Honor Your Word as Yourself

In contemplating the phrase: “Honor your word as yourself” it seems that:

Self is correlated with identity, and this is straightforward until we consider the term, yourself. Here is a strong inference of one identity possessing another identity. If that is so, it brings up some questions:  What self is possessing the other self? What is the nature of each of these selves? And, what would any of this have to do with one’s word?

Two Identities, two Selves?

Self, is defined as: “a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others.” This brings in the notion of each self being unique and distinct from any other self. That definition seems to be characterizing the separated, individualized self, but what are we to make of the concept of the higher self, or the true self? This concept infers a lower self or a false self. Could the separated self be the lower self that the higher self possesses? Could the lower self function as a representative, or agent, or face, or even icon of the higher self in lower or denser planes than the higher self exists upon? Asked another way, could the lower self be the way that the higher self shows up in the three worlds?

Comparing the higher and lower selves, it seems that the self who I woke up being in this incarnated life is not a particularly good representation of the higher self as I have come to know it. The lower self can easily be self-absorbed, selfish, and self-centered; while the higher self seems interested in group good and is relatively selfless in the individual sense. The lower self seems to be form-identified, and with that comes fear of pain and death. On the other hand, the higher self seems to have much less identity as form as we know it, and cares much less about pain, discomfort, security, and death. The lower self seems to be complicated and characterized by inconsistency, acting one way in one set of circumstances, and another way in another.  By contrast, the higher self seems to be much less complicated and consistently for the good of the group, given any circumstances. The lower self seems conflicted within its own self, even to the point of desiring and hating the same thing at the same time (acclaim? doughnuts?); while the higher self seems at peace operating from a unifying purpose. 

Given the higher and lower self, there seems to be a relationship between them. Simply being able to take a perspective on the question of the higher and lower selves opens the possibility of a third self that can stand between and observe the higher and lower selves. This points to the possibility that self may not be as fixed an entity as we might assume at first, and that self might actually be spread across quite an array of states of being. 

If the lower self is the way that the higher self shows up in the three worlds, how could it be that the lower self represents the nature of the higher self so poorly? And if it is a poor representation, why?  How could the lower self seem to lack a consciously directed design? 

It might be that the lower self was not designed at all. The lower self might be simply an effect. The higher self might be willingly participating in activity in the three worlds, where the purpose of that activity was something other than the creation of a well-designed reflection of its nature. This purpose would most likely have something to do with the purpose and plans of the Logos. We have been told that our Logos is involved in the redemption of the substance of this planet, and is doing so in an unusual and even experimental way. The experiment could be characterized by involving into and identifying with and as the unredeemed substance of this planet. It could be that this involvement is implemented through incarnation which comes at the price of losing continuity of identity as, and consciousness of being the One Life of the Logos. These incarnations are form-identified, and thus take on the natural, intelligent, characteristics of separation of form as we know it in the three worlds. 

Karma seems to be the instructive element for the form-identified incarnations. In this process of incarnation, there seems to be a carrying forward into successive incarnations of the lessons learned by being subject to the law of karma. There is also a carrying forward of liabilities, or the lessons yet to be learned through the law of karma. There are a variety of ways of conceptualizing this carrying forward; in this paper we will take one that is of course unprovable, but one that has been suggested, and that is plausible if one looks at the incarnation process through this concept. 

Perhaps at the time of death of the physical body of each form-identified incarnation, the self of that incarnation remains and is still identified as the forms of that incarnation. Of course the physical body disintegrates, but the forms of emotion and thought that the incarnating consciousness identifies as could possibly remain as a discarnate self. This, still form-identified consciousness of an incarnation could be carried into the next incarnation along with the new incarnation. 

After many incarnations, this becomes a group, and this incarnate group could explain many of the seeming mysteries of incarnate life. It could throw light upon precocious genius or talent as the periodic taking over of the incarnation by a previous incarnation who had progressed far along a certain line. It could explain unwarranted aversions or fears as being the reactions of a previous self who had not resolved its experiences with certain circumstances. The same could be said about unexplained attractions or addictions, as well as any unwarranted and unexplained reactions to circumstances. It could explain internal self-conflict as actual conflict between previous selves, each experiencing life from vastly different form-identifications. It might also explain how certain reactions considered long-sense left behind can take over the present incarnation temporarily as a strong reaction to circumstances.  

Given the possibility of the current incarnation being the collection of all the previous incarnations, we might well ask what possible purpose could this collection serve? The purpose could have its origin in the redemptive experiment of the Logos. It could be that these form-identified incarnations are a method of involving the consciousness as (through identifying as) the unredeemed substance. This gives the overall consciousness, the consciousness directing the incarnation process (the higher self), deep access to that substance, that access provided through the consciousness identified as the substance. In this light, consciousness as self and selves might provide then the key to the redemptive process. It might be through consciousness that the qualities of the Divine Second Aspect are brought to life within the collected substance. 

The Created Self and One’s Word

The problem facing the higher self who is ready to bring these qualities to life within the unredeemed substance, is that the self of each of these incarnations is identified as the substance configured as its manifestation. As far as each self is concerned, this is not a voluntary identification. It is much less a choice, and more like a prison. How will the higher self liberate this imprisoned consciousness in order for it to become part of the incarnate agent of the second aspect? One way might be by the conscious creation of a new self, a self who is a more accurate representative of the higher self. This new self would not be as bound by the form-identification of its past selves, and could be much more responsive to the originating purpose for the previous incarnations (redemption of substance) as well as the immediate one (liberating the prisoner of form). It could serve to awaken the form-identified consciousness of past incarnations to the life, being, and qualities of the second aspect, at once freeing consciousness and requalifying the substance.  

Given this back ground, we might well ask what could this consciously created self have to do with word? We are familiar with the meaning of word as a spoken or written expression. Considering the root of word from the Greek, logos, and an English form, logo, word might be considered as emblem, or symbol. A good symbol is one that conveys the intent, quality, and intelligence of what its creator is attempting to convey. A symbol can be the revealing face of what is being conveyed. If a creator is trying to convey its own livingness, this symbol itself would be alive. If the creator is trying to convey its conscious life, this symbol would be conscious. If the creator was trying to convey its intelligently creative potential, this symbol itself would be creative. 

Such a living, conscious, intelligent symbol is our planetary logos. We are told that Sanat Kumara is the living symbol of a greater being. We are told that the Logos inhabits the cosmic mental, astral, and physical planes, and is the central directing life of the system of manifestation created by that greater being.  In that sense, Sanat Kumara is the self of this greater being, and through the use of the term, logos, that word and self are somehow equated. That takes us back to the original sentence “Honor your word as yourself.” It might be stretching the point to say that your word in the greater sense, is yourself. Stretching it a bit further, it might be that the human self is also the logos of the greater, higher self; it might be considered the living word of the greater self. 

When circumstance and the evolution of the incarnate self align, the higher self might be ready and able to create a new self, i.e., in a sense, say a new word that allows a more meaningful, useful incarnated self.  If this self is consciously created to be the agent of the higher self, this human logos could become the organizing, purposeful principle of incarnate life, and, of utmost importance, this self would be conscious of being the incarnation of the higher self. This conscious realization would not necessarily, or even probably mean that this self is as fully conscious as the higher self is on its own plane of existence, but it would be sure that it is the expression of the higher self in the three worlds. It would be the conscious soul, incarnate, evolving an ever deeper relationship with the higher self. 

It would not be likely that this human logos would be created to avoid or move past all the previous incarnations, all the previous selves. More likely, this logos would be created as the redeemer, teacher, healer, and administrative focus for the group of the previous selves. This logos would consider all the previous selves as its full humanity, each self being a treasure of experience and living relationship with the substance awaiting redemption. This logos is a self who knows itself through the inclusive nature of consciousness as both the higher self and the agency of the higher self in the three worlds. It knows the exhilaration of the nature of matter at-oned with the nature of spirit; it is form at-oned with its purpose. It acts to free the consciousness identified as form, and in so doing free the substance as well as the devas involved in this Logoic project, bringing the beauty of the second aspect to life in both. 

In again reconsidering “Honor your word as yourself,” I can see that, so far, I have honored neither. This because I have moved inconsistently and unconsciously in the realm of identification, sometimes being one or many of the group of previous selves, sometimes being the latest incarnate self, and sometimes consciously creating a new self. It is all too easy to take all of these selves for my usual self, and never really acknowledge or honor any. It is possible that because I am so accustomed to being myself, I am overlooking the fact that all of these selves are miracles, and all are intrinsic to this grand and honorable experiment of our Logos. 

It is possible to honor the continuing pronouncement of this logos into livingness, honoring at the same time the huge sacrificial act of the prisoners of form. 

The Self as Group?

The creation of this self might be considered a conscious incarnation of the second aspect. At its core it is the consciousness of the oneness of the One Life of this planet taking root in substance; yet it is born as the son, the second aspect whose essential nature is group. It could be considered as group consciousness, group beingness, group intelligence, group livingness, or in a word: group-ness. This self, in a way that words cannot fully express, lives simultaneously as group and as individual. So this self might be constituted differently than selves seem to be when only considering the individuality of self. In exerting and including its identity through all the incarnate selves it has ever been, this self becomes conscious of being the self at the heart of all individuals. This is not some abstraction of group, but rather the group-ness at the core of each individuality, becoming more alive and more awake and more fully manifested. 

This groupness is the natural state of the consciously created self, and this provides the opportunity to become the teacher of angels and men. Its purpose for existence is the incarnation of the second aspect as the re-qualifier of the substance of this planet. This logos is consciously intended and continually pronounced or expressed through the evolution of its being. Its pronouncement is evidenced as its living activity, and its activity is bringing wisdom and love to life in and through the devas of this world. In a sense, bringing wisdom and love to life converts the deva into an angel. This self teaches and ministers to the devas through the agency of the consciousness carried over from previous incarnations, the consciousness identified, basically, as these same devas of its expression. This self is redeemer, but also savior. It saves, or better, frees the consciousness from its exclusive identification as the deva, and it frees the deva from the role thrust upon it by the consciousness identifying with it.  

Groupness allows this self to identify with the consciousness in all the previous incarnations as itself, and this regardless of what that consciousness is identified as. This might add a deeper meaning to the injunction:  know thyself, and to thine own self be true. This created human logos is consciousness, the second aspect, itself, and it knows all consciousness to be itself. It starts the process of Divine redemption with its own previous incarnations, and in the process realizes that this has been going on for a long time. All of the development of virtue, all the discipline, including all the agony and apparent failure associated with it, over many lives has been a part of this. The consciously created self is the beginning of the culmination of this age old occupation. 

Changing the Conversation

How would this consciously created self go about reconnecting its identity with all of the previous incarnations? It might start with words, and the realization that words are creations, effects, but realizing also that words are causes. The previous selves are in a sense partly created through words. Words are powerful. The words coming from the environment and circumstances of any incarnation have a powerful effect on that incarnation. Words come to the new incarnate as stories, and consider the effect that the stories of the family, community, religion, education, government, and the economy have on the new self forming its identity. In addition to this, each previous incarnation has a story of its own to tell. It is no wonder that the new incarnate takes these stories as its own story. In a broad sense these words and stories, stored as thought, feeling, and substance constitute the dweller on the threshold individually and as the whole of humanity. This huge reservoir of words, tells us, to a great extent who we are as incarnate beings.

For incarnation after incarnation, the incarnating self collapses into the incarnate life, that life identified exclusively as its forms of manifestation. There comes an incarnation when the self is ready to observe the interior life, and this self might discover a stream of words that seems to be the voicing of one’s own thoughts and feelings. The observer eventually finds a distinction between who the observer is and what the word stream says it is. If this observer is strong enough and steady enough to withstand the onslaught of words, the observer can begin to regard these words for what they are: the commentary of the previous form-identified incarnations on the world the new self is experiencing. Through refusing to be collapsed into the traditions of the form-identified incarnate life, this new self can be used by the higher self to communicate and be an agent of the creation of an incarnate life identified as the second aspect, the soul, the higher self, itself. 

This soul-identified self creates a new kind of incarnation by changing the conversation. Instead of either becoming the word stream of the previous incarnations, or seeking to deny or avoid that stream, this new self can engage that word stream in a dialogue. With the honor that the sacrificial act the previous incarnations merit, the created self can truly and compassionately listen to the stories of the previous selves. In the atmosphere that love inevitably creates, the conversation can be broadened, enlivened, and brought to greater meaning. In this conversation, the form-identified selves can be reacquainted with its long-lost, soul-identified nature, and gradually released, saved from its imprisonment. 

This freedom to be the soul in incarnation seems to be one of the fruits of honoring one’s word as oneself. Another, and perhaps more significant fruit might be aiding the fulfillment of the redemptive purpose of our Logos.  In light of this contemplation, we might be able to expand the opening statement:

Honor your word, and all the words you have ever made, or will ever make, as yourself.