Never content to not understand anything related to theosophy – I looked up this phenomonoly (hope I spelled that correctly) Govert and Chris talk so much about, without ever explaining it. 
Anyhow – I still don’t really understand Govert’s posts on the subject, but I did read some interesting bits on self transcendence last night. They go a bit beyond ‘Expanding our centre of consciousness‘ into a terrain I’m not personally familiar with – the centre disappears totally. This is something Krishnamurti did talk about, but to me – there always is a centre.
Still, our contemporary philosophers are in a way easier to understand, because they do stay close to experience. The ’self’ that gets transcended is obviously what theosophists would call the personal self. It’s the self that concerns itself with personal worries, personal annoyances, personal ambitions – forgetting there’s a whole world out there that just might need attention too.
Transcending this personal self in the sense of forgetting yourself and your own petty worries is an old theosophical theme. Serving the world, serving humanity, transcending the bonds of nationalism, transcending dogmatic religion, transcending local gossips and local interests has always been at the heart of TS work.
It is assumed in theosophy that only those who really transcend their personalities can truly serve the world. Only spiritual insight can feed effective work in the world. Yet the Mahatmas (or masters, or the white brotherhood) didn’t want us to wait for that transcendental insight – they felt we should actively transcend our limitations and serve humanity – our personalities will be broadened, our selfishness diminished as we go along.
Notice that all this is saying nothing about our inner drives, our passions. That’s because in the ultimate view those aren’t as important as making a commitment and sticking to it. I do think it’s wise to only make commitments that relate to our talents and passions in some sense – but that’s not what the mahatmas say. Perhaps while working, while doing our duty – whether that which presents itself or that which we find to do – a passion for it will develop.
I guess what I’m struggling with is that I’m not so sure how transcending the self works. Perhaps our theosophical terminology can be helpful after all.
The personality consists of body, emotional life, mental life. The personal self is all the selfish emotions, physical impulses feeding the mind. When that gets cleaned up through service, right diet, right thought, right speech – room comes in the mind for higher impulses that may bring an insight into life that goes beyond the parochial and local. This higher insight is called Buddhi by theosphists.
Some say Buddhi is the higher intellect – I would say it’s the light by which the intellect gets a clearer view of things. Buddhi still has a centre. Together with Atma and purified mind it forms the ‘higher self’ – it’s the source of all our genuine wisdom. The wisdom we don’t just mentally know – but can live. Our higher self is also the source of our sincerest aspirations. Only when we start to live them can the higher self really start to light up our mental and emotional worlds. Only when we start to trust That – can we really be called theosophists (instead of just members of the TS).
Note that I’m portraying the higher self and the personal self as two different things. That’s because for most of us this higher self is nothing more just yet than the ’still small voice’. It helps, it heals, but only when we open ourselves up to its wisdom. It’s never yet the most active part in us. It’s not yet a habit. It’s the personal that’s still ‘normal’, natural, the given.
This is where I start to stutter, because I’m not sure my words are sufficient – and I’m not sure I’m qualified to even talk about this…
I suspect a genuine mystical experience is one in which the higher self takes over completely. For a moment usually. The lower self is left watching, is left passive, is left absorbed into a world ‘without a center’. I don’t know whether that world is really without a center, or whether it’s without a center compared to the selfish world of the lower self. Either way: what happens can be discribed as a transcendence of the self. Theosophically we’d say the self is absorbed into the Self – the Higher Self.
Of that Higher Self – the Atma is, in theosophy and Advaita vedanta, ultimately one with all else. It is Brahman, the source of the universe. It is in that sense totally impersonal.
Note: I’ll leave you all to discuss whether my terminology is correct. I do hope the main thought does come across.
I don’t like calling these things anything that suggests a ‘body’. So seat fits my understanding as little as ‘body’ does. Not sure about kosha or uppadhi – after all Sanskrit isn’t my first language either. I survived a year of it, but that’s all I can say about it that’s positive…
The only way I can manage the spelling of such things correctly is by copy pasting.
Thank you for an important topic and a good discussion. These blogs on WordPress are very good, like is Theosophy Forum, too, because fundamentalism is missing. I know several truth-seekers who visit here, but they are too shy or busy to write.
Concerning on the principles, I think we should use Madame Blavatsky’s definitions – not other Indian or Eastern or religion scientific definitions. Her meanings to these concepts sometimes differ from ordinary and even more philosophical meanings. What is more confusing is that HPB even has her own exoteric and esoteric meanings.
Let’s read about the principles for example from this page: http://blavatskyarchives.com/constitutionofahumanbeing.htm.
I know that HPB’s Collected Works are on Katinka’s web site (thank you for taking them there!), but in the above mentioned site there is a nice combination from The Key to Theosophy and Esoteric Instructions.
When I did read CW XII (Esoteric Instructions), I found pages 523-532, 607-610, 622-639 to be near this topic.
I think Katinka used the terminology right and introduced the topic skillfully. I agree with latebrake in that principles are in a way “bodies”. We just have to make clear what a “body” means here. HPB says often that buddhi is a “vehicle” or an “upadhi” for atma. On this plane buddhi couldn’t function without manas, so manas also is buddhi’s “vehicle”. Kama (desires and emotions) couldn’t be concrete without kama-rupa (in modern terminology “astral body”). And so on; there are many “bodies”.
I have understood that metaphysically there is always a centre for our actions. I agree with you all that the point is if the centre is buddhi or the lower self (kama-manas). When the centre is buddhi, we forget ourselves/our personality and act altruistically. It is a matter of attitude.
Just making sure people can find the Esoteric Instructions on the Blavatsky Collected Writings site. http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/
[...] Transcending the self… serving humanity, August 5, 2008 by Katinka Hesselink [...]
Once the mind has reached a state, through practice, meditation and study, when it is illumined by Buddhi and becomes Manasa-taijasi we develop a realisation that nothing that we do for good or bad we do alone-whatever we do affects the whole of humanity. This I understand is the basis for altruism.
We see that there are in fact just one pair of eyes looking out at the world within billions of forms. In fact the idea that we live a separate life is just a passing illusion. Universal Brotherhood is then just a fact in nature rather than a dogmatic teaching which it is until we reach this enlightened state. But by having trust in higher teachers and following the methods they used to reach this exalted state we can have a series of progressive insights that are signposts and lead us ever onwards. It is always a process of shedding rather than accumulating-getting rid of those things can keep us apart rather than bringing an awareness that separateness is a “great dire heresy”. Then, when all veils are removed, we see that all is indeed ONE!