Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions

There is only confusion about a belief in the existence of such an identity. This is why I see that you are the one who is confused, not me. For as long as you think that this is necessary, you have no clear understanding of the real nature of ‘I’. For if you had, you would see that this is ridiculous. For you cannot eliminate something that is not there in the first place. There is only one problem, and that is REALIZING that this ‘I’, this identity IS an illusion. And when this is totally realized, in the sense that it is observed to be true, and not only understood as a possibility, the process of enlightenment sets in. 

AND I still struggle, want, strive to understand this ‘illusory self’ that everybody says doesn’t exist but obscures that Reality which does exist, and if it (self) doesn’t exist, then how does it have such power over the physical? Nobody denies that the physical exists (with the exception of a few weirdos) and yet, this self that doesn’t exist can make the body do things like cry, smile, yell, cuss, get a sick stomach, muscles tie up in knots, get cancer, a headache, get horny, commit murder, rape, leave town, etc. (all in your list). For something that doesn’t exist, the self, the thinker, the ‘I’, the ego, can sure cause a lot of havoc in a physical world, which some on the list say doesn’t exists either or is a figment of one’s imagination, or if we believe that is what we have, then that is what we have.

Who is this ‘I’ you are referring to if is not the identity which has left the ‘building’ ‘all those years ago’. It can only be identity as without it you could not have even made that statement.

It seems that passions or feelings are just changing phenomenon that seemingly arise and pass away in awareness just as thoughts. To label that ever-changing phenomenon as an instinctual self seems to be the addition of thought. You point to the affects of action based on the belief in some real self. That action (under the assumption of a separate self) is always in conflict. Pointing to the affects of misconception does not prove the existence of a real ongoing self. You say that there used to be an ‘I’ in this body, but somehow it is gone. Yes? If, in fact, there was some real self in your body, where did it go and how did it end? Real things don’t just disappear. If I see a real lake and look closer and closer, there is still a lake. If however, I see a mirage of a lake, the closer I get, its lack of existence is clarified. Likewise, the existence of a real self would be clarified with close exposure. What happens, though, is that no substantial self can ever be found. Since there has never been a real ongoing self from the first (only action based on the assumption or belief in one) there is an appearance of something ending when in fact it is exposing and dropping of the beliefs and misconceptions concerning an ongoing self.

Can you explain what is the scientific nature of THAT ‘I’ which is supposed to remain after eliminating the above said ‘both the psychological ‘self’ and the instinctual ‘self’ and which portion of the brain is responsible for the so called PCE experience resulting.

That ‘thinker’ or ‘feeler’ is imputed by thought on the basis of ever-changing thoughts and feelings. If there is a belief in a real ‘thinker’ or ‘feeler’ or some real ‘me’, that just another passing thought. Watching thoughts, feelings, and beliefs all come and go as they do, what can be pointed to as some real ‘thinker’? The perception of ‘egotistical persons’ seems to involve the labelling process of thought that imputes a ‘person’ on to the observable activities of an ever-changing body/mind. Yes. Seeing has nothing to do with an ‘I’.

There never was any ego or soul entity. There is just conditioning, programming that includes those beliefs as well as the instinctive reactions.  The so-called human ego-structure, human conditioning is memory-based. There is thought of me before enlightenment, me after enlightenment, me becoming free etc. There is an experience and with that energy, conditioning dissolves. Thought converts that into attainment by me. But actually the process is impersonal.

Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil. For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst? The truly good ask not the naked, ‘Where is your garment?’ nor the houseless, ‘What has befallen your house?’