Is the ego really separate from anything?

Originally Posted by Greenslade

This is why Spirituality is no further on with the argument of what the ego is or isn't, because if the definition of the ego is anything anyone wants it to be then anything after that is a nonsense. To you the ego is all about control, to me it's much more than that and frankly, I can't be ar-sed any more. I'll listen to the people who have something more than an opinion and an agenda. When you make up your own definition there is no understanding beyond that, other than the reasons you create and hold that definition.

But then I can't help wonder how many people who have waxed so Spiritual about the ego have taken the Spiritual, inward Journey.

Aw, now don't be like that. You should be celebrating - after all, you can't be ar-sed any more!

For example, you keep saying spirituality doesn't know anything, but repeatedly justify Jung's theories by talking about how he studied the Upanishads and eastern mysticism. Which is it? Is spirituality baseless, or did Jung rip it all off? Which came first, the spiritual path, or the psychology that's stolen so much from the spiritual path? My goodness, we sure are fortunate you don't have any opinions or agenda - there just might be a whole lot of ar-sing around.

As to who has taken the 'Spiritual, inward journey', we might just ask you the same thing.

https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...9&postcount=29

Originally Posted by Johnathanrs

I'm one of those mystic thingies that you mention of. I am sorry, my ego wants to be cool and be apart of your guys conversation. I'll go back to the shadow now.

I love you ego.

By all means stick around! I don't feel there's anything wrong with ego - as long as it doesn't run the show.

I love your love.

Originally Posted by Kioma

Aw, now don't be like that. You should be celebrating - after all, you can't be ar-sed any more!

For example, you keep saying spirituality doesn't know anything, but repeatedly justify Jung's theories by talking about how he studied the Upanishads and eastern mysticism. Which is it? Is spirituality baseless, or did Jung rip it all off? Which came first, the spiritual path, or the psychology that's stolen so much from the spiritual path? My goodness, we sure are fortunate you don't have any opinions or agenda - there just might be a whole lot of ar-sing around.

As to who has taken the 'Spiritual, inward journey', we might just ask you the same thing.

https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/s...9&postcount=29

Im my view this can be summed up as the path beyond mind is through mind or there is no path but only a fool does not walk it.

Originally Posted by Kioma

By all means stick around! I don't feel there's anything wrong with ego - as long as it doesn't run the show.

I love your love.

I'll go one step beyond that. There's nothing wrong with mind-body as long as one doesn't let it run the show. In fact I highly recommend mind-body and everyone should have one, at least as long as One has use for one. LOL!

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

What do you use to bring yourself to that conclusion? If you want an objective discussion of psychology meets Spirituality, by all means feel free.

Spirituality is metaphysics which is meta ta physika - after physics in Greek . So spirituality studying what is beyond , behind , underlying ,underneath the physical is correct . In sanskrit 'Adhyatm' is the word for spirituality just as what Greeks have defined above. So there is nothing new i have discussed about spirituality.

By this definition spirituality tries to see beyond mind and its processes also (with use of mind and grace of Divine) and that's where psychology has no role in spirituality .

Originally Posted by Greenslade

So when Spiritual people deride psychology and - certainly in this thread - deride people who discuss Jung's 'recreation' of ancient wisdom because it has no relevance to the Spiritual Adept? And psychology in general?

I dont know people deriding psychology.At least I dont do that and I have seen most are reasonable in their arguments. I believe Spirituality definitely has relation with Psychology because Spirituality does not contradict any sciences . And so it should not contradict psychology also . I am aware about ego-self as 'Chitta' you have discussed many times and I do agree with it .

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You can't do that when you are ignorant and unaware of the unconscious subsystems that create your reality, the subsystems that accept or reject information according to a personal definition of the word 'Spirituality' for instance. Did you know people did that?

Spirituality does doesn't do anything, Spirituality comes from people so to say Spirituality does it is to objectify what is ineffable.

I was referring specifically to Jung and his model of the ego, which is based on the Sanskrit Ahamkara.

In religious circles it is customary to say u need to kill ego to be religious. This however is not exactly correct . If go into detail , people really mean to kill 'name-form-shape-color-materiality' based ego which is a limiting factor. So in effect people are trying to change the nature of the ego. So there is no need to take strong offence to that . Technically u are right ego is not bad guy and u need to change it and not kill it (which is not possible) .

Originally Posted by Greenslade

In Ahamkara, the ego is an 'invented thing' and in Spirituality ultimately there is no Self and therefore no ego. Chitta is broadly Lower Mind' and what Jung would have called the unconscious, and that 'creates' the karas or 'invented things' which the Aham is comprised of. Ahamkara is the 'I-maker'. In Jungian it's the 'contents'/karas that creates the ego, and both ego and Aham means 'I'. Right Thinking is cognitive behaviour.

In spirituality Ego is there albeit transformed & sublimated . Ego does not vanish in spirituality . Except that all that u say makes sense.

Also we may note as others too have pointed , not all conclusions by psychologist may be right in reality . It may just be valid only through/from limited lens of sub-conscious view and not from the wider perspective of reality which is far more complicated than just psychology.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I don't know if this is anyone's position here, but a hard-core mind-based approach to spirituality brings to mind the Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett perspective that mind is all there is and it's exclusively of the brain. Pure reductive materialism where consciousness and free will are but illusion.

Agree . There can be lot beyond mind also.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I don't believe they are illusory but I also don't believe they are of mind-body, that mind-body is but a magnificent biological machine and consciousness and free will are of that which illumines mind, Spirit.

So from the perspective of mind-body the pursuit of spirituality is all within mind but Spirit itself is not. The path beyond mind is through mind and without giving mind free rein to explore that path by any means necessary is not only okay but necessary.

Can't just tell someone to realize their true nature and leave it at that for them to stumble around in the dark, or that using intellect and language to contemplate and explain it to the degree possible defeats its purpose. I might be wrong but I sense a great deal of animosity towards tradition and religion in these positions, not to mention a lack of humility.

Very much agree . It may be very difficult to imagine a path beyond mind but through mind . But with disciplined effort and with grace of God , path can not only be discerned but walked upon.

Originally Posted by Kioma

Spirituality is many things, but primary to our experience of it, it is a perspective. The ego-reality - the 'reality' of the physical - too, is a perspective. Each perspective is self-evident and self-explanatory within it's purview. It's not hard at all to look around safely ensconced in the ego-reality and call it 'self-evident and self-explanatory' - is it.

There is a reason the mystics speak of transcendence from the former to the latter, and not the other way around. To the mystics, who have been there, it is not a 'theory'. One explains the other - includes the other - rather than just explain the other away.

Right on. And that's why there is a thing called practice.

To know for yourself.

That is the encouragement of all the Masters (and yes, there are such things as Masters, even if it threatens peoples' egos, so be it)

As Jyotir said one time or another, this is an incredible opportunity for everyone. It's wonderful news, in my mind.

JL

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Agree . There can be lot beyond mind also.

Very much agree . It may be very difficult to imagine a path beyond mind but through mind . But with disciplined effort and with grace of God , path can not only be discerned but walked upon.

This is an excerpt from one of four lectures Vivekananda gave in London on Practical Vedanta.

https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.i...ta_part_iv.htm

The highest ideal of the Vedanta is very difficult to understand, and people are always quarrelling about it, and the greatest difficulty is that when they get hold of certain ideas, they deny and fight other ideas. Take up what suits you, and let others take up what they need. If you are desirous of clinging to this little individuality, to this limited manhood, remain in it, have all these desires, and be content and pleased with them. If your experience of manhood has been very good and nice, retain it as long as you like; and you can do so, for you are the makers of your own fortunes; none can compel you to give up your manhood. You will be men as long as you like; none can prevent you. If you want to be angels, you will be angels, that is the law. But there may be others who do not want to be angels even. What right have you to think that theirs is a horrible notion? You may be frightened to lose a hundred pounds, but there may be others who would not even wink if they lost all the money they had in the world. There have been such men and still there are. Why do you dare to judge them according to your standard? You cling on to your limitations, and these little worldly ideas may be your highest ideal. You are welcome to them. It will be to you as you wish. But there are others who have seen the truth and cannot rest in these limitations, who have done with these things and want to get beyond. The world with all its enjoyments is a mere mud-puddle for them. Why do you want to bind them down to your ideas? You must get rid of this tendency once for all. Accord a place to everyone.

Take Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. My view is their form of secular spirituality derived from neuroscience, psychology and philosophy of mind is admirable and of a high ethical and moral nature. Being inquisitive and analytical myself I've touch on all this at a laymen's level and find it useful but not necessary. That is one doesn't need depth of knowledge or even surface knowledge of these fields in order to find and experience That which is beyond. I suppose it can be helpful or harmful depending on one's nature and that's for each individual to determine.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Fanfares, tickertape parades, dancing girls...... Have a cigar me ole fruit.


The ancients didn't separate them and Jung, had be been alive today, would have more than given many of the pillars of this forum a run for their money. Maybe he would have laughed his socks off at some of the antics because frankly, I find the irony amazing.

Jung happened a lot time after spirituality; and not sure why you keep using him as some golden standard, especially when it comes to matters of Spirituality. I am confident that there are many in the psychotherapy field whose minds aren't confined to one book or another either, so even this conversation doesn't represent all of psychology or Jung in fact, only one man's take on it, I presume.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Agree . There can be lot beyond mind also.

that's an understatement