True poise, as we have said, includes intelligence, compassion, awareness, humor, balance, and transcending separation and conflict. Part of the reason that many of us don’t have it has to do with wrong education; or, despite a wrong education, many just don’t care to go beyond the parameters of limitation.
In previous posts, some time ago, one wrote about the brain as being like two halves of a walnut… and about how certain surgeries splitting these two halves — by severing the corpus callosum — left each half not knowing what the other half was thinking. So, in actuality, two fields of consciousness were produced from one field, via advanced surgery. Therefore, times and evidence has changed; yet so many of us continue to cling to the erroneous (primitive) notion of a central “I,” a central “me” or controller. For a very long time now, one — when thinking — instead of using the term “I,” has been using the words of “this movement.” Of course, one doesn’t verbally say “this movement,” instead of “I,” when actually talking to others; (things are at a rather unrefined and strangely unpolished level here in the Midwest U.S.A., and the rest of the world, so one just talks to them in the way that they are familiar with.)
Clinging to the notion of a central “I,” by repeatedly using it, reinforces the perception and feeling of separation. We were taught to function in (and “as”) this separation throughout our lives; just look at all of the competition and indifference in the world. This separation includes — and involves — internal and external forms. “I” am apart from “you.” If “I” hurt “you,” “I” will not be hurt. This “I” thinks that it is apart from the fears that “it has.” This “I” is supposedly apart from the jealousy that it can later “deal with.” This “I” is supposedly something separate from the unhealthy habits that “it has.” This “I” is supposedly apart from other organisms; and it is “their” suffering. This “I” is going to quiet thoughts in order to “get something spectacular out of it.” This “I” has freedom to do whatever “it” pleases.
Instead of thinking “I,” thinking “this movement,” however, doesn’t tend to reinforce the notion of any (so-called) center (that is fictitious anyway) from everyone else. “This movement” can include — and does include, in a big way — everyone else. (Therein lies responsibility.) “This movement” need not be separate from the perceptions that take place, including butterflies and fears. Fear may not be separate from what “this movement” is; however, thinking there is an “I” that is separate from fear, controlling it or managing it freely, is conflict and utter nonsense. When “this movement” is used, it negates a lot of energy wasting conflict that inherently goes along with the separative (erroneous, crass) concept of a central “I.” Eternity, the sacred and the timeless exists, but it has little to do with robotic, fragmentary, illusory, virtual, isolated, central images; that is one of the reasons why “this movement” is sharing this.