|
Message |
| Posted By: |
UT |
| Date: |
4-May-2004-17:48:49 |
| Subject: |
Know Thyselves |
'Way back in the early daze, when Rama was still Atmananda, he had some lapel buttons made up and gave them to all his students. What they said was very simple, but very interesing. Two words: "Know thyselves."
In addition to this message board, I chat on a number of other spiritual forums, and thus get to interact with a number of different people who, although they share a belief in enlightenment, have *very* different styles and philosophies and ways of realizing enlightenment. And I noticed today that many -- if not most -- of them have never *heard* of the concept of having "many selves." After decades of spiritual practice, they firmly believe that while they have an ego of "self," each of them has one and only one of them.
This boggled my mind for a few minutes when I realized it, because I have basically assumed since the moment Rama gave away those buttons and gave the Caretaker Personality talk that went with them that his was a pretty accurate model for how personality works. I have taken this assumption so much for granted that it never occurred to me to think about the opposite, the "lone ego" theory.
I've found it fascinating to ponder the difference between these two theories today, and thought I'd rap for a while and share some of those non-ponderous ponderings.
The basic question is simple: Do you have an ego or do you have many egos?
Some in these other forums would say that this is a meaningless question, in that those who believe strongly in the "lone ego" theory admit (out of necessity) that there are different "sides" or "aspects" of the ego, or as the Newage folks say, one has a "higher self" and a "lower self."
I think there's a *big* difference between believing in the "lone ego" theory (multiple aspects of the same self), and believing in the "I contain multitudes" theory (multiple selves). And a useful difference, if what one is trying to do in life is realize enlightenment.
One inherent problem with the "lone ego" theory, in my opinion, is a problem inherent in being human. Human beings seem to have a built-in inability to fully identify with aspects of their selves and aspects of their behavior that they see as "wrong" or "sinful" or "lower" (as opposed to "higher"). Thus the olde saying, "No one is a villain in his own eyes."
This lack of identification manifests in many ways. One of the forms of this, of course, is projection. Uncomfortable with (and unable to accept) certain aspects of their own selves, some people tend to project them outwards, onto others. Aware of (but uncomfortable with) the part of yourself that occasionally passes a beggar on the street without giving them something? (C'mon...fess up...we've all done it.) No problem. Just log on to the Internet and rant for a while about people who have no compassion for the poor. It's not *us*. It's *them*. *They* are the bad ones. Not us. We're the ones speaking up about compassion, after all.
But it's all bullshit. Every one of us has the same compassionate being inside us. Every one of us has the same too-busy-to-care being inside us. Neither is inherently better or worse than the other; they're just different egos in a multi-faceted multiplicity of egos. Sometimes one is predominant, sometimes another.
Another form of what I think is the non-productive side of believing in a fixed ego is self-loathing. If you really believe that there are different sides of the personality or ego, some "higher," some "lower," what do you do when the "lower" side comes out and wants to play?
Unfortunately, many people wind up feeling BAD about themselves, IMO because they think they only *have* one self to feel bad or good about. They invent concepts like sin and adharma and do the damnedest stuff to rid themselves of these "lower aspects" of their selves. Hair shirts, flagellation, giving up ice cream, forcing yourself to listen to crappy music because it's "spiritual." Whatever.
Personally, I find the notion of multiple selves and a multiplicity of egos rather liberating. They're all "me." Not one of them is "me." They just come and they go. And when I sit to meditate they all go away. Every fucking one of them. There is no one left but "Me," and often not even that.
The problem I see with a belief in a fixed self or ego with "aspects" or "sides" that need to be suppressed or tamed is that by attempting to rid oneself of the "lesser" or "lower" aspects of what one believes is a fixed self, one is simultaneously developing a strong attachment to the *other* "sides" or "aspects" of that self. If you really believe that the things you consider your "higher self" are more "you" than the things you consider your "lower self," you're still attached to an illusory self. You've just made a choice as to which *aspect* of that illusory self you want to remain attached to.
Theoretically, a belief in a multiplicity of selves or egos, each and every one of them with the same degree of reality (that is, none), each and every one of them valid from its own point of view and in its own state of consciousness, can be a little more liberating. The quest for self-realization becomes not a matter of *purging* "bad" or "lower" things from one's personality. It becomes instead a simple matter of choice or predilection.
That is, given karma and given the fact that one is going to have to live with the karmic repercussions of the actions of these disparate selves, which ones do you prefer to "be?" You don't have to feel bad about the "lower" selves, because you don't have to be them. You have a choice.
Self realization is all about choice.
You have a choice.
If you're practicing meditation and you find yourself lost in a daydream and the thought occurs to you that you are no longer on the object of focus, you have a choice. You can follow the instructions and come back to the object of focus, or (if it's a particularly juicy daydream) you can allow it to continue. If you choose the latter, are you still practicing meditation? Whatever you choose, you have made a choice.
You have the same choice in everyday life. If a self becomes predominant and starts saying stuff and doing stuff that you know (from past experience) is going to generate karma you'd rather not accumulate, you can just tell that particular self to go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut and put on another one. No recrimination, no guilt, no having to live with "sin." Just making a choice. And since, in the back of your mind, you know that the alternative self you chose to put on has no more reality than the one you just sent chasing after the donut, dick in hand, you don't have to be attached to the "replacement" self, either.
In Rama's study, he called this process utilizing a "caretaker personality." You can put personalities on and take them off like masks, at will. And you can do so to take advantage of their relative value in certain situations.
For example, if the self you wear around most of the time is a kind of flighty, happy-go-lucky twif, that might not be the most effective personality to wear to a job interview. So you put on one that *is* more appropriate. The "job interview" self is no more "you" than the "happy-go-lucky" self is "you." They are both illusions. But if you're pragmatic, one illusion is more *useful* than another in that situation.
If someone pulls a knife on you in an alley (as happened to me a few years back in Amsterdam, on my way to a party late at night), you have a *choice* as to which personality or self you want to have deal with the situation. You could put on the caretaker personality of a twif, and whimper and give the drugged-out stoner your wallet. You could put on the caretaker personality of an outraged citizen and yell for help (useless in that neighborhood at that hour). In my case, I just put on the caretaker personality of the self that used to study karate, even though it had been quite some time since I had really studied it. I just put on the "war face" that I used to use in contests and conjured up an inner image of Toshiro Mifune and stared at the guy. He took one look and ran off down the street. I didn't have to do jack shit. I was lucky. Plus, he was a stoner looking for an easy mark, and the "karate guy" caretaker personality didn't look like one.
But by the time I got to the party I had thrown away the "karate guy" and was wearing my "party guy" self again. I never even mentioned the incident at the party, because I didn't have to. It happened to another caretaker personality, and was in the past. So was that other guy. The "new guy" wanted to party down, and did.
"Know thyselves." Such a simple teaching. Yet such a huge difference in the way those who follow that teaching tend to live their lives, compared to the way those who follow the "lone ego" theory tend to live their lives. I know on one level that neither teaching is essentially "better" than the other, but I sure am glad I stumbled onto this one. It suits me better. Or should I say it suits *all* the "me's" better? :-)
|
The messages posted hear are those of the specific individual and may not represent the policies of Lila Publishing, the ideas of any other member of this bulletin board community or the teachings of Dr. Frederick Lenz. All copyrights are maintained by respective contributors and may not be reused without permission. By posting on this board you grant Lila Publishing a non-exclusive royalty free license under your copyright to use, store, display and reproduce your messages in whole or in part. All site assets, including these Perl scripts copyright © 1999-2002 Lila Publishing. These Perl scripts may not be directly linked to.
|
Communication Center - Version 3.50
© 1999-2002 Lila Publishing
|
