Hi Tom,
I present the diagram I did so to give one Eastern view of the Self. I see it explaining man’s essence in relation to what man is not. For example, according to yoga psychology man’s true nature is not his body. I see your diagram as explaining man’s incarnation on this planet, our existence as a physical, emotional, mental and spiritual being.
The differences between the 2 diagrams reflect 2 different consciousnesses. Your diagram also seems to follow Jungian thought.
Hi Sealchan,
I’ve read that Jung believed in 2 personalities. Below is one explanation of how Jung sees the Self differently from Eastern views.
From THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS by Reb Yakov Leib HaKohaim:
"The Self is a quantity that is supraordinate to the conscious ego. It [the Self] embraces not only the conscious but also the unconscious Psyche, and is therefore, so to speak, a personality which we [the ego] also are." ("Two Essays on Analytical Psychology," C. G. Jung Collected Works, vol. 7, par. 274)
It is also at this point that Jung's spiritual paradigm parts company with those of the East such as Hinduism and Buddhism. In the latter traditions, the goal of the ego is to become reabsorbed...back into the Self from which it comes, to lose itself, as it were, in the "Ocean of Bliss" of which it is merely a wave on the surface. Jung, however, postulates that such a dissolution of the ego defeats the ultimate ambition of the Self, which is to enter human consciousness and "become" man. In other words, mankind is the Self's gateway into the world of creation, and the human ego -- reawakened to its connection to the Self...is the Keeper of that Gate.
Therefore, Jung suggests, were the ego to dissolve into the Self ... it could not function as the mediator between God and His creation, which He yearns to re-enter through man. Thus, what Jung proposes is that rather than "returning" to and being reabsorbed back into the Self, ... the ego better serves its own goals and those of the transcendent archetypes, by remaining at Stage 7, where it sustains a dialogue with them through an "ego-self axis" as Edinger calls it. (See Edward F. Edinger, The Evolution of Consciousness.)
You write:
Does individual-self = jiva = soul = Jung's ego? and Real Self = Atman = Jung's Self do you think?
According the writing above, as I see it, Jung does not regard the Atman in respect to the Eastern view. I have not read much on Jung, so cannot speak of him in a knowledgeable way, sorry.
And I offer more on Consciousness from the book, THE RAINBOW BRIDGE:
All units are conscious. We define consciousness in that which is below us in evolution as being the apparently fixed reactions to environment. It is also called the subconscious. For ourselves, we say the self-conscious. For above, super, or Soul-consciousness. Beyond that, identification or Monadic or Logoic consciousness, and so on.
The word consciousness relates to the relationship between spirit and matter, or between a higher and a lower unit, the higher being nearer the spirit and thus partaking of its nature, and the lower unit being relatively nearer the nature of matter.
Spirit — Motion — Matter
Life — Quality — Appearance
Life — Consciousness — Form
[The above] are all synonymous, but require some explanation to show the broad application from the mineral kingdom to God. Life as space is everywhere. Form is relative to environing conditions, for example, ice, water, steam. Consciousness is the relation of life to form, expressed in movement and behavior.
We use the word consciousness in the sense that [Madame] Blavatsky used it — time is a succession of states of consciousness.
***********************************
So, consciousness is a process of evolution. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’direction/movement, it just IS what it is, where one is at a given moment.
You write:
I wonder if there is a trade off here between yoga and Western psychology and one related to a difference in how spiritual power is understood as explained by Joseph Campbell. What I get from Joseph Campbell is that between East and West we have a main distinction in how God is perceived. In the West we have Yahweh, the Father and Allah, basically personifications of God. In the East we have dharma, atman, Tao and other what are basically elemental forces when thinking of the ultimate spiritual powers. The Gods in the East are just vehicles for the description of the expression of these elemental spiritual forces. In the West the God is the power and there is no greater referent. "I am who is" as God says when he introduces himself to Moses.
In the West then, we may deal with our suffering in terms of the personification of forces, by projecting the source of those forces in our life onto others in our experience. Gradually in dealing with the particular issues, Jung invites us to develop a relationship with an inner pantheon of sorts focused on the trinity of ego-shadow-anima/us with an integrating fourth Self. In the East, perhaps, we have a more abstract system of measurement which removes the projection onto personality and addresses more directly basic sensory and intuitive experiences that can be identified and acknowledged and coordinated with those spiritual practitioners who have gone before.
In my "binocular" way of looking at things, then is one way East or West altogther better than the other? Or, perhaps, does each approach have their relative merits?
I wonder if Westerners, in general, see God in THEIR image rather than understanding that we are made in GOD’s image, and therefore, due to THEIR perspectives we have such personifications of God and gods in Western culture? So, there is much emphasis on the physical body, human attributes and literalization of feats when, in my view, mythological heroes and zodiac signs and such, are all metaphors for conduct with virtuous conduct/aspirations being the means toward self-realization/individuation?
I am presently reading THE PLANETS WITHIN: THE ASTROLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY OF MARSILIO FICINO by Thomas Moore. I think this book was written prior to CARE OF THE SOUL. Ficino was a Renaissance man with interesting insight into the Soul. Thomas Moore presents Ficino’s ideas well, and , of course, I am interested in Ficino’s writings of the planets’ roles in regard to the Soul.
Susanna