What Is Self-Realization? Firman vs Assagioli

A Comparison of Assagioli’s and Firman & Gila’s definition of Self-realisation

By Kenneth Sørensen, This article is chapter six from my unpublished book: Two Versions of Psychosynthesis: A Comparison of Assagioli and Firman and Gila; which will be published when time is up.

Introduction to the online version of the chapter

It is 25 years since John Firman published his article A Suggested Change in the Egg Diagram in the October 1995 issue of The Italian Journal of Psychosynthesis. Since then, there has been little public debate about his and Ann Gila’s revision of psychosynthesis, even though it marked a radical break from the core ideas of Assagioli. Well, in April this year, I decided it was time to get to the bottom of this issue, so I started writing my upcoming book Two Versions of Psychosynthesis, which is delayed due to me becoming a father again. In the meantime, I am offering you a preview: chapter six of the book, which looks at the concept of self-realisation.

Firman and Gila claimed that they revised Assagioli’s theory to clear up confusion in his thinking. With regards to the topic of self-realisation, Firman and Gila claim their revisions “represent Self and Self-realisation more in accord with Assagioli’s view and with observed experience” (Firman, 1996: 1). By contrast, it is my opinion that Firman and Gila introduce confusion by rejecting, misunderstanding and changing Assagioli’s central ideas not only in relation to Self-realisation but also when it comes to the understanding of the “I”, the three levels of the egg-diagram and many other essential points. They will all be dealt with in the book.

There is no dogma in psychosynthesis—anybody can change anything—but what I find problematic is Firman and Gila’s claim that they are simply refining Assagioli’s original thought. In fact, I believe they have created a whole new revised version of psychosynthesis and brought confusion regarding the core concepts of psychosynthesis as formulated by Assagioli.

It is my hope that my upcoming book will contribute to an honest debate based on facts, respect and a mutual endeavour to clarify the differences between Assagioli’s and Firman and Gila’s versions of psychosynthesis.

In the following article, I hope to show that Firman and Gila have broken away from Assagioli’s core thinking and created a whole new theory of psychosynthesis in which:

• There is no Transpersonal Self (or soul);
• Oneness between “I” and Self or God is not possible, only a relationship;
• There are no naturally ascending stages of development towards enlightenment.

The missing Higher Self

It took me many years of study to realize that Firman and Gila don’t believe in the Higher Self, which Assagioli also called the Transpersonal Self. In many of their written works, Firman and Gila lead the reader to think that they removed the star (the Transpersonal Self) from the top of the egg because the Transpersonal Self is omnipresent at all levels. However, in the late 80s, Firman and Gila rejected the notion of the Transpersonal Self (or Higher Self) – the seventh core concept of Psychosynthesis and perhaps the most central element of Assagioli’s Psychosynthesis. Instead, Firman and Gila developed a theory based on an I-Self connection, in which the Self is another word for God or what Assagioli calls the Universal Self. It would have been helpful if the psychosynthesis community had known about this radical step from the start. It was something that I first realized when I read Ann Gila’s story about how and when they concluded that there is no Higher Self in the: 2015, Dec. AAP-Journal):

“I remember well the day that John and I became aware that our belief about Self was the same. It wasn’t in the 1970s when we first met. Then, we had had endless discussions, some heated, about “I.” Self came later, after we met again in 1987. We were walking down Kipling Street in Palo Alto where John had lived in the 70s. I had already decided that Higher Self was superfluous. In my experience, there was “I” and Self (the divine).
As we walked, I blurted out that Higher Self as a concept didn’t make any sense to me. John smiled and looked at me and said something like, “Yep. That’s the way I see it.”

As you can see, the decision was taken in 1987. Firman also explains why they deleted the Higher Self from psychosynthesis theory in a video from a psychosynthesis conference in 2005.

Here is what Firman said:

“Back then. I thought I had a higher Self, I thought that there was this higher Self, this Soul, somewhere around [pointing above his head], that I was supposed to become … I was trying to go up the dotted line. I was trying to be that higher Self (explaining his problems with that) … 42.00 The point is that today, as Ann and I have look at it … There is no higher Self. There is you, there is “I”, there is human spirit, … You are “I” and that is your spiritual essence. The “I” is a thread of what we call Universal Spirit. Basically, there is me there is God, there is not this other place, that I am supposed to get to. There is some transformation that takes place as I relate to that Self. What we call Self, capital S is what Assagioli calls Universal Self in the Act of Will.”

Let us closely examine how their writings communicated this decision through the years.

Firman’s first book (1991: 169) concludes that there is no need for a Higher Self. However, this radical decision is only admitted on the very last pages of the book, and the publication was not publicly accessible; it was only shared among a selected group of people. For some reason, this book was not published to the broader public for many years, but it later became available as a PDF when the Internet appeared. Finally, in 2020, it was published. My references are using the PDF version.

In Firman and Gila’s first co-authored paper (1993), they make no mention of their lack of belief in a Higher Self, even though they held this point of view at this time. Rather, they wrote (1993: 21): “Pervading all the areas mapped by the oval-shaped diagram, distinct but not separate from all of them, is Self (which has also been called Higher Self or Transpersonal Self).” So, it would have seemed to the reader that Firman and Gila believed in a Higher Self. Why didn’t they disclose the deletion of the Higher Self? The mention of the Higher Self in these writings (see below) made me think that what they call the Self is the Higher Self. I have found no explanation for this somewhat misleading conduct.

Firman’s 1995 paper A Suggested Change in the Egg Diagram raised the question about placing the Higher Self at the top of the egg diagram. They similarly do not mention their rejection of a Higher Self or this in Firman’s 1996 paper Self and Self-Realisation. This seems very strange.

In The Primal Wound (1997), they still create the illusion that they believe in a Higher Self when they write (1997: 256, 43): “Following psychosynthesis usage, we throughout the book will consider self (lowercase “s”), personal self, and “I” as equivalent terms, while Self (capital “S”) will be used to indicate the Higher Self or Transpersonal Self.”

In their second book, Psychosynthesis: A Psychology of the Spirit, there is an admission for the first time since 1991 in a footnote. They explain (2002: 195): “For us, there is no ‘Higher Self’ or ‘Transpersonal Self’.” Similarly, in their paper Assagioli’s Seven Core Concepts for Psychosynthesis Training, they conclude there is no need for the Transpersonal Self (2007: 33). In their last book, A Psychotherapy of Love: Psychosynthesis in Practice, there is no mention at all of their rejection of the concept of the Higher Self.

This omission is a mystery, and I haven’t found an answer. It has created a lot of confusion in the psychosynthesis community. Some still believe that Firman and Gila operate with a Higher Self.

In presenting this work, I am not seeking to prove that Assagioli’s version of psychosynthesis is better than Firman and Gila’s – while I feel more aligned with Assagioli’s version, I am aware that others are not and I am at peace with that. Rather, I hope to achieve a precise articulation of Assagioli’s essential understanding of Self-realisation and to compare this with a fair presentation of Firman and Gila’s version.

Firman and Gila are among the most influential writers in psychosynthesis – indeed, they are among the very few to have had books published by an academic publisher (SUNY) – so a critique of their work is appropriate. Indeed, John Firman (1991: 8-9) encouraged psychosynthesis practitioners to discuss and critique each other’s ideas, explaining: “Professionals outside the field will be shocked and perplexed to learn that after nearly 80 years, there are almost no critical evaluations of specific psychosynthesis concepts in print! For example, there has been little or no published critique and extension of fundamental concepts such as ‘personal self’; ‘will’; ‘Self’; the ‘superconscious’; or the ‘lower unconscious’. These tremendously central concepts seem to be nowhere dealt with directly, in a manner which would clarify and expand our understanding of them… If there is not a shared body of work carefully built by criticising, correcting, and elaborating Assagioli’s original thinking, it may come to pass that psychosynthesis becomes a theoretical non-entity.”

Well, it is exactly the areas listed in this quote, and more, that my book will investigate through a comparison of Assagioli’s and Firman and Gila’s work.

Let us start with the concept of self-realisation – and let me add that I am very open to feedback. If you think I have misunderstood anything, please let me know. However, please base your comments on the writings of the authors so we can have an informed debate based on concrete sources.

In contrast to other psychological modalities, debate among psychosynthesis practitioners is almost absent. I have always been puzzled by this. What is it in the psychosynthesis community that keeps us in isolated bubbles rather than celebrating a diversity of opinions?

I hope you will take your time to digest and explore the two versions of self-realisation set out below. I look forward to receiving your feedback.

Enjoy.

Firman & Gila’s revision of Self-realisation

In this chapter, we will examine the most well-known revision of psychosynthesis theory by Firman and Gila, namely the removal of the star – the Transpersonal Self – from the top of Assagioli’s egg-diagram. One of the many implications of this revision is that it shows Firman and Gila’s understanding of Self-realisation was fundamentally different to Assagioli’s.

In his 1996 monograph Self and Self-realisation, Firman (1996: 1) lists four ideas of Assagioli’s that he claims “obscure” and “confuse” Assagioli’s “basic insight” and are therefore in need of revision. The four claims of Assagioli that Firman rejects are:

1. The Self [Transpersonal Self] exists only in the higher unconscious;
2. Transpersonal psychosynthesis and Self-realisation are identical;
3. Self-realisation involves identification with [Transpersonal ] Self;
4. Self-realisation is a contentless unitive experience.

Psychosynthesis practitioners familiar with Assagioli’s thinking will see that the rejection of these four ideas is a rejection of Assagioli’s essential understanding of Self-realisation – so Firman’s claim that these ideas obscure Assagioli’s basic insight is a strange one to make, and I would suggest that it is Firman, not Assagioli, who is creating confusion.

So why did Firman remove the star? We find a lot of information in his 1995 paper A Suggested Change in the Egg Diagram. In this paper, we are told that Assagioli’s original egg-diagram “obscures Assagioli’s insight that Self is transcendent of all content and process… even the superconscious” (Firman, 1995: 1); we are also told that the egg-diagram is “problematic in portraying: 1) Assagioli’s own understanding of the human person, and 2) the observed experience of many clients, students, and practitioners” (Firman, 1995: 1).

So let’s explore Firman’s objections further by examining more closely the four ideas of Assagioli that Firman claims were wrong or confusing. I will first introduce the four ideas, then take a closer look at each point.

Please hold in mind as you read this chapter that whenever Firman and Gila speak about the Self, they are privately always referring to God – because they reject the notion of the Transpersonal Self – but they do not disclose this change of meaning to their readers most of the time. (See endnote [i] ) However, in some of their works, Firman and Gila do state that they are using the term Self as an abbreviation for Transpersonal Self or Higher Self, so I will also use the term Transpersonal Self when they speak about the Self. When I am quoting Assagioli, you will notice he sometimes speaks of Self and sometimes of the Transpersonal Self, but he means the same thing – when Assagioli speaks of God he typically uses the word God, or he might say Universal Self.

First problem: Does the Self exist only in the higher unconscious?

Firman clearly implies that Assagioli doesn’t understand his own egg-diagram, claiming that the diagram “obscures” Assagioli’s view of the transcendent nature of the Transpersonal Self and his understanding of the human person.

In fact, the egg-diagram is problematic for Firman because it depicts the Transpersonal Self at the top, which suggests the “I” must ascend the heights of the superconscious to connect with it. This is a concept that runs against the experience of Firman and many of his clients and fellow practitioners who claimed to have encountered the Transpersonal Self while engaged in mundane activities (i.e. while operating through the middle unconscious) or while working with trauma (i.e. working with the lower unconscious). For this reason, Firman suggests the Transpersonal Self is present at all levels of consciousness – higher, middle and lower – not just at the higher level, hence Firman states that the Transpersonal Self’s position at the top of the egg-diagram is misrepresentative.

In keeping with this perspective, Firman suggests fundamental changes to Assagioli’s understanding of Self-realisation, with Firman (1995: 1) suggesting that “Self-realisation is not a matter of working through lower unconscious issues and then moving into the higher unconscious, as implied in the early [egg] diagram”. Here, Firman is denouncing the developmental theory of psychosynthesis (See The Development Theory of Psychosynthesis). Firman (1996: 10) goes on to suggest that the essence of Self-realisation is about creating an ongoing relationship with Self (God) by listening to the call of Self (God). According to Firman and Gila, this call of Self (God) can lead one to the lower or higher unconscious; in other words, they reject Assagioli’s claim that Self-realisation involves climbing the Great Chain of Being through a series of natural developmental stages. Firman claims that Assagioli’s developmental theory of Self-realisation doesn’t leave room for Self (God) to be active in the lower unconscious, and only leaves room for the Self to be active in the higher unconscious. We will address this incorrect claim at the end of this chapter.

Basically, Firman is proposing that the Transpersonal Self can be encountered at all levels of the psyche, for example while exploring childhood in the lower unconscious, while undertaking daily routines while in the middle unconscious, or while having a peak experience. To explain this change to traditional psychosynthesis theory, Firman introduces the concept of transcendence-immanence, which states that the Transpersonal Self is completely transcendent or distinct to any content of the psyche, including superconscious content – accordingly, it is not appropriate to locate the Transpersonal Self only in the superconscious, as if it were a superconscious being, which they say it isn’t. These ideas of Firman are in direct opposition to Assagioli’s thinking, yet Firman (1995: 2) claims that his thinking reflects “the core of Assagioli’s understanding of Self”. The Self (God) is also immanent and therefore completely present at all levels of the egg-diagram, a philosophy we don’t find in Assagioli’s work. Well, as we shall see, the radiations and energies of the Transpersonal Self can be present at all levels, but not the Transpersonal Self in itself – The Self in its pure Beingness.

So, despite the fact that Firman claims he is speaking for Assagioli, we are in fact dealing with two different philosophies.

Assagioli’s original egg-diagram is problematic for Firman and Gila because it doesn’t represent their philosophy of transcendence-immanence, so I understand why they needed to remove the star so that it better matches their idea that the Self is completely present at all levels of the unconscious.

Adding to this confusion, in his 1995 paper, Firman does not reveal his rejection of the notion of a Higher Self, this is confusing for readers and not helpful for the psychosynthesis community.

Second problem: Is transpersonal psychosynthesis identical to Self-realisation?

Firman (1995: 3) suggests that changes should be made to Assagioli’s understanding of the process of Self-realisation, explaining that Assagioli’s original egg-diagram:

“…tends to confuse transpersonal psychosynthesis (or spiritual psychosynthesis) with Self-realisation. Although Assagioli is quite clear that Self-realisation is distinct from transpersonal contents and energies, the… diagram can confuse this distinction.”

Here, Firman is claiming that Assagioli considers the process of Self-realisation to be distinct from transpersonal psychosynthesis. However, this is incorrect: Assagioli considers transpersonal psychosynthesis to be a specific stage of the Self-realisation process, albeit not the whole thing. As we shall see, Assagioli proposes three stages to Self-realisation: stage one is where the “I” explores superconscious content and integrates superconscious qualities into the personality as part of the journey to reaching the Transpersonal Self, this is called transpersonal psychosynthesis by Assagioli; stage two is where the “I” wakes up to itself as the Transpersonal Self, which is the moment of unification of the “I” with the Transpersonal Self; stage three is where a person identified as a Transpersonal Self, or soul, becomes one with God, or the Universal Self. Firman and Gila create confusion by claiming that transpersonal psychosynthesis is not a part of the Self-realisation process.

Third problem: Does Self-realisation involve identification with the Transpersonal Self?

We will discuss how Assagioli defines identification with the Transpersonal Self later in this chapter – for now, suffice to say it is an awakening to universal consciousness, in which the feeling of being separate from the world is transcended. Assagioli defines this process theoretically as the ascent of the “I” to the superconscious level where it unities with the Transpersonal Self.

Firman rejects this identification with the Transpersonal Self. Instead, Firman claims a more accurate interpretation of Assagioli’s writings is that Self-realisation is essentially about following the call of Self (God), and that this call may engage any part of the unconscious – lower, middle or higher; accordingly, Firman (1996: 27) writes that “Self-realisation is not a matter of seeking particular experiences of unity or enlightenment”. In fact, Assagioli would agree that Self-realisation can involve any aspect of the unconscious, and that Self-realisation is an “ongoing relationship between ‘I’ and Self”, as Firman (1995: 4) proposes. However, unlike Firman, Assagioli would say that the relationship between “I” and the Transpersonal Self is only a temporary stage in a process that leads ultimately to the unification of the “I” and the Transpersonal Self.

Firman believes we can have a direct experience of Self (God) in our mundane life – at any time of the day, so to speak – and that it is not mandatory to have a peak experience, such as those experiences that can be achieved during meditation. Firman (1995: 1) explains:

“Unfortunately, [Assagioli’s egg-diagram] implies that in order to contact and respond to Self, one must distance oneself from the flatlands and depths of human experience, and reach upwards to the heights.”

The question is, to use Firman’s terminology, what is the difference between being in “contact” with the Transpersonal Self and becoming one with it? This is what we need to investigate.

For Firman and Gila, there can only be a relationship between “I” and Self (God) because the essential nature of “I” and God are different, which is not Assagioli’s understanding. So we can see that Firman and Gila are stating that there is a duality between “I” and Self (God), something we do not find in Assagioli’s psychosynthesis.

Fourth problem: Is Self-realisation a contentless unitive experience?

Firman and Gila reject Assagioli’s understanding that Self-realisation – the experience of “I” becoming one with the Transpersonal Self – is a contentless unitive experience and that experience of the Transpersonal Self provides a sense of universal consciousness. We will investigate how Assagioli and Firman and Gila differ on that point below.

In addition to the four issues discussed above, but related to them, we have already mentioned that Firman (1995: 1) claims that Assagioli’s original egg-diagram, with the star at the top, is “problematic in portraying… Assagioli’s own understanding of the human person”. We will see whether this claim can be true.

Once again, Firman and Gila do not admit that their views are different to Assagioli’s, rather they make the claim, either directly or by implication, that their different views are simply a refining of Assagioli’s understanding – which is confusing and problematic for the psychosynthesis community.

Let us start our investigation of the five questions outlined above:

1. Does the Self exist only in the higher unconscious?
2. Is transpersonal psychosynthesis identical to Self-realisation?
3. Does Self-realisation involve identification with the Transpersonal Self?
4. Is Self-realisation a contentless unitive experience?
5. Is Assagioli’s original egg-diagram, with the star at the top, “problematic in portraying… Assagioli’s own understanding of the human person”, as Firman and Gila would suggest?

The three stages of Self-realisation, according to Assagioli

Firman (1996: 5) claims his revision of the egg-diagram is based upon the ideas in Assagioli’s books Psychosynthesis (1965) and The Act of Will (1974). So, let’s see how Assagioli defines Self-realisation in these works, and, by doing so, investigate the second question: Is transpersonal psychosynthesis identical to Self-realisation? Remember, Assagioli answers yes, while Firman and Gila answer no.

In The Act of Will, Assagioli (1974: 121) offers a precise definition of personal psychosynthesis and Self-realisation:

“In the terminology of psychosynthesis, self-actualisation corresponds to personal psychosynthesis. This includes the development and harmonising of all human functions and potentialities at all levels of the lower and middle area in the diagram of the constitution of man [i.e. egg-diagram]… Self-realisation concerns the third higher level, that of the superconscious, and pertains to Transpersonal or spiritual psychosynthesis.

Self-realisation itself has three different stages.

The first is the activation and expression of the potentialities residing in the superconscious: it includes… various types of transcendence… Leonardo da Vinci or Goethe would be good examples of this.

The second stage of Self-realisation is the direct awareness of the SELF, which culminates in the unification of the consciousness of the personal self, or “I”, with that of the Transpersonal Self. Here one might mention those who have done self-sacrificing work for a beneficent cause in any field. Active humanitarians who have given themselves to a cause are good examples: Gandhi, Florence Nightingale, Martin Luther King, Schweitzer. Schweitzer is typical because he gave up even some of his higher interests – music and culture – in order to do humanitarian work. In terms of will, it is the unification of the personal will with the Transpersonal Will.

The third stage of Self-realisation is the communion of the Transpersonal Self with the Universal Self, and correspondingly of the individual will with the Universal Will. Here we find the highest mystics of all times and places.”

In this passage, Assagioli clears up any confusion about how he perceives Self-realisation. He states that personal psychosynthesis involves the integration of the personality around the conscious “I” – this is the development of a capable personality that can realise all personal needs involving the lower and middle unconscious. Assagioli also explains that Self-realisation has three stages: first transpersonal psychosynthesis, then unification of the “I” with the Transpersonal Self, and finally communion with God.

In The Act of Will, Assagioli (1974: 127) presents Diagram 1, which we can use to illustrate his three stages of Self-realisation. Here is how Assagioli (1974: 126-127) explains the diagram:

“In [the first image], the radiation of the “star” symbolising the Transpersonal Self is directed almost completely within the periphery or area of the individual psyche, indicating that the attention of the SELF is directed chiefly toward the personal self, or “I”, and its activity is bent on influencing the whole man by radiation from and through the superconscious level. [Stage one: Transpersonal psychosynthesis – KS]

In the second [image] the attention and activity of the SELF are shown as evenly distributed between the downward direction toward the personality, and the upward direction toward the transcendent Reality. In this condition, achieved in and through many stages of expanded awareness, the subject has some realisation of his participation in a universal state of Being, while preserving at the same time a vivid, even sharpened, sense of individual identity, of being fully “himself”. [Stage two: Being the Transpersonal Self – KS]

The radiation of the star in the third [image] indicates the highest states of transcendence, in which the sense of individual identity is dimmed and may even seem temporarily lost. These are the states variously called samadhi, prajna, satori, ecstasies, cosmic consciousness, etc.” [Stage three: Becoming one with the Universal Self – KS]

We can conclude that, according to Assagioli, transpersonal psychosynthesis is stage one in the process of Self-realisation – which means we can also conclude that Firman and Gila are incorrect to claim that transpersonal psychosynthesis and Self-realisation are different processes and that this was Assagioli’s view.

So why are Firman and Gila so confused about Assagioli’s understanding of Self-realisation? They claim that Assagioli’s egg-diagram “tends to confuse transpersonal psychosynthesis with Self-realisation” (Firman, 1995: 3) and that “Assagioli is quite clear that Self-realisation is distinct from transpersonal contents and energies” (Firman, 1995: 3). However, we can see that Assagioli was clear that transpersonal psychosynthesis is the first stage in the Self-realisation process. The original egg-diagram, from this point of view, fits perfectly with how Assagioli understands Self-realisation; there is no confusion here – so why did Firman and Gila think otherwise? Has Assagioli been inconsistent when writing about Self-realisation? Let us look deeper into how he defined Self-realisation in his two books.

In Psychosynthesis, Assagioli defines Self-realisation as the major goal of stage three (out of four stages) in his clinical theory. Here is how Assagioli (1965: 21) introduces his four clinical stages of psychosynthesis:

“Let us see how [a person] may free himself from… enslavement and achieve a harmonious inner integration, true Self-realisation, and right relationships with others… The stages for the attainment of this goal may be tabulated as follows:

1. Thorough knowledge of one’s personality.
2. Control of its various elements.
3. Realisation of one’s true Self – the discovery or creation of a unifying centre.
4. Psychosynthesis: the formation or reconstruction of the personality around the new centre.”

He further describes stage three of his clinical theory in the following terms (Assagioli, 1965: 24):

“What has to be achieved is to expand the personal consciousness into that of the Self; to reach up, following the thread or ray… to the star; to unite the lower with the higher Self.

“But this, which is so easily expressed in words, is in reality a tremendous undertaking. It constitutes a magnificent endeavour, but certainly a long and arduous one, and not everybody is ready for it. But between the starting point in the lowlands of our ordinary consciousness and the shining peak of Self-realisation there are intermediate phases, plateaus at various altitudes on which a man may rest or even make his abode, if his lack of strength precludes or his will does not choose a further ascent.”

In this quote, Assagioli is saying Self-realisation involves the unification of the lower self with the higher self, which tallies with stage two of the Self-realisation process described above. He describes this joining of the lower and higher self as the “shining peak of Self-realisation”, which clearly implies an upward motion: a vertical ascent towards the superconscious. Note also that Assagioli describes the journey towards Self-realisation in terms of stages. Elsewhere, he describes these stages in the following terms (Assagioli, 1965: 113):

“There is one Self – but there are very different and distinct levels of self-realisation. Therefore, between the self-identity of the ordinary or normal level of functioning and the full spiritual Self-realisation, there are intermediate stages or levels, ever wider, clearer, fuller.”

We can say that the stages, or levels, Assagioli is referring to are naturally unfolding developmental stages that move up through the Great Chain of Being – something we saw in chapter four, where we noted that Assagioli’s egg-diagram matches Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a developmental theory that is similar to Assagioli’s thinking and which is also described in terms of stages. So I would suggest there is no confusion regarding how Assagioli described Self-realisation in his first book Psychosynthesis. Clearly, Assagioli believes Self-realisation occurs in stages, albeit not everyone reaches the final stage. However, whichever stage a person is at, it is possible to develop it further through the use of the ideal model technique. Assagioli (1965: 24-25) explains:

“The intermediate stages imply new identifications. The men and women who cannot reach their true Self in its pure essence can create a picture and an ideal of perfected personality adequate to their calibre, their stage of development and their psychological type, and therefore can make this ideal practicable in actual life.”

Ideal models are inner images of what we could become; ideal models can be meditated upon and used to help us realise and express transpersonal qualities. This technique is well-known in psychosynthesis, and can be used and adapted according to the particular psychological type of the client. Accordingly, ideal models are useful for acquiring what Assagioli describes above as “new identifications” – the ideal model helps us to realise the next level on the journey towards becoming the Transpersonal Self as part of the Self-realisation process.

Having explored the evidence, we can answer question number two: Is transpersonal psychosynthesis identical to Self-realisation? I think it is safe to conclude that it is and that Firman and Gila are incorrect in stating that transpersonal psychosynthesis is distinct from Self-realisation. Rather, the view of Assagioli is that transpersonal psychosynthesis is stage one of the Self-realisation process.

“I” and the Transpersonal Self: Unification or relationship?

Let’s now look at the claim of Firman and Gila that the essence of Self-realisation is the relationship between the “I” and Self (God), thereby exploring question number three: Does Self-realisation involve identification with the Transpersonal Self?

Central to Firman and Gila’s claim is their rejection of the Transpersonal Self from Assagioli’s theory – according to Firman and Gila, there is no soul to speak of, but there is the possibility of a mirror-like relationship between “I” and God. Here is how Firman (1996: 6) speaks about this relationship, comparing his understanding with Assagioli’s:

“Assagioli’s notion of Self-realisation is… very clear in his outline of the four stages of psychosynthesis. The first two stages involve an exploration of the lower unconscious and the higher unconscious, while the second two stages involve contact with, and response to, Self. Exploration of the unconscious – both lower and higher – is only an adjunct to the main aim: developing a relationship with Self. Self and Self-realisation are thus differentiated from all the levels of the unconscious, including the higher unconscious.”

There are two important observations to make here: Firman is claiming that Self-realisation concerns “developing a relationship with Self”, and that Self-realisation is “differentiated” from the higher unconscious. By contrast, for Assagioli (1965: 24), the objective of Self-realisation is “to unite the lower with the higher Self”. Firman no doubt avoids referring to a unification process because he doesn’t believe in it (as we shall see below), but in doing so, he creates confusion regarding Assagioli’s understanding of Self-realisation.

Firman and Gila clearly believe a relationship between the “I” and the Self to be the primary goal of Self-realisation, and they claim this is also Assagioli’s understanding, stating (Firman, 1996: 6):

“Assagioli is… making a distinction between the attainment of higher states of consciousness and the building of a relationship with deeper Self – the latter which is called Self-realisation.”

When they claim Assagioli believes this “relationship with deeper Self” is Self-realisation – rather than unification with the Transpersonal Self – they are clearly reducing Assagioli’s understanding of Self-realisation. Even so, it would be helpful for us to look at the role that the relationship between the “I” and the Transpersonal Self plays in Assagioli’s theory. Well, Assagioli does speak in terms of a relationship, for example, he believes that holding an inner image of our perfected personality (known as the internal unifying centre) can help us to form a true relationship with our Transpersonal Self.

Even though an image is an imaginary thing, it can become a living reality when we endeavour to manifest it through action. This image is the ideal model we spoke about above. Assagioli also believes that an external role model – be it a leader or a therapist – can serve as an external unifying centre, helping us to transcend our limitations and reach for the Transpersonal Self; by relating to the “other”, and emulating them, one can gradually take a step closer one’s true authentic Self. Here is how Assagioli (1965: 25) describes this idea:

“These “ideal models” imply, as is evident, vital relationships with the outer world and other human beings, and hence a certain degree of extraversion…

“This outward projection of one’s own centre, this excentricity (in the etymological sense of the word) should not be underrated. While it does not represent the most direct way or the highest achievement, it may, despite appearances, constitute for the time being a satisfactory form of indirect self-realisation. In the best instances the individual does not really lose himself in the external object, but frees himself in that way from selfish interests and personal limitations; he realises himself through the external ideal or being. The latter thus becomes an indirect but true link, a point of connection between the personal man and his higher Self, which is reflected and symbolised in that object.”

Through establishing a relationship with an external role model, we can connect with real energies, so that a relationship, for example to a therapist, can be internalised through a conscious receiving of these energies and qualities. Engaging through a relationship in this way makes it possible to connect with dormant energies in one’s self. According to Assagioli, such symbolic relationships are a “form of indirect self-realisation”; they are not the “most direct way” or the “highest achievement”, but they are valid ways for connecting with the Transpersonal Self.

Another type of relationship that Assagioli (1974: 112-115) speaks of involves listening to the call of the Transpersonal Self, which is always a call to transcendence, also known as superconscious realisation, something I will discuss in more detail in the next chapter.

In describing symbolic relationships and the call of the Transpersonal Self, Assagioli is describing different paths to Self-realisation.

For Assagioli, Self-realisation concludes with the unification of the personal self, or “I”, and the Transpersonal Self. However, Firman and Gila deny that such a unification is possible and speak instead about a life-long relationship between the personal self and Self, which is only a limited part of Self-realisation according to Assagioli’s understanding of the concept.

If we are to express the essence of Firman and Gila’s understanding of Self-realisation, then it must be their claim that “Self-realisation is a lifelong interplay between personal will (the will of ‘I’) and transpersonal will (the will of Self)” (Firman 1996: 10) and that it is the “sense of call, of invitation, of dharma, [that] is the essence of Self-realisation” (Firman, 1996: 11). They also claim that (Firman, 1996: 14):

“Self is experienced most essentially as a sense of vocation or call, providing direction and meaning not only for individual unfoldment, but for living our relationships with other people, nature, and the planet as a whole.”

We can see that Firman and Gila focus on the relationship between the “I” and Self (God) – and they also claim that this is Assagioli’s essential view of Self-realisation, which it is not. For Assagioli, the essence of Self-realisation is a direct experience of the Transpersonal Self, a unification of “I” and the Transpersonal Self, not a relationship.

In their revised understanding of Self-realisation, Firman and Gila are introducing a permanent duality between the one who calls (Transpersonal Self) and the listener (personal self) – a duality that is only a temporary condition in Assagioli’s version of psychosynthesis.

It is stunning to notice this because, as we recall, Firman’s initial critique of Assagioli was their claim that he was a dualistic Gnostic, whereas we see here that it is Firman himself who is the dualist! Let me be clear, Firman and Gila do occasionally speak about a union between the personal self and God, but they mean something very different to what Assagioli is speaking about. An example of this is where Firman (1996: 12) writes:

“We realise… that there is an ontological union between “I” and Self, akin to the absolute union between a reflection and its source.”

This comment is reminiscent of the discussion in chapters three and five where we explored Firman and Gila’s notion that the “I” is an image of Self/God, and that there are no specific experiences connected with the “I” and Self because they are both distinct and transcendent of experience and of consciousness itself – according to Firman and Gila, you are always you regardless of the experience you are having or your level of consciousness. Hence, when they speak about a union between the “I” and Self, they are not speaking about a particular experience, but rather the underlying relationship, which does not change, regardless of whether a person is feeling joyful or is suffering. Firman and Gila believe that we will always be an image and a reflection in the mind of God, while for Assagioli, we can become one with God.

For Firman and Gila, there is no final destination or specific goal for the spiritual journey (Firman, 1996: 12), which is very different to Assagioli who sees Self-realisation as the journey of the “I” towards becoming the Transpersonal Self.

Clearly, Assagioli and Firman and Gila hold different views on Self-realisation. However, again and again, Firman claims that Assagioli would approve of his theoretical revisions. For example, Firman (1996: 12) states:  

“The foregoing discussion of Self and Self-realisation outlines what I believe to be the essence of Assagioli’s thinking about these central topics within psychosynthesis. However there are certain aspects of Assagioli’s own thinking, and of subsequent psychosynthesis theory, which work to obscure this essential view of Self and Self-realisation. There is a need to clarify these confusing aspects of the theory, as well as a need to develop new understandings which can portray the nature of Self and Self-realisation in a more precise way.”

If Firman and Gila had openly explained how their views differed from Assagioli’s then there would be no confusion – because it would be clear that they were setting out a new understanding of psychosynthesis, which is their right. However, by claiming that their new theory is a clarification of Assagioli’s ideas, they are obscuring and confusing Assagioli’s understanding of Self-realisation.

Firman and Gila also claim that one of the most confusing aspects of Assagioli’s thinking is the placement of the Transpersonal Self at the top of the egg-diagram, which they say is unhelpful because it implies that Self-realisation requires an ascent through the superconscious to reach the Transpersonal Self to identify with it, but according to Firman (1996: 17):

“Self-realisation is not something only possible after climbing up through stages of development to a higher plane,nor something attained only in rare peak moments, nor a far off goal to be achieved. Rather, Self-realisation is the individual’s ongoing relationship to Self.”

Firman and Gila are incorrect in their claim that the essence of Self-realisation is the relationship between the “I” and Self (God) – and that this is the view of Assagioli. For Assagioli, the essence of Self-realisation is the unification of the “I” and the Transpersonal Self; the relationship between them is only a temporary stage in Assagioli’s three-stage model of Self-realisation. So the answer to question number three is affirmative: Yes, Self-realisation does involve identification with the Transpersonal Self. We will investigate how the experience of the Transpersonal Self is understood later in this chapter.

(See also the article about the I-Self connection and why there can be no primal wound when using Assagioli’s model. Other relevant articles about the conscious “I” can be found here)

We are now ready to look at question number one: Does the Self exist only in the higher unconscious?

Is the Transpersonal Self a superconscious being?

The central claim of Firman and Gila is that the Transpersonal Self (or God, in their view) is accessible at all levels of the psyche, meaning it is not found only via the superconscious – this is their theory of transcendence-immanence. If Firman and Gila are correct, then they are right to say that the Transpersonal Self does not belong at the top of the egg-diagram. When Firman states that the Transpersonal Self is “completely present” at all levels of the psyche, then we must conclude that it is equally present at all levels because, in their philosophy, Self (God) is transcendent and immanent in any and all types of content, be it lower or higher. This was not Firman’s original view: in a 1977 paper co-authored with Vargiu, he wrote:

“The Transpersonal Self is, in its own high sphere, an Ontological Reality, a centre of being, awareness and will. It is, therefore, more than a source of energy: it has intentionality – including the enduring intention to send us the energy we need to grow and evolve. In the deepest sense, we are that [Transpersonal] Self; it is our true nature, although we may not yet experience and live that fact. It is to bring us to this realisation, to assist us toward eventual unification with it in consciousness and action that the [Transpersonal] Self wills us the energy we need.”

The view expressed in this quote is identical to how Assagioli understands the Transpersonal Self: it exists in its own “high sphere”, it is an “Ontological Reality”, we “are that Self” and we must unify with it. Given that Firman was able to express this understanding of Assagioli’s so clearly, how can he later claim that Assagioli believed something different? In this quote, Firman states that the Transpersonal Self is an ontological reality in its own high sphere, but he later revises this view and claims that the Transpersonal Self is in fact completely present in the lower and middle unconscious, i.e. not only in the “high sphere” – and he claims this is also Assagioli’s view.

To understand why Assagioli placed the Transpersonal Self in the superconscious area, we must consider the Great Chain of Being – the inner levels of being – and remind ourselves that, according to this theory, we encounter more Spirit the higher we climb the ladder of consciousness. Accordingly, we can see that there is a more expanded consciousness inherent in universal love (which resides in the superconscious) than in jealous love (which is a product of the lower unconscious). So, as we shall discuss later in this chapter, the energies in the superconscious resemble the being-ness of the Transpersonal Self, which is not the case with the energies in the lower unconscious.

Let us see how Assagioli (2007: 66) explains this concept that the light intensifies the more we ascend toward Spirit:

“Many poets have experienced this enlightenment and have attempted to express it. The greatest among them is Dante. His ‘Paradise’ is full of expressions of light. At the beginning of the book he states quite clearly that he has had the indescribable experience of the supreme light, the light that shines in the highest heaven, closest to the Supreme Reality, God.

The glory of him who moves everything
Penetrates the universe and shines
In one part more and, in another, less.

I have been in the heaven which takes most of his light,
And I have seen things which cannot be told,
Possibly, by anyone who comes down from up there;

Because, approaching the object of its desires,
Our intellect is so deeply absorbed
That memory cannot follow it all the way.”

The line “in one part more and, in another, less” says it all. Well, let us look directly at some of Assagioli’s statements in which he refers to the Transpersonal Self as a transcendent being.

We are seeking to discover why Assagioli placed the Transpersonal Self in the realm of the superconscious, as depicted in his egg-diagram. It is my opinion that the egg-diagram is not merely symbolic, rather, Assagioli was certain of the reality of the higher Transpersonal Self – in fact, Assagioli always claimed that psychosynthesis was based on experiential facts. For Assagioli, Dante’s heavenly realm was not a symbolic vision but a description of a reality – indeed, Assagioli (1965: 211) called Dante’s Divine Comedy a “wonderful picture of a complete psychosynthesis”. Let me share some quotes from Assagioli to illustrate my point:

“Just as there is a personal will… so there is a Transpersonal Will, which is an expression of the Transpersonal Self and operates from the superconscious levels of the psyche.” (Assagioli, 1974: 112)

“The spiritual Self is a transcendent, glorious reality, and one can have direct, immediate proof of it, that is, one can experience It.” (Assagioli, Undated 7)

“The Self, the ‘Soul’, the true spiritual Centre, is, in both nations and individuals, superconscious. It does exist, but in a realm or at a level that is ordinarily above the reach of the personal consciousness.” (Assagioli, 1965b)

“To reach the place where this Self resides means a climb, an ascent to the heights of the superconscious.” (Assagioli, 2007: 76)

“This Self is above, and unaffected by, the flow of the mind-stream or bodily conditions.” (Assagioli, 1965: 19)

“The transpersonal Self is ‘outside’ time and above it. It exists and lives in the dimension of the Eternal.” (Assagioli, 1973c)

These quotes make it clear that, according to the experiences of Assagioli – as ratified by millions of others from many religious traditions – our true Self (soul, Atman, Tao, The Void, Suchness, The Immovable Mover, The Omega Point) is a transcendent being. In other words, we are each a spiritual being living in a transcendent realm having a human experience. This transcendent realm, or heavenly dimension, is an ontological world according to the perennial philosophy, as described by The Great Chain of Being.

The Transpersonal Self, or soul, cannot be wounded, it is untouched by trauma, it is the unchangeable permanent loving observer in all of us – a fact it is well worth being reminded of. In an illuminating article, The Transcendence of the Self, Assagioli (Undated 8) states the following:

“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 in the superconscious but remains at its level. The Self does not become immanent in the sense that I have said. We could eventually achieve Self-consciousness, but that’s another thing. Then it is the personal self or ego that rises like a spider on the web and identifies with the Self. But it is not the Self that becomes immanent. That’s 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 reflects its nature.”

Assagioli is saying that the Transpersonal Self does not enter the domain of the lower or middle unconscious but remains at the superconscious level. At this level, the Transpersonal Self radiates the superconscious qualities of love, joy and power, which can descend to the levels of the conscious “I”, providing us with deep insight and peak experiences. The conscious “I”, or observer, is the representative of the Transpersonal Self; the “I” is a projection, or reflection, of its source – something Assagioli (1968) explains in this way:

“The Self is an ontological Reality, a Being, and is on Its own level a stable Centre of Life, from which It radiates energies. The personal self, the self-conscious “I” is a projection or reflection of the Self into the normal human level.

“An analogy may help understanding, although, as are all analogies, it is only approximate and partial. The relationship between the spiritual or transpersonal Self and the personal self, or “I”, can be compared to that between the Sun and a planet, let us say the Earth. From the sun emanate many and powerful radiations, which affect the planet and all the living beings on it, producing the conditions for evolution, development, growth. In the same way the Self projects a small portion, a spark, a tiny centre of self-consciousness.

“This self grows in self-awareness, intelligence, power to act, etc., under the combined influence of ‘nourishment’ from the environment, the soil where it exists, and from the vivifying impact of the descending energies radiated by the Self. One might say that the Self becomes aware through the [personal] self of what exists and occurs at the personal levels (physical – emotional – mental). The personal self, in its turn, becomes aware of the Self in two ways:

By opening itself consciously to and recognising the radiation from the Self.

By rising towards and eventually contacting and merging partially with the Self.”

It is important to stress that the Transpersonal Self is not a thing, an object in the sky separated from our essential being; the Transpersonal Self is always “me”, never something other, always the loving observer and powerful actor. However, the realisation of and identification with this centre as “pure self-awareness and will” undergoes many radical expansions, transformations, awakenings and realisations.[1]

I think we have confirmed that for Assagioli the Transpersonal Self is a superconscious being, and, in this, he is once again aligned with the perennial philosophy and all of those who, through the centuries, have reported having a direct experience of the Transpersonal Self. According to Assagioli (cited in Miller, 1973):

“Thousands of individuals, millions perhaps, have had the experience of the [Transpersonal] Self and have given testimony to it. In India, it is traditionally called the “Atman”. Some of the deeper Christian mystics have been aware of it and have called it variously, the” divine spark” of the person, the “apex”, the “base”, the “centre” and the “innermost essence”.”

From this perspective, we can conclude that we don’t find Atman, or the Transpersonal Self, in the lower or middle unconscious, and that Firman and Gila are incorrect to claim that it is “the core of Assagioli’s understanding” that the Transpersonal Self is “completely present”, or equally present, at all levels.

According to Assagioli, the Transpersonal Self is fully present in the superconscious. He writes (Assagioli, 2007: 26):

“The contents of the superconscious, particularly at its higher levels, are very close to the Self and therefore share, to some extent, its characteristics.”

Assagioli discriminates between superconscious energies and the direct experience of the Transpersonal Self. He stresses that the Transpersonal Self is distinct from and transcends the superconscious. However, this doesn’t imply that Assagioli thought the Transpersonal Self was equally present at all levels. Even so, Firman claims that Assagioli did hold this view, stating (Firman, 1995: 2):

“Transcendence… denotes that Self [God] cannot be equated with any specific content or process of the higher, middle, or lower unconscious, while immanence denotes that Self [God] is still completely present and active within the content and process of all these levels – both insights at the core of Assagioli’s understanding of Self.”

No, these insights are not at the core of Assagioli’s understanding of the Transpersonal Self! We can conclude that Firman is incorrect in claiming that Assagioli believed the Transpersonal Self is “completely present” in all content and therefore omnipresent at all levels of the psyche. The radiation, energies and processes of the Transpersonal Self are immanent and present at all levels, but not the Transpersonal Self itself. We can answer question number one in the affirmative: Yes, the Self only exists in the higher unconscious.

We will now look in detail at why Firman and Gila rejected the concept of the Transpersonal Self. In doing so, we will be exploring their claim that Self-realisation does not involve identification with the Transpersonal Self.

Why Firman and Gila rejected the Transpersonal Self

In chapter one, we read Firman’s account of how he never succeeded in climbing the dotted line to unite with his Higher Self. He explained (Firman, 2005):

“I thought I had a Higher Self. I thought that there was this Higher Self, the soul somewhere around that I was supposed to become… I was trying to go up the dotted line and get to this thing.”

Firman was referring to a time in his life when he was in a cultish environment that demonised his depression as something that prevented him from becoming his Higher Self. This type of culture will never facilitate a growth environment in which unification with the Transpersonal Self can be experienced – only an environment of love can facilitate unification with the Transpersonal Self. When Firman left the cult, he revised his understanding of psychosynthesis theory. In a 2005 lecture, he said the following (Firman & Gila, 2005):  

“Basically, there’s me; there’s God, there’s not this other place that I’m supposed to get to… we don’t become the other; we become more of who we are. So there really isn’t a Higher Self.”

It is interesting that Firman uses the words “we become more of who we are” because this is precisely the meaning that Assagioli uses to describe unification with the Transpersonal Self. For Assagioli, the Transpersonal Self (Higher Self) is not something other, but who you essentially are. So Firman and Gila are incorrect to infer that Assagioli posited that the Transpersonal Self is an object, some “other” thing. Let us examine the arguments Firman and Gila used to reject the existence of the Transpersonal Self. In a footnote in their book Psychosynthesis: A Psychology of the Spirit, they write (Firman & Gila, 2002: 195):

“The problem with this early formulation of Higher or Transpersonal Self is that there is, in fact, no “other self” we become: we remain “I” throughout all changes in consciousness, even though the limited experience of ourselves can transform radically as we grow psychologically and spiritually. So to characterise this transformation as “becoming another self”, although this poetically captures the profundity of the experience, is finally inaccurate and misleading. What actually has occurred in this transformation is that we have realised who we were all along: “I” in communion with Self, our individuality in communion with universality.

“The problem with believing that we must become “another self” in this process makes that “other self” seem like an object that we can pursue, an “other” with whom we can identify, which has the effect of obscuring the truth that we are always and for evermore “I”. We may consequently begin looking for “I” in all the wrong places.

“So for us, there is no “Higher Self” or “Transpersonal Self” understood in this way. Rather, we posit that over the course of Self-realisation, human beings can find themselves in communion with Self, often experienced as universal, expressing their unique, essential “I-amness” in the world – the expression we term authentic personality.”

In using the phrases “other self” and “becoming another self”, Firman and Gila seem to believe that this is how Assagioli (i.e. “early formulation”) understood the Transpersonal Self, but they offer no references for where Assagioli makes such claims – and, indeed, they seem to have created a strawman because Assagioli never used this kind of language. Assagioli would also reject the idea of a Transpersonal Self “understood in this way”. Indeed, Assagioli (Undated 10) clearly states:

“We are careful not to make the mistake of thinking of our ordinary self and our true Self as if they were two separate entities. Basically, the Self is one. The ordinary self includes as much of the deeper Self that waking consciousness is able to receive, assimilate and activate. It is a reflection that becomes more and more clear and vivid, until finally it meets with its source.

“It could be said that our entire inner development consists of an enlargement and elevation of consciousness until it reaches complete union with the true Self. It is this higher centre that constitutes the connecting element, the point of contact between the soul and the Supersoul, with the Spirit, with God.”

Assagioli makes similar comments on many occasions (for example, see Assagioli, 1965: 20). And we must conclude that Firman and Gila are aware that Assagioli holds this view, for example there is the 1977 paper by Firman and Vargiu which states: “In the deepest sense, we are that Self; it is our true nature, although we may not yet experience and live that fact.” So Firman knows that Assagioli never speaks of becoming another Self – for Assagioli, it is a question of waking up to who we already are in our essential beingness.

No identification with Transpersonal Self, according to Firman and Gila

As we can see, Firman and Gila dismiss the idea that it is possible for the “I” to achieve identification with the Transpersonal Self or God. In doing so, they are rejecting a central and core idea of Assagioli’s. Firman (1996: 18) makes his position clear:

“Identification with Self is not beneficial, even if possible, because this would mean taking on the perspective of Self, in effect becoming Self – which would only lead to an immersion in the profound transcendence-immanence of Self.”

Firman claims that such an identification would make a person aware of all content of all levels of consciousness simultaneously, presumably also on cosmic levels, and that this is something that is undesirable, even dangerous. However, his concern is invalid because he has misunderstood how Self-realisation works. Indeed, we can demonstrate Firman and Gila’s misunderstanding by considering their own model: according to them, when we become identified with the “I”, we do not become simultaneously embedded in all the energies of the middle unconscious – we are not flooded by all of our memories all of the time – this would lead to some kind of psychosis; rather, it is common knowledge that we can access all of the energies, values and talents of the middle unconscious when we direct our attention to them, much like back-up files on a computer’s hard disk which we can access or ignore. Well, this same principle applies in terms of identification with the Transpersonal Self, albeit the hard disk is much larger.

Firman and Gila believe the goal of personal and transpersonal psychosynthesis is the expansion of the middle unconscious into the lower and higher unconscious until there is only one experiential range from the bottom to the top of the egg-diagram. One could argue against this idea with the same logic that Firman uses to discredit identification with the Transpersonal Self.

Here is another quote in which Firman rejects Assagioli’s core idea that Self-realisation involves identification with the Transpersonal Self. Firman (1996: 19) writes:

“Identification with the Self seems misleading and inaccurate, obscuring Assagioli’s notion of Self-realisation as a lived relationship to Self. (Identification with Self would also imply that one becomes the source of one’s own call, that one becomes one’s own “God” or “Higher Power,” to use Assagioli’s terms.)”

Again, there is confusion here. Firman says that identification with Self obscures “Assagioli’s notion” of a relationship with Self – but a “relationship” with Self is only a temporary stage in Assagioli’s theory; Assagioli speaks about identification with Self, or unification. Rather, the problem for Firman and Gila is that their notion of Self-realisation does not fit with Assagioli’s theory of identification with Self, so they claim there is confusion in Assagioli’s theory where there is none. Assagioli’s core philosophy is that human destiny is to be the Transpersonal Self; this is very different to the duality of Firman and Gila in which the connection of “I” to Self is limited to a relationship only.

Assagioli even proposes that we can become one with God, which is stage three of his theory of Self-realisation. Here is how he explains this idea (Assagioli, 1974: 124-125):

“Man can have the intuitive realisation of his essential identity with the supreme Reality. In the East it has been expressed as the identity between the Atman and the Brahman. In the West some mystics have boldly proclaimed the identity between man and God. Others have emphasised that Life is One, that there is only One Life. But this does not mean that man’s mind can grasp the wonder and mysteries of the cosmic manifestation.

“Only through a series of expansions of consciousness, only by reaching ever higher states of awareness, may he gradually experience some of those wondrous mysteries. Of such transpersonal possibilities, the most enlightened men and women of all ages have given testimony.”

As we have seen, for Firman and Gila, this is not the goal of Self-realisation.

Let us now look at question number four: Is Self-realisation a contentless unitive experience? Firman (1996: 20) argues that:

“Assagioli and Vargiu both attempt to establish the profound transcendence of Self by pointing to a particular type of unitive experience with Self. They thereby affirm that Self is beyond all content, all process, all form. This is a laudable approach, and has also been employed in the “apophatic”, “negative theology”, or “via negativa” religious traditions of both East and West.

“However Self is immanent as well as transcendent. Self is not only to be met in such moments of unmanifest formlessness, but in form and manifestation as well. This has been recognised by the complementary “cataphatic”, “positive theology”, and “via positiva” approaches of both East and West. In simple terms, Self-realisation can engage form as well as the formless, the manifest as well as the unmanifest.”

Firman highlights two different paths to Self-realisation, something Assagioli (Undated 9) also considered when he wrote about the Way of Transcendence (via negativa) and the Seven Ways of Self-realisation (via positiva) – two paths that feature in stage one of Assagioli’s theory of Self-realisation. Most people take the route to Self-realisation that Assagioli (Undated 9) referred to as the Seven Ways of Self-realisation. This involves the “I” identifying with superconscious content and expressing these energies in the form of transpersonal love, transpersonal will, transpersonal beauty, etc. (Assagioli, 1974: 116). The use of ideal models can be useful here. These Seven Ways are equivalent to what is called the “via positiva” because they are based on identification with and the expression of increasingly higher states of superconscious content. Speaking to Vargiu (1973b), Assagioli said the following:

“Identification with higher and higher aspects of the superconscious is useful, as it can constitute a ladder toward the Self.”

The second approach to identification with the Transpersonal Self, according to Assagioli, is the Way of Transcendence, about which Assagioli (Undated 9) stated:

“The Way of Transcendence [is a path] of pure Transcendence and Identification. In a sense this way is beyond all those that have been mentioned [the Seven Ways], but little can be said about it because there are no words to describe it. We can only say that it exists and try to understand more of it by using the Buddha’s method of negation: it is not this, not that, no thing. Some of the Eastern Schools emphasise this way to Spiritual Realisation, and some of the Western Mystics, especially Meister Eckhart, have attempted to describe it and give hints about it. But it is a way which is only for a very few.”

We will investigate both approaches in the next chapter. For now, let’s look at the claim of Firman that positive theology (“via positiva”) shows us that Self-realisation must involve content as well as contentless experience, i.e. form as well as formlessness. Indeed, Assagioli, as we have seen, is aware of the via positiva, and states that it is a valid path to unification with the Transpersonal Self. But the point for Assagioli is that the via positiva is part of stage one of the journey: it is a method to use that will eventually lead to a direct experience of the Transpersonal Self, which is a contentless unitive experience; so, ultimately, for Assagioli, the end of the journey to Self-realisation will be an experience of formlessness. In his book Psychosynthesis, Assagioli speaks about people from history, some of them geniuses, who have had superconscious experiences while following the different ways to Self-realisation, and he differentiates these experiences – which are mostly stage one experiences – from the direct experience of the Self, which is stage two. Assagioli (1965: 202) explains:

“[There is a] difference between becoming aware of superconscious levels of experience and contents on the one hand, and pure Self-realisation on the other. Self-realisation, in this specific well-defined sense, means the momentary or more or less temporary identification or blending of the I-consciousness with the spiritual Self, in which the former, which is the reflection of the latter, becomes reunited, blended with the spiritual Self. In these cases there is a forgetfulness of all contents of consciousness, of all which forms the personality both on normal levels and those of the synthesised personality which include superconscious or spiritual levels of life and experience; there is only the pure intense experience of the Self.”

So we can say that the Transpersonal Self is transcendent of all content depicted in the egg-diagram – in this, Assagioli and Firman and Gila agree – but this does not mean that the Transpersonal Self is equally present at all levels, as Firman and Gila argue in contrast to Assagioli’s understanding.

For Firman, Self-realisation defined as a contentless unitive experience is “only one particular type of encounter with Self” among many types of experiences, and he adds that Assagioli also held this view, stating “I believe, Assagioli maintained that this union with Self was to be understood as Self-realization only in a ‘specific well-defined sense’” (Firman, 1996: 20). But I cannot understand how Firman can make this claim of Assagioli because there is nowhere that Assagioli says this. Rather, Firman seems to misinterpret Assagioli in order to make his point, suggesting that Assagioli was himself confused. For example, Firman (1996: 20) quotes Assagioli in the following passage, trying to claim that Assagioli believed a “contentless experience” would be an obstacle to Self-realisation:

“a contentless experience can “constitute an obstacle to full Self-realisation”; it can become the supposed defining moment or goal of the path of Self-realisation, distracting one from the true business of Self-realisation – seeking to meet and respond to Self in all life experiences.”

As stated, Firman clearly misunderstood Assagioli, because here is the full passage from which Firman quotes Assagioli (Assagioli, 1965: 38-39):

“It should also be pointed out that the reaching up into the realm of the superconscious and its exploration, while approaching the consciousness of the Self, may sometimes even constitute an obstacle to full Self-realisation, to the reaching of the summit where the personal-I awareness blends into awareness of the spiritual Self. One can become so fascinated by the wonders of the superconscious realm, so absorbed in it, so identified with some of its special aspects or manifestations as to lose or paralyse the urge to reach the summit of Self-realisation.”

We can see that Assagioli is saying that identification with superconscious content can “constitute an obstacle to full Self-realisation”; he is not saying that contentless experience may constitute an obstacle. It is clear that Firman is misunderstanding Assagioli in his quote.

Assagioli differentiated between transpersonal processes and the Transpersonal Self, with the latter always being the witness of these processes. Indeed, to help differentiate, Assagioli recommends using the disidentification exercise – I am not my sensations, emotions or thoughts, but the observer. One could argue that we are speaking about the difference between being (Self) and becoming (transpersonal processes), which Assagioli (Undated: 1) defined as follows:

“One speaks of (from the higher experiences) illumination, intuition, and all the other so-called cosmic consciousness, etc., as being the same. They are not. The basic difference is that all of these are processes, living processes. They belong to the world of becoming and even at the transpersonal there is this wonderful process of becoming, of growth, of all the phases of superconsciousness. But the Self in contradistinction is stable, firm, permanent – to use the philosophical word “ontological”. It is Pure Being. Pure Being is not becoming and becoming is not Pure Being.”

Let’s look a little deeper into how Assagioli defined the experience of the Transpersonal Self. In the following quote, Assagioli (1965: 87) speaks about the individuality and universality of the experience of the Transpersonal Self, which he relates to stage two of the Self-realisation process:

“Very often patients ask for specific clarification on the quality of the Self and of so-called higher experiences. In such cases we explain some of the main characteristics. The chief quality is the experience of synthesis or the realisation of individuality and universality. The real distinguishing factor between the little self and the higher Self is that the little self is acutely aware of itself as a distinct separate individual, and a sense of solitude or of separation sometimes comes in the existential experience. In contrast, the experience of the spiritual Self is a sense of freedom, of expansion, of communication with other Selves and with reality, and there is the sense of Universality. It feels itself at the same time individual and universal.”

Earlier we learned that the experience of the Transpersonal Self includes “a forgetfulness of all contents of consciousness”, and now we hear that there is also an experience of freedom and expansion, of being at the same time an individual and universal. Indeed, Assagioli is describing a contentless unitive experience in which there is an expansion of me, as pure consciousness and awareness, individual but also universal.

Assagioli (1965: 44-45) also states:

“The inner experience of the spiritual Self, and its intimate association with and penetration of the personal self, gives to those who have it a sense of greatness and internal expansion, the conviction of participating in some way in the divine nature. In the religious tradition and spiritual doctrines of every epoch one finds numerous attestations on this subject – some of them expressed in daring terms. In the Bible there is the explicit sentence “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High”. St. Augustine declares: “When the soul loves something it becomes like unto it; if it should love terrestrial things it becomes terrestrial, but if it should love God (we may ask) does it not become God?”

“The most extreme expression of the identity of the human spirit in its pure and real essence with the Supreme Spirit is contained in the central teaching of the Vedanta philosophy: “Tat Twain Asi” (Thou art That) and “Aham evam param Brahman” (In truth I am the Supreme Brahman).

“In whatever way one may conceive the relationship between the individual Self and the universal Self, be they regarded as identical or similar, distinct or united, it is most important to recognise clearly, and to retain ever present in theory and in practice, the difference that exists between the Self in its essential nature – that which has been called the “Fount”, the “Center”, the “deeper Being”, the “Apex” of ourselves – and the small ordinary personality, the little “self” or ego, of which we are normally conscious. The disregard of this vital distinction leads to absurd and dangerous consequences.”

Let us conclude that Firman’s claim that Self-realisation does not involve identification with the Transpersonal Self is incorrect when viewed through the lens of Assagioli’s understanding. We can therefore answer question number four by stating that identification with the Transpersonal Self is related to a contentless unitive experience, in contrast to Firman’s understanding.

Explaining Firman and Gila’s understanding of Self-realisation in terms of Assagioli’s theory

We will now examine how superconscious experiences can occur outside of the realm of the higher unconscious, for example during therapeutic work with childhood trauma (lower unconscious) or during mundane activities (middle unconscious). Such occurrences are cited by Firman and Gila as an argument against portraying the Transpersonal Self at top of the egg-diagram (Firman, 1996: 7).

However, according to Assagioli’s theory, it is not necessary to change the egg-diagram in order to explain why people might experience higher states while working with energies in the lower unconscious or while engag­ed in ordinary life situa­tions. According to Assagioli (1963: 4), the Transpersonal Self is able to act through the superconscious “under the powerful stimulation of some unusual stress or emergency, or in response to some strong appeal”. In an interview with Diane Freund (Freund, 1983: 85), Assagioli describes this principle as “man’s extremity, God’s oppor­tu­ni­ty”. According to this principle, the pain and agony of the per­sonal self, and its appeal for help, act as an invocation to the Transpersonal Self, which responds by sending its light and love through the supercon­sci­ous.

This situation is depicted in Diagram 2. One famous instance of this is Eckhart Tolle’s spontaneous enlightenment while in a deep depression, as reported in his book The Power of Now (Tolle, 2004: 3). Assagioli (2002: 113) describes such instances of spontaneous enlightenment as a “pull” or “call” from above by the Transpersonal Self.

Although Assagioli believed the Transpersonal Self to be a transcendent being living in a superconscious realm, he never implied that it is cut off from the process of becoming. The Transpersonal Self knows what is going on in the world of the personality, as Assagioli explains (1965: 204):

“There is a wise teacher within him – his spiritual Self who already knows his problem, his crisis, his perplexity.”

We must remember, that the personal self is a reflection and an outpost of the Transpersonal Self and, even though it is identified with a lot of psychological content which obscures this connection, it is still connected. There are not two selves – the Transpersonal Self is always trying to inspire us to follow the wise direction of our life purpose. So, in this respect, Firman and Gila are correct to highlight the relationship between the personal self and the Transpersonal Self (or God, in their view). Assagioli speaks about this relationship in this way (1965: 88):

“We think that there is such a thing as the “unconscious will” of the higher Self which tends always to bring the personality in line with the over-all purpose of the spiritual Self. One of the purposes or goals of spiritual psychosynthesis is to make this “unconscious will” of the spiritual Self a conscious experience.”

Elsewhere, Assagioli (1965: 205-206) states that God is in a living relationship with each of us:

“The individual is never absolutely alone and God (or the spiritual reality) is never purely transcendent, but always in living relationship with the manifestation.”

So, even in our darkest hours when we are identified with depression, hate, jealousy or anger (in the lower unconscious), we can still reach out to the Transpersonal Self and invoke our deeper divine nature because we are never entirely cut off from the channel (the dotted line) which connects the personal self with the Transpersonal Self. But by admitting this possibility, we are not suggesting that the Transpersonal Self is equally as present in the lower and middle unconscious as in the higher unconscious. Rather, it is important to realise that we can respond to and hear the call of the Transpersonal Self at all levels of the egg-diagram, but if we wish to unite and become one with our essential being (the Transpersonal Self), we have to ascend to the top of the superconscious. This is the difference between Assagioli and Firman and Gila’s understanding.

We must remember that the lower unconscious is composed of egocentric states which tend to isolate us when we are identified with them. When we are feeling angry, depressed or jealous, we become self-centred and are far away from universal consciousness, which is the natural and permanent state of the Transpersonal Self. To wake up to oneself as a soul or Transpersonal Self is to realise that I am pure love, will and bliss. Assagioli (1974: 200-201) explains:

“The realisation of the Transpersonal Will, the expression of the Transpersonal Self, is so intensely joyous that it can be called blissful. Here we have the joy of the harmonious union between the personal and the Transpersonal Will; the joy of the harmony between one’s Transpersonal Will and those of others; and, highest and foremost, the bliss of the identification with the Universal Will.

“The mystics of all times and places have realised and expressed the joy and bliss which are inherent in the union of the individual will with the Universal Will.

“This consummation is vividly expressed in the Sanskrit saying Sat-Chit-Ananda: “The blissful awareness of Reality.” And finally in the triumphant affirmation: Aham evam param Brahman: “I indeed am the Supreme Brahman.””

A development of the higher unconscious energies prepares us for such expansion and profound realisation, and Assagioli wrote extensively about how to raise one’s energies through active techniques. He is not suggesting the repression or denial of our baser instincts, but rather the conscious transmutation of them through his ten psychological laws (Assagioli, 1974: 46). However, this also implies that we must acknowledge that the lower and higher levels have different ethical values: a compassionate love is better than a selfish love, as Assagioli (1974: 99) explains:

“The existence of different levels of being having different values is an evident and undeniable manifestation of the great law of evolution, as it progresses from simple and crude stages to more refined and highly organised ones. Applying this to the sphere of love and disregarding here the question of the relationship between sexuality and love, it is evident that a love that is overpowering, possessive, jealous, and blind is at a lower level than one that is tender and concerned with the person of the loved one, that seeks his wellbeing and desires the union of the best aspects of both personalities. At still another level we find altruistic love, with its broad humanitarian perspective, animated by compassion and the urge to mitigate the sufferings and ills that beset humanity – the love called caritas or agape. How, then, can the differences in, evolution, level, and value of the various kinds of love be ignored?

“The same is equally true and evident in regard to the will, which, as we have seen, can at its lowest level be hard, egotistical, bent toward power and domination, ruthless and cruel. At higher levels, on the other hand, the will is directed toward objectives and purposes devoid of egotism and egocentric content.”

The lower energies are not bad in a moral sense, they are just less evolved, and this should just be a simple observation. However, many people today are reluctant to apply such value judgments due to a prevalent philosophy of relativity, although, in practical terms, most people prefer to experience joy instead of sadness, and in this we see a value judgment anyway.

In this chapter, I hope I have clarified that Assagioli’s egg-diagram is a helpful and precise conception of the human being. While it may not be perfect nor complete, the egg-diagram nonetheless helps us to understand Assagioli’s theory of the personality. We can therefore conclude that Firman’s claim (in question number five) that the egg-diagram is “problematic in portraying… Assagioli’s own understanding of the human person” is incorrect.

Of course, we know the egg-diagram is problematic for Firman and Gila because it does not represent their philosophy of transcendence-immanence – this is because Firman and Gila (1991: 14) consider the Transpersonal Self (God, in their philosophy) to be distinct from consciousness and “completely one” with all levels and energies of the psyche. This view is not compatible with Assagioli’s conception of psychosynthesis.

Analytical conclusion

Let us conclude with a summary of the significant findings in this chapter. 

First, let’s list the incorrect claims that Firman and Gila have made about Assagioli’s understanding of psychosynthesis. I have identified 14 incorrect claims, which I’m dividing into two categories, as follows:

The egg-diagram:

1. Incorrect: Firman (1995: 1) claims the original egg-diagram “obscures Assagioli’s insight that Self is transcendent of all content and process, transcendent even of the numinous patterns and transpersonal qualities of the higher unconscious or superconscious”.
   Correction: The egg-diagram perfectly fits Assagioli’s understanding of the three stages of Self-realisation and shows that the Transpersonal Self resides in the superconscious.
   
   
2. Incorrect: Firman (1995: 1) claims the egg-diagram has “been found to be problematic in portraying Assagioli’s own understanding of the human person”.
   Correction: There is no evidence to suggest that the egg-diagram does not fit Assagioli’s understanding.
   
   
3. Incorrect: Firman (1995: 3) claims: “The earlier diagram of Self… tends to confuse transpersonal psychosynthesis (or spiritual psychosynthesis) with Self-realisation. Although Assagioli is quite clear that Self-realisation is distinct from transpersonal contents and energies, the early diagram can confuse this distinction.”
   Correction: Assagioli did not believe Self-realisation to be distinct from transpersonal contents; transpersonal psychosynthesis is stage one of the Self-realisation process.
   
   
4. Incorrect: Firman (1995: 1) claims Assagioli’s egg-diagram “implies that in order to contact and respond to Self, one must distance oneself from the flatlands and depths of human experience, and reach upwards to the heights”.
   Correction: It is possible to “contact and respond” to the Transpersonal Self and God at all levels by connecting with superconscious energies when they descend into the realms of the middle and lower unconscious. However, unification between the “I” and the Transpersonal Self can only happen in the superconscious.

• Incorrect: Firman and Gila (1993: 2) claim their revision of the egg-diagram and psychosynthesis’ developmental theory “grows directly from seeds Assagioli himself planted in his two seminal works, Psychosynthesis and The Act of Will. Beyond this shift in the theory, we attempt to present the fundamental topics of psychosynthesis adhering as much as possible to Assagioli’s original conceptions”.
  Correction: There is no evidence that Assagioli planted seeds in support of Firman and Gila’s significant changes.

Self-realisation and the Transpersonal Self

1. Incorrect: Firman (1996: 1) claims his revisions “represent Self and Self-realisation more in accord with Assagioli’s view and with observed experience”.
   Correction: Firman and Gila’s revisions change Assagioli’s understanding in a radical way.
   
   
2. Incorrect: Firman (1996: 4) claims “there is some confusion about Self and Self-realisation both in Assagioli’s own writing and in subsequent psychosynthesis theory”.
   Correction: There is no confusion in Assagioli’s writing about Self and Self-realisation – it is consistent in its view throughout his work.
   
   
3. Incorrect: Firman (1996: 6) claims: “Assagioli’s notion of Self-realisation is… very clear in his outline of the four stages of psychosynthesis. The first two stages involve an exploration of the lower unconscious and the higher unconscious, while the second two stages involve contact with, and response to, Self. Exploration of the unconscious – both lower and higher – is only an adjunct to the main aim: developing a relationship with Self. Self and Self-realisation are thus differentiated from all the levels of the unconscious, including the higher unconscious.”
   Correction: The main aim of Self-realisation is not a relationship to the Transpersonal Self according to Assagioli, but unification of the “I” and the Transpersonal Self. In addition, Self-realisation is not differentiated from the higher unconscious, according to Assagioli.
   
   
4. Incorrect: Firman (1996: 12) claims that his own description of “Self and Self-realisation outlines… the essence of Assagioli’s thinking about these central topics within psychosynthesis”.
   Correction: Firman and Gila’s revision of Self-realisation does not contain the essence of Assagioli’s thinking, but is in fact a radical departure from it.
   
   
5. Incorrect: Firman (1996: 20) claims that Self-realisation, defined as a contentless unitive experience, is “only one particular type of encounter with Self” among many types of experiences, and he adds that Assagioli also held this view, stating “I believe, Assagioli maintained that this union with Self was to be understood as Self-realisation only in a ‘specific well-defined sense’ ”.
   Correction: Assagioli asserts that the experience of unification with the Transpersonal Self is always a contentless unitive experience.
   
   
6. Incorrect: Firman (1996: 20) claims that Assagioli believed a “contentless experience” would be an obstacle to Self-realisation.

Correction: Assagioli never wrote that contentless experiences might become an obstacle to full Self-realisation.

• Incorrect: Firman and Gila (2002: 195) claim: “The problem with this early formulation of Higher or Transpersonal Self is that there is, in fact, no ‘other self’ we become”.
  Correction: Firman and Gila’s claim, without evidence, that early formulations of psychosynthesis (including Assagioli’s) speak about becoming another self is incorrect. Assagioli never speaks about the Transpersonal Self as another self.
  
  
• Incorrect: Firman (1995: 2) claims: “Transcendence… denotes that Self cannot be equated with any specific content or process of the higher, middle, or lower unconscious, while immanence denotes that Self is still completely present and active within the content and process of all these levels – both insights at the core of Assagioli’s understanding of Self.”
  Correction: These insights are not at the core of Assagioli’s understanding. Assagioli did not believe that the Self (God) is completely present at all levels of consciousness. It is correct to say that Assagioli believed that the emanations, energies and processes of the Transpersonal Self are immanent and present at all levels, but not the pure beingness of the Transpersonal Self as universal consciousness. Also, Assagioli believed the Self in itself does not become immanent.
  
  
• Incorrect: Firman (1995: 19) claims: “Identification with the Self seems misleading and inaccurate, obscuring Assagioli’s notion of Self-realisation as a lived relationship to Self. (Identification with Self would also imply that one becomes the source of one’s own call, that one becomes one’s own ‘God’ or ‘Higher Power’, to use Assagioli’s terms.)”

Correction: Identification with the Transpersonal Self does not obscure Assagioli’s notion of Self-realisation, but is part of his core philosophy, being the second stage of Self-realisation. However, an identification with the Transpersonal Self does obscure Firman and Gila’s notion of Self-realisation.

Let us now highlight some of the important differences between Assagioli’s and Firman and Gila’s understanding of Self-realisation and the Transpersonal Self.

Differences between Assagioli and Firman and Gila

Synthetic conclusion

While there are significant differences between the two versions of psychosynthesis, there are also similarities. Firman and Gila’s emphasis on a relationship with Self (God) is also part of Assagioli’s understanding. Firman and Gila’s emphasis on following the call of Self (God) by aligning the transpersonal will with the personal will also resembles Assagioli’s approach.

Firman and Gila’s emphasis on bringing Self-realisation into each and every moment of everyday life, by listening to the call of God in the moment, is also important. Their notion that Self-realisation is not a far-off goal, as Assagioli often asserts, also has its merit because this can focus the attention on the here and now, setting oneself free of the strain of being identified with the future.

Firman and Gila place emphasis on Self-realisation as a process that can lead the “I” anywhere in the lower, middle or higher unconscious, but typically to the lower unconscious. This resembles Assagioli’s notion of the different spiritual crises and the paths of purification, which are the important transformations we all must go through to become who we are as a Transpersonal Self.

So, as we can see, at least some of Firman and Gila’s core insights can be integrated easily into Assagioli’s version of psychosynthesis.

***

With these thoughts in mind, we might ask what role the lower unconscious plays in relation to Assagioli’s Self-realisation process. One thing is certain: Assagioli did not envision a harmonious and gradual ascent through the different stages of the Great Chain of Being – he does not present a simplistic model that involves taking one neat step at a time up a ladder. Rather, life is messy, so we might often take one step forward and two steps back. With this in mind, we are ready to look in the next chapter at Assagioli’s developmental theory.

[1] For further studies of the Transpersonal Self, see the compilation of quotes by Assagioli at this link: The self and Self.

Bibliography

Assagioli, Roberto. 1933. Practical Contributions to a Modern Yoga; The Beacon, Vol 12.

Assagioli, Roberto. 1934. Psychoanalysis and Psychosynthesis. Hilbert Journal.

Assagioli, Roberto, 1963, Creative Expression in Education (It’s Purpose, Process, Techniques and Results) Psychosynthesis Research Foundation.

Assagioli, Roberto. 1965. Psychosynthesis. Hobbs, Dorman & Company: New York.

Assagioli, Roberto. 1965b. Psychosynthesis: Individual and Social, Psychosynthesis and Research Foundation.

Assagioli, Roberto. 1967. Jung and Psychosynthesis, Psychosynthesis Research Foundation. Issue No.19

Roberto Assagioli. 1968. From Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, Newsletter, 34, Oct., 1968  

Assagioli, Roberto. 1973. His Majesty the Self, Conversation with Edith Stauffer, Archive, Florence

Assagioli, Roberto. & Vargiu. Jim. 1973b. The Superconscious and the Self,

Assagioli, Roberto, 1973c, The Conflict between the Generations and the Psychosynthesis of the Human Ages, Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, Issue No. 31

Assagioli, Roberto, 1973d. Life as a Game and Stage Performance (Role Playing), Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, Issue 33

Assagioli, Roberto, 1973e. The New Dimensions of Psychology: The Third, Fourth and Fifth Forces.

Assagioli, Roberto. 1974. The Act of the Will. Penguin Books.

Assagioli, Roberto. 1974b. Training – A Statement by Roberto Assagioli.

Assagioli, Roberto, 1976. Psychological Mountain-Climbing, Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, Issue no. 36.

Assagioli, Roberto. 2007. Transpersonal Development. Inner Way Productions.

Assagioli, Roberto, (Undated 1), Talks on the Self, (Handed out from The Psychosynthesis and Education Trust, London)

Assagioli, Roberto. (Undated 2). The Manifestation of the Divine in Nature and in the Soul.

Assagioli, Roberto. (Undated 3). Brief Address on the Self. Assagioli Archive Florence.

Assagioli, Roberto. (Undated 4). About Immortality.

Assagioli, Roberto. Undated 5. Psychosynthesis in Education, Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, Reprint No. 2

Assagioli, Roberto. Undated 6. The Self – A Unifying Centre.

Assagioli, Roberto. Undated 7. A dialogue with Assagioli, a conversation with Martha Crampton.

Assagioli, Roberto. Undated 8, The Transcendence of the Self, translated from Trascendenza Del Sé, Assagioli Archive Florence.

Assagioli, Roberto. Undated 9, The Seven Ways to Self-realisation,  The Psychosynthesis and Education Trust.

Assagioli, Roberto. Undated 10, The Self, Assagioli Archive Florence.

Aurobindo, Sri. 1939, The Life Divine, Lotus Press

Cooper, John W. 2015. The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology, Edited by: Joshua R. Farris , Charles Taliaferro, 2015, Routledge

Deikman, Arthur. 1982. The Observing Self, Beacon Press.

Firman, John. Vargiu, Jim. 1977. Dimensions of Growth, Synthesis.

Firman, John. 1991. “I and Self”: Re-Visioning Psychosynthesis.

Firman, John & Gila, Ann. 1993. What is Psychosynthesis.

Firman, John. 1995. A Suggested Change in the Egg Diagram.

Firman, John. 1996. Self and Self-Realisation.

Firman, John & Gila, Ann. 1997. The Primal Wound. SUNY.

Firman, John. 1999. Interview with John Firman, See video at http://www.psychosynthesisresources.com/pvp3.html

Firman, John & Gila, Ann. 2002. Psychosynthesis: A Psychology of the Spirit. SUNY.

Firman, John & Gila, Ann. 2005. Our Psychosynthesis Journey (lecture). AAP Conference: St. Paul, MN. 2005. See video.

Firman, John & Gila, Ann. 2007. Assagioli’s Seven Core Concepts for Psychosynthesis Training.

Firman, John & Gila, Ann. 2010. A Psychotherapy of Love: Psychosynthesis in Practice. SUNY.

Gila, Ann. 2015. Letter to the Editor from Ann Gila, Psychosynthesis Quarterly, December issue

Gila, Ann. 2017. Stay Present and Love Him, Psychosynthesis, Palo Alto.

Keen, Sam. 1974. The Golden Mean of Roberto Assagioli, Psychology Today.

Miller, Stuart. 1973. The Rebirth of the Soul, Intellectual Digest, August.

Murphy, Michael. 2014. The Emergence of Evolutionary Panentheism in the anthology Panentheism across the World’s Traditions Edited by Loriliai Biernacki and Phillip Clayton, Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition

Schuller, Michael. 1988. Psychosynthesis in North America

Smith Huston, 1976. Forgotten Truth: The common Vision of the World’s Religions, Harper San Francisco

Sørensen, Kenneth. 2008. Integral Psychosynthesis, a comparison of Wilber and Assagioli,

Sørensen, Kenneth. 2016. The Soul of Psychosynthesis, Kentaur Publishing

Sørensen, Kenneth. 2017. Integral Meditation, Kentaur Publishing

Sørensen, Kenneth. 2017b. Why Assagioli Put a Star in the Sky,

Sørensen, Kenneth. 2017, Psychosynthesis and Evolutionary Panentheism,

Sørensen, Kenneth. 2019. The Seven Types, Kentaur Publishing

Tolle, Eckhart, 2004, The Power of Now, Namaste Publishing

Versluis, Arthur. 2015. Perennial Philosophy. New Cultures Press. Kindle Edition.

Wilber, Ken. 1999. The Collected Works of Ken Wilber, Volume Two, Shambhala

Wilber, Ken. 2001. The Eye of Spirit. Shambhala. Kindle Edition.

Wilber, Ken, 2003. Excerpt G: Toward A Comprehensive Theory of Subtle Energies,
Wilber, Ken. 2011. Integral Psychology. Shambhala. Kindle Edition.