O.M. That is pleasant and convenient, if true. When you speak of "my body" who is the "my"?

Y.M. It is the "me."

O.M. The body is a property then, and the Me owns it. Who is the Me?

Y.M. The Me is _the whole thing; _it is a common property; an undivided ownership, vested in the whole ent.i.ty.

O.M. If the Me admires a rainbow, is it the whole Me that admires it, including the hair, hands, heels, and all?

Y.M. Certainly not. It is my _mind _that admires it.

O.M. So _you _divide the Me yourself. Everybody does; everybody must.

What, then, definitely, is the Me?

Y.M. I think it must consist of just those two parts-the body and the mind.

O.M. You think so? If you say "I believe the world is round," who is the "I" that is speaking?

Y.M. The mind.

O.M. If you say "I grieve for the loss of my father," who is the "I"?

Y.M. The mind.

O.M. Is the mind exercising an intellectual function when it examines and accepts the evidence that the world is round?

Y.M. Yes.

O.M. Is it exercising an intellectual function when it grieves for the loss of your father?

Y.M. That is not cerebration, brain-work, it is a matter of feeling.

O.M. Then its source is not in your mind, but in your _moral _territory?

Y.M. I have to grant it.

O.M. Is your mind a part of your _physical _equipment?

Y.M. No. It is independent of it; it is spiritual.

O.M. Being spiritual, it cannot be affected by physical influences?

Y.M. No.

O.M. Does the mind remain sober with the body is drunk?

Y.M. Well-no.

O.M. There _is _a physical effect present, then?

Y.M. It looks like it.

O.M. A cracked skull has resulted in a crazy mind. Why should it happen if the mind is spiritual, and _independent _of physical influences?

Y.M. Well-I don't know.

O.M. When you have a pain in your foot, how do you know it?

Y.M. I feel it.

O.M. But you do not feel it until a nerve reports the hurt to the brain.

Yet the brain is the seat of the mind, is it not?

Y.M. I think so.

O.M. But isn't spiritual enough to learn what is happening in the outskirts without the help of the _physical _messenger? You perceive that the question of who or what the Me is, is not a simple one at all. You say "I admire the rainbow," and "I believe the world is round," and in these cases we find that the Me is not speaking, but only the _mental _part. You say, "I grieve," and again the Me is not all speaking, but only the _moral _part. You say the mind is wholly spiritual; then you say "I have a pain" and find that this time the Me is mental _and _spiritual combined. We all use the "I" in this indeterminate fashion, there is no help for it. We imagine a Master and King over what you call The Whole Thing, and we speak of him as "I," but when we try to define him we find we cannot do it. The intellect and the feelings can act quite _independently _of each other; we recognize that, and we look around for a Ruler who is master over both, and can serve as a _definite and indisputable "I," _and enable us to know what we mean and who or what we are talking about when we use that p.r.o.noun, but we have to give it up and confess that we cannot find him. To me, Man is a machine, made up of many mechanisms, the moral and mental ones acting automatically in accordance with the impulses of an interior Master who is built out of born-temperament and an acc.u.mulation of mult.i.tudinous outside influences and trainings; a machine whose _one _function is to secure the spiritual contentment of the Master, be his desires good or be they evil; a machine whose Will is absolute and must be obeyed, and always _is _obeyed.

Y.M. Maybe the Me is the Soul?

O.M. Maybe it is. What is the Soul?

Y.M. I don't know.

O.M. Neither does any one else.

The Master Pa.s.sion

Y.M. What is the Master?-or, in common speech, the Conscience? Explain it.

O.M. It is that mysterious autocrat, lodged in a man, which compels the man to content its desires. It may be called the Master Pa.s.sion-the hunger for Self-Approval.

Y.M. Where is its seat?

O.M. In man's moral const.i.tution.

Y.M. Are its commands for the man's good?

O.M. It is indifferent to the man's good; it never concerns itself about anything but the satisfying of its own desires. It can be _trained _to prefer things which will be for the man's good, but it will prefer them only because they will content _it _better than other things would.

Y.M. Then even when it is trained to high ideals it is still looking out for its own contentment, and not for the man's good.

O.M. True. Trained or untrained, it cares nothing for the man's good, and never concerns itself about it.

Y.M. It seems to be an _immoral _force seated in the man's moral const.i.tution.

O.M. It is a _colorless _force seated in the man's moral const.i.tution. Let us call it an instinct-a blind, unreasoning instinct, which cannot and does not distinguish between good morals and bad ones, and cares nothing for results to the man provided its own contentment be secured; and it will _always _secure that.

Y.M. It seeks money, and it probably considers that that is an advantage for the man?

O.M. It is not always seeking money, it is not always seeking power, nor office, nor any other _material _advantage. In _all _cases it seeks a _spiritual _contentment, let the _means _be what they may. Its desires are determined by the man's temperament-and it is lord over that. Temperament, Conscience, Susceptibility, Spiritual Appet.i.te, are, in fact, the same thing. Have you ever heard of a person who cared nothing for money?

Y.M. Yes. A scholar who would not leave his garret and his books to take a place in a business house at a large salary.