Early on, I found the concept of dominance useful. That began to chance when I shifted my focus onto “mastery.” Then, much to my chagrin, I realized that mastery, with its connotation of masters and non-masters, still trapped me in the same hierarchical dynamic.
Nowadays, I try to simply be present and allow for the existence of phenomena, internal and external, as it arises.
Well, it’s okay to have more skill or ability than others (re mastery), and it can very well be an objective fact. The nuance here is that this doesn’t actually make anybody *better* than anybody else. You can achieve mastery without the conception that you’re superior to others, so it would be a shame to forgo mastery for fear of falling into hierarchical thinking. You can be humble while being masterful. You can even use your mastery to help others, e.g., to help them achieve mastery..
Though even if you do end up considering yourself superior for being masterful, that’s not necessarily so bad–in one of Neale Donald Walsch’s books, God says thinking you’re superior is a useful illusion that helps you to overcome obstacles..
It is common for people who embark on a path of self-development – whether religious or not – to seek to ‘master’ themselves. But that’s just not the way it works. The self cannot ‘master’ itself: some parts always remain unconscious. That doesn’t stand in the way of extreme narcissists and the cults they create; it merely means their ‘creed’ is – as Shakespeare put it – “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” The Eastern concept of ‘master’ is one who has finally learned the real nature of Dharma or Tao, which happens only when self steps down and submits to the needs of the world. So yes – it is good preparation to be present and observe – to see where one’s own “needs” still arise and get served. I wish you well. And even in the old craft guild systems, a ‘master’ was one who freed art from within their materials: not one who imposed it from outside. They put their skills at the disposal of their materials, seeing the art within before others could do so.
I agree! The imposition of duality and inability to abide in an internal state of sufficiency will get in the way of the highest potential
LikeLike
Over the years, the term ‘master’ has come to mean a dominant and superior person. A servant serves his or her master. A slave, or a dog, has a master.
One of the origins is from the Latin, Magister, meaning a teacher. It was also from the French, Maitre.
Then it was taken up by the guilds, meaning a person who had passed his/her apprenticeship and completed their ‘masterpiece’.
It was used as a form of address. A guildsman would address his guild personnel as My masters.
Then it became a form of address to ordinary men as Mister. Master is still used as an address to a boy who has not yet reached his majority.
Master was also used to address one’s superiors, which is how we consider it today.
It’s a bit sad that we’ve moved it away from teacher to one who has dominance over others.
We’ve moved away from the illusion of hierarchy or mastery to embrace the concept of interconnectedness and harmony, as beautifully depicted in sacred geometry. The notion of mastering something suggests reaching the peak, which is often elusive. Even in the study of quantum physics, you’d realize that what you seek is a never-ending journey.
So, perhaps the real quest is to determine your value. Can those who come after you build upon what you’ve learned and shared? We’ve built on your introspection here. Can someone take your novels and create a new world based on what you’ve built? This is the truth of our universe… every species, even the most destructive, contributes something of value that another species can build upon. Your contribution is your legacy. Not a title. ♾️
Wise healers know they will never “master” medicine. They “practice” medicine. I believe the secret is to be less wrong today than I was yesterday. This secret is true for any topic.
I read what you wrote and understood it to mean the hierarchical connotations of dominant and master are where your concern is. Because it sounds like you don’t want it to be you are dominant or master over anyone else. And that’s fair. I also understood this to be in relation to skills and capabilities, which I can also see described as levels of expertise, which is less of a master/dominant concern because you are not expert over but expert in, with more expertise than. This seems more meritocratic to me. Enjoy!
Kent Wayne 
Leave a comment