If by “belief system” you mean mental or conceptual construct, then any number of these constructs may originate in “ego” which is defined spiritually as the false, separative limited objective cognition of “self”.

The positive or spiritually progressive modification or transformation of existing belief systems would originate in higher consciousness that is infinitely more unitary, comprehensive, and necessarily subjective. This doesn’t obviate a sense of self, as staunch ego-defenders wrongly cling to (as seen in and through ego itself) - but rather, sees and knows ‘self’ as increasingly instrumental of Highest Self in increasing identification with that Will/God/Self, etc. as primary….Oneness in multiplicity as individually differentiated, as an aspect of that Self.

This is what spirituality is - becoming one with all while retaining function of that individuated being in full identification with its native truth-consciousness of the comprehensive omniscient Will of Highest Self - and not merely the preservation of a false limited self for fear of needing a nappy, which is a backwards village superstition that is utterly ridiculous and tellingly puerile (but understandable as a desperate ego-defense).

If “I” am spiritual” - then for the truly spiritual person - in practice as demonstrated, not simply discussing false and fearful intellectual theories as to why spirituality is impossible and unavailable as an avoidant behavior - it is because God, the All, the Highest has provided access to that cognition in and through the differentiated being who recognizes this but importantly, operates as a willing conscious instrument of it, therefore inclusive and dependent on the Highest and what the Highest represents in every status, including as differentiated in any way.

This is what defines “spiritual” - not the mere perpetuation of the separative objective self in and of itself, for instance suggested as a straw-man (ironic) to defend ego’s supposed primary truth as inviolable, as if to say, “I can’t let go of my separative sense of self because spiritual would then mean not spiritual” in a convenient but utterly convoluted evasion of spiritual progression which is exactly the way ego works as a self-preserving limitation; ego does what ego is, and vice-versa.

Consequently, real spirituality is impossible without the gradual or eventual annihilation of ego, as frightening as that may sound to it. That's even a possible definition OF spirituality. That is the inviolable truth, like it or not, or deny it and argue ad nauseam how we cannot, must not and will not let go of 'mummy', because it was mummy who told us to “hold on”, or we‘ll die. But what spirituality teaches us is that by holding on to ego, we are already unavoidably dead.


~ J

The word "Ego" itself is not defined in Spirituality, per se. The word is actually Latin for "I" and is another word that has been ported from another field (this case psychology) into Spirituality. This is where the clarity of definition you strive for becomes blurred. If the Spiritual Aspirant wants to maintain clarity then the word "Ego" has already been defined by Jung, Freud and a few others so there is no need for the Spiritual Aspirant to redefine it.

In Sanskrit the 'false self' is Maya and Samadhi is the transcending of the false self, although in Samadhi Maya is not dissolved but encompassed. Another term in Ahamkara/Ahankara, where Aham/Ahan is the ego and a kara is an 'invented thing', which actually 'mirrors' the Jungian definition of the ego and its 'contents'. Jung was Spiritual himself and both religion and Spirituality were powerful influences in his work.

Exchanging psychological terms for existing religious terms simply causes confusion, which is apparent here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jyotir If “I” am spiritual” - then for the truly spiritual person - in practice as demonstrated, not simply discussing false and fearful intellectual theories as to why spirituality is impossible and unavailable as an avoidant behavior - it is because God, the All, the Highest has provided access to that cognition in and through the differentiated being who recognizes this but importantly, operates as a willing conscious instrument of it, therefore inclusive and dependent on the Highest and what the Highest represents in every status, including as differentiated in any way.

Being 'truly Spiritual" is simply identification with the associations of whatever the prhase means for that individual - as does "I am Spiritual." They are both identifications created by the "contents" of the ego as per the Jungian definition, or a kara or created thing as per the Sanskrit. "Spiritual"s simply a label, since all is Spirit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jyotir This is what defines “spiritual” - not the mere perpetuation of the separative objective self in and of itself, for instance suggested as a straw-man (ironic) to defend ego’s supposed primary truth as inviolable, as if to say, “I can’t let go of my separative sense of self because spiritual would then mean not spiritual” in a convenient but utterly convoluted evasion of spiritual progression which is exactly the way ego works as a self-preserving limitation; ego does what ego is, and vice-versa.

Unless you have researched into psychology and not merely dismissed it as irrelevant - which is an action of the contents of the ego and not the ego itself - then you would realise that the ego can be the motivator/'driver' of Spiritual progression and not a handicap. The real handicap is an over-inflated ego that thinks it knows but merely indulges itself in its own intentional ignorance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jyotir Consequently, real spirituality is impossible without the gradual or eventual annihilation of ego, as frightening as that may sound to it. That's even a possible definition OF spirituality. That is the inviolable truth, like it or not, or deny it and argue ad nauseam how we cannot, must not and will not let go of 'mummy', because it was mummy who told us to “hold on”, or we‘ll die. But what spirituality teaches us is that by holding on to ego, we are already unavoidably dead.

While some eastern religions talk extensively about the dissolution of the ego the practicalities of the situation is very different. I have it on good authority that while there are those who have successfully transcended their egos, they have lost all sense of self. The ideology is that the ego should be transcended, the practicality is that they have their nappies changed and are spoon fed. Certainly that happens from a psychiatric/psychological framework.

Spirituality teaches that anything that has not been appropriately labelled should be summarily dismissed, but this intentional ignorance simply leads to discussions like these and is further reflected in the Spiritual Aspirant's expression of their consciousness. "A wealth of knowledge" is not simply a metaphor, it also has meaning behind it. To the mind, information/knowledge can be currency within Spiritual circles and understandings are used as displays of status. The Spiritual Aspirant - because he or she is ignorant of anything other than their own agenda when it comes to a psychology on which Spirituality is built upon - should realise that intentional ignorance will come back and bite their backside.

Another issue seems to be that Spiritual people seem to think that they are immune to everything other than Spirituality, but really that's a ridiculous framework to cultivate their Spiritual progress, because all they become is dissociative with themselves and that leads to mental health issues that are often subtle yet still present and affective just the same.

Intentional ignorance and denial does not make the Spiritual Aspirant more Spiritual, it only makes the Spiritual Aspirant closed-minded.

Truth is relative to one's own agenda and agenda is a tool of the ego.

Yes it is, with the perseveration of these unfounded irrational distortions - “nappies” & forced feeding a major theme. These evident fixations probably originate in areas that become problematic to discuss on a public forum including Gs’s repeated autobiographical references in his own posts, which would tend to confirm this perspective, but out of respect and compassion we need not pursue that direction further.

However there are the by-products in discussion as projected incessantly in posts evidencing debased and distorted conception, persistent disparagement of, and (apparent) personal aversion to legitimate spirituality.

Also similar in repeated sheer deliberate evasion of legitimate spiritual resources and cogent explanation within both well established theory and practice in various spiritual traditions, in favor of:

The constant demand on others for revision, validation, and rationalization through non-spiritual “professional” and utterly irrelevant contexts (quite odd on a “spiritual forum”), while often leaning heavily on a chaotic diffusion of far-out pop-culture new-age, science-fiction conspiracy theories, and arbitrary scientist name-dropping posed as unimpeachably relevant - it seems that this train of thought will persist.


~ J

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.

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).

I do not “dislike Greenslade”. Nor would I put him or anybody else on an ignore list, have never done so, and never will. That’s childish imv. Rather, I simply don't respond to him, as I find - and this has been true for at least a few years now - that his posts are largely not credible whether in their internal consistency as reasoned (or not, as is often the case), as practical truth in terms of veracity, or applicability of content to discussion (or real life), and in their apparent motive for interaction as consistently demonstrated…often all 3 (imho!). Meanwhile Greenslade often responds to my posts which is his prerogative as a member and that is fine with me, even if it is a dead-end as far as I'm concerned, the determination of which is my prerogative, which I hope you will respect.

Hope that helps to clarify my position vis-à-vis your comments.


~ J

.