The
matrixes, as we refer to them in BodyTalk, describe
distortions of both inborn, inherited personality traits, and the inborn
masculine and feminine traits inherent in the psyche or beingness.
The primary matrixes relate most specifically
to the anima/animus or feminine/masculine psychic energies. This is because, as
distortions, they relate to gender.
At birth, the two psychic energies are drawn
upon and expressed to varying degrees. How much you draw on them as a child,
and for how long, is dependant upon the health of the body at birth and how
nurturing or otherwise your childhood environment is.
Initially,
the primary matrixes will form. These matrixes or personality modifications
have everything to do with the way in which you are taught verbally, and by
example, about your own gender, and your gender opposite.
The stronger the primary matrixes or
distortions of the feminine/masculine energies are, the harder it will be to
sustain any form of objectivity on self. Another way of saying this is that the
stronger the primary personality modifications or matrixes are, the harder it
will be to feel comfortable with yourself. This is because these matrixes will
keep you out of touch with “what comes naturally” to you in terms of the
natural inborn feminine/masculine traits and the inherited personality
traits.
The
lower self-esteem is, the harder you will try to cope with, or mask, what it is
you dislike about yourself. This dislike of self will, first and foremost,
relate to gender. It will have to do with the way you have learned to think
about yourself in terms of “being” a man or a woman, and it will relate to the
way you act out for others.
The
anima/animus energies express themselves in intellectual expression and
resulting behavior. For example, if anima/intuitive processes are not
sufficiently infused with animus rationale, then self-expression, or the
personality, will be labeled irrational.
This is because the anima provides a “felt sense” of the world, and if this
“felt sense” cannot be expressed or explained in “rational” terms it is usually
labeled irrational.
This
label will give rise to a whole host of other labels such as “useless,”
“stupid,” “weak,” etc. Because these descriptions are given to the body and
gender you are identified as, your first defense is to modify your expression
of that gender.
For
example, if anima/feminine psychic energy predominates in the female body, the
woman might try to adopt a more masculine way of expressing herself if these
traits are labeled negatively.
Anima
expression can also be criticized in a way that is deprecating to the woman yet
be seen as beneficial in her relationship to men. How this works is that feminine
traits are labeled irrational, but the woman is taught to believe that this
gives her a mystique vis-avis the male. What this mystique is, is that seeming
“irrationality” complements male logic, and makes the man feel more powerful
and superior.
The more the woman falls
under the spell of this delusion, the stronger the primary female matrix will
probably become. How this matrix will more than likely manifest will be in
terms of a female role-play of subservience or simpering, and poor
self-expression.
If this primary matrix becomes very strong,
the feminine/anima traits that are being parodied in female roles will become
increasingly hard to ignore and disown. The way the feminine psychic energies
will then express themselves is by projecting themselves onto others. The
stronger the matrix, the more volatile the anima energies will become, and this
volatility will be mirrored in others, and in the body of the person who is
disowning them. This can result in health problems, abusive relationships, and a
sense of the world being hostile.
By
this point it must also be noted that the animus/masculine energies inherent in
her psyche will have also been modified into a male matrix. This is because the
woman will have been given to understand that as an “irrational” being she is
incapable of animus rationale or logic. The male matrix is probably going to be
fairly weak in comparison to the female one, however, if the woman’s focus is
primarily directed towards her parody of female gender roles or the female matrix.
Alternatively,
the male matrix might be quite strong if the woman feels she needs to sustain
some form of control over her life. The female matrix will have everything to
do with the idea of controlling (as all matrixes do), because it is the result
of conformism, and the need to please, and thus to feel in control of her
emotions. However, the woman will probably rarely experience being in control,
especially if she is doing a really good of acting out roles that are in direct
conflict with her inborn personality traits. For this reason, the strength of
the male matrix will probably grow in direct proportion to the inability of the
woman to experience control via the female matrix.
The
more uncomfortable and distressing this dynamic becomes, the more likely it is
that the woman will start developing secondary matrixes. These secondary
matrixes will be colored by the primary matrixes in that they will also relate
to issues of control. The secondary matrixes, however, do not specifically have
to do with gender roles but have more to do with the idea of embellishing on
the personality in any way possible. In one way, the secondary matrixes are
embellishments on the primary matrixes. This means that they are actually an
extension of them.
In another way, often
times, rather than embellishing on the primary matrixes, the secondary matrixes
are adopted in order to temper the primary ones. For example, if a woman begins
to feel conflict as the result of her primary female matrix, she might try to
draw on the anima energies that are more natural to her. Finding herself
incapable of this because the female matrix is too strongly suppressing it, she
will probably opt for trying to draw on the animus psychic power.
However, the feminine/anima energy predominated
in self-expression in childhood, and was related to her gender, and compared to
her gender opposite. This resulted in her focusing on modifying the inborn
anima traits and parodying them in female role-play. Because this role-play was
subservient to the male, it meant that she simultaneously disowned the power of
the animus.
Another way of putting this is: Her primary,
habitual mode of self-expression and her strongest matrix will probably be the
female one. Because its distortions or modifications have come about in
relation to the male, she is unlikely to feel herself capable of drawing on
anything that relates to male rationale. This means that she will be incapable
of drawing on inborn animus traits and, at best, will have to settle for
parodying male roles in accordance with what she has learned to believe about
men.
In
BodyTalk, if innate indicates that the female matrix is a priority, it means
that the woman’s state of balance at the time of the session is conducive to
the onset of the process of becoming conscious of that primary gender
modification. In isolating the matrix from the male primary matrix and other
secondary matrixes, the primary female matrix is highlighted.
In BodyTalk, practitioners often think in
terms of severing the ties with the primary matrix and related matrixes, and of
dispelling the primary matrix. However, the primary matrix is nothing more than
a learned modification and a distortion of an inborn aspect of the two psychic
energies. As a learned distortion, it has no separate existence to the psychic
energy it pertains to.
For example, learned female roles are nothing
but a parody of inborn feminine traits inherent in the psyche. Although these
roles or parodies seem to transform the psychic energies, actually the seeming
change that occurs does not change the nature of the anima in any fundamental
way. This is because the matrixes are still aspects of the psyche.
When the anima energy is disowned, it is
projected into the body and, eventually, manifests in the seeming limitations
of disease. It is also projected outward and manifests in behavior in self and
others that is seemingly repressive. All that is happening is that the anima’s
suppression is being reflected in the mirror of the world. But this has not
changed the anima energies in any fundamental way at all.
Why
the anima energies have changed in no fundamental way is because they relate to
the intuitive processes and one’s “felt sense” of the world. The un-owned anima
is projected into the body and outward onto others and inward in terms of
behavior modifications. But this doesn’t change the anima in any fundamental
way. All that happens is that the anima’s power of providing a deep “felt
sense” is simply being amplified and reflected in the “outer” world in a way
that is more tangible.
Why
this is, is because the anima needs to be drawn upon if the human being is to
become conscious. Because “coming into consciousness” is natural, and is what
innate’s healing abilities are all about, the anima persists in trying to be
acknowledged. The longer it takes for the person to acknowledge and draw on
this psychic power, the more tangible and detrimental these un-owned energies
become. This is because they need to get the attention of the person if they
are to “wake up” to themselves.
When the anima stirs up
sufficient trouble that it becomes impossible not to try and change one’s life
experience, this is when a person often tries to draw on the animus energy.
Unfortunately, this masculine energy will have been related to male roles, and
these roles will have triggered the need to embellish in some way on female
roles. This will have brought about suppression of the anima, and
simultaneously closed the way for the person to draw on the animus. The animus
will have been equated to something that is either impossible or dangerous to
connect to, because it has been seen to be in direct conflict, or dominant, to
the anima. Consequently, in order to “come into consciousness,” first of all
the woman will have to draw on the power of the anima energies before this fear
can be put into context in relation to the animus.
For
example, young boys in western societies are usually equated with the animus
traits. This is because, in general, men are considered to have superior abilities
when it comes to rational thought and the ability to compartmentalize things in
such a way that their emotions don’t get in the way of their interactions in
the world.
Because this type of thinking predominates in
the west, young boys are often taught that emotions are “bad” and should not be
overtly expressed. They are also often taught that they need to be the
caretakers of women who are, by nature, irrational and less capable of
interacting in a grounded, “rational” way in the world.
These attitudes describe the superimposition
of male roles upon the animus traits. That is, the masculine/animus energy is
equated with male dominance and superiority of intellect. Consequently, many
young boys who have a parent, or parents, who subscribe to this type of
thinking, are going to learn by example from the parents that they need to act
and express themselves in a rational, dogmatic, domineering or “macho” way.
This is because the parent, or parents, will probably be acting out male and
female roles that are in accordance with this type of misinterpretation of the
animus.
Because
the parents or primary caregivers of the boy serve as his mirror, and thus his
primary identity, the boy is, more than likely, going to begin mimicking what
he sees in the “mirror” his parents are providing him.
If the boy’s nature has
a predominance of anima energies, he will probably experience tremendous
conflict within himself if this happens. This will probably translate into
conflict with the parents—his mirror. Subsequently, this conflict will either
result in the boy assuming the male role he is being taught, and thus
conforming; or the boy may rebel and start parodying the female roles that are
his parent’s misinterpretation of the anima traits the boy is expressing. That is,
he will probably assume a stronger female than male matrix.
If he starts to parody
female roles (develops a female matrix), the conflict with his parents will no
doubt escalate. Experiencing inner conflict at not wanting to disappoint the
parents, the boy will also have this conflict mirrored back at him in his
parent’s attitudes towards him. Because the boy is going against his inborn
anima “felt sense” of what comes naturally to him, this will give rise to
tremendous confusion—the absence of logical rationale. As a result he will feel
incapable of drawing on the inborn animus/male psychic powers and will start to
assume a male matrix as a substitute.
When
anima energy is disowned and starts being parodied and projected outward, its
expression is usually exaggerated. This means that the young boy might find his
parody of the anima (female matrix) results in him thinking he has homosexual
tendencies—has stronger female tendencies than male.
Conversely, if he tries to conform, and
begins parodying the masculine/animus energies in “acceptable” male roles
(matrix), he will probably act out in a way that is aggressive or domineering
towards women. This is because he is trying to suppress the feminine energies
that at first predominated in his nature. This dynamic will serve to strengthen
the conflict he faces in suppressing the two inborn psychic energies. It will
also set up a personality conflict, or split, between the two matrixes that
have formed in order to parody the anima/animus.
Do
please note that I am only giving one clear cut example here, as a possible
scenario, for how the matrixes are used to “hide” the psychic energies. There
are numerous variations on this theme.
Because
the matrixes—be they primary or secondary—are learned and assumed distortions
of the innate psychic powers, it means that they are not other than them. I
know I have talked of these psychic powers being “suppressed” and “dis-owned”
but I am not inferring that they have been overridden by something other than
themselves.
The
word matrix denotes a cast or a shape that is formed out
of an existing substance. Relatively speaking, the anima/animus energies can be
considered entities in that they infuse the psyche or beingness, and seem to
divide it into masculine and feminine. This “division” is inherent at birth,
and the anima/animus energies have no bearing on inherited familial traits. At
birth, therefore, the anima/animus energies are uncolored by personal traits,
but serve to complement them.
Because
these psychic energies or powers have no bearing on the personal, their
expression is not limited or restricted to any culture, society, or
environment. What this means is that, to get in touch with, or consciously draw
on these energies, is to begin to “transcend” the personal.
Because personalized roles are limiting, and limited to societies
and cultures, if “coming into consciousness” is the goal, the anima/animus
energies must be owned. That is, you have to become conscious of them and draw
healthily on these two powerful “entities.”
In a clinical setting, it will not always be
appropriate, or helpful, to talk in these terms to a client. However, as a
BodyTalk practitioner, if you have an understanding of the anima/animus
energies, it can only benefit you when innate indicates that a matrix is the
priority. The way in which you can explain the BodyTalk dynamics at this point
to a client is by talking to them about “getting in touch with what comes
naturally to you.”
Basically,
when a matrix is indicated as a priority it means that innate is ready to have
a personality modification isolated and thereby highlighted. When a matrix in
the body is addressed and you “tap out” the client, the “tapping out” is part
of the synchronistic dynamic of innate.
What
this means is that, because innate is ready to address a matrix, and requires
“secondary” input, you the practitioner fall in with this synchronicity of
events. To understand this is to realize that the session is both out of your
hands and out of the hands of the client.
If,
as a practitioner, you consider the concept of addressing the matrixes to mean
that you are effecting change in the client, this agenda will be part of that
synchronicity. This does not mean that your agenda is inappropriate to the
process, because it could not unfold in any other way than it is—with you as
part of the synchronicity of events.
If
you understand that the client’s “coming into consciousness” can be facilitated
by the addressing of the matrixes, this understanding can also give rise to
strong agendas on your part. However, if you understand that the matrixes are
merely a distortion of the innate energies of the psyche, and that this means
that the psyche has undergone no fundamental
change as a result of the matrixes, your focus is less likely to be concerned
with bringing about change.
Instead,
you might recognize that the addressing of the matrixes will merely serve to
highlight personality distortions (which is what the matrixes are). When this
happens, the client usually finds that he or she has increasing difficulty in
acting those distortions out. This is because these roles will start to feel
limiting and limited and, consequently, there is every possibility that
behavioral habits will begin to change.
Because
behavior is something that is always changing, no real change can be said to
occur. A relative change between one form of behavior and another will be
apparent. However, no fundamental change will have taken place.
The psyche, or
beingness, is. nothing more than a mass of undifferentiated consciousness that
has assumed the appearance of duality or differentiation because it has been
given the name “me.” This “me” is considered to be capable of being more or less conscious. But because
the psyche is by nature undifferentiated consciousness, this idea is faulty.
That the psyche, labeled “me,” is nothing more than an undifferentiated mass of
consciousness, means that the “me,” or self, is nothing but a thought or a
bundle of names.
These names or thoughts
are not other than undifferentiated consciousness. Paradoxically, they give
this consciousness the appearance of duality. The perception of the
undifferentiated, impersonal mass of consciousness is thus divided up into
dualistic concepts which are labeled personal and attributed with gender
traits. This changes the impersonal undifferentiated consciousness in no fundamental way.
Because
the word mind describes the thinking processes, with a
little thought, it isn’t too difficult to understand that the mind cannot have
caused itself. That is, thinking cannot have given rise to itself because
nothing can act upon itself. Neither can the mind have subjective knowledge of
itself, because to do so it would have to be apart from itself, and other than
itself.
You
seem to know about yourself by means of the mind. To know about something describes subjective knowledge. The term subjective knowledge describes separateness between a knower, and
a known. The confusing thing is that you believe you are both the cause of
knowledge, and the mind, which gives rise to subjective knowledge. This means
that you believe that you are both a cause and an effect.
When
something is deemed the cause of something else, this dynamic describes cause
and effect. The word cause denotes “attributing responsibility to.” The
word blame has the exact same meaning. Although praise is an expression of approval, the act of
praising is actually no different to, or is just a variation on, blaming. This
is because both concepts denote the attributing of responsibility to something.
You
might argue that praise and blame are different because praise describes a
virtuous responsibility whereas blame describes the opposite. In response to
such an argument, let us look at the dynamic of love.
When you say you love someone, what you mean
is that they make you feel a certain way. In essence, to tell someone you love
them is, therefore, to say that they have power over your emotions. This is
clearly a heavy trip to lay on someone, but despite this, most people believe
that love is something to be sought after, and that it is a desirable thing to
offer others. This gives you one definition of the ego or false self—masochist!
Let’s
say that you are deeply “in love” with someone. You tell them frequently how
they make you feel, and while you are doing this, you
think they will be overjoyed that your words will help them to feel special. As
it is, the people we love usually do feel special when we voice loving words to
them—such as “you make me feel so good!”
Few people, be they the recipient of such words, or the bearer of
them, think that the term “you make me feel” has anything to do with blame, or
victim consciousness. However, this is exactly what these words denote, because
you are attributing another with being responsible for, and the cause of, your
emotions. This makes them “to blame” and, because you are identified as your
emotions and the beloved is deemed responsible for them, that makes you a
victim.
I know this looks like a
cynical view of love, but unfortunately, if you are sincere about “becoming
conscious,” you have to understand humanness as deeply as possible. Because the
concept of love is pivotal to most people’s “existence,” it
is one of the aspects of humanness that you are eventually going to have to
look at deeply. As you are reading this, this appears to be the time!
Now let’s look at the opposite of love, which is named hate. When the so-called beloved starts acting in
ways that displease you, love starts to undergo change, or so it seems. At
first you might blame yourself, or you might begin by blaming them, and then
blame yourself. Either way, as soon as something about the beloved displeases
you, you are apt to experience overt blame. Overt, of course, is the key
word here because, until this point, “you make me feel” hasn’t been categorized
as blame.
When overt blaming gets underway, suddenly
the love experience seems to be permeated by hate. Sometimes, of course, it
seems as if love and hate interchange if you are trying desperately to remedy
the situation. But because these two contradictory experiences can’t co-exist,
this brings about even more confusion.
What
is helpful to understand is that both so-called love and hate have one thing in
common: they are both underlain and permeated by need. And the need is for the
“other” to make you feel a certain way. Clearly, when hate is experienced,
neediness is pretty easy to recognize. It isn’t that most people are oblivious
to neediness when love is the experience, but usually neediness isn’t the
description you give it. And after all, most people believe that telling
someone “you make me feel” and “don’t ever leave me” is something the other
person will delight in hearing. This is because you like to think, or hope, the
other person feels exactly the same way.
In short, whether you are covertly blaming
the “other” in terms of love, or overtly blaming them in terms of hate, the
dynamic is essentially the same. You experience being the victim, and this
experience—be it love-ly or otherwise—perpetuates neediness. It also
perpetuates the idea that cause and effect are real.
You
say “I AM in love” and identify as the experience of love. What this means is
that, when you tell the other that they are responsible for this experience,
you are essentially saying that they are the cause of your identity. In other
words, you are blaming them for your experience of yourself. Because you like
this experience, and like yourself when you are having it—and because you are
identified as the experience—it becomes imperative that the other person
sustain the experience for you.
What this means is that the other person has to continue acting in
ways that please you if you are to maintain the identity you have adopted. This
dynamic is called love, which is considered a wonderful, desirable
experience. Actually, as you can probably tell, it is far from desirable,
because the “love” you are offering to the other, and asking them to give you,
is full of conditions.
“I will love you as long
as you act a certain way” is basically what love is all about. You might argue
that in some cases people manage to carry on loving in the face of incredible
abuse, and regardless of what the other person is doing. However, perhaps you
will now take into account the idea that the love experience is so coveted
precisely because it gives you a special identity. Love is considered virtuous
and special, so as long as you are loving, you have the possibility of adopting
these concepts and adding them to your identity. This means that the so-called
“unconditional love” people offer others in the face of abuse or other
unpleasant actions is never free of conditions.
The condition that always goes hand in hand
with love is that, if you love someone, it should make you feel special,
useful, and better than you feel when you are not loving. Clearly, such a demand has to be
underlain by fear of the alternative experience. Because love is always
conditional and underlain by fear, it is impossible that love is not permeated
by blame and neediness. It is also impossible for love not to give you the
identity of victim, and equally impossible that the so-called beloved is not
deemed “to blame.”
Of
course, this line of reasoning is one that very few people will come upon, and
it is probably not one you are enjoying pondering. But my point here is to give
you a deeper understanding of ego or the false self. The nature of ego is fear,
and the concepts of coping, control, and neediness, are outcroppings of this
emotion. This means that the ego is nothing more than this bundle of
undesirable concepts.
Because the nature of ego is dualistic, it
relates to the idea of separateness, which is undesirable. Because everyone
experiences the undesirability of separateness, everyone has a vested interest
in masking or coping with this experience. One of the best ways of doing this
is to give the ego a positive identity. You can do this by consciously using
the power of positive thinking. Another alternative is that you can spend your
time looking for, and trying to maintain, the love experience, which pastime is
really no different to the power of positive thinking. Either way, you are
trying to convince yourself that who you are is worthy, virtuous, and special.
This is a description of coping or masking, and coping is one more description of the fundamental
nature of ego.
The
concept of coping relates to the idea of cause and effect. You
cope with your emotions because you believe they “make you feel” a certain way,
and that you cause these feelings. At the same
time you are identified with the thoughts and emotions that you experience.
This means that you believe yourself to be both a cause and an affect.
That you believe that
emotions “make you feel,” means you believe you are the victim of your
emotions. The word victim denotes someone who undergoes harsh or
unjust treatment. In this sense, if you are experiencing emotions you like, you
might say it is anathema to call yourself a victim of emotions. However,
because desirable emotions are always underlain by the need to sustain them,
they are also underlain by fear. This means that, however nice the emotion you
are feeling might be, it is rooted in fear.
To some degree or another, fear is always
experienced by someone who is in victim mode. Because all emotions are rooted
in fear, regardless of how much you like an emotion, as long as you believe
emotions “make you feel” (i.e. you are identified with them), you are in victim
mode. Whether emotions are overt, subtle, or imperceptible, emotions are always
being experienced. Because the ego or false self is the sum of all experiences,
this means that the ego is synonymous with victim.
Consciously
or unconsciously, the victim mode or identity is never free of blame. Either
the victim blames another for “making” them a victim, or the victim blames him
or herself for acting in a way that is unacceptable. When self-blame is
present, you are basically crediting yourself with being both the cause and the
effect of an experience. Another way of saying this is that you consider
yourself to be both blameworthy (the cause of an experience), and
a victim (the result or effect of an experience).
Clearly
you cannot be both a cause and an effect. Neither can you be both someone who
is a victim, and someone who is to blame. In other words, you cannot possibly
be any concept you are identified as. Because victim and blame consciousness
describe the nature of ego, it means that the ego is non-existent. This is why
another word for ego is the “false” self: because it is NOT YOU.
If you understand this so far and it rings in
some way “true” to you, then you will intellectually recognize that the psyche
or this beingness – called “self” – is NOT YOU. You will also realize that who
you Really are has to be beyond concepts. When we talk of the anima/animus
energies and the matrixes, what we are talking about are various facets of the
false self. The overtly false facets of this “self” are the learned roles that
you act out habitually. These, in BodyTalk, we talk of as being the personality
matrixes, which are learned ways of behaving, as opposed to inborn traits.
What
is less overt in the psyche, once the matrixes are formed, are the psychic
energies. That is, they manifest overtly, in the “mirror” of the world. Until
you recognize the dynamics of mirroring, the reflection of these psychic
energies is blamed/disowned by being projected onto others, or onto the body.
Because these psychic energies are inborn and are not colored by personal
traits at birth, they can, relatively speaking, be considered somewhat
impersonal. This is because their expression is not unique to anyone.
The only time the anima/animus energies are
considered very personal is when they start being drawn on to a slight degree
only. This is because they will continue to be somewhat colored by the existing
matrixes. The anima/animus energies are the most natural aspect of the psyche
or beingness because they are not unique to anyone and because they are innate
or inborn. For this reason, if you want to know “what comes naturally,” or if you
want to “come into consciousness,” you need to investigate the humanness as
deeply as possible.
To
do this you need to “become conscious” of the distortions of anima/animus that
are called personality matrixes (learned and adopted roles that parody the
natural, inborn psychic energies). When, in whatever way, these distortions are
highlighted, their unnaturalness and limitations become obvious. This makes it
very difficult to continue acting out in habitual ways.
When sufficient of the matrixes have been
highlighted, and learned, habitual roles subside, it is possible to start,
consciously, drawing on the energies that permeate the psyche—instead of
unconsciously parodying them. This brings about a clarity in the thinking
processes, because the anima/intuitive power is then able to infuse the animus
trait of rational, practical thought and bring about deep insights into learned
information. Similarly, the animus trait of rational thought gives the anima
added dimension in that one’s “felt sense” of things begins to make rational
sense. In other words, relatively speaking, the mind is steadier.
This
mental clarity—provided by the interfacing of anima/animus energies—illuminates
the mind. The mind, which was once full of thoughts that name “self” real and
thoughts “truths,” begins to fill with questions that shed doubt on the
thinking processes and their seeming “truths.”
As a result of this mental clarity, and the
ability to cut through the darkness of ignorance by means of questions, the
mind continues to clarify. Eventually, if this process of questioning continues
to unfold, all thoughts are realized to be not only untruths, but nonexistent.
Because thoughts are what divide the perception into duality, duality is also
realized to be non-existent.
This
realization then highlights the dynamics of anima/animus, as well as the
colorings that have arisen from inborn, inherited personality traits. The
realization that duality is non-existent then does the work of highlighting
these dualistic concepts to such a degree that the mind is experienced as being
impotent in the face of these conflicting aspects within the thinking
processes.
Once the mind’s insanity and impotence are
sufficiently highlighted, no thought can be considered a “truth.” Finding no
(animus) rationale in any thought whatsoever, and finding the (anima) intuition
incapable of touching the Truth, the psychic energies and inherited personality
traits that dictate expression of the thinking processes subside. When this
happens, the mind empties of all thoughts, and the perception ceases being
named. Because the perception is no longer being named, its dualistic nature
ceases to be apparent.
When
this “happens,” perception of the false self, or “me,” ceases being apparent AS
SUCH. Duality ceases being apparent AS SUCH. This changes the Perception in no
fundamental way at all because It has always been an undifferentiated, non-dual
mass of consciousness, and You are That.
Although
the term “non-dual, undifferentiated mass of consciousness” is used here to
describe Self, do remember that no thought, and no name, is capable of naming
or explaining the Truth. In order for this Truth to reveal ItSelf, you need to
investigate the humanness that masquerades as “truth” and appears to hide
Reality from you. To do this, you have to become conscious of the limitations
of the personality matrixes.
By means of BodyTalk, and the practice of
consulting the innate wisdom inherent in the psyche, you have the potential of
undertaking this investigation in a way that is very different to other
“pathways.” As a BodyTalk practitioner, you also have the potential of serving
as an intermediary between the client’s innate, and your own. This means that
your role as a practitioner is potentially that of also helping others to “come
into consciousness.”
However, this idea is unhelpful and detrimental to the process of
“coming into consciousness.” This is because the role of “helper,” like any
role, is nothing but learned habits of behavior which relate to the matrixes.
To remain cognizant of this will assuage the problem of becoming goal-oriented
in practice. Added to this it is very helpful to remember that “the client” is
nothing more than a mirror in which your own psyche is reflected.
By Esther and John Veltheim
