Indeed, there are many words which have changed considerably from their original meaning thanks to common usage. Language purists may not like words being used incorrectly, but common usage makes the new meanings acceptable.

An interesting example is the word "bully". We all know what it means nowadays, but it used to mean a blustering daredevil, and before that it meant a good fellow (as in "Bully for you") and originally it meant sweetheart.

So let's not get too hung up on the original definition of ego. Common usage means that more modern variations are quite acceptable.

Peace

''What does spirituality mean to you?''

The immaterial. :smile:

Your reality is defined by your perceptions, your perceptions are defined by your beliefs and your beliefs are defined by your definitions. Definitions create your paradigm and everything is relative to that - including your consciousness. If everybody has their own personal definitions then discussion just becomes babble and confusion.

Spiritual people tend to redefine the ego as the bad guy then declare they don't have one of those. The only problem is that they are unaware that the discussion of the ego is psychoanalysis not Spirituality, and that all they've done is 'levelled up' their egoism. That's Spirituality, self-awareness, higher consciousness?

And while those Spiritual people are talking about their pseudo-psychoanalysis there's a perfectly good Sanskrit word that not only provided the basis for the psychology but also 'dovetails' into so many other ancient philosophies/religions and their understandings - including understanding reality itself.

It's not wrong, it's ignorance and a few other things that Spirituality isn't supposed to be.

It's all a major problem because Spirituality becomes as much of a status symbol as a mansion, and Spiritual knowledge is as much wealth as money in the bank. People are creating delusions.

If people are creating their own realities by deliberately redefining words and therefore understandings and realities, what happened to integrity?

I think you have taken a wrong turn somewhere here in portraying this situation.
Redefining something is usually done to embrace a better appraisal i.e. understanding - not to delude/dupe oneself!
Ancient scriptures talk of minimising the ego to enable our soul/spirit to shine through.
I'm sure many spiritually focused people here understand that our ego is simply our worldly ID i.e. incorporating all that goes with that (not all negative!)

It means that people can make any old nonsense up and believe that they are right. So if we're going to do the 'Spiritual thing' then Ahamkara is "The I of invented things," often referred to as the 'false self'. Aham is Sanskrit for 'I' and a kara is an 'invented thing', and an invented thing is either something that people made up or a 'thing' of perceptual/relative reality.

Common usage of the word 'ego' simply means that Spiritual people aren't as Spiritual as they'd like to think they are. Their Spirituality is an illusion.

Your logic appears quite muddled.

'Invented' as in illusory. The ego is seen as the false self, i.e. our real self being beyond ego....easily experienced/verified in meditation.

Spiritually focused people are aware that they are mind, body and spirit i.e. it does not denote the level of spirituality achieved. Spirituality is very far from being illusory and, if you dispute this, why are you on this forum?

I don't get hung up about book definitions as they're not set in stone anyway but one needs to be aware a word may mean something very different to someone else. This applies especially to the use of 'ego'.....

You seem surprised it may be compromised.

Our ego is not simply our "worldly ID". if I asked you to describe yourself, "I am" is your ego and everything after that is the 'contents' of your ego. Essentially it's the sum total of everything you perceive yourself to be - including describing yourself as 'Spiritual' if that's what you would do. And your internal reality is relative to your ego or "Sense of I am."

For the most part, any thread on the ego is about reducing/killing the ego - ego is often portrayed as the 'bad guy' and that's superstitious nonsense, not Spirituality. Egoism is the issue and the barrier to 'higher understandings' not Spirituality, and so-called ego-death is egoism. Redefinition only leads to illusion/delusion.

Ancient scriptures can't talk about minimising the ego because ego is a Latin word, and the ancient scripts - mostly in Sanskrit and similar languages - can be at least two thousand years older than Latin.

Redefinition only changes the meaning to something more palatable, and often that only causes entropy.

Why are you writing the word 'Spirituality' with an upper-case 'S'? Or being critical about others for not being as spiritual as they believe themselves to be?