What is meant by the term "higher self"

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Being at the centre in what respect / environment? When washing the dishes or beyond the thought of this world / reality / mind?

Just trying to understand your understandings of where identification ceases to be .


x daz x

Yes, I gotcha Dazzer - I agree, that question is really at the heart of it...
Well, as I see it, actually there is no clear point at which fundamental, persistent identity ceases to be. It just is Though of course the costumes may change between scenes

I explained more above, and I hope you've got some nice meaty responses or questions for me to chew on :)

Peace & blessings
7L

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Daz, hello there.
Yes as I was saying to Eelco earlier...

The being at the centre which eludes identification is simply your individuated aspect of Unity consciousness.
Distinct and unique, and never interchangeable or replaceable.

Yet our individuated consciousness is also never wholly "separate" or isolated...which is why some get confused when looking for something wholly discrete, like an object with definable borders.

This is one of the deeper aspects of the realisation of the illusion of separation IMO and many are understandably confused because IMO the usual texts and discussions of this do not make these points in ways that are easy for modern minds to grasp their meaning.

Also, just because one has experienced some illumination doesn't mean it's easy to convey any of the meaning or flavour...hence the difficulty.
But IMO this is one of the deeper truths of realisation...we come to a deeper understanding of the illusion of separation,
and that includes knowing not only...

1) that we are never truly alone or isolated

...but also

2) that our individuated consciousness -- just like our bodies and our fingerprints -- is unique, irreplaceable, non-interchangeable, and of immeasurable value and worth.

Peace & blessings
7L

I don’t really want to get too technical lol, all I know is that while you are aware of yourself within experience of the mind-body you are identified through such an awareness .

Sure there are various levels / layers and degrees involved that pertains to what one concludes about themselves but it seems for some that memory loss somehow dissolves the sense of themselves within self identity .

I have explained to some extent how one still retains a sense of their identity in such cases .

I agree about what you said about fundamental consciousness ..

In my eyes the only time self identity dissolves is when there is no longer awareness of self / mind .. for the mind is the means and the environment for experience .

This is why I questioned what you said ..

The being at the centre which eludes identification is simply your individuated aspect of Unity consciousness.

I wasn’t sure if identity was eluded when washing the dishes .. because you mentioned 'individuated' and in my eyes anything individuated is of the mind .


x daz x

[Jyotir]

Hi Mystik,

The term ‘higher self’ is a popular Western euphemism which refers to higher aspects of consciousness in the individuated being, ie., the soul, which in more precisely defined systems usually includes: jivatman, purusha, central being. These are individuated aspects of the higher planes of consciousness, usually superconscient to our normal waking consciousness.

Those are the parts of being, “higher/highest self”, that are fully permanently God-conscious, fully aware of- because they are, the True Self; have access to the entire range of consciousness as Identity (in all incarnations), and are inherently gnostic/knowing in the most profound sense.

What is called ‘higher self’, is really the gnostic comprehensive aspect of being of which the ignorant counterpart - ego - is the shadow or false construct of individuation in and through what we experience, is separative, objective, shifting in focus, partial, limited, superficial (and why often described as illusion/delusion).

“A separation, acute in practice though unreal in essence, divides the total being of man, the microcosm, as it divides also the world-being, the macrocosm. Both have a higher and a lower hemisphere, the parārdha and aparārdha of the ancient wisdom. The higher hemisphere is the perfect and eternal reign of the Spirit; for there it manifests without cessation or diminution its infinities, deploys the unconcealed glories of its illimitable existence, its illimitable consciousness and knowledge, its illimitable force and power, its illimitable beatitude. The lower hemisphere belongs equally to the Spirit; but here it is veiled, closely, thickly, by its inferior self-expression of limiting mind, confined life and dividing body. The Self in the lower hemisphere is shrouded in name and form; its consciousness is broken up by the division between the internal and external, the individual and universal; its vision and sense are turned outward; its force, limited by division of its consciousness, works in fetters; its knowledge, will, power, delight, divided by this division, limited by this limitation, are open to the experience of their contrary or perverse forms, to ignorance, weakness and suffering.”

- Sri Aurobindo; Synthesis of Yoga, The Ladder of Self-transcendence, p 446

As mentioned in other posts, the ‘higher self’ is not objectively separate from the being, but rather, is the most aware aspect within the complex amalgam of consciousness available to/within a human being - a microcosm of all-that-is. The problem is, are we aware of the soul’s view of that vast range of consciousness or are we identified with a ‘lower’ limited and partial consciousness and illusory awareness?

‘Higher self’ is always present, but our conscious awareness as identified with that aspect of being is meager, rarely consistent or sustained; and whatever awareness we do have of it is substantially modified by mediations of lower principles - mind and ‘emotions’ - which have their own ranges of expression; limited cognitions which generally predominate, are habitual unless transcended, and which are intrinsically more objective, separative, limited and ignorant.

Any progressive deliberate practice (e.g., yoga: meditation, service, discrimination) that provides greater and sustained access to the higher principles within, in order to achieve a permanent oneness with the soul‘s view and experience of Reality is what constitutes spirituality.

An obvious variant application of Occam’s razor: Go directly to a good source, e.g., a few pages directly from the pen of an illumined spiritual master can be significantly more efficacious for growth and understanding than incessant speculative opinion and sterile debate. Of course, it needs to be said that everyone is ultimately responsible to determine what constitutes and qualifies each of those conditions as valid (or not) for their own personal needs.

In that regard, I recommend what has served me well over the years and therefore suggest reading the appropriate passages on these specific subjects within the writings of Sri Aurobindo for greater clarity and understanding, but especially per the OP: Letters on Yoga.
See my thread on that text, including an index of topics covered >> here << at SF book forum

~ J

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I don’t really want to get too technical lol, all I know is that while you are aware of yourself within experience of the mind-body you are identified through such an awareness .

Sure there are various levels / layers and degrees involved that pertains to what one concludes about themselves but it seems for some that memory loss somehow dissolves the sense of themselves within self identity .

I have explained to some extent how one still retains a sense of their identity in such cases .

I agree about what you said about fundamental consciousness ..

In my eyes the only time self identity dissolves is when there is no longer awareness of self / mind .. for the mind is the means and the environment for experience .

This is why I questioned what you said ..

The being at the centre which eludes identification is simply your individuated aspect of Unity consciousness.

I wasn’t sure if identity was eluded when washing the dishes .. because you mentioned 'individuated' and in my eyes anything individuated is of the mind .


x daz x

Too funny Dazzer....this thread is pretty technical IMO

So anyway, I agree with you too. I can substitute "fundamental consciousness" for every instance of "mind" in your post with total clarity.
I myself never resonated with a literal read of the eastern texts that say there is no self and no being at the centre.

There certainly is an individuated consciousness and thus an individuated experience of self, in my experience. And...in my own understanding, it is persistent over time and is not bound or limited to any one incarnation experience or lifetime. Your gender is not persistent, nor your size or colouring in any one lifetime, nor any of that.
That's why much of that is said to fade away and you will have to choose how to best represent yourself :)
But who you are at core, now that is persistent. That is the gem we polish.

But many do seem to be confused by the fact of fundamental consciousness being both individuated AND ALSO interconnected, non-isolated and non-discrete (no separate "hard edges")...
That is a common fallacy ("it's all or nothing") and a misrepresentation of the fact and experience of consciousness, IMO.
But as a result, many seem to think this seeming paradox somehow must or may render their experience of individuated consciousness as illusory or imaginary.
Not at all, IMO...in fact our individuated consciousness is the most persistent, central, authentic, and otherwise "real" aspect of our reality.

So...IMO the being at the centre is just who I am at centre and my being has not eluded me yet, hahaha!
Rather I was just trying to speak to the question on this issue that many raise, having been understandably a bit foggy on this aspect if we go by a literal read of some of these old texts.

Thanks for your followup and for actually reading that long email on fundamental consciousness BTW...very neighbourly of you

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi Mystik,

The term ‘higher self’ is a popular Western euphemism which refers to higher aspects of consciousness in the individuated being, ie., the soul, which in more precisely defined systems usually includes: jivatman, purusha, central being. These are individuated aspects of the higher planes of consciousness, usually superconscient to our normal waking consciousness.

Those are the parts of being, “higher/highest self”, that are fully permanently God-conscious, fully aware of- because they are, the True Self; have access to the entire range of consciousness as Identity (in all incarnations), and are inherently gnostic/knowing in the most profound sense.

What is called ‘higher self’, is really the gnostic comprehensive aspect of being of which the ignorant counterpart - ego - is the shadow or false construct of individuation in and through what we experience, is separative, objective, shifting in focus, partial, limited, superficial (and why often described as illusion/delusion).


As mentioned in other posts, the ‘higher self’ is not objectively separate from the being, but rather, is the most aware aspect within the complex amalgam of consciousness available to/within a human being - a microcosm of all-that-is. The problem is, are we aware of the soul’s view of that vast range of consciousness or are we identified with a ‘lower’ limited and partial consciousness and illusory awareness?

‘Higher self’ is always present, but our conscious awareness as identified with that aspect of being is meager, rarely consistent or sustained; and whatever awareness we do have of it is substantially modified by mediations of lower principles - mind and ‘emotions’ - which have their own ranges of expression; limited cognitions which generally predominate, are habitual unless transcended, and which are intrinsically more objective, separative, limited and ignorant.

Any progressive deliberate practice (e.g., yoga: meditation, service, discrimination) that provides greater and sustained access to the higher principles within, in order to achieve a permanent oneness with the soul‘s view and experience of Reality is what constitutes spirituality.

An obvious variant application of Occam’s razor: Go directly to a good source, e.g., a few pages directly from the pen of an illumined spiritual master can be significantly more efficacious for growth and understanding than incessant speculative opinion and sterile debate. Of course, it needs to be said that everyone is ultimately responsible to determine what constitutes and qualifies each of those conditions as valid (or not) for their own personal needs.

In that regard, I recommend what has served me well over the years and therefore suggest reading the appropriate passages on these specific subjects within the writings of Sri Aurobindo for greater clarity and understanding, but especially per the OP: Letters on Yoga.
See my thread on that text, including an index of topics covered >> here << at SF book forum

~ J

Jyotir, thank you so much for your lovely, informed contribution.

BTW...I wish that Sri A.'s teachings on the moral life were mainstream knowledge globally.
His writings on a practical moral life and the logistics of moral and ethical behaviour renew my faith in humanity, no matter how uncommon he was both for his day and for our own

Peace & blessings
7L

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

[...] I wish that Sri A.'s teachings on the moral life were mainstream knowledge globally.
His writings on a practical moral life and the logistics of moral and ethical behaviour renew my faith in humanity, no matter how uncommon he was both for his day and for our own

Hi 7L,


I share that sentiment; also why I encourage people to read his writings.
It seems that when such a figure comes in to make some changes or clarify, they are usually centuries ahead of their time. What happens then is the gradual testing, assimilation, and integration of those teachings by receptive individuals who contribute to expediting the collective change - it’s just a question of how long that takes.

If you are so inclined, please cite any specific passages - other than the essay I recently recommended in another thread (which one was it?) - that you think are exemplary or inspiring in this regard. I’m always looking to explore the material, and there is a lot of it. (unless you feel off topic here)


~ J

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi 7L,


I share that sentiment; also why I encourage people to read his writings.
It seems that when such a figure comes in to make some changes or clarify, they are usually centuries ahead of their time. What happens then is the gradual testing, assimilation, and integration of those teachings by receptive individuals who contribute to expediting the collective change - it’s just a question of how long that takes.

If you are so inclined, please cite any specific passages - other than the essay I recently recommended in another thread (which one was it?) - that you think are exemplary or inspiring in this regard. I’m always looking to explore the material, and there is a lot of it. (unless you feel off topic here)


~ J

Jyotir, hello there! Well for starters, in Volumes 2 and 4 on Letters on Yoga,

I read his discussion in Volume 2 on the nuances of various types and aspects of divine love and human love with great interest...though I cannot to seem find the exact passages that struck me before, all of it is good.

Also the discussion in Volume 4 on sex, since it is written especially for spiritually seeking men and I found it very concrete and insightful, as well.

There was more for certain...hopefully will come to me when I take another look.

Peace & blessings
7L

peace. what's higher self, that's peaced by one's reaped what sowed