From Indecision To Choice

The difficulty in making right decisions arises from a lack of self-awareness and the presence of hidden motives and tendencies.

By Roberto Assagioli, (Doc. #24218 – Assagioli Archives – Florence). Original Title: Dell’indecisione alla Scelta[1]. Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm[2]

Abstract: The author discusses the concept of indecision and its implications for personal growth. He states that indecision can be a sign of higher evolution, as it signifies the emergence of new values and higher goals. The difficulty in making right decisions arises from a lack of self-awareness and the presence of hidden motives and tendencies. The author suggests that self-reflection, moral courage, and sincere introspection are necessary to overcome these challenges. He also introduces the concept of spiritual intuition as a higher faculty that can aid in decision-making. The essay cautions against relying on divinatory practices or seeking advice from others, as they can lead to errors and a lack of personal responsibility. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of embracing mistakes as valuable lessons and the need for collaboration and examination of the problem to find the best solution.

Indecision is regarded as a flaw that can seriously impair a person’s effectiveness, and it really is; but on the other hand it also often denotes a fairly advanced stage of higher evolution.

The common man — who is moved to action by his instincts, passions and personal desires — is in fact rarely indecisive. There are usually in him one or a few preponderant tendencies which determine and impel him, and with which he identifies himself. Thus we have well-characterized types of people such the sensual, the ambitious, the stingy, the passionate, etc.

We do sometimes find among ordinary people some who are doubtful and irresolute. But in such cases these are mostly people who are not quite normal; that is, who are “dissociated” or suffering from neuro-psychic symptoms, and particularly from “psychasthenia.”[3] In these cases, in which people are suffering torments, there is a special kind of psychic dissociation (but different from that of schizophrenia), and a lowering of “psychic potential,” which results in a diminished “sense of reality,” that is necessary for energetic and purposeful action. Such cases require special understanding and special treatments, which I cannot dwell on here.

However, one should not confuse irresolute people with changeable persons, who may even show some similarities on superficial observation, since both groups are ineffective and squander their energies without accomplishing anything. Indeed, changeable people are in a sense the opposite of those who are indecisive, for they thoughtlessly surrender to every internal impulse or external suggestion. On the other hand, people of high inner development are generally firm and resolute, because they have irrevocably committed to spiritual principles and values, and because they hear the clear and imperious voice of their Soul.

There is, on the other hand, an intermediate stage, of those in whom spiritual consciousness begins to awaken, in which new values begin to appear, and higher goals than the ordinary ones are revealed. These people thus become aware that there are different levels of life in them; that there are impulses, motives and calls of a different nature in them, and that therefore they can no longer “let themselves live,” and passively yield to the strongest inner drive. They find themselves in the situation symbolized in the myth of Hercules at the crossroads,[4] of the Sixth Arcanum of Hermes (the two Ways – the Trial)[5] which is developed in a broad and profound way in the Bhagavad Gita. They must choose.

At this point, the problem arises: How to decide rightly? Indeed, while in a number of cases the choice between evil and good, between selfish and selfless motives, seems obvious, in a great many cases it is not. There are two main reasons for the difficulty of deciding rightly. The first consists in the difficulty of the problem at hand; the second is because we do not actually know ourselves.

Let us first examine this second cause of difficulty. Modern psychology — which is rediscovering what ancient wisdom knew well and taught to spiritual aspirants and disciples, and expounding it in contemporary language — has shown that we are habitually aware of only a small part of ourselves, the surface of our psyche. There are vast regions in us in which instincts, tendencies, feelings and thoughts arise which we ignore, but which exert a powerful influence on our conduct. This influence is all the more powerful because it is unnoticed and masked. In fact if certain tendencies and motives openly emerged at the surface of consciousness, they would undoubtedly be seen as low, unworthy and inappropriate, and therefore would be condemned and discarded.

But in order to escape such moral “censure,” [such tendencies and motives] often conceal themselves under plausible pretexts; they cloak themselves in noble or harmless appearances, and thus manage to smuggle themselves in! They are just like those clever lawyers who win a bad case by the use of specious sophistry or sentimental appeals. How often our vanity hides in the guise of goodness, in “doing good.” How often we defend our selfish interests and privileges by deluding ourselves that we are upholding “justice.” How often we say and believe that we “love” our children, while in reality we are moved by possessive attachment. How often we believe that we “think for ourselves,” while we are actually dominated by prejudices or tendencies of family, nation or race; that is, by what Jung calls “the collective unconscious.”

One of the first things everyone should learn is the true nature of what directs them and determines [their behavior and attitudes]. For many, it is one side of their personality as a whole. For some, a few, it is the Soul. Others may be driven by a sense of inferiority, and the reaction to it which manifests as intentional defensive activity. For still others the motives may be life circumstances, collective mentality, popular opinion, and finally the influence of the people with whom they are connected.

We must always keep in mind this continuous tendency toward self-delusion (which in psychoanalytic language is called “rationalization;” that is, pseudo-rational justification of unreasonable tendencies). To free ourselves of this one first needs a good knowledge of “depth psychology;” that is, psychoanalysis in its broadest and most balanced aspects, stripped of exaggerations and theoretical superstructures, and integrated with the general psychology of humanity and “height psychology;” that is, a study of the superconscious. We need continuous and careful inner alertness, moral courage, and complete sincerity toward oneself. In this way we eliminate countless causes of error in decision-making, with their consequences, which can be so harmful to ourselves and others.

But, as has been mentioned, even this “clarification” does not always prove sufficient to make good decisions. There are complicated situations in which we remain perplexed even if we eliminate all unworthy motives. In such cases, it is necessary to begin by making maximum use of the mind, by making use of its faculties of discrimination and reflection, by considering and thinking. The etymology of the latter word is significant in this regard: “thinking” is derived from “weighing,”[6] that is, “to put on the scales.” In doing so, an initial period of perplexity and indecision is followed by a wise choice, much preferable to those choices that are made quickly but impulsively and unreflectively.

Sometimes, however, even these gifts are not enough to make a decision. There are cases in which essential data and elements for judgment are missing, or where the pros and cons of various alternatives seem to balance each other. In these cases it is necessary to appeal to a higher faculty: spiritual intuition. I have called it spiritual intuition to distinguish it from “psychic impressions” arising from telepathic sensitivity of an instinctive and emotional kind, which are commonly called “intuitions.”

True intuition is a faculty of the Soul. Therefore, for it to be active, it is necessary for the personal consciousness to be in rapport with the Soul to some degree, and the mind must be illuminated by the light of the Soul. In other words, [it is necessary] that a certain degree of spiritual psychosynthesis be achieved, at least momentarily. Such conscious connection between the personality and the Soul may occur spontaneously — especially in times of danger and in which a person is faced with serious decisions — but normally it is the result of the practice of meditation. An examination of meditation methods would require a lengthy discussion. Those who wish to study them in depth can very usefully study Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, which have been extensively commented on by Alice A. Bailey.[7]

Here I will only say that the practice of meditation includes the following stages: 1) Aspiration (of the feeling); 2) Concentration (of the mind); 3) Meditation itself, or activity of the mind (reflection on a given theme); 4) Contemplation; 5) Enlightenment (intuitive); and 6) Inspiration.

For those who are unwilling to engage in the difficult discipline of methodical meditation, which is also a powerful means of spiritual development, a simple method may be suggested, which is within the reach of any person of good will, and which often yields very good, indeed sometimes surprising, results. Here are its stages:

• A brief recollection, in which one tries to quiet the emotions and the mind, and to achieve a relative state of inner “silence.”

• Formulate clearly and precisely (even in writing) the problem to be solved in the form of a “question,” as if one wanted to ask a wise and loving person in whom one had full confidence. Depending on one’s spiritual beliefs, one may address the question to one’s Soul, or to a Higher Being for whom one has devotion such as Christ, or directly to God, or to Life.

• Set the problem aside, “abandoning” and entrusting it, and attend to something else. Such an “interlude” or pause is necessary to allow time for the mysterious process leading to the concluding stage to take place.

• Reception, recognition and right interpretation of the “answer.” This is the most delicate point and one that requires practice and experience. The “answer” can in fact come in two ways: direct or inner, and indirect or outer.

The former can take different forms: a sudden clear mental “vision,” like a “flash” of light, accompanied by a sense of security. Or a gradual clarification of the situation, which was previously uncertain and confused before the inner eye, as when the dissipation of the fog in the mountains lets the landscape below gradually appear. Or again, a strong inner urge to follow a given path for no apparent reason. Sometimes the “answer” may present itself to the mind in symbolic form.

The indirect ways — which sometimes give the distinct and surprising impression of being the result of conscious and intelligent forces — are of various kinds: a person who may even be unaware of our problem may say something that contains a clear indication for us. We may read the expected answer, or at least the indication of a way to find it, in a passage from a book, or an article from a magazine or newspaper that comes to our attention “by chance.” An event may occur, or there is a spontaneous change in the situation which brings the decision with it or points to it, or makes it easier to choose. In some cases then, it is like closing all doors but one.

The use of this method is not without its difficulties. It can cause errors which must be taken into account. Recognition of the “response” requires inner alertness, sensitivity, readiness and, above all, discrimination, so as not to mistake an impulse or suggestion of the personal or collective unconscious for a genuine direction, against which I have already warned. It must therefore be kept well in mind that the method under consideration cannot and should not be a convenient escape from the effort and responsibility of making conscious decisions, but only an aid to doing so.

This is true also, and especially so, of two other ways in which men have sought [direction] and often try to evade the effort and responsibility of choice: namely, divinatory practices, and resorting to the advice and guidance of others.

Divining practices have been very widespread in all times and places, thus showing that they correspond to a very strong tendency of the human soul. This tendency has two elements or “components:” first, the desire to know one’s future destiny, and that of receiving guidance and rules as to what to do, in order to save oneself the trouble and responsibility of choosing; and then, to have the presumed assurance that one will not make a mistake. To these personal, and for the most part selfish, motives can be added the dark sense that there is a part of us that knows — that knows much more than our waking consciousness. This supernormal part of us, can, within certain limits, even read in the “book of the future,” as shown by the phenomena of “premonition.”

The reality of these phenomena has been highlighted well by Dr. Osty,[8] who has devoted a book to them that is an admirable example of objective, scientific and dispassionate research: La connaissance supra-normale.[9] But — as Dr. Osty pointed out — there are so many and so frequent causes of error that it would be dangerous to rely on such phenomena to make serious decisions in one’s life. And if errors are easy even in experiments conducted with caution and scientific method, all the more numerous will they be [likely] in the countless popular divinatory practices.

Finally, I will say a few words about the second — much used — way of deciding, or, more exactly . . . of not deciding for oneself: that of seeking advice from others.

This too has serious drawbacks, at least as it is generally used, both by those who ask for advice and those who give it. The phrase with which advice is often asked, namely, “What should I do?” already clearly shows a desire to lean on others, to seek external authority in order to avoid the effort and responsibility of an autonomous decision. And what is worse is that the ease with which advice is sought in this way is matched by an equal, indeed greater, ease — it would be more appropriate to call it “facility” — with which advice is given to those who ask for it . . . and even to those who do not ask. It is not difficult to do a psychoanalysis of the latter tendency: it is an expression (along with the related one of criticism) of the fundamental tendency toward self-assertion and domination over others.

In the act of advising, there is a pleasurable sense of superiority over those being advised, which flatters our vanity and feeds our self-love. Unfortunately, this tends to blind us to the enormous presumption we display in advising lightly without possessing the necessary elements of judgment (which would almost always require patient investigation and careful consideration) and the consequent grave responsibility we assume. To the facile mentors, to the improvised pilots who offer to guide our ship over the prolific waters of life, it is appropriate to respond with the following joking phrase, which in its apparent haughtiness, however, contains a fund of wisdom, and also of humility: “Don’t give me advice; I can make mistakes by myself!”

If after attempting the use of all the above means, we still feel perplexed, we must have, or arouse in ourselves, the courage to risk making mistakes. An error in good faith, made with pure motives, not only does not bring us down (which would be a worse evil), but can indeed be a valuable lesson, a fruitful experience, when it is sincerely acknowledged afterwards and due account is taken of it in the future.

In order to avoid misunderstandings, and to complete our examination of this problem, it should be made clear that refraining from asking others what should be done, and not blindly following what they say to do, does not mean that we should never expose our problems to others, nor that we should not consult about them with competent people. On the contrary, this can be quite appropriate, and can effectively help us find the solution we seek. The mere fact of “expressing” perplexities and doubts, of “objectifying” the problem, of “distancing” it, often has a clarifying effect. Sometimes indeed it is enough to make the solution appear.

But the “competent” aspect of the [person we consult] must be an active function, and must not fall into the drawbacks mentioned above. That function consists, first, in helping to state the problem rightly; to set it out clearly, in its proper terms, eliminating mental confusions, agitations and emotional exaggerations; and to frame it within a larger context in which it acquires its proper perspective and reveals its real connections. Secondly, it consists in bringing out the human and spiritual principles that must be taken into account in order to decide correctly; to clarify the motives that drive us in various directions; and finally to illuminate the near-term and long-term consequences — for us and for others — that the various ways of acting would have.

From such an examination — done in collaboration between the “consulted” and the “consultant” — the best solution not infrequently leaps out, without the slightest use of “authority” on the part of the latter, and fully safeguarding the autonomy, responsibility and merit of those involved.

[1] According to the Assagioli Archives, “Many of the contents in this article were later taken up in the chapter on ‘Choice and Decision’ of the text The Act of Will.” —Ed.

[2] Editor’s interpolations are shown in [brackets]. —Ed.

[3] psychasthenia: a neurotic state characterized especially by phobias, obsessions, or compulsions that one knows are irrational. (Merriam-Webster) —Ed.

[4] “Hercules at the Crossroads,” also known as “The Choice of Hercules” and “The Judgment of Hercules,” is an ancient Greek parable attributed to Prodicus and known from Xenophon. It concerns the young Heracles/Hercules who is offered a choice between Vice and Virtue—a life of pleasure or one of hardship and honor. —Ed.

[5] Hermetic: of or relating to the mystical and alchemical writings or teachings arising in the first three centuries A.D. and attributed to Hermes Trismegistus. Arcana refers to specialized knowledge, language, or information accessible or possessed only by the initiate. Books by different modern authors have purportedly explained some of the foregoing. The “sixth arcanum” as used in Tarot is a representation of how a disciple must face specific temptations, and “indecision” is related to the sixth arcanum or law of Tarot. —Ed.

[6] “thinking” – pensare in Italian, is derived from pesare “to weigh.” —Tr.

[7] Published by Lucis Publishing Co. as The Light of the Soul: Its Science and Effect: A Paraphrase of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali by Alice A. Bailey. —Ed.

[8] Eugène Osty (1874-1938) was a French physician and psychical researcher. —Ed.

[9] La connaissance supra-normale (Super-Normal Knowledge) by Dr. Eugene Osty, Paris, Alcan, 1925. —Ed.