Ego and Higher Self

The theories were incomplete because the mechanics of how the process of reincarnation happened were only schematic, as in the Buddhist concept of The Wheel of Life. Usually just the ethical reasons were produced for explaining the necessity of the process (that is, why it happened).

This one-sided presentation is too limited to explain the problems of human evolution. Any complete theory has to explain psychological factors. Any complete theory has to give reasons for both how and why something happens. My understanding of the way that the mind functions has enabled me to give a psychological account of how reincarnation works.

First, I give my view on the difference between a paradigm and an ideology, which has not been described before. This is the difference between impartial thinking and value-directed thinking.

Paradigm and Ideology

The contrast between ethical neutrality and value-based thinking can be used to describe the realistic basis of scientific practice. It can be formulated under two terms, those of ‘paradigm’ and ‘ideology’. I give my definitions of these two terms.

A paradigm is a self-contained system of meanings within which every problem is explained (or ignored). The paradigm of science is a mechanistic and materialistic world of physical causality (a world of facts and the relationships between facts). One way to approach the meaning of anything is to investigate the causal relationships of which it is a part.

Hand-in-hand with a paradigm goes an ideology, which is a self-contained system of values. An ideology is just another name for a closed system of thinking. A closed system of thought occurs when any framework of knowledge tries to ask and answer all questions concerning values and standards within its own boundaries. Such a system does not lead to the acceptance of any knowledge that is outside those boundaries.

In essentials, an ideology is a perspective for encapsulating power, and how that power is used. It defines what is, and what is not, real. Power can be exerted on what is real, but not on what is ‘unreal’. Only what is defined to be real has value. Now what is the relationship between paradigm and ideology? I see it this way.

For example, within the paradigm of science, flying saucers do not exist. The reason for this is that within the ideology of science no valuation is placed upon the phenomenon of flying saucers. Hence there is no impetus to change the paradigm so as to incorporate them. Values always come first within any system, so ideology always determines what is admitted to the paradigm.

Scientists usually have little or no awareness of the difference between the paradigm and the ideology ; they make statements about the ideology when they think that they are making statements about the paradigm. When a scientist states that flying saucers do not exist, this is a statement about the ideology and not a statement of fact (the paradigm). The scientist is afraid that if he chooses to explore ‘fringe’ ideas then he will lose academic prestige and power and will find himself subject to public ridicule – hence his views reflect the constraints of the ideology.

For comparison, within an ideology of New Age values, flying saucers can exist, but whether they actually do is an open question. They probably do – it depends on how one understands the incident at Roswell in 1947, and the purpose of Area 51. What crashed at Roswell? Was it a UFO?

Overview of Reincarnation Theory

Now I can give an overview of reincarnation theory, in which I add my own interpretation to past ideas about it. The theory has three strands to it (the third one, on confusion, is my view alone). The full description of reincarnation is the subject of the next article.

a). Paradigm Aspect of Reincarnation
As a theory of evolution, reincarnation is concerned with understanding problems about life. Each person needs to learn how to handle social problems and problems of individuality. To handle a problem, a person has to develop abilities as well as developing individual and social skills. To understand a problem in all its complexity a person has to be both giver and receiver, both a success in life and a failure, both topdog and underdog, both authoritarian and rebellious. These positions are very difficult to achieve in a single lifetime. Hence a person will spend many lives at the bottom of society, many lives in the middle, and many lives at the top. Many lives will be a success when topdog, and when underdog too ; but many lives will be failures.

Most permutations of social and political positions will be experienced, over a course of many lifetimes. But society evolves, and problems evolve in tandem with it. Therefore this cycle of permutations is repeated endlessly in order to ensure that the person experiences all nuances of problems that are of importance and relevance to him.

Why does reincarnation theory assume a time-scan of myriad incarnations? Because a person learns only very slowly about himself and about relationships. Learning occurs primarily through trial and error, a highly inefficient method. So repeated exposure to persistent problems is needed in order for him to change his attitudes and beliefs to more harmonious ones. This psychological structure of reincarnation is a value-free structure, a paradigm, since it is independent of morality.

The person changes his place in the social and political lists (high, middle, low) by utilising desire. The person follows his own desires. This makes him the arbiter of his own achievements (the Buddhist view).

b). Ideology Aspect of Reincarnation
The driving force of reincarnation is a system of rewards and punishments given by the personal God and by a person's higher self. This system is superimposed on factor (a). Depending on how the person handles his desires, how he uses his abilities, how he relates to other people, how he interprets his successes and failures, etc, so he is rewarded or punished (this is the Christian view). Reward and punishment is a value system, an ideology, and is often considered to be a spiritual form of justice. It is handed out according to needs, not according to desires.

In factor (a), the Buddhist view, evolution works through desires.
In factor (b), the Christian view, evolution works through needs.
Factors (a) and (b) work together in a classic paradigm-ideology combination.

c). Confusion Aspect of Reincarnation
However, this combination of factors (a) and (b) fails to explain adequately why good people do bad things. Traditional religious theories assume that it is due either to ignorance or to the evil nature of materialism. These assumptions have limited applicability.

Ignorance exists but represents a low-level explanation, that is, it fails to explain why people still do bad things after they have been taught the ‘correct’ view of things. The concept of ignorance cannot explain psychological compulsion and determinism. Within the system of reward and punishment, ignorance is not accepted as an excuse : people are still punished when they do bad things from ignorance.

The ‘evil’ nature of materialism comes under the aspect of survival, or the influence of Nature. A person is driven by Nature to survive, so that life becomes the ‘survival of the fittest ’. This drive is amoral, so that good people may have to transgress their moral code in order to survive. However, this explanation is no longer viable when a person upgrades his life beyond the survival level.

The high-level explanation of why good people do bad things is the concept of confusion. This is a psycho-dynamic concept and proposes that confusion is a mixture of forms of determinism which exist in varying intensities in the minds of everyone – whether of high status or low, whether wise or ignorant. All people are confused, though only a small proportion are so confused that they need psychiatric intervention. Confusion often results from problems that originated in past lives and are influential in the present life. When this influence is being felt, the person is then motivated by compulsive emotions and attitudes such as fear and hostility, and does not know why they occur or how to eliminate them.

Confusion undermines nobility of character and makes a person act from fear. This effect causes a problem for the moral basis of reincarnation. A good person acts from confusion and so is punished for it. This can breed resentment and bitterness at life’s unfairness, so adding to the confusion. The problem is whether a confused person is responsible for his actions. The spiritual world (the personal God and the person's higher self ) holds him to be responsible and thereby punishes him. The person can now drift into a downward spiral, where confusion and resentment spur each other on. The good person becomes trapped in this spiral and his character deteriorates. He is no longer one of the ‘fittest ’ and ends up among the out-casts of society.

Spiritual justice, as a system of rewards and punishments, is based on merit. The reality of confusion highlights the deficiency in this system – there is little equity or fairness in the spiritual world. As a system of justice, rewards and punishments are inadequate. This system ignores the significance of the compulsiveness of past-life problems, problems that appear to be insoluble in the present life. Even when the person has learned from these problems, so that they have served their purpose, they remain operative in his life.

When the spiritual influences acting on a seeker are subjected to empirical inquiry and intellectual analysis, then the concepts of ‘ignorance’, ‘evil materialism’, and ‘spiritual justice’ fail to explain adequately the trials of a human life. The only coherent way of understanding the sorrows of life is to presume that life is primarily a learning experience. The higher self (along with astrological influences) will sometimes increase the stress on a person and thereby push him beyond his comfort zone so that he makes mistakes in his handling of relationships; he then has to face long periods of adjustment as he learns to resolve his difficulties. From this perspective it follows that justice is not always a major concern of the higher self. Spiritual justice exists, but it is often over-ridden by the higher self ’s desire to learn how to handle both the pleasant and the unpleasant features of life.

The reality of confusion complicates this learning process, and ensures that learning is a very slow process. Hence human evolution requires a myriad number of incarnations in order that the person can finally master life’s trials and attractions.

Two Inquiries

To understand the dynamics of spirituality the seeker has to start exploring life ; the seeker has to start inquiring into life. This empiricism can flow in two directions. The status of the ego has to be explored – this is the first inquiry. This exploration always needs to be set alongside a second inquiry, an inquiry into purpose and meaning. Any satisfactory explanation of reincarnation should include both these explorations. Both require an understanding of dynamic psychology and ethics.

These explorations are set within two traditional concepts, those of Being and Becoming. Being is the world of unchanging reality, whilst Becoming is the world of constant change. Another way to look at this is that Being is the realm of the conscious mind, with the focus on free choice, whilst Becoming is the realm of the subconscious mind and its restrictions, inhibitions and compulsions.

d). What is a person? What is an ego ?
This is the ontological inquiry, the inquiry into Being.
The ego is the focus of inquiry.

e). What is the purpose of life? What is the meaning of life ?
This is the inquiry into rules, constraints and boundaries that limit the ego’s freedom of choice. This is the inquiry into Becoming.
Relationships are the focus of inquiry.

Traditionally, only Buddhism has answered inquiry (d), in a partial manner. In both Buddhism and Christianity the overall valuation, within a perspective of asceticism, is that the ego is the source of all badness and the world of the spirit is the source of all goodness. Therefore the practice of ‘ego-denial’ is advocated.

In both Buddhism and Christianity the answers given to inquiry (e) relate only to ethics and ignore the significance of relationships, so producing a devaluation of Earth life and a focus on attaining Nirvana or heaven respectively. From a metaphysical perspective, the world of physical reality (or Nature) has no inherent meaning, no built-in essence. This perspective allows the concept of purpose to be ignored, thus enabling the ascetic traditions to centre on world-denial.

No formulation of ethics and spirituality given in the past (or even in the future) is completely accurate. Any theory reflects only the capability of a society to grasp and understand it. As a society evolves its intellectual resources, so spiritual theories need to evolve in tandem in order to remain relevant and stimulating.

I began my inquiry into metaphysics with the assumption that the perspective of world-denial is inaccurate, and that the practice of ego-denial leads only to confusion (when a person tries to deny his own ego, all he is doing is learning to hate himself ). An understanding of the ways that the subconscious mind works is absent from the practice of ego-denial – this is only to be expected in pre-modern thinking.

My view is that in modern times, the problems of the world have to be solved within the world. Nirvana, heaven, or even states of enlightenment are not a cure-all : they still leave intact the perspective of world-denial. The existential tradition (short as it is) is the stage beyond asceticism. It is the existentialist who empirically explores purpose and meaning on planet Earth.

Analysing the Ego

Buddha analysed the ego in terms of its Being, and not its purpose or meaning. He considered the question: what is the nature of the ego? What is its Being? Buddha gave two answers. One of these is the usual view propounded in Buddhist texts and states that the ego has no permanent reality, since it seems to be just a bundle of personality characteristics. This view is easy to understand, whether or not one accepts it. Discarding this view as being inaccurate and misleading, I prefer the other analysis (which is hard to understand, and so usually is mentioned only in passing in Buddhist texts and then ignored).

f ). The person who believes that the ego survives death is called an eternalist.

He then stated that both views are wrong.
This analysis is correct. The ego both changes and stays the same. How is this to be interpreted? I give two answers.

I answer inquiries (d) what is a person, and (e) what is the meaning of life, from the perspective of my existentialism.

Expansion of consciousness operates within the necessity to explore social relationships since it is the dominance of social relationships that distinguishes Earth life from higher planes of existence. Overall, these views generate the existential proposition that man has to create himself
through the critical exploration of social ties.

I accept Buddha’s ontological analysis of the ego. It was over the question of meaning and purpose that I came to differ from him. A psycho-dynamic psychology is an analysis of the subconscious dynamics of a particular zone of consciousness. This zone is the overlap between the ego and its social interactions, and it is this analysis that is missing from Buddhist theories.

The failure of the Indian and Semitic traditions of spirituality to explore purpose and meaning arose from their failure to handle emotional relationships harmoniously. This failure is an automatic by-product of the exclusive focus on developing will power at the expense of attaining emotional maturity.

In fact, no one tradition can attend to all the needs of all the different human societies that spring up and evolve at different rates. At least three main traditions have been operating on Western society, and each reflects different needs at different times. These traditions are those of ancient Egypt, of Buddhism and of Christianity. The emphasis given by each tradition is as follows:

The Egyptian: To know oneself.
The Buddhist: To control oneself.
The Christian: To forgive other people for the ways they have interacted with oneself.

All these are ways of learning to purify oneself. Buddhism has been influential through its relationship to theosophy. The development of psychology since the nineteenth century suggests that the Egyptian influence is re-appearing in the West.

The number in brackets at the end of the referenc takes you back to the paragraph that featured it.

[¹]. My ideas on relativity are given in the article The Meaning of Relativity. I do not use the term to mean ‘relational’; instead, I define relativity to mean that a relationship exists between objectivity and subjectivity. [1]

The copyright is mine, and the articles are free to use. They can be reproduced
anywhere, so long as the source is acknowledged.

Ian Heath
London, UK

If you want to contact me, use the address at the bottom of the Home page.

Also, since there are numerous articles on this site, please include the title of the article if you want me to clarify or discuss particular issues.

It may be a few days before I can respond to correspondence.

.	Limitation of Reincarnation Theory When I was 30 I heard a talk on the theory of reincarnation. I had never heard of this theory before then. It at once struck me with tremendous force that it must be true. It seemed to be the spiritual basis of justice. After that introduction, I tried to find further details connected with these ideas. Over a period of many years all ideas about reincarnation that I read remained unsatisfactory to me. Theorists past and present had little understanding of the subconscious mind and so the theories that they produced were incomplete.
Sub - Headings
Paradigm and Ideology
Overview of reincarnation
Two inquiries
Analysing the Ego
References