Tuesday 12 July 2011
There is no "sense of self"
15:01 | 
Posted by
Alexei
There is this thing people talk about called a sense of self. It's not actually seeing a self of any sort - that's impossible because no self exists to see. Instead, it is this vague "sense" that something is there, something that somehow feels like a self.
Yesterday, I decided to turn laser focus onto this sense of self.
It didn't take long to figure out what a sense of self actually means. It's a sense of existence, a sense that, no matter who or what I actually am, I do at least exist, and I can sense that fact of existing. It's like "I think therefore I am", but with the "I think" taken out, because this is something you can feel even when you're not thinking. Indeed, some would say that this "I am" is something you can feel only when your mind is still.
Is this true?
I chased down the sense of existence. What did it actually refer to? Where and what was this existence that I was sensing? What was sensing it like?
In every instance, the sense of existence turned out to point to some other, concrete sense. It was the sense of me touching something with my skin. The sense of me hearing an inner monologue. At its deepest, it was physical sensation coming from inside the body, the kinaesthetic sense.
Here's the clincher. Without those concrete instances of sensation, I could not find any sense of existence at all.
Do you know what happens when consciousness contains no sensory input at all, not even sensations from the inside of the body? We call that unconsciousness, or dreamless sleep (depending on context). And in neither of those states is there any sense of existence.
The sense of existence doesn't exist. All that happens is that we apply a label - "existence" - to a concrete sensation, and then pretend that we are sensing this label independently of the sensation it's been applied to.
At any given moment, specific instances of sensory input - such as sight, hearing, thoughts and feelings - are all there is. ALL THERE IS. There is no sense of existence except as an after-the-fact label applied to those instances. There is no sense of self except as an after-the-fact label applied to those instances.
Is this true?
Try it now. Find a sense of self that relies on no other sense in order to be felt. Find a sense of self that's more than a mental label applied to other senses.
And when you've failed, ask yourself what else you've been taking for granted about reality. How about the self that you thought you were sensing? Can you find that anywhere?
Spread this:
Yesterday, I decided to turn laser focus onto this sense of self.
It didn't take long to figure out what a sense of self actually means. It's a sense of existence, a sense that, no matter who or what I actually am, I do at least exist, and I can sense that fact of existing. It's like "I think therefore I am", but with the "I think" taken out, because this is something you can feel even when you're not thinking. Indeed, some would say that this "I am" is something you can feel only when your mind is still.
Is this true?
I chased down the sense of existence. What did it actually refer to? Where and what was this existence that I was sensing? What was sensing it like?
In every instance, the sense of existence turned out to point to some other, concrete sense. It was the sense of me touching something with my skin. The sense of me hearing an inner monologue. At its deepest, it was physical sensation coming from inside the body, the kinaesthetic sense.
Here's the clincher. Without those concrete instances of sensation, I could not find any sense of existence at all.
Do you know what happens when consciousness contains no sensory input at all, not even sensations from the inside of the body? We call that unconsciousness, or dreamless sleep (depending on context). And in neither of those states is there any sense of existence.
The sense of existence doesn't exist. All that happens is that we apply a label - "existence" - to a concrete sensation, and then pretend that we are sensing this label independently of the sensation it's been applied to.
At any given moment, specific instances of sensory input - such as sight, hearing, thoughts and feelings - are all there is. ALL THERE IS. There is no sense of existence except as an after-the-fact label applied to those instances. There is no sense of self except as an after-the-fact label applied to those instances.
Is this true?
Try it now. Find a sense of self that relies on no other sense in order to be felt. Find a sense of self that's more than a mental label applied to other senses.
And when you've failed, ask yourself what else you've been taking for granted about reality. How about the self that you thought you were sensing? Can you find that anywhere?
| Share |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Connect via Facebook
RSS Feeds
Posts
Comments
42 comments:
I really like this, Alexey! Yes, I come across people with this sense of self thingy. This was great you actually did experiment,and while I read, I did it too. Great.
'Do you know what happens when consciousness contains no sensory input at all, not even sensations from the inside of the body? We call that unconsciousness, or dreamless sleep (depending on context). And in neither of those states is there any sense of existence.'
Just one question:
How do you know there was 'dreamless sleep'. How is it possible to know that such a state existed?
We can't know such a thing directly, for obvious reasons. If 100% of our sleep was taken up by dreams but we forgot them all upon waking up, we would never know.
However, neuroscience professes to have mapped brain activity during sleep, and locates dreams within a specific stage of it - namely, REM sleep.
On balance, I think it is more likely that neuroscientists know what they are talking about than that 100% of sleep time is taken up by dreams, but you're right in that I can't be completely certain.
Either way, we know that there *is* a dreamless unconscious state, since people don't report dreams at the levels of brain activity associated with, say, being violently knocked out.
I'm half asleep (physically, I mean), so maybe somebody already said this, but whenever I've gone looking for a sense of existence and find almost nothing there ... there's still something there. But I shrug this off because of what's obviously happening.
What is that sense of something that remains? Well, there's a sense of looking so ...
Well, so what? So nothing, really. Did I think I couldn't tell I was looking?
Is there really a sense of looking? Surely there is just the experience of looking. I have a "movie screen" generated by the interaction between my eyeballs and certain parts of the brain, and certain things happen on it. There's no extra "sense" of that movie screen, it's just there.
Consider also the distinction between "there's a sense of looking" and "I am looking". It's a vital one. The presence of a sense merely requires a sensor (like an eyeball) connected to a processor that can turn input from the sensor into output. A camera could exactly replicate what happens when you look, and it doing so is not evidence of a looker. Why should a sense of looking be such?
Sorry you are missing something very important.
When you awaken as the sense of being, the space that objects and sensations happen in without any conceptual labels (ego/false self) That is enlightenment. This space cannot be perceived with the conceptual mind.
Keep looking :)
To realise that you are space, that you are emptiness, is to realise that you don't exist. That is the only way it works. Anything else is the ego dancing around going "look at me - I'm the emptiness and I'm enlightened".
Think about it. Do you really think that space, or a sense of being, is capable of saying "I am space" or "I am the sense of being"?
You don't exist. There is no-one to become enlightened. There is no-one to awaken as X or Y or Z. That which becomes enlightened is not you, it is a human being which stops pretending that he/she/it has a self.
Keep looking :)
I agree with you.
But to use your same argument to just say there is "no-self" is a concept.
To recognize that the false self doesn't exist is merely the first step. It goes deeper...much deeper.
Yes Space/Being/True Nature etc. cannot know its self via the conceptual mind but it can become aware of it's Self.
You are right. No thought of 'self' can become enlightened.
Ah, I see. You're saying that there is a greater, universal impersonal Self.
There can be no identification without concepts, so how can something non-conceptual identify with anything?
There is no identification with It via the mind there is a 'Knowing' which is beyond concepts...and this is where words start to fail.
You cannot know It via the mind.
However in words expressed all is still limited, the seeing, recognizing, realization liberation is part of waking state like the concept of dreamless sleep only can exist during our waking state between waking up and sleeping. @ 0 meter distance and pinpoint the spotless spot and then to communicate in words around about it, is just on the most some vague fata morgana, mirrored.
It's like constantly falling and seeing any attempt to hold the branch fails and the next branch again the attempt failed.
So all we can put out in words are still efforts to pinpoint very subtle borders around some recognition which will fail due to even not the slightest possibility to conclude that there is no self. Whatever conclusion arises is false. We can debate a lot about how to pinpoint the gateless gate in practical sense but it is still just a tool nothing more, at the moment one discovers a thing that passes by and is known and therefore already past and dead meat. On the most it is on the mental realm, level of thoughts about a source, but in failing to see that one is searching for some manner or way to make the best pointer and fixed on the expressions of pointers. Any need or effort to do so is just what arises. Whatever arises always try to make the claim and loves to dress itself as non existence.
@Anonymous, human beings are actually fairly simple things. We perceive the world through a limited set of senses like sight, hearing, touch etc. We also have thoughts and emotions, which are generated internally via those same senses (e.g. verbal thought through the sense of hearing). "Knowing beyond concepts", however much you may wish to worship it, still lies within that same neurological framework. It can still be pinned down and identified as something concrete and practical, which is what this article is about.
To claim that something is special or magical or divine purely because it is not experienced through verbal or visual thought is self-delusion. The fact that words start to fail you is a limitation of words when it comes to describing certain types of sensory input, not proof that you are actually a Supreme Ultimate.
@Menno, my time is limited, and I'm afraid I don't have enough to spend it on poetry. Please refine your point down to two or three clear sentences, and I will happily respond to it.
"When did I claim that "something is special or magical or divine"? Or claim that I am a Supreme Ultimate LOL! This is a projection of your mind ie delusion because it is scared that your view of the world maybe limited or to be more accurate 'blinkered'.
Knowing beyond concepts is just what happens when you realise that you can NEVER know the Truth by the limited thinking mind which can only know the world via dualistic concepts ie good/bad, light/dark, here/there......
In order to perceive something eg sense input You have to be separate to it....this is simple logic. What is this perceiving principle that has always been there? When did it start? When will it end? How old were you when your first thought arose in it? Through the dramas and events of your life has it ever been affected by anything? Awaken as/into this perceiving. Do not stop here!
@Velorien, Thanks for the compliment. However pinpointing and identifying in words-grammar in English as foreigner is not my thing, neither I was aware that replies should be according some intentions. Perhaps I missed that part of your post.
Never mind, let me know what you do not find clear, or how you want people to response. I will give it a try, although to be honest I do not see value in any efforts because it sounds so technical then, but who knows.
@Anonymous, the way you capitalise "It", "the Truth", "Knowing" etc. demonstrates the attitude of worship you have towards it.
You are not the Truth. Nor do you know the Truth. Why? Because there is no you to do either. There is the truth of non-duality, and there is awareness of that truth, but it has nothing to do with a "you", and "you" cannot awaken into it.
"In order to perceive something, e.g. sense input, you have to be separate to it". Yes, but only as long as you break up the world into perceiver and perceived. In reality, such a distinction does not apply. There is no "perceiving principle" until your mind invents one to justify the split.
@Menno, "technical" is exactly what I'm after. It is incredibly easy to waffle about spirituality, and say endless things that sound profound but actually mean nothing. It is why I despise the spirituality community as a whole.
Thanks to a man who wrote technically, I became enlightened (so to speak) within four hours of encountering his work. Most people spend decades without doing so because they listen to people who would rather speak in beautiful, flowery poetry than convey information clearly and precisely.
You have to take responsibility for communicating your message, doubly so if you are a non-native speaker (I've been there too). If you just write what you like, only those who (by luck) happen to think the same way as you will understand it.
As far as I can tell, you are criticising the use of pointers to no-self. What about them are you criticising? Their existence? The way I am using them? The particular pointers I am using? Be clear and precise, otherwise it just won't be communication.
Your assumptions from my writing are again incorrect. You THINK 'I' worship something because I use capital letters to add emphasis to certain words to try to communicate something which is very difficult to communicate with language.
Can you say in language " there is awareness of that truth" without creating a split?
Let me ask you this. The experiencing of thoughts, feelings, senses etc. happens via the lump of flesh, blood, organs etc. the mind labels a human. What exactly experiences them?
So what exactly *are* you attempting to communicate through capitalisation?
As for what experiences thoughts, feelings, senses etc., nothing does. There is no experiencer distinct from the experience. To take sight as an analogy:
Light hits the retina of the eye, causing electrical signals to be sent down the nerves to the brain, where they generate a visual image. At no stage in the process is there a "someone" observing the image, though there may be conditioned thoughts along the lines of "I am watching", which are also triggered by the same electrical signals.
I never said there was "someone"
Only when you realise you can't know it through the thinking mind will you see.
What is void?
You asked "what exactly experiences them?"
A "someone" is the only meaningful answer to that question, because it makes no sense to speak of a passive context for an event as an experiencer (e.g. a computer does not "experience" processes taking place in its hardware). Since there are no "someone"s in reality, the question is meaningless.
The void is emptiness, the absence of matter and energy; on a perceptual level, it is experienced the lack of sensory input. It is not a thing, and it cannot experience.
You appear to be hiding behind the limitations of words and the thinking mind to avoid actually saying anything. Either spell out your beliefs so that they can be put to the test, or stop pretending you have something to say.
So you think You are a body? Something which is constantly changing and impermanent, prone to faulty perceptions etc?
Reality is permanent and unchanging not a temporary appearance. What is the the ONE thing in your life that has always been there and has never changed in which all experiences have happened? You are right a computer does not have it.
"The void is emptiness, the absence of matter and energy; on a perceptual level, it is experienced the lack of sensory input. It is not a thing, and it cannot experience."
How is it possible to experience something which gives no sensory input?
You can only know the void 'in relation' to objects (which are always temporary) you cannot say what it actually is! Physicists now tell us we are empty space, not made of anything.....
Our essential nature IS experiencing/consciousness. When we get rid of ALL faulty beliefs all that remains is this, void and things which occur in it. All are one.
I'm getting bored of your attempts to present New Age dogma as profound insight.
There is a biological machine called a human being, with a consciousness which contains the thought "I am consciousness". The term "consciousness" refers to the consciousness within which the thought is occurring. The term "I" does not refer to anything.
Test it for yourself. Don't parrot back your beliefs, actually look inside and see what's there. Does the fact that experiencing is taking place prove that you are it?
Boredom happens when you THINK things should 'be' a different way. You are still full of these little delusions so cannot see what I'm saying.
You agree that there is a conciousness which is present in the human organism and contains thoughts amongst which is "I am consciousness"
If YOU investigate this consciousness you will find what I have found. It is true so does not require belief.
I have already tested it I just didn't stop where you have.
You are still missing it.
Suppose for a second that you are consciousness. Great. That consciousness can equally easily contain the thought "I am consciousness" and the thought "I am the body". Consciousness can't distinguish between those two and say one is right and one is wrong. Only the dualistic mind gets to do that, and you're not claiming to be the dualistic mind. As far as experiencing/consciousness is concerned, statements are not true or false, they're just there.
In other words, if you were consciousness, you would never be capable of knowing this to be true. You would never be able to say "I am consciousness" and know it to be accurate. In fact, you would never be able to make any statement at all, or do anything else, because pure experiencing DOES NOT KNOW OR DO THINGS. It just experiences.
(BTW, consciousness isn't a space in which things happen in the first place; there's another article on this blog about that)
"Suppose for a second that you are consciousness. Great. That consciousness can equally easily contain the thought "I am consciousness" and the thought "I am the body". Consciousness can't distinguish between those two and say one is right and one is wrong. Only the dualistic mind gets to do that, and you're not claiming to be the dualistic mind. As far as experiencing/consciousness is concerned, statements are not true or false, they're just there."
This is correct and if you re read what I said earlier it is what I have been trying to tell you! YOU ie conciousness cannot know your Self with the limited thinking mind. The thinking mind can only know who you are not! Only when you deeply realise that you cannot know truth of who you are with it will the relative process of awakening be complete.
"In other words, if you were consciousness, you would never be capable of knowing this to be true."
Conciousness can become aware of its Self through the human form.
"You would never be able to say "I am consciousness" and know it to be accurate. In fact, you would never be able to make any statement at all, or do anything else, because pure experiencing DOES NOT KNOW OR DO THINGS. It just experiences."
Yes! Hence the expressions "the peace that surpasses all understanding" and "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao" etc...
Don't make me repeat myself again.
So just how do you know that the thing consciousness is becoming aware of is Self?
Look for yourSelf.
Words/thoughts can only point to it and you have enough of those already.
/facepalm
I can experience Tao/the Void/the Supreme Ultimate/Insert Label Here. There is no possible way in which this can tell me that the Tao/Void/Supreme Ultimate/Insert Label Here is my Self.
You've taken the fact that you have a self as a starting assumption which you've never bothered to question, and now that you've awakened to Tao etc., you've decided that that must be it.
"I have a Self and this thing is it". Question the first part of that sentence, or you will never be free.
No. I am It. There is no ownership by a separate self and it is not a thing.
Stop playing with words and look for yourself.
And if I ask you how you know that you are it, will you tell me that this is mystical indescribable knowledge that cannot be put into words? Have fun with that.
I've experienced the void, I can experience it any time I like, and it does not give answers. It does not give descriptions. It does not accept labels except completely negative ones. There is nothing in it, in any way, on any level, that can justify believing that you are it.
It is not mystical indescribable knowledge it is just seeing...'what' is left when EVERY thought, assumption and belief about yourself is burnt and you know for Sure who you are not.
What is left?
If you have burned every thought, assumption and belief about yourself, why do you continue to cling to the one that you exist at all, or rather that that which exists is you?
And in reply to your question, nothing is left. Nothing at all. Because there were only ever thoughts, assumptions and beliefs about a "you", nothing else. No actual "you" at all.
So what are you!?
Me? I'm not anything.
There is an organic machine which people call Velorien. The processes within that machine include thoughts that say things like "I exist" and "I am a man". But they also include thoughts that say things like "the Great Old One Cthulhu is ancient, evil and green". In both cases, the thoughts refer to fictional entities that don't exist in real life.
All there is is an organic machine acting on the conditioning it has received since birth. It can say that it is an "I", or that it is being controlled by an "I", but neither of these statements is meaningful or true.
And just supposing we take away the belief 'the organic machine' what would be your 'essential' nature? What enables all this illusion to be?
You're still asking the wrong questions.
*Whose* essential nature are you looking for? How did you conclude with such confidence that there is a person with an essential nature that can be looked for? How did you conclude that this illusion needs something to enable it to be, and that the enabling thing must be the same thing as a person's essential nature?
You are skipping steps, and will get nowhere without more intellectual rigour than this.
Velorian, don't you think there could be a distinction here between the personal you and the impersonal you (self vs Self)? 'there is no you' is pointing to the nonexistence of the personal self. True enough. But what is aware of that? You can call that just awareness or you can call that Self. eh?
Velorian, I seem to have ignited something by using the phrase "sense of looking". That's an error on my part. It might have been better to say "sensation from looking", though that doesn't roll off the tongue easily.
Mind you, there's also a question of the focus of attention; this gets directed in some way, which suggests there might be some kind of in-brain feedback so that the brain can verify when it's on-target. Does this require adjustment? I don't know, but if it does it seems to be unconscious, just as we don't consciously adjust for "head bob" even when playing a video game (though some games let people turn it off).
@shim, here's the thing. Once you see that there is no personal self, you see that it's not just that there *isn't* a self, it's that the existence of a self is impossible. There's just no room for something to stand outside events and observe them or interact with them. It would be like saying "the Great Oogle-Boogle Spirit is responsible for things falling down instead of up" when the completely impersonal force of gravity already fully accounts for all things to do with falling.
"What is aware of that?"
What makes you think that there is one thing there called "awareness"? Have you seen one for yourself? Have you confirmed that one is even necessary? And even if one is there, have you confirmed that it's not just another brain subroutine, like thoughts and the filtering of sensory perceptions?
@Timothy, I certainly think that there is an in-brain feedback loop responsible for the focusing of attention. But I don't see why there should be anything adjusting it "from outside". Every living thing has feedback loops that keep it on target, prioritising food over obstacles, threats over food, easy paths over difficult ones etc. etc. I don't see where a human being would need an external adjuster while bacteria don't, just because our feedback loops are much more complex.
So I think I agree with you. Everything to do with attention takes place unconsciously, and only the end product makes it to conscious perception.
Hi Velorian, methinks we're talking past each other about the same thing.
"Once you see...you see that...."
What is seeing? I'm not saying it's a personal you or some Great Oogle-Boogle Spirit. Call it 'just seeing.' Fine. Some people call just seeing Self. Some call it present awareness. Whatever, they're just words.
"What makes you think that there is one thing there called "awareness"?"
What makes you think that I think that? Where would it be? How can it be a thing?
"Have you seen one for yourself?"
blah blah -- there is no 'yourself' to see anything. duh. Yet the fact of existence is hard to deny. Note: no where in that previous sentence was there a tie between existence and self or even Self. There is no self, okay?
What is going on? That's the question. One could answer "Just stuff happening" or one could go further.
I think I am confused, then, about what you propose Self to be. You suggesting a "self vs. Self" distinction suggests that self doesn't exist, but Self does.
Are you saying that Self exists? If so, what are you saying it is, if not a thing? And if it is not a thing like self is supposed to be, why is calling it "Self" at all appropriate?
Post a Comment