Davida said:
Glade to hear your fine Obyvatel... I think it was the first time you posted something without some context... and in the ‘what’s on your mind’ section.
To me the poem reads like a script, a mantra for self-hypnosis... and that seems opposed to any conscious undertaking, though maybe I’m reading something into it, that’s not there.
The poem has some bite to it, but what’s biting exactly I don’t know, the last line sooths the tension it brings on, and that last line seems as close to a description of the main theme to life...
FWIW somewhat :/
Ok, here is how I interpreted parts of the poem.
As far as external things are concerned - money, house, other material possessions etc - we have been conditioned to claim possession of such objects by erecting our flag on them which says "mine". But realistically, we are more like temporary custodians of what we think is ours. If we die tomorrow, our custodianship gets transferred to someone else. Even otherwise, such a transfer happens -- all the time. As for the inner voice which says "but .. I earned it", the following post can provide some context.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,36129.msg533058.html#msg533058
The above holds true for experience as well.
......you see that you are nothing......
Quite disconcerting to read, conjuring up nihilistic images. Worse than "having nothing". Like whitecoast wrote
[quote author=whitecoast]
and I don't need to add to the negativity by feeling sorry for myself about being "nothing".
[/quote]
Neuroscience can help in a very nuts and bolts way. There are neural correlates to our sense of self which give rise to "I-Me-Mine". At the same time there are other neural circuits which support a different, more depersonalized view of the world out there. It can be speculated that when the latter circuits take centerstage dethroning the prominence of the "I-me-mine" circuits, there is more "witnessing" or "experiencing" than "me out here with the world out there". It is not like the "self" is a problem - it is more like it is overconditioned and overused. People can - either accidentally or otherwise - come to the state where there is what is inadequately described by "pure experiencing".
As a small illustration towards this point, there are 2 streams of neural processing that activate when we see an object out there. One is self or ego-centric, the other is allo-centric.
From neuroscientist and Zen meditator James Austin
[quote author=James Austin]
Ego-centric Stream
Once that barrage of photons from an apple out there stimulates our retina, these messages rush straight back to that preeminent central configuration we reserve for our physical Self inside mental space. Indeed, each time we ‘‘see things from our standpoint,’’ the midline of our own head and body automatically becomes that long axis back to which the coordinates of these external visual stimuli pointedly refer. We are the physiological terminus for all lines of sight that point back to our body.
This Self-centered mental posture was designed for action. Hard-wired, it was already off to a head start during infancy. Now, as an adult, we find our body leaning forward, hand and arm poised to return the hammerhead to that exact position in space where the nail awaits. During avoidance behaviors we lean back, to escape being hit by a low tree branch.
Whenever we need to focus on the details of each new event—be it a nail or an apple—we narrow the tip of our top-down attention to a sharp point.
Allocentric Stream
Allo- is a term nowhere near as familiar to us as ego. (Recall how much the dictionary favors Self
entries as opposed to other.) However, allo- means ‘‘other’’ (from the Greek allos, other). On these pages, allo- serves to make a crucial distinction. When the visual brain processes an external object allocentrically, it automatically brings into play its second frame of spatial reference. This detached perspective gets off to a much later start, but it can be detected in children between 3 and 5 years of age in the way they play with toys.
Why is this object-centered version so impersonal, so unsentimental? Because other priorities direct its networks. It is, fundamentally, an other-referential perspective. Its first concern is to represent the form of some object ‘‘out there’’ in so categorical a manner that it enables the object itself to be identified. When visual stimuli first arrive from such an object, their messages are processed with reference to their spatial coordinates. These lines seem to stay converged ‘‘out there’’ in their environment, not to refer back toward us, the viewers.{
which is what happens in the egocentric processing stream}.
What is the other-referential version of that apple out there? It takes the form of an object that
(1) exists as an independent entity,
(2) already has its own intrinsic midline,
(3) is a co-occupant along with the other items adjacent to it in the surrounding scenery, and
(4) seems innocent of our presence.
Can an object be ‘‘seen,’’ yet be independent of your ‘‘Self?’’ Don’t expect that you can easily comprehend this counterintuitive concept. It is a foreign, ‘‘farout’’ notion to think that any object might appear to manifest its own ‘‘lines of sight.’’
......................................
.. the processing of this extrinsic version of any object does begin independently. But something else happens. Normally, this second, other-centered version will go on silently to join our first Self-centered frame of spatial reference in a merger as complementary as yin and yang. In this ongoing synaptic alchemy, a mosaic of interactions blends two parallel physiologies into a joint working partnership.
Please remember : We are not informed that these visual transformations exist.
They occur subconsciously. Ordinary consciousness remains blissfully unaware that our brain has these two separate versions. It knows only the result after they have merged seamlessly. This fact explains why we’re unable—so long as we remain firmly gripped by the supremacy of our Self-fictions—deliberately to sustain a clear concept of
(1) what allocentric perception alone might feel like, and
(2) how much we are dominated (if not enthralled) by all our Self-referential processing.
Don’t be discouraged when you find it hard to understand what happens during our two normal versions of visual processing. A casual survey of articles published recently shows that researchers also struggle to find words that describe the differences.
[/quote]
If the above sounds a little flaky, there is a lot of dense neuroscientific details and published papers which are trying to make sense of this. The author's interest in the topic comes from his experience as a Zen meditator and his professional training as neuroscientist - so he is braver than others out there in seeing and interpreting similarities between two very different domains.
Anyway, bottomline is that any accidental or otherwise experience of "no-self" need not be depressing if one has the requisite knowledge. It may even be a less burdensome way of living.