Some great words on the inner journey

[manitou]

I have an old book called Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism by Yogi Ramacharaka; as with all the important books I've got, I found this one at a yard sale. It was published in 1904.

 

There's one section that deals with the removal of character defects within us; I've never seen anything written about this quite as well;

 

 

"The brute instincts are still with us, constantly forcing themselves into our field of thought. Occultists learn to curb and control these lower instincts, subordinating them to the higher mental ideals which unfold into the field of consciousness. Do not be discouraged if you still find that you have much of the animal within your nature - we all have - the only only difference is that some of us have learned to control the brute, and to keep him in leash and subordinate and obedient to the higher parts of our nature, while others allow the beast to rule them, and they shiver and turn pale when he shows his teeth, not seeming to realize that a firm demeanor and a calm mind will cause the beast to retreat to his corner and allow himself to be kept behind bars.

 

If you find constant manifestations of the beast within you, struggling to be free and to assert his old power, do not be disturbed. This is no sign of weakness, but is really an indication that your spiritual growth has begun. For whereas you now recognize the brute, and feel ashamed, you formerly did not realize his presence--were not aware of his existence, for you were the brute himself. It is only because you are trying to divorce yourself from him, that you feel ashamed of his presence.

 

You cannot see him until you begin to be "different" from him. Learn to be a tamer of wild beasts, for you have a whole menagerie within you. The lion; the tiger; the hyena; the ape; the pig; the peacock, and all the rest are there, constantly showing forth some of their characteristics.

 

Do not fear them - smile at them when they show themselves - for you are stronger than they, and can bring them to subjection - and their appearance is useful to you in the way of instructing you as to their existence. They are an amusing lot, when you have reached the stage where you are able to practically stand aside and seem them perform their tricks, and go through their antics. You then feel strongly that they are not YOU, but something apart from you - something from which you are becoming rapidly divorced.

 

Do not worry about the beasts - for you are the master."

 

 

Is this not rather wonderful??

[Medhavi]

For whereas you now recognize the brute, and feel ashamed, you formerly did not realize his presence--were not aware of his existence, for you were the brute himself.

This is really important considering he managed to fit into this phrase the issues of identification and awareness simultaneously. While pointing out the "guilt program", suffered by many, including myself.

 

Thank you for this inspiring quote!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Rather wonderful, yes.

 

And I too, have found my best, most wonderful, valuable books in yard sales and used book stores. Manitou, I think we are spiritual kin

 

And one book which I have treasured for many years, found in a used book store and just recently reprinted, is 'The Way of Inner Vigilance' by Edward Salim Michael. Best wisdom on enlightenment and spiritual cultivation I have ever encountered.

Edited February 12, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[3bob]

The saying related to "mastery" is correct, but the saying related to "divorce" is tricky for if one has mastery then a disconnect such as divorce can be or is contradictory.

[manitou]

The saying related to "mastery" is correct, but the saying related to "divorce" is tricky for if one has mastery then a disconnect such as divorce can be or is contradictory.

Hi 3bob - can't quite figure out what you're saying here.

 

When you allude to mastery, are you speaking of mastery over the character defects?

When you say divorce, are you referring to elimination of the character defects?

[manitou]

Rather wonderful, yes.

 

And I too, have found my best, most wonderful, valuable books in yard sales and used book stores. Manitou, I think we are spiritual kin

 

And one book which I have treasured for many years, found in a used book store and just recently reprinted, is 'The Way of Inner Vigilance' by Edward Salim Michael. Best wisdom on enlightenment and spiritual cultivation I have ever encountered.

 

There's no doubt at all we're spiritual kin, Songs. Kissing kuzzins, at least! We could switch avatars on any given day and no one would notice, lol.

 

I'm going to look up The Way of Inner Vigilance. My response to that book, with the same intro that you gave, is The Impersonal Life, by Anonymous. The sort of short book about the I Am consciousness that needs to be read at least 20 times to see all the facets.

 

Whoever said 'The unexamined life isn't worth living' knew what he was talking about.

[Otis]

When you allude to mastery, are you speaking of mastery over the character defects?

When you say divorce, are you referring to elimination of the character defects?

That's the tricky thing here, and why I'm not sure I agree with your quoted writer.

 

There are no such things as character defects! That is an illusion, created by the Myth of Perfection.

 

If I let go, for a moment, of the idea of "character defects" and instead ask: what is really there?, I realize that what I am looking at is merely my own raw material, that has not yet matured (or which has mis-matured). When my parts are immature, I see them as defects, but they're just parts that are supposed to be there, only not yet fully integrated.

 

If I choose to "divorce" or "gain mastery over", then I stay in the Perfection Paradigm, in which the ego is the master, and certain parts of me are "good" and "bad".

 

But if I truly want peace with all of the parts of my greater self, I cannot judge any of those parts to be lesser than the parts that are doing the judging. Because the judge is no more "me" than the parts of me that I don't like.

 

IME, the only way to change the beast is to love the beast, and allow it room to learn, discover and grow on its own. As long as I see parts of myself as the enemy (or the virus, or the mold, or whatever), then I will only live in pieces, which don't get along. If I accept all the parts of me, including the beast, then I do not need to "master" them. I become friends with them, and together, we become a masterful team.

[manitou]

I see what you're saying here Otis - as to the mastery thing. Yes, perhaps it could have been said better. They are never mastered, they continue to arise. Less often perhaps, but they do reappear.

 

But the author's main point about being able to see the beast because you are becoming somehow separate from it is a spiritual dynamic that I continue to experience as my own character develops over the years. When the beast has full sway over us (when we are acting out a character defect, for lack of a better word - I see what you're saying there too) our vision is distorted by the presence of the unwanted mass of repeatedly acquired energy manifestations, for simplicity's sake can we please call it a character defect? Like....I don't know....too much ego, too much knowledge, too little tolerance, not enough humility. Whatever the defect or unwanted personality manifestation is, until it is seen, understood, and "mastered", we will never have pure clarity (to me, 'mastered' in this sense merely means that when I see this particular animal coming up in me, I can choose to put it back in its den, because I now have the control).

[Otis]

I see what you're saying here Otis - as to the mastery thing. Yes, perhaps it could have been said better. They are never mastered, they continue to arise. Less often perhaps, but they do reappear.

 

But the author's main point about being able to see the beast because you are becoming somehow separate from it is a spiritual dynamic that I continue to experience as my own character develops over the years. When the beast has full sway over us (when we are acting out a character defect, for lack of a better word - I see what you're saying there too) our vision is distorted by the presence of the unwanted mass of repeatedly acquired energy manifestations, for simplicity's sake can we please call it a character defect? Like....I don't know....too much ego, too much knowledge, too little tolerance, not enough humility. Whatever the defect or unwanted personality manifestation is, until it is seen, understood, and "mastered", we will never have pure clarity (to me, 'mastered' in this sense merely means that when I see this particular animal coming up in me, I can choose to put it back in its den, because I now have the control).

I think what you're talking about are habits. And yes, I do believe in "dissolving" habits, so the automatic programming doesn't run my life. Addictions, avoidances, etc., are included in that.

 

But the "beast" isn't so much my habits, as it is my "untrained" or "wild" parts. My drives, desires, passions, etc. are not habits (although their expression may be shaped by habit). They are just parts of my brain, parts of my body.

 

And here's the real kicker: "I" cannot be the master of "I", without creating schism, internal division. As long as I try to put some parts of me in control, and other parts of me under that control, then I remain in conflict within myself. How will I find peace and unity with the "outside world" if I am not willing to find peace and unity within myself?

 

For a moment, think of the self as Egypt. The Parental Fallacy says that "autocracy is good, because then there is stability; if the people revolt, it must lead to mob rule." But we have democracy to tell us that we don't need an autocratic leader, but instead, need to encourage the people to learn, grow wise, and really care about their society.

 

Getting the whole organism/society involved and participating in the same direction will always be more peaceful and powerful than trying to be an autocratic ruler of my own mind.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Otis

[Medhavi]

There are no such things as character defects! That is an illusion, created by the Myth of Perfection.

 

If I let go, for a moment, of the idea of "character defects" and instead ask: what is really there?, I realize that what I am looking at is merely my own raw material, that has not yet matured (or which has mis-matured). When my parts are immature, I see them as defects, but they're just parts that are supposed to be there, only not yet fully integrated.

 

If I choose to "divorce" or "gain mastery over", then I stay in the Perfection Paradigm, in which the ego is the master, and certain parts of me are "good" and "bad".

 

But if I truly want peace with all of the parts of my greater self, I cannot judge any of those parts to be lesser than the parts that are doing the judging. Because the judge is no more "me" than the parts of me that I don't like.

 

IME, the only way to change the beast is to love the beast, and allow it room to learn, discover and grow on its own. As long as I see parts of myself as the enemy (or the virus, or the mold, or whatever), then I will only live in pieces, which don't get along. If I accept all the parts of me, including the beast, then I do not need to "master" them. I become friends with them, and together, we become a masterful team.

 

I think you are doing semantics here by switching what you call "The Perfection Paradigm" with "The Myth of Perfection".

Isn't it kind of awkward to use the word "mis-matured" whereas, previously, the words defects and the beast(with all the implications this word carries) were used? I think you just rephrased the approach with words that appeal to you more.

I don't think you can know for certain whether or not there are defects or not. A study of psychopathy makes me lean towards saying that yes, there are many issues and most of them are incredibly harmful to yourself and your environment.

The words "good" and "bad" can, in my humble opinion, only be useful when taken out of the context they are usually understood in(ethics of a black and white nature) and connected with a third part, the situation which, depending on your knowledge, determines what is good or bad for you.

 

Any spiritual work, as I understand, must involve great struggle and discrimination, based on your knowledge.

To say "There are no such things as character defects!" runs dangerously close to the Advaita trap of saying "There is no tree!" or "There is noone doing the action!" and then falling on your face when confronted with our immediate reality. Most of these things we can't know for sure, and if they are true, they are most likely of a nature pertaining to an ultimate reality, which probably does not directly concern our lessons here.

 

While I see what you are saying about the idea of declaring these issues your enemy and the problems that come with it, I think that your approach of loving the beast requires a sort of strength that is not available to most people I know at least, while daily work on bad habits and uncontrolled destructive actions, arising out of ignorance, helps nearly everyone.

 

The idea outlined in the quote might be one of these approaches which might not be completely true but which do help most of the character types out there. Not everyone is born a tantric.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Medhavi

[manitou]

I do apologize for the use of the phrase 'character defect'. That was my usage, not the usage of the author. I seem to have that phrase ingraned in my mind because of my recovery work years ago - sorry!

 

Actually, I sort of love the imagery of the animals as the brute instincts. For ones really advanced, I'm sure this level of analogy is laughable. But I've definitely noticed that there may be one or two within our ranks that haven't given self-examination a second thought. It's so very important, regardless of the semantics. It's where the feet must be planted for the inner journey, if one hasn't taken it yet.

[Astral_Anima]

Manitou- Beautiful and inspiring from where I'm standing. Using the sybology of animals to represent our "lower" nature is interesting. Any words on what each animal sybolizes or represents?

 

 

Medhavi-

Any spiritual work, as I understand, must involve great struggle and discrimination, based on your knowledge.

To say "There are no such things as character defects!" runs dangerously close to the Advaita trap of saying "There is no tree!" or "There is noone doing the action!" and then falling on your face when confronted with our immediate reality. Most of these things we can't know for sure, and if they are true, they are most likely of a nature pertaining to an ultimate reality, which probably does not directly concern our lessons here.

 

Agreed

[surfingbudda]

Rather wonderful, yes.

 

And I too, have found my best, most wonderful, valuable books in yard sales and used book stores. Manitou, I think we are spiritual kin

 

And one book which I have treasured for many years, found in a used book store and just recently reprinted, is 'The Way of Inner Vigilance' by Edward Salim Michael. Best wisdom on enlightenment and spiritual cultivation I have ever encountered.

 

Thanks songs for the recommendation, I just researched Edward Salim Michael and his story and book look SO fantastic, I just purchased his book; its a rare thing these days to find a spiritual book I am just dying to read so thank you very much for pointing it out to us, can't wait to read it when it comes

 

I love how Edward Michael reached his personal enlightenment without the use of any preconceived notions on spirituality and he discovered everything through personal experience. I was actually just thinking to myself yesterday how it is nice to have read about all this spiritual stuff but it would be really cool to have not read anything and just experience my own personal spiritual journey without any preconceived notions, I can still try to do this to the best of my ability . I remember reading "Mystery of the Life Force" by Peter Meech and his teacher told him not to read anything about qigong or spirituality so that he wouldn't already be expecting something he read from a book.

[Otis]

Hi Medhavi. There's a lot in your post to respond to, so I'm going to try to be succinct.

 

I think you are doing semantics here by switching what you call "The Perfection Paradigm" with "The Myth of Perfection".

The Myth of Perfection = the perspective that there is some yardstick in reality, above which my attributes can be measured as acceptable, and below which my attributes can said to be "lacking". In this perspective, we are essentially "born sinners", who have to strive, just to make it up to the "acceptable" level. By "Perfection Paradigm", I just meant: living as if the "Myth of Perfection" was true.

 

The alternate viewpoint, as I see it, is to see my growth in the pattern of a plant. A plant is never "not enough"; it is merely what it is. It is not "less than perfect" when it is a seed, or a sprout, or a sapling. It is just in the process of growing.

 

I think it was Seuhn Sahn who said "You are already perfect. And, you could use some work."

 

Isn't it kind of awkward to use the word "mis-matured" whereas, previously, the words defects and the beast(with all the implications this word carries) were used? I think you just rephrased the approach with words that appeal to you more.

Yes, it is an awkward word. Let me try to put it in context. If I have a angry and abusive parent, I may learn to keep my head down and my mouth shut. This is very helpful conditioning, in the context of that parent, but later in life, it will likely cause many problems for me. This is what I meant by "mis-matured", not a dualistic concept, but a recognition that conditioning may help us acquire habits that don't necessarily serve us well, in other contexts.

 

I don't think you can know for certain whether or not there are defects or not. A study of psychopathy makes me lean towards saying that yes, there are many issues and most of them are incredibly harmful to yourself and your environment.

Anytime we say something is a "defect" or even "harmful", we're speaking about the view from one perspective, not about "how things actually are". A tornado, for example, is "harmful" from the perspective of the human standing in its path, but it could hardly be considered a "defect". It's just what is.

 

The words "good" and "bad" can, in my humble opinion, only be useful when taken out of the context they are usually understood in(ethics of a black and white nature) and connected with a third part, the situation which, depending on your knowledge, determines what is good or bad for you.

Well, I definitely believe in listening to reality's feedback to my actions. For example, if my mom doesn't like swearing, then I won't swear around her. It's not that swearing is "bad", but it's just not useful in this situation.

 

Any spiritual work, as I understand, must involve great struggle and discrimination, based on your knowledge.

I have a different understanding. To me, spirituality is play, not work.

 

To say "There are no such things as character defects!" runs dangerously close to the Advaita trap of saying "There is no tree!" or "There is noone doing the action!" and then falling on your face when confronted with our immediate reality.

In the case of the tree, the truth is not that "there is no tree". It is rather: "there is something which I call tree, but what is actually real, is not the same as what my mind thinks 'tree' is."

 

In the case of "defect", yes, the concept may point to unhelpful habits that can be dissolved, or potentials that have not yet been realized. But I think "defects" also carries with it a trap, that will prevent growth.

 

For example: laziness. If one is diagnosed as suffering from laziness, how does one correct that defect? It's just a label, a judgment, not something I can grow from.

 

In contrast, if I realize instead that I have not yet awakened or aligned with my motivation, then I have a path of growth and a practice to go with it.

 

While I see what you are saying about the idea of declaring these issues your enemy and the problems that come with it, I think that your approach of loving the beast requires a sort of strength that is not available to most people I know at least, while daily work on bad habits and uncontrolled destructive actions, arising out of ignorance, helps nearly everyone.

As far as "loving the beast", it doesn't take nearly as much strength as trying to fight the beast. That's where we waste all our energy, trying to overcome ourselves. But if we accept, and see as perfect (in the sense that a baby is perfect, although not yet matured) all the parts of ourselves, then we can raise ourselves the way we would a Buddha, as a being that just needs some encouragement, rather than judging ourselves constantly against a bunch of social fantasies about how it is we're supposed to look and behave.

 

The idea outlined in the quote might be one of these approaches which might not be completely true but which do help most of the character types out there. Not everyone is born a tantric.

Actually, I think everyone IS born a tantric. Every other species on the planet is born tantric, and has no schools, traditions or methods. Humans are just taught towards method, hierarchy and yardsticks, and away from our natural inclination. Nor do I think we can find our natural inclination, as long as we try to change ourselves to fit a concept/fantasy. The only way we can find our natural path, is by stop being so much in charge, and just learn to listen.

[3bob]

Mastery in the sense of alignment and synchronation with the internal master, thus attaining a unity in all ways and forces without a division of same or allowing such divisions to put one at cross purposes.

 

Om

[manitou]

 

As far as "loving the beast", it doesn't take nearly as much strength as trying to fight the beast. That's where we waste all our energy, trying to overcome ourselves. But if we accept, and see as perfect (in the sense that a baby is perfect, although not yet matured) all the parts of ourselves, then we can raise ourselves the way we would a Buddha, as a being that just needs some encouragement, rather than judging ourselves constantly against a bunch of social fantasies about how it is we're supposed to look and behave.

 

 

 

Well, this worked out well. Ramacharaka tells us to laugh at the beast in the above passage...

Edited February 12, 2011 by manitou

[Otis]

Well, this worked out well. Ramacharaka tells us to laugh at the beast in the above passage...

Manitou, I don't mean anything personal, when I disagree with the quote you posted.

 

I do think there is a very important error in it, however, and I think it is worth discussing, because at its heart is one of the great fallacies of self-image.

 

The part of us that cannot accept other parts of ourselves somehow seems above reproach, as if it is the legitimate one, the real authority figure. It is this part which insists that we must corral and train the other parts, as if they were dumb animals.

 

But I do not think there is a valid reason for believing that that voice is any more legitimate, wise, or inherently "me" than any of the other parts. It is just one alarm, among many. It is compelling in an "of course" way, but there is no logic behind giving it extra weight.

 

Who am I? I am a cluster of functions. But if I give extra belief importance to one of the functions, then I have deformed the natural flow between the entire group of functions. I entrap myself in my own efforts at changing me, thinking somehow that I am doing myself a favor. Meanwhile, real change is immediately available, if I instead learn to humble that part of me, and see it as just a cluster of neurons, performing its function among all the other neurons.

[Sahaj Nath]

Manitou, I don't mean anything personal, when I disagree with the quote you posted.

 

I do think there is a very important error in it, however, and I think it is worth discussing, because at its heart is one of the great fallacies of self-image.

 

The part of us that cannot accept other parts of ourselves somehow seems above reproach, as if it is the legitimate one, the real authority figure. It is this part which insists that we must corral and train the other parts, as if they were dumb animals.

 

But I do not think there is a valid reason for believing that that voice is any more legitimate, wise, or inherently "me" than any of the other parts. It is just one alarm, among many. It is compelling in an "of course" way, but there is no logic behind giving it extra weight.

 

Who am I? I am a cluster of functions. But if I give extra belief importance to one of the functions, then I have deformed the natural flow between the entire group of functions. I entrap myself in my own efforts at changing me, thinking somehow that I am doing myself a favor. Meanwhile, real change is immediately available, if I instead learn to humble that part of me, and see it as just a cluster of neurons, performing its function among all the other neurons.

 

 

you've been hanging out with too many PostModern New Age types.

 

look, ramacharaka is a fossil who didn't get everything right, but he didn't have to. he got enough right. for certain he got enough right to change MY life! i read Science Of Breath back in the early 90's. i found it among my grandfather's old books, and it really was the beginning of my path to becoming the adept that i am today.

 

but more specifically,

 

you ARE correct in the sense that EVERYTHING. MUST. GO! and if the goal is enlightenment, our value judgments and preferences don't really factor in. but THAT'S ONLY TRUE IN ENLIGHTENMENT. you're DEAD WRONG if you think there is no hierarchy of consciousness that can be discerned. pure self-centeredness is inferior to parental deference, parental deference is inferior to consideration of cultural authorities, which is inferior to considering one's social group, which again is inferior to considering one's entire race, or sex, or religion, which is inferior to considering one's sense of responsibility to one's country, which is inferior to one's sense of responsibility to humanity, which is inferior to considering one's responsibility to all life on the entire planet. it makes sense to rank shit.

 

superior stages both understand AND include the perspectives of the ones beneath, but they also TRANSCEND to include and understand more. inferior stages DON'T understand & include the perspectives of the ones above them. not very difficult to grasp, right?

 

so then why are so many people so quick call it all arbitrary? this the type of judgment is what allows us the possibility of producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. folks have the right to exist at ANY consciousness level, but not every level is fit for leadership. CLEARLY. so the notion that it's arbitrary is intuitively suspect. but more importantly, it's empirically disproved.

 

the motives and values which most influenced your behavior at age 7 are NOT the same as the motives and values you hold today. there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. in fact, it's kind of important that you do.

 

see, the problem with YOUR type of thinking (at least from where i'm standing) is that it allows adults with the cognitive maturity of children to believe that they have the SAME access to the highest levels of development as folks who are both mature AND gifted.

 

and those who understand this can make a KILLING off of those who don't.

 

and yes, i could CERTAINLY use some people on this board as an example. but i won't. as a (once open-door) teacher i have met my fair share of students who were so limited that they couldn't grasp the idea that they might have peaked. students who had neither the comprehension nor the inclination to grow beyond their consciousness level.

 

so "leveling" the playing field by calling everything an arbitrary "function" is kind of bogus, even when you include the more nuanced examples as you did with your explanation of what "mis-matured" means to you. most people would simply call those "pathologies," btw. i guess that's my main point. that, and you ARE obscuring the matter with semantics in a LOT of what you have written here, although you may not realize it. i'll end now because i could write FOREVER on this topic. but yours is a more dangerous blind spot than the one you're attempting to address. namely, because yours allows for arrested development to go unchallenged, which is the main culprit of so much delusion in cultivation communities.

 

so yeah, let's do this. i'm open for cross-examination.

[manitou]

 

But I do not think there is a valid reason for believing that that voice is any more legitimate, wise, or inherently "me" than any of the other parts. It is just one alarm, among many. It is compelling in an "of course" way, but there is no logic behind giving it extra weight.

 

Who am I? I am a cluster of functions.

 

 

If you think you are a cluster of functions, you haven't gotten quite down to it yet.

[Astral_Anima]

 

 

so yeah, let's do this. i'm open for cross-examination.

 

Go get em Mr. Edgeworth sir!

 

[Otis]

If you think you are a cluster of functions, you haven't gotten quite down to it yet.

Down to what yet? I don't follow.

 

By the way, by coincidence, I saw "How to Train your Dragon" last night. Very nice; I highly recommend it. It's all about a village of Vikings that battle dragons eternally, until one boy makes friends with one. He learns that dragons are really not evil at all, and are just doing their best to get along. The dragons would rather get along with humans, but the humans keep attacking them, so they fight back. Once they've learned that fighting is not necessary, the two species become symbiotic. Beautiful fable.

[manitou]

Down to what yet? I don't follow.

 

 

 

I was speaking as to the self-realization stuff. From my perspective there remains a tumbler yet to fall in the back of your mind. Beyond that, I can't explain...

 

That movie sounds like a nice analogy for tearing off the mask of fear all across the board.

[surfingbudda]

Hi surfingbudda. I see why you are so keen on learning stillness-movement!

 

Hey RV,

 

Ya now that I think about it, stillness-movement seems like the perfect practice for this , can't wait till this summer for a sm workshop!

[Otis]

so yeah, let's do this. i'm open for cross-examination.

Hi Hundun,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

What I am saying is:

Psychology tells me that my brain is a constellation of structures and pathways, that (as much as possible) work in concert to sustain my organism. There are language structures, movement structures, vision centers, memory centers, etc. and each part is composed of many substructures, fibers and individual cells.

 

So who could I possibly say is "I"? In what structure, which neuron, am "I" to be found in? It seems that "I" am just an illusion, brought about by the collective activity of all of the neurons of my brain. There is actually "we", many tiny functions that act in dynamic balance with each other. A function to start eating and another to stop, etc. These functions play and tug with each other across a complex web of interdependence. This is an orchestra without a conductor, but the orchestra comes into harmony by itself.

 

The problem, as I see it, with self-improvement, is that the voice which is telling me to change other functions, is itself, just a function. It can be a useful function, sure, but is it right? I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is any part of my brain which is inherently more "right", more "wise", or more "me" than the other parts.

 

Some parts of my brain speak in language, some in images, some in emotions. For someone like me who is language-centric, I think it is easy to give extra weight to those brain structures which speak in English. I have tended to see the emotions as being suspect, but the words as being more relevant, more authoritative. On reflection, I think that was just a bias, without any real evidence to support it.

 

Another bias I had for many years, was to see my internal self-critic as somehow being an authority figure. It sounded like a parent, with utter confidence that it knew what was right. Negative voices tend to sound more authoritative than positive ones; they tend to dismiss the positive voices as naive and foolish, whereas the positive voices rarely dismiss.

 

Funny how this self-critic seems so authoritative. It never actually does any of the work, just complains about how insufficient all the other functions are. Its entire function is to throw around blame, and declare how things should be. What gives it the standing to pass judgment on everything else? And how come it never applauds me when I do something right?

 

Isn't it madness to berate one's self? Isn't that the sign of a divorce between different parts of one's brain? Who am "I" berating? And who is this "me" which is receiving the hard time?

 

I am one being, and yet I am in conflict within myself. Some functions tell me that they are more important or more "me" than other functions are, and for some reason, I believe them. But it's all "me"; there's no part of me that is above or below me. There is no function that is too banal, too dark, or too smelly to not still be as much "me" as the rest. Whenever I look at my other parts as being lesser or other or not me, then I am creating separation, where none need exist.

 

I hope this makes more sense to you.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

I was speaking as to the self-realization stuff. From my perspective there remains a tumbler yet to fall in the back of your mind. Beyond that, I can't explain...

If you think there's something that I'm not getting, I would appreciate it if you would at least try to let me know, so I can try to see this thing you're referring to .