A Persian story tells of a sage approaching the door of heaven and knocking on it. From within God inquires, “Who is there?” The sage answers, “It is I.” God replies, “In this House there is no room for you and me.” The sage goes away and ponders many years in deep meditation, trying to understand this reply from God. The sage returns a second time. God inquires, again, “Who is there?” The sage answers, again, “It is I.” God does not open the door. Again, the sage ponders the enigma in meditation. After some years the sage returns to the door of heaven and hears God inquire, “Who is there?” The sage cries out, “It is You!” God opens the door.
This is not a “devotional” writing, today. Rather, this is a writing that challenges what meditation challenges and refers to what the Christian teaching of “dying to your self” and the Buddhist teaching of “no-self” imply.
Of course, Christians and Buddhists agree that we have a sense of self, or an experience we can call self. I believe that Christians and Buddhists are saying the same thing, in different ways. When the two traditions are put together, on this important teaching, we can read, “To live, we must die to the self that we discover is not a self by this dying.” This is classical paradox. Then, to find your self is to find a whole new wisdom regarding a self, which is far different from the conventionalized self. This transformed self is, actually, not a solid self apart from the momentary experience of a self. This momentariness is, paradoxically and ironically, Eternity.
This teaching of “no-self” or “dying to self” we do not learn by information. However, beyond information, which would mean applying terms to a no-self that are, necessarily, based on the premises that give rise to the false self in the first place, we must experience this dying to self or no-self.
The only ways I have known of growing into this realization is a form of meditative inquiry and detachment, which leads to contemplation, transcendence in love for another person or persons, and self-less service. In these processes the self is not. If you are in contemplation and the thought arises “I am contemplating,” then, the “I am” indicates a removal from the singularity that marks the Grace of contemplation. However, within the nondual Grace of contemplation, there can be awareness of a sense of self within the immediate realization, or experience, of that self only being a process within Reality, or God.
I ask you two questions.
What if the source of frustration in seeking a self-identity is that the self we are seeking to identify does not exist, therefore, the more we seek this self-identity, the more divided we are from God, others, and life?
Have you ever, for even a single moment, experienced an "I" that is not part of immediate experience?
|
|
Let us try an exercise.
Start reading one of the above questions. In the middle of reading, shift from the experience of the reading to awareness of the reader, while maintaining the experience of reading apart from experience of the reader. You were not able to do it. Yes?
Now, let me ask you another question.
Who are you, apart from some conceptualization of who you are? Can you say even one thing about your “self” that is not an idea and derived from social convention?
Many persons say “myself” and “I” … and never give thought to the fact that what they are referring to is a complex, socialized idea, in a momentariness of “self” reference. This momentariness of self-reference does exists, but only as an experience within the moment.
We do not have any sensation of an “I” as a self acting or being acted on that is not part of experience, or momentariness, itself. That is, to become aware of an “I” means to have, at that moment, another momentary experience. We cannot experience an “I” separate from momentary experience, which is impermanent, unpredictable, and in flux.
This raises a vital question. What is it that makes possible the sense of a self, or the momentary experience of a self as experience? This leads us to “God,” or “Reality,” for the sense of self, or the momentary experience of a self, cannot arise from such a self.
Hinduism and Christianity arrived at a postulation of a Self giving rise to the self, or sense of self. Hinduism calls this Atman. Traditionally, Christians have spoken of the “soul,” and now, often, to “True Self.” These are other conventions, regardless of how helpful, to grasp a Mystery. Such concepts often end up to grasping for solid ideas, again, thus, perpetuating the sense of a separate something, regardless of how mysterious, spiritual, holy, or interior, that is and can be apart from God.
The idea of a Center, or Interiority, is another idea of separation. So, persons set the "inside" against the "outside," which is separation and alientation. We can call the basic, or original sin, then, this pervasive alienation, leading to illusion and, likewise, mis-behavior.
Such apart-from-God is impossible. Therefore, behavior deriving from a sense of self separate from God will always, finally, lead to frustration.
You know that I am not saying to avoid language of separation. To speak means we employ such words, images, and ideas. As long as we live in a world of experiencing temporal sensations of duality, we will have to utilize language implying separation. I am saying to grow in awareness of the nature of such and, thus, grow more lovingly aware of your innate union with others, life, and God.
Now, return to the opening story, and read it again. Thanks.
|
