Meta Stages and Development Before, During, and After Awakening

This is again verry interesting. I was reading Nisargadatta last night who seemed to imply that the sense of self is not even a continuous impression, but arises moment by moment together with each moment of experience. Memory would then make is feel like a continuous feeling of existence. I found that this was surprizingly close to the conclusions of Theravada Buddhism.

"Because the subject arises with experience, it seems to be the only part of experience that is permanent. Because it is seen to be permanent it gets seen as the "self", and that's when the sh*t hits the fan."

That sounds right to me, Owen. It is a sort of "constant" in experience as it arises with anything and everything, so it appears to be the same object when it's really not. I think that's the key insight - not that there is no self but that the self that arises is constantly different with each arising. A difficult and nuanced realization, methinks.

Also, our "fight or flight" instincts are tied closely to the sense of self, to the small "I." That's a lot of biology and habit to overcome with dedicated practice that leads to insight. And as we know, a conceptual understanding of this will not suffice. The realization has to be deep and innate to be effective.

Alex, the Three Characteristics are those things that arise with every object; impermanence, dissatisfaction, not self. Everything has those attached as it appears to you.

"
Also, our "fight or flight" instincts are tied closely to the sense of self, to the small "I." That's a lot of biology and habit to overcome with dedicated practice that leads to insight. And as we know, a conceptual understanding of this will not suffice. The realization has to be deep and innate to be effective.

"

For a while I've had this idea as well. That the sense of self is that thing that powerfully wants to eat and have sex and breathe, and will do anything to avoid dying. Each of us needs a sense of self to survive, maybe.

According to both Ramana and the Niz, the first thought or concept is the I concept. All else is like a tree branching off from that first concept (I am here, you are there, that is me, that is not me, etc.).

Thinking will always involve this subjective aspect, so whenever you look for the subject it also arises (I'm still here, oh look at that tree OVER THERE, etc.). Memory is the thread that holds the whole illusion together. You wake up, you realize you are awake, then you remember who you are and all of that. Imagine waking up with someone else's memories. You wouldn't see anything wrong. You would just go along with it.

So to cut off the I cuts off everything else. It's really interesting but the whole shebang is very mechanistic. When the mind is silent there is no I, but the minute you go to confirm this the I is back. So it involves total surrender to drop the I.

The I thought is mapped onto certain sensations in the body as well. They are connected (those feelings give rise to the thought I and are what you feel when you check to see if you are still here).

""Because the subject arises with experience, it seems to be the only part of experience that is permanent. Because it is seen to be permanent it gets seen as the "self", and that's when the sh*t hits the fan."

That sounds right to me, Owen. It is a sort of "constant" in experience as it arises with anything and everything, so it appears to be the same object when it's really not. I think that's the key insight - not that there is no self but that the self that arises is constantly different with each arising. A difficult and nuanced realization, methinks."
"

In the world of deluded waterfalls... when did the sh*t hit the fan?

"I was reading Ramana a while back and he was talking about it as if it were a natural consequence of the universe growing a body that is observing the universe. Because the subject arises with experience, it seems to be the only part of experience that is permanent. Because it is seen to be permanent it gets seen as the "self", and that's when the sh*t hits the fan.
"

Great discussion here! This reminds me of something else I've read on this site:
Commentary on van der Hut's Summary of Aziz Kristof: bit.ly/9BYTQW

From that page:
"If an animal would suddenly get an ego, this would be an Enlightenment experience for the animal. That would be the first shift for the animal from its subconscious state to becoming aware of itself. The subconscious state is like a dream state. In a dream, there is no clear self-awareness; the subject's awareness is completely objectified into the dream story. Humans, in their semi-conscious state, are on the one hand conscious enough to have a sense of self, while on the other hand not conscious enough to realize what is behind this sense of self. This causes us to search for our true identity."

It seems to me that the development of the ego could be described as something that awareness in general is trying to perfect. Kind of an ongoing experiment in consciousness. Except in our case, the rats are running the experiment. And what we're talking about as "enlightenment" or "arhatship" is the stabilizing of that conscious sense-of-self within the awareness of everything going on around that self, making it a stable platform for further explorations.

At least, that's the pattern I see presenting itself. One of these days I hope to be lucky enough to experience it for myself firsthand...

"The first step is to identify and clarify the sense of self. Then to investigate to body to realize that the sense of self is not limited to a particular body part, nor can it be found in a particular location outside the body. The next step involves the investigation the mind to realize that the sense of self is not to be found in feelings, sensations, mental states, sense perceptions or thoughts, nor can it be found apart from consciousness. We finally come to the conclusion that the sense of self is neither inside nor outside the body-mind (the 5 aggregates)."

I heard someone say something interesting once, in that you can deconstruct thr sense of self in terms of the 5 aggregates or the 6 sense bases. And there is something very intereting in that. If you take the 5 aggregates notice that 4 of the 5 are internal, and only 1 is external; whereas if you take the the 6 sense bases notice that 5 of the 6 are external, and 1 is internal.

So, the advice goes, if your primary hang up is that the sense of self is mostly experienced externally, then the five agragates are the best way to investigate it because 4 of the 5 force you to examine inside, but if your primary hang up is that the sense of self is mostly experienced internally then use the six sense bases as a basis for examination because 5 of the 6 force you to examine outside.

You could probably even look at it the other way around, but either way, the proportional internal / external aspects of the two methods of examination is noteworthy.