I knew we had an unconscious part of our self but never realized how incredibly small our conscious part is! My first reaction was how little we must know of ourselves and the world around us if our everyday consciousness is so limited. What made our unconscious really tangible was imagining seeing the world through opaque glasses with only two pinholes to see through, and what made it so interesting was the knowledge that this opaqueness is generated by our unconscious, negative, psychic forces – the imperious self.

But by the end of the lecture Prof. Elahi made a remark that both worried and motivated me: … whether we want it or not, we are constantly ruled by our imperious self, unless we fight against it. It felt like a wake-up call since I have always imagined that my imperious self is only active in a few small areas of my life and that I am confronted with it maybe once or twice a day. But it seems that I’ve been mistaken and that it is actually active 24/7. So I guess I should fight against it the when I do see it and look for its traces whenever I don’t… if I want to be able to see through these limiting glasses!

Thank you this soul nurturing video. Not only does it remind us humans of one the main spiritual objectives (fighting the Imperious self), but it also provides us with an explanation of the results gained from constantly performing it. Also it was nice to be reminded by Prof Elahi’s explanation on how fighting the Imperious Self directly affects the use of our faculty of Consciousness in the other world, especially once we fully realize the extent of our faculty of consciousness. I can’t help to think that due to lack of ability to use our faculty of Consciousness, which results from lack of improvement in our understanding during our earthly life, will also cause some sort of suffering for our soul in the other world. Perhaps in form of regret, which I would definitely like to avoid.

Here are some words that I have looked up in the dictionary. I hope some who don’t have English as their mother tongue (like me) will benefit from it. Of course, some of the words have more than one meaning, so I have chosen the definition that makes sense to me. Also some of the words are not so difficult, but I think it never hurts to look up a word in the dictionary.

– Conglomerate (noun): 1) a number of things put together. 2) a group of different things or people gathered together. Example: a new ensemble was a conglomerate of three different brands.
– Pinhead (noun): something very small or insignificant.
– Privy (adjective) (Privy to something): 1) sharing in the knowledge of facts that are secret. 2) sharing in the secret of something.
– Opaque (adjective): not allowing light to pass through; not transparent.
– Veil (noun): 1) a thing that hides or disguises something. 2) a covering of fine net or other usually transparent material worn, especially by women, to protect or hide the face, or a part of a hat, etc.
– Quasi- (prefix) (forming adjectives and nouns): partly; almost.
– Pinhole (noun): a small hole made by, for, or as if by a pin.
– Immense (adj): extremely large or great.
– Opacity (noun): The quality of being opaque [see above for opaque].

Prof. Elahi’s lecture, and his vivid and tangible descriptions of the components and mechanics of the Self, penetrates through one’s being, creating an immediate and immense sense of motivation to remove the opaque glasses caused by one’s psychological veil; a veil that is produced by the imperious self, confining the vastness of one’s consciousness to a mere pinhead. Whilst listening to this lecture, I could feel this confinement, and I could visualise the frightening and overwhelming feeling of seeing the enormity of my consciousness upon my death, yet being unable to comprehend it; much as a child does when placed in an environment unbeknown to him. I felt a strong urge that I should try to remove this veil if I don’t want to be that lost, frightened and ignorant child when I leave this earthly body, and instead be that of an adult who can understand, delight in, and identify with the reality of my Self and the environment I am destined to go to. Thank you so much for all your efforts in trying to awaken us to the reality of who we are and where we are going.

It is truly amazing that, just like his books, the more you review Dr. Elahi’s lectures the more information comes to light. I wish I knew what Dr. Elahi means by quasi totality of consciousness. I am grateful beyond words that he continues to energize my thirst for spiritual knowledge.

My oh my… is this a treasure or what? I am trying to think of an example in physical science that resembles the definition of the power (puissance)… something that exerts an effect, a force, which can be modified, decreased, or increased. I am sure there is an example out there…!

Interesting question @724! I thought a little about what type of forces that could be (that can be modified, increased, and decreased) and the best thing I could come to think was electromagnetic forces/waves. They can be used to scan bodies for medical purposes (MRI), to communicate messages (satellites, cellphones), or as high intensity lasers for precision surgery, or large-scale lasers for defense systems, and of course, maybe their most common use of all, light. What’s also interesting is their causality, Electromagnetism is governed by four fundamental equations, the Maxwell equations. If I remember Prof. Elahi’s previous lecture right, in the other world, we don’t actually need tools to exert our will; since all our forces are governed by our metabrain, which we develop here on Earth, if we put the ethical principles we have learned in practice.

Last time I forgot to say thanks for posting this video. Thanks for posting this video!
@David:
Thanks for your comment. I can especially relate to the end of your comment where you write about not recognizing the imperious self at work all the time. I am actually a lot worse; that is if I only recognize my imperious self one time, during most of my days, I would call it a successful day.
Anyway, after I read your comment I made a bit of research. I actually think some of the problems regarding that we cannot recognize the imperious self is due to lack of grasp of the theory. For example, chapter 37 in The Path of Perfection was very helpful for me to review.
I also just reread the last chapter in Foundation of Natural Spirituality (about the spiritual immune system).

@star:
I am happy you could use the definitions. After I watched the lecture I did not know how to fight my imperious self, so I thought that I at least could write some definitions and make some kind of good deed 🙂 But like I wrote above I think some of the problem is lack of good grasp of the theory; one can never review (re-read) Dr. Elahi’s books enough—at least until one reaches perfection.

@Stephen, thanks for bringing the example back to spotlight! I am hopeless when it comes to science, so I really liked the simplified definition you provided for electromagnetic waves. I will try to read some more about it, meanwhile when we talk about “a power that can be modified,” are we talking about amount, direction, substance, or something else?

I just thought that one of the reasons that our imperious self is so incredibly strong is due to the shear size of our unconscious self (that which produces the imperious self)! It is easy to understand how that would come to dominate our pin-size conscious self…

@Stephen
This is a very interesting comparison, however I am not sure I understood how it is related to what you say about the metabrain afterwards?

Also, I am not entirely sure I grasped what Professor Elahi ment by a “conglomerate of powers” when he describes the soul. Any suggestions?

And I completely agree with @AB, Professor Elahi’s teachings are like an onion, by watching this video more and more we get a deeper understanding of all the notions he exposes, just like when you are peeling an onion to get to the ‘fruit’.

Thank you for sharing this video. I think the important message in this video is “learn how to spend your earthly life with God’s satisfaction in mind.”

@Jake (comment 24):
First of all, the word ”electromagnetic wave” was not used in this (add emphasis please) lecture and used by Stephen in his comment. And I did not write about “scientific discoveries”, which is another discussion, but about understanding (add emphasis please). The point is: don’t change my words.

Either accept the axioms of Spirituality and get starting to learn something or go study more physics, so the things you “learn”, will “touch your heart” (I am referring to your comment in the article: On Proving God –Part I). “[Y]ou therefore need to choose… I have made my choice.”(citation from your comment). And stop distracting our discussions with your provoking comments. I personally prefer to write to, for example, Blake, Star and David than having these discussions with you.

These “wanna be (fanatically) rational” are the most irrational people that exist. They always contradict themselves … Any other scientist (in any branch of science) who is fanatic will be considered serious (at least by the majority of people). Now if it truly positive to be fanatic in the material sciences is another discussion. But when it comes to the Science of Spirituality(=Medicine of the Soul) then we have to hear nonsensical things from these “wanna be (fanatically) rational” and notodogma-type of people all the time.
So when I use the word “fanatic” I am, among other things, referring to being extreme serious. So what I try to say is if one wants to learn the Science of Spirituality then one has to study Spirituality; and if one wants to learn physics then one has to study physics; and if one wants learn medicine then…Now if some people have good understanding of physics then good for them. But I don’t think (at all) it is necessary to learn physics to progress in Spirituality. And my argument is this: What will help the Metabrain grow?

Of course, using the term “fanatic” is my own homemade terminology and I must admit that it “begs” for criticism since it usually is used in a negative way. But I still think my comment (number 22) is correct.

@Blake:
You are welcome… So how do you think was the correct way to respond to Jake’s comment?

————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Also at the time when this video was made available I was in a state of confusion and I was like “what is the imperious self?!”. But now I think I am almost “a pure imperious self!”. And I think the main problem was that I was not enough in society. Anyway now I better understand why one needs to live a normal life among other people, because if one lives in “isolation” then fighting the imperious self does not make sense. Actually I don’t think it is possible.

Now if one spends a lot of time alone then of course fewer opportunities arise to fight the imperious self. Now acting correct in society is truly difficult: on the one hand one has to not “take it too easy” and not be “soft” and not submit to the negative tendencies in society and on the other hand one needs to obey the social norms, as long as they are not harmful spiritually. This is The Science of Life!

@blake: Thanks for the link you posted.
Yes, it states: “Don’t get involved in flame wars”. And flame means heated messages. I must admit I got involved in a flame war… So I apologize to everybody witnessing this flame war and especially to E-OstadElahi.com.

@ SM, in response to Blake

I disagree with both of you on philosophical grounds, but also based on a more attentive reading of the book you are referring to.
“What is impossible by virtue of itself”, as defined in Knowing the Spirit (p. 44), is a very strong concept. Its logical status is quite different from any imaginary, absurd or contradictory idea you may come up with (unicorns, flying pigs or round squares).
Of course, by definition a square cannot be circular. Rephrased in terms of essence and existence, this means that something in the essence of the square resists its being instantiated as round. Reciprocally, the idea of circularity seems to push away squareness. Nevertheless, we can entertain the idea of a round square (after all, we’re exchanging views about it!). Up to a point, we can even devise concrete approximations of such a concept (for instance, by bending the sides and smoothing out the corners of a squared shape…). Some philosophers argue that round squares and the like do not count as logical contradictions proper but belong rather to the category of “impossible objects”. Such objects exist in their own right as sheer possibilities or fictions of the mind; their only limitation is that they are unconstructible—in other words, their concept can never be instantiated (their extension is null)…

The point I’m trying to make is this: I do not think that round squares—or any similar example—qualifies as an instance of what is impossible in itself, as understood by Ostad Elahi and the philosophical tradition he’s drawing from.
By virtue of itself, a circle resists squareness; by virtue of itself, a square resists circularity. But a round square by itself is a perfectly legitimate—if useless—idea. It is as “real” as “the future King of the United States”, or “the baldness of the present King of France”. You may think that a round square is more intrinsically impossible than “the present King of France (in 2011)”, but if it is in fact impossible (i.e., unconstructible), it is by virtue of what we mean by “square” and what we mean by “round”; it is by virtue of the set of axioms that govern our geometry—that is, by virtue of something OTHER than itself. As impossible as it may seem, it cannot rule itself out of existence by its own means: it is not powerful enough to do so! (Naturally, the same is true of flying pigs: they are ruled out of existence by the laws of physics, not by themselves).

So we’ll have to do better than invoking round squares and the like if we want grasp the idea (and possibly, the spiritual insight) behind “what is impossible by virtue of itself”.
If you read the relevant paragraph in Knowing the Spirit, it is clear that the scope of this concept is very restrained—as restrained as that of God Himself, which applies to only ONE entity: the unique truly necessary being. Being the concept of “that whose nonexistence is necessary by virtue of itself”, it is exactly symmetrical with “what is necessary by virtue of itself” (mathematicians would say that these are DUAL objects). In fact, “that whose nonexistence is necessary by virtue of itself” cannot be rigorously applied to anything but the idea of God’s “partner / associate”, or any equivalent, such as God’s equal (i.e. another God, which would neutralize the very idea of God as Unique).

The way I understand this is that “what is impossible by virtue of itself” is the Absolute Absurdity, an Absurdity commensurate with God’s absolute necessity. If you like, it is the negative (in the photographical sense) of God’s absolute necessity.
Trying to come up with concrete, tangible cues to make sense of these very metaphysical, very abstract, and yet fascinating lines of argument in Knowing the Spirit, I came to the conclusion that another good candidate for “that which is impossible in itself” could be God’s nonexistence itself—or if you prefer, the frightening perspective of a world without God. The utmost absurdity encapsulated in the idea of “what is impossible by virtue of itself” is tantamount to the absurdity of a nonexistent necessary being. Such a state of affairs is impossible in an absolute sense (impossible by virtue of itself), because a being that exists in itself simply CANNOT NOT EXIST. (By the way, this is the structure behind Descartes’ so-called “ontological argument”. On the proofs of God’s existence, see http://www.e-ostadelahi.com/eoe-en/on-proving-god/).

Again, the kind of impossibility we’re dealing with is quite distinct from anything we can think about in the realm of what is conditioned / contingent / necessary through another. (Using Bahram Elahi’s terms, I’d be tempted to speak of “metacausal impossibility”). Accordingly, “that which is impossible by virtue of itself” is the prototype of every impossibility, whether physical (flying pig), conceptual (round square) or logical (“A is non-A”).
I quote: “All the other impossible things, including what is ‘impossible through another’ or ‘impossible by relation to another,’ also come back in the end to this (i.e., to what is impossible in itself).” (p. 44).

“That which which is impossible by virtue of itself” is the ultimate ground of every impossibility, just as “that which is necessary by virtue of itself” is the ultimate ground of any possibility—and thus, any form of existence.

Bringing these two considerations together, we can meditate on the following intuition: a world without God—anything without God—is absolutely impossible. More impossible, that is, than a round square.

@ k: I am basing that statement (that theses schematics are mere illustrations and not literal depiction of our self) on the following:

1. Medicine of the Soul, Study VI: “… organs and faculties of the soul are inseparable, meaning that … the sensory functions of the soul are not organ specific. Each faculty of the soul simultaneously exists throughout the entire soul in the same way that various electromagnetic waves (radio, television, etc.) occupy a given space and can be detected at any point within that space.”

I understand the above to mean that the soul’s faculties are not confined to “organs” or areas, if you will, within the soul and that there is a certain fluidity to these faculties. However, we need the strict separation in the illustrations in order to understand the functions of these faculties and their interactions.

2. According to Prof. Elahi, the substance of the soul, while material, is not made of physical matter, but rather made of “spiritual matter.” (MotS, Study VI.) So using physical illustrations, I doubt we can capture the true form of this transcendent matter, just as we don’t have the vocabulary to describe things that are beyond our comprehension, and we do the best we can with the words we have to understand the concepts.

3. If the depictions were literal (as opposed to mere illustrations), they should not have changed over time, but we see that these illustrations contained in Prof. Elahi’s works have changed significantly over time as he has further developed these concepts and studied them in depth. The newer illustrations are more in line with the way he is presenting these same concepts he has written about for years.

By the way, I want to emphasize that I do not mean to suggest that the illustrations are insignificant, or that the proportions do not mean anything. For example, the fact that the ego, which is our superficial conscious self, is depicted as a tiny fraction of our total self, particularly in comparison to our spiritual unconscious, is quite important as it demonstrates the point Prof. Elahi makes about us being analogous to a child who is looking at the world through opaque glasses with pin-size holes in them. Or the fact that the metabrain is situated in our spiritual unconscious is again significant in that we do not have direct access to it while we are in a physical body, making the role of a sound intellect that much more critical.

So I am merely suggesting that the illustrations are not literal, that’s all. I think if we focus too much on the literal here, we tend to memorize the faculties and “archive” this knowledge, which Prof. Elahi has warned us is useless. But if these illustrations help us to detect these faculties within ourselves, particularly in vivo, then we are learning about ourselves and that is valuable any way you look at it.

@NN (comment 10):
About being disconnected quasi-entirely from our consciousness:
I did not understand this either at first but I think the answer is quite simple: We are only quasi-entirely disconnected from our (total) consciousness because we also have a conscious self (=the consciousness we have while on earth).

@Tiger and SM:

I appreciate your efforts and responses. I am very weak in the field of philosophy but what I could grasp from the concepts you discussed were, nevertheless, new and interesting.

I find SMs statement very convincing “I believe the word “pure” here is intended to mean “entirely”

Tiger, you said “I disagree with both of you on philosophical grounds”… I didn’t get that. Did you mean the question I asked was incorrectly phrased?

My question was specifically about the “human soul” which comes directly from the Source. Rather than round squares and the like, I think “pure consciousness” would be more analogous to using the term “kind God” in a sentence….when and where it may be needed. When used, we know it would be placing an emphasis on one of God’s attributes, because we also know that an ‘unkind’ God is indeed an impossible (non-existent) attribute.

More on “pure consciousness”.
I’ve double-checked: in French Bahram Elahi says “une pure conscience” (emphasis on “pure”).
Clearly he doesn’t mean “pure consciousness” in the sense of “not impure”, otherwise he would have said “une conscience pure”.
So my verdict is: the soul is “pure consciousness” = the soul is “one hundred per cent consciousness” (as opposed to unconscious or corporeal, I guess).