back to You Asked



I am confused by your use of so many different names, when you speak about "who we are", The "Higher Self", "The Inner Guide", "The Imago Deo", "The Realized Self", "The Absolute Nature", "The Over-Self" et cetera. Can you clarify?


The names are many. And as time moves on, there will be many more given to the " Ineffable" We can not repeat it often enough; there are no words to define the "Ineffable". The words used, when speaking about such things are beyond time and space, beyond the body, and mind. Beyond thought and conceptualization. They are only an attempt to energize a process of enquiry as to "who we are" and "why we are here"

When we speak about the self, or about acquiring self-knowledge and self- understanding, so that we might better know our true identity, as to "who we are"? We find ourselves in an area, where words become inadequate for descriptive purposes. But even this being so; we should continue ceaselessly to speak or write about "Reality". Even though our thinking is at best fragmentary.

As we evolve individually or collectively, so will our "expressions" about "Reality". We must continually keep reminding ourselves that our knowledge and our wisdom about the known, in comparison to the unknown is staggering to say the least.

Sorry for the slight detour, back to the central problem of "cataloguing" "categorizing and "classifying" the "Ineffable". As long we are caught and bound, by time and space. And have this problem of fragmentary thinking. We have to seek out another route. There is always that standby of "Faith", along with an adherence to a specified religion. But here also, is that language problem in the use of words to define the undefinable. 

Is there another option, or route?

How do we bypass the restrictions and limitations of the mind, with its' patterns of logical sequential thought? Is it possible? Yes!

By experiencing the indescribable, the unfathomable, the unknown, that which has no shape, no form, no name, the undefinable, the changeless, the timeless, that which has no beginning and no end.

"Be still and know," That I am "That" I Am". Describe, we cannot. Experience, we can. "Seek, ask and knock" are the mandates.

Learn about, who you are now? How you have become who you believe yourself to be. So you can become what you have always been. Who you really are. Here we go again, we are talking about self-knowledge and self-understanding, about becoming and being. In comes that paradoxical saying; "to gain ones' life, one has to lose it". Lose those things that hinder, prevent and block. Those things that dwarfs ones' "true Self", ones'" Absolute Nature", their "Imago Deo". As you search out this elusive "Self", you will come across many names by which it is called. But do not be lulled by the verbiage. Words are not the vessel to hold the "Infinite". But you are.

To find ones' "Self" look inward, deep inside in the silence of you. "Be still and know" that the "I am" within, will lead you to the "I AM THAT I AM" and the return "Home" will be complete.

To find out who you are, you need to find out who you are not. This calls for the act of self-remembering, i.e., learning to see yourself as the experiencer, experiencing, the experience. As, to what is happening and how the experience is affecting you the experiencer. And how you are affecting the experience.

Out of this new learning experience, a new way of perceiving ourselves, others, the world and the things of the world, comes center stage. This experiential perception moves from the subjective to the objective. Moving out beyond the experiencer and the experience to a state of "awareness. Which gives our seeing, thinking, and feeling a greater intensity. An,"objectivity" that we seldom use. Because, we are caught up in our own subjectivity and self-identification, which we have with all manner of things. This new awareness means attending to the moment at hand, the "Now". To the " is-ness" and the "thus-ness" of that which is being experienced. A focusing, a centering, an unswerving attention, which allows one to see both the subject and the object as one. And in the "Light" of this, we draw closer to the "Source" of this "is-ness" and "thus-ness of the moment. Fragmentation and duality give way to REALITY and UNITY.

But to repeat, do not let words fool you. They are but words. Words can never define "Reality". One must sense, intuit if you like that which is behind, above, below and beyond the word. This calls for one to question, inquire and investigate, examine and evaluate both the experiencer and the experience. So that one might know better who they are not.

I have said elsewhere that the sorrows and the ills, that come and go in our lives and in the world. Can be traced back to our "separateness" from our "True Identity". It is our "incompleteness, our lack of "wholeness" that creates our fragmentary thinking. While at the same time, we live in and among a shared fragmentation that we have inherited out of our "race" consciousness, which we daily contribute too.

We have, and we continue to create and promote this fragmentation. Leaving the "Creation Puzzle unsolved. As we join Plato's cave dwellers; in taking the " unreal' as " real". Causing us to build on sand.

I guess at this point, we need to offer up another perspective about perception. That what is thought to be, is not. Although we say it is.

If I were to ask you, "do you want something to drink"? And you said; "a cup of tea, please ". And I proceeded to make some tea and pour it into your cup. And you reply; "what nice tea cups you have". Do we have a definition problem, as to what an object may or may not be called?

When is a teacup not a teacup but called a teacup? When we use the teacup as a coffee cup? Yes and no. For in reality, what we call a teacup is not a teacup. But we call it a teacup anyway. Why? Maybe, it is expedient, or a convenience. But, whatever the case, the teacup is made of porcelain. Therefore it is a porcelain cup. Right! Not necessarily so, it is a collection of hydrogen, oxygen, sand, clay, etc., etc, or could we go further and say: we are talking about atoms, molecules, protons, electrons and neutrons. An energy, possibly only light. The point of all this verbiage; what we think we see and define is fragmentary. Knowing and being aware of Reality is not that easy. How many things, on a daily basis, do we take at the face value, we have given them.?

We call Christianity, Christianity; it is not "Christianity". But we call it Christianity {expediently} anyway. The same can be said about "Islam", "Judaism", or "Buddhism".

We are back to "Who" we are. Or who we call ourselves. Whatever we say we are, we are not. We are not "this" or "that". This and that, are transient, changeable. Not permanent. The "Ultimate Self ", the "I" of the "I am" is ones', Absolute Nature. In the beginning it is easier to say that which I am not. I can say; I am not my mind, my thoughts, ideas, emotions, senses or feelings. Oh no! , I am much, much more. What is that much, much more? In the final analysis, only you can answer that. If you want too, you will seek out the answers. If you are persistent and committed to "knowing", who and what you are? The answers will come.

(China 5/2001)

email top

Back to You Asked?


all material on this site copyright © 1999 Hawk McGinnis
site designed and maintained by
imagine graphic design