Since superior and inferior are two portions of the same thing, it is not irrelevant to state the following corollary: superior “I” and inferior “I”, are two aspects of the same tenebrous and pluralized ego.
The so-called divine “I” or superior “I,” alter ego or anything of the sort, is certainly a trick of the “Myself,” a form of self-deceit.
When the “I” wants to continue here and in the beyond, it deceives itself with the false concept of being a divine and immortal “I”.
None of us has a true “I” that is permanent, immutable, eternal, ineffable, etc.
Indeed, none of us has a true and authentic Unity of Being. Unfortunately, we do not even possess a legitimate individuality.
Although the ego continues beyond the sepulcher, it has, nonetheless, a beginning and an end.
The ego, the “I,” is never something individual, unitary, a total unity. Obviously the “I” is “I’s”
In Oriental Tibet, the “I’s” are called psychic aggregates, or simply, positive or negative values.
If we think of each “I” as a different person, we can then emphatically state the following: “Many people exist within each person living in the world.”
Unquestionably, many different persons live inside each one of us, some of them are better than others, and others are worse…
Each one of these “I’s” each one of these persons, struggles for supremacy.
As often is possible, each one of these “I’s” wants to be exclusive. Each one wants to control the intellectual brain or the emotional and motor centers until other substitutes it…
The Doctrine of the many “I’s” was taught in Oriental Tibet by the true clairvoyants, by the true enlightened ones…
Each of our defects is personified by one “I” or another. Since we have thousands and even millions of defects, it is obvious that many people live within our interior.
In psychological matters, we have been able to clearly verify that paranoid subjects, self-worshipers and mythomaniacs would never abandon the cult to their beloved ego for anything in the world.
Unquestionably, such people mortally hate the doctrine of the many “I’s.”
Indeed, when one wants to know oneself, one must observe himself and try to know the different “I’s” which abound inside the personality.
If any one of our readers does not yet comprehend the doctrine of the many “I’s” it is due exclusively to the lack of practice in the field of self-observation.
As one practices inner self observation, one discovers many people, many “I’s” who live inside our personality.
Those who deny the doctrine of the many “I’s”, those who adore a divine “I”, have undoubtedly never observed themselves seriously.
Pointing at them, this time in a Socratic style, we state that those people not only ignore, but moreover, they ignore that they ignore.
Certainly, we can never know ourselves without serious and profound self-observation.
As long as any person continues considering himself as only one, it is clear that any internal change would be something more than impossible.
Samael Aun Weor
