Ego/I/self/Ahamkara is the Self that thinks he/she is separate from oneness....

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

That is it precisely. One can still have "the sense of I/self" as one plays one role on the stage of life .... and still not separate one's self from the oneness.

What is your definition of self?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The only difference between ego and Aham is dictionary, ego is Latin for 'I' and Aham is Sanskrit for 'I'. Not self. Ahamkara is the "I of invented things," which are created by Chitta or 'lower mind'. So yes, in Sanskrit the Aham is created.

The sense of self/I is the Jungian ego, which he describes as "A sense of I am." The ego is differentiated consciousness and it creates separation and duality amongst other things.

It seems to me like Jung's definition of ego is just the mental thinking of I am, does not even consider the feeling of I AM, and this is the foundation of his psychiatry and psychoanalyst. For the most part jung is right but he does not even consider by what you have posted about him, is that the self is a combo of both the thinking /mental of I am and the feeling of I AM together. They are both one and the same, however people's ego separate the two, and Jung was guilty of separating them, like anyone else. If it where not for the feeling of I AM, we will not have the thinking /mental of I am, we will not exist physically and mentally.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The simplest way to explain is using a quote from Bashar - "If it's in your consciousness, it exists. How can anything that doesn't exist enter your consciousness?" Similarly with the belief hat God doesn't exist. Before you can say "Ego/god doesn't exist" you already have a concept of what the ego/God is to you personally, in whatever shape or form that takes. If the ego/God didn't exist how would you be able to say they didn't exist?

Yep, words in concepts, metaphors and analalogies create mental images in the mind, thus brings concepts, metaphors, analogies etc etc into consciousness.

Language/words gives the formless form and it is not always a bad/negative thing. It is a good thing to give the formless oneness/the eternal and infinite right here and right now form as long as one does not separate and limit it/make it finite while doing so. Labels are just words and do not mean much. People's unconcious/subconscious beliefs, conditioning etc etc depends on words/language-words/language forms people's unconcious/subconscious. So the trick is to learn not to give an f-bomb about words, while at the same time learn the true meanings of certian words.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The simplest way to explain is using a quote from Bashar - "If it's in your consciousness, it exists. How can anything that doesn't exist enter your consciousness?" Similarly with the belief hat God doesn't exist. Before you can say "Ego/god doesn't exist" you already have a concept of what the ego/God is to you personally, in whatever shape or form that takes. If the ego/God didn't exist how would you be able to say they didn't exist?

They exist as concepts in our minds, yes, but whether or not they exist beyond the conceptual is another question altogether.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by A human Being

They exist as concepts in our minds, yes, but whether or not they exist beyond the conceptual is another question altogether.

in the end it comes down to what I want to believe... which is awful in a way because I want to believe whatever it is I think all those thought-forms out there already believe so I can feel like I'm a part of things...

which by the way is the reason noone performs miracles.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

What is your definition of self?

As you might have noticed, I differentiate between "self" (lower case) and "Self" (upper case). When I use the lower case "self", I am referring to the limited separatist self .... but it can also refer to the role that one knowingly assumes on the stage of life while still not feeling "separate".

As for the "Self" (upper case), you are probably aware that describing that may not be possible in words.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by MikeS80

For the most part jung is right but he does not even consider ........ that the self is a combo of both the thinking /mental of I am and the feeling of I AM together.

Could you elaborate on that further. Jung empirically espoused the "collective unconscious" which, from a psychological perspective, seems to point to the "I AM".

Hazrat Inayat Khan considered Jung to be the greatest of the psychologists because he empirically bordered on the spiritual. In the realm of psychology/psychiatry, I am not sure how he could have gone any further in his writings though I suspect he goes deeper than what he wrote. Have you read his Autobiography? It is very revealing.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE EXCERPT:
Could you elaborate on that further. Jung empirically espoused the "collective unconscious" which, from a psychological perspective, seems to point to the "I AM".

Hazrat Inayat Khan considered Jung to be the greatest of the psychologists because he empirically bordered on the spiritual. In the realm of psychology/psychiatry, I am not sure how he could have gone any further in his writings though I suspect he goes deeper than what he wrote. Have you read his Autobiography? It is very revealing.

The collective unconscious (term introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung to represent a form of the unconscious (that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware) common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain. It is distinct from the personal unconscious, which arises from the experience of the individual. According to Jung, the collective unconscious contains archetypes, or universal primordial images and ideas-https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-unconscious.) is the mental/psychological thinking I am, that is in relation to the feeling of I AM. The Self or soul or spirit or atman does not have any memories, impulses etc etc, The Self just feels it's physical existence and is conscious and aware of it's physical existence, and the mind gets in it's way.

In other words, Jung's collective unconscious points to the purely/nothing but the mental/psychological I am/lower case self that separates itself, Jung's collective unconscious does not point to the feeling of I AM/Self. The feeling of I AM is the capitalized Self, while the lower case self is purely/nothing but the mental/psychological, which separates.


Take away the self by simply not separating your Self from oneness, and you will be your Self.

Edit: A person can't think I am and feel I AM at the same time, it is either one or the other. Try it for yourself lol. Breath meditation and simular meditations are nothing but alternatives to meditating of the feeling of I AM/Self being physically alive/existing in the eternal and infinite right here and right now.

[pixiedust]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

.Hazrat Inayat Khan considered Jung to be the greatest of the psychologists because he empirically bordered on the spiritual.

Agree...........

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE EXCERPT:



Could you elaborate on that further. Jung empirically espoused the "collective unconscious" which, from a psychological perspective, seems to point to the "I AM".

Hazrat Inayat Khan considered Jung to be the greatest of the psychologists because he empirically bordered on the spiritual. In the realm of psychology/psychiatry, I am not sure how he could have gone any further in his writings though I suspect he goes deeper than what he wrote. Have you read his Autobiography? It is very revealing.

Jung's definition of ego, which includes the collective unconscious are based on Ahamkara. Ahamkara is not the Self, Ahamkara or lower case self is a false sense of Self, that separates Self from oneness. Not separating oneself from oneness for the most part will take care of the issues (that are not true) ego and the collective unconscious cause