It’s a quote from ninth-century Zen Master, Lin Chi, a warning to rely only upon the self and not to trust external forces as “authority figures” who wish to dictate one’s life or even simply to imply a certain way that one must be, and Lin Chi would warn not even to rely upon his words I just cited, but to reflect upon one’s own self as one’s guide. Alexander Pope wrote, “Know then thyself. Presume not god to scan. The proper study of mankind is Man.” The only guru one can trust to control one’s life is the guru within, the self. Let no external force have absolute power over ME, even this author who is recommending such advice, or even me who is quoting him. This is in extreme contradiction to the religious paths that so many follow, surrendering their lives to the interpretations of holy books, rendered holy by scribes, priests and self-proclaimed religious leaders throughout history. Or, surrendering to supposed gods, figments of shared imaginations that catapult an ideal vision of human behavior up into the fanciful skies and netherlands of heavenly aspirations, unfounded and unproven by one’s own experience or tests of reason and logic.
This is not to imply anarchy or chaos as preferable means of governing human affairs. I suspect, and believe, that if we were to search within our selves, sans the sea of preconceived notions of multimedial messages that have been teeming into our minds since infancy, we would find a very humanistic self that would seek to create a social network of mutual reliance, because it would benefit the self, as well as other selves, toward a peaceful and mutual means of human cohabitation and prosperity. Not to appear as a naive fool here, I understand that a mutually human social consciousness has to be practiced and honed, learned and tested in a child’s life to have meaning. This seems quite paradoxical to the theme of this essay which seeks to diminish the influence of external authorities and gurus, teachers and sages, and to put forward the value of the self as the primary teacher and guide to one’s life directions. Yet, the choice to adopt an external force as a teacher, if even for a temporary time, can be a choice of one’s self, the result of a reflective process through which the mirror of one’s mind yields an image that one sees as needing an external influence.
And, what is a self? Does one’s self end at the perimeter of one’s skin? Or, is the human self even those ideas and things shared with others, outside of one’s body and mind? I have conversations with dead people, many of whom are my favorite authors whose books I have read long after they have expired, and whose words I allow to bounce among the other ideas in my mind, and I will argue points for and against, be awestruck by novel ideas and synergistic alliances between an author’s ideas and my own present experience. These people are dead, yet their human selves have been transmitted into written texts that communicate with us centuries, millennia after the physical person has expired and rotted away. This metaphysical process takes place through the written word, through film, through music, through architecture and visual arts, through dance, and long beyond the life of a person who created any one of them.
Who is the Buddha? Can he even be identified specifically outside the realm of the self, as we each walk down our paths of life, to killl him? If we kill the Buddha, do we kill part of our self? And…of course…what is a self? Is even a hermit, alone in a cave, a solitary self, if he or she is using the products of other minds on which to sleep, with which to prepare food, and with which to sustain other aspects of their “solitary” lives? At the other extreme, are the social constructs of authoritarianism that discourage individual thought and freedom to choose.
The constructs of American legal and governmental systems mimick the authoritarian constructs of institutional religion. Government chambers are oft designed to loft the executives into higher chairs than their organizational subordinates. Court rooms loft judges into higher chairs as if their authority was the supreme over all in the room. The pulpits and lecterns of many a Catholic and Protestant church are raised to lift the priests and ministers to higher positions than their congregations, as if they are supreme mediums between congregations and gods.
These physical constructs of religious and governmental authority combine to create an illusion of executive and priestly authority over the citizens of a nation-state, and thus relax an individual citizen’s sense of personal responsibility and power over his or her own life and directions. Citizens become pliable human clay to be manipulated and molded into uses that suit the executives of governments, religions and corporations without the central concern of a person’s being and well-being, or their ecological context of existence.
This is a supreme folly, but I am no authority either. I merely ask the reader to consider these thoughts, reflect upon them, and wonder how they fit with your own balance or imbalance of external and internal messaging and personal power. I would hope that a very deep reflection on these issues and ideas would be made on the days and hours before one casts a vote for a particular political candidate and/or votes to adopt or reject a specific bill, initiative or resolution.
So Be It.
Amen.
The Pathfinder
