Now that you talk about the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, a few years ago I had a vision in trance with Krishna, twice, in which he showed me the self as an eternal, indivisible personality (I won't tell the whole story here since it'd be long). In fact, in one of the visions he showed me my true self as a golden buddha with my face (!). However years later I also had a vision with Shiva; in which he told me there is a Source where all souls (atmas) come from; as loose pieces from it. So the question remains for me that if Brahman is really an eternal, indivisible, personal self, then how is it possible that he took "pieces" from him to form the souls?
I think, to think that a transcendental entity, or this entity that humans perceive under different names, cut itself in pieces, is a very materialistic kind of understanding. If you look at the ocean and at a glass water, both is water, isn't ? Or you look at the fire and the sparks, are they one or something that is cutten?
Gaudiya Vaishnava, for example, believes, that God is personal and impersonal. He is Brahman and he is Bhagavan. It's question of perception and spiritual life if the follower will going to the impersonal Brahmayoti or to the Godhead itself. Concerning the
metaphysical conception, I consider the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition as kind of left-hand path, because they they try to free themselves from the cycle of rebirths and to be a separate existence from God. From the standpoint of
personal objectives, they are more right-hand path, because they want to reach a state of selflessness where they don't care whether they go to heaven or hell as long as they can serve God. From the
standpoint of norms they try to make external regulations (regulating principles) their own and to subordinate their personal interests to them.
A big difference is from my point of view the following: While the right-hand path believes, not to see the differences and to see everything as one, is a kind of spiritual advancement, the left-hand path realizes that to understand the difference of own isolate intelligence in intelligent personal life is spiritual advanced. It is not a "belief", it like the progression of the child in the human body. The process of self-realization. So if we talk about a higher-self, then we accept the existence of a Self. If there will be no self, then we couldn't realize that there will be a higher self.
We can talk about different understandings of the Self, but our common ground is that there is a Self. Our everyday self and our higher self are both expression of our isolated psychecentered existence. Neither our normal Self, nor our higher Self should be considered less important than external rules. Yes, we can define rules for ourselfes to educate and develop our own personality towards the higher self, but these rules are internal and rooted in our isolated existence. The higher Self is part of our isolated existence and not appendage of God. I believe that followers of the left-hand path don't want to replace their normal Self with the conception of a higher Self, but more enhance their Self toward the Higher Self. It's a positive acceptance of the Self we have.
I've also been told in trance that not everything about the true nature of the self is understandable by humans. Wa Vae live in a world where everything is perishable and composed of other things. So we have very hard time understanding what is truly eternal and indestructible. We'll have to slowly evolve beyond humanity then.
The true nature of the Self is to be separated. Maybe there are other features, but the essence of the Self is to be separated.
