Friday, October 14, 2011

The Wall of "I"

The stronger a person's "I" is,
the smaller his capacity to
become one with anybody.

The "I" is a wall in between;
it proclaims itself.
Its proclamation is :

"You are you and I am I.
There is a distance between
the two."

Then no matter how much
"I" love you, "I" may embrace
you to my bosom, still we are two.

No matter how closely we meet,
still there is a gap in between . . .

And as long as I am "I,"
the world around is "the other" -
separate and apart.

And as long as there is
separateness there can be no
experience of love.

-Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh


  1. Wow. "Wisdom" against boundaries from one of the classic narcissists of the twentieth century.

    - GKA

  2. Yes, I found this to be a very...interesting...statement about identity, the analysis of self, and the creation of healthy boundaries between us and the rest of the world.

    I like the idea of having a strong sense of self...of having a strong "I." And while I agree that there needs to be some overlapping of one person's self, with their partner's self in order to feel love, I disagree whole-heartedly that separateness denies the experience of love. You don't have to be overlapping someone completely in order to feel love - they don't have to be an extension of you in order to be loved. There needs to be a connection, but not a complete overlapping.

    Thanks for the comment GKA. It made me think.

  3. And thanks for your gracious response.

    Yes, the whole notion of "two becoming one" seems less romantic when you think about traditional marriage terms and the ways heads of households (and religious communities) have stood between the big outside world and their so-called dependents. Or vice versa.

    - GKA

  4. oh wow, interesting. i thought you posted it cause you agreed with it. and i wasn't sure what it was about or who it's by. yeah, i find the poem a little too uh. instructive for my tastes. yeah. who are you to define what love is? and really it could go either way. i agree that love requires separateness. i remember right after reading it, i had written my post and i was thinking that actually, i feel very separate now and it feels really good. and allowing myself to talk about other people as if they are separate people from me was what i did and i realized i was doing the exact opposite of what this poem was saying. cool that it's by a narc. it is a pretty annoying poem.

  5. Lisa - I posted it because I thought it was thought-provoking. Bad or good, it still got me thinking. I found the idea of "separateness" vs. "oneness" to be intriguing. I mean, isn't part of what we're fighting for an attempt to gain self-hood from the narcs?

    When I first stumbled across it, I was like, "hmm, maybe he has a point?" But then when I really thought about it, I kind of saw that it's a rather manipulative philosophy. Of course you can be a separate, whole, and strong person and still feel love!

    You're right. This poem is pretty annoying. I've been thinking about it for a couple of days now.

  6. I was with the author right up until the ending stanza. One can't experience love and be "separate" from someone else? No sir, that is very destructive thinking...


  7. Hi Jonsi!
    I've been thinking about this for a couple of days too, and I think this is the most interesting part to me:
    "And as long as I am "I,"
    the world around is "the other" -
    separate and apart."

    That's true, I think... but I can't help but ask: why does the author pre-suppose that 'letting the world in' is a neccesary thing or a conduit to 'love.' If the world's a bitch and I let her in, I'm not truly opening myself up to anything other than bitchyness, am I?

    If the world as the Narcs present and live it is 'love,' then I think I'll stay safely behind the wall of ANYTHING, and slam the door and buy a new lock.

    Very thought-provoking!

  8. Also, have to add, this sounds like something a cult leader would use to break down new recruits. It gives me creepy goose bumps.


  9. Hi Vanci,

    I'm always happy to hear your voice here! I thought, if nothing else (even if we don't agree, or only agree with parts of it) the piece was very thought-provoking. It's definitely a beard-stroker!