Can you be spiritual but feel above those around you?

Originally Posted by Hexagon222

“To reach samadhi or enlightenment the Ahankara must be removed”

How do you experience or perceive that you are enlightened or in a state of Samadhi? The Jungian and the Advaita Vedanta are - since Jung was an Advaita Vedanta adept - one and the same, barring translation. The Advaita Vedanta Swamis at the time wanted to pat Jung on the back for Westernising Eastern religion/philosophy. While we're here, similarly with his model of the self, which is based on the Atman.

In psychology, the ego can 'collapse' into the self in cases of severe emotional trauma. It's a survival thing and it often happens with NDEs. If you can imagine what that might be like, it's the kind of feeling you'd have when you're adrift in space. If you think of people that have gone through emotional traumas such as divorce or loss of as loved one, they can appear disoriented. There was also a BBC documentary where they'd visited a monastery where the monks had successfully 'transcended their egos - they had to be spoon-fed and have their nappies changed.

In Jungian there is the ego or "A sense of I am" and its 'contents', those being how you've defined the Ahamkara. The 'contents' of the ego is what we perceive ourselves to be - collectively perceptual reality to keep it simple for now. Ahamkara is "The 'I' of invented things," the 'invented things' being the 'things' of perceptual reality - again back to your definition.

If you have a perception that you are enlightened or you are in a state of Samadhi you have an ego/Ahamkara. If you perceive yourself to be enlightened or in a state of Samadhi, those are the 'contents' of your ego or 'invented things.' If you are in one of those states then you have no egoism, and that's what people in Spiritual circles should be talking about. You can't experience without the ego, you don't know you even exist without your ego.

Egoism is the bad guy, not the ego.
`
"Egoism (or Ethical Egoism) is the ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. This is quite different from Psychological Egoism (the claim that people can only act in their own self-interest) and from Rational Egoism (the claim that it is rational to act in one's self-interest). Egoism as a normative position makes claims about what one ought to do, rather than describes what one does do. A belief that one should be honest, just, benevolent, etc, because those virtues serve one's self-interest is Egoistic; a belief that one should practice those virtues for reasons other than self-interest is not Egoistic."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/bra...%20ot hers%20

Thinking that one is Spiritual, enlightened, in Samadhi can qualify as egotistical.

'Beyond ego' is awareness itself and there are now 'objects' of awareness - there is nothing to be aware of. You are not even aware that you are aware or are awareness itself. There is no "Sense of I am" and therefore no experience. Your "Sense of I am" is an 'object' of consciousness.

The egotistical ego can superimpose onto the self in order to consider itself 'king of the castle.' That's hiding one's true self, illusion etc. "I am in a state of Nibbana" or "I am in a state of Arahatship" are still "A sense of I am" and the 'contents' of the ego. The egotistical ego can also say "I am in a state of Nibbana" or "I am in a state of Arahatship" because it fools itself in its quest for status.

The ego is never 'eliminated', at least not completely because even in a state of Nibbana or whatever else you want to call it, when you come out of that state your ego is still waiting for you. The alternative is to stay in that state, and have your nappies changed for you.