The Radicalness of Not Being Anyone
La Radicalidad de No Ser Nadie
A student revisits a previous exchange about chronic irritability and struggles with how literal and radical the teacher's pointer really is: that the discomfort is not a psychological problem to fix, but a direct consequence of identifying as a separate self.
The Radicalness of Not Being Anyone
A student revisits a previous exchange about chronic irritability and struggles with how literal and radical the teacher's pointer really is: that the discomfort is not a psychological problem to fix, but a direct consequence of identifying as a separate self.
You started today talking about the difference between growing up and waking up. I was listening to an audio of an exchange we had about a month ago. I had been describing this irritability and moodiness that happens to me. It happens quite often. Sometimes I'm really irritable, and sometimes it's just uncomfortable. I'd say it occurs maybe forty percent of the time, so it's quite a lot. I was telling you that maybe it's something I have to work on, maybe something from my childhood. And you very directly pointed out: no, it's the choice.
It's that you're choosing to have the assumption that you're a separate entity with will. Something along those lines.
I've heard you say those things quite a few times, but for some reason I felt the need to go back and listen to it again. It's almost as if I had to ask myself: is he really saying what he's saying? What you're saying is too literal. It's too radical. How can there not be a separate entity? I also notice the clinging. I was thinking about how I hate it when someone is better than me at anything, maybe in music especially. I love this entity. I'd hate to not be it. And yet, the radicalness of it: how can I be, yet not be anything specific or definable? It seems too literal. Drop by drop, I start getting it more.
There's also something I remember another teacher once said. I don't remember the exact words, but it was something like: how can you understand that you don't exist? Not the ego, but the separate "I." How can you understand that you don't exist? It's impossible. That stuck with me. So I guess my question is somewhere around all of that.
In that specific sense, the solution is to realize you're not that person you take yourself to be.
I guess I understand it conceptually, but I don't see it fully.
The difference between conceptual and experiential knowing
You understand it conceptually, but it can be known experientially. There are ways in which that process can unfold. The most direct way is self-inquiry, where it becomes increasingly clear because you disidentify with more and more of what you thought you were.
When you're activated around comparing yourself with other musicians, what's happening is that you are choosing to believe that what you are is essentially tied to this idea of a personal identity. There's something you take to be essential, something core. So it becomes a big deal. The problems, the limitations, they become a big deal. There's a lot at stake. If you were a better guitarist compared to someone else, then the whole of life, the whole of you, the whole of everything would be so much better. There's a lot at stake because there's a lot invested in an idea, and it's all backed by the belief "I am that."
Why self-inquiry goes to the core
That's why self-inquiry goes to the core of it. You can work on the growing-up side, the psychology around it, to clear things up, but it doesn't solve it. I suspect that when we had that exchange, I pointed out to you: no, you're just attached to the belief. Because you've already done so much work, and you've hit a ceiling. You can't keep going in that direction, because now the issue you're working with is a direct consequence of the identification itself. There isn't more murkiness that can be cleared through psychological, emotional, or energetic work.
So you're talking about a more complete, one hundred percent recognition of what I'm not?
Of what you're not. I don't know what you are.
I feel I have glimpses. "Oh yes, I'm not all this. I'm not the body." And then there's a gradual bounce back, and I'm believing it again. But you're talking about one hundred percent certainty.
Seeing through identification as it arises
Exactly. It's to be absolutely convinced, not through argument, but through experience, through seeing, through knowing directly that you are not that. So whenever you get pulled back into the belief, you can look at it. That's why I was saying: when you get these spells of irritation, instead of the approach you've taken so far (working on the psychological, energetic, emotional aspects), which has helped, you can now shift. That earlier work helps us reach a point where we're not caught in a crazy storm where it's impossible to look at anything. We get stabilized. Now, when it comes up, you can look at what's really happening.
And what there is to look at is the belief. "What am I?" It starts to become surgical. You begin to see: these are thoughts of an entity, and you can get really precise and subtle in the looking, until something can happen where you see how, in those moments, you are choosing the identification. "Choosing" is the best word. There is a kind of doing in it.
I guess it's an exploration, like you're saying. Because I don't fully get how irritation or feeling really uncomfortable is related to believing I'm a separate entity.
So at that point, if that's your experience, the word I would suggest is "exploration." Explore the possibility that it might be true. When your irritation appears, look at that possibility. It's very directed. There's always room for error in these things, but I'm fairly certain that's what's happening for you.
It's been useful to trust in what you say in the past, so I'll do it again.
Great. Thanks.