What does spirituality mean to you?

Originally Posted by bobjob

Is there any wonder accusations of not understanding are made when folk use the same words to mean wholly different things?

Or choose to spell them with capital letters implying they mean something different and special?

I'm using Jung's definitions and understandings because they make more sense to me than Freud's. Jung and Freud essentially created psychoanalysis as a science, although they had different models of the ego. Jung's model was based on the Ahamkara, which is from the ancient scriptures. The psychology and the Spirituality are one and the same.

As for what I'm implying, the perceiver and the perceived are one and the same.

Originally Posted by bobjob

Words are the roots of many of humankind's woes.....

For me, it's about the understandings behind the definitions and not the definitions themselves. Words represent consciousness.

And it's not about the surface perceptions of the words but the deeper understandings of how they represent our inner realities. A false understanding of the ego means a false understanding of our inner reality because our egos 'represent' our inner reality.

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'm using Jung's definitions and understandings because they make more sense to me than Freud's. Jung and Freud essentially created psychoanalysis as a science, although they had different models of the ego. Jung's model was based on the Ahamkara, which is from the ancient scriptures. The psychology and the Spirituality are one and the same.

As for what I'm implying, the perceiver and the perceived are one and the same.

We are each free to choose what has most appeal for us individually. We can justify our reasons but it doesn't mean everyone will agree or that they are wrong by not agreeing.

The original premise of this thread, however, wasn't to do with ego, egoism, egotism etc but about spirituality - lower case letter 's' - and what it means to each individual who was prepared to explain. It wasn't about Jung and Freud or their Sciences of Psychoanalysis. It wasn't about Psychology versus spirituality. Notice my silly transposition of capital letters in those common words?

We've meandered, wandered off-course, headed in the wrong Direction. In short we're way Off-Topic and indulging ourselves with absurdly long, irrelevant Postings.

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

For me, it's about the understandings behind the definitions and not the definitions themselves. Words represent consciousness.

And it's not about the surface perceptions of the words but the deeper understandings of how they represent our inner realities. A false understanding of the ego means a false understanding of our inner reality because our egos 'represent' our inner reality.

This thread is not about ego. It's being hijacked. This thread started about spirituality.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Same as you were curious and looked up Greenslade in Google? At least you got that right.

Sorry, you've lost me here. Why would I look up Greenslade in Google? The only other Greenslade I am aware of was a band from the 1970s, but I was never really into them (although I quite liked the artwork on their album covers).

Peace

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Ancient scriptures can't talk about minimising the ego because ego is a Latin word, and the ancient scripts - mostly in Sanskrit and similar languages - can be at least two thousand years older than Latin.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Ego as defined by Jung - who stole the term from the Sanskrit - defines it as "A sense of I am."

I don't think that Jung stole the term 'ego' from the Sanskrit. As you say, Sanskrit long predates Latin.

Again, did Jung ever actually use the term 'ego'? He called it 'Das Ich' (or 'The I' in English).

To echo bobjob, unfortunately the original subject of this thread has been sidetracked to a discussion of petty semantics.

Peace

[BigJohn]

[b]What does spirituality mean to you in this case [me]?

The word does not carry much 'weight' with me. Everybody seems to have their own definition(s) and expectation(s).

What one person might consider to be their 'spirituality' just might be another person's 'nightmare'.

Originally Posted by bobjob

We've meandered, wandered off-course, headed in the wrong Direction. In short we're way Off-Topic and indulging ourselves with absurdly long, irrelevant Postings.

So we can't choose what has most appeal to us individually? Understanding the ego is key to Spirituality. And I'm keeping my upper-case anyway. And at what point does the freedom to choose become freedom to make up any old nonsense and call it 'Spiritual'?

By the way, ego is known in Spirituality as the Akamkara and the understandings are the same. Only not many Spiritual people see to understand that. One's ego decides what is Spiritual and what is not, not the 'you' of the ancient wisdom and if people knew that they'd level-up their Spirituality.

Yeah, I'd like to know what Spirituality is because so far all I see is not Spiritual.

Short enough?

[Altair]

Originally Posted by iamthat

To echo bobjob, unfortunately the original subject of this thread has been sidetracked to a discussion of petty semantics.Peace

Which you've embraced fully.
So what does spirituality mean to you?

Originally Posted by iamthat

unfortunately the original subject of this thread has been sidetracked to a discussion of petty semantics.

You're the one doing the petty semantics in a futile attempt to make me wrong. If you're going to accuse others at least take responsibility for your own actions first. Isn't the the Spiritual thing to do?

I never said he stole the term from Sanskrit, although Aham is Sanskrit for 'I'. What I did say is that he built his model of the ego on the Ahamkara. It's your ego trying to make me out to be wrong and 'inventing things'.