MAHARAJ: “I Talk to You from the Perspective of the Universal Consciousness,” Part Five

Today's Considerations

[To continue with the recounting of an incident which shows step-by-step the process of guiding someone to a different perspective which might lead to the realization of the truth. Now, to the third visit. He entered and sat silently after a quiet greeting, looking down at the floor. I waited. Finally, he looked up and looked at me sitting in a chair to his left.]

He: “Okay. So where do we begin today?”

F.: “How about if I begin by asking if you went home and sat in the quiet and considered what we’ve discussed so far?”

He: “Yeah. I did.”

F.: "So next, how about if I ask if you saw anything about the hiring of your brother-in-law or about the state of your marriage at the time you hired him or about your marriage in general or about your ex-wife or in regards to the way you were running your business. Did you see anything about those in a somewhat different light?”

He: “No.” [Long pause, looking down, then finally saying without looking me in the eyes:] “I saw every one of those in a totally different light. I decided that I had been miserable, that I am miserable, and that I don’t want to be miserable anymore so maybe I should give this deal a chance. I wanted to knock your head off a few days ago, but today I want your help. I’m ready to try to do whatever you tell me to do.”

F.: “Okay. Then consider this: what if you do not have to do anything? What if you simply need to understand, and I don’t mean understand those other people. I mean to understand you, the false selves you’ve been assigned or have adopted and how the hidden agendas of your personality identifications have been driving you all of your life, in control of your every thought and word and action?”

He: [Another long pause. Then:] “I’m willing to try. Let's get it going."

F.: Ah. Another flash of impatience? Or maybe readiness? The readiness would be preferred. Alright, so you said you’re seeing everything about the incident we have been discussing from a different perspective. Tell me about what you saw.”

He: “What I saw is that you were right. I was an idiot to hire a fellow like that brother-in-law. I’d never have hired anyone like that if I had not been urged to do so.”

F.: “To be clear, are you blaming your ex-wife for the fact that you did that?”

He: “Not in the least. Something was wrong with me that I went along with that. I know that now. I just don’t know what was wrong.”

F.: “Sure you do. I just told you, so let’s try it again: the hidden agendas of your personality identifications have been driving you all of your life and have been in control of your every thought and word and action. I’m going to ask you two questions and let’s see how you handle them: First, ‘WHO’ drove you to do that, and the answer is not ‘my ex-wife.' Furthermore, the answer to a WHO question will never be you. The answer will always be some false identity that you felt was real. The second question is, 'WHY did you go along with that WHO’s agenda'?”

He: “No clue.”

F.: “Short, succinct, to the point. Excellent. The truth should stun you in silence, Maharaj said. I’m seeing some progress already, even if you can’t answer the questions. We now know that under other circumstances, you would not have hired someone with a history of incompetency and a history of stealing money from an employer, so you are not totally insane. There’s hope for you."

He: [A faded smile, but no words.]

F.: “So WHO went along with the request from a wife at that time to hire someone you knew to be incompetent and a thief?”

He: [Considering, and then shaking his head to signal that he had no clue.]

F.: “Well, let’s get some background. Your original perspective was that your marriage was flowing along quite smoothly until he did what he did; then, you believed, his actions triggered a series of events that led to the end of your marriage. Maharaj said that the cause of all is all – all that happens contributes to all that happens. So let’s look objectively at the state of that marriage before the separation. What was it really like?"

He: “I thought about that last night. It sucked. We’d fought for years, but the aftermath of the fights seemed to pass, so I assumed that everything was okay after that. It never was, and on some level I know that nothing had really passed and that nothing was really okay. I had a major fear of her leaving and taking our child, of losing the house, the savings, our life, everything. You mentioned fears and desires and I told you I was never afraid of anything, but I saw last night that I was afraid of everything and I desired to hang on to what I thought we had but it was not at all what I thought it was.”

F.: “Excellent!”

He: “Excellent? Excellent my ass! What was excellent about that?"

F.: “Nothing was excellent about that. It was all a lie. Two people play-acting on the stage of the Theater of the Lie. What is excellent is you’re seeing that fact. So back to question #1: ‘WHO hired an incompetent thief at the behest of his wife, and the answer is not ‘you.’ It is a role. What role were you trying to maintain?”

He: [Considering, then:] “The husband”?

F.: “So you’re asking the questions now instead of answering them?”

He: [Smirk, half smile, then:] “The husband.”

F.: “Excellent again! Because you had assumed a role that wanted continuity, that wanted to sustain itself forever, you did something very ignorant: you thought you could make happy someone who was unhappy, so you hired someone who was incompetent and who was a thief and you left him a stack of signed, black checks before hopping a jet for a month-and-a-half-long vacation that was also supposed to make your wife happy.”

He: “What an idiot, huh?”

F.: “Him, or you?”

He: “Me. He ended up with tens of thousands of dollars and a company that was already in full swing. He was obviously a lot smarter than I was.”

F.: “Nope. You were both being driven by ignorance and insanity and the agendas of many assumed identities. No beating up on yourself, please. I suspect that has happened enough. But understand that it was not ‘The husband’ alone who was at play. ‘The father’ was concerned about losing a child; ‘The Moneyman’ was petrified, seemingly threatened, and almost angry enough to kill. ‘The Homeowner’ was fearing that the wife would take the house. We could probably find a dozen or more other roles involved in your being driven to behave as you did. Tell me about your wife and brother-in-law's relationship with their parents."

He: [He was slowed by the shift in direction, but finally answered:] "Their dad had an affair. Left the mom. Hurt her tremendously. Like I said, my wife's brother lived with his dad and new wife, worked for his father."

F.: "And destroyed $100,000 worth of equipment. Any chance that might have been inspired subconsciously, maybe by the hidden agenda of ‘The Hurt and Vengeful Son’?"

He. :Wow."

F.: "Now tell me about your relationship with your parents."

He: "Similar. Dad left and remarried. I was hurt and I was angry when I saw the hurt mom was going through. I tried as best I could to help her get past their divorce and I tried to make her happy, but she never got over it.”

F.: “So ‘The Good Son’ was doing all he could to rescue mom and became convinced that if someone is unhappy, he has the power to do something about that. Sound about right?”

He: “Never thought of it that way. So you’re saying maybe later even as an adult, I subconsciously wanted to make an unhappy woman happy - that time my wife -  and was sorta driven by those earlier event?"

F.: "Maybe sort of like that brother-in-law might have been driven subconsciously by earlier events? But it doesn't really matter what I say. What matters is what you see and whether you see it clearly.”

He: “Damnation! That explains it. So I experienced what divorce is like through my parents, how miserable it is to be abandoned by a spouse, and I chose to do everything I could not to end up like mom. I decided to do everything I could to make my wife happy so she’d stay and then I wouldn’t have to go through that hurt mom went through. Is that what you’re trying to get at?”

F.: “Again, I'm am not trying to ‘get at’ anything. I'm pointing you toward truth and clear seeing. Seems we might be moving in that direction. Next, do you see that it was all of the hidden agendas of those WHO’s that were driving you and that you never ‘chose’ or ‘decided’ to do anything that you eventually did?”

He: [Looking down again. Silence. After some time, a tear streaming down a face. Silence on my end as well. Finally, he rubbed his cheeks and then looked at me. Then:] “So what’s next?”

F.: “Next is you need to stand up.” [We both stood. I went over and put an arm around his shoulders. Then:] "What’s next is for you to go home and consider in the silence all that you are seeing in a different light with a different perspective. In the process, consider what happens when persons enter into relationships with an unresolved fear of abandonment. Consider what happens when persons are driven by the hidden agendas of a host of personal identities. Consider all of the aspects of the event which you were angry and resentful about when you came here a few days ago. Then we’ll continue, same time tomorrow.”

He nodded in agreement and walked toward the door. He gripped the door knob but turned and said, “Thanks” before walking out of the house and closing the door very quietly rather than slamming it in anger.

Sometimes, that's the kind of shift that happens if a person is willing to listen to someone talking "from the perspective of the universal consciousness" or from the point of view of awareness and the Original Nature. 

To be continued.

Please enter the silence of contemplation.

[NOTE: The four most recent posts follow. You may access all of the posts in this series and in the previous series and several thousand other posts as well by clicking on the links in the "Recent Posts and Archives" section.]