This piece is not entirely about my experiences, however—though discussing them to at least some extent is inevitable, as certain understandings are required before progressing to resultant observations. Rather, this piece focuses primarily on what I perceive as a problem—largely temporary—with the state of this eternal voyage toward an ever-broadening understanding of the universe and what it means to Be. It is my hope that sharing these observations with others may do for them what noticing them in the first place has done for me.
I have learned a great deal about others who are also moving in this direction (and I have learned that even those who stick stubbornly to their narrow worldview are also unwittingly participating.) In paying attention to others, I learn and understand things about myself. I would like to elaborate a little on this rather common revelation. While I often agree with the paraphrase “what you dislike in someone is really something you dislike in yourself,” I would like to add to this idea: I needn't actively exhibit a behavior in order to know I would not like that behavior in myself. Though often entirely correct, people sometimes take the “you're just hating a part of yourself” statement very literally and therefore can write off someone's criticisms as “a personal problem, bro,” rather than taking a moment to consider that the criticisms may well hold some weight and be worth some introspection. I ask that readers avoid leaping to that dismissive conclusion, here.
* * * * * * * * *
PART 1
In the development of “everything,”—from potential, to impetus/activity, to photons and what we perceive as material, to subatomic and atomic particles, all the way through to single celled and eventually into multicellular organisms—the evolution of consciousness to become aware of and look back on itself has provided it (us, everything) with the ability to ask “why” and “how.” Over time, we have developed numerous modalities to answer these questions with varying levels of complication and accuracy (between which there does not necessarily always exist a correlation.) Now we stand in an extremely exciting point of this developmental process, where we can better judge the worth of these modalities and come to understand the ways in which so many of them express many of the same universal truths.
While the purpose of this writing is not to compare dogmatic scientific materialism with dogmatic and self-restricting religions, it must be said that they do share some problems and limitations. In fact, more important are the insights these two modalities share. But again, comparisons are not my goal. I merely wish to point out that entirely relying on one “system” for all of the answers can often lead to grave mistakes and massive assumptions. It's easy to draw up examples of religions behaving this way or encouraging this willfully ignorant behavior. It is harder to describe examples of this in science. However, science often falls victim to the preferred drives and limitations of the society in which it exists. A prevailing paradigm is very difficult to shift when it becomes the primary (or worse, the only) frame of reference for a culture's understanding of the world. When we define our sciences as limited to the material while simultaneously claiming that only the material exists and only the material is real, we are making massive assumptions and benefiting from how simple and confined that makes our realm of study. (These terms are of course relative, as the universe is unimaginably massive and complicated.) From here we can behave like children and roll our eyes at all other modalities, while making amazing discoveries about the universe around us and therefore “proving ourselves right once again.” It is incredibly difficult to open ourselves to other systems of thought, from this standpoint. This, of course, is an extreme—though it is a very real and pervasive extreme. Let us direct our attention to another problem with limiting one's understanding to one or two schools of thought.
Currently, there is great upheaval in systems of government and culture all over the world. This in large part stems from two clashing extremes: a dangerous overflow of greed, fear, inequality, and apathy, with an incredible growth of introspection, realization of the worth of life, and empathy. In the middle of a terrifying Dark Age, our species is blossoming. Right on cue, our knowledge of the universe and reality is expanding, and that information is readily available all over the internet in the form of lectures, books, documentaries, blogs, and impassioned discussions. Change in our minds—individually and as a whole—is happening more and more rapidly. Gradually, people are awakening to the truth: each of us is tied to everyone else, and we are more than just a small part of the universe. We are the universe, within itself, experiencing itself. There is no room for hate when everything is One.
So what's the problem? This avalanche of information comes during a period of severe oversimplification (or complication?) and misunderstanding of the self—that is, inflation of the ego. It also comes during a period of very limited (read: discouraged and expensive) education and narrow worldviews. People fail to realize that even a limited vocabulary greatly limits the way in which a person can absorb and understand these concepts--concepts which otherwise are really rather simple. In these times, it is common for people to take this information and repackage it for maximum profit, seemingly missing the message entirely.
At
the same time, the kindest and most deserving of people, empowered with
all the best intentions, are presented with the end result of these
profound truths before having the opportunity to actually discover it
themselves--or at least think
about it a while. Just as with many religions and with materialism,
people are presented with a single perspective without a full
background, and begin to draw massive assumptions with it. They take
this two-dimensional, barely understood perspective and run with it,
presenting these assumptions as facts. Unfortunately, so long as
someone’s heart is in the right place, they assume they can do no wrong.
The falsehood of that statement should be obvious after even a
precursory glance. Because these “nouveau gurus” feel they have the
“absolute truth” in their hands, all critics are clearly unenlightened
fools. An education of this sort, as all-encompassing as it is, cannot
leave out chapters and skip to the answers. I feel there must be a
personal learning process, and it must involve more than simply
obsessing with one modality. After all, we cannot skip the root chakra
and skyrocket straight to the crown.
A
common result of “skipped steps” and retaining a diehard dedication to
one modality while remaining purposefully ignorant of other
layers/levels/modalities of truth is a dramatization of someone's
limitedly perceived reality. Currently, massive numbers of people are so
desperate for a better understanding of the universe and for a better
way of life that they consume these incomplete, melodramatic teachings
like gospel. In their own ignorance and zeal, they are often incapable
of arguing against or even properly digesting a well-developed,
well-presented thesis. That kind of thoughtless consumption can be
dangerous. Luckily, the subject matter is generally so positive and
well-meaning that it's often not worth pointing out a person's
uneducated statements.
* * * * * * * * *
PART 2
At last we arrive at the driving motivation for this piece: the archetypes which appear most obvious to me on my journey toward enlightenment. The problems described in Part One have of course affected the ways in which people move along their path toward enlightenment, and I felt it was prudent to describe what I’ve noticed during my own journey. I certainly don't think these are the only kinds of people which exist around me in this process, let alone all over the world. I would also like to preface this list with this: I do not for a moment think that any of these people are “bad people.” While I know that true objectivity is impossible, I stress that these are observations (perhaps occasionally peppered with hints of joy or disappointment. I am, after all, a human being.) Following this list will be a meticulous explanation of each archetype. (I wish I could have made it an even ten-item list, but after working away at it I wound up settling with eleven.)
I. Unshakable zealots/skeptics
II. Flexible skeptics/agnostics
III. Disinterested/distracted
IV. Curious but incapable
V. Curious but unable to relate/trust
VI. Awakening but uncertain of the future
VII. Awakening but “skipping steps” to turn a profit, missing the point
VIII. Awakening but obsessed, dramatizing, and possibly skipping steps
IX. Awakening and comfortable with human limitations/limited modalities
X. Awakening/awake and connecting all information/modalities without attachments
XI. Awake? Finished? Difficult to define. Discussion almost unnecessary.
* * * * * * * * *
I. Unshakable zealots/skeptics
I understand these individuals quite well, considering I grew up in the religious south and spent most of my life seeking answers only through materialist science. I not only turned my nose up at alternative explanations but actually refused to so much as look at them or listen to them. I would literally forget the details of experiences which I could not readily explain. My ego is a very fine-tuned filter. “Don't talk to me about non-local communication, near-death experiences, or the documented feats of enlightened gurus; there is a scientific explanation for each of those.” (As if a systematic explanation makes those things any less amazing or real!) Just as the church found no need to look into Galileo's telescope because the appearance of something unconfirmed by the bible quite simply could not be real and therefore need not be “discovered,” so too do many people of science assume that no good will ever come from broadening the scope of what is considered “worthy of scientific inquiry.” After all, we clearly have all of the answers! I think it's important to realize that anything can exist within the realm of science. Just because it does not fit within the current paradigm does not mean it isn't real. If we expanded the paradigm (or altered it entirely, as we have done throughout history), we would find that the mainstream view of reality is very different from the truth. I recently watched a video which addresses this hesitancy in the scientific community. Peter Russel presented a fine lecture which spends some time on this and more. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-primacy-of-consciousness/
But enough of my thoughts on stubborn skeptics.
* * * * * * * * *
II. Flexible skeptics/agnostics
* * * * * * * * *
III. Disinterested/distracted
MONEY
OVER
EVERYTHING
* * * * * * * * *
IV. Curious but incapable
Note: there is a lot of “grey area” in this archetype, and many people here may actually fit more accurately into a combination of this and Archetype #9. Being truly happy and grounded in one's relationship with the earth and with one's own place in life is a surprising rarity, and I would venture to say it is closer to “true living” than many others may ever experience.
* * * * * * * * *
V. Curious but unable to relate/trust
* * * * * * * * *
VI. Awakening but uncertain of the future/the self
* * * * * * * * *
VII. Awakening but “skipping steps,” missing the point, trapped in the ego
A
problem arises when folks like Ms. Byrne repackage already widely
available information and sell it as a rare and special product which
will help its readers manifest things like wealth. The authors seek and
teach ego validation. It is damaging, but the readers feel (and are
told) that they are one step closer to Enlightenment. Following is a
list of steps to produce one of these self-help personae:
- You know enough about this already and you know that others should know these truths, too. You see no problem with making money for providing a useful product, so why not make a huge profit for huge information? Unfortunately, you don’t know enough to provide “hude information,” so you you’ll have to make it look huge. First, research other authors/yogis/scientists/philosophers to beef up your repertoire.
- Strip the information down to the barest essentials. This way you won't have to understand the incredible connections with all levels of modern science—especially quantum physics (considering the fact that science is a method for Man to describe things in his reality, be those things chemistry or consciousness.) It's better that your audience not be too well informed anyway, otherwise they'll clearly see through your ruse. A full-circle understanding isn't necessary to turn a profit. Let's not forget, if you go too far, you may start to question your own motivations, and as we are functioning from a place of ego, we can't go questioning that ego!
- Present the information as a means to manifest their desires, rather than as a way of understanding and truly interacting with their own lives and the universe around and within them. Make wealth and material possession a key focus. If you can, mention the version of Buddhism (or was it Hinduism? Who cares!) which became popular with American celebrities for manifesting money and cars. Describe the Law of Attraction as a mystical force which will give them wealth if they meditate on that desire and sincerely believe it is theirs. Money is your goal; why can't it also be theirs? It's the one thing that's sure to hook a potential buyer.
- Tell your audience that this information is very special. Meanwhile, also tell them that everyone is capable of doing this. It's true, after all, and that way they'll feel a sort of guarantee for having purchased your product/service.
- Surround the information with lots of drama and intrigue. Throw in some references to angels, if you can, to grab the attention of Christians who might be interested in the product.
- Repackage all of this simple information into your “special product.” Make a movie out of it if you can. Go on a lecture tour (for a hefty fee). Provide counseling (for a hefty fee.) When people accuse you of selling snake oil, swear up and down that you are only trying to help people. Remind everyone that you are merely being a source of positive thinking, that you are not a doctor (unless you are), and that you make no guarantees.
- Upon success, bask in the glory of your bloated ego and feel good about it.
I have a feeling that many of these people are not acting maliciously. They think they “get it,” and so they deserve to have what they want since they are capable of controlling their lives, regardless of the risk it may pose to others. (After all, you create your own reality!) They want to manifest wealth by selling the idea of manifesting to others. It's helpful, right?
For the record, I do not think it's wrong to charge money for teaching the nature of reality. In this society, we need money to survive. If you are actually helping people and spreading the truth, you certainly deserve to be able to survive with that teaching/counseling profession. Money, after all, is not evil. Online researcher David Wilcock (www.divinecosmos.com) is a fine example of someone who does not fit this ego-driven archetype, in my opinion. Yes, he is a little strange and dramatic as a person, but he keeps nothing hidden and is very down to earth and uplifting in the way he delivers his information. He has a book for sale and delivers paid lectures all over the world. Everything in his printed book and in-person lectures is available for free on his website in the form of videos, articles, and e-books. Sharing the information is his goal. He charges money for some things so that he can survive.
* * * * * * * * *
VIII. Awakening but obsessed, dramatizing, and possibly skipping steps
I want to stress that I do not dislike those of this archetype. Far from it. As I said before, these folks are incredibly positive and pleasant and often work very hard to help make the world a better place. We literally need Archetype 8’s (although arguably, we need all kinds of people, equally.) I would say that I am just frustrated because of how dramatic they make the universe out to be. Given their limited understanding (and sometimes this is simply the result of a limited education and/or limited vocabulary), things which should otherwise be simple and obvious are disproportionately heralded as flabbergasting examples of magnificent divinity. Yes, everything is beautiful. Yes, everything is just as important as anything else. But because of that, we should be able to appreciate something without becoming ungrounded.
You
know what makes taking up meditation so hard for people? Authors on the
subject claim it will be an amazing, life-changing experience, and that
the peace you’ll feel will keep you eagerly coming back to your
meditation pillow. This is true, over time and in varying degrees, but
for the most part I experienced none of that. This dramatic flair can
make people skeptical, or worse, can make them feel lied to.
From
a personal perspective, because I don't tend to enjoy this kind of
scattered mindset, I am viewed as “less in-touch” or “speaking from the
ego” when I try to distance myself or encourage more mindful
consideration and less ignorant wonderment (keyword “ignorant,” as there
is certainly nothing wrong with wonderment.)
This
archetype also tends to cram whole concepts for the human
condition/human potential into single phrases. For example, “be the
change you wish to see in the world” has become one of the most overused
and therefore useless phrases on the internet, bumper stickers, and
motivational posters. The phrase is beautifully true, of course, but it
literally cannot be applied to every situation. Sometimes a person is
not in a place in which he/she can utilize the core message of such
phrases. In fact, sometimes it's a lazy response.
Rather than trying to “blow my mind” with something that is actually
painfully obvious, consider going through the effort of understanding me
and having a discussion with me. Anything less risks being insulting.
We still live human lives in this human world, and we still must go
through a process before we can handle all of our problems so easily. If
we could all snap our fingers and be gurus... (well, I wouldn’t be sharing this essay with you.)
Of
course, I pick my confrontations carefully and really am not too
bothered by all this. These folks are my friends and my family. I know
tons of them, and am so grateful. I love them, regardless of their abuse
of hackneyed “positive phrases.”
* * * * * * * * *
IX. Awakening and comfortable with human limitations/limited modalities
* * * * * * * * *
X. Awakening/awake and connecting all information/modalities without attachments
Having studied and considered how these modalities work and fit together, my wife also knows when a modality is being forced to fit into reality and is failing to succeed. For example, the author and New Age marketer Doreen Virtue (www.angeltherapy.com) sells a plethora of goods with fabricated methodologies, mixing astrology, angels, unicorns, mermaids, etc, for maximum profit. For as much as Doreen's audience would love to believe Ms. Virtue is Archetype 10, she appears to be floundering between Archetypes 7 and 8. Rather, for a real combination of modalities and selfless presentation thereof, check out Wilcock's book The Source Field Investigations.
* * * * * * * * *
XI. Awake? Finished? Difficult to define.
Admittedly,
I nearly had to finish this essay in order to understand just why I had
written it in the first place (and so I had to revise the
introduction.) In looking back over the people I’ve met or simply become
aware of during my personal journey toward a better understanding of
myself and reality, it's helpful for me to “lay it all out on the table”
in order to see how temporary our struggles are on our way to what many
call Ascension. It can be helpful to see how it plays out in the lives
of those around us. We learn a great deal about ourselves when we look
at human beings in general. I hope that doing so helps any readers learn
a little about themselves and the people around them, either for self
improvement or simple understanding.
Finally,
I should add that I don’t dislike any of the archetypes I described
above. On the contrary, I have learned that everyone “serves their
purpose,” so the speak, and that I should love all of them
unconditionally. If you feel you fit into one of the aforementioned
archetypes, please remember that I made these up. Also remember that I
did not include all of the archetypes I’ve ever thought of, nor all of
the kinds of people in my life. Most importantly, I certainly did not
attempt to fit everyone I know into an archetype. I may not have ever
attempted to “understand” you in this way. That having been said, if
you think you are described by one of these archetypes, what does that
mean to you?
Note: Please forgive all of the personal pronouns in this piece. It is, after all, all about my observations.
No comments:
Post a Comment