You

Originally Posted by movingalways

Greenslade, I am not questioning that differentiation happens, but that differentiation happens within Consciousness or the Self 'Itself', no additional layer of ego required.

The ego is differentiated consciousness and that gives us Duality as a 'result' of the ego being the 'interface' between our internal and external realities. We need the ego to function, and using the narrative of is as multi-dimensional beings it aids us in 'navigating' this dimension of reality. This is where psychology and Spirituality meet. We actually need the Duality of the ego to function, survive, have experiences and think we are oh so Spiritual.

If you're going to pick up on words that I introduce - and and far as I'm aware there's only been one other person on this forum that's used the word - then at least do yourself a favour and find put the real meaning of the word, preferably in context. You're trying to talk my language as if you know what you're talking about and, with respect, it's not working.

I don't have differentiation, the ego creates it. It means I have thoughts and I have beliefs, realisations, knowledge etc.. It makes a 'thing' of Spirituality. If I have to achieve Spirituality or enlightenment there is a differentiation between my consciousness and the 'object' that is Spirituality or 'object' that is enlightenment. If non-Duality is a 'thing' then that's a distance created by the differentiated consciousness of the ego. There is no consciousness with an ego, the ego is the centre of the field of differentiated consciousness that is according to Jung.

If I have differentiation that's a 'thing' too. Differentiation is the 'distance' between objects of consciousness and consciousness itself.

The self is undifferentiated consciousness that has 'solved' the paradox of consciousness and the unconscious, and while it's been called non-Dual it's more akin to Triplex Unity where there is 'three'. People are so damned hung up on this Duality/non-Duality malarkey that they can't get their heads around there being more.

The self as Atman - since Jung based his model of the self on the Atman - is undifferentiated consciousness and, by extension, Brahman. This is why so many Spiritual people just don't get it and chase their tails seeking enlightenment, non-Duality and so many other things. Their egos put a 'distance' between those 'objects' and project them put in front of them.

We already are Atman and by extension Brahman, we already embody both Duality and non-Duality and in non-Duality the Seeker is always that which is sought.

[movingalways]

The ego is made of mental projections therefore has no creative powers. Only That or Self has the power to create phenomena.

Until you drop the notion of the ego as a subject or an object rather than as a name for ignorance, your real and true Self will remain obscured.

Originally Posted by movingalways

The ego is made of mental projections therefore has no creative powers. Only That or Self has the power to create phenomena.

So you're going to rewrite psychology? Good luck with that. By the way you're also rewriting ancient Spiritual wisdom, since you used the words 'ignorance'. As for 'real' and 'true' self, seriously?

[saurab]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Who are you when you are not?
Who is this 'I' that is looking at itself?
How can what doesn't exist look at what doesn't exist?

I think that you are coming from a Buddhist perspective which essentially says that the self is an illusion. Now, the advaitists say the opposite: that the self is real, and some others say the Higher Self is real. Buddha also talked about the LUMINOUS MIND.

Now, all these perspectives are correct.

Buddha's luminous mind = Buddha's no-self = Advaita's self = Higher Self. This is a difference not just in terminology but also in concept.

Since in a human being (even enlightened beings) the Higher Self can only manifest in the mind and nowhere else, as "clarity and luminosity", the Buddha coined the term "luminous mind" or the Buddha field. Since this lumimous mind is so different from our usual identification to the self, he called this "no self" or "luminous mind".

Originally Posted by saurab

I think that you are coming from a Buddhist perspective which essentially says that the self is an illusion. Now, the advaitists say the opposite: that the self is real, and some others say the Higher Self is real. Buddha also talked about the LUMINOUS MIND.

The problem is that there is a lot of confusion as to what the self is. So if you are talking about 'self', which one would that be? There is the real self, the true self, the emotional self.... This is where definitions are important to me, because once there is a 'solid' definition I have a 'solid' understanding.

The Buddhist 'self' that is an illusion is the Jungian ego, and Jung based his model of the ego an the Ahamkara. The ego/Ahamkara is, from a Spiritual perspective and within Advaita and other Eastern teachings, not real. To the Buddhists, strictly it's the 'sense of self' that's the illusion, although I don't know if there is a Buddhist word for the self as such. To Eastern religion philosophy in general the Ahamkara is also know as the 'false self' and is "The 'I' of invented things" - the 'things' of perceptual reality. That concurs with science and Jung, since the ego is essentially the 'result' of our interaction with external/perceptual reality. The Jungian ego is a translated Ahamkara.

The ego is our sense of self, keeping it horrible simple.

From a Spiritual ideology perspective we are not our 'false self', that being the ego or Ahamkara. So if you are not all the things you perceive yourself to be - beyond the identify, knowledge, beliefs that are 'things' 'we' are made of - who are you?

If we are not all the things we think we are and that we tell ourselves we are? It goes back to the understanding of how we are not our thoughts, we are not our beliefs, etc. So when you are not (those things), who are you?

Eastern religion philosophy has the Atman, which is often referred to as the 'true' self and is what the Jungian model of the self is based on.