Thanks Tio for sharing.
I love information like this, and for some reason this post of yours keeps bringing me back to this writing by Wei Wu Wei. If you'd like me to move it away from your post let me know
The First and Last Illusion
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 cognize itself?
WHATEVER IS PERCEIVED, WHATEVER IS THOUGHT OF, IS AN OBJECT. IN
ORDER TO PERCEIVE OR TO COGNIZE YOUR SELF YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE AN
OBJECT. WHEN THINKING, PERCEIVING, COGNIZING, YOU ARE THE THINKING,
PERCEIVING, COGNIZING – 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 I looking; nor be an object of knowledge because itself is what
is cognizing?
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 APPEARNCE 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 name for you, for me, and for….
THE BEETLE. YES, OF COURSE. THERE IS ONLY ONE, AND `IT' IS NO `ONE'.
The 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, TERPORAL OR
INTEMPORAL, FINITE OR INFINITE. BUT WHAT THEY ARE IS PRECISELY
WHAT `IT' IS.
And what are we?
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.
…NO `THING' EVER WAS, IS, OR EVER WILL BE.
How can you 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 COGNIZE.
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 all 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 THAN THEIRS WAS IN THEIR DAY AND PLACE, FOR THEY
WERE LESS RIGIDLY CONDITIONED TO MATERIALISM THAN 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.
The First and Last Illusion
THE TENTH MAN
Wei Wu Wei
P.S. I just happen to like the way that Carlos Castaneda approaches it, and Wei Wu Wei describes it. I like the combination of the two.
z
