The beginning of life

I would like to pose a question..

When a spirit/soul/ka (whatever we want to call it) begins a new incarnation, it is obvious that it must take a few years for the newborn to grow into a state of conscious knowledge of themselves and the world that surrounds them; conscious enough, that is, to have an awareness of the ethereal.

Yet, I am aware that some children naturally tap into their subconscious realms just as easy as they can take in the visual world around them. I myself have recollections of having some very close feelings of "timelessness" within myself as a child.

Most of us here have mentioned becoming "awake" and conscious our inner
selves, at some point in our lives; this came at the very least during
the teen years and in many cases after adulthood. Yet, I am sure it is something that can be manifested from a very young age.

Do you think the inner/greater self might lie "dormant" until the right time comes for the person to become aware of it, or is it something that can be actually triggered from childhood somehow, with the proper guiding?

Hard question and difficult topic.

First you must have an idea of what your "higher self" is. I am still looking for a definition of such a vague concept. I have not found any yet. And, perhaps, it is so because there can´t be any logical and "objective" definition. That would be like defining yourself, which is impossible to do. In our modern and scientific societies we still don´t know what we are: are we beings of just flesh and chemical reactions? Does consciousness exists or is it a product of our brain? What is the nature of our mind/psyche?

Even Peter Carroll denied the existence of such a "higher" self on his "Liber Null" (and the existence of the self altogether on "The Apophenion"!).

The idea of "discovering your Self" is very vague, and it assumes the idea of a concrete, closed and limiting vision of what you are. In my opinion, a more correct description of such a spiritual process would be "to became conscious of your Self". In this way, your idea of "Self" becames wholistic and, therefore, doesn´t fall in the categories of real/unreal, ego/self or body/mind.

We are beings of flesh, mind and spirit. And to negate any of this is to negate a part of our being.

As reality itself is not static, we are not either. We are evolving for the whole of eternity and, therefore, it is impossible to give a "definition" of what we are.

Now, it is true that there is a part of our selves that seems to be higher (in the sense of more transcendental) and even eternal. In one sense, I have become conscious of it through ritual, that is, through symbols and symbolic reality. It is something that I call "soul operation" and the idea behind it is similar to the "Invocation to the Bornless One" of Crowley, "Invocation of Azal´ucel" of Michael Ford and any other operations whose goal is to experience this reality.

And, actually, it is very simple to do. Just create a symbol, or chose one that represents your Will, and what life means to you. And, then, meditate on that symbol and what it represents to you. Don´t try to stop your mind, just focus it on the meaning of the symbol, and the meaning of your Will.

Open your mind, and be prepared to recieve.

The deeper the trance, the deeper your thoughts will be. And obviously, the more you know about your self, the more symbols and "correspondences" you can use to represent your universe and the God that you are.

However, in my opinion, it is a mistake to think that this Will (with a capital W) is something separated from your everyday life. Something that is only achieved during ritual. What "ritual" does is to bring it closer to your everyday life.

This Will is what pushes you in life. What gives meaning to it. It is a primal, raw motivation and "energy". And it is not "a something". It can´t be defined in terms of analytical thought. My Will is fire, passion for life and transcendence. It is the most abstract part of myself.

My Will is not "RudraShiva", and it is not some distant memory of a past life. These things will surely die, but that force will endure for all eternity.

Syrianeh wrote:Do you think the inner/greater self might lie "dormant" until the right time comes for the person to become aware of it, or is it something that can be actually triggered from childhood somehow, with the proper guiding?

As I do not define the Self as "a thing", a concrete and static thing, this question doesn´t make much sense to me. The Ego and Self are, in my opinion, arbitrary divisions of the psyche.

Actually, I wouldn´t say that it is the greater self which lies "dormant", but our small self. We are just not conscious of it. The division of what we are due to the enviroment in which we are born, or due to our "inborn character" is vague, and subjective. Every person needs to find it out for themselves.

And, in the end, it is irrelevant, because we are both things, the external and the internal.

RudraShiva, a good post, but I think you may be over-thinking the concept, and relying too heavily on others' research and conclusions. But this is in no way a negative comment, simply a personal observation.

As for the question posed, I believe that from the moment of incarnation, the subconcious is accutely aware of ItSelf, but society and social grooming forces the concious mind to become deaf to it's inner Self.
I dont believe it lies dormant waiting for the right time for the person to become aware of it, we are all aware of it, whether we choose to accept that or not is a different matter. It lies unlistened to, constantly battling our misconceptions and preconceived ideas by showing us gimpses of what it hopes will be seen. It is the persons own choice to either open their eyes and accept that there is something beyond their own thoughts, or close them and continue in blissful ignorance.
Young children/babies do not have the eventual conditioning which masks their awareness of their True Self.

I believe that Awakening, is a process of remembering what we have forgotten, and forgetting all that we have learned...sound familiar?

Very interesting reply, Talibah. And yes, the quote does sound familiar.

To be honest I wasn't fully sure on how to reply to Syrianeh's question, being a subject that I haven't meditated deeply yet. But a good question, although hard to answer for me. Talibah's response made sense in my own view of things, it is indeed society and modern thought that turns us deft to our inner voice and inner soul. The process the Asetians call the Awakening is precisely a new birth into that reality of our soul, our past, our present and our future. It is forgetting all of the conditionings, rules and misconceptions that society has put on us, to be able to learn all that we had forgotten. It is hearing our Self and nature itself. Hearing the subtle, the astral and the ethereal. It is becoming more than just a human, but becoming the Asetian within... that is how I see the Awakening. A rebirth.

Of course, I know that some parts only apply to Asetians, given that not everyone is an Asetian. I had that in mind, so no need for anyone to jump at me.

Thank you for your responses.

RudraShiva, that was an excellent and informative post; I have gone over it a few times and have learnt some very interesti concepts I never gave thought to before - such as the Invocation of the Bornless One. However, I tend to agree with Talibah in that it is not as complex as you make it out to be. The Self, whether divine or not, or whether immortal or not, is something that is there for us to accept and evolve into.

The meaning of life, for me, is not merely "being happy" or 42 or reaching material or personal achievements which are greater food for the ego than for the Self. The meaning of life is taking one step further up the ladder towards Evolution. And this only happens by being Awake to whatever it is you are. In this sense, you are completely right. But Talibah's view - the blinding veils of society - is much closer to mine.

Jonathan, very well put - a Rebirth.

So do you think that, with the proper guidance, a child can be helped to be awake from an early age?

A question I have for Syrianeh; to what end are we 'evolving' to? In other words, what are we evolving towards?

Ankhhape wrote:A question I have for Syrianeh; to what end are we 'evolving' to? In other words, what are we evolving towards?

Good question, Ankhhape. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to answer properly but I must say I don't really know. For me, evolution is not towards a something but rather a somewhere or a somehow. Like walking a road that you don't know where it takes to, yet you must keep moving.

Whatever the nature of our Souls might be, be it human, Otherkin, Asetian... I think one has to keep moving towards Wisdom and Enlightening. It is the only way to keep the essence of oneself from dissolving into nothingness. Yes, I believe even a mortal human spirit can become powerful enough to trascend time and death, and the only way to do it is by becoming spiritually aware and letting it develop. But only if it deserves it.

Again, I wish I had time to elaborate this answer.

Hello guys. I agree with you on my "over-thinking" when it comes to this concept of "Self". One reason for this is quite simple and mundane: we, as spanish people, have problems when translating the word self. Self, for us, is the same thing as the ego, it has the same translation. As far as I know, we, therefore, do not use two different words to designate this "spirit" or "psychic phenomenon".

When studying psychology (my degree has a little of psychology) I have encountered the expression "si mismo", which I think is a "raw" translation of the word self. However, "si mismo" means the same as "ego", "I" and, to a certain degree, even personality.

You can approach the Self in two ways in my opinion:

1) As your soul or spirit, that is, as what you really are. Your sense of self awarness, even your consciousness. Your sense of "I". Your sense of existence

2) As a stage in your psychic development:

"The Self is the "stage" beyond this-when there is an apprenhension of a) the Wyrd of the individual and b) the separate existence of other individuals as those individuals are in themselves" (from NAOS, by the ONA)

The word "Wyrd" is, I think, the same thing as the "True Will" of Thelema, or the Dharma from the tantric tradition. Self, understood as a stage in your psychic evolution, is the "stage" that comes when you stop "projecting" into the world/reality your own unconscious "material" (archetypes, fears, complexes and so on)

When the self is understood as your own existence, as your spirit, actually, we have a big problem. Although this "philosophycal" question may seem silly, it is necessary to do it: do we have existence? To think that we have a "spirit", a self that, in itself, is something, means that it must be separated, in a certain way, from the world. You know, is my consciousness a product of my body or does it have an existence of its own?

And do not think that this is a "materialistic", rational and scientific point of view. Because that is what Buddhism is about (as I interpret it). In Buddhism everything is seen as in a constant flux. Everything is change. And everything is changing, obviously. Therefore they reject the idea of a "self". There is not permanence in a buddhistic world. What really exists is changeability. Therefore there is not existence if existence is understood as "something" separated from this flux, this activity.

Being and life is a dualism. Although the idea of existence and self may be obvious to us, when you stop and think about it you will realize it is not a topic so easy to discuss about. It can be very complex.

As I said, being and life forms a dualism. Actually this is one of the central points in Tantrism. Being, the spirit, "the reality", the existence, is the great Shiva. "Life", change, motion, activity, energy, power (actually, the whole Universe) is the great Shakti. In Shiva and Shakti the dualism of being and activity is recognized.

So, again, we find different perspectives for a same topic (thanks god!). Tantrikas obviously acknowledge the existence of existence (what the fuck?!). They acknowledge the existence of an "aspect" of ourselves that can be separated from all that flux, change and energy that the universe is. That is the Atman. And, obviously, if the universe is flux and change, then the Atman must be unchanging and permanent.

The buddhists, on the other hand, don´t aknowledge that "existence separated from existence". The atman doesn´t exist, all is change and motion.

Therefore, we don´t exist....

RudraShiva wrote:

When studying psychology (my degree has a little of psychology) I have encountered the expression "si mismo", which I think is a "raw" translation of the word self. However, "si mismo" means the same as "ego", "I" and, to a certain degree, even personality.

I see what you mean now...

Tal vez por eso los españoles somos un poco egoístas

RudraShiva wrote:
As I said, being and life forms a dualism. Actually this is one of the central points in Tantrism. Being, the spirit, "the reality", the existence, is the great Shiva. "Life", change, motion, activity, energy, power (actually, the whole Universe) is the great Shakti. In Shiva and Shakti the dualism of being and activity is recognized.

This is the same as the Ba\Ka concept in Egyptian spirituality. May your Ba be with your Ka!

Becareful Syrianeh! I still don´t know if the Ba is the same thing as the astral body (and yes, I have read the Asetian Bible). If they are the same thing, then, from a tantric point of view, the Ba is not the Atman/Spirit, as the astral body, according to them, is still bound to the "cosmic plane"/Causality and, therefore, reincarnation.

The Atman is beyond reincarnation.

RudraShiva wrote:, then, from a tantric point of view, the Ba is not the Atman/Spirit

I think that was not very correct. As far as I know, there are, obviously, differences between egyptian spirituality and tantrism. However it is not correct to say that the Atman is something different from the Ba. Each tradition understood their concepts in different ways but, in the end, yes, I think they refer to the same "reality" of "spirit" (or what we are, our essence)