The Observation of Oneself
The intimate self-observation itself is a practical mean to achieve a radical transformation.
Know and observe are different. Many confuse the observation of oneself with knowing. It is known that we are sitting in a chair in a room, but it does not mean that we are observing the chair.
We know that at any given moment we are in a negative state, perhaps with some problem or worried about this or that issue or in a state of anxiety or uncertainty, etc., but this does not mean that we’re watching.
Do you feel antipathy towards someone? Do you dislike certain person? Why? . You say that you know that person … Please !, observe it, know is never to observe; Do not confuse knowing with observing …
The Self-observation is one hundred percent active, is a mean of change of oneself, while knowing, which is passive, it is not.
Certainly knowing is not an act of attention. The attention directed into oneself, towards what is happening in our interior, is something positive, active…
In the case of a person for whom one feel antipathy, out of nowhere, just because one feel like it and many times for no particular reason, one notices the multitude of thoughts that accumulate in the mind, the group of voices that speak and scream in a disorderly manner within oneself, what they are saying, as well as the unpleasant emotions that sugen in our interior and the unpleasant taste that all this leaves in our psyche, etc., etc., etc.
Obviously in such a state we also realize that internally we are treating very badly the person for whom we feel antipathy toward.
More in order to see all of this is unquestionably is necessary attention intentionally directed toward the interior of oneself; not a passive attention.
The dynamic attention really proceeds from the side of observer, while thoughts and emotions belong to side, which is observed.
All of this cause us to comprehend that knowing is something completely passive and mechanical, in evident contrast with the observation of oneself which is a conscious act.
Nevertheless we are not affirming that the mechanical self-observation does not exist; but such kind of observation has nothing to do with the psychological self-observation to which we are referring.
To think and to observe are also very different. Any person can give himself the luxury of thinking about himself all he wants, but this does not signify that he is really observing himself.
We need to see the different Selves in action, to discover them in our psyche, to comprehend that a percentage of our own consciousness exists within each one of them, to repent of having created them, etc.
Then we shall exclaim: “But what is this self doing?”, “What is it saying?”, “What does it want?”, “Why does it torment me with its lust?, with its anger?“, etc.
Then we will see within ourselves, the entire train of thoughts, emotions, desires, passions, private comedies, personal dramas, elaborated lies, discourses, excuses, morbidities, beds of pleasure, scenes of lasciviousness, etc, etc, etc.
Many times before we falling asleep at the precise instant of transition between vigil and sleep, we feel within our own mind different voices that talk to each other. Those are the different selves that must in such moments break all connection with the different centers of our organic machine, so as to then submerge themselves in the molecular world, in the Fifth Dimension.
THE TWO WORLDS
To observe and self/observe are two completely different things, however both demand attention.
In observing the attention is directed outwardly toward the external world, through the windows of the senses.
In self-observation, the attention is directed inwards and hence the senses of external perception are worthless, Consequently, this is the factual reason why the self-observation of inner psychological processes is difficult for the neophyte.
The point of departure of the official science in its practical side is the observable. The point of departure for the work on oneself is self-observation, the self-observable.
Unquestionably, these two points departure previously mentioned take us to completely different directions.
Someone could get older engrossed within the intransigent dogmas of official science, studying external phenomena, observing cells, atoms, molecules, suns, stars, comets, etc; without experimenting any radical change within himself.
The type of knowledge that transforms someone internally, could never be achieved through external observation.
The true knowledge that can really originate in us a fundamental internal change has its basis in direct self-observation of oneself.
we urgently need to encourage our Gnostic students to observe themselves and in what direction they must observe themselves and the reasons for it.
The Observation is a mean to modify the mechanical conditions of the world. the internal self-observation is a mean to intimately change.
As a consequence or corollary of all this, we can and must emphatically affirm that two types of knowledge exist: the external and the internal, and that unless that we have in themselves the magnetic center that can differentiate between these two the qualities of knowledge, this mixture of the two planes or orders of ideas could has like only outcome the confusion.
Sublime pseudo-esoteric doctrines with marked scientism at heart, belong to the field of the observable, yet they are accepted by many aspirants as internal knowledge.
We find ourselves then before two worlds, the exterior and internal. The first of these is perceived by the senses of external perception; the second can only be perceived through the sense of internal self-observation.
Thoughts, ideas, emotions, desires, hopes, disappointments, etc; are internal, invisible to the ordinary, common and current senses and yet they are more real to us than the dining table or the living room couch.
Certainly we live in our inner world more than in our external word; this is irrefutable, indisputable.
In our internal worlds, in our secret world, we love, desire, suspect, bless, curse, yearn, suffer, enjoy, we are disappointed, rewardes, etc.
Unquestionably, the two worlds, internal and external worlds are experimentally verifiable. The external world is the observable. The internal world is the self-observable in oneself and within oneself, here and now.
Whosoever truly wants to know the internal worlds of the planet Earth and the solar system or the Galaxy in which we live, must previously know his intimate world, his individual, particular life, his own internal worlds.
“Man, know thyself and thou wilt know the Universe and its Gods”
The more this World called “oneself” be explored, the more it will be comprehend we simultaneously live in two worlds, in two realities, in two confines: the external
and the internal.
In the same way that it is indispensable for one to learn how to walk in the external world, so as not to fall down into a precipice or not get lost in the streets of the city, or to select
one’s friends or not associate with the perverse ones or not eat poison, etc; likewise,
through the psychological work upon oneself we learn how to walk in the internal world,
which is explorable only through oneself
Really the sense of self-observation of oneself is atrophied in the decadent human race of this tenebrous era in which we live.
As we persevere in self-observation of ourselves, the sense of intimate self-observation will progressively develop.