Seeing Through the Self Illusion

[Griselda]

I think the Self can be an inherent 'thing'

Would this presume that it could be found with surgery?

Yes, and I would say it has been found with surgery, to some degree. Back in the 40's and 50's, lobotomies were
a popular option for patients with severe forms of epilepsy and other conditions. As I'm sure you know, they stuck
an 'ice pick' through one's sinuses and up into the prefrontal cortex and basically egg-beatered the brain tissue just behind
the forehead. And those patients reported loss of 'agency', which means they didn't have a sense of self.

So we do know where the 'self' resides in the brain. Thank God we don't allow such brutal surgeries any more.

Yes, i believe this to be so. ..and that your sense of self is the result of training. Would it be different if you were raised by wolves (or in a different country with different parents?)

Yes, absolutely. And I know it's claimed that some people (Jiddu Krishnamurti being one) never developed a sense of Self in childhood. So maybe genetics has something to do with it.

Another question that interests me is, why did the sense of self evolve in the first place? Why is it here, since it causes so many problems for us? And it seems to me it might have to do with survival. Nature may have found that entities that believed themselves separate from the rest of Life may have worked harder to compete for resources like food, and therefore had a better chance of passing on their genes.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda. Have you come across Jill Bolte Taylor? She wrote (and talked) about her experience with a stroke. Her book is titled My Stroke of Insight https://archive.org/details/mystrokeofinsigh00tayl

vince

[Griselda]

Good evening Griselda. Have you come across Jill Bolte Taylor? She wrote (and talked) about her experience with a stroke. Her book is titled My Stroke of Insight https://archive.org/details/mystrokeofinsigh00tayl

Yes, I remember reading that when it came out. So it would be cool if we could all shut down our left brain, as happened to her with her stroke, but of course that's not possible. But I wonder if some day neuroscientists can invent something where we eliminate ONLY the brain circuitry that produces the sense of Self. (They did it with lobotomies, but of course that also destroyed a lot of brain tissue which is really USEFUL, so that's not an option.)

[vinceschubert]

Hi Griselda, Are we talking at cross purposes here? Do you differentiate between a SENSE of self and an actual self? When you say "the brain circuitry that produces the sense of Self." you seem to be acknowledging an interpretation (a sense) that is only there when the power is on.
i would go as far as to say that the idea of a self is the result of a lifetime of pavlonian conditioning.
A consequence of which is that it can be changed with re-education.
What are your thoughts on this?

vince

[Griselda]

Are we talking at cross purposes here? Do you differentiate between a SENSE of self and an actual self? When you say "the brain circuitry that produces the sense of Self." you seem to be acknowledging an interpretation (a sense) that is only there when the power is on.
i would go as far as to say that the idea of a self is the result of a lifetime of pavlonian conditioning.
A consequence of which is that it can be changed with re-education.
What are your thoughts on this?

Good question Vince!

Sometimes there are things that OUGHT to be true-- maybe they were proven true in the lab-- but don't seem to be true in real life.

So, to take your point, the sense of self OUGHT to be changable with re-education, if it's a result of Pavlovian conditioning.

But sometimes that doesn't seem to happen. To take my case for example: Let's say that from age 2 to 10 I was 'conditioned' like so many in my culture, to believe I am a Separate Self, apart from the whole of Existence. But then at 18 I discovered Alan Watts, Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharshi, D.T. Suzuki, and so many others who represent traditions that emphasize No Self. I've never stopped reading and meditating on this stuff. So I'm very familiar with all the schools of Advaita, or Nondual philosophy, or Dzogchen Buddhism, etc. And since at least 2015 or so I've been familiar with LU, having spoken with Ilona and Elena and several others.

Which means-- No Self has had a MUCH LONGER tenure in my life than the childhood Pavlovian conditioning of Self!
It's had a long conscious welcoming, and has been nurtured through going to retreats, and workshops, and all sorts of meditations and contemplations. And still it is not felt in its essence. If it were just a matter of re-education, it would have happened by now. Which is why I jibe with people like Tony Parsons, Jim Newman, Scott Kiloby and others, who say that Self is not just thoughts, it's embodied in the tissues. If it were just thoughts, I would have eliminated those thoughts long ago.

This is not true of everybody. Lots of people use an LU guide, or read one of the books, and see through the illusion of Self. And of course we hear of people who have NO interest in any kind of spirituality or nonduality at all, but they still have a spontaneous awakening. But many don't. I don't know if anyone knows why.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda,

Which means-- No Self has had a MUCH LONGER tenure in my life than the childhood Pavlovian conditioning of Self!

This is true, but you're missing some important points.
Firstly, the conditioning that happened in your childhood started with a clean slate. That is that it was the initial education. ..and secondly that it didn't involve undoing what was already there.
If i believe the pop zen stories that things completely and permanently change after a satori, then i have to ignore all of those that i have accompanied in their awakening over the past 10 years (i don't know how many, but many tens of them) All of whom have witnessed the progressive undoing of habitual responding.
i, myself have evolved from daily fits of frustration and anger to only occasionally now experiencing a version of this. 10 years and i'm still not completely re-wired. (i wonder if i will ever be)
i was a seeker for 43 years, many of which were pretty obsessive, and like you, experienced involvement in many 'schools' of hope. For me, the tipping point had nothing to do with no-self. It happened when somebody said to me that "the mosquito bite of seeking will never heal while i keep scratching it." BAM! i realized that i was constantly looking to a future. Avoiding THIS. What was HERE. NOW.
THIS IS IT! became a constant reminder.
It was 10 or so days later that questioning about what had happened that i stumbled on LU and joined (looking for confirmation) i was questioned about self, and control, and choice and responsibility etc. Stuff i hadn't given a thought about, but it was obvious to me that at best i was only a witness to what life offered. Whatever, apparently it was accepted that i had seen. i started guiding (almost) immediately.
i tell you all of this to put the no-self thing onto context. While it is the main portal that LU uses, for me it is only one of many.
My guidance has mostly been about helping a seeker to differentiate between what is actual and what is conceptual. Haha, and that is recognizing that for practical purposes everything is conceptual. Row, row, row your boat...

with love

vince

[Griselda]

Hi Vince,

i tell you all of this to put the no-self thing onto context. While it is the main portal that LU uses, for me it is only one of many.

If I may ask, what are the other portals? Are there instances where one might want to start with one of them?

G

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda,

If I may ask, what are the other portals?

Of course. The big one for me was what I described in my last post. This is it! Then there is Truth. The discovery that there isn't an objective truth. Only beliefs.
Any of the illusions work as portals. In fact, to see the actuality of any of the illusions will lead to seeing through all of them.
To recognize that any concept has been believed to be actual, triggers the questioning of everything that has been taken as reality.
Responsibility, choice, duality, others are some more.

Are there instances where one might want to start with one of them?

Certainly. This is why I described the one that I fell through. You seem to be somewhat stuck on the illusion of an inherently separate self, so choose one and we will see where it takes us.

with love

vince

[Griselda]

Are there instances where one might want to start with one of them?

Certainly. This is why I described the one that I fell through. You seem to be somewhat stuck on the illusion of an inherently separate self, so choose one and we will see where it takes us.

OK, let's start with "This is It". I'm not sure what exactly that means. Of course I've heard all my life that the present moment is all that exists, but it's not a particularly transformative insight.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda,

OK, let's start with "This Is It". I'm not sure what exactly that means.

Good choice.
Any meaning is a story and very likely takes us further away from what we want to discover.
So, (a story) THIS is a word that I will use to conceptualize whatever is occurring currently.
If I ask you to describe this, is it the actual occurrence, or just words about it?
Is it possible to be aware of what is currently happening in real-time, or is that happening already in the past by the time you become aware of it?
Can it be changed, or can we only have some ideas about future events?

vince

[Griselda]

If I ask you to describe this, is it the actual occurrence, or just words about it?

I'ts just words.

Is it possible to be aware of what is currently happening in real-time, or is that happening already in the past by the time you become aware of it?

That's a great question. If by 'aware' you mean that my sensory input is happening right 'now', then I would say I can be aware of what is happening in real time. But if by aware you mean that I've come to a CONCLUSION about it, like "I am in a room. I am looking at a computer screen" then I am describing something in the past (though only by a split second).

Can it be changed, or can we only have some ideas about future events?

People do seemingly change, but I think you're asking "can we CONTROL a change?" so the answer is that we can only have some ideas about future events.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda,

If by 'aware' you mean that my sensory input is happening right 'now', then I would say I can be aware of what is happening in real time. But if by aware you mean that I've come to a CONCLUSION about it, like "I am in a room. I am looking at a computer screen" then I am describing something in the past (though only by a split second).

Yes, you are right. We can have a direct experiencing of whatever is stimulating a sensory organ. It is usually so fleeting as to be not noticed. It is the imminent arrival (split seconds later) of thoughts about it, that we respond to.
That response happens automatically according to the conditions present. Our history, our DNA, the (apparently) external circumstances, etc. Even if our response appears to elicit a choosing decision, it happens (or not) and our ability to undo it or to do it differently is void.
So, what might be the effect on what happens next, to wish it was different? To say that it shouldn't have happened that way?


with love

vince

[Griselda]

Even if our response appears to elicit a choosing decision, it happens (or not) and our ability to undo it or to do it differently is void.
So, what might be the effect on what happens next, to wish it was different? To say that it shouldn't have happened that way?

The effect is-- nothing. It could NOT have been different.

However, the saying that it shouldn't have happened that way ALSO could not have been different. It took a long time for all these circumstances, like a living human body that reacts in certain ways, to evolve, but the belief that things are 'wrong' and are supposed to be different also took a long time to evolve.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Griselda,

the saying that it shouldn't have happened that way ALSO could not have been different.

Ha yes. You're getting it. Whatever arises is IT. THIS.
So we accept it. Without opinion or judgment.
Now, this bit is a bit more tricky. Subtle. Without opinion, but with evaluation. With consideration. It's a learning situation.
This comes from having a wider perspective.
The more opinionated, the narrower the perspective.
We are not victims of life. We are creators of life-ing.
The inviting, welcoming surrendering to THIS, is the juicy, enthusiastic immersion in what is offered, and somehow it changes what is experienced.

It took a long time for all these circumstances, like a living human body that reacts in certain ways, to evolve, but the belief that things are 'wrong' and are supposed to be different also took a long time to evolve.

Yes, a lifetime of training. Conditioning. ..but your searching has given you promise that it can be different, but here's the paradox. The way for it to be different is to accept it as it is.
..and even more paradoxical, to know that it can be different without wishing it to be. Desire induces suffering. Being open to whatever is experienced, does change experiencing.

with love

vince

[Griselda]

The way for it to be different is to accept it as it is.
..and even more paradoxical, to know that it can be different without wishing it to be. Desire induces suffering. Being open to whatever is experienced, does change experiencing.

Right, but of course there isn't an entity who can decide "Ok, up till now I haven't accepted it as it is, but I want things to be different, so I'll start accepting things as they are right now."