The nature of The Ego.

[Unseeking Seeker]

***

@ Iamit ... Not overcoming ego but yet alignment of self with Self is necessary

***

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

***

@ Iamit ... Not overcoming ego but yet alignment of self with Self is necessary

***

Mind will drop the Ego if it is no longer required for defensive purposes against rejection because it takes energy to maintan it. This is achieved if the organism becomes discerning about rejection and not so crushed by it. According to nonduality what is left is noone, no character or personality at all.

But for some strange reason mind gets convinced that Ego must be limited for wholeness (what you call alignment of self with self). Perhaps the reason for this error is that mind becomes convinced by long established spiritual paths and practises that this is a requirement which of course it is not, for Ego is already Oneness manifest so no more connection to Oneness (wholeness) can be achieved by limiting Ego. In any event Onenss is already all there is so there are no degrees of connection anyway because total connection is already complete.

[Unseeking Seeker]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Mind will drop the Ego if it is no longer required for defensive purposes against rejection because it takes energy to maintan it. This is achieved if the organism becomes discerning about rejection and not so crushed by it. According to nonduality what is left is noone, no character or personality at all.

But for some strange reason mind gets convinced that Ego must be limited for wholeness (what you call alignment of self with self). Perhaps the reason for this error is that it becomes convinced by long established spiritual paths and practises that this is a requirement which of course it is not, for Ego is already Oneness manifest so no more connection to Oneness can be achieved by limiting Ego. In any event Oneness is already all there is so there are no degrees of connection anyway because total connection is already complete.

***

Once the connection is active, seamless and absolute, we are enlightened, if one may use this controversial word. Until then, attention oscillates because the connection is inactive or latent, being veiled by maya. Alignment steers attention to align with oneness without delusion.

It’s not about degrees of connection ... we may say, it is about layers of ignorance being removed, one by one, slowly. Re-recognition.

***

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

***

Once the connection is active, seamless and absolute, we are enlightened, if one may use this controversial word. Until then, attention oscillates because the connection is inactive or latent, being veiled by maya. Alignment steers attention to align with oneness without delusion.

It’s not about degrees of connection ... we may say, it is about layers of ignorance being removed, one by one, slowly. Re-recognition.

***

There is no increase in connection by the connection becoming active or less ignorant because it is already Oneness arising as the inactive connection and ignorance. The problem of something to be achieved for connection (enlightenment) only arises because all is not included as Oneness manifest. Once all is included as Oneness manifest the problem of someting to be achieved disappears.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The confusion begins when people 'import' words into Spirituality from other areas of human understandings, then redefine them for their own agenda. This is all that the word 'ego' is. You will know you have an ego if you don't spend time with either Jung or Freud, because they are the ones that coined the word originally - without them you woudn't even be using the word. You should also know that what you're talking about here is not Spirituality but psychoanalysis, that's what any discussion of the ego, personality or lack of is all about.

As for mental hospitals being full of people whose egos were destroyed while still necessary, pretty much every mental health professional would disagree.

If you really want to understand what's happening with the ego and in particular from a perspective of ego death -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E55Z_GDVXM8&t=5s


Your ego is a sense of 'I am', it provides a point of reference for your experiential existence. Without it you would have no cognitive function and therefore not be able to find your way into these forums. If you find yourself in these forums you have an ego.

If you don't Google Jung or Freud because you think you know w3hat the ego is, you have an ego that's inflated.

If you are truly Spiritual then using a word from psychoanalysis and redefining it only causes confusion, especially when there is a perfectly good Sanskrit word that sheds light on the discussion of the ego - "Ahamkara." "Aham" means "I", and "kara" is an "invented thing". The so-called ego is an invented thing, as is ego as the 'bad guy' or ego as a false character for deflection.

When the mind is at peace, it is similar to the calm surface of a lake. Our established thought patterns are like ripples in the lake, each thought causes one ripple at a time. Cognitive dissonance happens when information is received that contradicts the thought patterns, and the conflict causes interference patterns on the surface. This is the reason there are discussions on the ego as the 'bad guy' and not discussions on Ahamkara, even though Ahamkara offers understandings that the 'invented thing' of the ego doesn't. People are 'resistant' to what is not compatible to their brain patterns. It has nothing to do with Spirituality and everything to do with survival instincts.

I agree with you that the ego is the I am/thinker that is in all of our heads. I also see that Iamit talked about the I am/thinker that has personality. There is way too much spiritual discussion of the ego because the ego is not the real pressing issue. The real important pressing issue is the ego's Mithya (false beliefs/false mental and emotional conditioning) causing Maya (ignorance).

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I agree with you that the ego is the I am/thinker that is in all of our heads. I also see that Iamit talked about the I am/thinker that has personality. There is way too much spiritual discussion of the ego because the ego is not the real pressing issue. The real important pressing issue is the ego's Mithya (false beliefs/false mental and emotional conditioning) causing Maya (ignorance).

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jung talk about personality too?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I agree with you that the ego is the I am/thinker that is in all of our heads. I also see that Iamit talked about the I am/thinker that has personality. There is way too much spiritual discussion of the ego because the ego is not the real pressing issue. The real important pressing issue is the ego's Mithya (false beliefs/false mental and emotional conditioning) causing Maya (ignorance).

The Spiritual discussion about the ego is not about the ego it's about scapegoating, judgement, discrimination, avoiding one's own ego....... The ego is the pressing issue because people who think they know better than the great minds that came up with the psychology in the first place are the ones who are in most need of awareness of the ego. Just like the OP.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jung talk about personality too?

Yes he did, but let's not talk about Jung because A) he's not a Spiritual master and B) People aren't always looking for understanding. Never mind that his model of the ego is essentially Ahamkara.

By the way, strictly speaking you shouldn't be using the word 'ego' at all, it's a word that has been stolen from psychology and redefined to suit personal agenda, and it's Latin not Sanskrit. In the Spiritual discussion it means anything you want it to mean, so make something up to look clever.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The Spiritual discussion about the ego is not about the ego it's about scapegoating, judgement, discrimination, avoiding one's own ego....... The ego is the pressing issue because people who think they know better than the great minds that came up with the psychology in the first place are the ones who are in most need of awareness of the ego. Just like the OP.

Yes he did, but let's not talk about Jung because A) he's not a Spiritual master and B) People aren't always looking for understanding. Never mind that his model of the ego is essentially Ahamkara.

By the way, strictly speaking you shouldn't be using the word 'ego' at all, it's a word that has been stolen from psychology and redefined to suit personal agenda, and it's Latin not Sanskrit. In the Spiritual discussion it means anything you want it to mean, so make something up to look clever.

I think I know where you are coming from. This is the reason why I try not to talk about the "ego" and I talk about Mithya (false beliefs/false mental and emotional conditioning) and Maya (ignorance). I do see the 4 Major Jungian Archetypes/Model of the Psyche overlapping into spirituality and I see no problem with it.

Please give us an example or 2 where the Spiritual discussion about the ego is not about the ego it's about scapegoating, judgement, discrimination, avoiding one's own ego.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I think I know where you are coming from. This is the reason why I try not to talk about the "ego" and I talk about Mithya (false beliefs/false mental and emotional conditioning) and Maya (ignorance). I do see the 4 Major Jungian Archetypes/Model of the Psyche overlapping into spirituality and I see no problem with it.

Please give us an example or 2 where the Spiritual discussion about the ego is not about the ego it's about scapegoating, judgement, discrimination, avoiding one's own ego.

The spiritual is 100% mental after all. Psychology and psychoanalysis deal with mental.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I think I know where you are coming from. This is the reason why I try not to talk about the "ego" and I talk about Mithya (false beliefs/false mental and emotional conditioning) and Maya (ignorance). I do see the 4 Major Jungian Archetypes/Model of the Psyche overlapping into spirituality and I see no problem with it.

Please give us an example or 2 where the Spiritual discussion about the ego is not about the ego it's about scapegoating, judgement, discrimination, avoiding one's own ego.

Jung said that the ego is a sense of "I am", which is a number of things all coming together, some of it is conditioning, some of it perceptual reality, some of it Shadow Self..... etc. All of those things are aspects that create our sense of who we are - including Spirituality. The 'Spiritual head' is really the same as a 'regular head', the only difference is the nature of what's being processed. So really, it's hardly any surprise that Jungian Archetypes and Spirituality overlap - those archetypes are the 'foundation' of Spirituality - unless your Spirituality comes from nowhere. Similarly Mithya is another word for cognitive behaviour. Maya is more of a false self, as opposed to what is often known as our True Self or the self as opposed to the Self. Ignorance is a part of Maya though, but I will say that there is ignorance and nescience and that makes a difference. Ignorance is where knowledge and understanding is ignored, denied or negated while in nescience it's not available to the individual, they simply haven't come across the knowledge. Sometimes in Spirituality inner worlds are often ignored in order to create an alternate self - Maya - which is based solely on ideologies and theologies.

Much of the time Western understandings are more scientific while Eastern understandings are religious but fundamentally - beyond the snobbery and labels - they come to the same understandings. There's no real difference between the Jungian ego and Ahamkara, other than me having to learn a whole new Sanskrit dictionary.

Start a thread on what is the ego, then stand back and take a good look. The discussion of the ego often comes down to nothing moire than people portraying the ego as the bad guy. The ego gets angry, it resists Spirituality because it thinks it knows best, the ego thinks it knows everything...... While psychology is a swear word so many people are quite happy to psychoanalyse the ego, thinking they know better than the psychologists who invented psychoanalysis in the first place. They become unwitting victims of their own definitions.