"SELF" INTROVERSION 
275 
Latin and Greek don't help us at all; and when we try 
Eastern languages, it seems, dimly, to give the idea of the 
Ego, whatever that may be. Or perhaps "that combination 
which is unified by Ahamkara, the 'Ego-making faculty'." 
Decidedly not illuminating! 
One can't use the word as an ordinary noun . Skeat doesn't 
even label it as such. One can hardly say: Mr. Blenkinsop's 
self is good, or rheumatic, or gone for a walk. It makes 
nonsense . Yet Philosophy 
has picked out this hapless 
Tetragrammaton, and made endless mud pies with it! 
When one says: "I fell and hurt myself," it's only a 
conventional abbreviation. One means "my nose," or "my 
elbow," as the case may be! No, I can't conscientiously admit 
it as a noun. More accurately: "my body fell, and I am 
suffering from the injury thereby caused to my whatever it 
was." 
So what? 
Brahman-don't confuse with the Brahma of the Trimurti, 
as so many Nippies and Clippies are but too liable to do-is 
the macro cosmic Negative Absolute, when cross-examined; 
its microcosm is Purusha or A tma. Very near our own 
Qabalistic Zero-Nought 
in no dimensions-equals 
Infmity 
(air connu). Then comes Buddhi, which curates, bookmakers' 
clerks, miners and Privy Councillors so often mistake for 
Buddha, the faculty of discrimination. Pretty much like the 
o = 2 equation in our system. 
Next, the Higher Manas, which is our Neschamah, as near 
as a toucher; and the Lower Manas, which, as every Lovely 
and Cutie well knows, is our Ruach. The rest of the Hindu 
system can easily be fitted in. 
Note, 
however, 
the Ahamkara, 
usually translated 
"Ego-making faculty," which collects what it can from this 
dump, and labels it "I." 
Well, then, what is this "Higher Self' that you roll out 
upon me? 
Actually, we are very far from being out of the wood. This 
Ut, of Udgitha, who looms so large in the Upanishads; the