Transcendence of the Self

The Transpersonal Self does not itself become immanent. The Self radiates into the superconscious but remains at its own level.

By Roberto Assagioli, date unknown, Translated and edited with Notes by Jan Kuniholm. Original Title: Transcenza del Sè. From the Assagioli Archive in Florence. (Editors note: The book that is mentioned in the conversation might be the one Assagioli worked on before his death in 1974, called Height Psychology and the Self. If so, this conversation is from the early seventies. There is another conversation about the upcoming book with Stuart Miller (Esalen) and Assagioli, but I don’t think it is Stuart Miller in this conversation due to the esoteric content, which Miller was not that aware of).

R.A.: So before disidentifying from any content of superconscious, one must first have a complete experience of it. One cannot disidentify from something one does not know.

Q.: But a reader might ask what is the use of superconscious.

R.A.: Well, the first one is the fact that the thread that connects the personal self with the Self goes through the superconscious, so you cannot skip it. And the second is that you have to have a complete experience of all levels. In a sense you could say that it is the ascent of the self (“I”) to its own origin through all levels of experience. So we can say that right in the book, answering the possible objections.

Understand that people actually have no idea of the real situation. Poor people, it’s not their fault, nobody told them.

Q.: Can you explain why you need to experience all levels? Many people try to skip the intermediate one.

R.A.: Well, this is a capital sin against Psychosynthesis. Psychosynthesis begins and is based on the fullness of life at every level. If it does not, it is not psychosynthesis. It does not exclude anything. We do not exclude impulses and the lower unconscious, so it would be absurd to exclude the superconscious. It is the full experience at all levels, but according to the hierarchy of values and under the guidance of the “orchestra’s conductor.”

Q.: But people might ask, “What need is there to experience all levels?“

R.A.: There is no need if they don’t want it. It’s not that they have to do it. We offer this. If it is not to their taste, there is no need. We don’t push them to do it. This is for people who are interested in it and feel the need for it. As I have already said, there are many who are perfectly satisfied with personal psychosynthesis. And that’s fine.

Q.: But what about in the cases of those people who want to go from personal psychosynthesis to the Self, skipping the superconscious?

R.A.: Let them do that, at their own risk.

Q.: But what is their risk?

R.A.: Schizophrenia.

Q.: We will write in the book why it is good not to skip the superconscious!

R.A.: Well, there are ultimate goals in human life. If people don’t care about them, they can be content to stay in their shell. This is not a good thing because the superconscious does not let itself be passed over; it often takes the initiative and bursts in. Look at those cases of premature irruption and misunderstanding, which I talk about in a chapter of my book on Psychosynthesis. So even for that alone, it’s good to know. Be prepared — and practically everybody (especially children) has some insight, some intuition; and then they get repressed. So, it’s a living part of us, but it often remains latent, because of misunderstanding, repression, fear, and so on. But it is there, so it is important to know what it is. […]

Q.: Can you say anything that can help people overcome the difficulty of the Self seen as transcendent, in the sense of being something completely “other?”

R.A.: You have to understand that there is absolute transcendence and there is relative transcendence. Absolute transcendence, the unmanifest absolute, can be spoken of only as a general background, because nothing else can be said about it. In this sense, it would correspond to “the void.” But what we can and should understand are the various degrees of transcendence, and since Maslow framed them very well, so I would start by commenting on those. From a certain point of view we could say that everything that is still latent, dormant, unexpressed, unrealized, that we are not aware of, is transcendent for us. In the present moment. But this has nothing to do with what is “totally other.” It could be called a mere temporary condition, and we can add that an expansion of consciousness and awareness of ultimate goals make what is transcendent at a certain level become immanent, and so on. So from this point of view, transcendence is seen as latency, lack of awareness, lack of expression. I think that settles it.

Now apply the same process to the Self. The Self, from a certain point of view, is the highest level of transcendence we can achieve. The difference is this: that the Self does not itself become immanent. The Self radiates into the superconscious [. . . ] but remains at its own level. The Self does not become immanent in the sense I said. We may eventually attain an awareness of the Self, but that is another thing. Then it is the personal self or ego that goes up like a spider on the thread, and it is identified with the Self. But it is not the Self that becomes immanent. That is the difference. But the Self is not “other;” it is always present, and the personal self is a direct reflection of it, and in a very weak way it reflects its nature.

Q.: You mentioned three successive stages of awareness: self-awareness, group consciousness and universal consciousness. Self-consciousness is the awareness of the “I,” or personal self. Universal consciousness, as you said, is the awareness of the monad and the Jewel in the causal body; while group consciousness is consciousness of the petals of the superconscious. Is that right?

R.A.: Esoterically, group consciousness can be said to be characteristic of the soul. And it is  especially expressed through the petals; but including the Jewel. Because the soul is not only the petals, and certainly not only the Jewel. But the soul is — the T.[1] said it is a set of spiritual attributes, so he calls the soul. And in this sense, it is changeable and temporary; because at the fourth initiation the soul as a set of attributes disappears, and what remains is the Jewel, which is absorbed into the monad. So in this sense, group consciousness is characteristic of soul consciousness.

Q.: In terms of Self and superconscious, how would you say this?

R.A.: It is not easy, but it can be done. I would say that the more the self — personal self-consciousness — ascends, rises toward the Self, the more it becomes the Self, and the more it becomes group consciousness. Also, parallel to the ascent, there is a broadening and expansion of consciousness. And of course at the level of the superconscious, this becomes more and more pronounced. To be very precise, one could say that group consciousness begins in the upper part of the middle unconscious, and that full group consciousness actually belongs to the superconscious level, which becomes conscious when the self or “I” rises to the superconscious level. It does not become conscious of all of the superconscious, but an aspect of the superconscious remains included in the conscious awareness of the personal self that rises to the height of the superconscious itself, but the whole area [. . . ] and when people have an ecstasy, or a satori, which is not the real satori, they think they are in communion with . . .

Q.: So group consciousness concerns consciousness of contents, not self-consciousness?

R.A.: Yes, in a sense. There is of course no separation, but group consciousness is something different from personal self-consciousness.

Here Roberto gives us a diagram, and he says, “You see, this goes up to here and expands at the same time, and naturally receives all irradiations from the transpersonal Self. And between the separations there is osmosis, so let’s always remember that there are no sharp distinctions. But this is what I think: I would like to include this diagram in the book.”[2]

Q.: So group consciousness relates to the area in the circle, and not to the point at its center?

R.A.: To both. The self (“I”) has an existential experience of group consciousness. Consciousness is — it cannot be split off from a subject who is conscious. A person is always the subject. Let us always remember that. It is always the subject, the living being, who has this. So it is always this point. That gives you the difference between the point and the area [on the diagram].

Of course, the communication between the various “I’s” is a bit mysterious. But it happens. I will make another diagram. This refers to various individuals and their relationships. [. . . ] The Self of “B” and the Self of “A” communicate in the same shared area. In this case, however, there is a shared area that does not include the Selves, as was the case before.

Q.: So what is the difference between the two experiences?

R.A.: You can’t say it in words; you have to experience it.

Q.: Couldn’t you tell us about it?

R.A. It is the degree of identification with the other person and with the group. It is the degree of identification: low, high, or almost complete. Here you can write “degrees of identification.” I think this diagram can also be put in the book.

Q.: Are souls different?

R.A. Yes.

Q.: But I thought souls were always mutually interpenetrated.

R.A. We can say that to simplify [. . . ].

Q.: But I thought souls were already interpenetrated in the One Soul.

R.A.: At the level of the soul. But not at the level of personality. Yes, remember the star that is partly outside, and there is the universal soul there. Yes, there is no contradiction.

[1] The Tibetan, Master D.K., familiar to reader of the Alice Bailey corpus. —Ed.

[2] At the time of this translation (2023) the accompanying diagrams from the original document (if they were attached) have not been found. —Tr.