The false self

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I don't know where you got your information from -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)

I don't have a problem with that. BTW, your link is broken.

The problem is that many spiritual folks talk about the self this and about the self that, while they negate the or their body. This is what keeps their heads is the clouds or buried in the sand. Atman is the self, and the body is included in the package of the self

Originally Posted by Dan_SF

There is the "Base" self and there is a "coat" self.

This is where the confusion comes from and also what makes discussions on the ego into so much of a mess. And by the way, did you realise that what you're talking about here isn't Spirituality, it's psychology?

Originally Posted by Dan_SF

The coat self is the behavior which is learned, and is constantly exchanged.

That would be the ego in psychology (the real 'ego' and not the pretend, made-up Spiritual one) and the Ahamkara in Spirituality. Since we're in a Spiritual forum people should be talking about the Sanskrit Ahamkara instead of the ego or the made-up 'false self'.

Originally Posted by Dan_SF

And for you: there is the "Real you" and "what you think you are".

Kinda sorta, because it gets even messier here. The ego is redefined as the bad guy and Spiritual people don't have one of those because they're the good guys. The deny their 'false self'. They need something better to identify with so they redefine the self as an ideological substitute, which really only 'levels up' their egos. What they identify is their constructed 'real/true self'. Only they've been talking about their egos all along.

In the meantime Jung is spinning in his grave, or laughing his socks off.

Originally Posted by Dan_SF

It is like with the eyes. The eyes can not see itself, but only in a mirror.

Zactly!!!!

Originally Posted by MikeS80

TThis is what keeps their heads is the clouds or buried in the sand. Atman is the self, and the body is included in the package of the self

So we now have a true/false Atman? Or how does it work?

And the self has nothing to do with energy.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

So we now have a true/false Atman? Or how does it work?

And the self has nothing to do with energy.

No, I said there is only one self/Atman. There is the Ahamkara/ego/one's false sense of self, which I already talked about, and there is Atman/one's true sense of self, which exists under one's Ahamkara/ego/one's false sense of self.

Duality and opposites are not separate and are not opposed or against each other. Duality and opposites are a cohesive unit with relative aspects to each other. There cannot be duality without there being non-duality to indicate what is either duality (opposites that create separation and division, which is not true) and non duality (there is no opposites that create duality, which is separation and division and is truth). Believing that duality is in conflict with non-duality and that opposites opposes their opposites, is the root cause of separation/division and is the real/true maya/illusion/delusion.

Duality is one thinking that there are opposites and non-duality is one knowing that opposites are a cohesive unit with relative aspects to each other. Duality in the context above is created by one's Ahamkara/ego/one's false sense of self.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

No, I said there is only one self/Atman. There is the Ahamkara/ego/one's false sense of self, which I already talked about, and there is Atman/one's true sense of self, which exists under one's Ahamkara/ego/one's false sense of self.

'True' or 'false' sense of self are the same ego/Ahamkara. One of the ways the ego is described is as "A sense of I am" and a 'false sense of self' happens when the ego 'imprints' on the self, it becomes a personality aberration. That's the Jungian version, anyway. Jung doesn't use the words 'true' or 'false' self.

The ego/Ahamkara is perceptual reality and is not 'false', but neither is it Absolute reality.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

(opposites that create separation and division, which is not true)

True and false are opposites that create separation and division, and are created by Chitta or Lower Mind is we're going to be accurate. Part of that Lower Mind is what is not Right Thinking and there's not much of it happening here. You perceive what is 'true' or 'false', both are created by the so-called false self.

What you are really talking about here with 'true' and 'false', Duality and non-Duality, etc is the differentiated consciousness of the ego/Ahamkara.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Duality in the context above is created by one's Ahamkara/ego/one's false sense of self.

But true and false IS Duality, non-Duality is a Dualistic attempt by the ego/Ahamkara to resolve the paradox it has created, not realising that it doesn't have the capacity to.

Y'see Mike, it's not about 'true or 'false' and which is what, it's about consciousness. The 'true' self is both the 'true' self and the 'false' self - both Spiritually and psychologically.

Edit: It's only through the ego/Ahamkara that the self has a sense of self/I am. Beyond the ego/Ahamkara there is no I.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

'True' or 'false' sense of self are the same ego/Ahamkara. One of the ways the ego is described is as "A sense of I am" and a 'false sense of self' happens when the ego 'imprints' on the self, it becomes a personality aberration. That's the Jungian version, anyway. Jung doesn't use the words 'true' or 'false' self.

Did Jung specifically say himself that the ego is Ahamkara or are you saying/assuming Jung did because someone else whom wrote his autobiography said Jung did? If the words did not come directly out of Jung's mouth/hands/fingers, your argument about ego/Ahamkara is false and pointless.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Did Jung specifically say himself that the ego is Ahamkara or are you saying/assuming Jung did because someone else whom wrote his autobiography said Jung did?

Do your homework. Jung was a scholar of Advaita Vedanta and I've read much material that has come from other learned people who understood bot the psychology and the Spirituality. I've also spent quite a bit of time studying both the Spirituality and the psychology and I have to agree with what others have said - to me it's quite obvious. I'm not the only one in this forum with the same understanding. When you dig a little deeper into the Ahamkara and research Chitta, what you find is a an understanding that - apart from language - they are one and the same with the psychology.

It's not what you believe that's important, it's the reasons you believe it.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Do your homework. Jung was a scholar of Advaita Vedanta and I've read much material that has come from other learned people who understood bot the psychology and the Spirituality.

It's not what you believe that's important, it's the reasons you believe it.

From Other people....Meaning not from yourself. Thank you for answering the question.

[Gem]

I think it's simple really. 'False self' pertains to the self one imagines, self image, or self referential thought. Simple, but nuanced. It's normal to define it by contrasting dualistically between a false self and a true self, but that's probably a little bit ambiguous. I think 'thought of self' is a bit more specific.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

From Other people....Meaning not from yourself. Thank you for answering the question.

So what did you get from all that?