THE SELF-IMAGE

Self images are secondary aspects of personality, which may or may not clearly reflect the actual self as it is expressed through one's being as one lives, acts and relates etc. in the world. One's whole personality is the result of interaction between the actual and the imagined self... i.e. the person and his or her self-images. However, this secondary aspect of personality is underpinned by the authentic person, without which the two would not be able to integrate into a more or less 'whole' personality. This is because the person would then be nothing but a series of thoughts, memories, images, feelings etc. without real substance.

The 'self-image' can have both emotional and mental components - and can be 'weighted' more in the direction either of a physical image, a mental or social image and a spiritual image. It is therefore convenient to view the self-image from various aspects, as follows:-

1) Physical aspects of the self: at the tangible level of the body, one's self-image is invariably bound up to some extent with physical appearance as we feel or think it to be. As Vedanta tells us, we mistakenly think ourselves to be the body. People with regular physical features and an appearance of the sort widely regarded as acceptable - handsome or beautiful - may seldom have problems at the level of the physically-based self-image. This does not mean that the self-image is by any means always a neutral or correct 'reflection' of one's physical attributes. A person may feel unattractive or even repulsive to others, without this being founded in the actual judgements of others. This shows how the self-image is detached from actual physical images.

A person who has cosmetic surgery such as a face-lift may often feel no better afterwards because the same self-image previous to the supposedly improved appearance has been retained. As the plastic surgeon Maxwell Maltz demonstrated, positive change in his patients' sense of self-confidence and self-satisfaction required a change not only - or even mainly, in physical appearance, but also in the internal self-image. The human nervous system evidently cannot distinguish between 'actual' experience and experience 'imagined vividly and in detail', so that a strongly held negative self-image stimulates negative reactions from the system, while a strong positive self-image induces positive reactions. The ideal situation is full concurrence of thought, feelings and actions with one's self-image.

The self is therefore not to be confused with the body. Physical beauty, ordinariness or ugliness are not properties of the self, but of the body. These are but hindrances, advantages or challenges to us in the process of progressive self-realisation, which is one aspect of the very purpose of life and of being born. Physical appearance can just as well express or also conceal the true self, depending on circumstances and the individual. One should not judge the self by outward signs or physical appearance. Nor should one judge it by the present or immediate condition of a person. Much is hidden that cannot be seen, the inward reality of the heart and soul is deeply hidden from others.

Now, the 'I' is capable of reflecting over things without attaching itself to the object reflected on. To the extent, however, that I am attached to the body and hence to the ego-feeling, identifying unduly with my previous experiences, my supposed qualities or my various types of possession. So I become less actively myself and more passively under limitations imposed by the self-image. This image may well have become irrelevant to my situation, for self-images tend to stultify the growing, changing and transcending 'I' of authentic selfhood.

2) Social aspects of the self: The majority of the elements and ideas of mental life concerning selfhood, identity and personality are derived from others, making it natural to regard the self-image primarily in a social framework. In relation to the world, the self is defined in terms of society and this means that personal identity depends for all worldly purposes to a large extent upon how others define us. This 'social self' is based upon a persons many qualities and achievements. It is only at best a part of the Self in the higher sense, and is definitely not the essential or 'pure' selfhood.

There is no clear dividing line between the physical and the social basis of a self-image. For example, a mutilation of the chest and face is not necessarily seen as undesirable, for it depends entirely upon the social surroundings. What we may regard as meaningless bodily mutilation is, in certain tribes, admired as a ritual proof of adulthood and courage. In certain tribes in Africa and the East Indies, for example, the correct traditional physical scars or apparent 'deformities' are a proof of completed initiation, of adulthood and so on. The same applied, say, to facial sword-wounds in men in nineteenth-century Prussia; they were a cherished mark of manhood. Many examples can still be found all around the world. This illustrates how crucial a role the internalised views of others usually play in the formation and maintenance of self-images. 'What others think you are' tends to define one's own way of thinking in many respects.

Therefore 'what others think you are' - taken in as part of one's mind - tends to define the self-image in many respects. However, despite this, a person who some think has a pleasant appearance can feel it to be quite the opposite. In such a case, the negative self-image may have been induced by a minority of others with undue influence, or it may simply have been developed independently of social consensus through other negative experiences destructive of self-confidence.

Most ideas about personality are learned from interaction with others in the process of growing up. Thus the self-image develops primarily as part of a larger social picture, it is a 'psycho-social identity' which is only a changing identity, not our true being. It can still have some lasting, essential elements, while many will only have temporary relevance or even none whatever. The social self-image can be so formed as to create emotional and mental conflict and itself be a chief cause of lack of self-confidence. Such a self-image always requires radical modification to become faithful to the person.

To reject the consensus of others may be either positive or negative for one's self-image(s), depending upon both the actuality or rightness of those judgements and the degree to which the individual is sensitive to the influence of the others. In the long run an overall rejection will usually either involve major deviance from accepted social conventions and laws or else require considerable strength of character and the requisite self-confidence. The association, for example, with bad company will tend to influence towards wrongdoing and so emphasise traits in the self-image that are deviant or negative, while and with good company towards the more positive.

Thus, the ego-feeling becomes a mix of one's own body-based desires and socially acquired desires and attachments. The opinions of others about oneself are 'taken in' from early on and are perhaps often confused with one's own feelings. This results in an ego which is partly formed - or malformed - through the so-called 'internalised other'. Integration of the body-based and mind-based aspects of personality takes place over time and only after the social-mental self-image has developed to a fairly stable maturity. Not to integrate the two stops one becoming more fully oneself, because the self-image personality is then based on unrealistic ideas or self-delusions. This may be due to denial of one's actual character through having a false self-image, or due to having such high expectations or ideals for oneself that they are practically unreachable.

If one has a distorted, inflated or otherwise false self-image, one will not be able to progress in matters which are affected by having it until one overcomes it, i.e. gains self-knowledge. A false self-image is one that denies the facts of one's life, especially and most usually the negative facts. To reject the views of others about oneself may be both positive and negative for a self-image, depending upon the rightness and accuracy - or incorrectness or moral wrong - of such judgements, which again can depend much on whether the company one keeps is good or bad.

3) The Universal Self and self-image: The authentic aspect of personality, as true selfhood or identity, is comparable to a thread which holds together the beads, representing many identity-forming elements that distinguish that person from others. The overall self-image may be a more or less authentic reflection of the original, being more so when the characteristics of the ego, as distinct from the Self, are less determining.

Spiritual psychology teaches that the person you are, at any time in your life, is what you have become as a result of your own previous actions, feelings and thoughts. These can have occurred in a previous life and have accrued to the basic and otherwise unformed personality of the infant, because no human soul is born without characteristics. To identify always with past aspects of oneself, or even present ones, is limiting. A sounder sense of self of a less fragile or dependent kind is more likely when self is identified less with the ego and more with the higher aspects.

However, what we really are at the highest conceivable and/or experiencable level is more than what we have become in mundane terms. Adopting 'universality' of approach, the principle of human and cosmic Unity, any higher psychology goes to the very root human identity. For the present it is enough to note that the concept of "I" is universal and it cannot be explored or properly defined in terms of any physical or social facts. The "I" is distinct from the egoistic 'me' and points towards an identity which remains unchanged throughout all worldly changes. It is the self-inquiry that leads to the inner discovery of the meaning of "I" which gives human evolution its overall orientation, according to Vedanta. This will be further discussed later under the general subject of self-transformation.

CHANGING PERCEPTION OF THE SELF

One thinks, feels, speaks and acts mainly in accordance with one's self-image. It follows from this that a change in self-image can initiate corresponding changes in behaviour. How is the self-image to be changed: towards what and by which means?

The self-confidence that is the foundation of self-realisation cannot, however, be founded on a false self-image. If one has a weak, distorted or inflated self-image, progress will be affected. Confidence in oneself obviously builds on knowledge of one's actual nature and potential development, not in continually dwelling on failings or sins. Those problems of life that cause disquiet drive some to escape mentally from recognising the problem or its causes give a false sense of self-confidence, one that cannot sustain itself.

Placing blame elsewhere is a common trait. It can be consciously done, as when one analyses the causes of one's situation to conclude that it was not of one's own doing. Seldom, however, can one not find a fault in oneself that has enabled one to get into that situation, whatever else is the case. Self-deception can take quite contrary forms, from inferiority to superiority. Refusing to face up to realities around us or denying our own part in difficulties can cause problems. If taken too far, mental disorders like mania, delusions of grandeur, paranoia and depression can result, all of which show some discrepancies between the self-image and actual behaviour. Further than that, the self-image is not then connected to one's true Self as a divine potential.

Confidence in one's work and personal action obviously depends on recognising - but not in dwelling on - personal failings and wrongdoing with a view to changing them. Self-confidence of the inspiring and lasting order, however, builds only on the conviction that we are neither body nor mind, but really are essentially rooted in an unitary greater self, however one wishes to conceive of it or name it.

Self-images change, sometimes with and sometimes without our conscious attempts. By various forms of active thought however, much in life may be transformed... by the right kind of thinking about oneself. Bertrand Russell put forward the basic recipe for what much later became widely known under such titles as 'positive thinking' or 'self-healing' as follows:- "Let your conscious beliefs be so vivid and emphatic that they make an impression upon your unconscious strong enough to cope with the impression made by your nurse or your mother when you were an infant." This approach in increasingly being developed, tried and tested in many areas of human endeavour.

Vividly imagined experience tends to induce the same in 'actual' experience. For tangible results such thinking is to be sustained over the years, rather than short periods. The difference between self-transformation and wishful thinking is always important. Convincement through mere autosuggestion or fantasy is a trap to avoid. Only self-images fully backed up as far as possible by good words and actions are genuine. If we act in harmony with the idea of divinity, the inner image is reinforced by positive experience and by the joy of discovering more of our supra-personal Being. It is crucial, however, that what one posits is what one really wants! Further, only if what one affirms is beneficial, and not an ego desire, does personal development result. It is fateful to let our self-image depend on any aspects of the body or faculties of the mind, or on any of the passing phenomena of the psyche. Identifying with the highest conceivable selfhood may lead on to realisation of - and unity in awareness with - our essential identity.

THE SOCIAL PERSONA

The social persona is the public aspect of our identity which is derived from the attitudes, judgements and reactions of others. The social persona usually reflects one's self-image, especially in so far as it is derived from others and designed for them. The persona is what today is called one's 'public image', the 'face' that a person presents to the world... in other words, those aspects of the ego which are projected - whether in full or partial awareness - by a person to inform the social environment as to his or her 'social identity'.

The persona obviously need not be a true reflection of the person's own nature or true personality, but a suitable form of social camouflage. The persona is usually adopted and gradually built-up for the sake of adjustment to the particular social environment to enable one to 'fit in' better. It can therefore be modified and changed, in chameleon fashion, when surrounding conditions change without seriously affecting either the ego or the fuller personality.

The relative importance of the development of various types of social personae for the development of personality is differently estimated by writers on the psyche. One key condition in the nurture of character and of a good self-image is that individuals are not all cut down to the same Procrustean bed of one definitive moral or religious code. All narrow fundamentalist ideas that reduce the universal vision of selfhood will eventually infringe self respect and respect of others. In doing mental violence against some, social harmony is the price that will be paid. A good maxim for one person can be fatal for another. From childhood onwards we accumulate experiences which affect us in our thoughts, feelings and actions so that we develop a specific personality. The personality is formed in the interplay between our attempts to protect, satisfy and express ourselves and the surrounding world of people and things... that is, the personal relationships into which we are born and those we enter into, the groups or organisations of the society we depend on.

In the 'social behaviourism' of G.H. Mead and the work of many whom have been influenced by it, the social character of thought is greatly emphasised and the development of the ego (that is called the 'self' in Mead's terminology) is seen exclusively as the result of social language and acts² . Mead held that one can only approach the study of individual behaviour as the expression and result of social groups, though he also recognised the inner life of the individual as a process the development of which must also be appreciated as a whole and from within1. But thereby he ruled out any idea of the ego as being self-generated or at least self-sustained. He appears therefore to have tended to overemphasise group influence, not making clear enough that group behaviour is always a result of personal actions, however strongly influenced by group pressures etc.

Though some Marx influenced thinkers have analysed the ego and arrived at the extreme view that it is entirely a product of social influences³ , it is indisputable that the ego is partly formed by the opinions of others and through society at large.

The Freudian term 'superego' denotes those ideas, beliefs or patterns of mental and emotional which a person has taken in during upbringing and education which act as an internal control both upon natural instincts and socially unacceptable impulses. The superego thus refers back to those external influences, made one's own by a person largely in the form of ideas and feelings of social responsibility. It constrains the desires and sets limits to behaviour in all kinds of ways. The superego describes a part of a person's inner life, having become 'internalised' at a time when the individual was very impressionable and probably incapable of resisting such thoughts.

The 'superego' is sometimes characterised as the 'voice' which insists that one 'ought' or 'ought not' act as one's impulses or ambitions would dictate. Freud's naturalistic and anti-spiritual perspective unfortunately caused him to identify all conscience as superego. But the superego is not necessarily at all in agreement with the true voice of conscience, for its dictates may often be extreme, irrational and wrong, having been enforced upon the vulnerable child by ignorant parents or teachers in highly confusing ways.

The ideas, feelings and habits that make up the superego originate outside the person, while the genuine call of conscience originates within the person, its source being the higher nature (Buddhi). The conflict between the demands of a strong and oppressive superego and the pure conscience often generate very great confusion, pain and mental unbalance.

BEING ONESELF

As stated from the start, there is a great deal of confusion of ideas connected with the self, personal identity and becoming oneself (or self-development) in modern psychology. This confusion is compounded by philosophical ideas and popular notions. Much is said about expressing oneself and developing oneself as a means towards 'being oneself'. This has found its way into many fields of human activity, from innovative psychotherapies to new semi-spiritual movements of every rainbow hue and it has influenced branches of liberal market management theory and not least the politics of anti-collectivist or 'populist' movements and parties.

There are two main avenues of approach to being oneself, 1) being oneself in the sense of not being other than one is 2) becoming truly oneself, realising what one is in the deepest possible spiritual sense.

The first avenue is a prerequisite to the second. It implies not being other than one is, such as by adopting a false self-image, pretensions, deceptions of others by playing roles and so forth. This in itself is not necessarily a simple or straightforward development, as we shall see. The second avenue is that of the lifelong process of self-discovery through understanding oneself in relation to the world and all that is, and so acting in accordance with a true vision of the potentiality of human selfhood.

To be oneself obviously does not simply mean to become what everyone else thinks one should, but only what one's own judgement, conscience and convictions require. Being oneself is surely opposed to adopting a false self. To stand against the pressure of the herd, the group and the mass is a challenge from which individual integrity and self-integration can be won. Not for the sake of opposition, but for the sake of what is right and best according to one's understanding and one's principles. Reaching conviction about principles and being able to stand up for them fully is often the result of a long process of maturation, depending at least partly on the fortunes of upbringing and background.

Many confuse the idea of being oneself with desires to do whatever one wants if one can. Being oneself in the authentic sense does doubtless require a measure of personal freedom from undue social controls, oppression of one kind and another, the suppression of human rights and so forth. How it is interpreted, in physical, social or spiritual ways, will depend on the phase of one's development.

The idea of 'being oneself' has become a general key to self-development and the freest possible expression of one's own nature, including one's most basic and personal wants and desires. It thus often stands partly in opposition to those moral, religious and political traditions that would, in the common interest, set clear limits to individualism and to its unhindered expression.

Since the accent is on selfhood and individual desires and rejecting limits to personal growth, the search for the self tends to degenerate into a 'self-seeking' movement by overlooking the crucial role of duty, such as in taking full personal responsibility in social, ecological and economical questions.

The ideal of individual freedom of selfhood is associated with liberal optimism about human nature. The humanistic ideal of liberality - connected with that of Rousseau-inspired 'social liberation' is based on an assumption about human nature, one taken to its logical extreme by anarchists like Proudhon and Fourier. In a nutshell, this is the belief that, if allowed to live and develop 'naturally' without any impositions from the repressive traditional family or society, the human child would develop into a liberated person whose authentic self would reach its full and benevolent expression in a harmonious social environment. This anarchistic-utopian ideal is still a motivating dream, though in various and modified forms, in many of the new combinations of self-development and transformative teaching. Of course, on the economical-political level, the liberal idea was to work for unhindered free trade, the open exchange of all ideas and freedom of expression ('a free press'). This has led to many 'freedoms', from freedom to travel (hence mass tourism) and some would even say to the over-liberal freedoms that would let one 'get away with anything'.

How far this ideal can be reconciled to traditional ideals of self-development, self-control and altruistic self-denial is questionable. On the one hand we must be aware that the undue suppression of natural human needs by external or social pressures can cause character weaknesses and mental disorder. On the other hand, if the idea of self-fulfilment takes forms that lead to an unrestricted 'free-for-all' to satisfy whatever supposed needs or sheer wants occur to a person, conflicts and the breakdown of civilised values may result. Some hold that this is already well under way, witness the relative demise of the family's role in life, increasing drug-dependencies, the ever-greater superficiality of culture, unbounded freedom of expression, the massive mental illness figures and increased and unheard-of forms of violence and other inhuman aberrations. Others still hold that the root cause of these tendencies is rather the denial - through deprived upbringing, wrong educational ideals or social controls etc. - of some basic human need or 'natural right' of the individual to live expansively and require whatever is needed of the environment to that end.

In the postwar intellectual movement called existentialism, the call to 'be oneself' was elevated into philosophical theories of 'authentic' selfhood⁴. By and large, existentialists rejected any notion of the individual ever having one true self or unchanging identity. They laid most weight on the need of freeing oneself from all pressures towards mere conformity and bland acceptance of the shadowy sides of the status quo. This usually inclined them towards either anarchism, liberal humanism or bohemian socialism. They made selfhood a relative quantity, something initially enforced by the circumstances of birth, background or class and subsequently modified through 'existential choices'. Freedom to be or become who or what one liked (always within the bounds of possibility) was the idea crucial to existentialism... one which has become a mainspring in various social, psychological and spiritual teachings today.

The ability to recognise one's weaknesses, limitations and failings is the beginning of being oneself in a more secure way, for it is a prerequisite for self-discovery. The failure to see or face one's weaknesses is the greatest of weaknesses. To try to 'neutralise' one's problems by complaining, expecting or hoping that others or society will act or make amends for them is commonly met with, looking for causes of ills that beset one everywhere but in oneself.

Being oneself is not fully achieved until a person reaches a relatively stable, integral personality. This includes the ability to recognise and deal with one's failings and difficulties without undue mental stress or self-deception. Many different problems can occur from which one may wish to escape. Some are due to strictly objective conditions. If one cannot alter these, perhaps one works where possible to remove oneself from them as soon as one can. For most people the question of how best to earn a living and find a tolerable social environment is at some time in life a problem that requires major and often long-term efforts. Such a challenge is usually only avoided at a price, such as by drinking and drug-taking, while the problem itself always remains in the background ready to return when one's senses return.

For anything to be a problem it must also be experienced as such, otherwise it is not actually a problem for the person concerned. There are people who can live happily and unselfishly under conditions that most of us could not envisage ever tolerating. One cannot simply say that 'objectively' they have problems of which they are not aware or which will become evident to them under certain conditions, for one cannot ever know such things with certainty. One's own ideas about problems which one projects onto other persons or societies may themselves be the major problem!

Seldom if ever are such 'real' material problems purely that. One's own ideas, - one's expectations, dislikes or desires, say - usually lie at the root of a problem and compound it. Indeed, problems can often arise purely because of the tastes one holds on to, the feelings, opinions that one will not change or give up. This can be so extreme that people sometimes suffer lives of depression and chaotic relationships largely because of their mistaken and fanatically-held beliefs and habits. Such 'subjective' problems, though their consequences are real enough, can be solved in a huge variety of ways or they may also sometimes be dealt with by such means as mental therapy, practically-oriented spiritual teachings, meditation and so forth, depending on the nature of the problems.

THE FALSE SELF

'Be yourself!' was once just a common admonition to persons who gave themselves airs and had pretensions of being something they were not or who played at being like someone else.

This idea of liberation from a false self or of gaining 'personal autonomy' has become part of mainstream psychological thinking today both for better and worse. All depends, for course, at what level the word 'self' is understood; from the ego-self to the selfless Self. Traditionally, psychodynamic theories such as Freud's were quite pessimistic in outlook, despite the aims of psycho-analytic therapy to change the individual. Freud believed in the need of strong social controls because of the baser instincts everywhere found in man. This tendency was rejected by Wilhelm Reich, beginning with his theory of character analysis⁵ , the main assumption being that the natural and healthy psyche is repressed by authoritarian society, was combined with an optimism about the possibility of healing the crippling effects of society on the lives of individuals. For Reich, not being oneself and not being able to express oneself freely (especially on the sexual level) was the cause of all the ills of civilisation. In more modern psychotherapy influenced by Reich and his various followers, transformation of the self was to be effected through techniques of working on the body (esp. the muscular 'character armor'). Alfred Perles' therapy also accents the idea of being oneself, mainly through expressing and often fulfilling one's desires.nn

Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, rejected the idea that a person could really have a definitive or 'fixed' identity and poured scorn on those who behaved as though they did for merely playing false roles for themselves and others and so exhibiting 'bad faith' (mauvais foi). To adopt a false self was a common form of deception, whether this took the form of sheer pretension, personal misrepresentation and dishonesty, bourgeois complacency or much else besides. Sartre thus threw some light on behaviour that lacks personal engagement and individual integrity and on its various possible causes, especially those arising from anti-humanistic social traditions and pressures. One 'self' for Sartre was essentially one's personal history, the sum total of one's actions, past and present... for which one was also responsible.

Sartre characterised some of the many ploys of this false sense of having a fixed nature for which one cannot be held responsible through literary work. One example of 'bad faith' is observable in what Sartre isolated as the 'spirit of seriousness'. This is an affectation that aims, under false pretenses, to gain trust from others and so hopes to influence them. The self-centered and self-justifying compensate for their lack of authenticity by an ever-serious mien. It expresses a strong sense of self-importance and a corresponding lack of self-irony, which is why one-sided moralists and preaching religionists are most often seen to wear its garb.

DIVIDED SELFHOOD

The psychology of personality 'splits' and multiple identities has many aspects, since there are apparently countless ways in which people experience this and to varying degrees. There is a very extensive literature on this subject, though far from all of it leads to better understanding of the individual concerned. Most of it is concerned with the possibility of physical causes and corresponding types of treatment. To what extent or in which person such derangements are caused by genetic or other physical factors - or even influenced by them at all, is still highly uncertain. Persons in the close social environment of those with such dual-personality problems, however, can seldom be entirely exonerated from all responsibility. Average social reactions to the mentally disturbed, such as lacking understanding, care and love, can contribute to perpetuating and worsening such 'deranged' responses.

Psychologists have naturally long tried to discover what causes or motivates people to adopt a false self or to lose mental integration in amnesia and multiple personality disorder, so as to seek how to help cure them. There is a large literature on disturbed and divided selfhood, not least of which in significance is found in descriptive novels and criminological biographies, as well as in psychiatry.

As has been touched on, by investigating deeply into the complex of confused identifications and distorted family and other relationships, the manner in which so-called 'schizophrenic' symptoms arose may be traceable. The urges and reasoning in the individual and surrounding family and society may frequently have made these symptoms appear as 'the only possible response' to impossible situations that have developed through time.

Disturbed development of selfhood and self-perceptions evidently arise where a person's sense of security has been seriously threatened, when one fears loss of the trust by others, the cutting-off of acceptance, respect, love and the disturbance of a positive social identity, status, professional position and so on. Many of the problems of dual and multiple personalities appear to have originated very early in life and to have been caused by was analysed as 'a double-bind' situation⁶, whereby opposite signals are conveyed simultaneously to the child who is not equipped to perceive the contradiction as such. For example, to tell a child that one loves him or her while at the same time rejecting the child by other definite means sends two opposing signals. The child's confusion causes the gradual development of two opposed responses, which can be the core of a dual personality that develops through further time and with such 'double-binding'.

The issue of authentic vs. false self is much complicated by the fact that people in vulnerable positions, especially during childhood and youth, can be made to harbour a sense of guilt, which is unfounded in fact yet which has been inculcated and enforced by the oppressive control and irrelevant preaching of others. Guilt reflects fear of some kind, especially the fear that one has done wrong. If one has been misled at an early stage of development as to what is natural and normal in life, such as is common in some rigid and heartless systems of supposedly 'religious' moral training, the inherent desires of a person will come into conflict with the repressive guilt-feelings. Such a 'guilt-complex' can be extremely painful and powerful and can have many unforeseen consequences, from great suffering and self-destructive behaviour to feelings of intense anxiety and desperation which may lead to acts of revenge of all manner.

It is almost certain that fear and anxiety play a role in many persons whose behaviour deviates from a sound line of development. Though there are fears of many things and anxieties that seem to have no identifiable object of fear, the roots of these problems are invariably to be sought in the frustration of desires. The desires of both body and mind are here involved, especially those having to do with a sense of security.

'PURE SELFHOOD'

In reality, what ultimately effects the most lasting changes in one's life is not the personal ego. Vedanta teaches that the Overself is the innermost motor of forward developments, being pure awareness. It's presence is intimated in the witnessing 'I' that characterises (individual) awareness and is always immanently present somehow within or 'behind' consciousness. This 'I-awareness' (for want of a commonly established term for it) is not to be confused with the mind, as is very often done. If I do not identify myself with my body or even with the mind's various products (perceptions, conceptions, memories, dreams etc.), then I am aware of an independent persistence of consciousness, separable from any of the variety of thoughts, feelings and other range of 'mental objects' that impinge on it and which we usually but too inaccurately would say go to 'make up consciousness'.