Whenever people talk of humility, I think of its opposite, which might be pride. And when I think of pride, I think of how the Tibetans talk of it: "Pride is like a solid iron ball that doesn’t allow for the moisture of truth to penetrate."
**
I consider life to be inherently self-correcting: there’s a constant feedback loop going on between self and life, where life—whether from within or without—is offering feedback on how we’re doing. For example, if we’re too loose in our approach, we’ll get some indication that we’re lacking discipline and rigor in our lives (even our bodies will give us such indication, as it did me a year or so ago, when I realized and was even told I was overweight! Haha. Thank you friends who are part of my self-corrective feedback mechanism!) And if we’re too tight, we might get a signal that we need to loosen up and relax a bit more (such as when one of the same friends told me, “Yuichi, that’s enough. Don’t lose any more weight.” Another said, “Too skinny now!” lol.)
Or it could be like this: we meet someone who sets off all sorts of chemicals in us, and so we become enchanted (from the Latin incantare (“to cast a spell upon”)), as in we fall under a spell of sorts. This is fine in itself, but it’s important to pay attention to the feedback from within and without. Perhaps a few close friends advise us to be careful or to take it slow. They may even advise against our involvement. But if we suffer from pride, we might not want that kind of input or feedback. There may be some truth to what’s being said, but our pride doesn’t allow for that bit of truth to enter us; we wouldn’t want it to ruin the spell. So, we delay on the advice till things get worse—or even disastrous—a few months or years down the line to realize that the feedback loop was always there—active, alive, and at least partially truthful to things as they were.
The problem with pride—if we work with the Tibetan concept of it—is that it keeps us deaf and blind to the guidance that’s *always* present.
So, what's the workaround?
Here's one: It’s to carefully consider feedback and input that we find disagreeable, or even to privilege such input above others. It’s the second line below from Kipling’s “If”--
"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
but make allowance for their doubting too."
The poet isn’t suggesting we necessarily follow what others tell us. No, but by “making allowance” for others’ doubts toward us, we’re more likely to suss out what it is within their opinions that possibly challenges us to grow as human beings. And in turn, we benefit from the input.
On the other hand, if we find ourselves responding to input and suggestions with defensiveness, or some variation of “I’m just being myself,” that’s usually a reliable indicator of pride (i.e., "solid iron ball"). It’s basically saying, “I don’t want displeasing input to compel me to have to change and to grow.”
If one thinks about "being oneself," it’s impossible to be anything but oneself, so it's an empty statement to make. If I’m being a chameleon, then that’s who I am. And if I want to change that, then I change it. The notion of a fixed self has been debunked by just about every discipline there is. In short, there is no core self that’s immune to change. So what would it even mean to say that one is being oneself? Again, it's meaningless in and of itself, and basically suggests a kind of indolence as in, "Please don't challenge me to change my thoughts on things, especially myself. I'm comfortable where I am. And I'll defend this love of comfort even at the cost of our relationship.”
**
In the spirit of allowing for disagreeable input, I've been reading in the area of Christianity as of late! 😂🤣😅 Still don't buy a good chunk of it, especially its central thesis. But I did come across this line by St. John of the Cross that I found lovely and heartening--"In order to come to be all, desire in all things to be nothing." ♥️