Otis

Yes, I do think we are in agreement. I also would not say: kill your ego. IMO, every part of us is there for a reason. I think that epistemological humility is such a big bright subject for me, because it was such a wake-up call. I love to challenge my notions of what I thought was real, because possibility just seems to open up. It has been an important part of "finding myself through losing myself", so it's something I like to talk about a lot.

Well, let me ask it this way instead, good Mr. Marblehead. What if the job of "knowing" and "believing" was supposed to fall to a different brain part than the ego (the "I")? Just like emotions and thoughts seem to happen elsewhere in the brain, maybe "believing" isn't part of the ego's evolved function. Maybe if the ego stops believing, then the full Self can continue on fine, because those functions are better handled elsewhere. Inspiration seems to hit when we get out of the way. Perhaps a cleaner, clearer belief mechanism will also open up when we "get out of the way". Of course, I'm not recommending getting a "Spotless Mind" brain wipe, because I think life would be pretty tough to live afterwards. Not necessarily because the brain needs the ego to believe, but because the brain is so conditioned by the ego's need to believe, that it won't be able to function as an adult. What I am living right now, is a continual and systematic surrender of beliefs, holding on to as little as possible, with the trust that my greater Brain and Body can more than take up the slack. So far, IME, my Brain and Body are a great deal smarter than I am.

Thanks, Stigweard. I use the term "the body" to indicate the "full Self", but I don't mean that as a limitation as to what the full Self actually is. I cannot know the limitation. I only use the equation: full Self = body, because that is the most reasonable explanation I can give. If I want the most elegant explanation of what is a human being, then I want to make no egregious assumptions, and I want to make sure that all of my observations fall within the model. When I look around, I see bodies. I do not see spirits or souls. Granted, these are bodies whose minds think that they are more than bodies, but that seems like a very easy delusion to have, especially since most people also see themselves as distinct from other animals. We tend to see animals in terms of their bodies (and enclosed brains), and rarely suggest that they are more than that. I'm a big fan of science, which has done a lot of work on these questions, and psychology sees no reason to suggest a "self" that is other than the body and its parts. It shows that there are certain parts of the brain that are activated for various reasons, during certain processes, and that these equivalents of structure and function stay pretty much the same over time, and between people (with certain, usually pathological exceptions). The only evidence that I personally have that the body is anything less than the "full Self" is tantric experience. That experience is compelling, but I don't want to try to conceptualize the lessons which arise from that, for the same reasons we've been talking about on this thread (not wanting to create superstition). Perhaps my body has within it the senses that allow tantric exploration, so nothing non-body is needed. So, for now, the only reasonable model that I can think of, is that the body is the full Self. However, that doesn't mean that I know what "the body" actually is, since I know the concept of the body is not the true body. Perhaps the energy body is the true body, and the physical body is merely an apparent manifestation of that energy (the particle version of the wave/Qi body). I do want to be clear that when I say "body" I don't mean the experience of looking at myself in the mirror, and I don't mean how I feel about the body, nor how I think the body works or my internal body-map. These, of course, are all concepts. The body itself is in the realm of the unknown.

For those of you who don't know, there's an awesome NPR science show called Radiolab, out of WNYC. Its manner is whimsical, but it gets deep into some of the really intriguing questions of consciousness and existence. I'm linking to a few shows that I have found especially interesting, and which I think shed a great deal of light on subjects that we discuss here on the Bums. For those who are intrigued more, please check out the website and browse around for more. They are very enjoyable shows, and quite worthwhile. Enjoy! Who am I? http://www.radiolab.org/2007/may/07/ Choice http://www.radiolab.org/2008/nov/17/ Memory and Forgetting http://www.radiolab.org/2007/jun/07/ Brain/body connection http://www.radiolab.org/2006/may/05/ Emergence http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/14/ Randomness http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/

I rolled my reply to you into the answer to Stigweard, above.

Right; this is a limitation of the English language. What do we mean by "self"? This could be a whole thread unto itself. Warning: the following gets pretty dense. The part of me that communicates with you now, the part that tries to observe and correct itself, tries to define itself and the world, that is what I am referring to as "me", as "ego", or as "self". If I ask myself "who am I" (meaning what cluster of functions in my brain calls itself "me"?), then I have to rule out any part of my brain which surprises me. If I am surprised by a function, then it cannot be the same function as "me", because "I" would not be a stranger to my own function. Not always, but certainly at times, I have been caught off guard, and surprised by my functions of: thought, emotion, imagination, inspiration, action, habit, dreaming, etc. In each function's case, there have been times in which I was taken aback, and asked: "where did that come from?" Therefore, that function is not the same as "me". Well, shoot, that's a huge portion of the brain. All these pieces are not me, but are still functioning in the same head as me. Am I their boss? I'd like to think so, but I certainly can't tell my emotions (or my inspiration, or my dreams) what to do. I can only ask nicely, and help facilitate their adjustment. I can force action, somewhat, but I've also learned that action is not all that responsive to my will, and it happens more easily, when some other part of my brain wants it to happen (i.e. when I fall in love with a behavior). For example, I can force myself to clean my place, but if I fall in love with cleaning (i.e. if I surrender the "yucky" label of cleaning, and if some part of me wakes up to the joy in cleaning), then I need do no forcing, merely being aware of when the place needs cleaning. In fact, being aware is the one thing that "I" seem to do natively. I am aware of my thoughts, emotions, sensations, etcetera. I am not the generator of any of these, merely the part which observes. "I" don't even seem to be the story-teller, because the stories often surprise me. "I" am not aware of what's in the "external world" whatsoever; I am only aware of what my other brain functions (including my memory, sensation and perception functions) tell me about the outside world. I only observe the inside of my brain, and the simulacrum of reality that my other functions have assembled, and think I'm looking out at the world. So, therefore, every thing that "I" experience, is only a part of "me". This is why I may not notice novel events, because I don't yet have a way of processing them. Another reason to think that "I" am the part that observes: the fact that I disappear when I "plug in" to awareness. When I give up the traditional functions of the ego (e.g. self-management and defense, getting it "right", defining myself and the world), and I just attend to what arises, then the sense of self vanishes, and the full Self (i.e. the body) seems to act on its own (wu wei). Wu wei, IME is the surrender of small-s "self", to allow all the functions of the body to work together as a unitary consciousness. I think the ego was born upon the introduction of language. When the part of this organism that pays attention started learning language, then it became swollen with definition. It (now "I") used to just be a conduit for awareness, but now I begin to break up the world into elements, defined by words. Once I created "bad" in (my simulacrum of) the world, then I started avoiding parts of life. Once I created "right and wrong" then I started trying to manage my own behavior, be my own boss. Since the other parts of me are not within my direct control, I had to increase the power of my ego, and try to micro-manage the other functions of the full Self, even though the "I" function doesn't know the other jobs the way that the other functions do. But all of those attempts at self-control just make the "I" function stronger, and debilitates the other functions, because they are constantly harassed, and never given the chance to come to full maturity, by living life fully themselves. In my early quest for self-improvement, I sought to control all of the surprising functions (which society has labeled "wild" and "animalistic"), but now I realize that "I" am the problem, not the other functions. I have been tripping them up, making them neurotic, (when they just wanted to grow up naturally) because I couldn't accept them as they were. So "I" surrender "I" (i.e. the importance of the known, of the safe, of the right, of the good, of the pleasurable), in order to make room for all the other functions to take their place at the table. It has never been just "me" in my head, but "we", many functions that are supposed to work together as a unified team. But it is not until "I" get out of the way that the "we" can really function as a greater, unified "I".

Are you at all a fan of Alex Grey's work?

Wu wei and the law of Attraction could possibly be rephrased as managing to get onto a timeline, in which everything just works out.

This is a great point. Aaron started a thread on "truth", which of course, covers some similar ground. One question that was asked: why let go of beliefs? Because, of course, the habits (which include beliefs) are what makes up the ego, the sense of I. If we can surrender the "known" (i.e. the habitual), then we can surrender "self".

I hope that I have not come across as an evangelist, myself. For me, the question of emptiness is important as regards to my life, period. I like to talk about my experiences and opinions here on TTB, but I don't push my beliefs on any of my friends, or try to talk them out of theirs. I have pushed you a little, but that's only because I respect you (and because this is a discussion group). I see you as a reflection of me, so I feel it is only kind to reflect to you, and accept what you reflect to me. I'm not here to be likable or to be agreed with, but to engage in incisive back-and-forth with sharp minds and wise souls. The path of emptiness is not something I would ever declare to be The One Way, of course, but also I cannot imagine the mechanism by which any one organism gains omniscience, so I am prone to doubt claims of absolute knowledge. I hear those claims a lot, but no one, in several years of discussion groups, has ever made a real effort to justify why they make claims of capital-t Truth. IME, the people who claim access to true knowledge always duck questions of epistemology, which isn't very impressive. "What can I really know?" is a question which shines light on all kinds of delusions and assumptions. Honestly follow that question to its logical (uncomfortable) conclusion, and it proves its usefulness. Now, obviously I can't speak for whoever wrote the original articles that Ulises quoted. Maybe it's just a blogger, stating his opinion, and maybe Ulises is using the quote to help illustrate some things that he thinks are worth sharing. We all share here, and I imagine that we all hope that we can help, and also hopefully be illuminated, ourselves. None of that detracts from (what I think of as) the usefulness of the precaution to be skeptical of all one's own stories. If it is useful to hear, then what's the harm in someone sharing it?

Hi Aaron. I was in complete agreement with you up until your last word here, just because I would not wish an answer on anyone. The investigation is necessary, but I think the answer always comes at the cost of delusion. I do not seek for my own truth, because I don't think I can find it. I honestly believe that it is outside of the scope of any individual organism (Buddha and Jesus probably included) to see the "absolute Truth". IMO, we are always limited beings, even if as awakened as possible, because we are still individuals, with never any more insight than our little bubble of reality allows. Even my experience of a belief system is still just an experience. Even if one were to find a concept that approximated the Truth very closely, it would still fail by virtue of being a concept. Concepts, models and metaphors may come asymptotically close to the truths that they represent, but can never reach it, because the formless has been forced into form (words), the non-dualistic into the dualistic. I think Buddha was pointing at this when he spoke of emptiness (a state of not-knowing) and the middle way (in which concepts should never be taken literally). I think Lao Tzu was pointing to this with "the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao". Indeed, nothing that is represented by language is the true anything. These are not new revelations, nor a refutation of the old belief systems, because I think mysticism, the heart of each system, is about direct experience, as opposed to ideology and beliefs. To me, it is not important that I cannot know Truth; it is only important that I recognize my limitation. For thousands of years, mankind would not recognize that the world was round, despite enormous amounts of evidence for it. Why? Because the "fact" of down was so obvious. I drop things and they fall down. Therefore, the world cannot be round, or else all the water would drain off, toward "down". It wasn't until relatively recently that Newton showed that "down" was an illusion, created by gravity. We don't fall "down"; we fall toward the center of the earth. So who knows what else seems so completely obvious and true to me right now, but is really just an illusion of another cause that I do not yet recognize? And do I really want to be attaching to beliefs that may very well not be true? I think, from your full response, that you are talking about some of the articles that Ulises has posted, which I have fully agreed with. Of course what the writers of those articles are saying is not "the Truth", but is just another finger pointing at the truth. They have to use words and concepts to point beyond words and concepts, but that does not necessarily mean that their message is self-defeating. What they are saying is pointing at something that I think is very wise: let us start by admitting our epistemological limitations, or else we're just playing in the realm of superstition. If I treat any concept as if it were the absolute Truth, then I am skipping my due diligence, my necessary skepticism. Likewise, if I do not continually come back to "I don't know", do not continually doubt my own beliefs, then I am just setting myself up for delusion, and from there, to resenting the world for not seeing the truth the way that I do. I do think we each need to "reinvent the wheel". Not to come up with "new philosophies", but to live with as little excess conceptual baggage as possible. The only way I can surrender the concept is by experiencing what it is pointing to. I cannot learn to ride a bike based upon mere concepts; I have to learn by doing it. How then, could I "find myself" or "touch God", based upon concepts? The only way I can even come close to the truth of "myself" or "God" is by paying lots of attention to the experience, and learning (non-concepts) from that. Every system is fraught with baggage, as well as every practitioner. How can we go beyond our own points of view, if we are not willing to doubt everything that we hold dear, as part of our practice?

I should never have mentioned my siddhis; that was my mistake. I rarely talk about them, because what I know about them is not "truth". They are too new, too unscientific, and too unprovable to even try to put into conceptual theory, not to mention to make as a claim. As for taking me to account for not answering your question, I am a bit flummoxed. After all, I just wrote a several paragraph response to you, on the last page, and you have made no attempt at responding to any of the points within that. For you to play "gotcha" with me, because I have not responded to you exactly in the way you wanted, is hypocritical in the least. As for the rest of your post, I will not bother addressing your wild and unfounded projections. What deep insight you must think you have, to get all of that information about me, from "my behavior in the last two posts". Best of luck to you, otis

Not really. My interest on this thread is to suggest less self-definition and comparison. Listing siddhis would be just the opposite of that.

Yeah, things like snakes and chairs are easy to "know", but women ... that's a different matter. But I think we can go further, and extend that to the rest of reality, without losing validity. My interaction with each thing in the world is evidence of my relationship with it. And my relationship (relating) is always changing, because I am always changing. I appear the same, but how I relate is based on many functions (energy, mood, etc.) that are cyclical and fluid, sometimes from second to second. So, even if the chair is always a chair, I do not relate to that chair in exactly the same way twice. Nor do I experience it the same way, because my experience is always colored by where I'm at, not just the reality of "chair". In fact, repetition in my relating and experiencing is a sign of habit controlling me, rather than approaching the world freshly. We can see that truth with a woman: approach her freshly, in every moment, if I really want to hear her, and not my concept of her. Isn't the rest of the world pretty much the same?

BTW, I do have some siddhis, but I do not consider myself anywhere near "enlightenment". Siddhis are just another opportunity for growth. Actually, I see the concept of enlightenment as useless, because it engages the ego's issues of hierarchy and attainment, and therefore inhibits growth. My focus is growth itself; what else do I need? Just keep waking up. Forget enlightenment, forget the significance of siddhis, forget self-definition, and ultimately, perhaps, forget self.

Hm..you describe it as if you have a big suppressed ego, that would break out and take you over if you go astray for only one moment. Like a monster in the basement, lol. Or why exists this danger in you? I mean, if you had diminished your ego instead, how could there be such a danger of turning into a jerk or losing control? So you don't like being "you"?? Not when you are able to estimate yourself correctly. BTW, could you maybe describe what is "EGO" in your textbook? You say: "if you had diminished your ego...". But I am my ego! My ego is not something else in my brain with me, that's bumping around, causing trouble. It is me! Ego (in my book) is my habits of consciousness, the "computer program" that runs my life. It's not that I don't like "me"; I just recognize that "me" is only a small portion of the full being that exists. I am only the rhetorical 5% of my brain, and I'd like to invite the other 95% to come play. Because "I" (my ego) have tried to be in control of my life up until recently, the other 95% sounds like a distant murmur, that can only be fully and clearly expressed, when I quiet myself (the 5%). The other 95% of my brain doesn't speak in English; it speaks in emotions, images, actions, desire, inspiration, sensations and ways I don't yet recognize. I have been raised to distrust that 95% (as "wild" or "animalistic"), and only trust the part that can reason with itself in language (the reasoning part). And that conditioning has crippled me, because I got stuck with only 5%, when I could've had 100%. So now, I am seeking to learn to humble my 5%, and listen to the rest. Self-definition, IME, ties me to the 5%. Because it's about language, hierarchy, and comparison, it belongs only to the ego. Growth, IME, happens when I stop trying to control or define the organism, and instead allow the other 95% to naturally express itself. As long as I define myself ("I am adjective"), then I am living in the 3rd person: outside, looking in. I am trying to achieve an impossible viewpoint, that of seeing myself. It doesn't matter whether I see myself as positive or negative, I still get stuck in 3rd person alienation from my life; it's something that's happening to me. But when I allow the rest of me to lead, then I live in the first-person, inseparable from the world. In first-person, I am my life, and so there is nothing to compare it to. If I compare myself to others, I entrap myself. Whenever I imagine myself superior to someone else, then I also make myself inferior to others, as well. Hierarchy is a human game, that does not reflect anything "real". We are all different, but I am neither above nor below anyone else. Especially when it comes to spirituality. How could I decide how spiritually advanced someone else is? By their behavior? I think not, because my reaction to their behavior may be entirely due to my own biases, rather than something "real" within them. Someone else's spirituality is their business, and any attempt by me to create a hierarchy, is just an expression of my ego's wishes or fears. I literally cannot know. You write: "not when you are able to estimate yourself correctly". But how would you know? How do you know your self-estimation is not just an expression of a wish or fear? The probability of self-deception seems very very high. What could be more ego-pleasing than labeling myself "spiritually advanced"? Even comparing myself to my own history is problematic. IME, growth does not happen linearly, but in something more like sine waves, with some up and some down. So, I cannot say with any certainty at all, that some event or decision in my life is evidence of "where I am". IME, every attempt at self-definition is counter-productive, and self-definition in spirituality doubly-so. My best growth happens when I relax myself, and accept that I am not the leader of my life, but just a collection of functions in my brain. When I trust and allow my greater organism (my body) to take the lead, then I experience wu wei, I experience freedom. When I try to manage things, or pin things down with definition, then I experience self-entrapment.

I'm confused, Aaron, about what you're asking. Are there people on this board who are advocating "any truth but the truth that you experience is false"? I haven't yet read those arguments. Also "just because someone is telling you something is true, doesn't mean that it isn't." Does someone say the opposite of that? Do you think you could create a succinct version of your thesis, help me understand what you're trying to say?

Great analogies, aridus!

Okay. That's fine, but how about (as a rhetorical example): what is a relationship between a man and a woman supposed to look like? The answer to that, I think, is as varied as there are human beings (squared, because it takes two). Society makes concepts about it, but they are not "right" concepts. The relationship will always have to be "right" for those two, at the very moment, and always changing as they change. Even the word "relationship" is misleading, because it implies a noun (a "known"), when there is really just two verbs: I relate to her; she relates to me. Any relationship is about existing in the unknown, and although we can get better at understanding each other and connecting together, I think it is a mistake to ever start thinking about it as "known", because that's when I forget the actuality of the woman, and replace her with a concept.

Why not love it? It's just part of you.

Awesome, Ulises! Another great share!

Excellent!

Great! The deeper I look into my own epistemology, the less coherent facts I see, and the more mystery. Yes! Sometimes it is best to ask questions, without every trying to settle on a fixed answer...

Ah, what a great vantage point to observe how people believe!

Ah, that's part of the ocean of the unknown, isn't it? My answer would be: from multiple sources. 1. Habit, which I have some control over, and is the part of "preferences" that is up to me to surrender. And 2. other parts of my brain than "me" (i.e. my ego), and those I can deny or judge, but I cannot control them. They do not belong to "me", and so therefore, to be against them is to do battle with other parts of my brain, the very parts of the brain whose job it is to do preference. For example: my desire to eat is caused by hunger, but also by habits of comfort-seeking. I seek to evaporate the habits, but I only seek to have a sense of humor about the hunger. Another example: a closeted gay man may try his damnedest to change his preference, but that's (mostly) not built from habit, and so his efforts will cause internal disorder, but no growth. So, if I want to grow, then I surrender the preferences that I have control over, and I allow (but not necessarily capitulate to) the preferences that I do not.