When it comes to spirit?

[Synapse]

The more attached to religion and spirituality one is the greater or less ones ego?

 

[redacted]

define ego.

 

[Epiphany]

You edited your thread and title.

Discuss.

The more attached to religion and spirituality one is the greater or less ones ego?

I think it really depends on the individual. Sometimes, a person may have a big ego because they think they are really spiritual and try to teach others how to be enlightened, but most people aren't quite as delusional as these self-proclaimed gurus.

 

[Synapse]

define ego.

Ego, I thought I once knew how to define it.
Then my friend said it was as big as the ocean.
I visit her and now I hear peoples ego everywhere.

Who can say, ego is everything that we are afraid of yet nothing we are aware of.

Dunno if I can define ego.

Ego takes energy to maintain, the more ego there is the more energy it takes for the mind to support ones ego.

 

[Synapse]

You edited your thread and title.

Discuss.

Yes I did.

I felt it was too strong and went for the softer approach.

I think it really depends on the individual. Sometimes, a person may have a big ego because they think they are really spiritual and try to teach others how to be enlightened, but most people aren't quite as delusional as these self-proclaimed gurus.

Aren't they, maybe.

 

[Munchies]

how dare you put spirituality and religion in one box.

The more someone identifies with anything, the more they're ego will inflate. Because they identify with it. I don't identify with anyhting because i am constantly innovating my views on life. It's called evolving. People with large egos are stuck to one perspective on life (in this case, religion, not spirituality) and stick to one identiy that makes them comfterable, they are feeble humans afraid of change. I am spiritual, i do not identify with being spiritual, because there is nothing to identify in, I am what i am, and at the core we are all the same. I think that is a good measure of how small my ego is, not how big.

 

[INTP]

Ego, I thought I once knew how to define it.
Then my friend said it was as big as the ocean.
I visit her and now I hear peoples ego everywhere.

Who can say, ego is everything that we are afraid of yet nothing we are aware of.

Dunno if I can define ego.

Ego takes energy to maintain, the more ego there is the more energy it takes for the mind to support ones ego.

I think good definition would be; 'structure within the consciousness, with the following functions: reality checking, keeping the stability of personality and identity, cognition and executive functioning'.

Anyways i think whether you being religious or spiritual doesent have any sort of fixed effect on the ego, but what parts of the ego it effects depends on your beliefs. For example reality checking might be lowered with some extreme christian, but also strenghten the stability of identity. Buddhist on the other hand would most likely have hightened executive functioning and cognition due to meditation etc.

But one thing people should realize about the whole ego thing. For example this stability of identity or personality, in order to strenghten it, you can go with opposite ways, either close your mind from alternatives and accept you being certain way(which would happen in christianity) or go against it and seek for wholeness, by destroying ego by trying to see your unconscious self, thus paradoxically strenghten the stability of identity(which would happen in buddhism).

But naturally all of this would depend on the person.

 

[Jaguar]

The more someone identifies with anything, the more they're ego will inflate.
Because they identify with it.

I don't identify with anyhting because i am constantly innovating my views on life. It's called evolving. People with large egos are stuck to one perspective on life (in this case, religion, not spirituality) and stick to one identiy that makes them comfterable, they are feeble humans afraid of change. I am spiritual, i do not identify with being spiritual, because there is nothing to identify in, I am what i am, and at the core we are all the same. I think that is a good measure of how small my ego is, not how big.

Calling people 'feeble humans' ruined the sales pitch for your 'small' ego.

 

[Scott N Denver]

The more attached to religion and spirituality one is the greater or less ones ego?

Others have asked for a definition of ego, I'd ask for one of attachment.

Ken Wilber wrote about the difference between "translative" and "transformative" spiritual practices. Basically the purpose of translative practices is "to console and comfort the ego, while possibly making the individual stronger. The purpose of transformative practice is to make the ego go poof. Very few people are interested in, or even capable of, transformative spiritual practice."

 

[Munchies]

Calling people 'feeble humans' ruined the sales pitch for your 'small' ego.

you clearly have a different idea of ego then what i do

 

[Rail Tracer]

Others have asked for a definition of ego, I'd ask for one of attachment.

Ken Wilber wrote about the difference between "translative" and "transformative" spiritual practices. Basically the purpose of translative practices is "to console and comfort the ego, while possibly making the individual stronger. The purpose of transformative practice is to make the ego go poof. Very few people are interested in, or even capable of, transformative spiritual practice."

Like the difference between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. The Great Wheel and Ancient Teaching.

Mahayana's purpose is like trying to get everyone else closer to enlightenment, while Theravada is said to be the quickest path to self-enlightenment.

Attachment is still there with Mahayana (to keep the soul here to help others towards enlightenment) while attachment for Theravada is "gone" to get towards enlightenment.

Of the two, Theravada would be considered more transformative while Mahayana is said to be more translative.

The more attached to religion and spirituality one is the greater or less ones ego?

So, towards the(/my) answer of your question, that depends on the outcome of the religion and spirituality that is being partaken on.

 

[Scott N Denver]

Like the difference between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. The Great Wheel and Ancient Teaching.

Mahayana's purpose is like trying to get everyone else closer to enlightenment, while Theravada is said to be the quickest path to self-enlightenment.

Attachment is still there with Mahayana (to keep the soul here to help others towards enlightenment) while attachment for Theravada is "gone" to get towards enlightenment.

Of the two, Theravada would be considered more transformative while Mahayana is said to be more translative.

First, let us distinguish between attitudes [hinayana, mahayana] and schools [theravada, mahayana]. People often do theravada=hinayana which is sometimes but not always accurate.

All that I have read, dealt with, and studied of Buddhism counter-agrees with your assessment.

Probably the biggest difference is in aspiration, mahayana and vajrayana aim for an enlightenment that is "further" than that of hinayana/theravada. Specifically, the enlightenment of vajrayana/mahayana encompasses that of hinayana but then goes further. The only sense I can possibly see in the statement "hinayana gets to enlightenment faster!" is that of a shallower level of enlightenment.

To the question "what is enlightenment?" one answer, and the hinayana one, would be "dissolution of self in the causal abyss of void/formlessness." And that is there. However, and this is the point of zen, taoism, vajrayana, etc, there is still a deeper answer that includes and goes beyond that answer. The 10 pictures of zen keep going until number 10 [sage enters the market], they dont stop at 8 which is that "dissolution of self in formlessness."

The purpose of mahayana [and all those other ones] is somewhat complicated, and while people *might* express it in the way you put it "Mahayana's purpose is like trying to get everyone else closer to enlightenment", thats not a very accurate statement technically. No offense intended, I've read similar things in religion books, but its really a poor translation/understanding, and that poor understanding directly comes from the relation between "self and other." I would say "mahayana seeks to take others across the river with you", which still isnt that much of an improvement over the previous assessment. However, clearly, "with" is quite different than "they should go first". Part of this is still a language issue [how does one talk about the transpersonal?], but basically it comes down to "the perceived difference between self and other is ultimately false", as buddhism likes to say "there is neither self nor not-self."

What lies beyond formlessness is the simultaneous co-emergence of form and formlessness. Yes, one can go to the void, and yes one can dissolve there, but if one can "let go of" the void, one will be led to see a deeper relationship between form and formlessness, and there "equal footing." Hence that 10th zen oxherding picture. THAT view of enlightenment lies at the heart of mahayana, vajrayana, zen, taoism, vedanta, etc. In buddhism, both the heart sutra and diamond sutra [the ashtavakra gita of hinduism is another very good example] clearly express this view. "Form is not other than formlessness, formlessness is not other than form."

If I had to simplify the mahayana/hinatana difference down to a single sentence, it would be the following "if all of existence is a manifestation of the one primal formlessness, and in the world of form you choose to self annihilate int he void while leaving all others behind, then you are not adequately fessing up to the detail that everything came from that original one, the purpose, the insight, the value of mahayana is to realize that detail and fess up to it." That does NOT mean that "I delay my enlightenment until everyone else goes first!" [Note: bodhisattva vows ARE often talked about in the way of that last sentence, but that returns to a language issue of the relation between self and other, and people ought to do a better job of saying "with" instead of "others go first." Most/all books dealing with bodhisattava level stuff written by people practicing on that level [as opposed to religious studies authors for example] were clear about the "with" attitude, even if my high school history book was not.
Tat tvam asi: Thou art that. Personally I prefer speaking in negation, so I would paraphrase as "that is not other than, or separate from, or distinct from, your own deepest self."

More colloquially, and as Ken Wilber put it, "Sure, you can get off the 'wheel of death and rebirth' and 'let go of suffering', but then you look back and see that all your friends are still stuck in it, and then its not nearly as fun, and you realize that since at the deepest level of your being you are all somehow connected, you realize that you didnt completely get off of the wheel, that only a part got off the wheel, and there is still more to do because you want all to get off of the wheel." THAT is the heart of the mahayana. The detail that 'all else is not other than your deepest self" ties into a language issues and is the big detail in the "self not-self" relationship. Hinayana stops at the causal/void/formless, but the non-dual still lies beyond along with its deeper truths and realization. Truths and realizations that in the "relative world" [vajrayana system referring to "two truths" and the relative reality and ultimate reality, though ultimately even that distinction is false] seem paradoxical

Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form.

So, like I said, all that I've that I've studied, learned, and practices leads to the exact opposite of your conclusion. And regardless of what I say, or how anyone feels about what I may say, the heart sutra and diamond sutra, [and zen, and vedanta, and vajrayana, and taoism, etc etc etc] are all very clear about this.

 

[Mole]

The Soul and the Ego

We know the ego through the soul; and we know the soul through the ego.

Ah, but when the ego falls in love with the soul, we find the soul loves the ego as well.

The great tragedy is when the ego and soul are living in the same person and not talking, never going out together and never making love.

The pain of such separation drives us a little mad and we are inclined to take sides. Most of us take the side of the ego while a few of us take the side of the soul.

So we tend to take sides rather than falling in love. And so we develop the arts of war rather than the arts of peace.

 

[Synapse]

Others have asked for a definition of ego, I'd ask for one of attachment.

Attachment, hmm, well your attached to intellectual ideas about Buddhism and can express from a wellspring of studied knowledge as you do. This is your ego being attached to the knowledge, feeding upon the energy of those words, filling your cup, without emptying your cup to accept consciousness for your energy to flow from the fixed position of where your ego is at.

This means that all the study in the world would continue to fix your energy point instead of loosening it until something heavy happens, say like big pressure applied to ego to pop, or a acid trip to loosen your energy fixed point to accommodate a wider array of conscious interpretation of energy. To move past the mirages of the psyche and start receiving pure spirit from the bs.

The purpose of transformative practice is to make the ego go poof. Very few people are interested in, or even capable of, transformative spiritual practice."

My friend is and has done so, as she started to do this with mine. She is almost avatar and went down levels to teach me because there was nobody in Bali that was at Manipura she could refer me to unless I was willing to travel to Russia, which I wasn't.

It is so simple. You breakdown ego until it has nowhere to run, then loosen the assemblage point of the fixed energy to start moving again and then you can fill up the cocoon, the sphere.

 

[Synapse]

you clearly have a different idea of ego then what i do

He doesn't.

 

[Ginkgo]

The more attached to religion and spirituality one is the greater or less ones ego?

Obviously someone's awareness of self is enlarged if they believe they belong to a religion they actually belong to. I don't think that religion/spirituality is necessarily egocentric.

"greater or less ones ego"... Are you talking about the force of one's ego? If one is arrogant, then their "over-inflated ego" is a reflection of insecurity. By "inflated ego", I mean the impression one leaves on the world as a consequence of their self-esteem. The typical image of "the over-inflated ego" depicts throwing one's weight around selfishly, or taking action based on false beliefs of self importance.

It's mixed. I've seen people forfeit themselves for their beliefs, while others speak as though God is on their tongue (ironically, the whole God-tongue thing seems to dwarf one's self importance, because at that point they believe that God is working through them, not the other way around). Some people believe in God and forgo attachments to material objects, lessening the ego and one's sense of entitlement to what belongs in the world. Of course there are those who use religion to give themselves a sense of entitlement, being God's chosen by lineage.

To be straightforward, I think attachment always makes one's ego more complex. So it must enlarge the ego at the very least.

 

[Synapse]

Obviously someone's awareness of self is enlarged if they believe they belong to a religion they actually belong to. I don't think that religion/spirituality is necessarily egocentric.

Dunno, I now seem to hear ego too much from people who are into religion/spirituality. maybe yes and no but people are. Will respond more later. Its starting to give me a headache. lol

There I was today at a consciousness and spirit discussion and I was hearing their egos droning on about this and that and I was annoyed yet I smiled and nodded in fascination.

 

[Ginkgo]

Dunno, I now seem to hear ego too much from people who are into religion/spirituality. maybe yes and no but people are. Will respond more later. Its starting to give me a headache. lol

tbh I think you're having confirmation bias and excluding any religion aside from your personal experience.

 

[Munchies]

He doesn't.

Objective subjectivity. very nice

 

[Synapse]

tbh I think you're having confirmation bias and excluding any religion aside from your personal experience.

We'll go with that.

Its simply that it strikes me odd that people are able to find so many words for something that should be simple.