What does spirituality mean to you?

[bobjob]

It's like we're speaking different versions of a common language with spoken and written words used in ways we choose to use them rather than the way they're more widely used and/or defined.

Originally Posted by ameliorate

Redefining something is usually done to embrace a better appraisal i.e. understanding - not to delude/dupe oneself!

Ancient scriptures can't talk of the ego, 'ego' is Latin for 'I' and many of the ancient scripts were written thousands of years before Latin was a language. So already there is an misunderstanding. The word 'ego' comes from psychology and I've been told numerous times that this is a Spiritual forum, psychology has no place in the discussions.

So, can we talk about deluding and duping oneself?

If you are an aficionado of ancient scripts then you'd know the word is the Sanskrit word is Ahamhara. The definition of the word 'Ahamkara' and the understandings of that 'dovetail' nicely into so many other ancient understandings. So the irony is that, according to ancient wisdom, the mainstream definition of the ego is an 'invented thing' and therefore illusion/delusion.

Dontcha just love the irony?

What the Spiritual texts mean when they talk about the ego is 'egoism', that's what keeps the Soul/Spirit in darkness. Egoism happens when people 'kill' their egos, it's an imbalance. I'd also mention that it's a personality issue but this is a Spiritual forum.

Right Thinking leads to Right Understanding of the Eightfold Path, and for the most part the discussion of the ego - and everything else that is redefined - is neither of those.

Originally Posted by bobjob

It's like we're speaking different versions of a common language with spoken and written words used in ways we choose to use them rather than the way they're more widely used and/or defined.

Yes!!!

Ego is defined by psychology and that is where the word originates. Ahamkara is defined by ancient religion/philosophy but people prefer to redefine the definition from psychology rather than understand the ancient religion/philosophy. Jung's definition of the ego is based on the Ahamkara so they are one and the same, translation aside.

But here's the fun part. There was a documentary on life in a monastery and some of the monks had successfully 'transcended' their egos, they had become literally ego-less. They had to have their nappies changed and be spoon-fed because they were so far gone they couldn't function. And yes, clinically that IS the reality whether Spiritual people choose to believe it or not. Something similar happens during severe emotional trauma when the ego 'collapses' into the self.

Something similar happens with the word 'self'. According to many of the ancient scripts we have a number of 'selfs' - there's the Spiritual self, the emotional self, true self, false self..... Yet start a thread asking "What is the self?" and the discussion will be on a single 'unit' and not a number of different selfs, and I doubt very much there'll be a mention of the Atman - and by extension we are Brahman. Jung based his definition of the self on the Atman.

While we're here, Jung was a scholar of Advaita Vedanta and gained high praise and accolades from the highest echelons of Advaita Vedanta for Westernising Eastern understandings.

I could come out with a list of words that are similarly redefined and their meanings and understandings have become lost. Some words have been taken from science while others are more modern-day redefinitions of ancient Sanskrit/Pali words. My point is that there is little Right Thinking and therefore Right Understanding as far as I can see. All it does is get very messy very quickly. Redefinition doesn't create anything except confusion and egoism.

[bobjob]

As you love words and their use and meanings may I respectfully ask why you make common nouns into Proper Nouns?

Originally Posted by bobjob

As you love words and their use and meanings may I respectfully ask why you make common nouns into Proper Nouns?

Being honest, I've never really thought about it. Sometimes it just feels right.

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Being honest, I've never really thought about it. Sometimes it just feels right.

But why? Capitalising the first letter of any word gives the impression that it's being elevated from mundane to specific. It's like writing Spirit or Spirits instead of spirit and spirits but different, of course, from writing 'The Great Spirit' which is correctly capitalised as a proper noun symbolising the specific life-creating entity/energy or 'God' as many call it.

On another tack many write about 'Spirit' and "talking to Spirit" when what they really mean is the spirits of simple individuals like ourselves. It might just be careless shorthand but might also show confusion about what's happening when we communicate with discarnates. It's one of my particular annoyances!

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

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.

So I was curious and actually looked up the Sanskrit term Ahaṁkāra.

Ahaṁkāra, 'I-making', is a Sanskrit term in Saṃkhyā philosophy that refers to the identification of Self or Being with 'nature' or any impermanent 'thing'.

Which seems to be what many of us on this forum mean when we talk about ego. But not everyone is comfortable with the use of Sanskrit terms.

And then I looked further and found the following for Kāra (note that Kara, Kāra and Kārā are all different words):

1. Making, doing, performing, working, maker, doer, author;Act, action; as in पुरुषकार (puruṣakāra).
2. A term denoting a sound or a word which is not inflected;
3. Effort, exertion;
4. Religious austerity.
5. A husband, lord; master.
6. Determination.
7. Power, strength.
8. A tax or toll.
9. A hymn or battle-song.
10. A heap of snow.
11. The Himālaya mountain.
12. Water produced by hail.
13. Killing, slaughter.

No mention of any invented thing, but it does seem to have so many meanings.

Peace

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

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.

The logic of this escapes me. Of course ancient scriptures did not use the word ego. No doubt the Chinese do not use the word ego either - it is a completely different language.

And why use Jung's definition of the ego? Why not go back earlier to Freud who (originally) simply used ego to mean the sense of self. Which is how many of us use the term ego (referring to self with a small "s").

Peace

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

But here's the fun part. There was a documentary on life in a monastery and some of the monks had successfully 'transcended' their egos, they had become literally ego-less. They had to have their nappies changed and be spoon-fed because they were so far gone they couldn't function. And yes, clinically that IS the reality whether Spiritual people choose to believe it or not.

You obviously like this story since you repeat it so many times.

I suspect that those who have genuinely transcended their egos can still function very effectively in the physical body.

Peace

[bobjob]

Originally Posted by iamthat

And why use Jung's definition of the ego? Why not go back earlier to Freud who (originally) simply used ego to mean the sense of self. Which is how many of us use the term ego (referring to self with a small "s").

That's all I feel the word 'ego' to be - one's sense of self. Hence most of us are never without ego and it's not a negative issue.

BUT I suspect 'ego' is often used in a perjorative sense - overly involved, to a negative degree, with self and/or one's perceived importance or self importance - ie egotism