Other Identifications

One of my previous posts dealt with a variety of possible internal identifications — pointing out how I can identify with my Higher Self, my Lower Self, my Mask Self, my Ego, etc. And these are all inner identifications and inner authorities.  Today I am aware of my many external identifications, which, not really being of my true self, are weaker foundations to build upon than the variety of internal identifications.

When I identify myself as belonging to a group called Christians, or to a particular branch of Christianity, I am saying in a way that this is who I am — I am one of those particular brands of Christians.  In the same way I can be an engineer, an American, a Buddhist, a Pathworker, etc.  All of these identifications are external to my true self.

I notice that when I am challenged, say, about being a Pathworker, I find myself immediately on the defensive.  And inwardly I can quickly go to that place that says “Pathwork is probably wrong. Oh my, I am probably wrong, I am probably building upon a foundation of sand.”  And so I retreat, say little in explaining what Pathwork is, and hope never to really be challenged about what this Pathwork thing is with which I spend so much of my life. I do this retreating all the while knowing on some level that Pathwork teachings have fed and continue to feed and nurture me in powerful ways.

But Pathwork is not about making me a Pathworker!  It is about freeing me to be more who I truly am! And from that place of being more and more who I really am, I am building on solid ground, the ground that is my essence in the totality of the Cosmos.  I can feel the freeing nature of these teachings within my body.

I see that the battle for me on one level becomes the battle between inner and outer authority.  I can draw wisdom from outer authority.  I can receive for consideration from outer authority, like Pathwork for example,  that, say, loving is fulfilling and joyful, and go on to experience same.  But this is not an energy of submitting to authority no matter what — submitting to a command to love in order to be rewarded or, more likely, so as not to be punished in some way.

When I am tied to outer authority in a submissive way, identifying totally with said authority, then I am weak in my manifestation.  When questioned about anything in life, if I resort to, “Well Pathwork says…”  then I am speaking from weakness.  No, Pathwork offers up concepts and teachings for consideration, but it is I who must discern for myself the veracity of what is being said in various Pathwork lectures. I must apply the teachings and speak from my life that arises out of applying them. I believe it was Gandhi who said, “My sermon is my life,” and so it is for all of us.

Over time I find I have come to trust my intuition more and more.  Over time my intuition feels evoked and validated by, among other teachings, Pathwork.  It is a kind of resonance between what I am intuiting and what I am reading in Pathwork or other resonating resources.  When I live from that intuition I feel grounded.  I may be wrong, but my intuition can move with the flow of life and with other teachings when they resonate with my intuitive knowing.  Life, faith, truth — all are dynamic, evolving, growing.

I find that too often I do not in fact trust my intuition but rather try to create the logic path that convinces others that what I am sensing intuitively is correct.  This is weak and not dynamic nor inspiring.  Logic tends to be static, lifeless, whereas intuition is fluid and dynamic.

And then there is the role of teaching.  If I teach the logic of Pathwork it is as if I am teaching second-hand material.  This is weak and often not helpful.  If, on the other hand, I teach from my life, as it has been affected by Pathwork and other teachings and experiences, then my teaching is first-hand material.  First-hand material is inherently powerful, alive, and potentially inspirational.

I get all flustered in teaching Pathwork lectures in a formal classroom setting.  I experienced the same thing when I was teaching Bible class in church and elsewhere for 30 years or so.  I found I could not teach biblical concepts. It just would not work for me. Rather, my goal was to share from my life how the biblical principles affected me and then invite the students to see how the material affected them.

Who was I to tell anyone about the “truth” of a Trinitarian God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?  Why would having this abstract dogma “correct” be of primary importance if the entire notion of God was not being experienced or related to by me and the students?

I sense I am beginning to ramble here, but all of this seems related to identification — self-identification.   The big, “Who Am I?”   Perhaps you have some things that came up for you from these meanderings of mine.   With love, Gary