Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Higher Self
Tavs
Leeds Explorer
From a Buddhist point of view, what actually is The Higher Self? I know some Buddhists compare it to Buddha nature but I find that answer unsatisfactory or some might say its what lies beyond ego but to me this answer is vague and too abstract. People talk about it as if it's a little silent unseen deity which somehow lives in our heads. Does it exist at all?
3
Comments
Yes it exists. It might be called the super-conscious or awake part of our being. In this sense we have the subconscious, normal consciousness and an awareness that is always a part of the first two.
In many schools of Buddhism these basic three are subdivided into chakras.
https://mindworks.org/blog/what-is-enlightenment-in-buddhism/
All I know is what people tell me and there are conflicting views, even among Buddhists. My understanding is its sort of what's left when all our normal states of mind (thinking, feeling, sensing, etc.) are pacified. But its not really a thing in the normal sense, any thought or conception isn't it.
Great question and the answer is simply, no. A higher self cannot be found.
From what I remember you're in a Tibetan tradition. I have some familiarity, is it a Madhyamika school or a Yogacara?
Mmm Higher Self...
Here's some food for thought to lose your self in... aka Anatta :
Awareness is fundamentally non-conceptual before thinking splits experience into subject and object. It is empty and so can contain everything, including thought. It is boundless. And amazingly it is intrinsically knowing.
To be honest, I’ve never found any mention of a higher self in Buddhism. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. As @person said, you might find it in the Tao, where everything - the Earth and the heavens, including even man - is patterned after the unnameable Tao.
Not sure about the 'Buddhist point of view', but going by personal experience I'll go with: yes, there is a Higher Self.
From the mundane perspective, it makes no sense, so no answer or explanation will ever satisfy.
A deep investigation into 'who am I?' + luck or Grace might trigger at least a glimpse.
However, as our old friend @genkaku might say, glimpsing the Higher Self and 50 cents will get you a bus ride. It's much more about our day to day lives, and how we are on an average Tuesday at 11 am, rather than these 'miraculous' openings.
My path these days is about the mundane and the wholesome. So, I would reccomend the same to Tavs. The Higher Self and similar matters will take care of themselves if and when the causes and conditions are right.
Karma Kagyu
Did the Buddha say that there is no self whatsoever? Or did he say certain qualities (form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness), were not a self? It's been debated for a long time. What is the watcher that watches to notice when you have drifted away from the object of meditation? Is it a higher self? Or is the idea of a watcher being there also merely thinking?
There are different sort of powers of awareness of a enlightened being that I read about and I think seem powerful or "higher":
mirrorlike wisdom
discriminating Wisdom
equanimity
activity accomplishing wisdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_wisdoms
Not in so many words.
But I'll tell you what - find that self, come back and tell where it's found.
The Indian guru’s say the Self can be found within the cave of the heart.
A real place - not some made-up metaphor. Is it found in the brain, the heart, the liver. Where does the self reside, and how do we find that place?
And I don't care what "Indian gurus" say.
I mainly studied Gelug which in my understanding is more philosophically negating. From what I gather Kagyu and Nyigma both take a more positivist view regarding the ultimate nature of mind. They don't think of it or call it a self in any way, but I believe its known as Rigpa or primordial awareness.
I ask because this is my understanding, but your answer was a decided no, so maybe there's more to it than my semi outsider view.
For something that’s less than real to look in a real place seems like a fool’s errand.
Metaphors and fingers pointing to the moon are all that is available in this search.
IdleChaser tell me, how is it that you show so little consideration? For a Buddhist your pattern of speech is decidedly unusual.
Well...
What is it that does not care - self maybe?
The self resides wherever you place your attention.
Strangely enough that is also where Nirvana and samsara hang out, too.
And if that is unclear. What is unclear? The self maybe?
And now back to the Hire Self... oh wait that might be COD (Cash On Delivery) by No One...
Well, Jeroen, I've never been one to waste time blowing sunshine up someone's backside.
And seeing how you aren't a Buddhist, yourself, and from what I've read of your posts, don't know much about it, either, what makes you believe you can comment on what a Buddhist should/shouldn't be? Hmmmmmm?
No it doesn't.
Considering the frequent ad hominem 'negative analysis' of (especially) @Jeroen, to my mind, this is getting into harrasment territory, and has been for some time.
EDIT: I've reviewed our ToS and, to my mind, this would be 'harrasment based on... religion (or lack thereof), theological perspective...'
Instead of reporting, as advised by our ToS, I am making you, @IdleChater, aware of my perspective and looking to hopefuly reach an acceptable solution.
This solution, to my mind, would enable you to still be a straight-talker on these boards, but not a 'serial criticiser', and especially not one with a special focus on one particular member.
I am seeking views on this from both @IdleChater and other members of our community.
what ad hominem?
Jeroen wrote this:
THAT, my friend, is ad hom - about me and not my comment. And so was my response. Turnabout is fair play, is it not?
Jeroen's comment was about as apropos as a Christian telling a Muslim what their faith is all about.
Trying to silence me?
For some time now, to my mind, you have been far too often critical and harsh, towards several members, but apparently with a special focus on Jeroen. To my mind, Jeroen has been nothing but gracious and kind to you. I would have called you out far sooner than Jeroen, but even his calling you out was gracious and kind. Had he not called you out, I would have done so.
For now, looking to hear what others think, and if they mostly agree that you've meandered into harrasment territory according to our ToS, looking for you to remedy your future postings on these boards a.k.a. limit the ad hominem personal attacks based on this or that perceived fault.
Mods haven't said anything yet.
But if you like, I'll start being extra super nice to Jeroen from now on, even when they're egregiously wrong about something.
I'll do it.
Ok?
ETA: And that means, I also have to be nice to Lobster, especially when the whole Yogin-On-Acid trip gets tired.
A new me! I can hardly wait for my next post. Tee Hee (as Lobster likes to say.
As the second most disagreeable member of the forum, I'll stand up for the importance of challenging people's opinions and stand against pitchfork mobs running people off.
I will, however, point out that part of Buddhism's right speech includes stating things in an agreeable manner and with a good intention. Perfection isn't what's important, or I'd be out on my ass, its the understanding and willingness to try.
Thus have I/eye heard/seen on the odd occasion:
The "higher self" and "lower self" are ultimately just mind-made concepts. They are empty of inherent existence.
The concepts of higher and lower self are complex, and fascinating. Tickling the intellect's fancy, intellectual entertainment for the ego. They are just another object for the mind to cling to, and thus, another form of delusion.
Awareness is fundamentally non-conceptual before thinking splits experience into subject and object... AKA The original mind's eye: what is seen before the seer (thoughts) arrives on the scene.
Thank you @marcitko, that more or less covers my feelings on the subject. I haven’t had to deal with this kind of targeted harassment since my days in school, and that from a Buddhist, no less. Back then my preferred method of settling things with a bully was meeting for a bout of fisticuffs, glad we don’t have to go through that kind of nonsense anymore. I’m sure that if @federica or @linc were not busy with their personal lives they would deal with it in their usual zero-tolerance manner.
On the subject of not being a Buddhist, I’m glad the community doesn’t hold to a rigid standard on this, admitting taoists, free thinkers and others. It’s a group of “new Buddhists” after all. I spent nearly a decade devoted to Buddhism, and I still follow many of it’s tenets, but found my heart took me in another direction.
On Right Speech, and especially kind speech, as @person mentioned it, I’ve always admired it and found it one of the most beautiful traits of Buddhists in general. I’ve associated Buddhism with gentleness and grace and eloquence, and long may these traits continue.
@Linc @federica
As advised by our Community Guidelines, which I have tried to follow in this matter, @IdleChater and I have been mediating both here publicly and later in private via PM.
I believe we have made sufficient progress that no ban is necessary at this time. IdleChater has shown self-reflection and a willingness to change and I am confident that with additional mediation, including between IdleChater and Jeroen, the matter can be beneficialy resolved for all involved.
It's very late here and I must be off to bed, I just don't want to wake up with IdleChater banned, not after the successful mediation and initial progress we have made.
Apologies to @Tavs, whose threads we have been recently derailing.
Glad that is all sorted...
Here is something on the lower self (best avoided, just in case you were wondering)
Wait... maybe that does not exist either...?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/nov/25/the-dangerous-rise-of-buddhist-extremism-attaining-nirvana-can-wait
I still get emails for mentions (like that) or a 'Flag' and come to check them out, even if I'm not reading the in-between. 👋
I don't suggest that as a standard. 🤨
For the record, you went 0/3 on that series of assertions.
Thanks! I appreciate both the effort and the update.
Oh, and I've gone and moderated away my manners as well apparently. A belated welcome to @Tavs, cheers. 👋
Thanks very much! 🙂👋
ty for the food for thought.most buddhist including me, wrestle with two truths which deals with the dynamics of emptyness and it collary relatedness to form.
a graph:
( aware-ness field=mind/energy attention input and output) called a bitof information and /0 ratio of no space=emptyness.
1.we are aware in a given space in the mind.awareness of mind creates perception 0f the 6 senses afecting awareness into "form" the mind create. mind then postulate the form through aware energy and this energy goes into mental states what physcologist call ego.
2. this ego on the suface is the projection we call self. the self is the ego form field of awareness. but awarness is the o state what buddha call sunyata. hence the negation school is born. awareness is a steady field that neither bond postive and negative states in form. awareness is neutral to what self/ego is. the thing to stop conventional perception the buddha taught anything divided by o is o/empty of inherent self.so higher self or lower self is mistaken to the minds mechanism that escreww the relevance of form. in a sense buddha wanted to "see" or be aware mind is an illusion in the brain. the ego is seen as a process of the five agregates which is process under awareness0 states
in zen/dao is called mu/doesnt apply. ego doesnot appy the buddha being a great quantum lotus 0 deduced the form of any perceive structure doesnt have a cause. no orignal point in spacetime fluidity. he propose the equality of empty and form. they are like enter-related.
the wisdom of buddha can be summarise be aware self and no self without ego enflation.the saying if your head swell to higher self godhood gravity will humble you like a blace hole thus not violation emptyness equals form.
thinking abot stuff like this i see buddha wisdom in everday life. i avoid snob minds and learn from "simple" people because wisdom for me is better than higher self or lower self.
in the mundain to groung my self in being a higherself asshole is the principle chop wood and fetch water.
the principle of mu= (0)/does not apply ultimate sense
principle of opposite of mu is um=(u mind)conventional sense 0f -/+ ego
principle of awareness:
mu(mind u) is aware function/probe to a locality. mundain principle self aware. for example, look at form head in mirror. through insight factors or insight body of aware information you gnosis perception head>scull>brain>neurons/symnastics help formuate an aware form of concious brain field that gives a percieve reality. hense the emptyness method negate form to zero/mu arriving empty in form.
but when lobster observation to the function of awareness is spot on. the self is whereever you place attention on. this is my/our perspective of mu or mind u. in a sence it a relative space the mind u focus on. mu is half the equation to um. mu buddhism can thank mahyanna buddhism in the sementry to mu, if applyed through reduction of mind u it leads to emptiness or 0 state. in 0 state is nirvana resonence of itself awareness is postulated. so self is mind u which is seen is nirvanna proposed.
mu=um. mind u can be said, self is not self in conventional terms. because nirvanna has no cause. buddha pointed out as the unborn or zero state. this insight led mahyanna scool to balance form is mu or in zen know the self is forget the self or ego function. but be um. um is the function of the path of least resistence like effortless effort in dao. um is the base function of self from mu
ill quite. this sense of self and sense of no self can be view as spectrum of awareness withno surface to space in consciousness or awareness when zero is the constance.
lobster is correct and you negated the senseness of no is correct. both perception is mu no and um yes from awareness and no sense awareness
form of percieved awareness to me i making?no i me localised in form and upto the 5 aggregate
self importance stifle clarity in awareness?
>
better statement than me. like awareness is in the form of self?
last thought, a sense is awareness organsing itself. no mind is nevermind like mu is um backwards? i ll stop its all abouve my head. thats what gurus are for. they may have phd awareness of ultimate truth and conventional truth paradyms.
side note if scientist explain the 2 truth of awareness and gravity in empty space i will be dumfounded. its hard today yet we seek if reality is an energy/illusion or midle way of energy and matter relation that buddhsit on emptyness is form and form is emptyness
I am from Theravada community and I am not familiar with "higher-self" concept. We would like to think some people from higher realms are protecting us but I did not hear that higher-self thing. I heard about it only from YouTube astrology videos.
Hi silent. Wikipedia has this definition of a higher self:
Higher self is a term associated with multiple belief systems, but its basic premise describes an eternal, omniscient, conscious, and intelligent being, who is one's real self. Blavatsky, who founded the Theosophical Movement, formally defined the higher self as "Atma the inseparable ray of the Universe and one self. It is the God above, more than within, us". According to Blavatsky, each and every individual has a higher self.
So it goes back to the Theosophists.
Thanks for explaining. Yes, it is not Buddha's teaching. We do not even have "self" and therefore, no such thing as "higher-self" as far as I understand. To get first enlightenment (stream-entry), we need to remove "self" (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) with knowledge first. Unless, insight will not progress. When we actually gained first enlightenment, sense of self/ identity view completely dissolved. This if one of the three fetters totally cut off at that stage. Sense of self as "conceit" will still exist and only disappear when one is fully enlightened. Just sharing what I learned from Dhamma talks and readings.
To remove "self" (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) with knowledge - you need to understand dependent organization (Pratītyasamutpāda). When you understand cause and effect links, you can see suffering is not me, pain is not me, and become a lot easier to meditate and mindful.
I think you mean ‘dependent origination’. In any case, it gels with what I’ve read elsewhere. Perhaps you’ve been a monk for a while, I hear it’s a custom many people follow in Thailand, to ordain for a year or two?
I am female and from nearby country. not from Thailand but staying in Thailand. I just do not want to mention my country name here. I read and listen to Dhamma talks a lot in the past few years and also took online courses. Yes, you are right. It is wrong spelling as I am not familiar with English terms yet. I found clear writings in many places these days but I read mainly in local language until a few months ago. I found this just now https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot05/. I will try to simplify what I understand. Because we do not know what is right and what is wrong (ignorance), we are doing things that will keep us continue to suffer or suffer more (Karma formations). Because it is formed, we have consciousness and form - like we currently do - become humans. As a result, we can hear, feel, see, smell, taste with our six sense organs which is part of a human whenever we got contact with something. That contact makes you feel - like, dislike or neutral (Vedana). That made you crave ( if you don't like want to push things away, if you like you want more) - it is attachment. Because of attachment we cling to these things - not only food, materials but also to humans such as parents, lovers, spouses, children or even reputation, opinion, belief system, and so on. That clinging/ grasping make us continue to exist - cannot let go, cannot break free from fetters and therefore, rebirth as humans or other forms (higher or lower realms) again. As we were born, we will old and we will die -- as innate fate of human or animal or other forms. As we do not aware of that, we restart again and again and living in this cycle of suffering. Once you know, you change your behavior and meditation and mindfulness is a tool to break this cycle. The place to break cycle is the link between feeling and craving. You can feel but if you can let go of craving, your mental chains become weaker and weaker. When the first three broke, you become a stream-enterer and will not go to lower realms or hell. You have only maximum of seven births to be fully liberated. Hope my explanation make sense.
this topic is so facinating. might as well go the rabbit hole again. thinking out loud, the wrestling go on.
the dao statement proposed by person is the parodox of emptyness is form,form is emptyness. to my thinking its two enter related states.the set of e=f(emptyness is form)from a buddhist perspective can be percived/sense as ultimate truth. the "initial" empty is the relative nature called mu or does not apply
and we can say its 0 point. i propose dao is empty an a prior a before sense.its like a sheet of paper its empty of content before the artist dao makes its first mark. the action or karma is dao potential. what if karma is the sum total of energy spent or use yet infinitly empty in itself or infinite potential. that paradox is crazy to me. so form is derivitive from dao emptyness. energy or infinite potential made our universe. so dao can asscribe form like a person unkowing fart or sneeze. it just happen. a fart has the property of energy in form. so form came from nothing or emptyness. we can backtract form into its space inner constitutes and arrive percieve emptyness arriving the equality of um form into mu doesnt apply...the nature my guess of dao symetry of form is emptyness. thus equation is balance.
now others might wonder is dao a god. mu and um. to me its a no and yes. dao can be viewed as you can see the handy work but not the engineer. dao is like the observer and the observe phenomenon that philosopher and buddhst grapple with.
my pet theory is samestate=samstate. samestate is all in the universe is a s.a.m state source animated matter equal to the design of Dao Sam. this is like the enginer made the matrix of reality to participate in the triple e theory. dao is in u and out of u. my dao is not some male god outside of himself. proposed by abrahamic god. more like spinoza god.
the miracle is a wonder dao universe earth air water and dont forget bees we need them in the circle of life. better get the hitchhiker guide to the universe when r.i.p
You are fortunate that there are many fine teachers of the Dhamma in Thailand, by comparison Europe is thinly populated. You might even have the opportunity to meet and receive guidance from enlightened masters. These might be considered more useful than just the knowledge, or the practicing. But there are good resources online as well, like the Access to Insight English language sutra repository. Wishing you a bountiful day…
better phrase, eye in i better get a handybook to live well in the universe.
at the end of the day, how well you/me um live that counts.
dao and in zen as the buddha said i only teach a handful of leaves. i belive he is a buddha awaken one giving us tools to self cessation of mind states to see less is more and more is stress. he is a head of his time know the cause and cessation of dukkha.
but the mahana school divergent of thera open to daozen, be u and even minded not ego base driven too much--shelvish--but equality base driven share this miracle life together in our mutual enlightnment gain.
personally i suspect we are alone in the universe and we got eachother. this horrify thought--alone--made me see be kind be nice so that i can have bodhi neighbors.
namanaste to daosam in me respect the daosam in u
Not everyone here practices astrology, watches youtube or follows the teachings of the Theravada early Dharma wheel. The first teachings were oral.
Some here follow Mahayana or even Tantra.
You might be able to get better info here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
You might be able to read it in a language of your choice.