Rats are very intelligent. They are much closer to humans than one might suspect, particularly in their social behaviour. This is why they are often used in experiments, not simply because they are easier to obtain than monkeys. There is one experiment I find particularly interesting…
- Two exploiters. They never swim and have the food brought to them by the submissive ones.
- Two submissive ones. They swim to fetch the food, bring it back to the exploiters, and can only eat after them.
- One autonomous one. It swims well enough to bypass the exploiters and feeds itself.
- One scapegoat. It swims less well and is less able to assert itself; it lives only on scraps.
What is most surprising is that by repeating the experiment six times with different rats and putting the six scapegoats together, they will very quickly reconstitute a hierarchy with the same six roles. If the experiment is repeated with six autonomous ones, six submissive ones, or six exploiters, in each case they will reproduce the same six distinct roles.
We tend to take on the roles that are available, much like water that first fills the holes as it flows. We believe we choose, but we choose nothing. This is a key point. We will come back to it later…
The experiment was reproduced with a much larger number of rats (perhaps 100 or 200). Again, we find the same distribution of roles: 1/6 of the rats are scapegoats, 1/3 are exploiters, 1/3 are submissive ones, and 1/6 are autonomous ones. Of course, within each of these four categories, there are more or less marked differences. The more individuals there are, the more complex the hierarchy becomes: there are leaders, sub-leaders, moderately exploited ones, very exploited ones, etc.
Let us imagine that we do this experiment with humans. As you might suspect, the result will be no different! Moreover, the experiment is already underway… One only has to observe the world! If we roughly schematise, we can say that these four categories are more or less found: a majority of submissive workers and exploiting profiteers, autonomous ones, and scapegoats.
These four categories can only be surpassed by lucid awareness combined with detachment. We will also come back to this point…
Now let us imagine that we reproduce the experiment not with six randomly selected humans, but with six of yourselves, six perfect clones of you, six yous, with the same temperament, the same qualities, the same tendencies. Do you think we would still find exactly the same distribution into four categories? You are absolutely right! How is this possible? Here is a clue to understand it…
When you find yourself in the presence of a person more authoritarian than yourself, you tend to let them dominate or to keep a low profile, to avoid conflict, to speak in a more subdued, more conciliatory voice, don't you? Conversely, when you find yourself in the presence of a person more submissive than yourself, you tend to direct them a little, or at least make suggestions to them, to speak in a more assured voice, don't you? In the same way, one you faced with another you in a moment when they feel more or less confident will tend to act or react in a more or less imposing, or more or less docile way.
Now, let us imagine a much bolder experiment. An entire country, filled with yous. A country like the United States; 350 million inhabitants. 350,000,000 copies of you, just as you are! A vast crowd of yous, but of all ages and as many male versions as female versions of yourself, in order to constitute the normal population of a country. At the beginning, differentiated only by age and sex, everyone is like you: same tendencies, same tastes, same aptitudes, same habits. Depending on the environment, influences, conditionings, and situations, the evolution of some yous will differ from that of others. Some yous will become more courageous, or more fearful, or more athletic, or more scientific, or more social. Some will be more interested in money or erudition, and others more or less sensitive to nature, etc.
As we saw in the rat experiment, the role we take on depends greatly on that of others.
And you, which roles have most often been yours? Have you experienced each of the four types of roles?
Even if you have a predisposition to shyness, honesty, and tranquility, as long as there are places to be taken, among your millions of yous, depending on opportunities, there will probably be a few who will invest themselves in theft or some illegal market.
Are you a bad actor? Among the yous who dare to dabble in a bit of theatre, some will end up becoming actors; there have to be some to make films. And whatever the talent, it is a you who will win the Oscar, since there are only yous!
Among the most enterprising, the you who has benefited from the best opportunities will inevitably become the President, as there has to be a head of state in a country. If you are particularly non-violent, there will probably be no crime, only minor offences. If you are naturally lazy, some yous will end up shaking themselves up and taking action, because the essential things for the proper functioning of the country will have to be kept going.
Among these 350 million yous, perhaps there will be no awakened beings, but at the very least we will find wise individuals, living humbly, in detachment, bathed in serenity and kindness. Take the most accomplished among them. It is yourself, do not forget! It is nothing other than a potentiality of yourself. To achieve the same result, you simply need to follow the path of that you, among the 350 million paths that your yous have followed. So choose the best of your yous! Which other you would you prefer to be?
Am I not following it? Would you then be kind enough to explain to me what the most diligent of my selves would do better, apart from a few details? I only admit that it has not been so long since I followed one of the best paths of my selves; better late than never. And you, instead of judging others, you would do well to concern yourself with the millions of paths followed by your yous that are better than yours! In any case, one should always take as a role model the most accomplished of one's selves.
The main obstacle that prevents you from becoming the best placed of your yous – that is, the most spiritually evolved – is the set of conditionings that shape you and constitute a high barrier that confines you to your category. The good news is that you can escape this limit. The secret is not to climb over this barrier – there will always be guards posted in the watchtower to shoot you – but not to build it! If it is already in place, you simply have to stop maintaining it and it will eventually collapse on its own. The question remains: how not to build this barrier of conditionings.
To follow the peaceful path of a renunciant – a path without caste barriers, without roles, without any category whatsoever – one does not seek to acquire diplomas, experiences, positions, obstacle courses, or to submit to particular trials. All these points are precisely the limiting barrier. On the contrary, one invests in nothing, one does not seek to acquire anything.
How does one proceed? One accepts things as they are, one is content with what is given. One does not seek to fill empty places. The heart of this process is this: You do not seek to take any place; you are already in the right place, and the world revolves around you. This is the path of the middle way. You grasp nothing, you let go of everything! This may seem crazy. And yet, it is as simple as that.
What can make things more complicated is only your barrier of conditionings, which does everything to dissuade you from following the path of the best of your yous.

