If our emotions were really Masters, we would be bound to act upon them at all times, and upon all occasions, for there would be nothing in us to say Nay! to them. But no one outside of the most primitive and elemental individuals would permit any such rule on the part of the emotional nature, even the less advanced of the race are able to at least partially control and manage the emotional part of their mental nature; and the advanced individuals have acquired the power of frequently deliberately setting aside the dictates of the emotions, and of asserting the power of control over them. So, here too, we see that the Master must be looked for higher up in the scale.
As in the case of the sensations, here too, in the case of the emotions we discover the presence of that Something Within which is the Subject of the emotions—the Something to which the emotions report, and from whom they demand action. Here again we find this "I" occupying a higher seat, and having the reports and demands of the subordinate faculties made upon it. And, mark you this, that in spite of the constant change in the emotional stream of feeling, this "I" always remains the same. Just as in the case of the sensations, the "I" occupies the position of a spectator to whom are presented the sense experiences, so in the case of the emotions the "I" occupies the position of the Something which experiences the ever changing "feeling" of the emotional nature. In both cases there seems to be this constant Something, past which flows the respective streams of Sensations and Emotions. And this Something also has the power to direct and change the course of these streams, if it will but exert its Will Power.
Next we consider the great realm of Thought. Here, too, we find a constant stream of thoughts flowing past the Something—the "I"—which is practically the spectator of the flowing stream; and which also has the power of directing and controlling the stream. While it is true that the individuals of primitive natures are almost passive spectators of the streams of their thoughts, and exercise little or no control over them, it is an unquestioned fact that other individuals who have cultivated their Will Power are able to turn their attention to this kind of thoughts, or that kind, and thus control and determine just what kind of thoughts they shall think. Every student performs this feat of control and mastery when he voluntarily directs his attention to some particular study which he desires to master. In fact, all "voluntary attention" is performed by the exercise of this power of the will, exerted by this Something Within which we call "I," and which thus proves itself to be the Master of Thoughts.
The individual who has trained his mind to obey his will, is able to direct his thought processes just as he directs his feet, or his hands, or his body, or just as he guides and manages his team or horses or his motor car. This being so, we cannot consider our Thought processes or faculties as the Mind Master, but must look for the latter in something still higher in authority.
There seems to be but one other region of the mind in which to search for our Mind Master, or Central Authority. You naturally say here "He means The Will." But is it merely the Will? Stop a moment and consider. If the Will, in itself, is the Mind Master, why is it that the Will, in the case of so many persons, allows itself to be controlled and called into action by ordinary feelings, desires, emotions, or passions, or on the other hand is called into action by the most trifling passing thought or idea? In such cases it would appear that the Will is really the obedient "easy" servant, rather than the Master, does it not.
That the machinery of the Will is the mechanism of control and action, is undoubted; but what is it that controls and directs the Will in the cases of individuals of strong Will Power? In such cases it would seem that not only must the Will be strong, but that there must be some stronger Something which is able to control, direct, and apply the power of the Will. In moments in which you have exerted your Will Power, did you identify yourself with your Will, or did you feel that your Will was an instrument of power "belonging to" you, and being operated by you. Were you not at such moments aware of feeling an overwhelming consciousness of the existence of your self, or "I," at the center of your mental being? and of feeling that, at least for the time, this "I" was the Master of all the rest of your mental equipment? We think that you will agree to this statement, if you will carefully live over again the experiences of such moments, and in imagination and memory re-enact the experience.
All mental analysis brings the individual to the realization that at the very center of his mental being there abides and dwells a Something—and he always calls this "I"— which is the permanent element of his being. While his sensations, his feelings, his emotions, his tastes, his thoughts, his beliefs, his ideas, and even his ideals have changed from time to time, he knows to a certainty that this "I" has been permanent, and that it is the same old "I" that has always been present during his entire life, from his earliest days. He knows that although his emotional nature, and general mental physical character may have undergone an almost total transformation and change, yet this "I" has never been really changed at all, but has ever remained "the same old I." It is as if this "I" was an individual who had worn many successive coats, or shoes, or hats, but always remained the same individual. The consciousness of every individual must always so report to him, when the answer is demanded of it.
And, moreover, while the individual may and does change his sensations, his feelings, his tastes, his passions, his emotions, and his whole general character in some cases, he is never able to change in the slightest degree this Something Within which he calls "I." He can never run away from this "I," nor can he ever move it from its position. He can never lift his "I" by means of his mental bootstraps; nor can his personal shadow run away from this "I" of his individuality. He may set apart for consideration each and every one of his mental experiences, his sensations, his thoughts, his feelings, his ideas, and all the rest; but he can never set off from himself this "I" for such inspection. He can know this "I" only as his self, that Something Within at the very center of his consciousness.
A writer has said of this Something Within, which we call "I": "We are conscious of something closer to the center than anything else, and differing from the other forms in being the only form of consciousness to which we are not passive. This Something is in the normal consciousness of each of you, yet it is never a part of sensation, nor emotion, but on the contrary is capable of dominating both.
Sensations originate outside and inside of the body; Emotions originate inside of the body. But this Something is deeper than either, and they are both objective to it. We cannot classify it with anything else. We cannot describe it in terms of any other form of consciousness. We cannot separate ourselves from it. We cannot stand off and examine it. We cannot modify it by anything else. It, itself, modifies everything within its scope. Other forms of consciousness are objective in their relation to it, but it is never objective to them. There is nothing in our consciousness deeper. It underlies and overlies and permeates all other forms, and, moreover,—what is of immeasurably greater importance,—it can, if need be, create them."
Another writer has said: "The 'I' is the Thinker, the Knower, the Feeler, the Actor. Its states of consciousness are constantly changing—different today from those of yesterday, and different tomorrow from those of today—but the 'I,' itself, is always the name. Just what this 'I' is, we cannot tell. This riddle has never been solved by the reason of man. So subtle is its essence that it is almost impossible to think of it as a something apart from its mental states. All that can be said of it is that it is. Its only report of itself is 'I Am.' You cannot examine the 'I' by the 'I.' You must have an object for your subject; and if you make the 'I' your object, you have no subject left to examine it. Place the 'I' under the mental microscope to examine it, and lo! you have nothing to look through the glass —there is no 'I' at the eye-piece of the microscope to examine it. The 'I' cannot be at both ends of the glass at the same time. Here,