Mind is a living, evolving, self-correcting, self-editing, self-serving text of survival.
What you say to yourself matters. And what you don’t say to yourself matters too.
But, as important as this self-narrative is, we are not it: we are not this mind.
This mind, this narrative is but writing on the ever-changing water of consciousness.
Neti, neti – meaning: not this, not this.
That is the Vedic Psychology 101. When you get this, much changes. Almost too much.
Here’s Swami Bhaktipada on this point and then a word or two from yours truly:
“I am this body.” This is the greatest mistake of all, the mistake underlying all other mistakes. We are not these bodies. This perception is the first in self-realization and is the basis of all yoga. [...] It is this false identification that brings about the miseries of birth, old age, disease, and death. “You are not that body,” yogis have taught their students since time immemorial.
In Lotus Effect, a book of Vedic self-discovery through informational detox of false selves, I argued the same: this idea – the idea that “I am not this body” – is a door at the end of what you thought was a dead-end, a beginning of fearlessness.
This body that you take for mani-pedi – you are not it.
This body you take to the gym to work out – you are not it.
Even the eyes you are reading this with – you can live without them too; so you are not these eyes either.
That’s Vedic Psychology 101.
Vedic Psychology 201 begins with the question: “If not this body, then who am I?”
To graduate, skip to 301: leave the “Who am I?” question unanswered.
Related: Lotus Effect: Shedding Suffering & Rediscovering Your Essential Self (Somov, 2010)
But we are not things.
When you walk into a river, you bump against a current as if this current were a thing. This current is always there – it was there yesterday when you went in for a swim and it is there today when you go in for a swim. But a current is not a thing. A current is a process not a fixity. And so are we. We are not things, we are… autopoietic currents. We are… processes. We are… presence-in-progress… am-ness-in-progress…
In fact, there are no “things” per se. Even what we consider to be “things” are not immutable, unchanging objects. Even “things” are ever-dynamic currents of molecular, atomic, subatomic change. We only objectify these processes as “things” because we are unable to visually detect their ever morphing nature.
The Universe is a fluid (dynamic) Oneness. And so are you…
Stewart White makes a good point (among so many!) in the Unobstructed Universe:
Sometimes it is necessary to take away from a man everything he holds dear before, in despair, he will sit down alone to find that which cannot be taken away from him, that which, despite all, endures and lives within his consciousness.
I call this process of stripping every-thing away “identity detox.” But whatever the name, notice the things that you are not so as to understand the process that you are.
related: Lotus Effect: Shedding Suffering and Rediscovering Your Essential Self (Somov, 2010)
Ego is not an anatomical structure. It’s not something that you will see on an X-ray. Ego is an informational structure. That’s what the term ego actually means: it is a Latinized translation of “das Ich,” which is German for “the I.” “The I” is “the information” that you have about you.
The ego-based view of the self is as unstable as a table on three legs. There are three issues with ego we need to examine, and they all start with the letter I. “The I” (ego) balances on identification with impermanent information. Let’s take a closer look.
Ego is Information
Ego is a collection of self-descriptions, just a bunch of words written down on the mirror of your consciousness. Let’s say I point at the moon with my index finger. Is my finger the moon that I am pointing at? Of course not. Now ponder this: are you the information that you have about you or are you that which this information is about? Are you a self-description or that which you are describing?
Ego is Identification (with the External)
Identification is a process of pointing at something external, at something outside of you, and equating yourself with that. We’ve already touched on that earlier in the chapter. Identifying yourself with what you are not is absurd. Identifying yourself with something that you are not is like pointing one finger at yourself and the other finger at something else and then claiming that you are pointing at the same thing. The idea that you = this or that you = that is like shooting two arrows in two opposite directions and claiming that they are going to hit the same target.
Ego is Impermanence (of Form)
Self-esteem, self-worth, self-view are various ego forms, various forms of information that we have about ourselves. Ego is information about our form, not about our essence. Forms change. “How” you are at any given point isn’t fixed—it’s in constant flux. When we identify with how we are, we are identifying with the fleeting, with the impermanent, with the transient. States of mind, …
People talk about seeing the glass as half full (optimism) or half empty (pessimism). What about seeing glass as is (realism)?
Is the glass half full or half empty? Neither. The glass just is. It has nothing to do with ether the quality or quantity of what is “inside” it. The contents of the glass are not inside it: from the perspective of the glass itself “its” contents are outside it and therefore are not its own, not of the glass, the “contents” of the glass have nothing to do with glass. The glass is always just what it is.
Same goes for a mind that knows itself: we are not our informational contents, we are not what passes through us. We are not our optimism. We are not our pessimism. We are not what we think, feel, sense. Neti, neti – not this, not that.
related: Lotus Effect: Shedding Suffering
(I know it’s a strange word. Is that even a word? It is right now. After all, language is at our service.)
If you weren’t easily wounded, you wouldn’t be sensitive. Stones don’t feel which is why they don’t cry. I am glad you are not a stone. I am glad you feel. I am glad you feel intensely. Why? Because there is a lot to feel. And to feel intensely is to live intensely. I hope you too are glad that you are sensitive. But I doubt you are. Many see sensitivity as a bad thing. Rollo May didn’t when he said: “Anxiety is the shadow of intelligence.” He might have as well said: “Sensitivity is the shadow intelligence.” Stones don’t feel. They are dumb. I am glad you aren’t.
And yet, you might object, wound-ability is a vulnerability, a liability. It is, indeed, if you don’t know how to heal. But if you know how to heal, sensitivity stops being a problem. It used to take me a long time to heal (from ego wounds). Then I got better about it. By the time I figured out the “lotus effect” way of shedding informational suffering, I’d heal just as fast as I’d get wounded. Wound-ability stopped being a problem but the intelligence that comes with it remained.
This is important: psychological sovereignty isn’t invulnerability, it’s heal-ability (ability to heal fast in a self-sustaining manner), to shed dirt like the self-cleaning lotus does. Point is: psychological sovereignty isn’t about high fences and rigid boundaries to avoid damage and trespassing, but about reasonably permeable boundaries and effective self-repair.
Heal-ability? Yes, another strange word. Make language serve you instead of being at its service. Heal yourself with it.
Point is: mind wastes itself, leaving absolutely nothing of permanence to hold onto.
The real conservation question is: what remains?
Look into this cosmic mystery that you are.
more: Lotus Effect
You are not a thing, you are a process.
You are not a fixed entity, you are change itself.
You both are and aren’t.
A (pattern-interrupting) thought to ponder:
So, instead of asking yourself “Who am I?” try: “Who are we?”
The above (“Who are we?”) is a big picture question. Here’s how you could also apply this thought experiment on a narrower, more psychological scale.
You know how there are times when you wonder: “Why am I so inconsistent? Why am now this way and at another time that way?” These kinds of inconsistencies are hard to reconcile when we think of ourselves as an “I,” as a neural singularity. But as soon as you switch from an “I” to a “We,” the paradox of our inconsistency falls away. We are metazoan, multi-cellular organisms. Brain is not an organ but an organization, a neural community of billions of neurons, organized into firing patterns. Each firing pattern is an “I” of sorts and they clash and compete and come in conflict and, now and then, work in amazing unison (union). When you switch from an I-based view of your mind to a We-based view of your mind, your apparent inconsistencies will suddenly make sense. You’ll have moments of realization: “Hmm, this is an old part of me, an old neural firing pattern, that got programmed long time ago and it was just triggered… And, yes, a different neural “I,” a different part of my neural community, a different neural aspect of my Neural We just kicked it… So, no, I am not crazy, I am not irrational or inconsistent, just multi-faceted, varied, nuanced, complex – it’s just that one of my many minds (one of my many “I-s”) has shifted and the view has changed.”
My position that each of us is not a unified “I” but a variable Neural We is akin to Robert Ornstein’s …
You ought to realize, you take up very little space in the world as a whole – your Body, that is. In Reason, however, you yield to no one, not even to the gods, because Reason is not measured in size but sense. So why not care for that side of you, where you and the gods are equals?
Epictetus, a Greek sage, a Stoic, was born a slave but never was one – not to form, not to tradition, not to dogma, not to culture. He was – what I call – a psychologically self-made man. There are people that are (financially) broke but are not (psychologically) broken. There are people that are (financially) self-made but are (psychologically) impoverished. When Epictetus says: your Body takes very little space but your Reason (Consciousness, Spirit) is, essentially, of the diameter of Oneness, he is punking your Form and complimenting your Essence. It’s a Stoic kind of ego boost – the kind that belittles the irrelevant and hints at the immeasurable.
“So, why not care for that side of you, where you and the gods are equals?” – to my taste, this line is a great Christmas message. Heck, a great message for any day.
Related: Lotus Effect (Somov, 2010)