Who am I? What am I doing here? Where am I going?

[Michael Larkin]

Who am I? What am I doing here? Where am I going?

Let's start with the basics. Can I answer any of these questions?

Er... no, actually. I can make up all sorts of stories: I'm a Blugbatter beast from planet alpha-prime of Proxima centauri; I'm here to observe you strange humans because I'm collating a history for inclusion in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy; and I'm going to go home in a couple of centuries when I've finally figured out what makes you little buggers tick.

That makes as much, or as little, sense, as to tell you I'm a human being sharing this planet with you; am 5'2" or 6'4"; male or female; a spot welder or a ballerina; have personal interests such as browsing porn sites or knitting tea cosies. These are just - I don't know - just as useless descriptors as, say, describing in words what a pangolin looks like, what it does as it goes about its everyday scaly ant-eating business.

See, a pangolin, if asked, and if it could answer, wouldn't describe itself as it sees itself in a mirror or as described by a neighbourhood pangolin ethologist. It would squeak out its pangolin-being: "look, watch me. I am what I do - this, and this, and this, because it's my nature. What I do is by divine decree, and I could do no other."

Because, you see, thick as a pangolin might seem, it has one edge over us: it lacks self-awareness. It has no pangolin ego that is separate from what it is that continually evaluates itself or other pangolins. Nor does it trouble itself endlessly with the thought it might pop its little clogs one day.

So if a pangolin is what it does, what is it I do? That is natural, that is? My self-awareness, my mind and my intellect, means that I can do things that aren't, strictly speaking, in my basic nature. I can, and many people do in fact, live in a fantasy world, no less fantastic because, through consensus, millions of others share it.

I'm not talking about basic animal functions here. I share those with the pangolin, but I have this other quality, my self-awareness, and that must be a natural human attribute. There must be a way of being natural within that awareness. The thing that is natural, the "I" that I am, is what I am referring to in the three titular questions.

Strip away all the descriptions of the ego - tall, short, fat, thin, tinker or tailor, rich or poor, and concentrate on the being that is me. The "doings" of the being that is me, as Goethe might have put it. What are my natural doings as a self-reflective being? I think these doings of mine will likely be the same as your doings.

So I issue you with a challenge: tell me about your doings without reference to irrelevancies like your appearance, gender, age, job, height or weight, geographical location or specific personal history. Can you do it?

Go on, have a go!

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Rajan,

I think you raise a good point. I myself have at times (much more so in my twenties and thirties than now) been troubled by anxiety and depression, and yes, I think at one stage I might have confused all that with "spiritually meaningful" things for want of a better word. One might, for instance, engage in a bout of self-denigration, not because it's anything to do with the accusing self, but because one’s brain chemicals have gone a bit wonky for a while.

Again, and this happened twice this very day, I was woken by workmen at my house, couldn’t sleep, got up grouchy and shouted at a family member. After a while, I came round, apologised and we forgot it. Then later, I tried to grab a nap to compensate, but couldn’t, got up and again lost my cool. This is something physiological, to do with not getting enough quality sleep. But these days, I know that such things happen, and aren’t to be confused with my being a bad person or anything like that. So I don’t beat myself up about them like I used to do.

I also sometimes find myself remembering embarrassing things I said or did years and years ago and telling myself what a twerp I am: still, all this time later. But again, that doesn’t engage me as much as it used to. It doesn’t throw me into a deep depression, because I’ve learnt better as I’ve grown older how to distinguish the different aspects of myself, and don’t identify with them anywhere near as strongly as I used to.

Some of this coming to terms with oneself and being more charitable may just be a natural tendency as one gets a bit older and wiser; I suppose it starts around the early forties, right about the time one finally realises and accepts one is very mortal. Once that’s accepted, it kind of changes one’s perspective on what’s important in life.

But, simultaneous with that, if one is a bit of a seeker, one may also be developing what I’ve called in the past an internal witness or observer, and what I think others might term a “still centre”. One identifies more and more with this, is more and more present in it, so that when the storms come, it’s as if one has a steady place within a lighthouse rather than on a ship being tossed about. The elements of the storm, the lightning and the thunder, can be all sorts of things – anxiety and depression, the accusing self, wonky brain chemistry or sleep deprivation, to name a few.

[Rajan Arulganesan]

Michael,
I was re - reading your response and something occurred to me. I know even before I have come across sufi ideas, I have suffered from mild depression and anxiety. Is it not possible for someone to confuse depressive or anxietal states or even low self esteem with something developmental in the sufic sense, i.e, the awakening of the accusing nafs? Do you think just being open minded about either possibility is the best way forward?

[Mike MacLeod]

I actually do think of myself as an abstract entity, if you will, to a considerable degree, enough that it has made a mess of my human life. It's definitely a case of moderation. I have paid little attention to my gluttony and other lusts and my health and peace of mind have suffered for it. In a sense, you can come to the same result if you think you are nothing but a body and ignore your essence or that you are only essence and it doesn't matter what happens to your body.

My Shaykh says, "your body has rights over you", by which I understand him to mean that you should treat it with at least the love and care you would for any other pet creature. At least I've got it housebroken...

[Rajan Arulganesan]

That's wonderfully incisive Michael, I will now have to stop what Shah ( again!) terms ' an orgy of introspection' as I am enjoying it too much ...............................

[Michael Larkin]

PS: We Brits were never very good at cheating and getting away with it! :-)

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Rajan

I resonate with practically everything you say. A lot of people indoctrinated themselves with Shah's work, and I was no exception. I know exactly what you mean when you say "almost blasphemous" - you can still find Internet groups where people are plainly afraid to challenge anything Shah said, taking it as complete gospel.

In short, I think Shah’s books do have this tendency to indoctrinate those who are open to that (and like I said, I was one of them). Some will tell you that he did that on purpose, in the hope that readers would notice how easily they are manipulated. It also stimulates the accusing self, of course, which is tiresome, but on the other hand, if the Sufis are to be believed, it’s necessary to go through that stage, and it represents a progression over the raw commanding self.

Maybe Shah wanted people to get to the stage where they were no longer afraid of challenging him. There is certainly a lot that is worth challenging, in my view, and when one does challenge it, new ideas may arise. Also, some say that what Shah’s books do, at least initially, is replace whatever conditioning one already has with a different conditioning system, one that is more conducive, eventually, to getting beyond conditioning.

I think it’s good that you doubt and question everything. If you have vague notions of belief or faith, well, you have them, and you are being true to yourself by acknowledging that. I don’t think we can get anywhere without being ruthlessly honest with ourselves. That takes courage, too. There’s always this temptation to imagine and pretend, to try to kid oneself that one is better or “more advanced” than one actually is.

When I spoke of “respite”, I think I should perhaps have drawn a distinction between periods when the constant assault by the accusing self is somewhat lessened, and periods (what I termed “chinks of light”), when one takes a step, however brief, beyond that state. This is nothing one can do voluntarily – when it comes, it comes, and we have no say in that; one may think of it as “grace” or a “gift”. Sufis call such glimpses “Hal” (state), and they can come to anyone at any time, even sometimes people with no interest whatsoever in spiritual matters. When such an awareness becomes permanent, it is called “Makam” (stage).

I personally make no claims to having glimpses of “another dimension”. When one says something like that, it sounds ultra-mysterious, and one’s imagination can work overtime. If I have had glimpses of something, it never seems weird and wonderful. It rather seems natural – a remembrance of something forgotten that is always there, perhaps, like experiencing a smell that instantly takes one back to a past time. One example for me is a certain kind of disinfectant smell that whisks me back to nursery class where it was always pervasive. There’s a familiarity about the thing, and surprise that one could have forgotten it. Like I said, it’s unmistakably something real.

On a final point, you (or I) aren’t better or worse than Big Brother contestants or bent MPs; but some of them are, I would suggest, currently more confused. I’m not suggesting that you or I should sit back and congratulate ourselves on being so much better than they are. Only that we should be able to make reasonably accurate assessments about people, and especially ourselves.

When under the influence of the accusing self, we find that especially hard. We may seem completely worthless, and that may become a vice rather than a virtue. As Shakespeare said in Henry V, “Self-love, my liege, is not so vile a sin as self-neglecting”. We are entitled to a moderate degree of ordinary self-respect. We shouldn’t be harder on ourselves than we would be on others in the same situation.

It is during the glimpses I have referred to that one comes to see oneself more objectively, more charitably, because one is inherently lovable. This is one of the very hardest things to perceive, and the accusing self mustn’t let one do that. The ego will do anything to maintain its own supremacy, even to the extent of beating the hell out of itself to prove it exists.

Perceiving one’s own inherent lovability and nobility is a death knell for the ego.

[Rajan Arulganesan]

oh, and with regards to 'Big brother' I don't like watching it simply because it brings out my worst judgemental self and I will be chastising myself no end. Despite everything, I still feel surely I must be a better person than this.
Regarding the recent expenses scandal, apparently there was a cartoon in one of the Indian papers where an Indian politician was saying in the speech bubble,
' these British MP's should have come to us for advise. We could have shown them how to do these things without getting caught!'

[Rajan Arulganesan]

Thank you Michael, yes, there moments when I do think of myself more charitably, but, I somehow try to think these down, almost like an indoctrinated religious person: 'it's only your pride' etc.
Ever since reading Idries Shah for the first time about 2 years ago, I have been oscillating between a state that's not dissimilar to indoctrnation and a state of scepticism about sufism as a path, the general idea of metaphysics itself, Of Idries Shah himself (almost blasphemous, I know) and further, my suitability to such an endeavour.. I vaguely remember now that I first read 'the commanding self', something in that book affected me and I almost became 'indoctrinated' by it although paradoxically, the book contained material that warned you against such a reaction. I even enjoyed this feeling believing it to be some sort of profound thing that happened to me, because, before that I was claiming to be a person of science or an agnostic just because it pleased me and as a reaction against all the religious lunacy that was around. at this moment, I only have a vague sense of 'faith' or 'belief' and I am holding on to it as to return to my days before encountering Sufism almost unnerves me.
On a different note, I am often coming across people concerned with metaphysics who say a particular experience gave them a foretaste of the 'other dimension' I can never recall such a thing or perhaps I was busy in my 'sleep' not to notice it.
I remember I think it was Joanne who said, that she is not going to make excuses for her ideas, thoughts etc, in the path and they just are or something to this effect. I am also trying to accept all these various contradictions and confusions while keeping an open mind so that I may make use of the resources that are made available to me. Phew...............

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Rajan,

I see you what you're getting at. This 'self' is very elusive for me. My thought process is always hyperactive and I am not able to distinguish between these and find that real self. In this respect, I have a long way to go. The way I sometimes imagine myself is like a neurotic Woody Allen, although, I conceal this fairly well and to others I come across 'normal', I think.

I think you probably come across as normal because you are normal. I remember once asking a friend if he thought I was a bit weird. He answered that everybody was a bit weird. At the time, I thought he was just trying to make me feel better, but eventually I discovered he was right. We’re all a bit loopy; it’s normal to be so, but some of us worry about it more than others.

If you want to comfort yourself, watch “Big Brother” on TV. Many of the contestants appear certifiable, and are chosen precisely because of that so they can entertain us, but they think they are wonderful. Me, I’d be embarrassed to death, if, like a couple of male contestants did in the last couple of days, I drew a face the other’s bare backside in full view of millions of viewers.

Then again, I’ve been highly entertained over the past few weeks by the spectacle of members of the British parliament who have been caught out fiddling expenses paid from the taxpayer purse. Lo! these lofty people: see how the husband of one of them claimed for the renting of a blue movie, how another claimed for the cleaning up of his moat, how one even went to the trouble to submit a claim for a telephone call costing one penny. This shower have been looking us in the eye for years with talk of cracking down on benefit scroungers, and the need for probity in government.

If you’re confused, find difficulty distinguishing the different aspects of yourself, spare a thought for people such as these. Watch them squirm in denial, or pretend genuine remorse. Say what you like about yourself, you’re honestly acknowledging your faults and failings, so you ain’t half as bad as you think.

Personally, I think at the moment you may be afflicted by what the Sufis term the “accusing self”. It seems to be giving you a very hard time. There’s not a lot you can do about that, I don’t think. That’s what it does, and it keeps on doing it until it wears itself out. And just when you think it’s gone, it comes back for another campaign. But now and then, a little respite may come, when one is able to look at oneself more charitably.

These little chinks of light in the dark tunnel give one the faith to carry on. If you haven’t seen one yet, don’t give in. Even a short respite is completely wonderful. However, it comes in its own good time, so, like Sophie says, you just have to be patient. I didn’t see my first chink until I was in my mid-forties, and had to wait about another decade for my second – and in between, was reduced to near-despair; but always, a little faith remained.

James used to talk of this often – the “dark night of the soul” and the alternation between “expansion” and “contraction” of the heart which may become more frequent over time. It may seem very abstract, particularly the expansion phase, until one experiences it for oneself. It is unmistakeable; one knows one isn’t merely imagining something, but that here is something real.

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Pedro,

the feeling of being in a very mysterious world... Whenever in the course of my life I have remembered that moment, that evening, I've always felt I was already as old as I'll ever be --or as young.

Yes, in fact quite early on in the original HR, I wrote of just such an experience. One of my earliest memories - can't remember how old I was, but it may have been around 4 or 5, is of lying on my bed looking out at the sky and thinking to myself that this couldn't be all there was. I thought there must be some secret all the grown-ups were aware of, and that they would let me in on it when I was 40. I don't know why I thought of that age for the revelation to be made known to me, but the feeling never deserted me, is at the very core of all my being, my curiosity, my desire. It is as alive and vibrant now as it was all those many years ago...