home | what's new | other sitescontact | about




Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity


Soulmate, Myself:
Omega Point

Krishnamurti offered the insightful remark that, when we find God, or the truth – and, we shall add, the true mate as part of the truth – this discovery will come to us, he said, by way of “recognition”; literally, "a knowing again, consciousness that a given object is identical with an object previously" known (1798, Wordsworth). But how shall we recognize, how shall we "know again," God, the truth, or the true mate?



return to "contents" page



Editor's prefatory comment:


Jiddu Krishnamurti
1895 - 1986

For sixty years Krishnamurti traveled the world, lecturing on concepts such as, what I call, the ego, the false and true selves, and the inner riches of the soul. Others have spoken of these matters, but not over so long a time, and not in the varied way that he does.

On the WG page devoted to his lectures, I’ve transcribed many of them. What I notice is that, while his subject matter never strays very far from primary concepts, he often presents them with new terminology and fresh perspective. He's unique in this way.

His February 10, 1971 lecture, in my view, is particularly packed with novel explanations concerning signature themes. These are beneficial to help us better understand five topics, impinging on his main theses, which I’ve segregated for special consideration:

seeking God

seeking the truth

seeking the true mate

the meaning of “praying always”

the errant reincarnation, emphasizing experience

Below, we find Kairissi and Elenchus discussing and debating K’s February 10, 1971 lecture, with special focus on our five topics in question.




Kairissi. Elenchus, as first order of business, I’d like to encourage our readers to survey K’s February 10, 1971 discourse. We’ll be referring to it often, but a first-hand review would be ideal.

Elenchus. There’s a lot in that lecture, I’m hoping we can do it justice concerning our “five topics.”

K. How shall we begin?

'recognition' literally means 'to know again'

E. I’d like to note that, when I first heard of our discussion assignment, a feeling of complexity fell upon me: “This is a large task,” I thought, “speaking of the five topics.” But as my head cleared I realized that the underlying basis of “the five” was identical – and, seeing this, a perception of simplicity swept away misgivings.

K. Say more on this, Elenchus.

E. Jiddu spoke of “recognition.” The root idea is “to know again.” When we properly perceive “the five”, a sense of familiarity will accompany.

Krishnamurti: "Recognition" implies previous knowledge, otherwise you cannot recognise. I cannot recognise you if I had not met you yesterday. Therefore when I say "this is truth", I have already known it and therefore it is not [new] truth. So a man who is seeking truth [without recognition] lives a life of hypocrisy, because his truth is the projection of his memory, of his desires, of his intention to find something other than "what is", a formula. So seeking implies duality - the one who seeks and the thing sought after - and where there is duality there is conflict. That is wastage of energy. So you can never find it, you can never invite it.

E. There is much here. We'll have to proceed slowly.

K. But what does this really mean, Elenchus? When we learn a truth, we also know that it’s something new: we’ve grown, now we see, and we understand that we didn’t know this before.

E. At the surface of life this is true. But, at a deeper level, paradoxically, we also perceive a familiarity. There’s an inner harmony. We say we “resonate” with the idea.

'resonate' means 'to sound again'

K. Strangely, “resonate,” too, means “to sound again” – as if we’ve heard it before. Have we heard it before?

E. Again, at the surface of life, we’ve not heard it before, we’ve not known it before, and yet, on a deeper level, it resonates with us, somehow it all feels so familiar.

a perception of destiny

K. I’m playing “devil’s advocate" in my disbelief because I think we do understand what this means. When we feel this way about something, we’re prone to say things like, “It’s my destiny to have this,” or “I feel I’ve always known you,” or “It just seems so right.”

E. And here's what I think what this means for “the five topics.” Though the information might be new to us, a certain sense of foreordination, a coming face-to-face with inevitability might meet us.

K. In our heart-of-hearts, though unexpressed, unarticulated, we always knew it had to be that way.

Socrates: 'all learning is recollection'

E. All this reminds us of a precept in philosophy, the “doctrine of innate ideas.” It’s famously put forward in Plato’s Meno. Therein we find Socrates asserting that “all learning is recollection.” As evidence, he speaks to an uneducated slave boy about a geometry problem. The boy cannot solve the problem. However, with the aid of guiding questions by Socrates, the untutored slave does grasp the essence of the math problem.

K. We should point out that “all learning is recollection” does not refer to facts of the world: that protons live in the atom’s nucleus, that the heart is like a pump, or that stars burn hydrogen. And, for the slave boy, it doesn't mean that you'll automatically know the technicalities of Euclid's theorems of geometry.

E. It’s not about facts of the world, which must be gained by empirical research led by the brain, but we refer to an underlying sense of harmony and proportion.

K. And is this not one of the classical definitions of beauty? And isn’t this sense of the beautiful what the greatest scientists declared to be their best guide toward their discoveries?

E. All this is extremely interesting, but we must avoid the temptation of straying too far from our assigned topics. The point for us at the moment, I think, is that Krishnamurti is correct, a principle of “recognition” does come into play with a perception of truth.

Editor’s note: This sense of “recognition,” when one experiences it full force, especially at the moment of realization of the identity of one’s Twin, can be “so magnetic, so overwhelming” – Silver Birch used these phrases – that one might be sent into a state of swooning disorientation. This is not a minor event. This mystical experience brings with it floodtide perceptions of “you are just like me,” of the “utter familiarity,” of “coming home,” of “I now know that I have always loved you,” of “soulmate myself.” As such, it is understandable, if one has been indoctrinated by one’s nomos culture to believe in reincarnation, that this inundation of “recognition” should be attributed to “past lives.” Socrates himself fell into this misinterpretation. However, as we investigate further, we find another explanation becoming operative -- one that incorporates all the facts, natural law, and the teachings of the ancient Guides on the other side -- with the doctrine of “R” falling irretrievably apart. See the reincarnation page for 80 articles exploring the many details of its error.

a priori

K. We do have an inborn sense of some things. We come into this world “knowing”, or with a proclivity toward knowing, certain things. Philosophers use the term a priori that is, prior to experience, prior to fact-gathering and inductive reasoning. We do have certain innate abilities, from day one. For example, the ability to learn and speak languages. All healthy babies pick this up virtually immediately.

the essence of what it means to be human, crafts and structures the mind

E. But, I would say, our most quintessentially human, inborn attribute relates to the very structuring of the mind our desire to make sense of the world, to rationalize, to seek for order, harmony, proportion – beauty, if you will – our desire to grow, to solve problems, to love, to know, to become more. This is what it means to be human.

'made in the image'

K. It strikes me this moment what "made in the image" is all about. And so when we assert that the truth, when we meet it, will be a form of recognition, we’re really saying that it will conform to the innate, deep structures of godly potential embedded within the mind.

E. All this serves as grand prelude to “the five.” Let’s see if we can make good on it.

K. We should start with the easy one, something we’ve often talked about.

seeking the true mate

K. Jiddu said that, when we go seeking for God or the truth, we immediately fall into trouble. And let's include the true mate here because he's part of the truth.

Krishnamurti: “You will never find it if you seek it. You understand the answer? You will never find it if you run after it."

E. This sounds strange. How are we supposed to find something if we don’t go looking for it?

K. His remark sounds like something from the Gospel Of Thomas. The Jesus of Thomas makes jarring statements like “I am not your teacher”.

E. Or here’s a good one that will make people mad: Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits."

K. Thomas is such a great book, and it’s our wish that everyone would read it. It’s so different from the usual religious teaching. The Jesus of Thomas will almost never give you a straight answer. He addresses the underlying spirit of questions and ignores the surface meaning. In this he means to say,

You cannot access a God who is spirit by physical means. What you do on the outside is not of primary importance, but only your motivations and deep intentions of your heart. Your conduct needs to reflect what you are on the deep inside.”

E. Tell us, Kriss, how this relates to the true mate.

K. You cannot find a true mate, with whom you have a spirit-connection, by physical means. This is why we've often said that you cannot find your true mate by going on a hunting expedition.

E. And this is Krishnamurti’s instruction with “You will never find it if you seek it.”

K. Finding your true mate is not like going to a department store to find a new couch or fishing rod. How would you even know him when you find him? It’s as Krishnamurti said. The real problem is one of recognition. You won’t know him, you won’t recognize him, unless you first come to know your own deepest self.

E. Kriss, I’d like to say that your comment in “The Wedding Song” is just about the best answer to this question. Let me quote what you said there:

K. I would like to say something to the “Marys” of the
My Dears, you will not find that for which you so
earnestly seek by the methods you’ve allowed. That
inner “call,” which yearns to satisfy the womanly
unfulfilled heart, cannot be addressed by anything
material and physical. Your true mate, “somewhere
out there,” as the song goes, is not primarily a physical
body to you. But John is. And that’s the problem
with John; to you, he’s just part of the materialistic
But that true one, just for you, is primarily in love
with your soul, not just your body. The true marriage is
a “union of spirits” not a union of anything physical.
The physical element, fundamentally, impacts the
true marriage not at all. How could it? – we’re headed
for “the real world,” Summerland, wherein common
“flesh and blood” no longer exist. You must prepare
for that coming real world. And you must prepare
yourself to find that true one who, to you, is primarily
a spiritual entity, and no mere mortal body

E. It’s a powerful concept – “Your true mate is
not primarily a physical body to you. But John is.”

K. I find it very comforting to know that the boy God
meant for me to be with is in love with my soul, the person I
really am on the deep inside, and not just the external packaging.

E. Thank you, Kriss, but, as we leave this segment, I don't think we've answered the question, "How shall one recognize one's true mate?"

K. I think "made in the image" also means "custom-crafted." One's true mate is not purchased "off the rack", he's not just a random draw from the many "fish in the sea." Because one's true mate specifically answers private definitions of happiness, it goes not too far to say that his image, so to speak, is etched upon her soul. And when she meets him, if she's spiritually advanced enough to have her best "radar" in place, she will surely recognize him as "the one." Women, I venture to say, because Love is their natural domain, know this to be true, and are a little better able to do this, more than our Neanderthal brethren.

E. Uh-huh.

seeking God

K. There is little difference, in principle, between finding the true mate and finding God. Most people approach both of these from a materialistic point of view. They believe that God is “out there,” in the material universe. Well, God is spirit, and so God’s essence is everywhere – but this fact of ubiquity will not help us to find God.

E. We cannot “seize”, as Krishnamurti used the term, God or the truth by “running after it,” grasping for it, as if it were a 3-D object in the material universe. This is why those who call themselves “seekers” will forever remain seekers and never find what they’re looking for.

K. People seek for God in materialism: by religious rituals, magic hand-signs and magic words, memorized prayers; in religious pomp and pageantry, in formulas and methods, in so-called holy days; by following the directives of gurus, saints, by deferring to infallible ones, and other Dear Leaders; by doing what parents and peer-group command, what heritage and custom dictate, what "local nomos" demands - but all of these lead us to failure, to remain seekers forever.

E. Elizabeth Fry, via direct-voice medium, Leslie Flint, is just about our favorite teacher on the other side as she offers her wisdom:

“… you cannot, surely, build a truly spiritual realization of God on something which is of a material conception – God is not found, in a sense, in buildings or places … God is found within one’s soul, within one’s inner consciousness.”

K. Elenchus, can you summarize what is needed, that which virtually the whole world has missed?

E. We have made it so difficult. The average person believes that only the religious elites have access to God. Most people fear that God would never speak to or directly teach the common man or woman. But this is a tragic mistake and veers widely from the mark of God’s ways.

K. And what is needed?

E. Simply quiet the mind, “go within,” and – as we learn to do this, over time – God will become more and more real to us.

K. And, I would just like to add, the principle of “recognition” is very much in play here. As we discover “God within,” as we come to know our own private link to divinity, it will all feel very “familiar,” natural, and with a sense of rightness. We will “recognize” the essence of God because our “made in the image” capacities were designed to perceive the reality of God.

seeking the truth

E. As we proceed with our discussion, I think it becomes clear that “the five” have much in common; in fact, each might be viewed as an aspect of the others.

K. And why would you say this is the case?

E. In all the universe, and also in all worlds of the other side, only consciousness – some would prefer the word “spirit” -- is real. All derives from consciousness. God is the Great Spirit - the Source, the Universal Consciousness and Intelligence.

K. And truth?

E. Truth means “reality” or “what is.”

K. This "reality" is what people fight when we say "this should not be happening."

E. But as we grow in our understanding of God, we begin to perceive that all things have meaning, and even so-called "evil" plays an important part in the development of humankind.

K. And so, all that happens on the sorrowful planet Earth is part of "the truth," all that occurs does so within the purposes of God. But the materialistic mindset cannot see this.

E. As we've said, the material world is part of reality, but when people speak of finding or seeking the truth they mean “ultimate reality.” And ultimate reality has a basis in consciousness, not matter; matter derives from consciousness. The great scientists of history affirm this. We have 100 articles on the “quantum mechanics” page exploring this from all sorts of angles.

K. It’s interesting, isn’t it – the material universe is part of reality, part of “the truth,” but there will be no satisfaction or peace until “truth” is found deep within one’s own being. And what does this mean?

E. When we find “the truth” within, we gain a “God’s eye-view,” a wide perspective, on the nature of things, and how we fit into it. We begin to perceive that we are loved, that we have a future in the Family of God, and by means of this “inner resonance,” we find our joy and strength.

K. Our “made in the image” internal structure receives this “knowing” of the truth as a form of recognition. It feels right and comforting to us.

E. It feels like coming home.

the meaning of 'praying always'

E. I’ve been looking forward to talking about this.

K. And, of course, we have an entire article on the subject of prayer.

E. It’s a good article, but I thought that seeing prayer within the context of “the five” would add new depth of meaning.

K. What are you seeing?

E. In our discussion to this point, we’ve acknowledged that only consciousness is real, consciousness is primary, not matter; only the things of the spirit might impart enduring happiness. And a proper view of prayer will incorporate this understanding.

K. In the article on prayer, we emphasized that it's not meant to be a lobbying effort to make God do what we want. This venal view of prayer is problematic on many levels: we don’t even know what’s good for us, and those things truly good are already being worked on for us by God and the Guides.

E. Which begs the question, why then should we ask?

K. There is a place for asking, but, as we mature in our relationship with God, we don’t really ask as much for “things” anymore, because these are already being looked after.

E. And so remind us, what did the apostle Paul mean when he said, “pray always,” “pray without ceasing”?

K. He certainly did not mean “be in a constant frantic state of ‘gimmee, gimmee,’ of twisting God’s arm to do our will.”

E. Then what?

K. Instead of asking for “things,” we are to ask – which is the essential meaning of the word “prayer” – to always be in communion with the Great Spirit. As we come to live in this elevated level of consciousness, all of our troubles fade away in a satisfaction of knowing God intimately.

E. They fade away because, in that state of prayer, we "recognize" that everything in life is unfolding for the best. We might not always be happy -- because happiness is related to happenings, which we don't control -- but the spiritual mind always knows an element of joy.

the errant reincarnation, emphasizing experience

K. We come to the last of “the five.”

E. I’m glad that “R” is included on the list because its error might be more readily perceived within a context of the essence of spirituality – an accessing of the all-pervasive consciousness or spirit.

K. The primary battleground of “R” is that of emphasizing experience. The proponents of reincarnation are convinced that more experience will translate into more spirituality.

E. It's the materialistic view. But I would challenge any true-believer of “R” to credibly defend this thesis.

K. Some of the best teachers on the other side, like Dr. Pebbles (here and here), say that those who crave to come back, those who put too much emphasis on experience, do so because they have not yet found the life within.

E. And that's the real issue. Experience is all they know, and so they think it's the winning ticket.

K. Dr. Peebles on the other side speaks so forcibly:

"Do not become hypnotized in any way by dogma, creed, or belief [which supports reincarnation], but find God within yourself and be free. Ask to hear, to see, to feel, and to know God, then your eyes will be opened to spiritual things and [then] you will not want to come back to this earth life again."

Editor's note: Dr. Peebles passed on in 1922. His testimony offered via Anna Wickland is some of the wisest and most helpful I’ve encountered over the years. However, during the last hundred years, extending to the present day, several other mediums have claimed that Peebles speaks through them. I have not reviewed them all but, one of them especially, to be frank, I do not believe that the Dr. Peebles we’ve known is speaking. The current version strikes me as a silly spirit, mouthing empty platitudes, babbling, moreover, at times, spewing nonsense, teachings contrary to natural law, of the sort that the 1922 Peebles would disown. One needs to be careful of identities as mischievous spirits are not unknown to impersonate a famous teacher.

E. There is no equivocation with him. Our readers are encouraged to review his entire fervent testimony.

K. We’ve seen that “the four” draw life and strength from the inner “recognition”. It's a realization of the "inner life." Notice how Dr. Peebles points out the same: "Ask to hear, to see, to feel, and to know God, then your eyes will be opened to spiritual things and [then] you will not want to come back to this earth life again."

E. By "ask" he means "pray" to be shown the real life within. This is a great example of Paul's "pray without ceasing."

K. This is what we should be asking for.

E. The inner recognition is what truly opens the eyes. It happens in one moment of clarity, not in a hundred-thousand lives. It's the sense of “coming home,” the “utter familiarity,” that moves us deeply and elevates to a more lofty plane of consciousness. This occurs in a timeless moment of revelation.

K. Krishanmurti speaks much of the “time-bound” mental view. The myopic brain, he says, can never find freedom. By “time-bound” he means a mind that seeks for safety and security in the past or future. We seek to be free from the hurts of the past, or we look to the future as utopian salvation, but none of this escapism addresses the core issue – that of, the materialistic mind, terrified of its mortality.

E. I would suggest that we direct our readers to the full text of his February 10, 1971 lecture. We should not reproduce it here; it comes with much commentary by the author. Our opportunity to provide clarification, I think, rests in placing “R” firmly within a wider platform of consciousness-based concepts. In other words, we see the previous “four” finding their vitality in the all-pervasiveness of spirit, of consciousness; that, a full-bodied acceptance of this life of God, accessed within one’s own deeper person, is the means by which we evolve and advance ourselves – not by an endless iteration of materially-minded incarnations.

K. Elenchus, before we leave this subject, a comparison of “R” to the worldly view of marriage might help us. When John and Mary lose their initial “fever,” marriage counselors will admonish, “You need to work on your marriage. You need to do the things that caused you to fall in love in the first place. You need to do romantic things in order to rekindle romance.” However, as everyone knows, and I’ll bet you a dollar to say, no one in the history of the world has ever revived the corpse of a dead “fever” by multiplying romantic “experiences”. It doesn’t work that way, and everybody knows it. Once the biologically-based “fever” of early romance is gone, it’s not coming back. And it doesn’t matter how many experiences you pile up to reignite the flame, it’s over.

E. This is a good analogy. True romance, the true marriage, the true spiritual-erotic connection, has nothing whatever to do with experiences. If love is true, it will be there, even if you try your best to get rid of it, and if it’s not true, you can try your hardest to drum-up the feelings, but you will fail. And “experience” will not change the situation a whit.

True spirituality is gained only by accessing the 'inner life'. Spirituality is about burgeoning life, blossoming life, unfolding life, and this life comes only from God; life comes only from life. Experience can prune, scintillate, and offer choices, but it cannot impart life. This is the crux of the error and where the believers in "R" go wrong.

K. The entire premise of “R” is deeply flawed. Experience cannot lift one’s level of spirituality, of consciousness, one micron, and it doesn’t matter if you try this for a hundred-thousand lives, it won’t change things a bit. The same old materialistic mind will remain intact.

E. What is needed is an accessing of the “life within.” And that occurs in one timeless moment.

Editor's note: See the "reincarnation" page for 80 articles exploring the nuances of error of this quasi-religious tenet.


the thread that unravels the entire sweater

Life comes only from life. Life is not an emergent property of inert matter but is the signature-evidence of consciousness-spirit. Wherever there is life, we see derivation of consciousness-spirit, the fingerprints of the Great Spirit.

Those who have found the “life within” perceive all this to be real and true. Because they have known the subtle whisperings of “God within,” they have no need to believe. They themselves, the sanctified mind, become veridical evidence, to themselves, of the existence of God.

But the materialistic mindset sees all this as fable. It is like the blind man who has never witnessed the glories of a sunset or blossoming rose; or like Plato’s denizens of the cave who scoff that a world exists above ground.

To these, those who have not yet known the “inner life,” the stultifying hand of inanimate materialism rules. Unable “to hear, to see, to feel, and to know God,” as Dr. Peebles admonished, they languish in despairing perceptions of a meaningless universe. They believe that matter serves as bedrock of reality, and, in this delusion, each – not just one -- of “the five topics” suffers perversion and distortion:

God: If a higher power is sought at all, it is a straw-god, a mere thought-form in the head, with no basis in “what is.” The god of materialists is pursued by external means, by legalism, by rituals, pageantry, formularies, magic words and magic hand-signs, by memorized prayers, by so-called holy days, by veneration of purported holier-than-though saints and infallible ones. This god is seen as “out there,” an element of the 3-D cosmos; a sky-god, unapproachable, severe, capricious. But none of this materialistic view rises beyond the level of fantasy.

Truth: To the materialist, truth, or reality, seems a forbidding thing. One’s existence in the universe stands ever in jeopardy, colored by perceptions of “I don’t have enough” because “I am not enough.” Caught in this dystopian mind-prison, the materialist despairs of ever finding lasting happiness and contents himself with fleeting grasps at pleasure, at the expense of others – which is the essence of evil.

True mate: A companion to the materialist is hardly more than pleasure-source; an asset on the balance sheet, a property interest, employed to “make me happy.” The more detached one becomes from spiritual reality, the more one will attempt to sedate oneself, will escape from his despair with bromides, will compensate for a “hole in the heart” by rabid quest for sensual pleasure, mere bio-stimulation; further, the more depersonalized will become the mate in this Machiavellian process. This mere bed-mate, this flesh-mate - not soul-mate - is chosen for “perfect resume” traits in a mercenary “hiring process” to serve private interests, with little to no desire for mind-to-mind union.

Prayer: If one is consumed by fevered and dark images of “not enough,” then, of course, prayer will devolve to little more than peddling techniques to get what one wants from deity. This latter entity is imagined to be lofty, out-of-touch, impassive; as such, prayer becomes a “pot-banging, drum-beating” exercise to awaken the uncaring god. Much speaking, much pleading, much importuning is deemed to be effective to awaken this sleeping god. However, all of this sacrilegious lobbying effort means for nothing, and will avail nothing.

Reincarnation: A materialist is blind to the “life within,” knows nothing of life coming only from life, only from God. In this existential deficit, this existential crisis, he imagines, as materialists do, that life springs unbidden from inert matter. In materialistic science, this distorted view issues in belief in the Big Bang, a “something from nothing” event. However, as better thinkers have wryly pointed out, “If you can believe that the whole universe sprang from nothing, then, what can’t you believe?” Yes – what can’t you believe? And in this vein of “life emanating from nothing,” we find a near-kin sister-view: life, higher sentient life, a purported evolved life, flowing from non-life, from mere experience, from going through the motions of what didn’t work the first time, didn’t work for others, and has never worked for anyone. Yes, what can't you believe? However, this repackaged “life from non-life” is accepted by millions as the ripest wisdom – but only by those who have not known the inner “God-life.”

We could go on in our iconoclasm; indeed, a failure to access or recognize the “inner life” will impinge upon – not just “the five” but -- every aspect of thought and action. It colors everything that one does, plans, or imagines.

The misadventure of not perceiving the “inner God-life” will derail one’s spiritual growth and, in hard-core cases, will send one to the Dark Realms for the “mandated solitude and introspection.

This most fundamental failure of one's existence is the proverbial thread that will unravel the entire sweater of one's godly potential and future.



concluding statement

The full text of the February 10, 1971 lecture offers valuable discourse concerning our topic at hand, and the reader is encouraged to peruse the entirety.

Krishnamurti does well in his advice concerning how to access the life within. This is very important, but the answer is very simple.

We advance ourselves simply by noticing, by observing the “inner discord” of the materialistic mind. The process of spiritual growth is as natural as a tiny acorn germinating - but then to become the majestic oak.

See the full discussion.


One of the universe’s great paradoxes:

true spirituality, one’s higher sentience, a better level of consciousness, is not obtained by working very hard, by religious rituals, by prayer, fasting, vow, or pilgrimage - but simply by quietly observing the inner disorder

What is it like?

It is like planting an acorn; within, lies dormant a towering, mighty oak. But how is this bold expression of floral life brought to manifestation? - not by great effort or trying very hard, not by “seizing” for advantage...





How does observing the “inner disorder” advance us spiritually?

Strictly speaking, simply seeing the workings of the dysfunctional ego in one’s own head will avail us little. But here’s what can happen next.

On the “surrender and acceptance” page we spoke of “minding the gap.” We are to come to the point of being able to mentally see that "the true self, the real me, is here” and “over there, quite distinct from me, the real me, are the clamorings of the ego.” In other words, we see the disorder without identifying with it, we see it as "not me."

When we perceive this “gap,” we have discovered our authentic selves, the part of us linked to God. This linkage constitutes one’s source of life and spirituality.