The tragedy and comedy of the human condition is that we spend most of our lives thinking, feeling, acting, perceiving and relating on behalf of a non-existent self.– Rupert Spira
To me, talking about a non-existent self seems a little one-sided.
THE SMALL SELF
If we experience a self, then for all practical purposes there is a self.
It may not exist the way we think it does, and it may not be what we think and assume it is, but it’s real to us.
For practical purposes, there is a human self here functioning in the world, and what the passport tells us about this self and the identities we have created for it all has some validity.
More essentially, there is also the appearance of a doer and observer. If I have the experience of a doer and observer, and perhaps even being this doer and observer, then that’s real for me.
WHAT I MORE FUNDAMENTALLY AM
At the same time, it’s not what I more fundamentally am. When I look, I find I more fundamentally am what this whole field of experience – which includes the wider world and this human self – happens within and as what I am.
For lack of a better way to talk about it, I may call that consciousness. To myself, I am more fundamentally this consciousness that any content of experience – to me – happens within and as.
WHAT I AM FORMS ITSELF INTO ITS OWN CONTENT OF EXPERIENCE
The consciousness I am forms itself into an experience of the wider world and this human self, and perhaps also a doer and an observer, and sometimes also into BEING this doer, observer, and/or human self. (It may even form itself into an experience of being the IDEA of consciousness, which then distracts from a more direct noticing.)
This is all the play of the consciousness I am. It’s some of the many ways it’s expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself and it’s apparently infinite potential.
MEDICINE FOR A CONDITION
I assume Rupert Spira talks about a non-existent self as medicine for a condition.
It’s medicine for the condition of being stuck in the idea that there is a self here and that it’s what we most fundamentally are.
I also assume that his phrasing is intentional and that he in other situations talks about it in other ways and addresses the other side(s) and the bigger picture.
The alternative is that he is stuck in the idea of a non-existent self.
He may be stuck out of a phrasing habit while really knowing better.
Or he may actually be stuck in the idea, which then distracts from a more direct noticing and a more fluid way of talking about it.
I don’t know him or his way of talking well enough to say. (I have never been drawn to his pointers too much, perhaps because they seem a bit one-sided?)
In any case, I prefer to take the more generous view. I’ll assume it’s intentional and that his direct noticing is more sincere and that his talking is generally more fluid and inclusive.
- Non – existent self? RS quote
- if we experience a self, then for all practical purposes there is a self
- May not exists the way we think, may not be what we think, but is real to us
- To the consciousness we are
- And which finds itself into it
- Also, in small interpretation, may well be a small self that’s as real as anything
- Doesn’t matter if it’s real or not
- What matters is that it’s not what we more fundamentally are in our own immediate experience
- RS not as accurate as could be, but likely intentional, meant as medicine for a condition
- Alternatively, he is stuck in an idea