EGO: BELIEF SYSTEM CREATOR?

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Bibo ergo sum.

" I don't drink therefore I ain't "

Originally Posted by sky123

Imagination is ego...

Thanks, just inspired me to listen to the Lennon song.

[sky]

Originally Posted by ImthatIm

Thanks, just inspired me to listen to the Lennon song.

' And the world will be as one '
Without ego

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Do our egos create new belief systems or at least modify existing belief systems?

It depends. With ego-death the ego is no longer responsible for beliefs, and similarly (but far more cool) with transcending the ego. On the other hand, the ego supposedly winks out of existence when people use the label "Spiritual," so after any of those three events then no it does not.

The only definition I've seen on this forum ever was that the ego is cognitive function, and the same person stated that there were people who operated beyond their cognitive function/ego.

In the forum parlance of the ego being the bad guy that people can point a finger at and feel better about themselves, the ego does create new belief systems, modifes existing belief systems and changes definitions that have been stolen from the likes of psychology and science for its own agenda, often leading to confusion and misunderstanding.

Being an heretic and mentioning Jung - who is one of the fathers of psychoanalysis - the "contents" of the ego (and not the ego itself" are responsible for our beliefs and/or modifying existing belief systems and is one of the foundations of our reality. In simple terms, Jung says that the ego is "A sense of I am," and what that does is essentially give us a point of reference for our experiential existence. But because it's Jung and Jung is not an Ascended Master (even though the models of "self-> ego -> contents" are all but the same as Sanskrit).


Staying with a strict Spirituality, "ego" is the wrong word. "Ego" is a Latin word which means "I" and was originally made popular by the afore-mentioned fathers of psychoanalysis, and is therefore inappropriate for a Spiritual Adept. Jung also said that what most people call the "ego" is not the ego itself but the "contents" of the ego. Sanskrit has a few words, one of them being Ahankara/Ahamkara for instance, that is far more relevant here. "Kara" is "any invented thing."

In Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna says "Air, water, earth, fire, sky, mind, intelligence and ahankaar (ego) together constitute the nature created by me."
I'm not sure how Lord Krishna would respond to ego-death or transcending a part of his created nature.

Another Sanskrit word that some might find appropriate is "Maya" or the false self. Or as Jung might say, an alter ego of "This is my Spiritual me."

[hallow]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Ego gets such bad press here. Without one an entity has no identity. They'd have no public face.

When you speak of ego and imagination remember that they exist only because of the sum total of your life experiences (and if you so believe, past lives) and how you assimilated them, much of the action stored well away from the "conscious mind" if you use Freud's model of mind.

Bibo ergo sum.

I agree, I looked up the definition of ego, it stands for self esteem and self importance. Those two definitions don't seem bad to me. Without them two things one can easily become taken advantage of. And imagination, without that we would be like any other animal on Earth. Living off of instinct alone. Or am I totally off on the definition everyone else is taking about? If you take it at face value why would someone not want you to have self esteem and self importance? Is because people with them make bad fallowers?

Originally Posted by hallow

I agree, I looked up the definition of ego, it stands for self esteem and self importance. Those two definitions don't seem bad to me. Without them two things one can easily become taken advantage of. And imagination, without that we would be like any other animal on Earth. Living off of instinct alone. Or am I totally off on the definition everyone else is taking about? If you take it at face value why would someone not want you to have self esteem and self importance? Is because people with them make bad fallowers?

Freud and Jung weren't besties, even though Jung was Freud's student. In Freud's model, it's self -> ego -> "contents". What he says is that most people mistake the "contents"of the go for the ego itself, which causes the confusion. So having an inflated "Look at meeeeee" is the "contents" of the ego, or what's in it. That's where the term 'Spiritual ego' comes from. Being a nice, Spiritual guy is also the "contents" of the ego.

In simple terms he says "It is a sense of I am." "I am Spiritual." Essentially what that does is give you a sense of relationship with yourself and the rest of the Universe around you. What's not known in Spirituality is that without that sense of I am, clinically you'd be wearing nappies and being spoon fed because you would have no sense of "I am in need of a pee" or "I am hungry." What the brochures don't tell you is this is what happens when the adepts in the temples actually transcend their egos.

https://frithluton.com/articles/ego/

It's a bit heavy but it has an understanding of how your Spirituality and pretty much the rest of your Life is formed- there's the 'real' "create your own reality."

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Do our egos create new belief systems or at least modify existing belief systems?

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

[lemex]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Do our egos create new belief systems or at least modify existing belief systems?

Thing is, belief systems already exist from early life through association and hearing and learning through hearing, people are introduced to them even before they are aware of other beliefs, it's the gift we are given. There is no choice. It isn't created but already exists. The seed was already planted. In this regard, I think people then seek truth when they sense aspects of conflict and (obvious) disagreement in what they now hear said. Awareness, we entertain it. What is obviously seen in perspective is teachers attitudes are not open to change and so seek neither new or changed belief where others do not. We do not defend beliefs but merely ask certain aspects be explained better.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[hallow]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Freud and Jung weren't besties, even though Jung was Freud's student. In Freud's model, it's self -> ego -> "contents". What he says is that most people mistake the "contents"of the go for the ego itself, which causes the confusion. So having an inflated "Look at meeeeee" is the "contents" of the ego, or what's in it. That's where the term 'Spiritual ego' comes from. Being a nice, Spiritual guy is also the "contents" of the ego.

In simple terms he says "It is a sense of I am." "I am Spiritual." Essentially what that does is give you a sense of relationship with yourself and the rest of the Universe around you. What's not known in Spirituality is that without that sense of I am, clinically you'd be wearing nappies and being spoon fed because you would have no sense of "I am in need of a pee" or "I am hungry." What the brochures don't tell you is this is what happens when the adepts in the temples actually transcend their egos.

https://frithluton.com/articles/ego/

It's a bit heavy but it has an understanding of how your Spirituality and pretty much the rest of your Life is formed- there's the 'real' "create your own reality."

Ok that makes sense! Thanks. So would ego be at play here, I raised from birth to believe certain religious beliefs. As I got out on my own I started exploring and asking "why" like a child. You wouldn't believe how many people will NOT give you an answer when you simply ask why or question a thought.