Quote:
If you want to really understand the ego then I suggest you research Jung or Freud, since those are the fathers of psychoanalysis and those are the ones who borrowed the Latin word and used it in their field. If you want Spiritual integrity then I suggest looking into Ahamkara/Ahankara, which are Sanskrit word that should be more agreeable to the Spiritual Adept. Unfortunately for those that are clearly intentionally ignorant, the Jungian model and the Sanskrit one are the same. You see Jyotir, it takes a certain kind of ignorance to put across that one is an expert regarding the ego and it's machinations when clearly one isn't and then psychoanalysing those who are resistant to Spirituality. All you have achieved here is to demonstrate that you are your own definition of ego. Well done you. |
Quote:
When I read this, I thought you were talking about yourself. If you really dislike Greenslade, you can always put him on you ignore list. |
Quote:
So adding to the thought I am, we can add ego is cause and effect related. I am not important, I need to be important. Ego influences decisions to. There are many things ego does. When we say we create reality it is important to know it could have happen anyway. Ego is an illusion in that it is the thinker and doer in that it creates "the" events fulfilling that creates cause and effect. Ego gives rise to what we do and why. Our desires are seen in Ego. Many for whatever reason don't mention Ego is nothing more then thinking. |
Quote:
Spirit doesn't think it's Spiritual. The belief that ego has nothing to do with Jung or Freud and that a Spiritual person is 'above' ego is a sign that the ego is out of balance, because an ego that can identify with itself in a stable way is healthy. Spirituality tends to think it exists in splendid isolation and for the most part Spiritual people have identified with the Spiritual Self rather than the human self. The problem there is that their human self is the 'filter' through which they construct their Spiritual framework and conscious reality, and denying it by annihilating it isn't going to change anything, because often it's very obvious that it's still there. I was watching a YouTube earlier today that stated that the mind/brain mechanism - and therefore the ego - is an agent of consciousness, which is a top-down approach. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Big John, (imo) there is no support whatsoever for your conclusion based on what I wrote - including or especially that my comments have never indicated an obsession with involuntary defecation being an ultimate result of legitimate spiritual practice which is utterly absurd, although that is Greenslade‘s repeated and fallacious assertion. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but if your statement were a bridge, it would collapse, e.g., poor engineering. You may need to consider applying increased, some? any? rigor to the processing and evaluation of ideas and concepts vs. simply reacting with hit-and-run one-liners. Or if you want to explain how your statement holds-up - besides supporting like-minded cohort on a forum (which I understand) - I invite your explanatory comment, assuming you are actually capable and so disposed. But I’m not holding my breath on that, and likewise on my original reply (post # 17) to your OP this thread you yourself initiated. Quote:
Let’s be clear, there is no social problem as I am not here for repetitive sterile arguments or personality conflict (and that could be taken as a hint to a relative, per your own signature: 'newbie' on the forum). Further, my comments were directed and responsive to member Iamthat, and were related to post content deposited in the thread and relevant to discussion, factually descriptive, analyzed and discussed conceptually, and deliberately avoiding personality issues - including those autobiographical personal self-references often introduced by Greenslade himself (as his prerogative, but for reasons mentioned, extracted by me). |
Quote:
Are you, or were you an engineer? If not, you are not qualified to make such a statement. |
Quote:
On most sites, attacking another member personally is frowned on. Peace. NAMASTE. |
Quote:
As for the other information, here is any amount of information on the Jungian ego and Ahamkara/Ahankara which you may ignore to your heart's content so that you can reinforce this very false agenda-based reality you have of me. I'm happy to be the subject of the discredit/disdain that creates your false reality. Talking of respect, at least don't misrepresent what I've said, nor take the representations of others and ascribe them to me. It's immature. |
I don't use the word 'ego' much, because truth be told I don't really believe in its existence. There is action and reaction. You get angry or irritated about something, or fearful, and some people will claim that's your *ego*, or you are attached to something or someone, and they will say ''It's your ego''. However, there's not a single credible reason to invoke such a thing as an ''ego'' as some kind of identity. The whole concept of *ego* can be dismantled if you observe yourself and how your ''mind'' operates.. :smile:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums