Yes, as I said at the beginning, there’s nothing one can do to end the illusion of self because anything and everything one does is its continuation. So can one do nothing? Can the ongoing process of self be so acutely aware of its own activity that it loses its momentum?
I am all that. But all of that is a product of time: every thought and emotion has a history; and every scrap of fear, desire and violence has a cause. Time lies at the heart of it all. What is fear if not an explanation of my own behaviour in terms of time? ‘I am afraid of you because you hurt me last time and I don’t want to be hurt again.’ The whole structure is a story, long established.
First of all, can the ‘self’ ever be aware? If the ‘self’ is a process in time, its only frame of reference can be in terms defined by that process: i.e. progress, becoming and evolution. So what I am suggesting is something else, which is that there may be an awareness or an observation that has nothing whatsoever to do with the ‘self’. In other words, the realisation that I can do nothing at all to help myself is therefore not my realisation. Our habit over centuries has been to say, ‘I realise the truth.’ That’s the habit of an entity that wants to appropriate anything valuable so that it can be stored up and used in the future. But perhaps the ‘self’ is incapable of realising the truth. This is a far more profound realisation.
2 Likes
How so? Have a look right now, and now, and now… moment to moment to moment.
Maybe by thinking and talking about it so much we have become enamoured by our ideas - and that in fact awareness is simply the recognition of our mental habits.
The first thing we notice is the arising of thoughts, the interpretation of sounds, the reactions to sensations, and once we have gotten used to this observation of thoughts and silence - awareness of the one watching (and comparing) may also be possible.
1 Like
It means try it…make effort…do something…or does it mean, do nothing? Just asking
It makes sense that before there can be any possibility of ending the activity of self-centeredness, there would have to be a comprehensive understanding of what that activity entails.
I am the self. I have self-knowledge enough to know that I am a character in a narrative that can only proceed to the next twist or turn, and I can’t be anything else. My story must be recorded and archived in the mind that tells it. Now, there’s nothing wrong with this process of following events and reviewing them. It’s what humans do.
What is wrong is the way we do it. We’re less interested in the naked facts of the objective narrative than we are in our character’s development. It’s the story of a person who goes blind by seeing things that are not actually there, eventually realizes his blindness, then wanders blindly through the earth in search of redemption through the return of sight.
If one doesn’t live this redemption story, how will one regain sight and end this quest? It seems the only logical answer is that if you live your story, you may not get the ending you want, and that’s worse than ending it now.
Just have a look out of curiosity - not with some goal of becoming something else - not as if this was some magical method of gaining power - but just because you are interested in finding out.
And if you are asking if there should be some sort of effort as in concentration, or an effort to stay in some special frame of mind - then no. Awareness is not an action, not anything special. It just is what happens when all the subtle, habitual movement of the self is seen.
Not sure what you mean here. Firstly, no one should make any effort to end anything. And where are we going to find this complete library of knowledge, and what good would this intellectual baggage achieve?
Is not the simple understanding of the sense of self as a succesful evolutionary survival mechanism sufficient? That it is basically a protocol based on separation, desire and aversion?
Nothing is the only logical alternative to the something you’re doing, but if doing nothing is impossible for that which can do only what it does, it is not an actual alternative.
So it is not nothing. It is an exploration, an investigation of thought, that is not dependant on thought.
What is “not nothing”?
something. them ol’ double negatives again.
Yes, you are quite right. This is a crucial distinction.
That is what I tried to convey by the word “comprehensive”. Communication is difficult so we need to be kind, generous and patient with each other. 
By comprehensive, I meant getting a feel for the overarching nature of self, rather than the piecemeal unravelling of each particular characteristic, and judging it this way or that. To grasp the general principle of what self is, my self or your self. A revelation that all selves are the same when looked at in that regard - you are the world.
And there is no way for that self to be different than what it is. The self is conditioned through and through and is incapable of ‘seeing’ things as they actually are, no matter how coherent it thinks it has become through study or analysis. Nothing can be done to change that makeup. That is a revelation that cannot be used or “acted upon” by self.
2 Likes
The self is what makes thought incoherent.
Our enquiry though is into the possibility of not following this traditional course of behaviour. What happens when I don’t do a thing to proceed to the next turn in the road? What am I then? What am I when I disregard the entire narrative of my life and the whole content of my self-knowledge? Am I still a character in this narrative? Or, I have killed off the character.
And, much more than this, what happens when both of us stop in our tracks?
Thanks Paul. This post clarifies your point for me. This is actually something I was exploring last night before I read your message just now this AM
I am glad, because this is probably the most important aspect of any dialogue: to be together at the same point. Everything else is secondary to this. And, when we are truly together at the same point, the self can never be an issue.
1 Like
It isn’t a matter of “when I don’t do a thing to proceed” because I can’t do anything but proceed. What brings this “I” process to an end I can only imagine.
1 Like
I am not interested in imagining. I am here and so are you. I refuse to proceed to the next turn in the road. That’s all. Do you also refuse to proceed? Then we are at the same place. And thus our enquiry is very simple: we look carefully at the place where we both are standing. I have stopped here. It is not a narrative. Have you stopped with me? Not tomorrow or next week, but right here and now we have stopped and are therefore free to look. Or will an internal narrative prevent you from such a simple first step?
You put the question, ‘Can the self come to an end?’ So we are finding out the answer to this question right now in the heart and the heat of this dialogue. There is nowhere else to find this out.
So you say, but I can’t stop because “I” can’t do anything but this. It is not up to I, me, mine. If it was it would be nothing but a new twist.
The end of this ongoing process is the end of the self, whether it ends with brain-death or the exposure of the illusion.
1 Like