Don't be Big Brother to yourself, "I" watching "me"

Non-religious Buddhism and neuroscience agree on this: there is no such thing as a "self." Meaning, there isn't an "I" who is separate from "me," a soul separate from body, a mind separate from brain.

Understanding this -- no, more, intuitively experiencing the truth of this -- cuts through mountains of religious, spiritual, mystical, and philosophical crap. It also makes life way simpler. 

It's crazy that we humans look upon ourselves as if we are an object to be manipulated, like a smart phone or chainsaw. We're always asking ridiculous questions like, "Why don't I feel better about myself?" 

There is just feeling. This is Buddhism 101. Also Neuroscience 101.

Nobody is sitting inside your head watching your brain do its thing. You are your brain doing its thing. Part of that thing it does is generate self-reflective complexity. (See my post, "What we are: a strange loop in an ego tunnel.")

Thus spirituality, a word that should be done away with but won't be anytime soon, has two basic directions -- one truthful and one imaginary.

The truthful way to go is founded on a recognition of no-self, thereby melding the best of ancient traditions like Buddhism and Taoism with findings of modern neuroscience. The imaginary spiritual path envisions an enduring self at the end of the road, an eternal soul, a timeless drop in a divine ocean.

Such is what Chögyam Trungpa critiques as spiritual materialism. Or spiritual egoism. Most religions, whether of the Eastern or Western variety, fall prey to this. They teach that we humans aren't our bodies, nor our brains. 

Rather, our essence is something indestructible and eternal, not subject to the laws of nature that govern the observable cosmos.

This leads to the mistaken belief that "I" am separate from "me." Some ethereal consciousness, my deepest reality, is able to look upon other aspects of me as if it were a mountain top observatory studying far-off stars.

Not true, says Trungpa. Here are some passages from his book, "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism."

This is the self-consciousness of watching yourself, observing yourself unnecessarily. Whatever we do is constantly being watched and censored. Actually it is not Big Brother who is watching; it is Big Me! Another aspect of me is watching me, behind me, just about to strike, just about to pinpoint my failure. There is no joy in this approach, no sense of humor at all.

...There is a sense of seeing oneself as an external object, which leads to the first notion of "other." One is beginning to have a relationship with a so-called "external" world.

...Once we have taken away this preconception of the existence of mind and reality, then situations emerge clearly, as they are. There is no one to watch, no one to know anything. Reality just is, and this is what is meant by the term "shunyata." Through this insight the watcher which separates us from the world is removed.

...When we experience shunyata, we are completely involved, without the subject-object division of duality. We are also free from confusion.

This sounds a lot like the flow so beloved of athletes, dancers, musicians, and indeed, all of us. In our most joyous and productive moments we aren't aware of our awareness, of acting out our actions, of being mindful of our mindfulness.

We're just doing and feeling whatever is being done and felt. Pretty damn simple. 

Comments

[cc]

Once we have taken away this preconception of the existence of mind and reality, then situations emerge clearly, as they are. There is no one to watch, no one to know anything., then situations emerge clearly, as they are.

Rubbish. The "we" that takes away "this preconception of the existence of mind and reality" is the mind desperately denying its own existence.

[Panchev]

Gurinder Singh Dhillon has completely recovered and started giving lectures again. Is it a sign of his holiness? Perhaps he did take upon the karmas of his disciples and through personal suffering exhausted them? If it is indeed so, it is quite remarkable.

[T]

3:-)
Is it really that simple?

[Brian Hines]

Panchev, "quite remarkable"? That someone gets medical treatment and recovers?

Happens all the time. Don't make something common into something miraculous.

[Skeptic]

Lol

[Simply Tej]

Brother Brian,

What about the man who was struck by lightning; and regained his 'eyesight, hearing, and hair growth'..?

http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/26/lightning_strikes

and what about a guy who was struck by lightning 7 times (documented) and verified by doctors?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/inside-the-life-of-the-man-known-as-the-spark-ranger/2013/08/15/947cf2d8-ea40-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html

I'd like to quote the article from the link above...

"We humans yearn for order and structure, taking comfort in whatever certainties can be found in a seemingly chaotic universe. But life misbehaves. What sense can be made of its twists and turns? Did Roy Sullivan have an explanation for his epic misfortune? Why him? Can the fickle finger of fate really be that preposterously unfair?

4.15 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000"

[Skeptic]

Seven times? That sure is some wonky karma! Haha!

[Brian Hines]

Simply Tej, check out my blog post, "'Miracles' happen all the time. Mathematics demands them."

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2014/03/miracles-happen-all-the-time-mathematics-demands-them.html

I talk about a book that explains why seemingly impossible events, like lightning striking somebody multiple times, or the same numbers coming up as a lottery winner in succession, are actually expected to occur given the laws of large numbers.

There are so many things going on in the world at every moment, 24/7, naturally unexpected things happen. This isn't a sign of anything miraculous.

[Simply T]

Blogger Brian,

Thank you for the interesting post on The Improbability Principle. It seems like there is no such thing as a "Miracle", according to Hand's theories of law of numbers/combinations...

That said; do you have a concrete definition of what would/should constitute a "miracle"? (preferably with a specific example)

or, do you think that there is no such thing/event that would be able to define a Miracle?, and perhaps we could possibly do without the word itself (?)

[Brian Hines]

Simply T, a miracle would have to be something so amazingly miraculous, so outside the possibility of being caused by known laws of nature, there is essentially no doubt about its miracle-ness.

"No doubt" means it would be a public phenomenon, observed and verified by many people on Earth.

For example: the moon being replaced by a giant cross, mandala, yin-yang symbol, or whatever. Graves opening up and dead people being resurrected, as confirmed by MRI scans and fingerprint identification. Confirmed proof of levitation. A word appearing in the heavens that's visible day and night anywhere in the world: BELIEVE

What I'm getting at is that supposed miracles we're used to are so pitiful, so questionable, we have lost sight of how obvious a genuine miracle would be -- which includes some stories in the Bible and other holy books.

For some reason all those Big Time miracles have ceased in this age of scientific instrumentation and skeptical questioning. Gosh, wonder why?