Who Are You? Using Self-Inquiry To Wake Up (w/ Dr. Angelo DiLullo)

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Jung's theories, on the other hand, seem to flow more freely into the amorphous and endless pastures of spiritual development.

Jung based his model of the ego on the Ahamkara, and his model of the self on the Atman although there is some controversy over the self/Atman. Jung doesn't specify what what based on what.

So going back to the OP, the ego is redefined as the bad guy and people dissociate from that and declare themselves as having gone through 'ego death'. Psychologically we need an 'anchor' or a point of reference so a definition of self is created that is actually a Persona or a 'mask of convenience', and that is then identified with. Any 'self' enquiry is based on that. If you look at Spirituality, what is often the 'self' is an aspect rather than a single being/unit because there are a number of 'selfs' depending on beliefs and/or agenda.

While most folks do use 'I am' to mean the ego identity, according to Jung they don't mean the ego but the 'contents' of the ego, and it's in that context that it makes sense.

When 'ego death' is declared the person has only levelled-up their egoism rather than 'killed' it and they have become a 'self', which is really a Persona. Self enquiry or awareness becomes relative to that point.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The perceived mess seems to come from ego defending its turf, its primacy and I don't think it's a mess at all.

The perceived mess comes from destructive cognitive behaviour or what the ancients would have said is not Right Thinking of the Eightfold Path, and therefore not Right Understanding. It is a topic worthy of discussion but really, is that going to happen? I have yet to see a discussion on the ego where the Ahamkara is mentioned other than anything I've posted.

Yes it is a deeper self-enquiry because it's becoming aware of our unconscious 'frameworks' instead of supposedly becoming aware of a made-up definition. My question is how can anyone become 'self' aware when they're actually talking about a Persona or a mask of convenience?

The ego is the centre of the field of consciousness, according to Jung. A Persona is a 'mask of convenience', it was originally used in plays to denote a mask that actors would put in front of their faces. In the modern context adopting the forum rules is like taking on a Persona or being polite to people when you really don't like them very much. The 'Spiritual being' bit is a Persona.

The ego is essentially a construct or a Gestalt, the 'result' of a number of different aspects that emerge from the unconscious. Strictly speaking the ego is what we become conscious of, since any thoughts, beliefs, etc are created in the unconscious, and, depending on the study, some 90-120ms later we become conscious of it. We're living in the past. We are only conscious of - depending on the study - 10-15% of our total consciousness.

In Jungian there is the conscious and its 'contents' and the unconscious and its 'contents'. Thoughts, beliefs, realisations etc are both 'contents' of the ego and objects of consciousness. To answer your question, one is both the created Persona/Personae (since we adopt and drop roles at need) and the ego that is the by-product of the unconscious processing. I suppose dreams are the objects of the unconscious, since they are what the unconscious is trying to bring into the conscious.

The problem with 'self' enquiry is that it's always going to be relative to one's own definition of 'self', and if you started a thread on "What is the self?" how firm do you think the footing is going to be?

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

When absolute existence never changes, how can change be rooted in it?

The differentiated consciousness of the ego creates both absolute and relative, change and no change. People differentiate between Spirituality and psychology, but both Spirituality-ways and psychology-ways they're the same thing.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The ego is the centre of the field of consciousness, according to Jung.

Which ego? Correct me if I'm wrong but I take it you mean Consciousness as reflected in a single mind. The face's reflection in the mirror, so to speak, and if you're in a hall of mirrors which reflection is really you? Is any reflection really you? This is where my perception is Jung diverges from Advaita. Either that or he went too far out of his way to make it more acceptable to the western mind. I'm not sure if it's his understanding or my understanding of his understanding. LOL!

As for discussing Ahamkara, I'd say the discussion is about Atman, however I do understand mind has to be put in some reasonable order first and that is the role of traditions and their practices.

Concepts of the Eightfold Path can be found in the Four Yogas, so the preparatory mental hygiene is present in Buddhism, Vedanta, Yoga, etc... In Vedantic terms it's purification and concentration of mind.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Either that or he went too far out of his way to make it more acceptable to the western mind. I'm not sure if it's his understanding or my understanding of his understanding. LOL!

At the time Jung was invited by the Advaita Vedanta hierarchy to give him a pat on the back for Westernising Eastern philosophy/religion. Who am I to argue with either of those?

If there is a hall of mirrors then isn't that duality, the perceiver and the perceived? And is a reflection consciousness itself or an object of consciousness? And since the perceiver and the perceived are one and the same....

Our realities are relative to our Ahamkara/ego and its 'contents'/'invented things', and the Atman in whatever (non-literal) shape or form that takes is going to be relative to that. As long as individual egos are re-writing both Spirituality and psychology I don't think it really matters much what the discussion is about. It's interesting that Spiritual discussions on the ego never mention the Ahamkara, and Spiritual discussions on the self never mention the Atman. You were saying about "mental hygiene?"

In psychology Right Thinking as essentially constructive cognitive behaviour, and both lead to Right Understanding. Regardless of what is said in these forums, psychology and Spirituality are one and the same.

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

My question is how can anyone become 'self' aware when they're actually talking about a Persona or a mask of convenience?

You can become infinitely aware, by justing focusing on awareness for eternity and the momentum of it in your experience exponentially expands. There is no limit to anything including awareness.

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The differentiated consciousness of the ego creates both absolute and relative, change and no change. People differentiate between Spirituality and psychology, but both Spirituality-ways and psychology-ways they're the same thing.

Those ego/consciousness creations are relative and I am not talking about those.

I am talking about PURE EXISTENCE. It has always been and allways will. It is BEING and not Becoming like the consciousness. How does this being make a becoming possible? If you can answer that, then you will have cracked the code for all consciousness. Making you creator of consciousness. Making you God Consciousness.

[Ewwerrin]

We can think logically, at the root of our existence is simply pure existence. At the root of all things is not a thing that exists, but simply existence itself. Not one that we can become aware of. Because it is infinite and eternal. But knowing logically, it simply is.. Regardless of our awareness of it, more or less... It simply is existence. A being. Being itself. not a being, NOT A BEING. BUT BEING ITSELF. not a thing that exists, but existence itself. That which is omni present. Even at the core root of omni presence. Existence itself.


And that gives rise to a becoming? HOW? How does that give rise to awareness and relativity change reflection vibration a BECOMING, HOW?

If we cannot answer this then we might aswell say we are not aware. Then nothing is becoming.
But we don't experience that. We experience the ability to change perpsective. We experience change. At the least WE CAN experience change. Always. Just like we can even experience the change changing into the unchanging. That is still a BECOMING! From change to changeless to change to changeless to change, etc... A becoming! HOW? Where does this becoming come from. It too is rooted in existence. Existence simply is. How does it give rise to a becoming?

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Jung based his model of the ego on the Ahamkara, and his model of the self on the Atman although there is some controversy over the self/Atman. Jung doesn't specify what what based on what.

Jung tried to give his theories of psychology a credibility or respectability to fit into the fast developing scientific age.
How he proposed to do this I do not know. Using terms such as Ahamkara to describe the first murmurings of the soul
and it's consequent appearances in 'real life' was probably a good start.

However, surely Jung knew well that his theories especially regarding magic and synchronicity could never really conform
to scientific evaluations, designations and measurements. The random and wholly unpredictable nature of Synchronicity
for example was not in compliance with a mechanistic universe nor did it resemble science in any meaningful way or shape.
In this respect Jung is much more a 'Magi' like figure as opposed to a Newton or an Einstein. He indulged totally in magical
realism but craved the credibility of his societal peers, all psychologists crave this but are in the end subject to the atavistic
and unpredictable nature of unconscious aspects of human experience. They want to be believed and proven right if they
have not come to terms with the archetype of magic residing in human consciousness.

************************************************** ***

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

You can become infinitely aware, by justing focusing on awareness for eternity and the momentum of it in your experience exponentially expands.

'Infinite' and 'eternity' are words of the ego, in the undifferentiated consciousness of the self those words don't exist. You also need an ego to experience and the experiencer and the experience are one and the same.