Words as Our Power - Book Report/Review Example

Pr Ruiz and Awareness Manifestation of matter, ideas, thoughts, dreams, and desires using the spoken word remains an interesting contradiction to alternative learned behavior. Dr. Ruiz suggests that human suffering and disconnection with reality starts at a very early age (domestication) initiated by adults who themselves were disconnected from awareness (Ruiz, 4). They expressed their disconnections through imperfect and ill-used words creating a ‘fog’ between true reality and false reality. An interesting twist is Ruiz’s concept of reality. It appears that circumstances change according to the words spoken, directly or indirectly, to another; including one’s self. Full awareness is truth and we use words as communication exacting full awareness or unawareness. What we say we believe. What we believe is manifest in the material world. Words are our power both positive and negative; depending upon use. Words that are ‘Negative’ (such as; ugly, hate, revenge…) encourage a distortion or “poison” into our worlds destroying good, loving and positive words. Remarkably, Dr. Ruiz insists that gossip is “black magic at its very worst because it is pure poison” (Ruiz 11) and reality can be changed surrounding the one being gossiped about; even though that person is/was not privy to the conversation. This concept of distorting the thread of reality to one’s wishes (words) parallels ‘shape-shifting’ or anthropomorphism of Greek mythology (Homer) and primitive Indian and Hindu cultures. Today, an intensive search reveals this ‘speaking of words-changing reality’ in many pseudo-Christian communities (Word-Faith Movement). Throughout Ruiz’s work, the implicit understanding of “What is” reality becomes more apparent according to the “4 Agreements”. The usage of the terms “dream” and “movie” with respect to ‘reality’ is an implicit mantra characterized by illustrating reality as something akin to illusion. It is quite logical to digest ‘not taking things personally’ within this illusion of reality as a common sense approach to assessing reality. We are watching something quite unreal (in reality) as those, in error, choreograph obvious mistakes with ‘word’ use (anger, hatred, judgment…). Since we are the ‘God’ of our reality (illusion), we must disconnect ourselves from the actors and actresses in this ‘movie’ (reality). Placing blame towards others (judgment) in our dream reality is not appropriate since the unaware ‘actors’ are not responsible of any misdeeds simply because they are unenlightened of what our concept of fully-aware reality is. Those that are unaware of the ‘aware’ person’s reality are subject to personal ‘hot and cold’ emotive words and the resulting negative (poison) messages directly from that emotive state of the ‘unaware’. You say “I love you” because you are happy. You say “I hate you” because you are angry. This judgment, ‘love/hate’, is a result not of the aware person’s actual perceived worthiness but rather a projection of the ‘unaware’ person’s inner emotions. There is no blame or judgment towards others; beyond the judgment of ‘awareness’/’unawareness’ of one’s reality. This non-judgmental utopian world is the creation of the aware person’s positive affirmation (using words) of simply ‘being’ and the puppet-like activities of the unaware masses travelling blindly along by domesticated learning. Cleaning one’s mind (the ‘aware’) of any/all preconceived opinions is essentially leading one towards a perfect awareness; though the conclusion or goal is unclear. One must understand that this ‘philosophy’ may subject this author (me) to assume an ending when an ‘ending’ to this philosophy is a beginning, middle and end unto this philosophy. Combining together beginning, ending and in-between in Ruiz’s philosophy seems to perpetuate a ‘being’ or static ‘Is’ state of the ‘aware’. This ‘being’ state is counter-intuitive to western human thought and may attach this essay as an incomplete overview by an ‘unaware author’ from pure ignorance. Given the first postulate, “Word”, the second postulate, “…don’t take things personally”, is a repetition of the first postulate with respect to inputs and outputs (a completion of human interaction[s]). The output is what we ‘speak’; the input is what is ‘spoken’ to us. Binary logic, like computer code (0,1 and1,0 such as: Input, Output and Output, Input) is an effective proposal by Ruiz assessing human interactions. Perhaps it is this ‘binary logic’ that assisted Ruiz in proposing the analogy of the mind as a computer (Ruiz, p.11). What is known simply is the connection between non-judgmental ‘awareness’ from the ‘aware’ and domesticated ‘Inputs’ from the unaware suggesting a necessary disconnection by the ‘aware’ of ‘Truth’ using ‘unaware’ ‘Inputs’ as examples. The 3rd agreement by Ruiz is much more complex in scope and easier to exercise for a ‘novice seeker’. The brilliant perceptions by Ruiz of assumptions and error is both; necessary for followers of Ruiz’s philosophy (though the philosophy is not ‘His’) and effective for non-followers as well. The primary concern for anyone wishing to engage another in debate is defining what something ‘Is’ from something that ‘Is Not’. Like Jean-Paul Sartre, Ruiz places the individual inside of existence but subjective to existence for subjective reasoning. Objectivity of what something “Is” is not definable in the human state since the ‘unaware’ human state does not exist. The further we distance ourselves from our “domesticated” (unaware) state the more real the illusion of the material world becomes.(Sartre 1946) Ruiz uses ‘assumptions’ as a platform to launch a ‘seeker’ towards knowing. By understanding human complications with objectively defining a clear-cut ‘Truth’ about a thing (anything) will ultimately lead the seeker to dispense of objectivity after exhausting judgment(s). Definitions are nothing more than judgments since human interaction reveals the subjectivity of what something ‘Is’. Ruiz uses preparing for marriage as an analogy for illustrating this ‘definitions as judgments’ argument. Ruiz’s logic falls closely towards Einstein’s “Theory of Light” and perceptions thereof. As a rudimentary example: If one is to pass a baseball back-and-forth with a friend, the ball moves at ‘X’ miles per hour relative to the point of reference (the earth). If a different group of friends were passing baseball the same way but, this time, inside a boxcar of a train with doors open, the constant speed ‘X’ would be assumed by the second group, while the first group observing the second group (on the train), would see the speed of ‘X’ quite differently (the equation would be X+ or – X=). Now place a third group in another train moving in the opposite direction of the first train and ‘X’ takes on an entirely different character to all three groups (Born, 1922). This ‘Relativity’ idea is the argument that Ruiz is using according to assumptions and implied objective reasoning. “Truth” depends upon our perspective and suffers the death of infinite subjectivity with the knife of reduction applied to the ‘essence’ of what something truly ’Is’. The cause of this “objectivity” death is in awareness of human error caused by pre-conceived notions about a “thing”. Ruiz implies that nothing can be known for sure, and if true; relative assumptions characterized by humans as definitive truth (domestication) has no basis in fact. The 4th agreement by Ruiz is delineation from western practices (and some eastern practices) using exhaustive effort for achievement proposing a smooth transition or natural progression from ‘unawareness’ towards ‘full awareness’. Capitalism dominates western culture and our ‘learned behavior’ (domestication) suggest productivity as the ingredient to success. Ruiz cleverly renounces this productivity quotient by relieving ‘awareness seekers’ of this production burden. Enjoyment is a primary concern for Ruiz and the potential (or current) ‘seeker’. Addressed in previous agreements, the Aristotelian Philosophy of “replacing bad habits with good habits” is incorporated in Ruiz’s Philosophy suggesting that tapping into the power of the mind will effect a proper outcome for the ‘awareness seeker’. Ruiz differs from Aristotle by suggesting ‘reason’ is not an objective footing to finding ‘truth’ (Aristotle, 1998). . This 4th agreement is an encapsulation of the previous 3 agreements on the surface, but not an entirely ‘wrapping up’ as Ruiz would suggest. Ruiz eases away from “You are God” in the “Introduction” and “1st Agreement” by drawing parallels between the Hindu ritual of ‘puja’ of loving God. One is not inclined to remember that “I am God” in the previous writings of Ruiz but to say “I love you God” in a more ‘domesticated’ way by implication (Ruiz, p. 20). Ruiz then goes forward and renounces this “I love you God” of the domesticated mindset when the ‘Pledge’ is asked for concerning the 4 Agreements. Ruiz suggest that if one ‘fails’ or does not satisfy a certain portion of this philosophy then one simply needs to try again. Ruiz’s Philosophy is quiet, calm and perfected from desire/practice. Ruiz’s philosophy is a finely cloaked version of “shamanism” or Advaita-Vedanta. The feeling from the piece is that Ruiz does not tell the truth. Of course, in Ruiz’s Philosophy, “Truth” is un-definable since objectivity is assumed to be relative. In Ruiz’s very 1st Agreement he makes the dynamic statement of “…being impeccable with your word.” (Ruiz, p. 8) The very first example should be Ruiz’s most compelling point to draw ‘seekers’/readers into his Philosophy. Instead of applying a stalwart example, Ruiz perverts and distorts his primary reference for supporting his Philosophy. Citing the Gospel of John (Chapter 1), Ruiz fails to quote the source (John) accurately by dropping the upper case “Word” into a lower case “word”. By doing so, Ruiz distorts the truth (lies) about the passage effectively lying to his audience (readers) about Ruiz’s own authenticity. The newest or most ignorant Follower of Yeshua (Jesus) knows instinctively what the John Chapter 1 is explaining. Ruiz drops the upper case “Word” to lower case out of necessity. If Ruiz does not drop from upper case to lower case then Ruiz’s arguments and 4, 10 or 500 Agreements falls face first into the depths of apostasies. The reason that “Word” is capitalized in “All” Christian Bibles is because “Word” is a name of someone. The “Word” capitalized is Jesus by another name: Word. By dropping the upper case to lower, Ruiz can only be considered into two separate categories (or combination): 1) He doesn’t know the importance of quoting sources directly and not changing the words and/or he doesn’t have an understanding of the art and science of Biblical Interpretation (hermeneutics) 2) Ruiz intentionally misled his audience (readers) promoting something untrue hoping to find proponents (seekers) with only a casual understanding of Scripture that are ‘ripe for harvesting’. If the first point is true then Ruiz can hardly be called a ‘Master’ from his dramatic misunderstanding of Biblical principles. If the second conclusion is true then Ruiz is a liar and a self-promoter of lies. In any event, Ruiz’s first axiom (Gospel of John) puts any follower of Jesus on alert looking for more obvious errors. Ruiz’s ‘Agreements’ probably bring up more questions than answers. As an example; if one can speak reality into existence then why didn’t “Masters” of the past just gossip among themselves about Hitler bringing an end to his raging tyranny? Truly, Ruiz and his “being” protocol may bring easement of suffering to some. The problem with Ruiz is his ability to play “fast and loose” with the facts (John 1 example). If no God exists but us to Ruiz, the suggestion from opinion is “he better be right”. If there is a competing God, like the God of Israel, that particular God isn’t going to like Ruiz’s elevation to God’s throne. Judgments are best left to those who create. By sticking with the facts, Ruiz breaks most of his agreements in his very first example. Works Cited Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. David Ross. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. Born, Max. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Trans. Henry Brose New York: E.P. Dutton, 1922. New Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Sartre, John-Paul. Existentialism as Humanism. Trans. Philip Mairet, Lecture ms. .: Word Pub. Co. 1956. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm (March 2012) Read More