The false self

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

You keep telling me what I see or not, what I perceive or not and frankly as far as I'm concerned that's a tactic that I'm surprised you would use. The Mike I respected wouldn't have used it for sure. We've disagreed in the past but I always respected you - probably because we have disagreed.

Ok, are you saying that what I am saying is not true? You said you would not use the words perfect and harmonious to describe the universe, so doesn't that mean you use the opposites of the words perfect and harmonious to describe the universe?

[mary isaak]

Thank you very much Daz for the clear explanation

Originally Posted by God-Like

All I wanted at a certain point when enquiring into my self and as to why I suffered so was enough to take me into myself .

I understand that self inquiry does not require meditating on non-duality concepts. My concern here is that my mind may take over again very quickly and I may be drawn to my old beliefs.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

There is only one self.

There are at least two 'selfs' according to this thread, isn't that what we're discussing?

"I am" is Jungian and is the ego, which is a part of the self according to him. It's the ego - aka Ahamkara aka 'false self' that gives the self "A sense of I am." And there's your understanding. Without that 'false self' you wouldn't have the faculties to come in here and write a post. It's the ego's 'job' is comparing, analysing, separating, evaluating etc etc and without it you wouldn't be Spiritual or have beliefs. We have a perception of ourselves as Spiritual because we perceive ourselves as 'coming up short' of the 'false/imagined Spiritual ideal self' we compare ourselves to - that's why people partake in Spiritual development.

Truth is relative to one's agenda, and as for a fact.....

Spirituality is not Absolute Reality, it is a belief system and is subject to change, Spirituality has changed since the Rig Vedas, Upanishads, etc. Spirituality has also changed since the translation from Sanskrit into English, because not only is Sanskrit different from English but the Eastern mind is different to the Western mind. If Spirituality evolves over time it is no longer Absolute, but I don't suppose too many people have thought of that.

And as I said before, 'true' and 'false' are mistranslations and are the 'invented things' of perceptual reality - NOT Absolute Reality. 'True' and 'false' 'selfs' is the Western mind that doesn't understand the Eastern mind in action.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Ok, are you saying that what I am saying is not true?

It is true in your perceptual reality and I don't have a problem with that. You have your own reasons for what you perceive as true or not. I choose not to use the words because in my perceptual reality they don't mean very much. If anything, they're judgement.

I don't describe the Universe as anything, it just IS - everything else is what I might perceive it to be and that is relative to my perceptions. If I perceive is as 'harmonious' or anything else, that's my ego 'imprinting' on what it knows it shouldn't imprint on.

In two great non-dual traditions - Advaita and Buddhism - there's a common theme and that is Awareness or Consciousness is the limitless and unchanging reality within which the temporal plays out. Body is temporal. Mind is temporal. Thoughts are very temporal.

No matter the degree or pace of change, we are aware from that limitless and unchanging perspective and wholly untouched or disturbed by said change. That's the Realization to be had.

In the Advaita non-dual tradition spirituality isn't the Absolute. It's just a path (practices) to Realization that we are the Absolute. The boat that carries one across the river.

Paraphrasing Jon Kabat-Zinn on meditation but it applies to seeking also: There are many doors into the room and it's not about which door is better. It's about don't stand in the doorway, enter the room.

Originally Posted by mary isaak

My concern here is that my mind may take over again very quickly and I may be drawn to my old beliefs.

Ask yourself "What are the reasons?" and be as honest with yourself as you can be. Then you're not talking about your beliefs, you are talking about what you perceive - which 'underpins' your beliefs.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

There are at least two 'selfs' according to this thread, isn't that what we're discussing?

This thread is in the non-duality area of the forum right? Non-duality means there are no opposites, no two's and no separation of the one/whole right? Such as false self, true self, mind, body, the universe and on and on and on.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Non-duality means there are no opposites, no two's and no separation of the one/whole right?

Non-duality is the ego's Dualistic attempt to resolve the paradoxes it creates. What is Duality and what is non-Duality IS Duality and Non-Duality is the opposite of Duality.

If there is no separation and everything is Brahman there is neither Duality or non-Duality, because Duality comes from separation created by the differentiated consciousness of ego/Ahamkara.

You were also making the distinction between 'false' self and 'true' self, so that is the creation of two 'selfs'. Where does that stand in relation to the 'whole'? Y'see Mike, the whole is a completely different discussion altogether and if people are talking about a 'true' or 'false' 'self' then 'whole' isn't happening.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

No matter the degree or pace of change, we are aware from that limitless and unchanging perspective and wholly untouched or disturbed by said change. That's the Realization to be had.

Which is the undifferentiated consciousness of the Atman/Jungian self.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

It is true in your perceptual reality and I don't have a problem with that. You have your own reasons for what you perceive as true or not. I choose not to use the words because in my perceptual reality they don't mean very much. If anything, they're judgement.

Actually they are not judgments at all, it is the self or oneness knowing the self's true nature and the self's false nature.

Our true nature that tells the difference between what is true/our true nature and what is not true/our false nature is not judging, it is avoiding and preventing itself from being our false nature, which is not truth. Oneness/wholeness is truth and separation, opposites, etc are not truth.

Truth and facts are not dependent on or based on any perceptual reality, that is the point of truth and facts