The Shift from Small Self to Universal Self
El cambio del pequeño yo al Yo universal
A student asks about the difficulty of disidentifying from the ego and why the sense of being a separate self persists despite sustained inquiry. The teacher explores the difference between "there is no self" and "where you look for a self, you do not find one," and describes how self-inquiry and meeting fear can work together.
The Shift from Small Self to Universal Self
A student asks about the difficulty of disidentifying from the ego and why the sense of being a separate self persists despite sustained inquiry. The teacher explores the difference between "there is no self" and "where you look for a self, you do not find one," and describes how self-inquiry and meeting fear can work together.
I still identify a lot with the ego, I would say. It brings me suffering, and I am seeing it a lot. There's also this feeling that it shouldn't happen to me, or that maybe I can hurry the disidentification somehow. Maybe that's a separate issue from what I started with.
There are many things there. What that article is pointing to is a different recognition than beingness. That's why it can be misinterpreted.
Where you find a self, there is not a self
My comment was about this: we can have a subtle thought or belief that, when we hear "there is no self," we interpret it from the perspective of being a separate self and then denying that. So it becomes a belief that "I am the body, but the body is not real," or "I am a thought, but the thought is not real." That can create a lot of conflict and struggle.
In Buddhism, where the concept of anattā originated (which is what the neuroscientists are picking up on, having worked with Buddhists for a few decades now), the way it has been taught is: where you find a self, there is not a self. That is different from "there is no self." It is closer to neti neti: what I am is not this, it is not that.
But ultimately, the realization of no self can happen. It is very difficult to describe. First, there is beingness. There is something rather than nothing, and that is the ground. But in this beingness, we confuse a part of our being with ourselves. We identify with a part.
You described the belief in being "ego." But ego is just a concept. You never actually believe yourself to be "ego." When you say, "I still believe I am my ego," that is a way of communicating. But "my ego" is a word, a concept that will bring up an object in imagination. There will still be the belief in the subject that is referring to the ego to be the self. There is a subtle objectification of this subject.
The subject is another thought
What can happen is that it is seen that the sense of a separate subject is not any different from everything else being experienced. The subject is another thought. What we are doing is condensing the experience of beingness into a point: "I am in here, and the rest is not me; it is over there." That is an optical illusion.
When that is seen through, then that beingness, which is something rather than nothing (the experience that now there is sound, there is touch, there is something rather than nothing), loses the sense of a "me" separate from it.
You can explore that in many different ways. You could look for the sense of a subject, and you will see that it is a constant movement of thoughts. You could look for the one that chooses, and you will see that choices come and appear and are made by something you cannot find. You can look at the sense of "I am the one that chooses" and find just a flow of sensations and thoughts. Everything you look at to find this center, this subject, this source, you will notice that something is noticing that.
If something is noticing that, again, "something" is not a thing. But there is no word to point to that which is everything, because language simply cannot function there. That is why the words "beingness," "consciousness," even "God" are used. "God" brings up the history of religion, the objectified God as a separate being, a separate entity, so I avoid it.
There is a real shift that can happen, and it should not be denied, because there would be a great loss in denying it. So when I point to "this is it," I do not mean there is nothing you can do. I am pointing to a direction of recognition, and the recognition can happen. It just cannot happen in the next second or tomorrow. It only happens now, when a certain illusion is seen through. And when that happens, you realize everything always was as it should be, nothing is missing, and nothing ever was missing. Nothing changes, really.
But this identification with a limited concept of ourselves, why is it so difficult? Is it a habit so ingrained because it was taught and reinforced from such a young age, with so many layers? What you describe about watching the subject and the sense of "me" and noticing it is thought: I am doing that a lot. But in ordinary life, I know I am constantly believing I am a separate entity.
Two kinds of work in parallel
The work you are doing is good. The answer to "why" is that there is a transition. It could happen faster or slower, more progressively in steps or more suddenly all at once. But it is a transition where something very specific to the human body-mind, in this identification, serves us: it helps us not be in touch with certain aspects of our reality. When this transition happens, those aspects come up. I always point to the experience of fear and pain. It can have many flavors, variations, and colors. We choose to remain identified because it helps us not feel that.
In a sense, there are two kinds of work that can be done in parallel. One is the self-inquiry you are talking about: looking at the subject, investigating the sense of "me." The other work complements it, because often what happens is that you do more self-inquiry and things start to unravel and break open. Then psychologically things get a little stormier. Feelings, kinds of fear, kinds of pain start to come up. That can then stabilize, and you can go deeper with more self-inquiry.
If you find that the kind of inquiry you are doing is plateauing, you could wonder what it is you are avoiding in life. What kinds of fears, loves, passions do you have that are being pushed aside?
What does the universe want to live as you?
For that, I often ask the question: what does the universe want to live through you, or as you? I phrase it that way because it is not "what do you want," which can be understood as something personal that invokes an answer coming more from identification, from the small self, the egoic self. But if you ask, "What does the universe want as me?" then it is the whole of totality wanting something, wanting to live or create as me.
The body's perspective is valid. The ego's perspective is valid. The person's perspective is valid. The universe's perspective is valid. But I am pointing beyond all of them. If the body is hungry, the body needs food. But that is not the kind of question I am asking. I am not asking about the body or about the egoic self. I am asking about the universal self.
It is the kind of question that, if you imagine your life ending, asks: what do you want to live before that? That can invoke a sense of, "Oh yes, I want to live something." Up until that moment, you were focused on smaller wants.
I really like how you shift the focus to what the universe wants to do as me. Something resonates there.
And there can be more and more layers. Just deeper and deeper. Because we only ever resist what the universe is wanting.
The hand and the weightlifter
Our teacher once said that freedom is full obedience. There is a paradox in that: ultimate freedom is when you are fully in obedience to now, to what the universe wants now. It is freedom because it is freedom from the identification with the small self that is in opposition.
When we get in touch with that universal want, we have to operate from that universal self. That is going to push through the identification with a smaller self. It puts you in a position where you have to choose between a smaller or a bigger energy, movement, desire, self. I would say one hundred percent of our suffering is because we choose to identify with a smaller part of ourselves and to operate based on the needs and wants of that smaller part.
Think of it as a progressive expanding. If I focus on what my hand wants, what feels good for my hand, I would get a manicure, put it in warm water all day, never do anything effortful. But that is not what I want, even at the level of the body. At the level of the body, I might want to weightlift. For the hand, that is a sacrificial moment. For the body, it is a beautiful experience: healthy, empowering. But for the hand, it is constant sacrifice. If I focus on the hand, I experience it as sacrifice. If I do not, I would not even recognize the hand is in a sacrificial moment. I will adjust the weight so I do not hurt my hand, but experientially there will be a sense of empowerment, of energy, of aliveness.
You can take that to a deeper or higher level, whichever way you want to see it. Because otherwise, the body wants to weightlift, but I am identified with a hand that does not want to weightlift, and I am inquiring, "Why am I weightlifting? I don't want to." I believe I am the hand, so I will do anything I can to not recognize that I want to weightlift, because for the hand it is a sacrifice.
Self-inquiry needs both directions
In this sense, if I am in avoidance and denial of a deeper desire that puts my sense of self at risk, a fear that puts my experience in a situation that is uncomfortable and painful, then the self-inquiry is going to be disempowered. The obstacle is just the experience of shifting from identification with something smaller to something larger. That shift will bring up fear and pain.