Yesterday I was clever , so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.
Rumi
I am not sure how wise I am but I do want to make changing myself...the way I react to Life...my priority. What about you?
Sure, I would like to change the world...make the world a better place for all. I would like it if external situations supported this process a little more, supported me in this physical form a little more so I could do that, but I really, really get it that I don't have to change the world. I couldn't if I tried.
Changing Self; Not the World
I can, however, improve my relationship with the world, offer back Love, compassion and peace...instead of fear, anger and resistance....which would definitely have a ripple effect creating more positivity out there and in "me". Then again, I cannot offer these things until they are freely flowing through me. They cannot flow through me freely until I let go of all the knotted crap I stuffed on top of it...the samskaras. I cannot get rid of the suppressed and repressed stuff until I learn to stop resisting it and pushing it back down whenever the external events I encounter trigger it . In order to do that, I need to truly see what I do "in here" in reaction to the world "out there", recognize my samskaras when they start to emerge, observe this mind of mine and how it works. Then I need to learn to accept and allow; relax and release into what is, into this inner and outer world as it is. That requires that I change myself.
Wow! Quite a process, eh?
Internalistic or Interactionalistic: Questions!
Lately, I have been feeling very confused, questioning the internalistic versus the interactionalistic approach to Life. (I have pushed the externalistic approach away...seeing no benefit in that). I was questioning if I understood what the great masters were teaching in regards to the most wholesome approach. Are they suggesting that we should focus totally inward, convincing ourselves that we do not need anything from the outer world in order to be happy, fulfilled and to live the "good life"? That true peace is not conditional, not dependent on physical world things because it is completely an inner experience? That if we do the work, we can find peace, joy and happiness no matter what the world offers? We do not need to "desire" anything or push away anything? All experiences should have the same "neutral" effect on us? Everything we need is already right here within us? Everything else is just illusion?
Or, are they telling us, we should recognize that, though we are not our bodies or our minds, we are in bodies with minds that think and feel, bodies that are interdependent on everything around us. Therefore we do need to recognize our need for external support in order to be at peace. It is okay, then, to want things to be different than they are as long as we are not attached to outcome and can still find peace with Life as it is right here and now? As long as we are doing the work of making inner worlds healthy, we can find some type of comfort in the outer world?
So...if that is the case... is it okay to "desire" sometimes and to resist sometimes? Am I just not understanding these two terms, desire and aversion, correctly?
The followers of the internalistic view would likely agree with what I chanted in meditation today, "Everything I desire is within me". They may use the word "desire" and teach that I can "manifest" what I want from life simply by putting my intention on it. My being is not dependent on the outer world; my outer world is dependent on my inner one...in fact, it is just a manifestation of it. Now a lot of ancient Hindu and Yogic scriptures teach that (as well as some new age stuff) . And in a sense, Jesus taught this...by saying that if we focus first on finding the Kingdom of God...before we even worry about feeding ourselves or clothing ourselves...we will get what we need. It will just appear without any effort from us. It will be added-on. I love this but is this the approach to take?
The interactionalists would probably adhere to another often cited Christian teaching, Be in the world, but not of it. Though realizing and reconnecting with the part of us that is not of this world: the True Self, the soul, the inner dimension, the higher consciousness, the Shakti etc within, is our priority, we still are "in" this world so we need to function in it. Therefore we do need to "do" things to make our experiences and the experiences of others better, take action sometimes, want, and ask and push away sometimes. Again, it is okay to want our situation to be better and we can take steps to making it better as long as we are not doing so reactively but from a place of calm awareness.
What about this statement? What approach is it taking?
The moment in front of you is not bothering you. You are bothering yourself about the moment in front of you.
Michael Singer
I get confused about these categories and what the teachings I am hearing are actually saying in regards to the best approach.. One teacher I have been listening to a lot because I absolutely love what he has to say and how he says it, is Michael Singer. Is Michael Singer, who resonates with true yogic philosophy, an internalist or an interactionalist?
Does It Really Matter?
Maybe the biggest question I need to ask is, why am I so hung up on this lol? Do we really need to categorize anything? Do we need to put ourselves and our approach, or the teachings of others into one of these boxes? I hope not because I seem to flitter and flutter between both approaches. Hmmm! What about you?
All is well!
Michael Singer/ Sounds True (June, 2022) Are You In There? Michael Singer On Insights At the Edge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbVOWzCO8A
No comments:
Post a Comment