Psychological theories are based on the experiences of the one construction the theory. If the Vedantic Self becomes a differentiated component of one’s experience then it will naturally weave its way into one’s psychological model of the mind.

New knowledge affects the old. Such has always been the case. As we go on learning and differentiating our experience our theories change to accommodate our growth. In this case if the existence of the Vedantic Self is differentiated from the psyche then new knowledge is produced in that act of differentiation which then must be accounted for in the formulation of the psychological theories that inform our work.

According to Vedanta it is the lack of differentiation of the self from the psyche and world that is responsible for our pain and suffering and so the solution to our problems lies ultimately in Self Knowledge. Psychological health in Vedanta depends on this differentiation. To the degree that a person identifies the self with that which it is not through either projection or superimposition to that degree the person suffers.

In my first book the Jungian Myth and Advaita Vedanta the emphasis was more philosophical in nature integrating the Jungian containing myth with the vision of Advaita Vedanta. My feeling was that an understanding of Jung would add something of Significance to the Vedantic means for attaining a relative state of emotional well being while Vedanta would give to Jung’s model of the psyche nondual wholeness a dimension of the psyche and world not properly understood by Jung. This book the Vedantic Self and Jungian Psyche continues on with the same theme the focus concentrating now on the healing capacity of each discipline and their integration into a greater whole.

To understand Jungian psychology as Jung often stated one has to experiences it that is one has to go through the process of analysis themselves. Similarly to understand the vision of Vedanta one has to be taught by a teacher who has himself or herself undergone its teaching methodology. Both disciplines require a seeing of what is being said. Neither can be grasped if only experienced academically in the third person. And so it is difficult to ask a book to do what really requires a living relationship. But still the written word can be handled in such a way that a careful reader can gain insights that touch his or her personal experience in meaningful and transformative ways. I have written the book with this intention and hope that you the reader will find it helpful.