A reflection on the subtle ego and the birth of the New Man
In any authentic tradition – whether Vedantic, Christian or Hermetic – the question “Who am I?” is not a psychological one, but one of inner discernment. It does not seek a conceptual answer, but an immediate recognition of what remains when all identities are set aside. In Rosicrucian language, it is the difference between the old nature and the new inner man. In Vedantic language, it is the difference between the ego, the subtle identity, and the inner Light. To clarify this structure, we will use three terms from the Advaita Vedanta tradition, adapted to a language appropriate to Western esoteric schools:
- ahamkāra – the psychological ego, the “biographical self”
- asmitā – the subtle identity, the “spiritual ego”
- chidābhāsa – the reflection of Light in individual consciousness
Ahamkāra – the biographical self (ego). Ahamkāra is the structure through which man perceives himself as a separate person, situated in time, defined by desires, fears, opinions and roles. It is the ordinary self that affirms: I am right, I am hurt, I am searching, I want to develop spiritually, I aspire to liberation. This identity is necessary for functioning in the manifested world, but it becomes an obstacle when the being aspires to real transformation. In the doctrine of the Golden Rosycross, this level corresponds to the dialectical nature and reactive personality, subject to the impulses of memory and conditioning.
Ahamkāra is inherently unstable because it is built on the past and projection: on what has been and what it hopes to become. It cannot provide a lasting foundation for transfiguration, but must be recognised and overcome for a change of order to take place.
Asmitā – The subtle self (ego), the witness who still believes itself to be someone. Asmitā refers to an extremely refined form of self-identity. It is no longer the biographical or psychological self, but the inner feeling of a consciousness that perceives itself as present, lucid and witness to its own experiences. This level is often experienced as deep silence, clarity and inner light, and frequently occurs in meditation, contemplation, prayer or Rosicrucian work.
However, from the perspective of the Golden Rosycross, this state remains linked to the personality. It constitutes a spiritualised self, a subtle presence that experiences itself as pure and mystically oriented, but which continues to exist through separation. It is precisely its elevated character that makes it stable and defensive: experiences are validated as truth, and any enlightenment that could dissolve this centre is rejected. Within the Lectorium Rosicrucianum, this level can sometimes be confused with the manifestation of the “New Soul”. In reality, it represents only the subtle reflection of the enlightened personality, not the actual birth of the New Man, which implies a change of order and the definitive disappearance of the ego centre as the governing authority.
Chidābhāsa – Reflection of Light in the mind. Chidābhāsa designates the reflection of spiritual light in the field of human consciousness. It makes perception, understanding and inner experience possible: seeing, hearing, thinking, contemplating. It has no will of its own and no identity; it is a reflection of light in the mental instrument of personality. In hermetic language, it can be compared to the light reflected in the mirror of the mind, but not to the source of light itself.
It is like a light turned on in a dark room; in its presence, the self knows itself as the psychic structure of the personality, has access to memory, and gains clarity and orientation in the dialectic field. And in the absence of adequate spiritual knowledge, it can lead to various erroneous identifications, such as: I am the body and mind, thus generating ahamkara, the dialectical personality, or I am the light, I am pure consciousness, I am the witness, thus generating asmita, the subtle ego. From this perspective, asmitā is the most difficult link to overcome: it is not a gross ego, but a spiritualised, stable, luminous and seemingly impersonal self. That is why it is often confused with realisation, especially by advanced seekers who have already overcome the gross forms of the dialectical self.
But there is a major difference between the reflection of light (chidābhāsa) and the rose of the heart. The rose in the heart, the atom of spirit, is not a reflection and does not belong to personal consciousness. It represents the original spiritual principle, of a different ontological order than the mind and experience. The rose does not illuminate through reflection, but exists as the latent seed of a new life. While chidābhāsa can be experienced and claimed by a subtle “I”, the Rose of the Heart cannot be possessed, observed or experienced as a state. It does not manifest itself through experience, but through rebirth, when personal will ceases to be the determining centre of the microcosm.
In Lectorium Rosicrucianum it is emphasised that personality, even if refined, calm and enlightened, still belongs to the old nature. It can contemplate the light, experience it and interpret it, but it cannot embody it. The real work begins only when this subtle identity ceases to claim the light for itself and personal will withdraws. Only then can the spiritual principle become decisively active in the microcosm.
Why is Asmitā the most subtle obstacle?
Most schools have created methods, or practices, each in its own way of working with ahamkāra, the personality, but very few refer to asmitā. Moreover, some have understood that asmitā is a spiritual goal, identified with liberation.
There are some deep and structural reasons why many seekers, even if they are in spiritual schools, cannot go beyond the level of asmitā. Asmitā is the last bastion of the ego, and it is ‘luminous’, not gross.
The gross ego (ahamkāra) is easy to observe: desires, fears, attachments. Asmitā generates “I am the observer,” “I am consciousness,” “I am the witness,” “I am on a spiritual path.” It is refined, resembles the truth, and therefore is not detected as an error. It seems spiritual. That is why Śrī Ramana Maharṣi [1] said: “The subtle ego is the most dangerous, because it wears a cloak of light.”
“The greatest obstacle is not the gross ego, but the ego that believes itself to be spiritual,” warns JvR. This is the “last veil,” that subtle feeling that the experience of pure spirit still belongs to someone, that it could remain in the sphere of experience of the dialectical ego. This is the last thread that must be cut before the “Light of the Spirit” can penetrate freely.
Many contemporary spiritual practices do not dissolve the centre of the ego, but refine it. They lead to a subtle form of identification with consciousness itself, which is experienced as a higher “state” of personality. Although such exercises can purify the field of thought and bring inner peace, they remain within the sphere of dialectical nature and do not free the being from duality. As long as there is an “ego” that experiences, observes or possesses this state, the being remains bound to the dialectical field. In this way, the old self is not dissolved, but transformed into a spiritual self, which delays the true transfiguration of the microcosm. This type of self, or ego, is called by Ādi Śaṅkarācārya [2] : “asmitā sattvică”, the most subtle veil.
If man continues to seek liberation through exercises of personality, the ego remains the active centre of the microcosm. Even experiences of tranquillity, unity or expanded consciousness can become means by which the old self is maintained. Without a profound clarification of the difference between personality and spiritual principle, no change of order takes place. Transfiguration begins only when the consciousness of the ego is transcended and the original spiritual force can act freely.
Attachment to spiritual identity (“I am someone evolved”) is a subtle form of pride through which I say to myself: “I have practice,” “I have initiations,” “I am a disciple,” “I am awake,” “I have intuited non-duality,” “I am from a great school.” This creates an “I” that must be protected, and this protection prevents its dissolution. Asmitā is not afraid of meditation, prayer or service, but it is mortally afraid of dissolution.
Overcoming asmitā means giving up control, giving up the position of “the one who experiences,” giving up any personal ontological basis. It is shocking to the psyche. That is where the “dark night,” “aridity,” “emptiness,” “desolation” appear. Many avoid this.
Asmitā provides meaning (I am on the path), direction (I am moving towards enlightenment), status (I have a level), belonging (I am part of a school). Without asmitā, all this “spiritual ground” disappears. Most people are not existentially prepared for a life without a “spiritual self”.
Only a few masters know how to distinguish samādhi from non-experience, or Gaudapāda’s non-dual realisation. Indeed, samādhi designates a state of deep tranquillity and concentration of consciousness, in which the activity of the personality in the dialectical field is suspended and an experience of inner unity arises. From the perspective of the Golden Rosycross, this experience, however elevated, remains bound to the order of nature and is therefore transitory. Transfiguration does not consist in a state of consciousness, but in a radical and irreversible transformation of the microcosm through the activation of the inner spiritual principle. Samādhi can prepare for this orientation, but it is not equivalent to the birth of the New Man.
Gaudapāda, the author of the Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, expresses a radical non-dualistic teaching in which liberation is not described as an experience or state of consciousness, but as the recognition that true reality is unborn and untouched by becoming. From this perspective, non-dual realisation does not belong to the experiential field of personality, but consists in the definitive exit from the illusion of separation, through the dissolution of any identification with the old self. Translated into Rosicrucian language, this corresponds to the end of the domination of the dialectical microcosm and the irreversible orientation towards the original spiritual order, beyond time, becoming and experience.
JvR indicates in many of his writings that nothing dialectical can cross the threshold of the inner Temple. No matter how pure the inner witness may seem, if it still perceives itself as a subject, it belongs to the old nature. The New Soul has no observing “I,” but is total transparency. Ramana Maharṣi is very clear: “Without inquiry into the source of ‘I am,’ asmitā cannot be overcome.”
In many schools, the inner investigation “vichara” is missing. Vicāra is the inner act of inquiry through which man withdraws his attention from the dialectical field of the nature of this world and directs it towards the centre of the microcosm. It is not an analysis of thoughts, but a lucid vigil in which the personality becomes transparent and the inner fire of the spiritual principle is called into activity. Through this orientation, the old self loses its dominance, and the seed of the New Man can be reached and awakened.
Mainly, Asmitā preserves itself through self-deception, and has two main strategies. The first involves hiding behind the light, “I feel peace, therefore I am consciousness.” The second is hiding behind understanding, “I have understood non-duality.” Both are subtle illusions.
The essential conclusion is that most seekers do not go beyond the centre of the self because it can be refined and spiritualised, becoming subtle and seductive. In many contemporary schools, transformation is understood as a refinement of personality through virtues, moral exercises, or elevated inner experiences. But these means do not dissolve the ego; they give it new legitimacy.
Without a profound clarification between the real and the unreal, between what belongs to the dialectical order and what belongs to the original spiritual order, the being remains tied to its identity, even if it is called “spiritual.” The fear of dissolving the ego arises, and subtle experiences are confused with realisation.
The true transcendence of the centre of the ego is not a psychological process, nor an accumulation of virtues, but a radical change in the orientation of the being, in which the personality loses its leading role. From this point on, the path is no longer one of self-improvement, but becomes mystical and non-personal: an opening of the microcosm to the free action of the spiritual principle.
“The transfusion of light as a microcosmic mutation” or the birth of the New Man
Asmitā dissolves when the inner Light (Spirit Spark) penetrates the heart and mind, transforming reflection into “Living Fire”. The ego does not disappear, but is “burned” into a higher vibration. In Rosicrucian language, the “transfusion of light” is the moment when the Original Light, coming from the field of the Spirit, penetrates the microcosm, untying the egotic reflection (asmitā) and setting in motion the birth of the New Man. It is not a metaphorical act, but a real change in the structure of consciousness.
The transfusion of light is the direct contact between the Original Light (Spirit, Divine Spark, rock of Being) and the individual consciousness that until then functioned reflexively (chidābhāsa) and identified (asmitā). In hermetic terms, the higher light radiates into the microcosm and begins to break the connection between self-centredness and the forces of the old life. In spiritual terms, the light of true Consciousness begins to expose the falseness of the small subject (“psychological witness”).
This “transfusion” is not produced by the mind, but by a simultaneous opening in two centres:
The sacred heart (the microcosmic centre of the Spirit’s action) becomes permeable, renounces self-defence, renounces living for itself. This opening creates access for the “Ray of the Spirit”.
The silent mind, which reduces noise, suspends the egoic reaction, is in a state of lucid availability.
When these two coincide, light spontaneously enters the system. You do not draw it in; it enters when there is a crack in the egoic structure. “Light is not attracted, but enters when the inner structure becomes permeable.” The JvR teachings state that the original light is not “called” by personal will. It enters spontaneously when the personality relinquishes its claims and a breach is created in the egocentric armour.
If we analyse the root cause that actually triggers the transfusion, we see that all traditions are very clear: it is not practice that produces light, but light that responds to a mature inner calling. The real cause is a deep saturation, when one no longer wants to repeat the old ways of life, an extreme sincerity, when one no longer desires anything from spirituality for oneself.
The cause is also an inner surrender, not “worship,” but the renunciation of personal centrality. It feels like a call from the microcosm itself. Sometimes the microcosm is “prepared through suffering,” other times through maturation. Nothing voluntary can force it.
Is this immersion of the original light into the structures of personality a personal merit or is it a grace? Here it must be clearly stated that this transfusion of light is not produced by the person themselves. Asmitā cannot dissolve itself, nor can it let go of itself. It is grace, but not arbitrary; it follows the laws of the microcosm. Light pours forth when the microcosmic field is open and prepared. It is not a favour, but a consequence of true inner maturation.
Personal effort does not produce light, but it prepares the ground. The effort that the student can make consists of purifying intention, honesty, self-observation, ethical living, and calming the mind. As they say in the Golden Rosycross school: “The old man prepares himself, but the New Man is born through the Grace of the Spirit.”
The New Man is not a perfection of the old, but the emergence of a different nature. We do not transform the ego into a more subtle ego. The old man withdraws, and a new consciousness, which has no personal centre, begins to work.
Another legitimate question is how this light will feel in the student’s life. The transfusion is recognised by several clear phenomena. A cold, neutral, impersonal light, it is not emotion, it is not ecstasy, nor energy; it is clarity. A feeling of “detachment from the centre”. You are no longer the centre of the experience. It is silence without a possessor. There is a reversal of motivation; you no longer do something “for yourself,” you just “stand in My Light” and eventually “My Light works in you towards the world.”
It feels like transparency, like a loosening of the tension between the witnessing self and the acting self. This is the sign of the dissolution of asmitā. There is no longer an “I who observes.” Only pure observation without identity, aimless, equal, disinterested contemplation. You no longer feel that you belong to the spectacle you are contemplating. Identity dissolves into Light, and what lives on no longer belongs to the person. For LR, identity is not preserved: only the microcosm, as a temple of Light, remains active. The person becomes a transparent instrument.
The “transfusion of light” can occur in three typical moments. After a profound inner crisis, an example being one’s personal “Gethsemane” as a rupture between the old and the new. In states of intense tranquillity with self-surrender. Not in concentration, not in ecstasy, but in “total acceptance”. Or spontaneously after years of preparation, when the structure is sufficiently transparent. It cannot be planned, but the ground can be prepared through radical honesty, refusal of self-delusion, openness of heart, renunciation of self-image protection, simple and pure living. And especially by recognising and unmasking the asmitā ego in its action: “I am the spiritual witness” as the last obstacle. When the student sees this, the light comes in naturally.
In order for students to recognise asmitā, they must distinguish the three levels of the ego already mentioned: the fluctuating, emotional, biographical self (ahamkāra); the spiritual self (asmitā) – calm, witnessing, luminous, but still separate; and the Light as a presence without identity – chidābhāsa – Being. The goal is not to perfect asmitā, but to transcend it, allowing the transformative principle of the New Soul to act directly.
In conclusion, “Who am I?” is not the question through which we find a new identity, but the question through which all identities dissolve. When asmitā disappears, what remains is not a “spiritual self,” but a nameless presence, a radiant silence that does not belong to the person. This is the gateway to the New Man, to authentic spiritual birth, to the true Being of Light.
[1] Śrī Ramana Maharṣi (1879–1950) is one of the most important modern teachers of the Advaita Vedānta tradition, known for his method of self-inquiry (ātma-vicāra), formulated through the question “Who am I?”. His teaching does not propose a new doctrine, but directly points to the recognition of the non-dual nature of the Self, beyond identification with the body and mind, in a living continuity with classical Vedāntic apophatism.
[2] Ādi Śaṅkarācārya (8th century AD) is the main systematiser of Advaita Vedānta, the non-dualistic tradition of classical Hinduism. Through his commentaries on the Upanishads, Brahma Sūtra and Bhagavad Gītā, he formulated a radically apophatic metaphysics, in which ultimate reality (Brahman) is devoid of any determination (nirguṇa), and the phenomenal world is explained as an appearance conditioned by ignorance (avidyā). His influence was decisive both in the history of Indian philosophy and in the configuration of subsequent non-dualistic discourse.
