Credit : Freefoto.com
It is not very hard to see that self-centeredness is at the root of human problems. It is, however, not easy to reveal to oneself the true nature of the ‘self’, the ‘me’, the ‘ego’. Ignorance about the nature of the self exists because of lack of awareness. There cannot be awareness when the mind is already in the mode of thinking that has its roots in the “self.” That means the mind needs to be absolutely quiet. Only then there can be choice less awareness, an awareness that is without motive, without direction, without any set agenda, goal or purpose, without any desire to achieve a result because all these are the activities of thought that is rooted in the self. We can see what is actually taking place in the mind only when there is pure observation, an observation that is not colored by any idea, belief, prejudice, conclusion or a pre-conceived notion.
Each person feels himself to be different and separate from others. At the physical level the differences are obvious and must be appreciated. But are we different from each other psychologically? All human beings wherever they are face the same life of pleasure, pain, sorrow, grief, anxiety, uncertainty, loneliness, conflict and confusion. People are violent, greedy, jealous and ambitious due to the same psychological reasons. Our individualistic approach to life is the same. Why do we ignore the fundamental commonness and emphasize separateness?
The superficial conditioning arising out cultural influences does not allow the mind to penetrate deeply into the cause that affects us all. The culture in which a person is born emphasizes individuality and separateness on the basis of race, color, caste, religion and nationality. Person’s financial status in society also creates the feeling of separateness. But if a person sets aside these superficial differences he will realize that he is not different from other human beings. Psychologically he is as insecure and uncertain as any other human being. In fact the superficial conditioning is rooted in the deeper conditioning of the mind.
Thinking has created in the human brain the notion of the “I”, the “me”, the “self”. The ‘self’ treats itself separate from all other human beings. Being the creation of thought the ’self’ by its very nature is insecure. The ‘self’ is, therefore, always in need of security. This need for psychological security is common to all human beings. Thinking has devised methods to keep the ‘self’ safe, secure, stable and permanent. Thinking identifies the ‘self’ with something that it feels is secure and permanent. Faith and belief in God or something greater are born out of the process if identification. Attachment to people, property, ideas, and beliefs makes the ‘self’ feel secure and safe. Around this central idea of the ‘me’ thinking has created a vast complex psychological structure of ideas, opinions, beliefs, prejudices and conclusions.
In his book “The Phantoms in the Brain” brain researcher Mr. V.S. Ramachandran writes, “The self as we experience is an illusion.” He writes, “so here is the greatest irony of all: that the self, that almost by definition is entirely private, is to a significant extent a social construct.”
It does not serve any purpose if we merely say that the self is an illusion created by thought. Illusion must be seen clearly. If the mind mistakes a rope for a snake, the mind continues to be fearful till rope is seen as rope. Psychological fears arising out of the self evoke neurological response the same way as the fear arising out of physical danger. These fears can disappear only when there is a realization that the fears are unfounded and baseless. There can be transformation only when I actually see the nature of the self and discover that it is an illusion.
With an objective state of mind one can clearly see that the self which is treated by most of us as entirely private, is to a significant extent a social construct. It is a fact that influence plays an enormous role in our life. Our brain is conditioned by the culture in which we live. It is conditioned by our social, religious and economic environment and by the education and family pressures and influences. Our ideas, beliefs and values have been shaped by the culture in which we are born. The self is the sum total of these influences. If you take away influence there is no such thing as the self.
When we actually realize the fact this individualistic approach to life is nothing but the result of our conditioned thinking then our whole perception of life changes. Such realization brings about love and compassion. It releases energy that is now caught up in a very narrow self-centered approach to life. The moment you realize that your pain is the pain of humanity then you cannot hurt another because the other is you. Only a profound understanding of the nature of the self can bring about inward revolution.
To be continued. Your comments and questions are most welcome.
Sardar Singh
It’s an excellent article. It needs to be read several times to see its purport, its tenor, its underlying claim. Granted that Mr. Ramachandran, the brain researcher, in his book claims the illusory nature of the “self” as we “experience it”, but that comment, as it stands, makes it more problematic. Is there another way to “know” self other than “experiencing” it? More importantly, though, is the unavoidable question that surfaces now: Who is this seer, the observer, other than this “self” who is discovering the truth of or the falsehood of “self” in Mr. Ramachandran without “experiencing it”? Who is the observer in an observation, the finder that “self is an illusion” (compared to what?) in a process of finding? Surely, no mind can answer this question since it’s not “knowable”. In other words, even if there were something like X who is “aware” in a process of awareness, the “impartial observer” in a process of observation, the ultimate “seer” in a “seeing”, it cannot be known or disproved a priori because we are exploring it with our mind, which itself is in a state of illusion. Sardarji notes that “an illusion must be seen clearly”. Who is that seer that would “see” in clarity without the veil of illusion?
Suppose, we admit this: I cannot know my “true nature” as being some X or Y so long as my instrument is my mind, so long the scalpel that I use to probe around is thought. And, since I do not know anything else other than these, I’m stuck where I’ve always been as I see my inability to pierce through my mind to see if there’s anything else beyond mind, beyond thought. Isn’t that true? If this is true, we are back again with our challenge: Who is this in me that found this out? Why are we having difficulty in sorting this out once and for all?
Perhaps, mind cannot know anything other than mind in the sense that any of its excursions is always in mind. Even a “quiet mind” suffers from the same problem: we have only slapped an adjective, however interesting, on our object of interest mind, allowing it to continue it as a mind albeit quietly. Similarly, a “no mind” is another mind concoction; a “no mind” has to do with a mind by ‘denying it’, the denier being the mind itself. Same goes with the notion of “clear mind”! How unfortunate we are still where we were all along!
This urge to inquire carries with it the habit of assuming to come to a conclusion.
What is the nature of awareness?
There is encounter, identification of known aspects and
relating or ignoring. Relationship to our environment
helps determine who we are. Self is like an influence cloud
around a strange attractor.
Engagement and choice (discernment) acts as opposite of habit.
And then, there’s the habit of inquiry as modeled by J. Krishnamurti.
Thanks, Saumen, for suggestion this forum on relationship, which is part of relativity.
Brain research interests me, as does considering mental constructs.
Anne