I am indebted to Michael Shaun Conaway who inspired this conversation
and contributed material.
Who we really are, is not our internal states. That's controversial,
given that by default we regard who we are as located
"in here"
(I say, pointing at my head).
We are not our thoughts or our thought processes. The "I" in the
ubiquitously deployed phrases "I think" and "I know" is at best a
delusion and at worst, simply doesn't exist. We are not our feelings or
our emotions. The "I" in "I feel" and "I'm angry" is also at best a
delusion and at worst doesn't exist. And we're certainly not any of the
myriad of physical sensations we've got going on in our bodies at any
particular time ("I shiver" is in the same class of delusory phrases as
"I think").
Listen: that's all there is
"in here".
Nothing else. All you've got going on
"in here"
ie whatever it is you locate
"in here",
fits into one of these three categories:
Now if that sounds overly simplified or just plain wrong
or if it's simply untenable because it's unpalatable, here's an ongoing
challenge, a gauntlet I'm laying down for you: try coming up with
something you've got going on
"in here"
which doesn't fit into one of those three categories ie
try coming up with something you've got going on
"in here"
which doesn't comprise thoughts and thought processes, or feelings and
emotions, or bodily sensations. Have at it.
"OK, perceptions. What about perceptions? Perceptions
don't fit into any of those three categories!" you say. Yes, that's a
common response to this challenge. But look: perceptions don't show
up as internal states. They show up
out-here.
Your perception of that tree you see outside your window? It's not
"in here".
Your perception of the tree is really
out-here.
And the evidence for this?
Out-here
is where you'll bump your head if you
walk
into the tree you perceive, not
"in here".
To re-iterate, I assert that you won't find anything
"in here"
outside of those three categories. Said another way, everything you've
got going on
"in here"
fits in one of those three categories. And what you've got going on
"in here"
ie your internal states, is not who you are. You are not your
internal states.
Now consider this: if we're not our internal states, then who (and
maybe what) are we really? And for
centuries (and perhaps for even longer) we've considered
who we are to be our internal states. With
the advent of
transformation
comes the possibility that who we really are, is the experiential
space ie the context in which our internal
states show up. But it's more than that actually. It's
much more. It's with
the advent of
transformation
comes the possibility that who we really are, is the experiential space
ie the context in which our internal states AND all the events of our
lives AND
Life itself
(indeed, all of it)
show up.
Question: is the "all of it" that shows up in the context of who we
really are, and the context itself of who we really are in
which all of it shows up, separate from one another? There are two
viewpoints
to consider. One, as we analyze this intellectually, we can
differentiate "all of it" from the context of who we really are in
which all of it shows up. But two, as we sit on the couch in our living
room, and do all the ordinary everyday
things people do,
all there is is the experience of whatever shows up
showing up.
Wernertersely
calls this
"the showing".
And if you tell the truth about it
unflinchingly,
the showing
is all there is in your experience (try it on for size).
Is it possible then, that if who you are is not your internal states,
that who you are really is
the showing
itself ie
the
showing-up-ness
of it all? Yes that's possible. And it may even be true. But
it's not worth a hill of beans if you accept it or believe it because
you just read it here ie just because
Werner
distinguished it or because I expeditiously re-created what he said.
It's only worth something if you inquire into it and keep on inquiring
into it until you hit paydirt and discover it for yourself.