Serenity Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 @Phil I got something out of all of that. Thank you. Quote Mention “Know yourself as nothing; feel yourself as everything.” - Rupert Spira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 @Serenity ✊🏼♥️ Quote Mention YouTube Website Sessions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 1 minute ago, Phil said: @Serenity ✊🏼♥️ 🤗 Quote Mention “Know yourself as nothing; feel yourself as everything.” - Rupert Spira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 If you don’t believe ego exists shadow work is going to sound like total nonsense. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said: If you don’t believe ego exists shadow work is going to sound like total nonsense. separate egos don't exist. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said: If you don’t believe ego exists shadow work is going to sound like total nonsense. Enlightenment / awakening is not re-contextualization. Enlightenment / awakening is de-contextualization. That there is not a believer, is not another belief. It’s reality. That there is not an ego, is not another belief. It’s reality. That there is not a you, is not another belief. It’s reality. What is shadow work. Quote Mention YouTube Website Sessions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessed2 Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said: If you don’t believe ego exists shadow work is going to sound like total nonsense. The way you seem to be using the term "ego" is not what's meant by "ego" in terms of non-duality. Like for example, in some of your videos / posts here on the forum, you sometimes refer to "my/your ego" or "their ego" or "you/I have an ego" etc. In terms of non-duality, that's not what ego means. It's not quite what "ego" means in general. It's latin, meaning "self" or "me" or "I", isn't it? So "I have an ego" or "your ego" doesn't really make any sense. That would be like saying "I have an I" or "your you". What's meant by ego is the implied haver who would have an ego. There is seeing, hearing, tasting etc. The ego is the implying of a seer, hearer, taster. There is believing. The ego is the implying of a believer. The belief/idea/interpretation that there you/I/they have an ego, is like a hamster wheel. It's not leading anywhere. You'll be doing shadow work forever, and it'll never get done. You'll be integrating forever, and it'll never be done. If it was going to be done, it would already be done. You are not doing ego. The ego is doing you. Edited March 20 by Blessed2 Quote Mention There must be an effortless way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Blessed2 said: The way you seem to be using the term "ego" is not what's meant by "ego" in terms of non-duality. Like for example, in some of your videos / posts here on the forum, you sometimes refer to "my/your ego" or "their ego" or "you/I have an ego" etc. In terms of non-duality, that's not what ego means. It's not quite what "ego" means in general. It's latin, meaning "self" or "me" or "I", isn't it? So "I have an ego" or "your ego" doesn't really make any sense. That would be like saying "I have an I" or "your you". What's meant by ego is the implied haver who would have an ego. There is seeing, hearing, tasting etc. The ego is the implying of a seer, hearer, taster. There is believing. The ego is the implying of a believer. The belief/idea/interpretation that there you/I/they have an ego, is like a hamster wheel. It's not leading anywhere. You'll be doing shadow work forever, and it'll never get done. You'll be integrating forever, and it'll never be done. If it was going to be done, it would already be done. You are not doing ego. The ego is doing you. Nobody's doing me lol. Ego basically means the small self, the finite self. If you think that doesn't exist then shadow work is going to be totally off your radar. For a shadow to exist you need an ego, and then you need a relation between the two. I'm cross-comparing Neo-Advaita and Jung here too. Edited March 20 by Joseph Maynor Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 20 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: Nobody's doing me lol. Ego basically means the small self, the finite self. If you think that doesn't exist then shadow work is going to be totally off your radar. For a shadow to exist you need an ego, and then you need a relation between the two. I'm cross-comparing Neo-Advaita and Jung here too. Nah, you are projecting a misunderstanding. Ken Wilbur "cross compares" nonduality and jungian terms perfectly in the first part of his book No Boundary. Definitely check that out, it'll clear up the misunderstanding. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessed2 Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: Nobody's doing me lol. All I'm saying is that it's not your fault. Joseph doesn't have an ego. Joseph isn't doing the identifiction as Joseph. 30 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: If you think that doesn't exist then shadow work is going to be totally off your radar. If a finite self doesn't think a finite self exists, shadow work is going to be totally off the radar of that finite self? Quote Mention There must be an effortless way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Maynor Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 minute ago, Blessed2 said: All I'm saying is that it's not your fault. Joseph doesn't have an ego. Joseph isn't doing the identifiction as Joseph. If a finite self doesn't think a finite self exists, shadow work is going to be totally off the radar of that finite self? It's in the first sentence in the Wiki article on Neo-Advaita. The finite self basically. "Neo-Advaita, also called the Satsang-movement is a new religious movement, emphasizing the direct recognition of the non-existence of the "I" or "ego" ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Advaita Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Long Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: It's in the first sentence in the Wiki article on Neo-Advaita. The finite self basically. "Neo-Advaita, also called the Satsang-movement is a new religious movement, emphasizing the direct recognition of the non-existence of the "I" or "ego" ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Advaita What's your point exactly? I don't think anyone here has ever been a proponent of "Neo-Advaita", I've mostly only ever heard you use the term, and if anyone addresses it its to say it's a nonsensical term, meaning "new not-two". Nonduality doesn't need a qualifier, and is not a religion. Quote Mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blessed2 Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: It's in the first sentence in the Wiki article on Neo-Advaita. The finite self basically. "Neo-Advaita, also called the Satsang-movement is a new religious movement, emphasizing the direct recognition of the non-existence of the "I" or "ego" ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Advaita Okay, why are you sharing this? Did I say something about neo-advaita? Quote Mention There must be an effortless way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 52 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: … emphasizing the direct recognition of the non-existence of the "I" or "ego" ..." 3 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said: If you don’t believe ego exists shadow work is going to sound like total nonsense. Here the emphasis on the nonexistence of the I or ego is changed to an emphasis on there being a you which does or doesn’t believe. 1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said: Nobody's doing me lol. Ego basically means the small self, the finite self. If you think that doesn't exist then shadow work is going to be totally off your radar. For a shadow to exist you need an ego, and then you need a relation between the two. I'm cross-comparing Neo-Advaita and Jung here too. As there isn’t an I or ego, there isn’t the opposite or other (in accordance with thoughts); a you. Therein there is no you which thinks. That secondary belief is based on the primary belief & misidentification as a thinker, a “small” or “finite self”. The emphasis was on the nonexistence of the I, ego, small or finite self in the first place. Spiritual ego, or being a teacher of spirituality or nonduality is essentially the emperor's new cloths which is a parable about misidentification & the vanity therein. The empower is duped into believing invisible clothes are made for him, but are actually exposing him, as he’s parading around naked. It's often used to describe situations of pretending to see or believe something, only on the assumption everyone else does, even if it's delusional. Quote Mention YouTube Website Sessions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.