“Dismantling” makes it sound like your identity is some kind of structure that you take apart piece by piece. Hm, let me get rid of this anger thing. That doesn’t sound right. Identity is a tapestry, some are beautifully woven with bright colors and interesting scenes. Others are shabby and unattractive. But the process is the same for both. Continually shine the light of consciousness on that tapestry and like a piece of cloth left out in the sun too long, it begins to fade. Some aspects of Identity fade faster than others, some seemingly refuse to disappear (is it possible to completely shed identity?). But why would you go through all the trouble to achieve self-knowledge (at least it’s usually depicted as hard to reach) and then renounce the world? It seems somehow in that case that the knowing isn’t yet complete. Maybe the phrase "self-knowledge" is misleading, since we tend to forget that the self that is known is everybody’s self. How could you possibly walk away knowing that?
Good point, Richard. It's hard to find the right words for a meditative process of shutting things down, at least temporarily, through structured deconstruction. The meditation course I'm taking at the moment includes a recording in which the esteemed teacher suggests in relation to identity, "just chuck it out"... Some participants found that unhelpful.
Re: walking away from the world having seen things as they are, many yogic and ascetic traditions appear to have advocated that - but it's hard to know how literally to take what texts say without having a time machine to see what people did!
round and round as the self-other-Self questions go, I've always felt that there is an assumption behind which way we feel the teachings go.
Is the self pre-existent and internal, or is it not?
Is avidya a misunderstanding of what is right in front of us, or an ignorance that requires externals to fill?
The teachings I've studied most closely all lay into the former. Which, taken all the way, means we don't 'go' or 'renounce'. We stay where we are, but are there differently.
I kinda like the idea of a structured deconstruction. It fits. It tickles me. Of course, tossing out 'anger' is uncanny. But shifting from one experience of anger toward another possibility of experienced anger is possible, and would change the next moment, thus burning up some karma.
Thanks for sharing! I definitely think there's some influence from how we approach this - at least in terms of contextualisation, which impacts objectives.
I also think of avidyā as misperception, with the alternative as a shift in perspective that enables more freeing ways of seeing and being (if you'll pardon the rhyme).
But I've been getting more into the idea of "renouncing", the more I reflect on other forms it can take - e.g. just the choice not to follow conditioning.
“Dismantling” makes it sound like your identity is some kind of structure that you take apart piece by piece. Hm, let me get rid of this anger thing. That doesn’t sound right. Identity is a tapestry, some are beautifully woven with bright colors and interesting scenes. Others are shabby and unattractive. But the process is the same for both. Continually shine the light of consciousness on that tapestry and like a piece of cloth left out in the sun too long, it begins to fade. Some aspects of Identity fade faster than others, some seemingly refuse to disappear (is it possible to completely shed identity?). But why would you go through all the trouble to achieve self-knowledge (at least it’s usually depicted as hard to reach) and then renounce the world? It seems somehow in that case that the knowing isn’t yet complete. Maybe the phrase "self-knowledge" is misleading, since we tend to forget that the self that is known is everybody’s self. How could you possibly walk away knowing that?
Good point, Richard. It's hard to find the right words for a meditative process of shutting things down, at least temporarily, through structured deconstruction. The meditation course I'm taking at the moment includes a recording in which the esteemed teacher suggests in relation to identity, "just chuck it out"... Some participants found that unhelpful.
Re: walking away from the world having seen things as they are, many yogic and ascetic traditions appear to have advocated that - but it's hard to know how literally to take what texts say without having a time machine to see what people did!
round and round as the self-other-Self questions go, I've always felt that there is an assumption behind which way we feel the teachings go.
Is the self pre-existent and internal, or is it not?
Is avidya a misunderstanding of what is right in front of us, or an ignorance that requires externals to fill?
The teachings I've studied most closely all lay into the former. Which, taken all the way, means we don't 'go' or 'renounce'. We stay where we are, but are there differently.
I kinda like the idea of a structured deconstruction. It fits. It tickles me. Of course, tossing out 'anger' is uncanny. But shifting from one experience of anger toward another possibility of experienced anger is possible, and would change the next moment, thus burning up some karma.
but that's me.
Thanks for sharing! I definitely think there's some influence from how we approach this - at least in terms of contextualisation, which impacts objectives.
I also think of avidyā as misperception, with the alternative as a shift in perspective that enables more freeing ways of seeing and being (if you'll pardon the rhyme).
But I've been getting more into the idea of "renouncing", the more I reflect on other forms it can take - e.g. just the choice not to follow conditioning.
Agreed!