Intelligent Co-operation, ARTICLE ON from Family Posts

  • Intelligent Co-operation, ARTICLE ON

“But in now being able to see the folly of it all, the warrior can also see the folly of having an identity to protect and to defend. Consequently, to the warrior, there is no point in having any form of identity and, as a result, he or she continues to become ever more inclusive in pursuit of the totality of the self, not because it is a motive for progress, but simply because it has so much heart that it is the best fun in the whole wide world. When one is having so much fun, come hell or high water, come laughter or tears, who cares about a destination, a goal? Right here and right now is more than enough fun; besides which, it is after all the journey that is the fun part, for any goal, once reached, always brings a disappointment in one way or another.”

Those of you who have attended the most recent ISM retreat, you are aware of the fact that we explored the issue of abandoning goal orientation for the sake of creating and focusing on a particular identity. We also explored practical ways to utilise that identity.

Therefore, there may seem to be an antiphasis between what we explored at the retreat and this aspect of the teachings; the folly of identity within context of the Stalker’s Rule. However, any such antiphasis, is only APPARENT.

The KEY concept here being that the Stalker may NOT have any identity to DEFEND or to PROTECT. This does not imply that the Stalker may not USE any identity he/she chooses to; quite the contrary actually. By not having any PARTICULAR identity to defend or protect, the Stalker may use ANY individual identity that suits his/her purposes at ANY given time.

In order to acquire a practical understanding of the above, let me share a recent example from my professional life.

In this lifetime I have chosen for myself the profession of a lawyer, the Law being for me a Path with a Heart.

One legal battle took me to new grounds and I developed quite an anxiety.

The result of the above approach has been an identification on my side both with the face value of the challenge as well as with the self-image of the lawyer. This type of identification resulted in more self-doubt regarding the handling of the procedural legalities, which resulted in more identification with the self-image of the lawyer, which kept getting lower, which brought forth even more anxiety, etc. LOL indeed! A true vicious circle very much worthy of its name.

The first alarm bell that spelled for me the fact that there was something wrong with my approach was when I registered a tendency to procrastinate while dealing with this case. This particular type of resistance USUALLY is for me an indication of identification.

I was then quite fast in picking up the fact that I was identifying with the self-image of the lawyer, which “lawyer self-image” is completely “result orientated” (if I may use such an odd term) and “creates” (the verb “create” within inverted commas as it is NOT a referral to true creativity) an enormous amount of anxiety around the end result of the battle. It is THIS type of anxiety that leads to self-doubt. (An internal dialogue along the lines of: “what if you made a procedural mistake, what if you missed a deadline” etc.)

Once I made this realisation about the identification part, I went back to re-examine my filed litigation documents. It was not long before I realised that there was an element of identification with the emotion of anger as well. It did not come as a surprise; once identification “creeps in”, then I tend to identify “left, right and centre”, LOL.

The strategy that I had to implement therefore, had to do with eradicating any sort of identification whatsoever. But how?

The reply came up more or less together with this month’s theme. I decided to USE the IDENTITY of the lawyer as a format, as a vehicle via which I could communicate with the world my knowledge. But at ALL TIMES I am to re-member that it is ME the one DRIVING this vehicle, I AM NOT the vehicle itself!

Once this much was realised, I moderated my overall strategy towards a “colder” utilisation of the legal jargon that I believe will prove to be a better approach, especially at this point in time.