Do you have a Higher Self?
- Thread starter Veda
- Start date
The 'Love Lifts Us Up Where We Belong' - part of me. The 'God' stuff inside me. The part of me I am always reaching for - to achieve . . . 
gbuck
oxymoron
In Scientology that would be the same person that walked into his "local org" and then did the Scientology levels, becoming an "OT." It's the same person, but with engrams, implants (a type of engram), and Body Thetans, and various other bric-a-brac, removed.
A person who thought he had a "Higher Self," in Scientology, would likely be regarded as being "buttered all over the universe," or perhaps having a "body in pawn." Both negative and degraded states.
It's a minefield out there!
strativarius
Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
And that's where I'm having a bit of a problem with your OP. Having an 'Higher Self' sounds a bit like having a thetan rather than being one, as in 'my thetan is exteriorised and is over there'.
I certainly don't believe I 'have' an Higher Self' so my answer to the OP is no.
Maybe through meditation or some process I might be able to arrive at a more elevated (for want of a better word) state of beingness, but that would still be me as an 'Higher Self'.
And so now we come onto the question of what the 'me' in that sentence is and into the realms of philosophy and theology well beyond my ken, which is why I should have kept my gob shut at the start and not jumped in with both feet.
On the 7th. Sept. 2009, KnightVision wrote:
In the end one eats, sleeps, has (hopefully) an interesting intellectual experience along the way... and then dies. All the fancy thought one can muster will not change that much.
I think I'm inclined to agree with him.
F.Bullbait
Oh, a wise guy,eh?
All language limits.
And that's what we're using to communicate.
So, have you anything to offer on the topic?
Might try the apophatic tack of saying what it is not. If one did that long enough, one could possibly attain satori.
Ref: Apophatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology
Ref: Satori http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori
gbuck
oxymoron
That's their pitch.
He'll get some bric-a-brac removed, maybe. He'll definitely get something added.
promises, promises.......
PTS
Elliott
It was apparent to me even in childhood that there was more to the whole of me than what I perceived in this dimension. Although I did not have the words to describe it, I was aware of other states of being, and that a part of me touched them. So yes.
Others possibly do not share my insights. May your way be as pleasant.
Others possibly do not share my insights. May your way be as pleasant.
Soul of Ginnungagab
Patron with Honors
If so, how would you define it?
Higher Self is best understood metaphorically in that it is not a physical object located "above" another object. It is rather a level of Life, Love and Truth, a reality that is beyond what can be measured by physical means.
Some say that those qualities Life, Love and Truth describe godhood. Others say that they are the essence of spirituality. There are those who say that they are the qualities of God, where the term "God" for some people is a being and/or a personality while for others "God" is an impersonal power.
Connecting up to your Higher Self could be regarded as an indication of yourself in alignment with Life, Love and Truth.
Last edited:
gbuck
oxymoron
A taste of the Higher Self.
Considered as tea.
Are you describing the idea of what the tea might taste like, if this tea, in fact, exists?
sorry, but as you quoted, the description is not the reality. You can only taste the tea that you have. Not imaginary tea. And not someone else's imaginary tea.
Who knows what might occur, if you taste the tea you have?
I love tea, that's a fact.
strativarius
Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Veda was not at all impressed by the quality of discourse I brought to t/his thread.
I'm continually amazed at how much meaning you manage to distil into so few words. As you said elsewhere, it is difficult to be... simple.
I'm no good at it at all.
Soul of Ginnungagab
Patron with Honors
Thanks for the reply and your relations to the words on tea that appears below my post. Note that those words on tea is in my signature, and the signature is not related to any specific post including that one. But you found a very thoughtful relation I must say.
I will quote my signature as it appears at the moment because sometimes I change my signature and then the current one will disappear from the post and thus other readers won't know what you refer to:
My signature as it appears at the moment:
gbuck
oxymoron
No one’s mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing.
—Alan Watts
works for me.
mostly.
I get worried when I impress myself. Whats that all about???
Last edited:
Elronius of Marcabia
Silver Meritorious Patron
If so, how would you define it?
My worldview at this point is yes "As above is Below" having said that higher implies somehow better which does'nt work if you see all aspects of self as a keyboard and each aspect above
and below as notes on a scale with harmonics, high C or low C not better. not good ,not bad, just simply notes available or not depending on your range and ability to express them.
My slant at this point is to integrate all aspects of self, and create sense of wholeness, so to "describe" a higher self would be to pull apart the whole and at that point it no longer is what it is
and is merely a part
to quote a famous philosopher "I yam what I yam, Popeye the Sailor Man" 
Thanks Veda enjoyed the question even though I could'nt answer it very well
at some point words do lose their usefulness.
