There is a tendency for most people to attempt to redefine who they are as they change.

I have found
that, in most cases, this comes from a need for acceptance, primarily from others. One of the roots of this
tendency is the expectation that parents put on the children that they will "make something of their lives"
... to justify the parental need to be seen as a successful parent.

It is only the ego that needs a name or needs to be named.

The Divine essence, the Innocent you needs no such name. To place a name on the Innocent is to try
and limit that which is limitless or infinite. Labels and names imply boxes.

This is part of the reason why most are unable to accept the concept of an infinite beingness of what
some call God because, for the ego, the concept of infinite is something which is impossible for the finite
mind to grasp.

Every time I set out to define who I am, I do that just that, create a boundary, a separation from my
divinity, my infinity, my innocence. Not only am I defined as separate, I have to find the rules, the
parameters, which encompass (or box) my new "limited" perception who I am.

For me to allow change to be a continual and progressive irrevocable thing, and yet continue to define
who I am, I am creating a continual paradox or conflict within myself.

The way around this that I used very early in my journey was for me to define myself not as being
anything more than an expression of some part of that infinite being that I am. The benefits of this are
twofold:

1. I do not lose sight of the infinity of my essence which is underneath any definition or identity that I may
see myself as having ...

2. I am able to change the definition, and the rules and conditions of my behaviour as easily as I would
change jobs ... by simply recognising that I am changing masks as I would at a fancy dress ball.

A further benefit from this perspective is that I can see I am and that my expression is, in the moment,
defined by the mask that I'm wearing in that moment.

I do not call myself therapist, but in the moment that I am working within the definition of "therapist", that is
what I'm doing. But it is not who I am.

If I would call myself therapist, or a councillor, or healer, or any of those other labels that people tend to
place on aspects of the work that I'm doing, then I would be limiting the fullness of what I'm doing (or
expressing) to that other person's perception (and projections) of what that box defines as appropriate
behaviour for box labelled " ... ".

By removing the labels on myself I am removing the expectation that I place on myself and that others
can place on me as to how I should appear to them.

In this consciousness, expecting the unexpected is a way of being; the only constancy is change.

It is of a source of amusement to me as I watch other people try to put me in a box... and they find that as
soon as they have identified the box, I have already jumped out of it.

The other benefit to this approach for me, in my own path, is that rather than try and find out who I am, I
(having already accepted that) am in the process of dissolving my, and others, perceptions (illusions) of
who I am or who I ought to be.

Recognising the illusion of definition, I remove the need to battle myself, and can assume the position of
the watcher observing the battle between the archetypes (or labels) that I have worn. I can then start to
identify some of the conscious and unconscious programs that I have absorbed .. and do something
about removing the limitations of the programs which I no longer need.

Accepting the essence and seeing the definition or label as an expression (in the moment) of that
essence is the work around I use, not only to clear boundaries within myself from the past, but also to
limit the effect of the projections from others on myself.