|
Understanding the notion of “self” abstracted
from the ‘I am real’ experience The word ‘self’ verbalises part of the
experience of non-relativised real
presence condensed or concentrated
to unit status (via the elimination of boundary), objectified as ‘I am’, then
iconised (i.e. compressed and abstracted) as ‘I’. In short, the experience and verbal
expression of ‘I’ stand for the whole experience ‘I am absolutely real
without limitation’ (hence whole, i.e. a whole unit). It is the ever present (i.e.
continuously presenting and all pervading) ‘I am real (complete, therefore
whole, because not relativizsed)’ experience,
variously described as ‘I (am real) without a thou’, ‘The one (real) without
a second’, ‘The undifferentiated, unborn, uncreated real I am’, which the
ancient (East) Indians called the atman (Buddhist: atta,
both words possibly derived from sattva), brahman
or prajpati. The ancient Israelites described the
experience of the undifferentiated ‘I am real’ experience as ‘I am that … I
am’ = Yahweh. The ‘real
unit (boundless, because not relativised, hence whole or one) of
I am’ experience happens as a continuum (of discretely discontinuous
non differentiating contact moments), and precedes relativisation
(i.e. differentiation (Sanskrti: with strands or
threads, i.e. gunas, Buddhist: sankaras), the latter providing the ‘I am’ (or
self-) experience with identity (i.e. identity = difference … that makes a difference, hence
gives ‘birth’). It is the identified ‘real I am’
experience, i.e. the discretely discontinuous and differential continuity of
absolute real presence + differentials (hence the atta
or atman with clothes (See the Brhad-aranyaka
Upanishad)) which the Tathagata (i.e. the Buddha)
called the false ‘I am’, i.e. anatta. He claimed
that the false ‘I am’ (or atta) was false because
the differentials that identify it (i.e. as a persona in real-time) arise (or
emerge, due to conditions) momentarily, then fade (i.e. merge) and are
extinguished, thus causing dukkha to those who cling to the differentials. He
claimed that the differential bits that identified the ‘real I am’ continuum,
i.e. the atta, were not (i.e. could not possibly
be) the atta because they were the cause of pain
and because one had no control over them. Plainly, his reasoning was naïve
and seriously incomplete. The problem would be resolved later by the
inventors of the Upanishads who proposed a nirguna
(without differentials = conditions) Brahman = atman and a saguna (differentiated with gunas
= conditions) Brahman = atman. Because of the pain (indeed death)
produced by the differentials (or attributes, i.e. the transitory sankaras), the Tathagata
proposed the complete elimination of all attribute bodies (such as the khandas or fetters, or the desire for difference, hence
life/birth = death) of the false (because differentiated) ‘real I am’,
thereby returning to the true (because undifferentiated) ‘real I am’ = atta. In short, he instructed his followers that they
eliminate all difference (hence identity), hence life itself (i.e. all
emergent phenomena), thereby avoiding the pain of death. And the means of eliminating the
attributes was first to become wholly indifferent, absolutely non-responsive
to those attributes (and which he called ‘blindfolding mata’ (= mara, ‘The
Evil One’)), then to refrain from generating (i.e. giving birth to)
attributes. By becoming wholly indifferent = same (since sameness is not
inconstant (or so it appears), hence cannot be the source of dukkha), the
identifiable individual eliminates (or fades) her identity and by so doing
reverts to the undifferentiated, non-identifiable (because unborn via
attributes = differentials, hence not subject to death) to the ‘real I am’
experience as formless, pre-attribute (Sanskrit: gunas)
ground state. Obviously, that only happens if and
when the adept achieves one-pointed-ness of mental focussing (experienced as the perfection gear or speed), expressing
itself locally as psychosis (read: cessation of mental functioning). Continue
|