Ego vs. Spirituality

Melissa Stewart6 said:You doing okay there?
I’m no official spokesperson for Omen, but I didn't get the impression he said, "Women have to be submissive while men don't."

Fair point. You aren't his press secretary. Then again, he isn't a spokesperson for anyone but himself and his own ego—acting like he's the smartest guy in the room. Honestly, we've seen this act so many times it's getting a bit tiresome. Can we get back to the actual topic?

The ego is essentially everything we are. It encompasses our entire identity—our preferences, our history, that whole complex collection of traits that makes us unique, stretching from our most primal instincts to those subtle artistic sensibilities or abstract cognitive capacities.

When someone attempts to deny or suppress the ego, they are effectively trying to forcibly strip away the parts of their own nature—or perhaps even their very humanity—that they find inconvenient.

That whole "I am who I am" sentiment only truly holds water when you view a person as a complete entity, warts and all; it loses its meaning if you only focus on some "spiritual," abstract, or idealized mental construct where personality is expected to die off or be humbled.

This is why I’ve always found that non-dualistic rhetoric that Western spiritualists have been peddling for ages to be somewhat hollow. Their concept of "the absolute" or total unity feels strangely exclusive, almost fascist in its own way, because it seems to embrace nothing but emptiness while showing zero tolerance for diversity or our fundamental human nature. To many practitioners, this "unity" represents a state of mind where all differences are extinguished—a place of pure stasis and stillness. It’s a sort of comfortable numbness.

Spirituality often finds itself at odds with our basic nature. You rarely encounter spiritual literature that speaks positively about the ego, even in those schools of thought that claim to see personality or uniqueness as raw material for transformation. Even there, the ego is implicitly disapproved of, if not outright loathed; it's treated as something that simply needs to be discarded.

As the years go by, I don't just see how misguided and irrational this stance is, I also see the damaging fallout from such beliefs. For those chasing non-duality, suppressing personal struggles is incredibly convenient. It’s a seductive trap: the teaching suggests that your achievements, your feelings, or your earthly reality don't actually matter as much as the mere fact that you "ARE." As if that fact were ever up for debate or somehow insignificant. 🙂 However, forcing this mindset through the lens of "oneness" is deeply problematic. People struggling with various issues will often—consciously or not—leverage this potential for self-deception to deny their actual problems and avoid seeking help. In many ways, "unity" becomes a convenient code word for passive aggression.

Daniel Castillo11 said:The ego is essentially everything we are. It encompasses our entire identity—our preferences, our history, that whole complex collection of traits that makes us unique, stretching from our most primal instincts to those subtle artistic sensibilities or abstract cognitive capacities.

When someone attempts to deny or suppress the ego, they are effectively trying to forcibly strip away the parts of their own nature—or perhaps even their very humanity—that they find inconvenient.

That whole "I am who I am" sentiment only truly holds water when you view a person as a complete entity, warts and all; it loses its meaning if you only focus on some "spiritual," abstract, or idealized mental construct where personality is expected to die off or be humbled.

This is why I’ve always found that non-dualistic rhetoric that Western spiritualists have been peddling for ages to be somewhat hollow. Their concept of "the absolute" or total unity feels strangely exclusive, almost fascist in its own way, because it seems to embrace nothing but emptiness while showing zero tolerance for diversity or our fundamental human nature. To many practitioners, this "unity" represents a state of mind where all differences are extinguished—a place of pure stasis and stillness. It’s a sort of comfortable numbness.

Spirituality often finds itself at odds with our basic nature. You rarely encounter spiritual literature that speaks positively about the ego, even in those schools of thought that claim to see personality or uniqueness as raw material for transformation. Even there, the ego is implicitly disapproved of, if not outright loathed; it's treated as something that simply needs to be discarded.

As the years go by, I don't just see how misguided and irrational this stance is, I also see the damaging fallout from such beliefs. For those chasing non-duality, suppressing personal struggles is incredibly convenient. It’s a seductive trap: the teaching suggests that your achievements, your feelings, or your earthly reality don't actually matter as much as the mere fact that you "ARE." As if that fact were ever up for debate or somehow insignificant. 🙂 However, forcing this mindset through the lens of "oneness" is deeply problematic. People struggling with various issues will often—consciously or not—leverage this potential for self-deception to deny their actual problems and avoid seeking help. In many ways, "unity" becomes a convenient code word for passive aggression.

That might be the case. It's all about overcoming those primal instincts.

I would describe myself as a moderate egoist, though I don't see the harm in that at all. In my view, any extreme excess usually ends up being quite self-destructive for the individual.
I tend to look at the ego as a broad spectrum—it isn't just a raw instinct, nor is it strictly behavior, psychology, or identity in isolation. It isn't really a standalone entity either. Furthermore, I’m not an essentialist; I don't subscribe to the idea of fixed essences, inherent natures, singular truths, or infallible absolutes.

Am I a hedonist? I suppose I am, if we're talking about a moderate approach. 🙂 While certain "ascetic" spiritual standards might label my appetites and needs as monstrous or sinful, I suspect most people fall into that same category. If that's the case, I’m perfectly fine embracing my own perceived flaws. 🙂

Do I believe spirituality is an illusion? Well, yes, if by that we mean gaining insight into other realms or chasing some imaginary existence through an idealized persona that exists independently of this world. Beyond that, it becomes more complicated; there are many moving parts to consider.

And do I think this whole crusade against the ego within spiritual circles is essentially the same thing as religious fundamentalism trying to force an absolute, authoritarian morality onto everyone else? To put it bluntly: yes.

In that regard, modern spirituality hasn't actually moved much further along than traditional religion. We still see that same subtle tendency to suppress or even dismantle one's true personality in favor of some fabricated identity imposed by society or a group.

Melissa Stewart6 said:That might be the case. It's all about overcoming those primal instincts.

If that premise holds true, then I find myself standing firmly on the side of being explicitly against spirituality. 🙂

It seems to me that we simply cannot transcend our fundamental biological essence. If we are talking about those raw, "animalistic" impulses that spirituality and organized religion tend to look down upon, I don't believe we can just scrub away millions of years of evolution overnight—not unless we are living inside some utopian, transhumanist science fiction novel.

Besides, we shouldn't even try. Instead of attempting a total erasure, perhaps the goal should be to broaden the scope of what we are and what we acknowledge; we should aim to act through all those various facets of ourselves without resorting to denial or repression.

Someone was just going on about the virtues of humility.

To hell with all that talk about being humble or dropping to one's knees, whether we're talking about worldly leaders or imaginary gods.

Modesty? Now, that's a different story entirely. There is certainly some merit in being modest from time to time. But when that modesty becomes excessive, it’s really nothing more than a thinly veiled fear of taking action or facing the possibility of failure.

Exactly.
A forced collective identity—and how could a collective be anything *but* forced?—is inherently regressive by its very nature.

Isaiah 45:5 says, "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; besides me, there is no God. Though you do not know me, I will clothe you:"
Isaiah 45:6 "so that from the rising of the sun to its setting they may know there is none besides me; I am Yahweh, and there is no other."

And it's all written right there in black and white.

There you have it.
Furthermore, it is a massive blunder to assume that having an individual identity somehow precludes us from finding true community.
Camus wrote The Stranger before he ever touched The Plague.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Fair point. You aren't his press secretary. Then again, he isn't a spokesperson for anyone but himself and his own ego—acting like he's the smartest guy in the room. Honestly, we've seen this act so many times it's getting a bit tiresome. Can we get back to the actual topic?

Very well—as if you were merely interpreting your own reflection: a timid persona using arrogance to mask deep-seated insecurity, reducing everything to shallow metrics that measure nothing at all—someone whose life's peak is sniffing chamomile tea. Perhaps a little humility might actually do some good in your life once in a while.

Daniel Castillo11 said:If that premise holds true, then I find myself standing firmly on the side of being explicitly against spirituality. 🙂

It seems to me that we simply cannot transcend our fundamental biological essence. If we are talking about those raw, "animalistic" impulses that spirituality and organized religion tend to look down upon, I don't believe we can just scrub away millions of years of evolution overnight—not unless we are living inside some utopian, transhumanist science fiction novel.

Besides, we shouldn't even try. Instead of attempting a total erasure, perhaps the goal should be to broaden the scope of what we are and what we acknowledge; we should aim to act through all those various facets of ourselves without resorting to denial or repression.

Actually, I think that very urge to transcend our own nature is what makes us human.
Nietzsche spoke about becoming the Superman.

Of course, some people view that kind of striving as nothing more than a restriction on freedom (or the expression of our raw impulses).

Daniel Castillo11 said:The ego is essentially everything we are. It encompasses our entire identity—our preferences, our history, that whole complex collection of traits that makes us unique, stretching from our most primal instincts to those subtle artistic sensibilities or abstract cognitive capacities.

When someone attempts to deny or suppress the ego, they are effectively trying to forcibly strip away the parts of their own nature—or perhaps even their very humanity—that they find inconvenient.

That whole "I am who I am" sentiment only truly holds water when you view a person as a complete entity, warts and all; it loses its meaning if you only focus on some "spiritual," abstract, or idealized mental construct where personality is expected to die off or be humbled.

This is why I’ve always found that non-dualistic rhetoric that Western spiritualists have been peddling for ages to be somewhat hollow. Their concept of "the absolute" or total unity feels strangely exclusive, almost fascist in its own way, because it seems to embrace nothing but emptiness while showing zero tolerance for diversity or our fundamental human nature. To many practitioners, this "unity" represents a state of mind where all differences are extinguished—a place of pure stasis and stillness. It’s a sort of comfortable numbness.

Spirituality often finds itself at odds with our basic nature. You rarely encounter spiritual literature that speaks positively about the ego, even in those schools of thought that claim to see personality or uniqueness as raw material for transformation. Even there, the ego is implicitly disapproved of, if not outright loathed; it's treated as something that simply needs to be discarded.

As the years go by, I don't just see how misguided and irrational this stance is, I also see the damaging fallout from such beliefs. For those chasing non-duality, suppressing personal struggles is incredibly convenient. It’s a seductive trap: the teaching suggests that your achievements, your feelings, or your earthly reality don't actually matter as much as the mere fact that you "ARE." As if that fact were ever up for debate or somehow insignificant. 🙂 However, forcing this mindset through the lens of "oneness" is deeply problematic. People struggling with various issues will often—consciously or not—leverage this potential for self-deception to deny their actual problems and avoid seeking help. In many ways, "unity" becomes a convenient code word for passive aggression.

Doesn't LHP fall under the umbrella of spirituality?

Daniel Castillo11 said:The ego is essentially everything we are. It encompasses our entire identity—our preferences, our history, that whole complex collection of traits that makes us unique, stretching from our most primal instincts to those subtle artistic sensibilities or abstract cognitive capacities.

When someone attempts to deny or suppress the ego, they are effectively trying to forcibly strip away the parts of their own nature—or perhaps even their very humanity—that they find inconvenient.

That whole "I am who I am" sentiment only truly holds water when you view a person as a complete entity, warts and all; it loses its meaning if you only focus on some "spiritual," abstract, or idealized mental construct where personality is expected to die off or be humbled.

This is why I’ve always found that non-dualistic rhetoric that Western spiritualists have been peddling for ages to be somewhat hollow. Their concept of "the absolute" or total unity feels strangely exclusive, almost fascist in its own way, because it seems to embrace nothing but emptiness while showing zero tolerance for diversity or our fundamental human nature. To many practitioners, this "unity" represents a state of mind where all differences are extinguished—a place of pure stasis and stillness. It’s a sort of comfortable numbness.

Spirituality often finds itself at odds with our basic nature. You rarely encounter spiritual literature that speaks positively about the ego, even in those schools of thought that claim to see personality or uniqueness as raw material for transformation. Even there, the ego is implicitly disapproved of, if not outright loathed; it's treated as something that simply needs to be discarded.

As the years go by, I don't just see how misguided and irrational this stance is, I also see the damaging fallout from such beliefs. For those chasing non-duality, suppressing personal struggles is incredibly convenient. It’s a seductive trap: the teaching suggests that your achievements, your feelings, or your earthly reality don't actually matter as much as the mere fact that you "ARE." As if that fact were ever up for debate or somehow insignificant. 🙂 However, forcing this mindset through the lens of "oneness" is deeply problematic. People struggling with various issues will often—consciously or not—leverage this potential for self-deception to deny their actual problems and avoid seeking help. In many ways, "unity" becomes a convenient code word for passive aggression.

Just like in the quote below. 😁

Paul Rogers94 said:Very well—as if you were merely interpreting your own reflection: a timid persona using arrogance to mask deep-seated insecurity, reducing everything to shallow metrics that measure nothing at all—someone whose life's peak is sniffing chamomile tea. Perhaps a little humility might actually do some good in your life once in a while.

No, it wouldn't. I am absolutely certain of that. You can keep your projections to yourself, since I have no business with them. You have your path, I have mine; you have your standards, I have mine. Or, to put it bluntly—get lost. ☕

Melissa Stewart6 said:Actually, I think that very urge to transcend our own nature is what makes us human.
Nietzsche spoke about becoming the Superman.

Of course, some people view that kind of striving as nothing more than a restriction on freedom (or the expression of our raw impulses).

Mhm... as if that whole "superman" concept from Nietzsche wasn't officially debunked the moment he decided to embrace a beaten horse.

So, I was just scrolling through a Wikipedia link I stumbled upon while digging through some totally unrelated topic, and it made me wonder if this counts as synchronicity:

1973: Allegations of "ego-stripping" and "brainwashing"

In 1973, LaRouche started writing about applying specific psychological techniques to new recruits. In an article called " Beyond Psychoanalysis", he claimed that a worker's persona had to be completely dismantled to reach what he termed a "little me" state, which would then allow them to "rebuild their personalities around a new socialist identity," according to The Washington Post.[64][65] The New York Times wrote that the initial session—which LaRouche dubbed "ego-stripping"—involved a German member, Constantine George, during the summer of 1973. LaRouche claimed that during this process, he discovered a plot to assassinate him had been planted in George's subconscious.[66]

He also recorded sessions with a 26-year-old British member, Chris White, who had traveled to England with LaRouche's former partner, Carol Schnitzer. In December 1973 LaRouche asked The couple to return to The U. S. his followers Sen tapes of The subsequent sessions with White to The New York Times as evidence of an assassination plot. According to The Times, "[t]here are sounds of weeping, and vomiting on the tapes, and Mr. White complains of being deprived of sleep, food and cigarettes. At one point someone says 'raise the voltage,' but (LaRouche) says this was associated with the bright lights used in the questioning rather than an electric shock." The Times wrote, "Mr. White complains of a terrible pain in his arm, then LaRouche can be heard saying, 'That's not real. That's in the program'." LaRouche told The newspaper White Had been "reduced to an eight-cycle infinite loop with look-up table, with homosexual bestiality." He maintained that White hadn't been harmed and noted that a physician—a member of the LaRouche movement—was present the whole time.[66][67] Ultimately, White told LaRouche that he had been programmed by CIA and British intelligence to set up LaRouche for assassination by Cuban exile frogmen.[68]

According to The Washington Post, a sort of "brainwashing hysteria" swept through the movement. One activist recalled attending meetings where members were actually writhing on the floor, claiming they needed de-programming.[14] During a single two-week stretch in January 1974, the group put out 41 different press releases regarding brainwashing. One activist, Alice Weitzman, voiced her own skepticism regarding these claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Even though this falls squarely into the "WTF" category, I have a feeling it ties back to what we're discussing here. Basically, once a guru or whoever strips away a person's ego, there's usually an attempt to plant something new in its place. It’s also interesting to me how so many long-term meditators end up believing in total nonsense, like the Flat Earth theory, reptilians, and other absurdities. It's almost as if after the "emptying of the mind" and the "death of the ego," something *has* to fill that void, and for some reason, the most irrational concepts seem to be the ones that stick best.

Jamie Davis9 said:Mhm... as if that whole "superman" concept from Nietzsche wasn't officially debunked the moment he decided to embrace a beaten horse.

He didn't even claim to be the Superman himself...

Joseph Bailey41 said:So, I was just scrolling through a Wikipedia link I stumbled upon while digging through some totally unrelated topic, and it made me wonder if this counts as synchronicity:

1973: Allegations of "ego-stripping" and "brainwashing"

In 1973, LaRouche started writing about applying specific psychological techniques to new recruits. In an article called " Beyond Psychoanalysis", he claimed that a worker's persona had to be completely dismantled to reach what he termed a "little me" state, which would then allow them to "rebuild their personalities around a new socialist identity," according to The Washington Post.[64][65] The New York Times wrote that the initial session—which LaRouche dubbed "ego-stripping"—involved a German member, Constantine George, during the summer of 1973. LaRouche claimed that during this process, he discovered a plot to assassinate him had been planted in George's subconscious.[66]

He also recorded sessions with a 26-year-old British member, Chris White, who had traveled to England with LaRouche's former partner, Carol Schnitzer. In December 1973 LaRouche asked The couple to return to The U. S. his followers Sen tapes of The subsequent sessions with White to The New York Times as evidence of an assassination plot. According to The Times, "[t]here are sounds of weeping, and vomiting on the tapes, and Mr. White complains of being deprived of sleep, food and cigarettes. At one point someone says 'raise the voltage,' but (LaRouche) says this was associated with the bright lights used in the questioning rather than an electric shock." The Times wrote, "Mr. White complains of a terrible pain in his arm, then LaRouche can be heard saying, 'That's not real. That's in the program'." LaRouche told The newspaper White Had been "reduced to an eight-cycle infinite loop with look-up table, with homosexual bestiality." He maintained that White hadn't been harmed and noted that a physician—a member of the LaRouche movement—was present the whole time.[66][67] Ultimately, White told LaRouche that he had been programmed by CIA and British intelligence to set up LaRouche for assassination by Cuban exile frogmen.[68]

According to The Washington Post, a sort of "brainwashing hysteria" swept through the movement. One activist recalled attending meetings where members were actually writhing on the floor, claiming they needed de-programming.[14] During a single two-week stretch in January 1974, the group put out 41 different press releases regarding brainwashing. One activist, Alice Weitzman, voiced her own skepticism regarding these claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Even though this falls squarely into the "WTF" category, I have a feeling it ties back to what we're discussing here. Basically, once a guru or whoever strips away a person's ego, there's usually an attempt to plant something new in its place. It’s also interesting to me how so many long-term meditators end up believing in total nonsense, like the Flat Earth theory, reptilians, and other absurdities. It's almost as if after the "emptying of the mind" and the "death of the ego," something *has* to fill that void, and for some reason, the most irrational concepts seem to be the ones that stick best.

Is there any actual argument to support this?

Melissa Stewart6 said:Is there any actual argument to support this?

Look, I don't have any hard statistics on me. There are a few people on this forum who do—you’ve got Pavun—and then there are some folks I know personally. Those who stayed in the TM-voda waters for the long haul (meaning they didn't just finish the basic course, but went through the residential bases and regular home practice) basically popped like popcorn; now they can see things clearly for what they really are.

If you want to dig into this issue, this link is a pretty good starting point for your research:
http://skepdic.com/tm.html

Melissa Stewart6 said:He didn't even claim to be the Superman himself...

It's clear you haven't the slightest clue what he actually said.
And it isn't "superman," it's the *Übermensch*. Sorry, but even the spelling is wrong—it’s Nietzsche, with a 'z,' so you're really stretching the topic here, for heaven's sake.

If neither of you qualifies as an *Übermensch*, then you're just wasting my time.

Jamie Davis9 said:It's clear you haven't the slightest clue what he actually said.
And it isn't "superman," it's the *Übermensch*. Sorry, but even the spelling is wrong—it’s Nietzsche, with a 'z,' so you're really stretching the topic here, for heaven's sake.

If neither of you qualifies as an *Übermensch*, then you're just wasting my time.

So, are you saying he was claiming that for himself, or what exactly are you getting at?

Jamie Davis9 said:It's clear you haven't the slightest clue what he actually said.
And it isn't "superman," it's the *Übermensch*. Sorry, but even the spelling is wrong—it’s Nietzsche, with a 'z,' so you're really stretching the topic here, for heaven's sake.

If neither of you qualifies as an *Übermensch*, then you're just wasting my time.

feralranger said:Frankly, I cannot name a single person who lives without an ego. The ego—that essential cocktail of self-awareness, personality, and the very memories that weave together our identity—is present in every healthy individual. It is absent in small children who haven't yet developed a sense of self, and it is absent in those with severe cognitive impairments. One also loses the ego during the advanced stages of Alzheimer's or in states of extreme intoxication... though in the earlier stages, it certainly knows how to run wild...

Furthermore, I have observed a peculiar pattern: those failed "teachers" or "preachers" who rail against the ego—which, let’s be honest, is perfectly normal and human—are often nothing more than massive egomaniacs themselves. It follows a certain twisted logic, really; in order for someone to impose their own megalomaniacal whims upon others, they find it quite convenient to dismantle the perfectly healthy egos of everyone else, thereby clearing a path to spread their own egocentrism.

Even here on the forums, many of these self-proclaimed "spiritualists" and "gurus" turn out to be blatant egomaniacs—persecutors of the ego (the normal kind, belonging to others) while remaining blissfully, perhaps even willfully, unaware of their own narcissism.

That’s true. Fake gurus. Some of them probably know exactly what they're doing and just play dumb. Daniel Castillo11 makes a good point about how people misuse non-dualism for those same reasons. I suppose anyone claiming there is no ego isn't necessarily enlightened; they might just be mentally unstable. Usually, there are just a lot of unhealthy ego defense mechanisms at play. All this arguing over whose ego is smaller or comparing oneself to others seems to only serve egomaniacs. They likely just want to lower the collective ego so they don't feel so threatened.

Melissa Stewart6 said:So, are you saying he was claiming that for himself, or what exactly are you getting at?

And I'm just going to say, that honestly sounds more like a suggestion for a tattoo than a coherent thought.

Megan Patel69 said:That’s true. Fake gurus. Some of them probably know exactly what they're doing and just play dumb. Daniel Castillo11 makes a good point about how people misuse non-dualism for those same reasons. I suppose anyone claiming there is no ego isn't necessarily enlightened; they might just be mentally unstable. Usually, there are just a lot of unhealthy ego defense mechanisms at play. All this arguing over whose ego is smaller or comparing oneself to others seems to only serve egomaniacs. They likely just want to lower the collective ego so they don't feel so threatened.

deflate the collective ego. 😵

good grief... Lord, help us.