What if the mind is conscious, an extension of consciousness?

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I do not have reasons why they are not, I created this thread, because there is no reason why they are not.

The story of god asking himself "who am I", is the same exact thing as self-realization and the practice of neti neti that Justasimpleguy and I talked about. Self-realization or the neti neti practice of asking oneself "who am I" connects the contents of the center of us being conscious with atman, Because the center and the source of us being conscious, is in fact atman. Therfore, there is no paradox and no need or reason for god, atman and for one to keep asking the same old question of "who am I" over and over again, because he/she knows he/she is atman, thus knows he/she is god, since atman is god and god is atman.

This is the first time I heard about Gestalt Reality, and I don't think one is able to get any closer to truth than Gestalt Reality.

I'd agree that there isn't a reason why they are not, but it's something that I'm personally interested in within a Spiritual context.

Alan Watts said that "If you didn't have an echo, how would you know you are alive?" In Africa they have a saying - "Ubuntu" - which means "I am because we are." It is not just thorugh neti-neti that the Atman knows itself but also in the interaction with others, so while some may say there is no separation there is obvious purpose in the perception of separation. If there is no reason for Atman to keep asking the question "Whom I?" would we still be here? The question of "Who am I" may be as eternal as Atman because really, how well do we know ourselves?

Jung was a scholar of Eastern religion/philosphy and based his model of the self on ancient wisdom. The model is that there is the self/Atman whose 'contents' are the unconscious/Chitta/Lower Mind and its 'contents', and the ego/Ahamkara and its contents. Sometimes the parallels are a little loose but close enough for now. Jung states that the ego/Ahamkara is the centre of the field of consciousness, not the self/Atman. The self/Atman 'contains both the ego/Ahamkara and its 'contents', and the unconscious and its 'contents'. While were are conscious there are also unconscious cognitive processes going on in our noggins all the time, and they are as responsible for our Spirituality as our conscious cognitive processes, in some perhaps even more so if people aren't aware they exist. They contribute to our conscious, so being conscious/having consciousness is a long way from all there is.

So perhaps there is still a question of "Who am I?" because after the mainstream religion/Spirituality there is yet more to come. My question is how whole is wholeness? One's own process of neti-neti and Spirituality itself is relative to one's own 'contents ' of their unconscious asnd conscious processes, and what is 'not this' can be decided not by consciousness but by cognitive behaviour. Everybody has one of those, by the way. In the case of wholeness, what does that actually mean? Is mainstream Spirituality/religion going to embrace a psychology that was never apart from the religion/Spirituality in the first place?

I personally think Gestalt Reality is the only thing that makes any real sense, and it's when we understand more of ourselves than mainstream Spirituality allows we gain a greater sense of "I am." It's even more intersting when you add in a touch of fractal geometry, because it makes even better sense of us being made in God's image.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Superimposition is when one puts or stacks his/her self on top of or above his/her Self/atman.

Desuperimposing is when one does not stacks his/her self on top of his/her Self/atman, which is an impossible thing to do, because the self and Self/atman are both at the center of him/her being conscious (but differently) or one stops putting his/her self above his/her Self/atman ie stops being self centered.

In Jungian the ego/Ahamkara can identify AS the self/Atman, not so much superimposition. One of Jung's definitions of the ego is "A sense of I am," and when the the 'contents' of the ego/Ahamkara is that the ego/Ahamkara IS the self/all there is then the ego/Ahamkara becomes inflated and becomes the mainstream definition of the ego. People reamain unaware of who they are because the unconscious aspects are ignored.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'd agree that there isn't a reason why they are not, but it's something that I'm personally interested in within a Spiritual context.

Alan Watts said that "If you didn't have an echo, how would you know you are alive?" In Africa they have a saying - "Ubuntu" - which means "I am because we are." It is not just thorugh neti-neti that the Atman knows itself but also in the interaction with others, so while some may say there is no separation there is obvious purpose in the perception of separation. If there is no reason for Atman to keep asking the question "Whom I?" would we still be here? The question of "Who am I" may be as eternal as Atman because really, how well do we know ourselves?

Jung was a scholar of Eastern religion/philosphy and based his model of the self on ancient wisdom. The model is that there is the self/Atman whose 'contents' are the unconscious/Chitta/Lower Mind and its 'contents', and the ego/Ahamkara and its contents. Sometimes the parallels are a little loose but close enough for now. Jung states that the ego/Ahamkara is the centre of the field of consciousness, not the self/Atman. The self/Atman 'contains both the ego/Ahamkara and its 'contents', and the unconscious and its 'contents'. While were are conscious there are also unconscious cognitive processes going on in our noggins all the time, and they are as responsible for our Spirituality as our conscious cognitive processes, in some perhaps even more so if people aren't aware they exist. They contribute to our conscious, so being conscious/having consciousness is a long way from all there is.

So perhaps there is still a question of "Who am I?" because after the mainstream religion/Spirituality there is yet more to come. My question is how whole is wholeness? One's own process of neti-neti and Spirituality itself is relative to one's own 'contents ' of their unconscious asnd conscious processes, and what is 'not this' can be decided not by consciousness but by cognitive behaviour. Everybody has one of those, by the way. In the case of wholeness, what does that actually mean? Is mainstream Spirituality/religion going to embrace a psychology that was never apart from the religion/Spirituality in the first place?

I personally think Gestalt Reality is the only thing that makes any real sense, and it's when we understand more of ourselves than mainstream Spirituality allows we gain a greater sense of "I am." It's even more intersting when you add in a touch of fractal geometry, because it makes even better sense of us being made in God's image.

AH, I see why you are misunderstanding me....

I do not think atman is the lower self/mind/ego/unconscious and "thier" contents at all (including the mental sense of I am) however, I do think the lower mind/unconscious, its contents and the sense of I/mental sense of I am are important aspects or extensions of atman though. Atman is the physical experience of feeling of I am (present/presence). The objective physical feeling of atman/i am (present/presence) does not lie, only subjective mental feelings of the mind lies, and this is when the objective and the subjective play a very important role in all of this.

The purpose of self-realization and net-neti is for one to objectivily realize/observe/experience that atman (the physical feeling of I am present/presence) is one's true self, and that the conditioned/programmed/manipulated contents of the mind, including the thoughts of I am, that one has, is not one's true self, and one's mind that contains contents that states/perceives/experiences otherwise is falsely conditioned/programmed/manipulated, if you know what I mean? Self realization/net-neti leads one to the realization that the conditioned/programmed/manipulated contents of the mind is not atman/the physical feeling of I am (present/presence).

Did Jung talk about atman, or did you include that to try to speak my language, in an attempt to be on the same page as me?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

In Jungian the ego/Ahamkara can identify AS the self/Atman, not so much superimposition. One of Jung's definitions of the ego is "A sense of I am," and when the the 'contents' of the ego/Ahamkara is that the ego/Ahamkara IS the self/all there is then the ego/Ahamkara becomes inflated and becomes the mainstream definition of the ego. People reamain unaware of who they are because the unconscious aspects are ignored.

Jung's definitions of the ego as "A sense of I am," can be taken to mean a mental sense of i am or as a physical feeling sense of I am. Jung was in the field of the mind, so I take Jung gave the ego a definition of "A mental sense of I am".

People reamain unaware of who they are because they ignore their unconscious aspects and contents .

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

AH, I see why you are misunderstanding me....

I do not think atman is the lower self/mind/ego/unconscious and "thier" contents at all (including the mental sense of I am) however, I do think the lower mind/unconscious, its contents and the sense of I/mental sense of I am are important aspects or extensions of atman though. Atman is the physical experience of feeling of I am (present/presence). The objective physical feeling of atman/i am (present/presence) does not lie, only subjective mental feelings of the mind lies, and this is when the objective and the subjective play a very important role in all of this.

The purpose of self-realization and net-neti is for one to objectivily realize/observe/experience that atman (the physical feeling of I am present/presence) is one's true self, and that the conditioned/programmed/manipulated contents of the mind, including the thoughts of I am, that one has, is not one's true self, and one's mind that contains contents that states/perceives/experiences otherwise is falsely conditioned/programmed/manipulated, if you know what I mean? Self realization/net-neti leads one to the realization that the conditioned/programmed/manipulated contents of the mind is not atman/the physical feeling of I am (present/presence).

Did Jung talk about atman, or did you include that to try to speak my language, in an attempt to be on the same page as me?

Atman does not think I am, because atman can not think I am, atman feels I am present/presence right here right now. Atman, thus brahman gave the "job" of thinking I am (and thinking in general) to the mind/ego to express and to be conscious of itself (atman thus brahman). Thinking via words/language (consciously and un/subconsciously) are the contents of the mind, contents of the mind are things or gives atman/brahman physical form.

[Rah nam]

the mind is an artificial construct to serve us during our third density experiences.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

What if (mainstream) organized spirituality/religion is incorrect about separating mind (lower self) and also body from "the higher self" or spirit or atman?

What if mind, and body are extensions or aspects of our higher self, spirit or atman, thus all is and becomes oneness/wholeness?

I started to ask these questions to myself from a oneness/wholeness point of view, and now I ask you.

There isn't a separation as far as I can see because the higher self exists at the same time. This lower self is part of self and must be explored.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Rah nam

the mind is an artificial construct to serve us during our third density experiences.

Strange, I was just talking about this experience.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Rah nam

the mind is an artificial construct to serve us during our third density experiences.

The experiences we have about our existence and being able to observe our mind or the contents of our mind, contradicts thus negates the mind as an artificial construct.

The mind is not a man made subjective idea or theory that is not backed up by empirical evidence, meaning not backed up by observation.

[Rah nam]

If you see the mind within your physicality, you might not understand the mind at all.