My Buddhist beliefs

The Buddha was searching for and found a conception of reality (what is called Enlightenment) that makes a person as happy as one can be in the existing circumstances. He condensed this in Four Truths so as to teach it to others.

His conception (which I share) is roughly this…

• Suffering and insatisfaction are inevitable in life.

• Some of it comes from the environment and some of it from our own mind (thoughts and emotions) in the form of desires.

• We can reduce the latter type through mind yoga (especially meditation) and through re-tuning our conception of reality to reach a high state of Enlightenment.

• Living lightly (the Middle Way) will lead to equanimity (acceptance) and serenity (happiness).

• There is no transcendent deity(ies) to help us along. We must do it ourselves.

Buddhism evolved as a religion with all the trappings and developed in many branches with particular beliefs. Some of these…

• Reincarnation.

• Personal Karma.

• One's Self as an illusion.

• Form is emptiness / Emptiness is form.

• The bodhisattva way of compassion.

• Forms of Enlightenment.

• The benefit of monasticism and liturgy.

Evaluating the Buddhist conceptions in light of a modern cosmological conceptualization that I espouse…

• Avoiding suffering and seeking satisfaction are biological needs naturally crafted through evolution. Some suffering is unavoidable and best met through stoic acceptance. Satisfaction is beneficial only if ethically coordinated and non-exclusive.

• Acceptance is seeing that living with pain and death is all right. Not a problem, it's all natural and to be expected.

• Compassion is one aspect of our social ethic, but does not replace (only adds to) our reconceptualization of reality as the way to Enlightenment and its serenity.

• Turning anger, greed and ignorance into their opposites will tackle suffering, make you happy and the world 'satisfactory'.

• Karma is just the natural consequences of our actions and not an ethical accounting by some transcendent force.

• Reincarnation is a delusion, as death is a natural mutation without residue.

• Mind is fully part of Nature, not separate from it.

• Self is a malleable concept open to boundary-defining selfing. Like all concepts, it is relational/networked.

• Fully abandoning the self is emotional suicide and an ascetic path (ineffective) to Enlightenment.

• The Self is twofold: Body-Self, which self-regulates without our thinking about it (breathing, digestion, etc.), and Mind-Self, my self-image which is construed via thoughts and emotions (self-value, pride, etc.). It is this latter one that is open to selfing.

• The Middle Way involves accepting both suffering and pleasure (good desire, without abuse).

• The Buddhist path renounces the world of achievement and adopts wu-wei non-action.

• Humans are just as naturally fully networked/conditioned as all else. It is delusional (hubris) to think of exceptionalism.

• Entities (Forms) are basically energy (held together in storage) and will eventually mutate out of storage. That is what is meant by form and emptiness (not the best choice of word).

• Be suspicious of liturgy. The true goal is Wisdom (Enlightenment).

The Buddha's vision, buffeted with some of the religious trappings, is the best spiritual path to earthly happiness.

Dancing with Buddha

Conceiving the Tao, in its wondrous complexity

Sharing the instant, accepting metamorphosis

Bodhi Svaha

Living lightly, in self-effacement and wu-wei

Seeking equanimity and serenity

Bodhi Svaha

Controlling impulses, with compassion for others

Reducing suffering, sharing understanding

Bodhi Svaha

Contextualizing chatter in Dhamma commentary

Existing fully integrated in the world

Flowing in the Great Unfolding

Bodhi Svaha

Expanding Buddhism

Since early Buddhism, the focus of thought was overly concentrated on suffering (dukkha) as the initial certainty (first Noble Truth). With too much desire as its cause. Attainment of enlightenment was erroneously thought to result from a quiet path, rather than precede it. Inspired by David Brazier, here is a recasting of the Noble Truths in contemporary terms.

Suffering and joy are part of our human predicament

inevitable and to be expected.

The goal of human existence is not just to avoid suffering and live like a plant, but also to develop joy in our daily activities. Life throws us both moments of affliction and moments of joy. Expecting all one or all the other is unrealistic thinking.

Out of these grow emotions and sentiments

sometimes unhealthy.

Both afflictions and joys can produce raw emotions that might overwhelm our valuation of them and lead us to unproductive responses. Our animal instinct is to respond directly and forcefully rather than mindfully.

Mind can be used to control these

thus forging an enlightened view of reality.

Pausing the frenetic action of mind and letting constructive insights emerge help reach enlightenment, thus dampening raw emotions. The result is a state of acceptance of the world as is, without human hubris.

There follows a flourishing life of serenity

based on various wholesome activities.

An enlightened life involves crafting a serene attitude to whatever happens. We are part of the inalterable Way of the Universe. Establishing one's practical insertion in the world supports this stoic attitude and leads to fully enjoying life as it is.

These revised four noble truths expand the scope of Buddhism's initial ones and likely recast a better approach to living a happy life than what was initially envisaged in the earlier Asian context. As with Buddhism's teaching, the proof of the pudding lies in the living result.

Meditation

Meditation is a practice that leads to serenity and vision. Indeed, the Buddha is said to have attained Enlightenment as a result of a night spent in meditation.

Meditation is the activity of quiet sitting and focusing in order to reach a state of mind tuned to contemplation rather than to the usual evaluation and planning involving the self. Such a state is Enlightenment, the very goal of Buddhism. The mind focuses both on vivid perceptions from the senses and, via thought, on a vision of the unfolding universe.

This vision acknowledges as actual entities the delusions passed on in human culture but distances itself from them in disbelief. No God, no eternal Self, no free will. The vision includes a construed self that we may be fortunate to tame, with resultant Enlightenment as the consequence. Buddhism, like all philosophies, is all about existential human happiness (what is referred to as the meaning of life).

By un-focusing on the self (the ego) and refocusing on the larger picture (the operation of the U), the mind is liberated from existential stress and can achieve serenity, a form of calm happiness. This is the ultimate goal of meditation.

We do not achieve this goal, we are fortunate if we have the right conditions that lead to it. We individual humans are not the players. The Universe is the unwitting player!

Guessing at Enlightenment

Hearing about enlightenment while being myself not very enlightened, I can only make a guess at what it must really be like. Sages point to it while claiming its ineffability, so that I will only ever seriously understand it once I fully achieve it. Meanwhile, a guess is as good as anything.

When I am enlightened...

Emotion rules. Not only will it transform my life, away from fear, separateness, worry/angst and into awe, security, belonging, compassion; it will probably also be the trigger to launch me into enlightenment. Rationality may not suffice to bring about the radical decentering that enlightenment implies, to kill the self and enter into an unselfed, unselfish, awareness of being, a small part of Being.

There will likely be awakenings on the way. Cognitive ones, mainly. Intentional ones involving sought depersonalization, toning down desire, less planning, more insights into reality as one. These awakenings should have an effect on my emotional well-being, already in good shape, and on my lifestyle, perhaps in the form of more direct interaction with the world, considerate and spontaneous.

Enlightenment, then, is a matter of degree. It could even be considered a process of flowing into and out of particular states. Enlightenment comes in different flavors. It is not one grandiose personal experience, the same for everyone, at every moment. At times, it is withdrawal from the hubbub of the world into quiet reflection about life. At times, it might be a rejection of self-interest in favor of that of others. At times, lit is considerate responding to the problems thrown up in our involvement with the world. At times, it might take the form of bliss arising from insightful awe or simple serenity from accepting the world as it is.

Enlightenment is a renewed experience taking on the flavor of the moment.

The Quest

Enlightenment is the grand goal of the Buddhist path.

What might it be?

As in all religions, for that is the purpose of belief, the goal is ultimate happiness.

Some believe in an ulterior lifetime, others in this one.

It is called all sorts of things: union with God, no more worries, serenity.

That last one is what Buddhists dream about, what I think about and long for.

And yet, that is only part of it. Serenity is a feeling, a state of being. Enlightenment is more.

Yes, it is a feeling, an animal state of responsiveness, but also a cognition, a perspective.

More than a mere thought, a whole way of organizing our thoughts.

And that is quite a challenge!

The Quest involves achieving this new, unhabitual thought pattern. Serenity follows.

Unhabitual, because we are inducted into an adopted thought pattern since infancy.

Adopted by society for its biologic and social usefulness in continuing the species.

There is thus something radical, uncivil about seeking a new thought pattern.

And yet it has to be done, that is the Way.

So, seeking serenity through a revolution in thinking.

Or is it… Seeking new thinking, with a side-effect of serenity?

It doesn't seem to matter, does it?

Serenity, we know or can well imagine.

The revolutionary thinking is more of a challenge.

After all, it is revolutionary, right?

At its core is the idea that I am just a small part of the Universe, not at all important.

I think I am important! I think that I manage my own life, and perhaps the lives of others.

Back to the revolution. The Universe manages me and all else!

Not willfully, it has no will. Simply through the way it is, its interrelatedness of entities.

There it is, the revolution.

As a human, I am brought up to think I control things, at least myself.

And yet no! That is simple hubris.

I am part of a grander entity, the Universe, with its own causal structure.

When I realize this, my mental framework shifts and I enter a new way of thinking.

I see existence from the perspective of the Universe, not from within.

It is radically different. Like seeing myself from outside. A third person view.

What is called 'Losing one's self '. And becoming enlightened.

I then see the world differently, and thus become serene.

I renounce the impossible everlasting happiness,

Accepting both affliction and joy, embracing serenity.

I have fulfilled the Quest. Or so I think.

This thinking is radical Buddhism as well.

It emphasizes the cognitive rather than the affective.

Bodhisattva disappears, the path lies elsewhere.

Enlightenment is not from one's agency, the Universe solely intervenes.

Religion gives way to reflection.

A philosophical Buddhism takes over from a charismatic one.

And we simply continue to live. To be.

WACS

WACS is an acronym for the four elements of Enlightenment.

W - Wisdom... Coming to a better view of reality, a more correct model of how the world works, overcoming the most glaring illusions.

A - Acceptance... Affliction is generated from outside of us, we have no control over it, we can only stoically accept it.

C - Contentment... Life is made up of affliction and joy. Being content with what we have in the way of the latter is required.

S - Serenity... All this leads to an attitude of serenity, of looking benignly on life with more joy than pain.

Wisdom leads to Acceptance and Contentment, and all three together to Serenity. Such is Enlightenment.

Selfing

Note: Used in this essay, the word hir is an unofficial, socially-constructed gender-neutral pronoun used as him/her or his/her.

The Self

Persons are human individuals just like other physical or biological or mental individual entities. They exist as one of a kind despite being abstracted into concepts. The Self is me, the one-of-a-kind structure that is associated with my affairs: my body, mind, memories, situation in the world, and all the rest.

Religions tend to underestimate the Self and its importance, Oriental religions often denying its very existence and treating it like an illusion and a mistake. Why is that? Basically because of viewpoint. Religions are very oriented to morality and generally see the self as ego, as egoistic and regressive with respect to the religion’s aims. And indeed, becoming imbued with oneself, as is encouraged by certain cultural views, is often counterproductive both for oneself and society. Buddhism believes the Self as being the main source of suffering and therefore denigrates it in its search of release from suffering. Buddhists delude themselves, however, in believing they can participate in the world without a self, and thus without consciousness.

Yet, the Self plays a most important role in mind. It is the mental entity that coordinates mindful activity of the individual at any moment and throughout life. Consciousness is in fact the cognitive process of coordination of the Self which situates the individual in its context to enable it to adaptively respond to the changing situations it encounters. Consciousness is a process within the individual’s brain. It is an essential process for interacting in novel ways with the world.

Persons are important for two reasons. They are the nexus of an individual’s activity and hence of its survival. And they are the reference point for most of philosophy. What then would a non-person-centric philosophy be like? The issues explored here are relevant, as are those related to artificial minds.

The philosophical dispute over the Self hinges on its degree of permanence. There are those, the Self-deniers, who consider it fleeting, temporary, impermanent; and then there are those that consider it an entity with some permanence, corresponding to the person, even though we know we all die someday and nothing is truly permanent. What are we to make of it all?

First, the realization that all is impermanent and therefore the Self is nothing unusual in that respect. That is not a reason to eliminate it from consideration as a valid entity in this world.

Second, just like all the rest of what we know of the universe, we construe the Self. Nothing exceptional here either, we do the same with all else. How do we do it? By construing an entity that corresponds to our situated self in our surrounding world, in time and space and in relation to all that is around us in this private world. It is an image of who we are, where we are, when we are, how we are related to all the other things around us that we consider important, and so on. It is a contextualized self-image.

This image of myself, for it is of course very individual, is coherent, continuous (involving episodic memory), aware of its history (its dependent arising), and open to creativity, to the future. That image of myself is of course a mental image, an entity of the mind, not some corporeal or organic entity. But as such it is an entity, an emergent creation of this universe.

And this is the important consideration. Despite its very relative impermanence, it still is an entity of full right in this universe. Even more, it is an organic agent that interacts in a complex fashion with its environment, the world around it.

As seen in the previous paragraphs, the Self is sometimes used to refer to the image of oneself (a mental entity) and sometimes to refer more largely to the person embodying oneself (a living entity comprised of physical body and non-physical mind). This potential source of confusion is rooted in tradition.

We have to stop considering as real only those things that we see and touch. Mental entities are just as real, the result/emergence of cognitive elements in the brain/mind. Just because they are not touchable/perceivable as physical entities does not imply that they are not real. Think of the unicorn, an imaginary animal, yet very real, meaning existent in our world, our global world including both material objects and products of the mind.

Likewise with the Self. It may well be an ideational entity, but yet it is a very real entity in this world of ours. It should not be discounted for being construed by the cognitive faculties of the mind.

What exactly is the Self?

Succinctly, the Self is a complex concept that represents me as an individual in the surrounding world.

It is a concept in that it is a mental representation of something and that something is Me in its entirety. Just like the concept of my nose represents in my mind that protuberance on my face, my Self is similarly a representation, which we might also call an idea, a memory, or even an image, depending on how we want to employ that representation.

The concept of Self is a complex one in that it has many facets corresponding to all my psychological and physical make-up. Some of these facets are my body parts (my nose, my feet…), my personality, my social net, my memories, my knowledge, my opinions, etc. on and on. In effect, anything that relates to me (my books, my brothers, my era…), even though they are not considered part of me,, but rather relations to the world, making them in fact MY world.

The point of the matter is that Self is a representation of how I am situated in the world. This can be very focused to the Here and Now of my immediate time-space reference, or be very large to encompass all I ever did in life and what I hope to do in the near future. Keep in mind it is not my actual situation in the world but how I represent that situation, along the same lines of the subjectivity of the sub-concept of self-concept (self esteem, feelings of adequacy, etc.).

The Self is thus a mental autobiography of who I am as well as an ongoing journal of how I am and how I relate to the world. There is an awful lot there, of course, and at any moment in time, my attention will focus on what aspect of me is relevant to the circumstances at hand. But the full cognitive complexity of the Self is always there in the background, available as needed as circumstances change. It encompasses all my thoughts, all my attitudes, my traits and my memories of all kinds. in that sense, my Self is a sort of switchboard that directs my attention to what is personally relevant at any particular time. Somewhat like perceptual attention, but on a much larger scale in both availability and personal importance.

Such is the mental picture of the Self, complex in what it covers, important biologically for survival and growth, and the core element of what we define as consciousness. Naturally, as a mental entity, the Self is not a physical structure, but a process taking place within the brain. Philosophically, a process approach is more appropriate to consider it than a material approach.

Like other mental processes, it is embodied in the physical workings of the material brain, without however its description being reduced to them. Nor is the framework of dualism appropriate to consider when dealing with the Self or with consciousness. The Self is simply how my mind handles (notice the process here) my mental activity in relation to the world at large. How it might call upon any relevant facet of my full and complex representation of myself to see how it fits with the situation at hand.

In summary, the Self is a complex representation (a cognitive structure) of who and how I am that is employed to respond optimally (coherently) to the world as it revolves around me.

Why the religious fuss over the Self?

As alluded to earlier, religions are first concerned with ethical conduct, that is, with how to live one’s life. Western religions have dealt with that mainly through fear and hope (hell and paradise), while eastern religions have been more intellectual and seek to explain human nature in the here and now. IN both cases, how to lead one’s life ethically is what is formulated in grand principles of behavior and beliefs.

Buddhism is the main religion that seeks to achieve that by negating the Self or at least by diminishing its importance. Portraying the Self as fleeting, inconsistent, impermanent leads to self-denial and to doubt about the very existence of the Self. The aim, a noble one, is to reduce one’s slavery to desire and thus reduce the mental suffering resulting from that slavery and unfulfilled expectations.

Desire is indeed what motivates human action and which thus is tightly tied into the Self and its constant need to respond most appropriately to the world. If religion can make us believe that the SElf is but illusion, we might just jettison its plenary focus on the I and engage the world in terms less ego-centered (egoistic) than we normally would. All for a better personal mental health and for a better more compassionate societal interaction.

Human nature being what it is, with individual survival and growth being at the center of biology, the challenge is a great one. What is needed is a retraining of the mind, such that our animal nature is sublimated and a new conceptual framework takes hold that values serenity rather than exciting pleasure. The task is a grand one and its aim is not shared in full by many.

Reality of the self

As we have seen, the Self is a natural process that develops with the person and is rooted in biology. It is thus particularly robust and not easily dismissed as illusory or fluff of the mind.

Treating the Self as illusion is an ontological mistake that characterizes mental realities as inexistent. It is mistaken to believe that the only realities are substantive ones and thus that the mind and its contents, which are processes, are either unreal or part of another realm in a dualistic universe. Mental entities, including Self, are just as real as material entities. Both processes and things are in the end energy transfers in different guises. Mind as process is grounded in some substantive embodiment, but it is not the physical embodiment itself, it is what that embodiment, typically a brain, produces through construal. The Self is just such a construal. No more, but no less either.

Permanence or impermanence has nothing to do with it either, being solely an issue of time, and thus another ontological confusion. Everything that exists is impermanent, since its existence is time-bound. A mosquito might exist for a few days before it dies, a dog a dozen years or so, people eighty years or so, etc. In mind, a thought might exist for a few seconds before being driven out by another, a perception perhaps less than a second. Time has nothing to do with our common notion of existence.

The self is often considered as the seat of agency in a person, the decider of action. Free will is construed in these terms. And the notion of personal responsibility in society likewise, in all its legal and moral guises. Here, the self is seen as an independent entity, only dependent to a degree on the situational-causal aspects of what happens. The person is seen as deciding what is good for hirself and implicitly accepting responsibility for hir actions. Dependency is seen as coming into play but not fully so. There is a motivated self behind it all, as culturally-agreed upon. This notion is of course easy to challenge philosophically, even if not easy to do away with culturally.

Only humans and a few other animals are known to have a sense of personal self, that is to recognize themselves as independent animals in the world around them. Most animals just interact with their environment without realizing who or what they are in relation to that environment, particularly with respect to other animals around them. A lion, for instance, will just observe a gazelle from afar without realizing he is a predator and without thinking about hunger. He is totally melded with his environment (inner and outer) and when his hunger kicks in strongly enough, he will be roused to action and start acting as a predator. He has no sense of self whatever. He just lives his lionhood from day to day and most animals do the same.

But not humans, at least not adult humans. Young children are like the lion, living without much of a self (it develops at its own rhythm) and without much concern. As adults, we have construed our full sense of self and consider it as core. Planning the future illustrates this well. When we decide who to marry, what to study, what job to seek out, and so on, we are focused on ourselves, not on our friends’ marriage, schooling, or career. It is our own that concerns us, in full cognizance of who we are, what appeals we have, what our tastes are, what skills we have developed, and so on. All that is summarized in this picture we have of ourselves. That is what our self is, this construed entity that helps us figure out our situation and what is most appropriate to do. Without generally or often realizing what the constraints are, what the affordances are, in effect what dependencies are involved from the start. Such is the adventure of our lives.

Summarizing up till now

• The Self is a construal (mental construction) just like the rest of our construals.

• It is developmental both in evolution (animals) and in child development.

• Being a brain process, the Self is a process, not a physical entity nor a spiritual entity.

• It is an important functional entity, serving to situate oneself within the complex and changing world around us in all aspects: physical, biological, mental, social.

• The reality of the Self is a false philosophical dispute.

The philosophical dispute over Self - No-Self (the Self as an illusion) is misguided. Aligned with consciousness, the Self is variable. It can be strong and very oriented to one’s ego, or weak and diffused in the relations one is involved in.

We usually think of the self as ego-driven, that is, oriented to the prospering of oneself. That is, after all, the evolutionary mark of the self, its biological function. But insightful thought, often resulting from a calming of the mind through skilled meditation, leads to countering that ego-centeredness in various ways.

One such way is coming to believe that the Self is either not really existent (the misdirection alluded to above) or unimportant in spiritual terms (self-centeredness will not help us attain either paradise or nirvana).

The notion of a weak ego comes about from being flexible with the boundaries of the Self. Being a construed entity, the Self is open to various imaginative constructions. We traditionally consider the Self as comprising our body and our mind. But we need not be rigid.

for instance, bodily water is an important part of the body and without it being replenished, we die. Likewise for food, likewise for air. All are required for continued existence. And that can make us think of them as part of us, even though they are external to us. Take the air we breathe in every few seconds. It is part of the world around us, but it is or becomes part of us as we breathe it in. So if we think of ourselves in terms of requirements, we can come to extend the boundary of the Self: I am not only my body, but also the surrounding air I breathe in. Likewise for the water I drink, the food I eat and so on.

These are relations of myself to various entities in my surroundings. I can treat them as separate from me or as an indispensable part of me. Where I draw the boundaries of myself is thus flexible and will result in a very strong self-centric view of myself at one end of the dimension or a very extended view in the other end.

going further, the same movement of relationships extends out from the traditional conception of Self to non-physical relationships. We already consider our thoughts, memories, skills, affections, etc. as an integral part of ourselves, these being localized processes in our brains. But what about our social world. My children for instance, have come from me and can be considered by me as part of me, even though they are at the same time external and independent from me. The same can be said of all intimate relationships. Even extending to pets and to cherished possessions of a physical nature, such as a stamp collection or a music collection.

Certain spiritualists who develop the no-self conception extend that relationship view to all there is, irrespective of whether the entities are historically personal or not. As soon as something becomes part of their world by entering their awareness, it becomes part of them. They identify no longer with a self bounded by body and mind that is active in the surrounding world, but with the world itself. It is a creative, artistic way of viewing things, themselves included.

This spiritualist view is in fact in line with the dualist view of the Universe. On the one hand, there is the construed Universe at large comprised of all known entities, including ones we have never seen, black holes, gravity, and so on. And on the other, there is one’s personal universe limited to what one is experiencing at the moment, including memories of past experiences; hence a potential very large universe as well as an ever-changing one as attention wanders from one thing to the next in our field of experience. These are two universes, one official (objective)l, so to speak, and one private (subjective). They are very different psychologically and thus may lead to different versions of selfhood.

Now, there is no need to be fully aligned with one extreme view or the other, to be either a strong egotist or to be totally diffused in the world around us. We are dealing with a dimension here. furthermore, there is no need to be fixed on one spot on the dimension. One can zip along one way or the other, not unlike zipping along a keyboard on a piano.

That is what selfing is, playing the Self according to circumstances. Or more prosaically, adapting one’s conception or concern of oneself to fit the situation at hand. If a nasty dog is charging you, your concern will be for your survival and your Self will be your traditional body boundary. In other circumstances, such as watching a cute dog up close, you might emotionally and constructively extend your Self to “be together” with the dog, or even be the dog and your old self together as one “you”.

Selfing is like taking different personae, deciding what you will be, even though the deciding part is really weak or absent. It very much involves how you relate to the world or how the world relates to you. And that is an ever-changing affair. If you have to deal with a difficult problem thrust upon you, you might slip into the old strong mold of the Self, but is you partake of a relaxed situation of contemplating the flow around you, you might let yourself go to a weak self that comes to union with the entities flowing into your awareness. The strong Self is an active mode whereas the weak Self mode is more passive and reactive.

Selfing is very circumstantial. To what state it leads you to depends on your external circumstances, on your internal states, and on how you are situated in the world. How a dog relates to you (aggressive or cuddly) exemplifies circumstance. Internal states can be biological (hunger, thirst…) or mental (fearful, drunk, under the influence of psychotropics, peaceful…). All of these situate you in your immediate world.

And then there is the larger context of upbringing, education, social setting, religious orientation, opinions and so on that will impinge on your reactions to these immediate circumstances and more generally how you perceive and react to the world. Your whole past experience comes into play.

Consider these extreme examples. An inner-city youth who has had a rough life and done battle, so to speak, might become self-protective and less open to others and creative possibilities in the world. On the other hand, a Buddhist monk who has meditated to calmness and experienced fruitful insights might well attain moments of oneness with the world. Resulting in two rather different self-images (involving self-esteem) and two rather different Selves. But the youth might experience times of calm where openness becomes possible and the monk likewise might experience moments of strife that challenge hir attained serenity.

We conclude that the Self is not some mysterious entity that some people deny and others affirm. It is simply a mindful entity (and a brain process) that situates a person in the world and prepares hir for responding to the world when required to do so in novel, unprogrammed ways. The construal that is the Self is not fixed forever, but rather malleable by circumstance. That changeability is what selfing is all about.

Meditation is a process of unselfing, of forgetting the Self (oneself) for a while. The idea of focusing on breath or some other process or object is to do away temporarily with concerns regarding oneself, be they past or future. Indeed, removing the usual useful biological self-centered framework one lives in and to inhabit an out-of-self perspective, more universal and less utilitarian. It involves an insight into the non-human world.