How to practically force your ego to die?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Or maybe not giving much of a stuff about the possibilities, but being at peace with ourselves as we are.

Yah - I'm just saying that I think (and so experience) there's much more to (what I call) 'Life' than 'Peace' - 'Growth' and 'Evolution', for example. Also 'cautioning' folks to be wary of its 'sweet' taste - if and as 'Peace' is perseveratively indulged in will end up being stultifying.

Not that 'Peace' shouldn't be a part of someone's 'diet', now. Each to his own 'taste', aye what Guruslade?

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it." (Ecclesiastes)

Yum!

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Every 'new' synthesis of the truth may (but also in some ways at least may not!) be an 'advance' compared to (i.e 'old]) syntheses (think of the Mormons and The Church of Jesus Christ and the Later Day Saints, for instance).

If a 'new' synthesis/philosophy appeals to many (In therms of number of people), to soon becomes a 'tradition'.

Very good explanation of new innovative revelations/synthesis vs old interpretations (which many a times lack genuine meaning/convictions/logic / reason / feeling behind it) .

While we improvise new meanings and detect staleness of interpretations , it may be a good case to be very specific, meticulous and point based rather than generally blaming traditions .

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

While we improvise new meanings and detect staleness of interpretations , it may be a good case to be very specific, meticulous and point based rather than generally blaming traditions .

I agree. Sometimes, though, 'dynamite' may be what 'the Cause of Life' calls for, such as when a log-jam or dam that impedes or diverts Life' river' Flow is being reinforced by groupie-'faith' that something or other is THE Cat's Meeow just because it is a 'revered' 'tradition' - resulting in "specific, meticulous logical 'points'" being smugly/blithely disregarded.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-mind-the-mule

Originally Posted by davidsun

I agree. Sometimes, though, 'dynamite' may be what 'the Cause of Life' calls for, such as when a log-jam or dam that impedes or diverts Life' river' Flow is being reinforced by groupie-'faith' that something or other is THE Cat's Meeow just because it is a 'revered' 'tradition' - resulting in "specific, meticulous logical 'points'" being smugly/blithely disregarded.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-mind-the-mule

Yet you seem to believe only your views are "specific, meticulous logical 'points'" and anyone who doesn't see it exactly your way is smug, thereby deserving of the two-by-four. Did you even read that article to its end?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-mind-the-mule

Unfortunately, too many executives opt for the same approach as the farmer. Their two-by-four is sending a tough message or creating a burning platform, but that elicits fear. The amygdala is activated and the stress hormone cortisol is released. Thinking slows down, vision is narrowed, and attention is riveted on the immediate threat. Just when we need people to be smart, they become stupid.

A better approach would be to reframe the threat as an opportunity, and present the current crisis not as something to dread, but as a chance to rethink the business and make it more of the kind of company everybody wants. Bring people together, present an honest appraisal of the business, and have everyone participate in coming up with ways to improve its performance. For most companies, that would be highly unexpected.

You opt for the two-by-four. I opt for reframing the threat.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Yet you seem to believe only your views are "specific, meticulous logical 'points'" and anyone who doesn't see it exactly your way is smug, thereby deserving of the two-by-four. Did you even read that article to its end?

Yes, I read and agree with the point made made in the article which you reference/

Am very glad to 'see' that you are finally (maybe as result being two-by-four-ed'?) actually relating to what I say - which you for the most part haven't 'deigned' to previously either when I have offered my perspective on on your and others' 'points'.

Looking forward to more mutually meaningful engagement with and from you. I know you like peaceful 'protestors', but I shouldn't have to resort to 'shock' tactics to get reasonable consideration. I hope you register the fact that I read the article all the way and shared the link to the entirety of it - there are other references to 'the joke' in the internet which were not likewise balanced.

P.S. I will not hesitate to revert to 'rough and tumble' mode if you slip back into smugly ignoring or dismissing the significance of my 'points', for instance the one I AM making here.

Originally Posted by davidsun

Yes, I read and agree with the point made made in the article which you reference/

Am very glad to 'see' that you are finally (maybe as result being two-by-four-ed'?) actually relating to what I say - which you for the most part haven't 'deigned' to previously either when I have offered my perspective on on your and others' 'points'..

Nothing has changed except perhaps my understanding of your understanding of Advaita and based on what I would consider an incorrect understanding proffered by some of the more radical Neo-Advaitins. To me it seemed, rightly or wrongly, you were painting my understanding with that understanding and that would be a straw man.

I'll also point out the radical Neo-Advaita view is a new synthesis of traditional Advaita and dismisses its teachings, traditions and practices, including ethical and moral considerations. Not all that is new is good just as not all that is old is bad.

To sum up, if I did subscribe to unreal and illusion as literal I'd hardly be engaging in this forum and I certainly wouldn't take the time to have lengthy discussions with mere illusions. LOL!

I'd quietly ignore the world and spend as much time in deep meditation as possible. Considering I'm quite sociable and also an avid fan of the great outdoors that's simply not an option. As Vivekananda said, and I'm paraphrasing, the man who sits in a cave in the Himalayas in endless Samadhi is missing the way, as is the man who is totally engrossed in the sensual pleasures and painful sorrows of the physical world.

I think the Buddhists have a similar outlook referred to as The Middle Way.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Nothing has changed except perhaps my understanding of your understanding of Advaita and based on what I would consider an incorrect understanding proffered by some of the more radical Neo-Advaitins. To me it seemed, rightly or wrongly, you were painting my understanding with that understanding and that would be a straw man.
.

I understand (I think) and appreciate your take on what you call 'radical' Advaita and 'cave sitting' Samadhi. There are many ways in which you and I agree, I think.

I nevertheless still think you have not registered - you certainly haven't yet responsively addressed - the ways in which I am critical of 'traditional' Advaita as well as aspects of Buddhism and The Gita (which in many ways 'incorporated' the tenets of Buddhism even while retaining 'Vedic' views/beliefs which stand in contradiction).

Too many issues and related nuances in said regard to enumerate and discuss here. Here, let me just mention my main 'quibble' with all three of these 'sources' and derivative 'traditions' by way of a quote from my book (which was/is conscious intended to attempt at least to update (in the same sense that computer programs get 'updated') 'religious' concepts and beliefs in general - hence its title Godspeak 2000):

"More than two and a half thousand years ago in what is now India, pondering the human predicament in light of what was then and there believed and known, the one most have since called Buddha, because distress was [then] so pervasive, 'saw' suffering as a central feature of earthly Life, and, because people were generally [then] so selfish in aspiration, identified desire itself as the root‑cause of such condition. Conse*quently, as a first order of business, he counseled a nirvanic state be sought wherein desire is renounced and, if not relinquished completely, at least held in abeyance.

the rest of the book addresses this problem'.

Please note JASG. I am not asking and do not expect you to 'answer' what I say here here. I do ask as well as expect you to thoroughly consider and contemplate the 'points' I make here so that you actually relate to what I think in future conversational exchanges.

Originally Posted by davidsun

I understand (I think) and appreciate your take on what you call 'radical' Advaita and 'cave sitting' Samadhi. There are many ways in which you and I agree, I think.

"More than two and a half thousand years ago in what is now India, pondering the human predicament in light of what was then and there believed and known, the one most have since called Buddha, because distress was [then] so pervasive, 'saw' suffering as a central feature of earthly Life, and, because people were generally [then] so selfish in aspiration, identified desire itself as the root‑cause of such condition. Conse*quently, as a first order of business, he counseled a nirvanic state be sought wherein desire is renounced and, if not relinquished completely, at least held in abeyance.
"

the rest of the book addresses this problem'.

Please note JASG. I am not asking and do not expect you to 'answer' what I say here here. I do ask as well as expect you to thoroughly consider and contemplate the 'points' I make here so that you actually relate to what I think in future conversational exchanges.

I think we agree and maybe in more ways than you understand. That is, I see a purpose behind it all, and that purpose is for the Divine to experience Itself through Its manifestation, which is us (the many).

So no, I do not dismiss the many as unreal or illusory, but the vehicle for Divine experience. There are many forms of selfishness, and Vivekananda considered it to be the epitome of selfishness to cloister one's self away in solitude in pursuit of the experience of Samadhi.

By the same token he also considered it selfish to enjoy the fruits of the multiplicity merely for personal satisfaction and without regard, morally and ethically, for the other because in the end there really is no other, only the Divine. To dismiss the other (and even one's self!) as unreal or illusory is to dismiss the Divine.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The word 'ego' was originally coined by Freud then Jung and didn't appear in any religious or philosophical texts prior to that, as far as I'm aware. ... And people start saying that "The ego is..." and The ego does.... that's psychoanalysis. I never said that it cannot be used, what I did say is that the ego as the bad guy doesn't bring any understanding.


If I could be bothered I'd go through and find the tread you posted to me about your definition of the ego. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if I misread it because I didn't pay it that much attention.

So you never said that the ego cannot be used in the context of a spiritual discussion? Hmmm.

From a previous post:

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The word 'ego' belongs to psychology not Spirituality, and that's where everything begins to crumble. It's just another word that is 'imported' into Spirituality and redefined for the sake of personal agenda. ... The discussion of the ego is one of psychoanalysis, not Spirituality and if Spiritual people can't understand that - or don't want to - then there's something badly wrong.

Perhaps you don't pay too much attention to your own offerings either? Or perhaps you just say whatever suits your mood at any particular moment.

Peace

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I think we agree and maybe in more ways than you understand. That is, I see a purpose behind it all, and that purpose is for the Divine to experience Itself through Its manifestation, which is us (the many).

So no, I do not dismiss the many as unreal or illusory, but the vehicle for Divine experience. There are many forms of selfishness, and Vivekananda considered it to be the epitome of selfishness to cloister one's self away in solitude in pursuit of the experience of Samadhi.

By the same token he also considered it selfish to enjoy the fruits of the multiplicity merely for personal satisfaction and without regard, morally and ethically, for the other because in the end there really is no other, only the Divine. To dismiss the other (and even one's self!) as unreal or illusory is to dismiss the Divine.

Thank you for the clarifications in this and your previous post. I googled Vivekananda and read about his thoughts and doings and, yes, I (now) think that my 'take' on the 'tradition' has been 'colored' by the limited/distorted understandings and expressions of many who claimed to be students and teachers therein and thereof. Here is a quote from Wikepedia for consideration by any who think/feel/believe thar they practice and represent 'pure' Non-Dualism and that they 'truly' know the truth about Life:

According to Anil Sooklal, Vivekananda's neo-Advaita "reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism". [168][note 7] Vivekananda summarised the Vedanta as follows, giving it a modern and Universalistic interpretation:

Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this Divinity within by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or mental discipline, or philosophy—by one, or more, or all of these—and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details.

In other words, Vivekananda embraced the idea of every 'individual' having a 'soul', so if you believe that there is no such thing as an 'individual' soul or that souls don't really have 'free will' and therefore 'you' don't have real 'responsibility' in relation to others and/or The Flow of Life Itself, a student/teacher with the stature of Vivekananda thought and taught otherwise. Maybe look him and his 'story' up on Wikipedia and compare the likes of Robert Adams, who advocates things like 'mindlessness' as being spiritually desirable/beneficial, with him.