Sort of what Tolle was saying in some of his books.

JL

There are many dynamics at work here and if we want to delve into the nature of the ego, as it relates to both Hinduism and Buddhism (not necessarily Jung), it all hinges on one word...one concept - ATTACHMENT!

We can act simply for the sake of action OR we can act with a personal agenda in mind.

We can be aware of our existence (self aware) OR we can exist to serve the self (self-focused).

Egotism means more of the self-focus and less of the self-awareness.

I came away from the discussion yesterday, wondering if animals have an ego?

Does a dog or a cat know what it is doing?

If a dog finds a bone..another dog comes along...is the growling and gnashing of teeth a display of "doggie ego?" or is it instinctive? something a dog does out of survival? out of the primitive part of its brain?

Does a cold blooded, remorseless killer have an ego? especially if they honestly believe "God told me to do it"?

From what I can see, this is another one of those things, much like "spirituality" and "truth" and "love" that can have almost 8 billion definitions for it and nobody can be right and nobody can be wrong.

I often wonder what the whole point and purpose of communication is sometimes, when no two perceptions are ever the same...unless, of course, you subscribe to a "popular theory by a person with letters after their name" or a well known historical figure in the field.

All this does, is group people into; "so, who agrees with THIS dude, raise your hand please"..."who agrees with THAT dude, raise your hand please" and "who has their OWN views on the subject, raise your hand please"...and you will quickly notice that "social conformity" dictates that only a select few in the latter category will ever raise their hand for fear of being mocked and ridiculed by everyone else who conforms to an established ideology.

Those of us may have their own thoughts, ideologies and such which exists totally "outside the box" and it is those of us who are forever destined to walk the path of life alone.

Originally Posted by janielee

Without rehashing the words of Jyotir and Shivani Devi (and also because I am lazy and not as learned )

I would say that it's not so "open to interpretation" in many spiritual paths, but acknowledge and note that the definition you subscribe to is Jung's.

Best wishes,

JL

Rehashing the words of Jyotir and Shivani Devi won't help the situation as far as I'm concerned.

It's not about definitions and interpretations JL. If you want to stick with the ego because it's the 'Spiritual thing to do' then by all means be my guest. The only problem with that is just when people think they've gone past the ego, all they've done is fallen for the ego's tactics and they're no better off. There's a whole raft of words like Maya and its semantic similarities that make for a far greater understanding than 'ego' when you put all the pieces together. The Jungian ego, the transcending of the false self/Maya/similar, Samadhi/non-attachment/similar.... all have their place and are interconnected.

By the way, is there a reason why you still haven't given me a definition of 'ego'? Lack of a definition can be as telling as the definitions the person holds.


When you define what is Spiritual - whatever that may be - by extension you define what is not Spiritual. The interpretations and their openness or not become relative to your own definitions - as does your reality - but they are subject to cognition. Knowledge, reasoning, thinking, believing... Ignoring cognition in Spirituality is denial or rejection, and that's very different to ignorance or nescience. Depending on definitions/semantics. Very often agenda is involved, and ignored.

There are understandings in Spirituality that go far beyond Spirituality.

Originally Posted by Siemens

But what does spiritual development actually mean? Is there a difference between spiritual development and other kinds of development a human can go through (like learning how to drive a car, how to use a credit card, or things you learn at school)?

This says it far better than I ever could.


"Wanting positive experience is a negative experience; accepting negative experience is a positive experience. It's what Alan Watts referred to as "The Backwards Law" - the idea that the more you pursue feeling better all the time, the less satisfied you become, as pursuing something only reinforces that fact that you lack it in the first place. The more you desperately want to become rich, the more poor and unworthy you feel regardless of how much money you make. The more you want to be sexy and desired, the uglier you come to see yourself regardless of your actual physical appearance. The more you want to be happy and Loved, the lonelier and more afraid you become regardless of those who surround you. The more you want to be Spiritually Enlightened, the more self-centred and shallow you become in trying to get there.”

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Altair

Enjoyed reading the points you made GS..

Honestly, all this faith in guru's and scriptures makes modern spirituality just religion 2.0, and not this whole ''I'm spiritual, not religious'' bonkers. People are already creating agreed-upon ''truths'' and structures, with the ''right'' practices they agree upon and the ''right'' masters and scriptures they agree upon. What we are witnessing is the active formulating of a new religion, and damned be anyone who comes to different conclusions.. those will be ''of the ego'', they will not be ''the absolute truth'' etc.

Essentially, I often see little difference between much of modern spirituality and a group of evangelical Christians who all come to the same ''conclusion'' of ''the truth of the Bible'' and ''we all had the same mystical experience of Jesus''. Advaitists and other similar paths are just same old, same old. I find all these ascetic, Advaitists to be little different from Christian evangelicals. They re-invigorate one another, convinced that they ''have the same experience'' because they use the same language and the same scripture to interpret a subjective experience, just like evangelicals do..

There's also a general disdain for knowledge outside of their context, and I suspect your decades of experience in mental health might be seen as frightening to belief systems as it can demystify the God-men. What if the great guru will indeed be in diapers and has to be fed with the spoon? Shouldn't they just stay completely intact with all their memory and just fly to the sky..? What if they are just humans?

I am going to throw the cat squarely among the pigeons here...and only because I consider myself to be "religious" and not necessarily "spiritual".

Any good religion worth its weight, will include all possibilities and eventualities within the doctrinal core of it..that is why an adherent to a religious philosophy or institution is said to be "indoctrinated".

For example, somebody may say to me "all religion is bogus" and I can say to them "yeah, my *insert holy scripture here* already told me you were going to say that".

They may then say "you have been brainwashed" and then I can get to say one of two things...either "my *insert holy scripture here* told me you would say that too" or "I would rather be brainwashed by God than be brainwashed by rampant materialism".

When a belief turns into gnosis, which turns into a deep conviction, there is nothing anybody else can say that will make any difference..."blind belief" becomes "sighted belief" but only for those who can be bothered looking without expectation...which is very difficult but achievable.

It has always been a "them vs us" mentality and all I know is that the religious people did not start that one...they only perpetuated it down the centuries after "please leave me alone to do my own thing" was met with "why should I? How dare you tell me what to do!" and so, laws against religious persecution were established.

So all of this leads to morality or Dharma...call it what you will.

There are those who follow it (the religious) and those who do not (the irreligious) and no matter the ratio of one to the other, they will always exist to the detriment of the other until God has had enough and intervenes.