Oversoul Or Higher Self Or Supersoul

[DayLight]

I was wondering if anyone here believes in either the Higher Self or the Oversoul or the Supersoul (the same thing, but referred to in different ways).

 

This Being(s) consists of multiple versions of you. 

 

And if anyone believes in that, I wanted to discuss that.  And I wanted to share the interesting tid bit about how this information is also in the Bible.  But it's interpreted in a completely different way.

 

(Not that it matters that it's in the Bible, but it's just fun to see that it does talk about it even though this idea is so "non-Christian").

And speaking of non-Christian ideas in the Bible, there is a verse which mentions reincarnation.  It's the one where Jesus' disciples asked Jesus whose fault it was that this man was born blind - this man's or his parents? 

So how could it be this man's fault before he was even born UNLESS they believed in reincarnation?

 

And another non-Christian idea is the verse which mentions "the disciple whom Jesus loved".  It's a weird way of singling out a disciple, why not just say his name.  Well, turns out there is a book of Mary Magdalene and in this book it talks about Mary being the disciple that Jesus loved the most. I thought it was interesting.  And all this time we thought it was John. (Although honestly John sounded too feminine to me, maybe because the talk was about a woman in the first place, and so it made a guy sound too feminine.)

[Orbit]

I believe in Atman, or the Self, which is a part of Brahman. But this isn't exactly a soul in the Christian sense. Atman does not need to be saved. Atman is to be discovered, the true Self.

[florduh]

I was wondering if anyone here believes in either the Higher Self or the Oversoul or the Supersoul (the same thing, but referred to in different ways).

 

 

Of course there's no way to prove or disprove such a notion. How does such a belief benefit you here and now if you aren't aware of the other "selves" and those selves aren't aware of each other? Doesn't that view make you essentially nothing more than one small cell in a larger body you're not even aware of? Do you actually matter at all or is it all about some "oversoul" you are unaware of?

 

The you posting here is a distinct personality formed by your brain chemistry, electrical patterns, DNA and life experience. If that personality who is considering such things as souls, oversouls and reincarnation is not the "real you" after all then what is the point of anything?

[DayLight]

 

I was wondering if anyone here believes in either the Higher Self or the Oversoul or the Supersoul (the same thing, but referred to in different ways).

 

 

Of course there's no way to prove or disprove such a notion. How does such a belief benefit you here and now if you aren't aware of the other "selves" and those selves aren't aware of each other? Doesn't that view make you essentially nothing more than one small cell in a larger body you're not even aware of? Do you actually matter at all or is it all about some "oversoul" you are unaware of?

 

The you posting here is a distinct personality formed by your brain chemistry, electrical patterns, DNA and life experience. If that personality who is considering such things as souls, oversouls and reincarnation is not the "real you" after all then what is the point of anything?

 

When we run across the information, our brain either believes it or not.  We don't really have a choice. I heard it.  I believe it.  

 

What's the point of it all?  It's kind of like this:  The Higher Self is a huge computer.  Each little person is like a separate cpu/processor. So it's like the Higher Self is a computer with parallel processing.  All the little people learn stuff and all this learning is added into the collective knowledge of the Higher Self.  And then each little person can (technically) tune into this collective database and get the wisdom and the help it needs.

 

We just need to somehow learn to tune in. The first step is to believe that it's possible.  I also believe I can just ask for help and it can come (in the form of thoughts, desires, solutions).  

 

Believing in a higher self is a non-religious view and I like that.  I don't owe anything to anyone, don't have to follow any deity's rules and can use the help when needed.

 

Also, it feels good to know that I am not alone and not just me, but that I have a big strong family (so to speak) to which I belong.  It's like saying: don't mess with me, do you know who my brother is?   Or it's like saying: hey, did you know that the president is related to me?

 

Am I just a small part of the Higher Self or something more?  It's the same like saying: is this trophy just a piece of metal or something valuable?  It's all about perception.  It's like reality or details exist in an idea form.  But the things we see and feel are our perception of these details and they LOOK/feel different than the actual reality.  So, as an idea, yes, I am a small part of the Higher Self. But as far as my perception, I believe that I will be able to perceive myself AS my Higher Self.

 

I heard other people describe this experience. One of them said: "I felt so much bigger and it felt like this is my home, this is where I belong."  (Home in a sense of belonging, not in geographical sense). He felt that this was the more natural state of being.  He said that this life feels like a dream in comparison. 

 

Some others said they felt one with all.  They did not lose their individuality. But they also felt from the perspective of the Higher Self (or someone who the Higher Self is a part of). 

 

So each individual little part will feel like it's the Big Part.  And MAYBE I will FEEL like all the different little parts are actually all ME.  And each of them will feel the same way.  Afterall, it's all about how we perceive the details, not about the actual details.

 

I believe that our human mind is modular (consists of different combinations, which are kind of a mix and match).  And each combination is kind of like a different person.  (We label these combinations as "moods".)  They all live in the same physical body.  And we are programmed to perceive them all as "ME". 

But maybe in some other place we will be programmed to perceive "the moods" living in different physical bodies as "me".  If it's just a matter of programming it should be just as easy to be programmed to perceive multiple bodies as "me".

[DayLight]

I believe in Atman, or the Self, which is a part of Brahman. But this isn't exactly a soul in the Christian sense. Atman does not need to be saved. Atman is to be discovered, the true Self.

I would be interested if you could write more details about the nature of this self.  Does it exist as multiple beings also?  Or do the believers not go into much detail with this idea?

 

As far as salvation from sin - I think that idea got born out of the idea that we need to set ourselves free from the evil part of our nature, we need to outgrow the evil part of ourselves (in other words, we need to evolve).

 

And that's why some sects of early Christianity believed that salvation was being enlightened.  And I believe that some agnostic writings points to that idea.      (And later Paul of the Bible  also kept stressing the fact that it's SIN that Christ saved us from.  Not hell.  Not in Paul's view anyways.)

 

But somehow, the Christ character/idea got confused with the Jesus figure.  They morphed into one, thus forming a completely new belief system.

 

But if you read about Christ (and forget about the Jesus part) you could see that Christ idea is the Higher Self idea. 

 

It says that it's Christ who lives in us and that we are IN Christ.   (We are a part of the Higher Self and it's a part of us.)

 

It says that the Church members are the BODY of Christ.    (As the little selves are the body of the Higher Self.)

 

Christ takes care of his body, the Church.  (The Higher Self takes care of the little selves and they can tune in and get help.)

 

It says that even now we are seated in Christ in heavenly places. (As part of the Higher Self we exist even now wherever the Higher Self exists.)

 

It says that Christ fills everything with himself (in the Church).  (So it's like the consciousness of the Higher Self lives in the bodies of its parts.)

 

It says that we are supposed to have Christ's thoughts and feelings because we are one with Christ.  (We all ARE our Higher Self, so our thoughts and feelings should technically be similar).

 

It says "you have the mind of Christ".  (We are the little sub-minds in the mind of the Higher Self and we can tune into the bigger mind of the Higher Self.)

 

It says that we have a seed of Christ in us and that we are supposed to grow into Christ.  (The Higher Self dispatches its seeds into human bodies and when they grow up, they will be like IT.  Being like "IT" means to be as good and as wise as IT because IT possesses the collective wisdom and therefore it's "good". )

 

The righteousness of Christ is imparted to the church members.    (The Higher Self's wisdom (which therefore helps us to become better (aka: righteous) becomes our wisdom when we tune in and identify with IT.)

 

There is also this verse in the Bible: 1Corinthians 1:30  It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

 

I kept thinking: how did Christ become our righteousness? The words don't make any sense.  It didn't say that Christ made us righteous, but that he became our righteousness.   But if you consider being a part of the Higher Self and partaking of the collective wisdom of IT, you can see how the Higher Self is our well of wisdom, from which we can drink and become wise too.

[DayLight]

And one could also see that Jesus is the little self of the Christ. (Which is the representation of the Higher Self).

 

In my beliefs, the idea is that we LEARN being good.  And learning takes place in the environment of resistance (the environment of evil and good). For how could you learn patience unless sometimes keeps "trying your patience"?    The idea is of making your muscles grow by constantly exercising them and stretching them to the next limit, thus making them stronger.

 

And it says in Hebrews that Jesus was made perfect through suffering.   (Suffering represents the environment of resistance.)

 

Hebrews 2:10  In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

 

In my beliefs, the Higher Self has all these little subselves which are learning.  And it's through this collective learning that all eventually become good.    It's like a collective decided to build a house.  And each little part has their own job that it's doing.  And that way, they all finish it quicker when each part is contributing in its own area.    It's like when people are searching for a lost person, they say: let's split up so we could cover the area faster. 

 

And Paul even had that idea too.  He said that the church members are one body and they all have different functions for enriching the collective.

[Orbit]

The ideas that I have are from Advaita Vedanta, which teaches that consciousness is everything, basically. I really can't relate to the whole "Christ" thing you're talking about. This can be boiled down to "consciousness is the soul, consciousness is God, you are God"

 

"Advaita (not-two in Sanskrit) refers to the identity of the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness, and the highest Reality, Brahman, which is also pure consciousness. Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidyā (knowledge)of the identity of Atman and Brahman."

[florduh]

And one could also see that Jesus is the little self of the Christ. (Which is the representation of the Higher Self).

 

Is trying to make your belief fit into the Bible supposed to validate the Bible or validate your beliefs?

[DayLight]

 

And one could also see that Jesus is the little self of the Christ. (Which is the representation of the Higher Self).

 

Is trying to make your belief fit into the Bible supposed to validate the Bible or validate your beliefs?

 

I am only trying to say: hmm, interesting... I heard about this idea from my sources and apparently some other people heard it from some other sources....(that's why it's in the Bible)  Although it's not interpreted the same way and maybe the writer didn't know about MY idea either, but you can see it there nevertheless... as though someone beyond the writer's mind knew about it...

 

But it doesn't really matter in another sense that it's in there.  I would still believe my ideas regardless. 

[DayLight]

The ideas that I have are from Advaita Vedanta, which teaches that consciousness is everything, basically. I really can't relate to the whole "Christ" thing you're talking about. This can be boiled down to "consciousness is the soul, consciousness is God, you are God"

 

"Advaita (not-two in Sanskrit) refers to the identity of the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness, and the highest Reality, Brahman, which is also pure consciousness. Followers seek liberation/release by acquiring vidyā (knowledge)of the identity of Atman and Brahman."

I know that some beliefs sound so different, but they are actually the same if you really know what they are saying.

 

Here is what I see and how I relate it to what you said:  People believe that they are physical, that existence is physical.  And that limits them.  So when they see a wall, they assume that they can't walk through it.   But once people realize that the physical world only exists as a matter of perception, that it's an illusion (in some sense), they will know that they could walk right through this wall. They will be able to transcend the physical and stop being limited by it.   So in other words, people will become liberated.

 

When will they become liberated?  As soon as they discover their true nature (Atman) -that they are not as physical as they thought; and the nature of existence, that it's not as physical as they thought (Brahman).

 

Maybe Jesus walking through the wall and Jesus walking on water were figurative stories about the evolved beings who were able to transcend the physical limitations.  I think that these were stories which were told to people as illustrations of how things will be once people awaken to the true nature of existence.  But maybe overtime these illustrations were thought to be the actual events in Jesus' life.

 

So if everything is not physical, then what is it?  What are we?  What is God?  What do we need to discover in order to become liberated?

 

There are many different ways of looking at this and I don't know which way is best.  Some say we are consciousness, some say we are essence, some say we are not physical.... but what does it all mean?

 

I think a good example could be that it's like a design of the house.  A design of the house is a set of ideas and relationships of how objects will relate to each other.  This set of of ideas is like the essence.  It can be used to manifest the house physically (to build it from physical objects).

 

So a soul is a design of the person, the essence.  This essence is stored as a set of ideas and relationships of how this person will relate to the external environment, as well as how the objects inside of this person relate to one another (physical or mental objects), THUS forming this person.

 

It's like there lived an essence of the person, a set of ideas.  And then it became manifested physically (as a person) and we now all can observe that essence, because we can see what it is doing.

 

There is this idea that God exists as an idea (Bible: "God is the Word") and that this idea was invisible to us, but it became visible (the Word became flesh).  And it became visible because God created a physical manifestation of a tiny part of himself.  So now you can observe at least some of the God-Idea when you're observing this visible manifestation of the God-idea.  So the God-idea is manifested physically as the whole Cosmos.

 

Each cell in existence follows some set of instructions. When objects follow the laws of physics, they relate to the environment in a certain way.  But how do they know when to move and how to move, how to relate?  They must have internal instructions.   We get excited by lumps of fat on women's bodies because our mind just arbitrarily follows some instructions which command us to do it.

 

Do we have an example from life about following instructions?   So we are looking at the computer program and all we can see is a bunch of programming instructions ("What if, then" sentences).  But when the program runs, those instructions are followed by the computer, and we see physical objects appear in the game.  The program or the instructions also tell these objects how to interact with each other.  So a person in the game will sit on the chair and won't fall through only because he was programmed not to fall through.

 

I see the whole existence as a set of interacting ideas (like a computer program). (To me consciousness is equivalent to this.)

People are programmed to perceive physical objects as though they are physical.  But like like a computer program creates the illusion of the physical objects (draws them out of code), so the same thing is happening in Cosmos.  The GOD PROGRAM is writing all kinds of stuff.  

 

And if it's a matter of programming that means you could also be reprogrammed or programmed a different way.  We are self modifying programs and adapting and learning. So some day we will discover how to reprogram our selves.  Or at least the Universe may have  a different mode of existence prepared for us, a different kind of programming granted to us. And we would then perceive things differently.  And this could be equivalent to Paul's idea of us receiving a new body in the afterlife.

[DayLight]

 

DayLight, I think of this as each of us having an "authentic self," which is our true self. And the multiple version of us are the various egos or personas that we project.

 

I’ve been watching a show called “the United States of Tara” about a woman with a personality disorder. It’s like her attributes got separated/disconnected and it created different personalities. So different ones showed up at different times.  Her playful side made her to be a very irresponsible person.  Her “Thinker” side made her into a psychologist.   And so on... And then later, when she got better for a time, all attributes joined back together and you could see the full self, the self enriched by all of them.  You could see some of the playful side and some of the Martha Steward side and some of the psychologist side and so on...

So sometimes, I think that our Higher Self is having a personality disorder  (when each of us is acting on our own). It's like our Higher Self being very one sided, very limited to a certain very limited range of behavior.

 

 

And the multiple version of us are the various egos or personas that we project. Sometimes, we mistake one or more of them as our whole, authentic self. You know how people sometimes say, "Oh that wasn't like me," or "I wasn't being myself when I said/did that,"

 

I believe that "moods" are more than just moods.   Because each mood is a combination of factors below (as you list them).  And it's the combination of those factors which creates what we perceive as "personality."  So if a different combination of the factors "takes the floor" it emerges a different personality at that moment.  So personally, I believe that when we say: "it wasn't me".... it's true.    Because it was one of the OTHER different combinations of the factors below and it was THAT personality or that combination which said that or did that.  So it's like we have an inner conflict and we regret our actions because it's not this me that did this it's that one.  And it's not that me that regrets my actions, it's the other one.   Most of the time people change only subtly so it's hard to tell that they are a different person (a different combination of the factors). But some people are more drastic in their changes and it's disturbing. You had a nice time with this person and you're hoping for more of the same, but he is now "in a different mood" (aka: a different combination of factors, a different personality with its own goals and decisions.)

 

Our self-image fluctuates and is influenced by all the factors that make us up: thoughts, emotions, experiences, interactions, relationship dynamics, information input, etc. Both internal and external factors, and the synergistic combination of them, contribute to our self-perception and self-image.

 

I am using Jung's ideas to see how my deconversion experience is what Jung described as "Individuation" or full integration of the Self.

 

We all have our own "heroes" I guess which motivated us to change. I don't know about Jung and I am not good at reading books (it's like going to lectures, it's too painful for me).  I rather engage in a discussion (that's how I learn mostly).  So if you feel like discussing some things or sharing some ideas, feel free.  Or I may read something sometimes, it just depends on my impulses, I have to wait for one though. 
 

DayLight, it seems you are describing Gnostic views, about Christ's purpose being to enlighten people -- by freeing them from the evil part of their nature -- rather than to save people from a literal hell. As you read Jung's views, you will see that his metaphorical perspective recognizes some Gnostic ideas.

 

The interesting thing is my sources were not Gnostic writings, and yet... it's like "all roads lead to Rome".

I would like to discuss Paul's mystical Christology with you further, and Jung's views, Gnosticism, and the idea you mention about the historical-literary character of Jesus of Nazareth being confused or conflated with the Christ concept.

 

Sure.

 

However, one must get clear of institutional Christian religion in order to see these concepts.

 

Yes, it's like putting on a different set of glasses, only then you can see from another perspective.

 

 

 

[Ellinas]

From my standpoint:

1. I have sympathy with the idea that all is consciousness.
2. I do not accept the concept of a "higher self".  Either I am or I am not.  I prefer to believe that I am (i.e. "self" is not illusory).  I may not be aware of the extent of my "self" but I am, ultimately, me.
3. I can accept the concept that my personal "self" is an indvidualized part of a greater life force or principle - however, that greater seems to me to be unknowable.
4. As regards Christianity - to be honest I suspect you can fit practically any outlook into one or another text.  Christians have been doing that for millennia.  I refuse to play that game any more.
5. I would not advize trying to walk through a wall on the basis that you've convinced yourself it's an illusion, unless you can also convince yourself that the resulting headache is just as much an illusion.