This conversation between Assagioli and a group of students is one of Assagioli’s most profound portrayals of the Self. He clearly defines the difference between the Self, its radiance, and the ego.
Translation by Ella Ostermann
This conversation between Assagioli and a group of students was not initially intended as a speech to a wider public, so it may appear contrived in places.
The central subject is the Self.
It is an appropriate statement to begin with when we wish to speak of the early identification of the Self, or to affirm our identification with it. It may seem strange that this important fact of our existence and experience, the closest, the innermost consciousness we have, is commonly ignored or even denied.
The self is denied therefore it must be praised
I could say that spiritually it is a scandal, but psychologically it is understandable because of the extroversion of Western civilization. We see the results of this all around us! And therefore the time has come to talk about the Self, and in a sense the greatest service we can do is to praise it. In the East the enlightened minority, but not the masses, have always recognized the Self as a matter of course, and the Bhagavad Gita clearly and scientifically describes the difference between the knower, knowledge and the realm of knowledge. It is then obvious, let us just call it spiritual common sense, that there can be no knowledge or realm of knowledge without a knower who knows it. And yet in the West one speaks of knowledge without speaking of any knower whatsoever, either in ourselves or in others.
I will speak bluntly to describe the situation clearly and to encourage change and to take up the great task and service we can render in this regard. And as usual, as in the case of world peace, we must begin with ourselves. The first thing we must do individually and as a group is to recognize the reality of the Self. Because we are all mentally convinced of it, otherwise we wouldn’t be here! But that is only the beginning. You could say that it is like seeing the mountaintop bathed in sunlight from the valley. At least we know that there is a mountain, that there is a peak, that there is a sun above it. That is the first challenge. So from the bottom of my heart I invite you on an exciting adventure. We are going to climb the mountain. I repeat that it is quite clear that you all know all this intellectually. But we must help each other to realize this knowledge. And this realization is revolutionary, transforming and transfiguring. It helps to have a clear mental perception of the task. Let us first realize that the realization of the Self takes place on different planes and octaves. First on the personality plane. We must understand that the emergence of the self does not start from the top – it begins on the plain. It is a purely psychological experience. But it creates the solid foundation for the rest.
The field of consciousness must be cleansed.
One could also say that we must cleanse the field of consciousness, our personal consciousness, of all content. Both the so-called bad and the so-called good. And sometimes the ‘good’ content is much harder to remove! (see explanatory note 1.)
It is enough if we can do it for five minutes at first! I would start with a few minutes so as not to lose heart, and then increase the time. It is more important to do it for a short time than to strain to do it. Therefore, do it again and again, and it does not have to be perfect. Make it a habit to switch to the center of self-awareness. It is not a peak experience. So many today demand wonderful peak experiences, even if they have to use dubious means, and they overlook the first step or level. Here is another fundamental misunderstanding that must be removed. Here I must say that the error, or rather the cause, is not the blindness of our materialistic civilization, but the language used both in the East and the West. “Destroy the self, destroy the ego, free yourself from the ego, it is only an illusion” and all that. This naturally provokes a violent reaction from the personality. The personality content, and the identification with this content, is confused with the identification with the point of Self-awareness/attention.
If we remove the content, we remain. The self remains. Pure self-awareness, which is not ecstatic, but implies a sense of security, inner certainty, permanence, which is already a lot. But it is a quiet subtle thing. Therefore, all the assurances that “there is no ego” must be qualified… What do you mean by ego? If you mean the whole personality, most of it must be let go. But if you mean the self, then no, because the point of self-awareness remains stable, unchanging and permanent.
This simple clarification, which I can see on your faces that you agree with, helps to eliminate the many confusions, misunderstandings, false attitudes and attempts. I believe that our first task is to clarify what I said. I invite you to do so on all occasions and all the time, starting with yourselves.
The personal self is a reflection of the higher Self.
This can, if you wish, become the essence of personal psychosynthesis, for there can be no synthesis of elements without a synthesizing center. So I think it must be enough for today to have made this quite clear, but I will go a step further. Why does the self at the personality level have this quality? Because it is the reflection of the higher Self, the transpersonal Self, and it reflects, however faintly, the same qualities as its source. If you look at the reflection of the sun in a mirror or in water, you see the light and quality of the sun to a tiny degree, but it is still the quality of the sun. So that explains why the self even at the personality level is stable, secure and indestructible.
Here we enter the area called spiritual psychosynthesis. But as you know, the term transpersonal has been used recently, especially by Maslow. I and others have adopted it, as it is very comprehensive. It is neutral. It can be accepted by everyone. It means first of all ‘beyond the ordinary’ whatever that may be. The word spiritual has several meanings, some rather dubious, which of course arouses resistance from those who are purely mental and intellectual. Then it is much better to use “transpersonal”. William James said very humorously that “souls had gone out of fashion.”
Resistance to disidentification
Q: Some people don’t like it when you say, ” I have a body, but I am not the body, ” and so on. They feel it’s a denial.
RA: That is one of the many misunderstandings that follow from the central misunderstanding. It is not a matter of denial at all, but of putting things where they belong. We need bodies here, and we should take good care of them and appreciate them. It is not only mystics and religious people who do not have the right view, it is also intellectuals who deny their bodies, have no sense of their bodies, do not experience them, are not even aware of them. So we must appreciate the body to the utmost without falsely saying that I am it. What is the difference? I can appreciate an apple, but I am not the apple! We can appreciate many things without being them. So we can also appreciate our bodies, benefit from them, and ask for forgiveness for the sins we commit against them, without saying, “I am it.” That is obvious. But there is an explanation for that mistake. Today, for many people, it is the body that has them. They are slaves to their bodies. So to begin with, what is psychologically needed is a separating step. We have to go into the other trench for a while to achieve that. And this applies to all kinds of possessions. We have to understand that we are constantly being possessed, even obsessed, by all that is conditioned by our background and present life. And as for our material possessions, we do not possess them, they possess us. Those who are attached to money are possessed by money. They do not possess money. And the same applies to the rest of the content of our personality, we are not to be possessed, but to possess in the right way without attachment. The content of the personality is to be appreciated and used just as with money. Not valuing money so highly, rebelling against money, is just a phase of liberation. Money is crystallized divine substance, energy in a usable form. The relationship to it depends entirely on our inner attitude.
SP: I am so grateful to be here. The self, the transpersonal, is a big step. It can take years, maybe a lifetime.
RA: Oh yes, there is no end to the realization – from the personal to the transpersonal, from the transpersonal to the group Self and on to the Universal Self. So you’re going to have fun!
SP: Yesterday someone mentioned that therapists often tend to become almost too involved and preoccupied with the theoretical aspects of psychosynthesis, and as a result end up placing too little emphasis on the practical application of psychosynthetic principles. Would you be so kind as to explain some of the psychodynamic elements and/or reasons for this tendency?
RA: It is quite true what you say, and one could call it the illusion or self-deception of intellectualism. I would like to emphasize that intelligence is wonderful, but that intellect should not possess us! We should try to be as intelligent as we can (and we can be more intelligent and use our intelligence), but not let it possess us, and especially we should understand that all intellectual formulations or theories are just a description and not a real thing.
The self is not a concept but the essence and pure being.
Q: Which Self were you talking about – Self with a small “s” or with a capital “S”?
RA: I was talking about the self in general, without being specific, about the principle of a center of consciousness, a living center of consciousness on all levels, including the personal self and the spiritual Self. They are not fundamentally separate as I said with the analogy of the reflection of the source of light. We must and must insist on the fact that we are subjects, living subjects. Every single human being is a living subject. So simple and yet so difficult to understand. Always go back to that consciousness – that understanding. Put another way, and that answers the question of doctrines. In psychology and philosophy and in general we talk about will, love, mind and thought, but they do not exist. There are only subjects who are willing, living beings who are lovers. The rest are purely intellectual abstractions, useful for didactic purposes, but they do not exist for very long. We have lovers – but there does not exist a being love, a being will. And I try to make it clear in my book on the will that it is not a book about will. The title is Act of Will , and an act presupposes an agent, or an agent who acts and performs acts of will. That is fundamental, remember that! It saves a lot of discussion, detours, and further confusion. It is an existential position – the fact that there are beings, living beings, and that at all levels. We understand it first at the personality level, which is good enough right now, but then we try to go back to the source of reflection. So I will move on slowly to take home three important points. Then we can fly even further. (laughter)
What about the transpersonal Self? It is confusing. People talk about (from the higher experiences) enlightenment, intuition and all the so-called cosmic consciousnesses etc. as being the same. They are not. The fundamental difference is that they are all processes, living processes. They belong to the world of becoming, and even on the transpersonal level there is this wonderful process of becoming, of growth, of all phases of superconsciousness. But the Self, in contrast, is stable, fixed and permanent, or to use a philosophical word “ontological”. It is Pure Being. Pure Being is not becoming and becoming is not Pure Being. Intuition is necessary to grasp this, or the enlightened mind, but they also belong together. Even the higher, let us call it the rational mind, can see this difference, and many philosophers have emphasized the difference between being and becoming, between process and being.
Roberto Assagioli on Abraham Maslow
It was Maslow’s wonderful intuition that was at play in the title of his book ‘Towards a Psychology of Being’. He understood that when we reach the end of our psychological quest we will “be”, but also that present psychology can only be on the way to this goal, and that applies to us too. This gives me the opportunity to warmly advise you to a thorough study of Maslow, both his basic books and ‘ Towards a Psychology of Being ‘ and the new ‘ The Farther Reaches of Human Nature ‘.
Maslow has been a great pioneer who opened the way, but he did not have the opportunity to develop it all. He begins it – he does not give the map and he does not pretend to give it all. He is a pathfinder. He points out paths, and he has come quite far on some of them, but not to the end, and there are still more paths. He is on the way and shows us paths and signposts. The whole practical exploration must be done systematically and scientifically. There is plenty of evidence of experience, but no common reliable map of the inner space. So it is up to us to go on and do it. Let us experience the wonder of being pioneers with others, with a growing minority. So not only is the map not finished, but there is no map. In a way it is good, because a primitive map would create limitations. In a way we should be glad that there is no map, so that we have the opportunity to draw it. Always remember that it is a map. Do yourself a favor and study Maslow thoroughly. A special chapter in his last book, first published in The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology , is called “The 32 Meanings of Transcendence.” It is a perfect example of the myriad meanings that word can have, and he bravely tackled the word transcendence, which of course is not yet a subject of psychology. If you study Maslow, I can refer to it now and in the future, but it can only be our good companion and guide to a certain point in our exploration of the inner world. Nor does he always make the difference between being and peak experiences clear. It would also be too much to ask him to give us the complete, perfect picture. He has given us so much, but as you read, you have to pay close attention, because he does not always make it completely clear.
The difference between the core of the Self and its radiance
Now you understand how much the Self contains. Astronomy illustrates very well the natural inevitable confusion that there is in the beginning between transpersonal experiences, peak experiences and the Self. We say that we can see the sun. But we don’t see the sun! We see the light radiating from the sun. That is something entirely different. We do not see the sun. We do not know what the sun is behind the shining blanket of radiance, and astronomers have recently acknowledged this and expressed it, but I do not remember who, and it does not matter. If we look across the lake at the lights and lamps on the other side, of course we say that we see lamps. But we don’t – the lamps are invisible – we see the light radiating from these bulbs, but we don’t see the bulbs. So at this stage we never see the core directly, the immobile source that just radiates and shines. What we can see is the rays coming from it. So all becoming is a radiating from Being.
Q. Does the ‘clearing’ of the personality content of both “good” and “bad” take place through dis-identification?
RA: Of course. That is the deeper meaning of dis-identification. All I have said this morning is a kind of commentary and explanation of dis-identification as something fundamental. I repeat what I suggested before, that it is sometimes much more difficult to dis-identify from the so-called good in us than from the so-called bad, and on a higher level, from the so-called peak experiences.
Q: How can we praise the Self?
RA: Here too is a paradox. Basically we cannot praise the Self without being the Self, but on the stage of relativity, the stage of the personal self and the self, the reflection of the Self on the stage of personality, we can, so to speak, praise the Higher Self. So the personal self can praise the Higher Self. But when it is united with it, there is no more praise; but as a means of approaching it, of rising towards it, praise is very useful in making known and praising the Self. In the same way, one can, in the good way, worship the sun without directly knowing it, except through its radiance. As you see, there are all sorts of different ways to do the same thing. Perhaps someone can write about the 48 ways of looking at the sun.
The self is the synthesizing center of the personality.
SP: You said that there cannot be a synthesis of elements without a synthesizing center. That seems so central to our subject and to psychosynthesis. Would you please elaborate on that a little more?
RA: Of course there can be nothing without a core, a heart. It cannot be an atom without a core. There can be no living organism without a central life which organizes life for the purpose of permanence and growth. So there is always inevitably a core, and what I have done is to apply this specifically to man, both the personal and the transpersonal. There could be no order, no harmony, no real life in the personality without a synthesizing center. But the personality is not yet a synthesis. It is a constant, dramatic interplay of subordinate centers of subpersonalities, or drives, of different personality contents, and the synthesizing center has plenty to do. But it is there, and no matter how partial and unsatisfactory it may seem, the so-called normal individual, it is a coordinating, uniting element. Therefore, psychosynthesis works first, second, and third from this center. The center you see is not in itself synthesizing. I repeat that it is static and pure, but it acts. It is a paradox, and another central point to understand, and that must be enough for today. Self-radiation . Aristotle called it in a nice paradoxical way the “Unmoved Mover”. It is unmoved, but it sets everything in motion. I suggest that you meditate on the unmoved mover, and on our center, the sun, the unknown mysterious being that sends out enormous rays throughout our solar system and beyond. A jewel is also static, but it sparkles. The jewel receives light, reflects it and sends it back. Even an ordinary mirror reflects most of the light it receives, so it is not so difficult to understand the paradox, the unmoved mover. These points should first be thought through, then gradually realized over the course of days, months, years and decades.
Meditation and conversation with the bodies of the personality
I suggest that we continue for a few days with a simple affirmation and realization of the Self. We can expand it a little day by day. How many minutes can you manage? 5-7-8 – no more. We use an egg timer with a bell. It is intended for boiling eggs, but we will exalt it and use it to fix the time for meditation. It is an enjoyable example of how machines can be used for spiritual purposes. Machines are indifferent. These tape recorders can be used for spiritual messages as well as for espionage. It is the same machine. We must understand that. So there is no need to scold the machine, but there are those who use the machines in a stupid way. (deleted sentence, it is not necessary)
Let us meditate. With dis-identification. Let us relax the body and gently ask it to be still for 8 minutes. Let us do the same with the emotions, asking them to be calm and not active. Now we come to the troublesome mind. It is immediately more difficult, since we have been using it until 2 minutes ago, and since it has recently been ordered to full speed ahead, it has resistance to being completely still at once. It must be tamed. So let us ask our mind, “Will you work well again later, but right now be still for 5 minutes.” That is the way to speak to our different parts – kindly but firmly. Now that we have created some space, some place in consciousness, let us then affirm and announce: I am I, a center of pure self-awareness and will. “We are this Self. This Self is us.” Let us try to recognize it in a triumphant way. It is a unique truth, and it must prevail.
Do not fight with intrusive elements coming from the body, emotions or mind. Do not actively fight them, but keep them on the periphery of consciousness. Lead the consciousness, the attention, back to the radiant core, to the center of pure Self-awareness.
Don’t lose heart if you don’t succeed. This is a training towards. Let us not have the illusion that we will succeed in it. (You have deleted). This is the beginning of the training towards it. Of course we cannot keep all our elements still, but we have to start somewhere, so no discouragement, no discouragement at all! Experience it as elementary training. It is the only thing we can realistically do at this time. Don’t demand too much of the personality.
Q: You say that neither the will nor love is a being. Can’t one just meditate on the will as a being or a great life?
RA: Of course there is a being of love and a being of will. I just mean that there is no abstract concept of love, no theoretical or philosophical concept of will or love. But they are two great cosmic beings, archetypes. All are beings. Ultimately, the great outer space is a being. Of course. But beings in the sense that they are living, subjective, conscious beings. But when philosophers or psychologists discuss love, they do not think of love as a being – they think of the concept of love – a theoretical description of love. That is the difference I want to emphasize. There is no philosophical or psychological concept – a purely mental concept – precisely because they are living beings.
Be good to yourself.
Peak experiences and the self as pure being
Q: In your discussion of the conflation of transcendental experiences, peak experiences, and the Self, you used the image of the light from the sun and the lights shining from bulbs on the other side of the lake. In these images, there are only two of the above aspects. Would you please elaborate on this?
RA: I don’t quite understand, but I will summarize. I mean that we can never see the core, the center, only the emanations from it. We don’t know the core of the Self, only the emanations. And we never see the bulb or the spiral in the bulb on the other side of the lake either. We only see the light. I don’t think there is more to add. The fundamental differences between the core and the emanations from the core are the essence of the Self—the being—and its rays and emanations. All our transpersonal experiences are experiences of emanations, qualities, energies from the Self, but not of the Self itself. Is that clear?
Q: What is a peak experience and how does it fit into the analogy?
RA: Peak experience is just a general term that Maslow used to describe all kinds of transpersonal experiences, mystical, aesthetic, etc. ‘Peak’ is used here to describe an experience at a level above the normal level of consciousness (or personal consciousness). It is not a specific, but a general term for all experiences that are beyond those found at the ordinary level.
That’s what it basically is. I could say that, paradoxically, one thinks, and that the self cannot know itself, because knowledge is a dualistic attitude: the knower and something known. But the Self IS! It doesn’t have to know itself in a human way. It is being – pure being – the essence. I think that makes it clearer.
Methods of Praising the Self
Now I would like to add something about the praise of the Self. Someone asked me to talk about the praise of the Self. I have already given a general answer that applies to each and every one of us. To praise the Self is the same as becoming increasingly aware that we are the Self. But there are more specific ways of praising, especially to others. I will give you a formula, and then I will give you an explanation.
“To proclaim and praise the Self in thought, word and deed, in death and in life.” That requires explanation, especially the last sentence.
“In thought” is what we are doing right now. It is mentally understanding as much as possible, however little, of what the essence of the self is. And in connection with meditation, a lively meditation on the self is to announce and praise it in thought.
“In words” is what I do and what you will do. That is what you are encouraged to do on every given occasion when you come home. Both the spoken and the written word can be said to be champions of the Self. It is more difficult to proclaim it in action. One can start by constantly using the “being as if” technique. Let us try as much as possible to “be as if” we are identified with the Self. And after visualizing ourselves as identified with the Self, let us then imagine how we would behave in different situations. It is easy to understand, but not so easy to do…
Now to “in life and death.” From the transpersonal standpoint, life is outside the body. The transpersonal is not identified with the body. For life is a joyful proclamation of the true life of the Self. When we say “in life and death,” we are to think of life and death. One can use it in all one’s work concerning the Self and with the Self, and with others.
Conversation about subpersonalities
SP: Do you want to talk about sub-personalities?
RA: I think it is good to talk about subpersonalities because it is a basic technique that not everyone has a clear idea about. Subpersonalities can be viewed in two ways: In general, you can say that just as the sun is reflected in countless mirrors, so the Self can be reflected, not only in one central personal ego, but also in others. It is difficult to understand, but every subpersonality that is developed enough to have a will, to be firm, to think and feel, is a miniature personality, which has the same qualities as the main personality. A subpersonality is in itself a small personality that lives in rather deep water. It is about the principle of personification, but I will not go into that, because it is more theoretical and I detest theory. But after all, it is not theory, it is a process of personification. All psychological elements, especially all groups of psychological elements, which is what is called in psychology “complexes”, tend to personify themselves. And that is not theory. We can observe that.
Let us take the simplest of all examples, the roles. A woman often identifies with her maternal function to the extent that she feels and acts like a mother. This is a sub-personality in itself – which can conflict with the feminine traits. A subject of practical importance – which I will not go into – is the conflict between the wife role and the mother role. We will take that up another day, but it shows that all sub-personalities have a kind of ego.
Now I would like to mention a theoretical problem. One can think of a subpersonality as a direct reflection of the Self, or as I said of the higher Self, or as a subordinate reflection of the ego. The first is perhaps the most metaphysically correct, while the second is more practically applicable in teaching and therapy, because it supports the reabsorption of all the subpersonalities into the integrating personality. For the purposes of psychosynthesis, self-realization, teaching and therapy, it is better to use this picture, which is abundantly true for our needs. It happens!
One can reabsorb, and let us say silence, a role, a sub-personality, by means of any of the functions of the role. There is a big difference between saying, “I am a mother” and saying, “I am now playing the role of mother as best I can.” There is a big difference. Now the mother is no longer independent, assertive, etc. It is a subsidiary role played by the personality. That makes all the difference. It can also be expressed in the form of dis-identification. Dis-identification means putting every sub-personality, element and role in its proper place. It does not mean abolishing, criticizing or anything of the sort. It is giving them all their proper position and function under the guidance of first the personal self, and ultimately the Higher Self, or a combination of the two. In this way the different approaches complement each other in different ways . But it is one of the most practical approaches, if we only remember it. It is easy to understand – and even easier to forget!
Definition of attention and the emergence of personality
Now we come to attention/consciousness. I talk a lot about attention/consciousness. Attention is precisely being aware all the time, but it is not “pure attention/consciousness” or something else transcendent. Of course it exists. But the first attention is being aware of the interaction between the different factors of the personality. I am deliberately telling this in a non-systematic order and as a response to the immediate need, because it is more direct, more vivid. Then it is up to you to bring order to this madness. It gives you something to do. It is also better in your work that you never serve things on a silver platter. Give people the ingredients and say “then you prepare them yourself”. It requires cooperation and that they do the work themselves. And those who don’t want the trouble, they are simply not mature. Let them continue to play and swear. You can see how your comments excite me and give me the opportunity to explain different things.
Q: Does this process mean that the becoming of the personality (becoming what? – integrated, a synthesis, actualized?) is an emanation of the being of the Self?
RA: It shows how difficult it is to recognize these things. They seem simple, but they are difficult. I am fully aware of that. If you found it too easy I would be concerned. Of course the personality comes into being – it becomes integrated, yes. A synthesis, yes. Updated, yes. Is an emanation of the being of the Self, yes!
The personal self is the integrating factor
The integrating factor in personality is the personal self, the reflection of the Higher Self, or the transpersonal Self. Without this integrating, synthesizing factor there could be no real personality, no integration. It has been expressed quite well, as it is in a way an aspect of the universal law of syntropy. Physicists have spoken up to our time as if there existed only entropy, that is, the decomposition of energy until everything is dead. A very tragic picture, and fortunately completely wrong. Now, with the new methods of research, they have discovered that, both in subatomic physics and in astronomy, there is actually a syntropic process where the potential or tension increases. This is what Teilhard de Chardin calls the Omega point. It has been demonstrated to be real.
In one way, but only in one way, you can see it as an aspect of the law of gravity, of the attraction to a center, but in movement and becoming there is, especially in rapid movement, the other tendency to spread. So both cosmic and individual life is a fine balance, or should be a fine balance, between the tendency to concentration and spread. If there was only concentration, death was guaranteed, and if there was only spread, so too. We can always empirically see two directions. One towards concentration and one towards spread. This corresponds in part to introversion and extroversion. And as in personality integration and psychosynthesis, the goal is ambiversion, which is to be able to switch between extroversion and introversion from a higher point of attention/consciousness.
It is the self, also on the personality level, which, through the regulatory function of the will, the governing regulatory function of the will, can balance the alternation between extroversion and introversion according to needs, possibilities and tasks. This is the personal, simple, let’s call it the manifestation of the cosmic life, of the balancing between gravitation and expansion. Is that clear?
The balance between introversion and extroversion
SP: Can you say something about being ambivert? Is there a personality type that demonstrates integration and ambiversion?
A: I will give you an appendix from my book on the will, on differential psychology. There I described that, from a certain point of view, there are no fixed types. Introvert, extrovert, etc. are not labels. They simply indicate the direction in which life’s interest goes; it is a process and not something static. We should therefore not label ourselves or others extrovert or introvert, which we do all the time. Fortunately, there are no 100% introverts, because then the person concerned would be deeply psychotic, and no 100% extroverts either. Although many people, businessmen, etc. are dangerously close to being 100% extroverts, they fortunately do not ‘reach’ it until some crisis appears in a beneficial way and pulls them back. One could say that introversion, extroversion, and ambiversion are temporary states, or I could perhaps say percentages of energy flows.
When we sleep, we are biologically introverted, but there are many activities going on, and when we are very physically and emotionally active with gymnastics and sports, we are physically extroverted. At all levels, the largest percentage of vital, psychological and spiritual energy is temporarily directed in one direction. So therefore no labels, it is just an existential state that changes in any case, and that we can take hold of and control. Of course, someone who has an integrated personality has the ability to be ambivert on purpose. They can choose what they want to be.
The inner planes of reality
Q: Are the terms individual self and group self merely labels, since all are One? Do we have to experience the individual self and then the group self on the path to becoming One?
RA: This gives me the opportunity to address another important point in connection with psychosynthesis, namely the different planes of reality. There are different planes of reality, or in a modern term – energy fields. They each have their own qualities and laws. For example, certain chemical laws at the atomic level do not apply at the subatomic level, but they are not abolished or replaced. On other planes, other laws operate.
We will skip ahead and ignore the intermediate steps that you will find out later. The statement: “All are One” is a profound metaphysical truth on this plane, but unfortunately many bring this wonderful reality down to human planes, or other planes of manifestation, where it simply does not work, and many of the so-called metaphysical movements, and also some Eastern methods, do not take this fundamental difference into account.
All are One in essence, in Being, but in becoming, in manifestation, in the process of life, there are countless. I will not go into that here. “All life is One” and this One has chosen to reflect itself in countless ways. When he did so, we must suppose that he had his good reasons, but that is his problem and not ours. We can say that the great involutionary process culminated in the mineral, as far as we know, and then the opposite movement or the evolutionary process began. A little optimistically we can say that we are halfway there. We have passed through the mineral, plant, animal and partly human kingdoms. So we must continue this evolutionary work towards the “One”, but it is still put aside.
Here arises the confusion of the two selves which does so much harm. When we say “I am this Self” it is true that I am the One, but we are not at all that in everyday life. That would be paranoia. As I have written, there are some paranoids who take it literally, and when they get a glimpse they think they are God. It all fits in with the plans of reality. Now you can think it through nicely and neatly with your active minds. Write something about it. And today too I think I have spoken enough.
The egg begins to boil. We can jokingly say that it is a question of thickening of the yolk or the nucleus.
As for the Self, we can take a moment each day first for a quick gathering of the personal self, make it as quiet as possible, relax the body, calm the emotions, and ask the mind if it would not be so kind to be at peace. In proportion to the degree of success we have in this, the elastic pull, the thread between the personal self and the transpersonal Self, can be considered elastic, and a good elastic. And when all the things that bind the personal self to the ordinary plane have been to some extent removed, the pull will work uninterruptedly, and the personal self will be happily drawn upwards towards the Self.
Let us in silence try to get as close to the Self as possible, without effort or anxiety, but calmly, joyfully and easily, helped by the central affirmation:
We are this Self,
This Self is us.
Try to realize it in silence.
The self is not the mind
Q: You have talked so much about the Self. I have been thinking a lot about the difference between the Self and the mind these last few days. If you will bear with me for a moment, I would like to ask the following. Is the mind, the Self, at a special evolutionary stage, or is the mind merely a vehicle for the Self’s center of pure self-awareness being lifted up to the mental plane, to the plane of mind, manas?
I see the mind as a creative organ. Is it not simply a tool until the point of self-awareness has been raised to a higher plane so that it can impress the mind from a superconscious or abstract plane with its will and purpose. By reasoning forward I come to the conclusion that the mind is a creative, active, energizing organ with a conscious self. The point of self-awareness has been consciously and willfully moved to a higher psychological or spiritual center. In other words, when is the mind a tool for the Self, and when is it the Self itself that manifests itself with its qualities and energy field?
RA: I must answer purely psychologically, because it can be answered like this. To make it very clear: the mind has nothing to do with the Self. Animals have a bit of mentality. Sometimes they are clever and intelligent. Furthermore, there is an intelligent mind in our lives, and so on, but it has nothing to do with the Self. The mind can function on different levels independently of the Self. The mind is really a tool in a higher sense. We can psychologically distinguish between the concrete mind and the higher mind which is reason, “nous” in Greek. But psychologically you can say that there is the analytical mind, the concrete mind, the scientific mind, and on another level there is the abstract and more philosophical mind which deals with the universal, let’s say Kant, Plato, etc., but it has nothing to do with the Self.
There are very intelligent philosophers who deny or ignore the Self. You say that the mind is creative. Yes, to the extent that an instrument can be a creative organ. It is creative in its own way. The processes of the mind, induction and deduction, are creative. Furthermore, the mind is often associated with imagination and feeling, sometimes with intuition, so these combinations are clearly creative, but have nothing to do with the Self. Is that clear? The Self is in a completely different dimension. There is a mathematical expression “incomparable”. The Self is incomparable with all other dimensions of the psyche.
I think I made it clear. It is good to clarify this point for everyone here, and for all of you who want to teach and treat. It is all part of the whole. I am putting everything in its proper place. It does not mean complete separation, but a clear separation of functions. Do you understand that?
We always retain our individuality even in the highest state
Q: If a person feels that they are out of their body without wanting to and without having control through some form of meditation, how can we help them get grounded?
RA: The immediate help may consist in shaking him awake, pouring cold water on his face, but the cure is often mainly preventive and consists in teaching people not to let go of conscious attention all the time, to let go of the “I” consciousness. That is not at all necessary. One can reach the highest state of consciousness and remain alert, and therefore there is no reason to give up the precious gift developed with much difficulty as a result of the tendencies of self-consciousness.
There is a beautiful phrase in Sanskrit which expresses this clearly: Sat chit ananda. Sat ice truth; the ultimate reality, the universal, the transcendent. Chit is mental realization of that and the result is ananda , bliss. You cannot be blissful if you are not aware of it, so remember it and use it for yourself, Sat, Chit, Ananda. The blissful awareness of reality. But awareness, self-conscious awareness. It removes all fear of losing oneself in the whole and of being a drop in the ocean and all that. It is a misleading expression. In my next book I will write more about this, about the fusion of the individual and universal consciousness.
Can you provide evidence for yourself?
Q: In the diagram of man, the higher self is not the constructed superego, and it is not a “phenomenological” concept of the Self. Instead, it is pure being, essence, and not an intellectual construct. Is this correct? Can it be scientifically proven that there is a transpersonal Self? I mean as a being, not in the Jungian sense. Do you expect that one can provide evidence for the self through exercises through which the individual subjectively realizes the Self, and then let these testimonies speak, or do you also expect that there will be more “objective” evidence?
RA: That is absolutely correct. The higher Self is pure being and essence, not an intellectual construct. We must hold to that. You also ask whether it can be proven scientifically. That depends entirely on what you understand by science. It cannot be proven by ordinary science, because there is no proof on this conceptual level. But if one adopts the scientific attitude and method as I outline it, then yes. It is proven through direct experience. It is one of those primary experiences that are proofs in themselves. Like colour, an experience of beauty, or something else that needs no explanation. They are primary experiences and therefore have full scientific value in a broader sense. The thing is that one has to create the necessary conditions to have the experience, and scientists have not yet made the effort to create them. That should be the ABC of the scientific method. Let us formulate a hypothesis and then see whether the facts support it or not. If we assume that the self exists, the next step would be to conduct the relevant experiments to see whether it is there or not. But the experiments cannot be conducted in a laboratory with quantitative methods. In that sense they are difficult, for example the exercise in dis-identification, and they create space for the experience of Self-identification. The exercise exists and is clearly defined. We just have to bother to do it. Here there is a strange blindness, which is not so strange after all, since it can be explained. But the explanation is not used. The only answer is that there are hundreds of thousands of people of all kinds and on all continents who have had this experience, told it and witnessed it, of course indirectly, because it is indescribable in itself. So it is worth making a serious attempt to find out whether it is true. There is nothing else to say about it. Either you experiment or you put the subject aside. No objective proof can be provided because it would be a conceptual contradiction. Therefore, it would be futile to try to satisfy them. It wouldn’t work.
The paradoxical self
Q: So the Self is radiating, the immovable moves. How can the Self be immovable when in meditation we say that we raise the center of consciousness to its highest plane? I say self (small s). Did Aristotle speak of the Self (big)? Dr. Assagioli says that they are all One. I can understand that with the mind, but another part of me separates them. The Self or the Higher Self both seem to move in the physical sense. One up and the other down and up. I like the idea of an elastic band connecting them. Why is the Self so immovable? It is a paradox. Or is there another meaning of immovable? Immovable perhaps means the unchanging centrality?
Unwavering in motivating movement in other, personality, bodies? Unwavering or constant radiance? Unwavering intention? But apparently not moving in the physical sense. The Self radiates all the time. It is a constant source of radiance and energy. It is not always so through the personality. Sometimes the personality seems to be more important than the inner radiance. Then the Self is seen or is not visible. On the other hand, one can see the Self reflected in the developing personality. What a paradox and a mess.
RA: That is good. You have bravely faced the most difficult problem of the Self and faced reality. Brave! And you have vividly resolved all the apparent contradictions and paradoxes. It is good to realize them before drawing conclusions. Sometimes we have the illusion that we understand this mystery. Sometimes we have the illusion that we understand this mystery. It is good that you understand that you are confused and disoriented. It is a very necessary and useful step, and I believe that others feel the same way. It is also a problem that has attracted people for generations, even in the East. Just this morning I read three Upanishads where this problem was dealt with. So you see that it has a degree of nobility about it. Thank you for asking the questions.
Kenneth Sørensen’s note: 1. It is a meditative state of inner peace and quiet, where the psychological functions, thoughts, feelings, imagination, etc. for a period become still like the surface of a mirror-like lake and therefore do not press into the field of consciousness. This makes the experience of the pure observer consciousness of the personality possible and later the pure being of the Self.
How to move forward
Here you can receive seven free meditations where you develop different aspects of yourself.
Also read the article The Self – a Unifying Center
