|
Chapter 13: Observer And ObservedIt is very clear, and not difficult to comprehend, that when someone seriously begins to observe himself from the point of view of being not one, but many, he will start to work on all that he carries within.
The following psychological defects are impediments, obstacles, stumbling blocks to the work of intimate self-observation: mythomania (delusions of grandeur, believing oneself to be a God), self-worship (belief in a “permanent I”, adoration of some form of alter-ego), paranoia (pedantry, self-sufficiency, conceit, believing oneself infallible, mystical pride, inability to see another’s point of view.) |
When one continues with the absurd conviction that he is one, that he possesses a “permanent I”, serious work on oneself becomes something more than impossible. He who always considers himself one, will never be capable of separating himself from his own undesirable elements.
He will consider each thought, sentiment, desire, emotion, passion, or attachment as different and unchangeable manifestations of his own nature, and will even justify himself to others, saying that such and such a personal defect is of a hereditary nature.
He who accepts the doctrine of the many “I’s”, comprehends based on observation that each desire, thought, action, passion, etc., corresponds to one or another distinct,
different “I”.
Any athlete of intimate self-observation works very seriously on himself and makes an effort to separate from his psyche the diverse undesirable elements he carries
within.
If one truly and very sincerely begins to observe oneself internally, one ends up dividing oneself in two: observer and observed.
If such a division is not produced, we will certainly never take a step forward on the marvelous way of self knowledge.
How could we observe ourselves if we were to make the mistake of not wanting to divide ourselves into observer and observed?
If such a division is not made, we will obviously never move forward on the path of self-knowledge.
Undoubtedly, when this division does not happen, we continue being identified with all the processes of the pluralized “I”.
Whoever is identified with the diverse processes of the pluralized “I” is always a victim of circumstances.
How could anyone who does not know himself modify his circumstances? How could anyone who has never observed himself internally, know himself? By what means is one able to self-observe, if one has not previously divided oneself into observer and observed?
Well then, no one can begin to change radically, while they are incapable of saying: “This desire is an animal “I” that I must eliminate.” “This egotistical thought is another “I” that torments me and which I need to disintegrate.” “This sentiment which hurts my heart is an intrusive “I” which I need to reduce to cosmic dust,” etc., etc., etc.
Naturally, this is impossible for someone who has never divided himself into observer and observed.
He who takes all his psychological processes as manifestations of a unique, individual, and permanent “I” is so identified with all his errors, so tied to them, that he has lost as a result, the capacity to separate them from his psyche.
Obviously, such people can never change radically; they are people condemned to the most total failure.
He will consider each thought, sentiment, desire, emotion, passion, or attachment as different and unchangeable manifestations of his own nature, and will even justify himself to others, saying that such and such a personal defect is of a hereditary nature.
He who accepts the doctrine of the many “I’s”, comprehends based on observation that each desire, thought, action, passion, etc., corresponds to one or another distinct,
different “I”.
Any athlete of intimate self-observation works very seriously on himself and makes an effort to separate from his psyche the diverse undesirable elements he carries
within.
If one truly and very sincerely begins to observe oneself internally, one ends up dividing oneself in two: observer and observed.
If such a division is not produced, we will certainly never take a step forward on the marvelous way of self knowledge.
How could we observe ourselves if we were to make the mistake of not wanting to divide ourselves into observer and observed?
If such a division is not made, we will obviously never move forward on the path of self-knowledge.
Undoubtedly, when this division does not happen, we continue being identified with all the processes of the pluralized “I”.
Whoever is identified with the diverse processes of the pluralized “I” is always a victim of circumstances.
How could anyone who does not know himself modify his circumstances? How could anyone who has never observed himself internally, know himself? By what means is one able to self-observe, if one has not previously divided oneself into observer and observed?
Well then, no one can begin to change radically, while they are incapable of saying: “This desire is an animal “I” that I must eliminate.” “This egotistical thought is another “I” that torments me and which I need to disintegrate.” “This sentiment which hurts my heart is an intrusive “I” which I need to reduce to cosmic dust,” etc., etc., etc.
Naturally, this is impossible for someone who has never divided himself into observer and observed.
He who takes all his psychological processes as manifestations of a unique, individual, and permanent “I” is so identified with all his errors, so tied to them, that he has lost as a result, the capacity to separate them from his psyche.
Obviously, such people can never change radically; they are people condemned to the most total failure.
