Rabbit Space

I don’t know if this will help, but here goes:

Part of the trouble here is that all of the words that one can use to talk about this stuff are so loaded with baggage and charged with meanings for each person, that a cursory reading of any of this stuff can easily result in throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater. I am glad that none of you have given up, and still persist in trying to resonate with the deepest core of your being.

From my own experience I would say that yes!! there is a True Self, although trying to describe it is very confounding. And furthermore, yes!! there is that which is “greater” than True Self, and not only is trying to speak of this very confounding, but even trying to fathom some understanding of this is beyond the meager grasp of what it seems our little selves are capable of.

It only instills one with greater awe and reverence for this, I call it unknowable, in realizing It and what It might “be”. Whereas the Buddha was very wise in refusing to make any statement about the transcendent truth, I am instead a more foolish man, so I will attempt to put some of this into language here.

The sad thing here is that it is like several groups, each with a part of the puzzle, each saying I have the answer, yet neither seeing how the pieces fit together.

First of all, too much is made out of the no-self issue. You see, it is quite possible to say that there is no-self, and be correct in ones statement because, technically, the True Self is not made of some substance. The no-self is in regard to the True Self not being a thing or substance. The “no-self” in the statement refers to the fact that there is nothing, no thing or substance here.

Part of this is a perceptual fluke that humans have: that when realizing True Self you also realize that there is not some substance from which it is made of, and the effect is of perceiving nothing at the same time that you perceive this Truth. This is because we are so constantly oriented to the physicalness of our lives, out temporal existence.

Therefore, when we encounter an experience of something that is not a physical thing we perceive that it is not made of a substance. We perceive it as no-thing, or in this case no-self. This no-self statement is made as an affirmative statement that there is no thing, no substance from which the True Self is made. And, when such statements are read in the understanding of this context their intent is seen. Anyone who thinks that the no-self statement means that there is absolutely no True Self has, unfortunately, not penetrated very deeply into the heart of Truth.

On the other hand, those who insist that there is a soul are not completely off the mark either. That is, if they mean that there is something that is transcendent; some True Self that is present at the realization of the highest ground of being. Because I would say that there is something that “persists” (again, “something” not being a thing or a substance). And, frankly, I am hesitant in using the word “persist”, because I don’t mean some kind of immortal or separate-able self.

But, in choosing a word that resounds with my own experience, I would say that identity is present. That is, Knowing identifies Itself. Not as a thing or as a being, but perhaps as beingness. The phrases immortal and eternal are throwaways: because this realm of reality is outside the scope of time, they can be true and not true.

And by the term “identity”, I do not mean some singular tangible essence of self. But, I would say that at the deepest level of reality there is awareness and there is knowing. And in the realization, as awareness knows its awareness, identity reveals itself.

Awareness, aware, when knowing its own awareness identity manifests. Awareness, knowing, not being limited in its scope of awareness or knowing, has no limit on realizing further identification, identity is free to manifest again.

This is not even at the primacy level of the self yet (Not yet a personality or a being at this stage.); this is still at the root of being. Awareness is within (connected to) all other awareness, but all identifications are not the same ones. As awareness continues, identity grows; not becoming a bigger identity as if it were getting larger like a bigger, puffed up balloon; but grows as in branching out. Identity growing along as awareness continues on.

And although I have laid this out in terms of process so that it looks like a step-by-step affair, in actuality all of this is spontaneous and immediate and synchronous. As identity grows it becomes more complex. And in the growing awareness a greater identity manifests, which “rides” on top of the complex minute awareness/identities. Sustained, with knowing and awareness, as the “greater” identity, while the minute awareness/identities continue to proceed. Like a wave rides upon the sea, or a song rides upon the wind. This is the manifestation of the nature of the true self, the deepest basis of the foundation of personality formation.

The question of an individual something here is a mute point. Identity is not a function of separation, but possible because All–That-Is is an integral whole, never ending in its capacity of awareness realizing knowing. And, it is from this integral whole that the concepts seen as dependent origination spring. Although, in reality, the all-knowingness of Truth precludes this characterization of its nature into even this systemization.

Nevertheless, dependent origination is elemental in the spontaneous arising of personality and being that springs from the basis of identity in its most primal “form”. Enabling the unlimited growth and development of personality, in even its most basic sense, through its immediate connectedness (in the underlying oneness) with all that is.

While dependent origination speaks to the nature of self, it does not lead to the conclusion that there is no identity of Highest Self, but more poignantly to the fundamental that such an identity is not a seperable individual being. The logical reduction of dependent origination leading to some uber-field of being, whose tenant is no-self because there is a lack of separation in all-encompassing oneness, presupposes individuation rather than awareness as the primary root of identity. And, while a deep understanding of dependent origination may lead one to the realization of the most elemental nature of personality, the “no-self” that is realized is not dependent on dependent origination, but a characteristic of the very nature of True Self.

Whew!! Trying to explain this stuff in a sensible manner is really exhausting. We have just begun to scratch the surface of so many topics that are pertinent to this discussion.

Unfortunately, I do not have the energy to broach anymore of them at this point. Nevertheless, while not speaking for any one side here, I hope that I have been able to imbue clarity into the points that each side is making. And if others would wish to explore other viewpoints I would say that you are most welcome to. I make no claim to have the absolute understanding of the Highest Truth. I would only hope that the tenor of one’s remarks are tempered by experience.