2/13/22 post 45
 

Well, this is my opinion:
Start your own thread on the topic of ego related to spirituality.
Rather than spinning into more contention here...a new thread on 'Ego, as related to Spirituality' is in order.
The exchange of opinions can happen there, please.

It's plain that the subject of 'ego' and the many things people think, and intend, it to mean belongs in a dedicated thread. It's not a discussion that needs to be held in this one and anyone giving it some thought should see that.

Spiritual Forums has numerous forums and plenty of server space that can be used to start new threads and begin conversations about new topics or to re-visit old ones.

Why not use what's been provided here so generously by the forum founder?

blessings :hug3:

In very simple terms, the Atmic principle pertains to the Atman, the Buddhic principle pertains to spiritual intuition, and Manas pertains to the higher abstract mind.

This is as opposed to the lower concrete mind, an aspect of personality which is the tool we use for dealing with the practicalities of everyday life.

Agree. All life is spiritual and everyone is on their own spiritual journey.

For many, the spiritual journey is an unconscious process based on identification with personality. They undergo experiences and learn things without realising the lessons they are learning.

For others the spiritual journey is a conscious choice in terms of beliefs and practices. It is the journey from identification with personality to identification with the higher aspect of ourselves as human beings.

Of course, this is just what spirituality means to me.

Peace

Spirituality means you accept the 2 main concepts:
That we are all 'one' with each other/one collective conscious
We chose to be here/incarnate into this life.

I didn't invent them, they're two of the Eightfold Path. And you certainly have this thing about them.
https://buddha101.com/p_path.htm

What does Spirituality mean when it's based on misunderstandings?

OK, from a purely Spiritual perspective, since this is a thread about What is Spirituality?

The Sanskrit Ahamkara is the "I-maker" or "The 'I' of invented things'. Aham means 'I' and, to keep it very simple, a kara is an 'invented thing'. If people are making up definitions for their own reasons then those are 'invented things'. To keep it simple, 'invented things' are the 'things' of perceptual/relative reality. So if one has a perception of what is Spiritual, that's an 'invented thing'. If one perceive themselves to be Spiritual, that is another 'invented thing'. That we are Spiritual is not Absolute Reality.

Jung took his model of the ego from the Ahamkara and his model of the Self from the Atman. I could go on because there's a string of other terms that are used in Spirituality that have their psychology 'equivalents'. Ego is not 'related' to Spirituality, it IS Spirituality in ways many don't want to understand.

The mainstream definition of 'ego' is largely an 'invented thing', the definition of 'self' is largely and 'invented thing'. We 'invent' our own definitions of Spirituality. Any discussions based on those to words are already off to a bad start.

Using the word 'Spiritual' is codifying and labelling just the same, and it's a lot worse than capitalisation to infer importance and status because defining sets one's paradigm and all subsequent relationship to information is relative to that.

What people then do with that information is up to them. We can have a reasoned discussion for the sake of gaining understanding since in the Eightfold Path Right Thinking and Right Understanding go hand-in-hand, or people can create their own contention.

Not just a Spiritual world. The Absolute Reality is that there is just Brahman, so when there is nothing and nobody who is not Spiritual then does the word have any real meaning? Standing at the supermarket is Spiritual, some guy throwing a road rage tantrum is Brahman.

Buddha says we should question everything, so what are the reasons anyone uses the term 'Spiritual'? That's introspection. If we're going to come up with any kind of answer we need the right questions first.

OK then - you didn't coin them but you've introduced the terms in a similar way to how you have repeatedly created proper nouns from common ones, the intention presumably to give them more 'weight'.

I didn't follow that link, incidentally, because I'm not influenced by 'stuff' just because it's out there online nor am I persuaded by 101.

They're still only notions whatever their source.