The Higher Self, soul, Atman & Brahman, the unconscious, etc.

I wanna hear your views on this, surely folks will diverge in opinion with this stuff and I wanna hear yours

The higher self, is it us? Do we want to become it or ally with it? Is it already us? What can it do? What will it be it's involvement at our death? How is it involved with magic and astral projection? Is it even real? Are we real? Is it even worth asking?

To my mind, the Higher Self is merely a NewAge affectation as well as an unnecessary complication. Who was writing your post? Your 'Lower Self', your 'Base Self', or heaven help us, your oh-so-yucky 'Ego'? Pondering one's alleged Higher Self is an invititation to wallow in excessive self-centeredness and solipsistic narcissism, in my opinion. Do we really need an idealized idea of ourselves divorced from our everyday consciousness? If you believe in it, fine, I for one find the concept useless (not the HGA though, for me it's an ineffable entity separate from me).

I think we should rather strive to work with what we can already perceive - our minds, befuddled as they may be, mysterious as they may seem. And yes, I'm firmly in the anatman camp: no self, no soul, and no Higher Self either. Keeps things nice and simple.

HoldAll said:

HGA

Click to expand...

Holy Guardian Angel, from what I understand, would be similar to what was meant by "higher self" or "Soul".

HoldAll said:

work with what we can already perceive

Click to expand...

I suppose you don't take much of a high view of working with the inpercievable unconscious then?

IllusiveOwl said:

Holy Guardian Angel, from what I understand, would be similar to what was meant by "higher self" or "Soul".

I suppose you don't take much of a high view of working with the inpercievable unconscious then?

Click to expand...

Everybody has their own ideas of the HGA, I like to conceive of it as a being assigned to me at birth that knows me inside out because it has been with me every moment of my life but is so much more than me, or even an idealized super-perfect version of me, so my idea of the HGA goes way beyond the Higher Self - after all, it is an angel, a supernatural entity and not just a deluxe edition version of myself.

I'm really paranoid about deceiving myself (perhaps that was why my reaction to your post was so harsh and hostile) so I don't see myself trusting any communications that suddenly arrive in my head. I confess I tried a couple of times to speak with my HGA but the conversation was rather forced; I kept 'hearing' the voices of people I know and its answers were in line with my current thinking, so I quickly discounted those attempts as invalid. It may be also because I'm still a beginner and not advanced enough for such work, dunno.

HoldAll said:

way beyond the Higher Self

Click to expand...

Itzhak Bentov had a view of the cosmos and the Higher Self that I enjoy; he places the Higher Self as the monad, the 'end result' that comes to "know itself" through this process of evolution and incarnation. In that regard it wouldn't be possible for anything to be above it because it is the nameless unspeakable Tao, everything, Brahman and such.

Though some people also use it to refer to the Astral body, I'm personally inclined to follow the emenation all the way up to Keter.

HoldAll said:

To my mind, the Higher Self is merely a NewAge affectation as well as an unnecessary complication. Who was writing your post? Your 'Lower Self', your 'Base Self', or heaven help us, your oh-so-yucky 'Ego'? Pondering one's alleged Higher Self is an invititation to wallow in excessive self-centeredness and solipsistic narcissism, in my opinion. Do we really need an idealized idea of ourselves divorced from our everyday consciousness? If you believe in it, fine, I for one find the concept useless (not the HGA though, for me it's an ineffable entity separate from me).

I think we should rather strive to work with what we can already perceive - our minds, befuddled as they may be, mysterious as they may seem. And yes, I'm firmly in the anatman camp: no self, no soul, and no Higher Self either. Keeps things nice and simple.

Click to expand...

I think the "Higher Self" is, like, what the Superego wants to be what it grows up. Or maybe it's the Unconscious after a complete makeover. In any event, like you, I am allergic to theosophical vapors.

IllusiveOwl said:

I wanna hear your views on this, surely folks will diverge in opinion with this stuff and I wanna hear yours

The higher self, is it us? Do we want to become it or ally with it? Is it already us? What can it do? What will it be it's involvement at our death? How is it involved with magic and astral projection? Is it even real? Are we real? Is it even worth asking?

Click to expand...

You can read the Bhagavad-Gita and get a good introduction and explanation to it. You already know the term Atman and Brahman so that's much of the legwork.

Atman is the supra soul. and Brahman is the creator of this Universe. But not the absolute. It's an extend of the absolute. A part of the absolute through Brahman is within your human aggregate since he created this Universe. Alongside is is the apparent soul that determines caste and is the one likely to dissolve upon death unless Moksha is reached.

However there are many Brahman, each one governs a Universe of its own. Our Universe is the smallest one and approximately 155 Trillion years old.

Mars said:

You can read the Bhagavad-Gita

Click to expand...

I already have, several times, and the Upanishads, they're staple holy-texts for me with the Diamond Sutra and Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. I wasn't asking out of ignorance, just curious what your personal opinions are.

Mars said:

Our Universe is the smallest one and approximately 155 Trillion years old.

Click to expand...

How did you find this out?

Xenophon said:

I think the "Higher Self" is, like, what the Superego wants to be what it grows up. Or maybe it's the Unconscious after a complete makeover. In any event, like you, I am allergic to theosophical vapors.

Click to expand...

I'm curious, what do you believe you are? Just a body-mind system? Is magic just done through that system communicating with other beings? You don't believe in some kind of animating diving spark or Holy Guardian Angel?

IllusiveOwl said:

I already have, several times, and the Upanishads, they're staple holy-texts for me with the Diamond Sutra and Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. I wasn't asking out of ignorance, just curious what your personal opinions are.

Click to expand...

That's great and commendable! There aren't many (surprisingly) that spend their time with spiritual stuff and actually read them. People rather read up new age bogus and similar and call it a day.

Let alone, most didn't even heard of them. Which is sad and annoying actually.

IllusiveOwl said:

How did you find this out?

Click to expand...

The lifespan of this universe is 100 years of brahman, thats the lifetime of a (or our) brahman, we are currently in the ~51 ish year of brahman. You can look it up or ask an AI how to calculate vedic time back to our (christian) time. Our Earth is 4.32 Billion years old and has another 4.31 Billion or so to go until it gets destroyed by fire or so, possibly swallowed by the sun.

Some suggest Hindu units of time have been altered at some point, but outside of the age of the universe, all values given in them align with what we rediscovered today. (Besides the other things that has not an equal today yet) So probably the universe is really that old. Would make sense.

But what should actually be taken away from all this that we shouldn't waste time preparing for an end of the world or whatever, how the Abrahamists constantly do (their religion is just waiting until everything is destroyed) but see how we can fully experience all this since we can live millions of times before its over. (To start again though)

I always say that science is just the vedas for very foolish and dumb people. As they regularly come to the same conclusion as the vedas do.

Most scientists of old read the vedas and then came up with quantum theory, nuclear fission and jet engines and similar but scientists of today are just ignorant leftwing idiots that do everything the government tells them to and don't acknowledge anything.

Author Anthony Peake has some great books and writes about the Daemon (our everyday, lower selves) and the Eidolon (our Higher Selves).
According to him, the Eidolon is with us from our previous reincarnations and remembers them and has learnt from them and tries to guide us.....
if we are open to it and try to listen....

The HGA, in my opinion, is the Ideal. As Nietzsche stated was the "Ubermensch" or the "Dionysian Ideal". Granted there is a lot to read in between the lines of Nietzsche but I hope the basic understanding is there.

HoldAll said:

To my mind, the Higher Self is merely a NewAge affectation as well as an unnecessary complication. Who was writing your post? Your 'Lower Self', your 'Base Self', or heaven help us, your oh-so-yucky 'Ego'? Pondering one's alleged Higher Self is an invititation to wallow in excessive self-centeredness and solipsistic narcissism, in my opinion. Do we really need an idealized idea of ourselves divorced from our everyday consciousness? If you believe in it, fine, I for one find the concept useless (not the HGA though, for me it's an ineffable entity separate from me).

I think we should rather strive to work with what we can already perceive - our minds, befuddled as they may be, mysterious as they may seem. And yes, I'm firmly in the anatman camp: no self, no soul, and no Higher Self either. Keeps things nice and simple.

Click to expand...

okay, Someone who claims they dont have a soul clearly has not been properly introduced to the hermetic principles: the more you follow cause and effect and see that all flows from mind and the mind precedes existence, the more it makes more logical sense than if it was just some self emergent property (which is paradoxical and only begs the question.)

contrary to what people straw-man it as, the ego is NOT the whole self, it is merely a piece of the inner trinity of ego, id, and superego. the SUPEREGO is what is your actual self-hood/soul that bridges what you biologically NEED (Id) with what you want (EGO).

the trinity of christian reflects this, 3 parts to make a whole person. LOGOS (the word), body, and spirit.

hope that clears things up for people who think there is a higher self better than your other self, there's not, you just don't know yourself that well.

NightWatchman95 said:

okay, Someone who claims they dont have a soul clearly has not been properly introduced to the hermetic principles

Click to expand...

The Hermetic principles state nowhere that there is a soul, it only claims an All, and the All has no ego or identity, so for one to emerge out if it from nowhere is delusional.

IllusiveOwl said:

The Hermetic principles state nowhere that there is a soul, it only claims an All, and the All has no ego or identity, so for one to emerge out if it from nowhere is delusional.

Click to expand...

you speak more than you know, for those who know dont say such claptrap, this is the trap people get into when they dont branch out their studies in a holistic manner, they get pigeonholed in their thought process and aren't able to cross reference texts like an actual scholar would to understand the link between the all and the individual soul. take your dunning krueger somewhere else, i got sick of it on reddit.

NightWatchman95 said:

when they dont branch out their studies in a holistic manner, they get pigeonholed in their thought process and aren't able to cross reference texts like an actual scholar would to understand the link between the all and the individual soul

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're projecting. The foundation of Buddhism is the lack of an ego substance, I also say again none of those hermetic laws you are fond of mention a personal soul or ego. Being a lordy prick doesn't make you superior or correct, guy.

I understand it must be hard to consider the concept that there is no "you", that there isn't anyone sitting at your computer, typing & sweating, I don't blame you for disagreeing so immaturely, but I don't stand corrected here.

IllusiveOwl said:

It sounds like you're projecting. The foundation of Buddhism is the lack of an ego substance, I also say again none of those hermetic laws you are fond of mention a personal soul or ego. Being a lordy prick doesn't make you superior or correct, guy.

Post automatically merged: Feb 8, 2025

I understand it must be hard to consider the concept that there is no "you", that there isn't anyone sitting at your computer, typing & sweating, I don't blame you for disagreeing so immaturely, but I don't stand corrected here.

Click to expand...

oh great, not a non-dualist... okay, we are from the one as "children" (as in ye are gods and children of the most high), but we are not equivalent to it. thats possibly the mistake you made given your bringing up buddhism. even then, there are dualist/pluralistic schools of Buddhism (tantric Buddhism for example), so its not a one size fits all.

and yes, one of the hermetic principles in polarity, if this is your attempt at offering a "can you see" crap test i passed with flying colors.

NightWatchman95 said:

"can you see" crap test i passed with flying colors.

Click to expand...

You've still made your point as a disrespectful ethnocentric prick, so I wouldn't say "flying colors".

NightWatchman95 said:

oh great, not a non-dualist... okay, we are from the one as "children"

Click to expand...

This is an assumption you've made, an incorrect one. No "child" is born. There is only ever Buddha, the Tao, Krishna, Brahman, the All, your mother, etc. No child is born because no seperate entity could exist. You cling to the illusion of a seperate identity fiercely, and in that clinging you will only make yourself weaker.

NightWatchman95 said:

polarity

Click to expand...

The law of polarity says that one thing may be changed into its opposite, because it's one thing... an example would be you can change hot to cold, because hot and cold are both one thing, the phenomenon of temperature...

IllusiveOwl said:

You've still made your point as a disrespectful ethnocentric prick, so I wouldn't say "flying colors".

This is an assumption you've made, an incorrect one. No "child" is born. There is only ever Buddha, the Tao, Krishna, Brahman, the All, your mother, etc. No child is born because no seperate entity could exist. You cling to the illusion of a seperate identity fiercely, and in that clinging you will only make yourself weaker.

The law of polarity says that one thing may be changed into its opposite, because it's one thing... an example would be you can change hot to cold, because hot and cold are both one thing, the phenomenon of temperature...

Click to expand...

okay, i can see you are not in the mood for a mutual dialogue, so I'll just let you get in trouble with the mods when you wont stop beating people over the head with new age dogma. Thank you and have a nice day, thats the best i can say in this situation.

NightWatchman95 said:

new age dogma.

Click to expand...

Buddhism isn't New Age...

depends what you mean by buddhism. tantric buddhism is based, theravada/zen is dicey.