The false self

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Zactly! But what is the nature of 'true' and what is the nature of 'false'? What is the self and do we really know what we're talking about?

Maybe. But even if they do, I don't believe them.

Y'see Gem, the definitions of 'true', 'false' and 'self' aren't decided by you or 'Spiritual you', they're decided by your unconscious.

No real need to make everything meaningless as there is a common enough understanding of contextual meaning, but I can see 'this is a thought' and know thought is not-me.
Yes thought is definitively imagined.

that the I/Aham is made from and are created by Chitta.

I cant remember what those Indian words mean.
I'm more of the 'no-self' persuasion than the 'true-self' persuasion, but it's kinda subtle, and and I'm pretty sure it's more nuanced than the common dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Gem

I'm more of the 'no-self' persuasion than the 'true-self' persuasion, but it's kinda subtle, and and I'm pretty sure it's more nuanced than the common dichotomy.

I don't think there's all that much difference aside from semantics. Both Buddhism and Advaita seem to agree the objective self of mind-body is in reality no-self. I posit the Self of Advaita is no different than the Space of Buddhism. It's That within which apparent change manifests, and both Self of Advaita and Space of Buddhism is wholly unaffected by said apparent changes.

Originally Posted by Gem

No real need to make everything meaningless as there is a common enough understanding of contextual meaning, but I can see 'this is a thought' and know thought is not-me.

'True' and 'false' are often the words of agenda.

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes thought is definitively imagined.

But then so is everything we think of ourselves - our perceptions of self.

Originally Posted by Gem

I cant remember what those Indian words mean.

Aham is the Jungian ego and not the 'usual; definition, Chitta is roughly the unconscious.

I just get on with Life, y'kow, chop wood and carry water.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I posit the Self of Advaita is no different than the Space of Buddhism. It's That within which apparent change manifests, and both Self of Advaita and Space of Buddhism is wholly unaffected by said apparent changes.

The 'self' of the mind/body is the ego/Ahamkara and is 'designed' to be subjective and changing, it's differentiated consciousness. It differentiates between 'this' and 'that', this moment and that moment and gives us a sense of time.

The Self/Atman of Advaita and the Space of Buddhism is the Jungian self, and it's also known as a few other terms in a few other belief systems. Even the Aborigines know about it. That's the undifferentiated consciousness and the 'real deal' when it comes to so-called non-Duality.

The 'self' that's often used in Spirituality 'true' or 'false' self- are aspects rather than selfs or individual entities. One's ego/personality can identify with the 'true self' and detach from the 'false self', and that is not a good basis for finding the Space/Atman because the understanding is already compromised.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I posit the Self of Advaita is no different than the Space of Buddhism.

Hmmm, I don't really know what either of those mean, so just can't tell.

It's That within which apparent change manifests, and both Self of Advaita and Space of Buddhism is wholly unaffected by said apparent changes.

I don't think Buddhism has any permanent-unchanging as such, but there something beyond mind-matter which is known in direct experience. I think most spiritual narratives seem to impress that it is awesome and fantastic, but Buddhism is more like, 'oh that,' without the fanfare. I'm sure my generalisation doesn't apply to some sects, however. I think you're probably right, though, it pretty much comes down to semantics.

Originally Posted by Gem

Hmmm, I don't really know what either of those mean, so just can't tell.

Awareness/Consciousness will do. Not how we perceive "I am aware/conscious". It's Awareness of that very perception too.

The more I think about it, the more I like Ramana Maharshi's "Who Am I?" method.

I am aware. To whom has this thought arisen? To me. Who am I?

Ever have one of those sittings where the timer goes off and it seems like you just started? You "know" you were aware but that's about all you can say? Indeed, what is That that is contiguous and unchanging before, during and after sitting, whether the "projector" is running or not? That Is right here and now?

[ayar415]

QUOTE Post 1 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by mary isaak

I heard the definition that the false self is a set of thoughts and feelings and that it has no real existence. Still, I cannot fully understand it . Is every thought and feeling a part of the false self? If we re enlightened, will thoughts and feelings disappear? Any clarifications of this topic?

At the basic level, the awareness of self comes from sensations: the feeling of hunger, the need to go to the bathroom, the consciousness of being touched, etc.. All these stimuli create the perception of being a psychological person (i.e. you, the self) inhabiting a physical body that is separate from other people and things.

The awareness of self grows with the formation of the psyche as knowledge is fed to you, the self, enabling you to think and feel. This is similar to programming a robot with artificial intelligence.

So, mary isaak, who are you? You know who you are based on the knowledge (database) in your mind (hard drive). Are you a false self? Who fed you all the knowledge about you? Your parents? Your teachers? Your spiritual guides? They all came into being like you did: programmed AI robots. Right?

I am also a programmed AI robot as you are. Am I a false self?