As we were suggesting in recent previous posts, when things — such as fears or desires — are seen with a psychological distance, then that very (separative) perception reinforces the (supposed) gap between the perceiver and that which is perceived. When, for instance, fear is seen as something that one “has,” it is usually seen as what is manipulated (from a distance) by an internal, psychological “I” or “me.” In actuality, the mind (the entity) is not something separate from what the fear is. The fear is what you “are”; it is not merely what you “have.” Perceiving fear from a psychological distance — such as what most minds do — tends to firmly reinforce the notion of a manipulating “I” or center who (supposedly) can, over time, deal with the fear. The fraudulent thing regarding that, though, is that — in reality — the fear is not (whatsoever) separate from what the mind is. Looking at the fear with internal distance, from a supposed internal “I” or “me,” reinforces the assumption of an “I” or “me” that is separate from what is perceived (internally); such an assumption, used habitually, as it is, is imagination reinforcing itself. Perceiving, for instance, fear, sadness, or desire, from a psychological distance — as most people do — reinforces and actually helps fabricate a separate “I” or “me,” (who allegedly “has” those things).
Internally developed fear, per se, depends upon psychological time; without psychological time, internally developed fear would not exist. And we think we can (from an internal distance) understand, over time, psychological fear! We create a separate “analyzer” who is going to analyze internally. However, the analyzer actually is the analyzed. Analysis takes time; additionally, time is required to manufacture a separate “I” who is different from the fear. Does one just want to “get rid” of fear? It may be one part of the mind trying to get rid of another part… being in conflict with it. It may be far more prudent to understand it (i.e. the fear which is yourself), and it may be that one cannot fully understand it if one thinks that it is separate from what one is.
Someone might say, “What is the benefit of seeing all this?” If, for instance, fear takes place and there is an acute perception and accurate relationship regarding (and “as”) that fear… then it can be fully perceived as it is, and not with some extraneous images or imaginings of a separate “I” who is somehow separate from it and in conflict with it. (Conflict is friction and may not solve anything fundamentally.) The extraneous images — of a separate controller or of a separate “I” or “me” — disallow the full perception of the fear as it really is… and tend to waste time by projecting a separate image (or images) that supposedly will do something about the fear. Fear is what one actually is; then a separate image is created by the mind to get rid of, suppress, overcome, analyze, or somehow adjust to the fear. This creates duality and conflict in the mind that essentially leads to friction, limitation, and time wastage. False, inner fragmentation, no matter how sophisticated it may be, is fundamentally (in most cases) what contributes to friction, and it is essentially a waste of time and energy.
People erroneously associate going beyond a central “I” or “me” with a lack of security, with a lack of inner integrity. On the contrary, real integrity exists in perceiving things as they actually are, without introducing fallacious images and a lot of primitive rigmarole into the picture. Bliss and understanding the essence of real eternity can exist only when one psychologically dies to the ungrounded and phony images that one, unfortunately, has been taught (over time) to carry. Such psychological dying is what is truly living, and such living involves direct, untainted, pristine, beautiful perception. It may be that real baptism occurs when one’s consciousness is washed clean of cold deception, false accumulation, and dead tradition.