The Subtlest Sense of Self
El sentido más sutil del yo
A question about the ping-ponging between attention resting in the open field and attention collapsing back into a sense of being a separate subject, and what lies beyond even the subtlest sense of subjectivity.
The Subtlest Sense of Self
A question about the ping-ponging between attention resting in the open field and attention collapsing back into a sense of being a separate subject, and what lies beyond even the subtlest sense of subjectivity.
Something stuck out to me when you said in the meditation that the sense of the subject is like another cloud. I realized there's a bit of ping-ponging that happens between attention that's in the field and not in the subject, and then attention more focused in the subject and not as much in the field. When my attention is more in the field and the subject is not really focused on, there's a sense of something lackluster, something psychologically empty. There's a feeling of unfulfilled desire. And when the focus is on the subject, it feels more like constriction, the usual thing. As my attention diffuses away from the subject, certain feelings come up. I was wondering if you could comment on that.
I have a sense of what you're talking about. Did you say "ping-pong"?
Yes. There's a shift that happens. Sometimes the central focus is the subject doing something, and then the central focus is more the field: the field is just here, and I'm a part of it, or I am it. When that's happening, it's much more natural and smooth. But I notice, especially when I'm on my own, there's a wanting something there. The focus not being on the subject almost makes me a bit sad, or there's a desire for something more.
Setting aside the narratives
The complexity of what you're describing, with the narratives of desiring, the lackluster sensation, the longing: you can put all of that aside. Don't try to resolve it. Instead, look at what you are describing as the field versus the subject. Look at whatever shifting movement is happening between those two and what it actually looks like. When you say there is a little more focus on the subject doing something versus focus on the field, what is that like? What is that subject?
It feels like a constriction into the old way of experiencing life, where there's tension in the body and focus on sensation. When the focus is broadened out, the sensations are still pretty prominent, but it's different. The constricted version is the old way I experienced my life: I'm separate, I'm the guy who's here, doing some task. The broadened version is more like life is here, I'm experiencing sensation, sounds, sensory stuff, and it's just happening. Those are the two ways I find myself moving back and forth.
It seems like you're defining what you call the subject as sensations, the body, or the doing.
Yes, the subject is like a focus on a separate individual here. That's less and less, but it does still happen.
Subjectivity itself versus identification
The key here is that there's one thing, which is what you can identify with, and then another thing, which is a more subtle sense of subject: subjectivity itself. There's a difference between subjectivity itself and subjectivity collapsed or identified into part of our experience, which is what you've been describing as sensations, "me here," the body, and the doing.
Right. So is the subtle sense of subjectivity still a cloud?
Yes.
So even if there's no identification with it, it's still just a cloud, just part of experience?
That's what I was pointing to, and that's what will resolve the ping-pong. The old way of life still seems to come back because that subtle subjectivity is still seen to be an "I," still assumed to be real.
Yes.
And by "real," I mean the Sanskrit sense of real: it has its own origin and is a thing in itself, as opposed to just an appearance, like a cloud that comes and goes.
So even that subtle sense of subjectivity, like when I'm talking to somebody and I'm not even focused on myself, it's just happening, words are coming, there's something going on back and forth between two people: that sense of subjectivity is still a cloud? Still an appearance?
Yes. It's still not "I."
Not "I." Interesting. Then what is "I"?
Exactly.
That, to me, is the subtlest sense of any "I" that's possible.
The witness and beyond
Exactly. That's what would be called the witness, the observer. It's basically what happens when neti neti goes all the way: it arrives at the subtlest thought-form of a self, the ultimate subjectivity. But when that is seen to be just another formation, just another part of experience, it opens the door to a glimpse beyond.
Right. That's where there's no "I." You have to let go of any subtle sense of self.
Well, "I" is a word. "I" is a concept.
Right, that's true.
I can't say there is no "I." That would be denying a concept which exists. But if we're pointing to what I actually am, then there is nothing I can call that. And once that is seen, I can call myself "I." I can call a bottle a bottle. There's a use in the word, and there's a use in that relativity, but it's freed from the sense that I am limited to that, that what I am is that subjectivity.
It feels like it requires a profound trust in just life doing everything.
Atman equals Brahman
Yes. And what happens if what you thought you were isn't there? In Advaita Vedanta, they speak of atman and brahman. The recognition of what is called the witness, the observer ("I am not the body, I am not the mind, I am that which is aware"), that is the recognition "I am atman." But still, atman symbolizes a separate self. Then there's another recognition, which is that atman equals brahman. That which I thought I am, this observer, is not different from everything observed. There are not two there. It's not that atman becomes brahman.
That's it. That's the subtlety right there. That's where I think I got stuck. It's not becoming brahman. It's more like there is no atman. That's what it's saying.
It is brahman.
Right. It's incredibly subtle. It feels like that takes care of the whole thing.
This edge cannot be explored until there is the recognition "I am atman." Which you have, by the way.
Thank you. I appreciate that.