Can you be spiritual but feel above those around you?

Originally Posted by FairyCrystal

There is, however, a so called lower ego and higher ego, just as you have an inner child and a Golden Inner Child.
The lower ego is related to the hurt inner child.

Yes, the ego does 'serve us' because there is no experience and no Spirituality without it.

There is the ego and its 'contents' or what an ego (since its individual) 'consists' of. If I asked you to describe yourself, "I am " is your ego and everything else after that is 'contents'. That's the most simple way of describing it, and there is only one.

What you term as the 'lower ego' is the unconscious and the "hurt inner child" is essentially a 'snapshot' of the person's emotional state at the time. I have one of those, it's a 'fractured' personality due to emotional and physical trauma due to abuse. It's also know as the 'Shadow self' in both Spirituality and psychology, simply it's a repository of issues that we either can't or won't deal with. Instead of dealing with things constructively many people call it "negative karma" and that gets stuffed into the Shadow Self as well. It also 'contributes' to your "Sense of I am."

[Hexagon222]

Looked up Nibbana, that would be it! That would be an egoless state. As far as the word ego goes, I was just watching the movie “Seven Years In Tibet” the other day. Quote from the movie: Tibetan - “You admire the man who pushes his way to the top in any walk of life, while we admire the man who abandons his ego.” So whether the definition of ego has been hijacked or not, it’s clearly well established in movies and spiritual teachings.

Maybe for the seekers, if they want to understand just what the spiritual teachers are talking about when they say ego, it might be beneficial to learn the different meanings of ego including the supposed hijacked spiritual version of ego. Although it appears Freud hijacked ego, which just meant I in Latin, words change all the time to have different meanings. They get hijacked and that’s just the way it goes. Tolle said something along the lines of you can write a dissertation or book all about honey without ever tasting it. So we can talk about ego all day but unless you have actually experienced separation from ego it's all intellectual theory and cannot be understood.

Regarding being above others, as I understand it, in the higher state of being there is no separation between you or I. There is no individual. If I say or recognize that I am above you, that's living in the illusion of separation because we are one in the same at a deeper level.

How do you know when ego is gone? When there is nothing left in you that gets triggered by other people and situations. Because there is nothing there to trigger. You will be filled with untouchable bliss. I lived in that state for a few years.

Thanks everyone for your responses :)

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Hexagon222

Although it appears Freud hijacked ego, which just meant I in Latin, words change all the time to have different meanings.

Of course, Freud and Jung wrote in German and they used the term Das Ich (The I).

It was the English translator James Strachey who Latinised the terms Das Es, Das Ich and Das Uberich to id, ego and superego.

Freud spoke English and he moved to London in 1938, but when he spoke about his work in English he may just have used the English terms already established by James Strachey.

Peace

Originally Posted by Hexagon222

So whether the definition of ego has been hijacked or not, it’s clearly well established in movies and spiritual teachings.

Yeah it's been hijacked and a lot of nonsense talked about it. And none of the nonsense that is said about it makes any sense, it's nothing more than Chinese Whispers. Google Ahamkara if you really want the understanding, because the mainstream Spirituality's definition in the context of the ancient wisdom is an 'invented thing'.

Ego is Latin for 'I', Aham is Sanskrit for 'I'. Jung based his model of the ego on the Ahamkara and his model of the self on the Atman. He was an adept scholar of Advaita Vedanta. He was also called for an audience by the higher echelons of Advaita Vedanta at the time, so they could pat him on the back for brining Eastern wisdom to the West. So regardless of what people say about ego, the psychology is based on the ancient religion/philosophy.

If you want to get 'past' your ego, question your reasons for what you believe. Stay with your beliefs, stay with your ego. If you want a Westernised version of the ancient wisdom, spend time with Jung.

As you said, "How do you know when ego is gone?"
In psychology, cases of severe trauma can cause the ego to 'collapse' into the self, it's a safety mechanism. Your ego is never really gone until such time as you've popped your clogs, although you might have spells where you can 'experience' having no sense of "I am."

Tolle was wrong, there are states of consciousness where you can be 'separate' from your ego.

[WildHairedWoman]

Originally Posted by traceyacey12

Can you be spiritual but feel above those around you?

Thanks for your help :)

My impulse is to say No! but I need to know what you actually mean by "but feel above those around you". If you mean you think you are better than they are, then you are right to question your belief of being spiritual.

[WildHairedWoman]

Originally Posted by traceyacey12

At what point does the ego die?

At the point that we no longer need our physical body. The Ego is part of who we are as human on planet earth. You cannot kill your ego or release it or get rid of it, any more than you cannot Never be Angry, something that is also part of being human on planet earth.

[pixiedust]

Originally Posted by WildHairedWoman

You cannot kill your ego or release it or get rid of it, any more than you cannot Never be Angry, something that is also part of being human on planet earth.

Well thank God for spiritual practice then.

[Hexagon222]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Yeah it's been hijacked and a lot of nonsense talked about it. And none of the nonsense that is said about it makes any sense

Yes, that's my point. If you haven’t experienced separation from ego as the spiritual teachers talk about it then it will sound like nonsense and make no sense. And that’s because no separation from ego = total attachment to and identification through ego/ Ahankara.

I was going to do more research before posting but didn’t get around to it . In my limited research I don’t see a difference in what the spiritual teachers are saying about ego and the Ahankara? Ego and Ahankara are the same exact thing. So far it seems when teachers are talking about dropping ego they are talking about dropping the Ahankara.

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

“Ahankara is a Sanskrit word that describes the ego, the image a person has of him/herself or the conscious mind as he/she perceives it.”

https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/7607/ahankara

Definition of a Ahankara Goes on to include a sense of who you are (positive or negative), self worth, thoughts and personality, self importance, self esteem, one’s perception, confidence etc.

https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/4969/ego

It all makes perfect sense to me. Where are you seeing a difference between what the spiritual teachers teach about ego and Ahankara?

[Hexagon222]

Also found this...
You have to scroll down to “References in periodicals" archive” https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nibbana

"Nibbana -(1) It denotes the state of the complete erasure (blowing out) of one's ego that covers or hides one's true self, shorn of all illusions and misapprehensions, thus, revealing the true nature of reality"

The Pāli Canon is a collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition
Arahat (palikanon.com)

"Arahatship consists in a spiritual exaltation that transcends the limitations of temporal individuality"
"...system which aims at the elimination of the phenomenal ego..."

So how they define ego makes perfect sense to me and appears to be the appropriate word.