Home Contributed articles Transcripts Therapeutic scripts Practitioners who have contributed to this site Free e-newsletter Contact us
 
DAN MILLMAN interview
Self-mastery vrs Enlightenment
 

Page 1 2 3 4 5

 
An interview with Dan Millman, page 3.

Q: How does this distinction between the realization of "I Can" and the realization of "I Am" accord with your own experience?

DM: Having a sense of "I Can," seems positive from a conventional viewpoint. I would say it's preferable for us to say or feel "I can," than "I can't." Henry Ford said, "Those who believe they can and those who believe they can't are both right." We're more likely to attempt something we believe we can, or might be able to, accomplish. But "I Can" is not in the same ballpark as the profound faith based on the knowledge that our souls rest safe and secure in the arms of Spirit. I don't necessarily choose to use the words, "I Am." I don't relate to "I Am-ness," personally, because it has a level of abstraction about it. I can get my arms around "I Can." To me, what matters about human life on every is what we do. There's a lot of New Age talk about beingness. Teachers advise, "Don't do. Just be." While we live we are going to be, to exist. But we are also going to do, to move, to act. "What is this be? It sounds good, but what does it mean?" Everything that has been accomplished by human beings involves human doings. Still, I do acknowledge that the transcendent state of Enlightenment-the ultimate goal and endpoint of human evolution--doesn't itself depend on our consciously doing anything. In that moment, there is only Being (even as all the doings continue).
These ideas of being and doing relate to the two "solutions" to human life. The "Western Solution" to happiness is outward achievement. Many people have become disillusioned with this extroverted solution-they have seen that success didn't make them or their parents happy-so they have become attracted to the "Eastern Solution" which involves going inside, meditating, doing internal spiritual practices. They aim for an internal kind of success so that one day, maybe in this lifetime or another lifetime, when they fix their insides, get centered, attain inner peace, they might achieve or earn the "state" of transcendental Enlightenment. Meanwhile, they may ignore their kids, let their functional life--their finances, relationships, or education, go down the toilet. So we're waiting for that cosmic illumination, we might as well behave kindly and live as many enlightened moments as we can, even if we know it's "pretending." Why not fake it until we make it? While we're aspiring, let's do some perspiring-roll up our sleeves and become willing to play the most challenging of all roles in the theater of life-an enlightened man or woman. So the important questions to me are not "Am I in my beingness?" But rather, "Do I live well? Am I kind to other people? Do I occasionally pick up some litter on the street?
You know, when I'm on the road, in another city or country, I can't know how my words impact people--but when I leave a city, I can tell you this--it's a little cleaner. Little things like that can make a big difference.

Q: Another observation we've made about the attainment of self-mastery is that it seems to always include a movement from a negative, limited sense of self to a deeply positive sense of self. Traditional teachings of enlightenment, on the other hand, tell us that the ultimate human attainment is the discovery of "no self," the realization that our true nature, who we really are, is beyond any notion of self, positive or negative, and that it is in fact the very idea that we exist as a separate individual at all that inhibits us from discovering true freedom. Do you agree that ultimately any fixed notion of self, including even one that is extremely positive, has to be given up if we are to become truly free?

DM: Yes, except I'd change the words. Rather than suggesting that the self has to be "given up," I'd say, "seen through." To me, the best way to transcend the ego is not by somehow trying to get rid of it, but by applying both insight and humor. These are the two best spiritual tools to transcend the ego. I use my ego to learn, to teach and to serve. It's just my personality level. And while I take my work seriously, I don't take this "Dan Millman" character seriously.

Q: When you use the word "ego" here, are you referring to the separate sense of self?

DM: What we call "ego" is our conscious self, our sense of identity. As newborn infants, we have no clearly defined boundaries or sense of self. We exist in a dreamlike world where we are also our mother, and everyone else. In growing up we develop this sense of self that ends at the skin.
In India, people called "masts" have no sense of separate identity. They just sit there; people have to feed and care for them. In the West we might refer to them as "catatonic," but in Indian spiritual tradition they are treated as special beings because they have no ego, no sense of a self that needs to do, achieve, or even survive. That's one kind of "egolessness." Neither newborn infants nor certain Zen masters have much of an ego. The difference is that in the infant the ego is undeveloped, and in a Zen master the ego is presumably transcended.
Motivational speakers and others who help others to develop a sense of confidence-to find out that they can--help the ego get what it thinks it needs to be happy. This approach may be popular and attractive to many people, but in a sense it is a limited practice-at best perhaps a steppingstone along the path.

Q: Both in the quest for self-mastery and in the quest for enlightenment, it seems that one almost inevitably encounters many internal obstacles, the foremost of which is probably fear. In fact, you devoted a chapter of your book to this. In the pursuit of self-mastery, it manifests most often as, say, fear of challenge or fear of change. And descriptions of the quest for enlightenment often include an encounter with the existential fear of leaving behind all familiar reference points, of leaping into the unknown. In Everyday Enlightenment you state that while we cannot control fear or make it go away, "we can overcome any fear." What, in your view, is the key to overcoming fear?

DM: Simply put, in the words of Susan Jeffers, "feel the fear and do it anyway" -doing what it is we need to do. It has nothing to do with finding methods to make the fear go away and feel better before we can act. Sometimes fear does diminish over time or with practice. Competence breeds confidence. If I dive off a ten meter tower, I'm going to be afraid the first number of times I try it, but eventually I'll become accustomed to it, learn how to do it well, safely, consistently -I won't feel afraid anymore-until I try a new dive which I haven't yet accomplished. Fear comes and goes and, as does any emotion. We don't have any direct control over it in the sense of being able to just will it away or banish it. It's quite natural, even appropriate, to feel fear in many situations. When someone asks, "When should I let fear guide me and listen to it, and when should I ignore it and act anyway?" I offer the following: When the fear is objective-that is fear for our physical safety-when we might die or be injured, we need to listen to the fear, let it be our guide and remind us to prepare well, be patient, stay alert, take precautions or avoid the situation. But if a fear is subjective-fear of embarrassment or shame, looking foolish, being rejected, or fear of the unknown-we need to acknowledge the fear, but act anyway.
When someone says, "I can't do something because I'm too afraid," they're usually lying to themselves. For example, I can't levitate or walk through walls. But if I say, "I can't speak in public because I'm too afraid," or "I can't do this or that because it's just too hard," what I'm really saying is, "I choose not to do it because it makes me feel too uncomfortable." That's fine; we have free will and can make choices. But let's not fool ourselves that the fear is somehow stopping us. And when we say, "I'm a phobic-I've been diagnosed," all we're really saying is, "I'm really uncomfortable." So we get flu-like symptoms-highly unpleasant, to be sure-our heart may palpitate; we feel nauseous; we get pale; we may hyperventilate; our knees may shake. But we can still do it. We can take a deep, slow breath; we can relax our body; that is in our control. And then we can do what we fear. It may not feel pleasant, but if it's our goal to do it, we can.

- 3 -

 
Next Page
 

Articles | Transcripts | Therapeutic Scripts | Contributors | Newsletter | Contact Us

 
© 2004 www.ericksonian.com All rights reserved.