The body exists. Sensory perceptions exist. Thoughts and feelings exist. Consciousness exists.
The subject of all these things, the I appears to exist, appears to be self evidently real.
But is it? Tell me now who you are. Immediately, there is the sensory perception of the words and the demand behind the words. Then memory comes in as consciousness stirs itself or is stirred by the question. All sorts of thoughts and feelings arise as a reaction to the question, âWho are you?â Everything that gets stirred up is from the past. It is the past reacting to the question. So the only answers you have about what you are now are all about whom you once were, what you have done and have not done, all the successes and failures, triumphs and hurts, and what you think and feel you are based on all of that. Right? Or you come up with a clever academic answer borrowed from the scriptures of religion, philosophy or psychology. But actually you have no answer.
You donât exist but the âworld â does? And if you are the world, is the non-existent âyouâ still Paul? Can the non-existent âyouâ (or the world) clarify how this works?
So it can be said: âyou are the worldâ but to say âI am the worldâ is just another trick of thought?
All of these mental objects â sensations, thoughts, feelings, memories â are the content of consciousness. Same goes for the conventional egoic self. Is there a deeper/truer self that is either a finer grain of content than the egoic self, or immanent in consciousness itself?
Isnât âconsciousness â enough? Why does there have to be a âmyâ consciousness?
No. Thatâs just the ego escaping its responsibility. The ego is limited and therefore isolated, divisive and destructive. Our responsibility is not to attempt to go beyond this limitation but to face the fact of it.
Maybe thatâs all there is to it. Maybe not. The former keeps me skeptical, the latter fuels the search.
Find out. Donât put it on me to explain it away. If you are an average, intelligent, sensitive human being you will say, âI exist,â without question. But here we are questioning it. Obviously, oneâs physical existence is not being questioned. But psychologically, who or what is saying, âI existâ? When we say it without looking at it, as most people do, thatâs what the world is too; and so we remain as just one part of a self-centred maelstrom of humanity.
But you donât need to search. The answer is right at hand. When you see what you are there is neither skepticism nor the searching for something else.
The content of the consciousness of a person is unique to that person. No entity has the same thoughts, images, feelings, sensations as DanMcD. Similar, sure. Same, not. (Of course I canât know this for sure, having misplaced my omniscience, but Iâd say itâs a good bet.)
That might be true. (Though it feels like a need.) Or not. I donât know.
What I do know is I am driven to search, even if I have no real clue what Iâm searching for!
No, but knowing âeverything about fear and attachmentâ is not seeing why one is fearful and attached.
How can the ego be âescaping its responsibilityâ if being âisolated, divisive and destructiveâ is its responsibility?
I am limited - thatâs my whole psychological nature. A limited entity seeking unlimited freedom is acting irresponsibly. But thatâs what we do. Over and over again we do this.
So what is the drive without the search?
An unscratched existential itch. Koyaanisqatsi. Primeval chaos. Painful unknowing.
Itâs like a painting thatâs hanging at a tilt, I feel compelled to fix it.
A âlimited entityâ canât know or even imagine what âunlimited freedomâ is, so acting âirresponsiblyâ would be acting without self-knowledge, without awareness of what it is.
But without the compulsion to fix it, what is it? Without the knowing, what is the pain of unknowing, the actual pain? Without the scratch, what is the itch?
So what does this mean? What is it that is being aware? A limited entity aware of the fact of its own limitation. Where exactly is this awareness?
Suffering.