People, intelligent people also, laugh at the idea that there is no such thing as a self, whereas to us it is quite obvious. Why is that?
It is because they are conditioned to imagine self as an object, and all objects appear to exist.Why cannot they see that self could not be an object?
Seeing that is inseeing, and they are only conditioned to outseeing.But it is also a valid logical proposition.
Quite so; can you not so put it to them?I have never tried. Why is there no self?
If you look carefully you will find that you cannot think of what you are.Can I not?
You cannot.Why?
Because what is thinking is what you are.Does that make it impossible?
It does. You can only think of an object: what is thinking is subject. Therefore thinking cannot think of what is thinking.In fact subject cannot cognise itself?
Whatever is perceived, whatever is thought of, is an object. In order to perceive or to cognise your self you would have to be an object. When thinking, perceiving, cognising, you are the thinking, perceiving, cognising - not an objective image in mind.You mean that it cannot be said, for instance, because it is itself which is doing the saying, or thought of because it is always what is thinking the thought; nor can it be seen because it is inevitably what is looking; nor be an object of knowledge because itself is what is cognising?
It cannot be thought of because 'it' is what is thinking that thought. How, then, could there be a 'self', which is necessarily an object? Is not such a 'thing' unthinkable? How could it be possible? An object cannot be its own subject!You mean that there never has been a self?
Never. Never has been, is not, and never will be. It is an utter impossibility, a pre-post-erous contradiction in terms.But cannot I be both?
Both subject and object?Yes, one after the other.
You would then be two separate and consecutive objects. There is no sequence except in illusory 'time'. What we are is not so limited. Only a concept is dualistically bound. What we are is not a concept; that is the condition of appearance only.But cannot I see your self, and you mine?
Indeed no. Anything either of us can see must necessarily be an object. 'Self' is what looks, not what is seen. And 'self' is singular, not plural.You mean that self always remains subject?
There is no self to 'remain'. There is only a functioning: even if functioning could ever be anything else it could never have been self. The term has no other meaning.Then what is the subject of the object that I mistook for self?
Why, self of course. There is no other subject. Always and everywhere. Just self - written with a capital letter in translations from the Sanscrit.The same for you, for me, and for....
The beetle. Yes, of course. There is only one, and 'it' is no 'one'.Then what on Earth can 'it' be?
'It' is not on Earth; 'it' produces the Earth by means of 'its' functioning. 'It' is all that any and all of us are, ever were, and forever will be.That means that 'it' is eternal?
There is no 'it' to be eternal or not-eternal, temporal or intemporal, finite or infinite. But what they are is precisely what 'it' is.And what we are?
What 'it' is - we are. What else could we be?But that is no 'thing'!
No 'thing' whatever - for no 'thing' ever was, is, or ever will be.How can we say that?
Because there is no time, nor space, other than as the extension of images in mind.Images of what?
Images of what we are as self, objectified as what we appear to be and are conditioned to believe is what we call 'ourselves' and all that we cognise.Is that your whole doctrine?
What do you mean? Who am I to have a doctrine? It is what all the Prophets have seen, what all the Teachers have taught.But they don't tell us that!
You mean they don't express it in that way?Surely not.
They express it in accordance with the understanding or mental conditioning of those among whom they lived.Which is very different from ours, of course?
And from that of one another, geographically, demographically, and chronologically.And those are not suitable for us?
We try, try very hard, to understand it as they propounded it for their contemporaries, but we find it a very long and arduous process which involves an acquiring of the essentials of their conditioning. Few of us succeed.So that we should find this modern Western idiom easier?
Our own conditioning has to be overcome, or undone, demolished before we can apprehend it; that alone is a long and hard task, and one that is longer and harder that theirs was in their day and place, for they were less rigidly conditioned to materialism then we are. To acquire an apprehension of theirs as well, with its complicated religious background, is rather too much for most of us, and there is no reason to suppose that we are more fitted for the task than they were.Then religion is an obstacle?
It is both a Way and an obstacle.How is that so?
As a Way it is traditional, but devotion is emotional and positive, and affectivity is as great an obstacle as intellectuality - for both are turning away from ourselves - the true 'Within' of Jesus - towards an Object, towards 'other', towards objectification of all thought.In worshipping 'other' is one not worshipping his 'self'?
He is, but unless that is understood he is still in the dark and does not know what he is doing. In any case both affectivity and dialectics are outflowing.Because they are positive?
Exactly. Only via constant and total negation of all that is positive, of all conceptual so-called 'reality', of all that is phenomenal, can noumenality - which necessarily and evidently must be all that we are - be clearly apprehended.And such apprehension should be prefect understanding of our relation to the universe, and realisation of what we are?
Such apprehension is preliminary understanding, if you wish: perfect understanding is the living of what has been understood.And how is that to be achieved?
It cannot be achieved. It is not an achievement.Why is that?
Why? Because it is the final understanding that there can be no one to achieve anything, and no thing to be achieved.Who, then, can do it if we cannot?
Whoever are 'we', and who is there to do what or look for whom?Our self? Is it not our self that we must find?
Is not that like ringing for someone who is already in the room?But surely we must find what enables us to see?
Is not that like looking for spectacles that are on your nose and without which you could not see spectacles?At any rate it is I who am looking for myself?
If you dial your own number on the telephone, will you get the connection?Then we must look in another direction?
Will you see what you are looking for by looking in the wrong direction?Of course not! I mean by looking in the right direction!
You will not see it even then.Well, how on Earth ...?
No amount of looking in any direction could help you to see what is looking.
