Incomparably Self-Same

Ludwig Wittgenstein, proposition 5.5303:

"Roughly speaking: to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to say nothing."

Indeed:

unique = different; it is exactly because you are different (i.e. unique) that you are beyond comparison; all comparisons are approximations, rough groupings; you are incomparably self-same.

Self-Definition is Self-Limitation

The question of “What am I?” may lead to self-objectification or to self-liberation.  Which path would you take?  How would you answer it?  By saying something along the lines of “I am this” or “I am that” or “I am such and such"?  I hope not.

Understand the self-limiting meaning of the verb “to define:”

to define, according to OED, means: "to specify; to end," from O.Fr. defenir "to end, terminate, determine," and directly from L. definire "to limit, determine, explain," from de- "completely" (see de-) + finire "to bound, limit," from finis "boundary.

Recognize:

Any self-definition is a self-limitation.  To define yourself is to limit your understanding of yourself.  To define yourself is to box yourself into this or that category.  To define yourself is to finish your understanding of yourself.  To define yourself is to end your curiosity about yourself. 

A self-definition is not self-knowledge: it's self-delusion. You are not limited to any “this” or “that," certainly not until you are finished living.  You are un-limited.  Your suchness is beyond description or comparison. 

A self-definition is self-objectification.  But you are not the object of your consciousness, you are not a thought "I am such and such."  You are the Subject that inquires, the one asking the question - not the informational answer that passes through your mind.

Do ask yourself the question “What am I?” (to re-experience your ineffable essence) but ignore the answer.

Reference: Lotus Effect

No “I” in the Outcome

Eugen Herrigel, the author of a 1948 classic, Zen in the Art of Archery, offers a thought of dis-identification from the outcome of one’s performance: “The archer ceases to be conscious of himself as the one who is engaged in hitting the bull’s-eye that confronts him.”  

Recognize:

The Arrow is the Extension of your Arm. 

The Arm is the Extension of your Body. 

The Body is the Extension of your Mind. 

Your Mind is the Extension of [the arrow of] your Consciousness.

Recognize:

When you release the bowstring of your performance and when the arrow hits or misses the target, you are still standing where you were standing, you are still you, regardless of the outcome.

You were there before any given outcome, and you will be there after a given outcome.  But this outcome came out of you.  It would not have happened without you. 

Remember:

You are not the outcome of the outcome; it’s the outcome that is the outcome of you.  You are not your performance, you are the one who performs. 

Conclude: I am not the outcome of what I do.  I am not the outcome of my performance.

Good Question Answers Itself

Impossible to open your mouth without stepping on the toes of the paradox! 

Mind’s footprints are everywhere as mind follows its own tracks, leading, following, misleading, rebelling, seeking ever new doors only to linger in the doorway… 

Conclude: you are not your mind; you are not the cognitive-affective-sensory mindprints in the sands of your consciousness; you are not your own footprints; you are That which leads.

But what is That?! 

Good question (answers itself)!

You Aren’t What’s Changing, You Are What Remains the Same

In Kafka’s story “The Metamorphosis,” first published in 1915, the protagonist’s body turns into a cockroach.  But that’s not the point.  The point is that nothing else changes.  The protagonist (and his neuroticism) remains the same. 

This is the irony of change.  Change happens on the backdrop of the changeless.  As the body ages, to a large extent we still feel the same inside.  As the body ages, the gap between our physical age and how old we feel inside seems to continually widen.  Why not listen to this sense of internal sameness? 

Metamorphosis is a change of form, not of Essence.  You aren’t what’s changing, you are that which remains the same. 

Conclude:  I am not my physical Form at any given point in time.

"Who am I?": the Question Matters, the Answer Doesn't

“There’s only one way out of prison, which is to set your jailer free.” (B. Grebenschikov)

Mind is its own hostage. Each identity schema, each self-concept, each self-description is both an adaptation and a handicap. The very anchors that helped you feel grounded may now hold you down with all the weight of their historical usefulness.

Yes, mind is its own hostage.  But mind is also its own search-and-rescue.  Take a look at what of what you are is no longer you…

There is still time left. 

Un-mind to un-wind.  Re-cognize* your Self (non-verbally, non-conceptually) to relax. 

Ask yourself: “Who am I?”  and ignore the thought-answers.  After all, you are not your thoughts of self-description.  You are not your favorite description of yourself.  You are the One asking...  The One looking in the mirror of one's own consciousness.

Sounds circular, recursive?  That's the nature of all self-description for you...

References/Notes: 

Boris Grebenschikov: The Time, Radio Silence, 1989 CBS Records

*the verb “to recognize” stems from Old French reconoistre ” which means “to know again” (etymonline.com)

What is Lotus Effect (in a "scholarly" sense)?

On a "scholarly" level, Lotus Effect is an attempt to reconcile apophatic existential reasoning with cataphatic reasoning on matters of identity. 

To put it differently, Lotus Effect is an attempt to see the Sunyata side and the Tathatagatagarbha side of the identity coin. 

In other words: Lotus Effect is an attempt at a kind of fusion of Buddhist psychology and Vedic psychology in order to leverage process-style identity by way of informational/identity detox. 

Consciousness Is Its Own Broom

Suzuki reports the following curious exchange between Yun-men (a Zen master) and a fellow monk.  When asked “Who is Buddha?” Yun-men said:  “The dried-up dirt cleaner.” 

To my analysis, this a rather profound response, although it doesn’t seem so at first.  After all, Buddha as a dirt cleaner?  What does that mean? 

Let’s take a look.  But first, a word about the meaning of “buddha.”  There’s nothing religious about this word—it simply means “awakened, aware” and originates from the Pali verb budh, meaning “to awaken." Thus, the term “buddha nature” can be taken to mean animated nature, nature that is aware. 

Buddha nature is consciousness.  Here’s the Dalai Lama equating buddha nature with consciousness:  “This consciousness is the innermost subtle mind.  We call it Buddha nature, the real source of all consciousness” (1988, 45).  Indeed, consciousness, since it exists, is part of nature and its defining characteristic is that it is aware.  In fact, the two words “consciousness” and “awareness” are functionally interchangeable. 

So, what did Yun-men mean when he described Buddha as a dirt cleaner?   Perhaps that buddha nature (consciousness) is self-cleaning. 

Consider a lava lamp.  Within it there is wax (the substance, the essence) and then there are various forms that it takes (the information).  The mind is made of consciousness, just like any given wax-form is made of wax.  As the wax moves, it self-cleans: through constant movement, it continuously sheds one form after another.  It is the very movement of the underlying wax substance that accounts for the arising and the cessation of any given form.  It works the same way with consciousness: in its continuous, uninterrupted flow, consciousness cleans its own house—each thought, feeling, and sensation that emerges eventually passes. 

Consciousness is its own broom.  It takes out its own mind-garbage.  In its ceaseless flow, consciousness wipes its own slate clean time and again.  Information ripples through consciousness like a wave across the ocean until it eventually fades out.

Here’s what Thich Nhat Hann, a noted Buddhist thinker, says on this point in Opening the Heart of the Cosmos: Insights on the Lotus Sutra:  “The wave does not have to seek to become water—she is water, right here and now. In the same way, you are already a Buddha.” 

If so—if consciousness, like water, is self-cleaning—then why should you bother with an identity (informational) detox if there’s never been a thought that didn’t go away?  The point is to help the process along, to tone down the informational tsunami, to learn to surf the mind-waves without drowning.

Source: 

Excerpt from Lotus Effect: Shedding Suffering and Rediscovering Your Essential Self

Self is a Stereotype: Correct It!

There is a story in Zhuangzi (a Taoist book named after Zhuangzi, a 4th century BCE Chinese philosopher) that goes something like this...

A master carpenter Shi and his apprentice are walking through the woods in search of a good tree. The apprentice sees a great big old oak tree and asks his master why he walked past it paying it no attention. "Oh, enough with that," the Master exclaims, "don't even talk about this one!" The Master Carpenter then explains: "This tree... it's so bad that if you made a boat, it'd sink; and if you made a coffin, it'd rot; and if you made a roof, it'd leak... This tree is good for nothing and it's exactly because it's so useless and worthless that it's been standing here so long..."

Are the Master and the Apprentice looking at the same tree? Not likely.

It'd seem that this parable is about stereotypes. The Master is right: the tree he is describing used to be no good, after all, he has seen it so many times while in these woods, looking for a good tree to work with. With time, the Master has come to ignore the tree -- and, ignored, the tree has been spared to grow into a great big tree that the Apprentice is noticing. The Apprentice -- free from the perceptual stereotype - is seeing the tree for what it is...

But what is the Master actually seeing?

The Master is seeing his own thought: the stereotype of the tree is super-imposed onto the actual tree. The Master has projected a thought of an ugly, good-for-nothing tree onto an actual tree. And, instead of seeing the actual tree, he is staring at his own thought as if he was staring at a tree, unaware of the difference.

Mindfulness (meditation) is when you see a thought as a thought without confusing a thought of a tree with an actual tree.

This parable, as I interpret it, is not about the tree but about the so-called Self. Here, in the West, we are used to thinking that we have a Self. In the East, in Buddhism and Taoism, Self is seen as an illusion.

When we think of a Self, we think of a thought that somehow summarizes and encapsulates our essence. But that is, of course, nothing but a stereotype. Like a tree, we constantly grow and change. And any self-defining, thought-long description of our Being inevitably reduces and over-simplifies our nuanced complexity.

What are we referring to when we are referring to our "Selves?" Are we looking at what is or are we "seeing" our own projections of what once was?

As the Master Carpenter who looks at his own thought thinking that he is looking at a tree, you may look at your Self and judge it as "good for nothing," "useless," "worthless." Yes, these are familiar paths of self-deprecation that we have treaded in the woods of our minds so many times that these paths now tread us...

But, hold it: take a look at this thought about your Self, look past it, look through it: perhaps, beyond this perceptual veneer of a stereotype that you have of you, the actual you have changed...

Let's apprentice.

Emerson's Lotus Effect

One of the original American sages, Ralph Waldo Emerson, in an essay called Experience, writes:

“[S]ouls never touch their objects. […] If tomorrow I should be informed of the bankruptcy of my principal debtors, the loss of my property would be a great would be a great inconvenience to me, perhaps, for many years; but it would leave me as it found me – neither better nor worse. 

So is it with [any] calamity: it does not touch me; something which I fancied was a part of me, which could not be torn away without tearing me nor enlarged without enriching me, falls off from me and leaves no scar.  

[…] I grieve that grief can teach me nothing, nor carry me one step into real nature. 

The Indian who was laid under a curse that the wind should not blow on him, nor water flow to him, nor fire burn him, is a type of us all.  The dearest events are summer-rain, and we are the Para [rain-] coats that shed every drop.”

After I stumbled upon these lines I had four thoughts:

• Emerson’s “lotus effect” (of shedding and repelling suffering) was strong;
• his analogy of the soul (psyche/consciousness) to a rain-coat that sheds every drop was the same hydrophobic effect (water-fearing/water-repelling) that informs my own analogy of “lotus effect."
• I wondered which Indian he had in mind – an Indian of the East or an Indian of the West (native American). 

And then I had this fourth thought, a question, really, that Emerson kind of alluded to:

• Is this psychological (psychic, spiritual) imperturbability a curse or a blessing? 

For me, the answer’s clear: it is a self-earned blessing bestowed upon one’s own self via rigorous psychological self-help. 

What are your thoughts about this immunity of self-knowing essence that Emerson writes about?  And are your opinions founded on experience or speculation? 

Try out the cloak of Vedic invulnerability to find out for yourself.  Experience that Indian in you. 

Reference:

Ralph Waldo Emerson, Experience (Emerson: The Basic Writings of America’s Sage; edited by E. C. Lindeman, Mentor Books)

Feels Like a Self But Is It?

Consider:

"What is distinguishable is not necessarily separable."  (1)

Just because you see an eddy in a stream it doesn't mean that an eddy is separate from the stream.

"The imaginary line separating objectivity and subjectivity, reality and illusion, facts and theory, is literally imaginable." (2)

Just because you can imagine a (causal) line between any two points (or any two events) it doesn't necessarily mean that a line (of connection between these two points) actually exists.   First mind creates dots/data-points (that aren't there) and then mind connects these dots/data-point to create a line (of connection).  And the imaginable - suddenly - becomes real. 

Ponder: if an illusion (of self) exists is it still an illusion? (3)

Reference:

1, 2 Meditations through Rg Veda (Antonio de Nicolas)

3 - Lotus Effect (Somov)

Noosphere of Naiveté

“Both the French paleontologist-priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and the Russian atheist Vladimir Vernadsky agreed that Earth is developing a global mind.   The layer of thought in the shape of a sphere they called the noosphere, from Greek noos, mind.  The aggregate net of throbbing life, from flashing fireflies to human e-mail, is the developing planetary mind.  Perhaps, like the brain of a human babe with many synaptic connections that diminish over time, the noosphere is still in its infancy.  Polymorphous, paranoiac, confused, yet intensely imaginative, the thinking layer of Earth that is largely the unexpected product of animal consciousness, may now be in its most impressionable stage.”  (1)

Yes, the human biomass is, indeed, connecting at an ever increasing pace.  The day is likely coming when we begin to embed our respective individualities into one seamless hive-mind with the help of some kind of implantable “augmented reality” gizmo.  But what would be the psychological savvy of this global meta-mind if we (its constituent mind-parts) still don’t know what/who we are?

“The transition from cell, to cell society, to animal organism is an old story in evolution: individuals group into societies, which themselves become individuals.” (2)

If we are, indeed, heading for some digital Brahman-state, it’s time to look within yourself before Earth reinvents us all again, before the interplay of evolutionary and technological trends starts to recruit our respective selves, like cells, into a planet-wide society of consciousness.  

A noosphere unaware of itself is like Wal-Mart with empty shelves.  What would be the point?

Ask yourself: "Who am I?" and "Am I connecting to others on the basis of difference or similarity?"

Notes:

Noosphere (source: wiki): In the original theory of Vernadsky, the noosphere is the third in a succession of phases of development of the Earth, after the geosphere (inanimate matter) and the biosphere (biological life).

Reference:

1, 2: “What is Life?” (Lynn Margulis & Dorian Sagan, 2000)

Psychological Autopoiesis (Identity Regulation, Identity Hygiene)

Over the last several years I have been reading Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan (the former, Lynn, is the ex of Carl Sagan and the mother of the latter).  This mother-son writing duo – to my estimation – is one of the key think-tanks on this planet at the present time.  Lynn is a fearless iconoclast brilliantly redefining our understanding of life.  But this post isn’t about “life,” in its biochemical or cosmic sense.  This post is about inner life and maintenance thereof. 

As some of the readers of my blog know, I recently published a book called “Lotus Effect” which is a program of the identity detox designed to help you “shed suffering” and “rediscover your (so-called) essential self.”  What I want to show you in this post is the interplay between biology and psychology, namely, the interplay between the two fundamental questions: “What is life?” and “Who am I?”

In their book “What is Life?” Margulis and Sagan write of life as “islands of order in an ocean of chaos.” This isn’t just a poetic stance, this is a kind of thermodynamic proclamation of independence.  You see, according to the second law of thermodynamics entropy (i.e. chaos, disorder) increases “in any moving or energy-using [i.e. living, i.e. existing] system.”  In other words, everything tends to fall apart.  But life – while it exists – resists this tendency for disorder through self-maintenance. 

Here’s Margulis & Son on this point:

“Body concentrates order.  It continuously self-repairs.  Every five days you get a new stomach lining.  You get a new liver every two months.  Your skin replaces itself every six weeks.  Every year, 98 percent of the atoms of your body are replaced.  This non-stop chemical replacement, metabolism, is a sure sign of life.”

This process of self-repair is called “autopoiesis” which is Greek for “self-making.”

Margulis & Son again:

“Without autopoietic behavior, organic beings do not self-maintain – they are not alive.”

So, where am I going with all this?  To the notion of psychological autopoiesis, to what an early 20^th century Armenian mystic Gurdjieff used to call “self-remembering,” to what I call “identity detox,” i.e. to the work of psychological self-maintenance.  When I say “psychological self-maintenance,” I am not talking about emotional self-regulation (mood management).  I am talking – literally – about identity-regulation, Self-maintenance. 

When you ask yourself “Who am I?” you are, in a sense, shedding the outdated psychological skin and replacing it with an renewed sense of self.  You see, psychologically speaking, we are mired in informational misrepresentations of who/what we are.  We keep confusing ourselves with what we do, with what we have, with what we feel and think, with the roles with play, with our history.  This informational confusion is the entropy of identity, a continuous loss of self.  We simply disappear behind all these words of self-descriptions and self-definitions. 

The task of psychological self-maintenance is the same as that of biological self-maintenance: it is autopoiesis, it is a job of self-making.  Instead of being made (programmed) into “this” or “that,” we have to continuously de-program.  We have to keep asking ourselves this basic identity-detoxing question “Who am I – who am I at my core, at my foundation, who am I when I shed my roles, when I dis-identify from all that’s fleeting and transient in my life, who am I when go beyond my self-descriptions, – who am I in essence, rather than in form?”

As you see, the “Who am I?” question isn’t just a superficial inquiry.  It is a depth-psychology probe.  It is an invitation to drill down through the informational calluses that weigh us down.  It is an informational detox, a detox of identity, an informational strip-down, a process of remembering that you are not any information about you but that which is in the process of formation. 

I know it sounds heady and confusing.  And it is: you have to use your head and you have to tolerate the initial confusion that comes with this kind of self-work, before you finally begin to know what/who you are by being clear about what/who you are not.

Each day you are actively involved in life-supporting metabolic self-maintenance: you eat, you excrete, you repeat this cycle.  The same goes for psychological self-maintenance, but in reverse: first, you excrete (shed) the ego-dirt, the informational dust that gets in your mind’s eye, the suffering of identification with what you are not; and, then, you “feed” yourself – through meditation and contemplation – with a sense of self, with a sense of “am-ness.”

This kind of daily “identity detox” is no more complicated or time-consuming than brushing your teeth.  It is part of psychological hygiene, not a chore but an enjoyable task of self-remembering.  There are many different experiential ways of accomplishing this.  Just like with biological self-maintenance, you have a choice of any breakfast of consciousness you wish.  It so happens that I, myself, like Dzogchen-style “sky-gazing meditation” for my “am-ness cereal.”  That doesn’t make me a Buddhist.  If you want to go with the Biblical “bagel-and-ham” of “I am that I am” to start and/or finish your day, you don’t have to be a Christian to do so.  Any psychologically-autopoietic identity-detox method would do!

Enough rambling.  Time to load up on “am-ness” calories!  Lotus-eating time!

p.s.:

Read anything written by Margulis & Son!  It’s complex but scientifically and existentially brave.  I particularly recommend “What Is Life?” and “Microcosmos.”

Lotus Effect, Ontologically

Thought plows the field of Consciousness.

Feelings grow.

Ontologically*, Nothing changes.

*Ontology (psychologically, not philosophically (not that there is a great difference between these two applications of consciousness)) is the knowledge of one’s Unchanging Identity.  The rest is informational (phenomenological) metamorphosis.

Disclosures of the Lotus Mirror

Li Ho, a 9^th century Chinese poet observed:

Hsi-shih dreams at dawn, in the cool of silk curtains:

A tress has slipped from the scented knot over the fading rouge,

The pulley creaks at the well, winds up with a jade tinkle

And startles awake the lotus which has just slept its fill.

Two birds on the flaps disclose the mirror, an autumn sunlit pool.

She loosens the knots and looks down in the mirror […]

Her toilet done, the dressed hair slants and does not sag.

She […] turns away, still without speaking.  What has caught her eye?

She goes down the steps and picks up the cherry flowers.

So, what’s the story here: a girl, named Hsi-shih, is asleep, the sound of the water-well outside awakens her and, it so happens, also startles a couple of birds off the surface of the pond; once awake, the girl fixes her hair that she didn’t mind while she was asleep and notices cherry flowers.  Sounds like your typical privileged morning in the 9^th century China.  Why write a poem about it?  I don’t know.  I am not Li Ho.

But here’s why I am writing about this poem.  Here’s what it means to me.  Let’s take it a stanza at a time.

Hsi-shih dreams at dawn, in the cool of silk curtains:

A tress has slipped from the scented knot over the fading rouge,

The pulley creaks at the well, winds up with a jade tinkle

And startles awake the lotus which has just slept its fill.

Notice that the poet gives this girl two names – her given name, His-shih, and then a metaphorical name, “the lotus.”  Lotus in Asia has long been a sacred symbol.  As I see it, divinity aside, lotus represents consciousness.  Indeed, the sound of the well awakens the consciousness.  And a sleeping beauty comes alive.  If we strip this poem down to its basic philosophical meaning, all that happens here is that a mind is awakened.

Metaphorically, a lotus blossoms.  Let’s see what happens next in the poem to see what happens next when a mind awakens:

Two birds on the flaps disclose the mirror, an autumn sunlit pool.

All of a sudden, Li Ho switches focus: the poem is no longer about the girl, it’s about the fact that two birds, also startled by the sound of the well-chain, fly off the surface of the pond “to disclose” a mirror.  What a mysterious detour!  What’s this about?

I have no idea, but here’s how I see it.  Li Ho is telling us about what happens when the mind awakens: it becomes self-reflective.  Indeed, in sleep, the girl was one with reality, not even aware of the hair that had fallen on her face.  But once immediately awake and self-aware she checks the mirror of her consciousness and… fixes herself up.

She loosens the knots and looks down in the mirror […]

Her toilet done, the dressed hair slants and does not sag.

Self-awareness is self-correcting, which is a sleep of yet another kind.  The lotus – having briefly bloomed – is closing again.  The mind, having seen itself in the mirror of its own consciousness, starts correcting itself.  Only to be once again awakened by another input from reality:

She […] turns away, still without speaking.  What has caught her eye?

She goes down the steps and picks up the cherry flowers.

The lotus blooms again: instead of correcting one’s own reflection in the mirror, the mind is once again awakened to its own presence by a little nudge from reality.  First, reality tickled the mind with the sounds of the well, now it has roused the mind with the stimulation of the cherry blossom.

And so it goes, from sleep to wakefulness, from sleep to wakefulness.  The lotus of self seems to be in the best of blooms when engaged with whatever is, rather than trying to polish its reflection in the mirror.

My only hope is that Hsi-shih doesn’t pick the cherry blossoms and doesn’t return back to her mirror to use them as a garland on her dress.  Whatever it is that we are, we certainly are not the reflection disclosed in the mirror.

Of course, there are a million ways to read and interpret Li Ho’s poem or my interpretation of it.  Your time to reflect.

Placid Lake of Lotus Consciousness

Sometimes we feel that something comes over us.  The mind changes, and we feel that we change too.  But do we? 

Fill a glass with water.  Wait until the water settles, then stir it up with your finger.  Watch the waves of the vortex warp the surface.  Now sit back and watch the water clean itself of all these wave-forms.  What you are witnessing is a process of self-cleaning.  Recognize that your consciousness works the same way.  Notice that while it certainly takes time for informational ripples to fade out, they always do.  Recognize that no matter what you’ve ruminated over or worried about in your life, no matter how long that song was stuck in your head, eventually all those thoughts (images, feelings, sensations, memories) dissolved back into the surface of your consciousness.  Indeed, there has never been a thought (mind form) that didn’t go away.  Knowing this, recognize that you don’t have to be afraid of your mind forms any more than a lake has to fear the waves on its surface or the lotus has to fear the morning dew.

Lotus Moment of Self-Discovery

The following is a both an entertaining and illuminating passage of self-discovery from Richard Hughe’s 1929 novel “High Wind in Jamaica.” 

“And then an event did occur, to Emily, of considerable importance.  She suddenly realized who she was. 

[…]  She had been playing houses in a nook right in the bows […], and tiring of it was walking rather aimlessly aft, thinking vaguely about some bees and a fairy queen, when it suddenly flashed into her mind that she was she. 

She stopped dead, and began looking over all of her person which came within the range of eyes.  She could not see much, except a fore-shortened view of the front of her frock, and her hands when she lifted them for inspection: but it was enough for her to form a rough idea of the little body that she suddenly realized to be hers. 

She began to laugh, rather mockingly.  “Well!” she though,  in effect: “Fancy you, of all people, going and getting caught like this! – You can’t get  out of it now, not for a very long time: you’ll have to go through with being a child, and growing up, and getting old, before you’ll be quit of this mad prank!”

Determined to avoid any interruption of this highly important occasion, she began to climb the ratlines, on her way to her favorite perch on the mast-head.  Each time she moved an arm or a leg in this simple action, however, it struck her with fresh amusement to find them obeying her so readily.  Memory told her, of course, that they had always done so before: but before, she had never realized how surprising this was. 

Once settled on her perch, she began examining the skin of her hands with the utmost care: for it was hers.  She slipped a shoulder out of the top of her frock, and having peeped in to make sure she really was continuous under her clothes, she shrugged it up to touch her cheek.   The contact of her face and the warm bare hollow of her shoulder gave her a comfortable thrill, as if it was the caress of some kind of friend.  But whether the feeling came to her through her cheek or her shoulder, which was the caresser and which was the caressed, that no analysis could tell her.  

Once fully convinced of this astonishing fact […] she began seriously to reckon its implications.”  (pp. 135-136)

Step out of your mind for a few minutes (like Emily).  Discover this body of yours.  And then discover the discoverer.

Similarity Isn't Sameness

When you compare yourself to somebody else, you are comparing you to not-you. But uniqueness is beyond comparison. Sure, you and so-and-so might be very similar, but similarity isn't sameness. For you to score like they do (whoever they might be), look like they do, earn like they do, talk like they do - to be like they are - you'd have to not be you. But you are you: not worse, not better, just different.

To function as a society, and to function in a society, we have to play this game of comparisons. This game is useful but fundamentally absurd. After all, how do you compare apples to oranges? Is an apple better than an orange? It depends on the mouth, i.e. on somebody's subjective taste. Is an apple better than an orange in any objective sense? Of course, not. It's just different.

When we say "it is what it is" we are also saying that "it" (whatever that "it" might be) is unique, i.e. different from anything else. Is so-and-so better than you? That depends on a subjective point of view. No matter how similar the two of you might be, you aren't the same and the difference between the two of you is what accounts for all the differences between the two of you. Embrace your uniqueness! Whoever or whatever you are, celebrate the uniqueness of your existence. It too is part of the ordinary perfection of all that is!

Standing on Pure Lotus Land

Another identity-focused poem + interpretation combo (arbitrarily truncated, edited & annotated – see italics – by yours truly):

Zazen Wasan (Praise of Zazen) by Hakuin (1686-1769)

From the beginning all beings are Buddha (i.e. consciousness).

Like water and ice, without water no ice, outside us no Buddhas (i.e. all is one, one is all).

How near the truth, yet how far seek, like one in water crying “I thirst!” (you are enough).

Like a child of rich birth wandering poor on this earth, we endlessly circle the six worlds (of false identities).

The gateway to freedom is zazen samadhi (sit down in meditation to see the real you).

The pure lotus land is not far away (you cannot but be the real you).

And if we turn inward and prove our True-nature – that True-self is no-self, our own Self is no-self – we go beyond ego and past words.

(when we dis-identify from what we are not, we find the emptiness of awareness, which is the ground of our being, our true, essential “self,” our Original Face; when we dis-identify from the informational mind-dirt, when we go beyond the verbal/word self-definitions, we rediscover our essence, our “buddha-nature;” we are not mind, we are consciousness, not the objects of our awareness, but the awareness itself; the no-self isn’t a nothing, it’s everything).

Our form now being no-form (we aren’t form, we are essence).

This earth where we stand is the pure lotus land, and this very body the body of Buddha (we are the blossom itself, not the 1000s of its informational petals; we are the ground of being, not what grows on it; we are consciousness, not mind),