Is the Body ‘Self’ or‘Other’?
© 2008 Lawrence Gold Friday, 9/5/2008 10:59:24 AM
The first impulse many people have toward the odd question, “Is the body ‘self’ or
‘other’?” is to beg the question. It seems self‐evident that the body is “self”.
Everywhere the body goes, we go; and when the body goes, we go. “I am the body.”
But the linguistic oddity, “my body,” indicates otherwise. Who or what is the “me” who
“has” a body?
To confound matters further, the teaching of many Eastern spiritual traditions is, “I am not
the body.” Who or whatis saying this?
So, we have, “I am the body,” and “I am not the body.”
I propose to sort this question out.
Why bother?
Because among all living species, only the human goes through changes of self‐definition
(personal growth); the question of “whatI am,” and any fixation on a set answer, creates fixation
(holding patterns)in our way offeeling and acting. Since itis so that holding patterns that
persist past their point of helpfulness create problems in a human life, it’s in ourinterest to look
at the root ofthe ways in which we get stuck. Our self‐definition is at the root of ourtendency to
get stuck, so, it’s helpful to understand self‐identity and whetherthe body is really part ofit.
A SOMATIC VIEWOF THE BODY
Everybody has an inside and an outside.
The inside, in physical terms, is what’s on the inside of our skin.
The outside, in physical terms, is what’s on the other side of our skin.
But there is another dimension of bodily experience than the view of the flesh. It’s the view
of the experiencer, our sense of self.
In those terms, the inside is everything we experience over which we have control. We
define all ofthat as either “me” or “mine”.
The outside is everything we experience over which we have no control. We define all of
that as “not me” and “not mine.”
Control over our experience is the predominant(but not sole) determining factor as to
whether we label something “me” and “mine” or “not me” and “not mine.” Consider, as soon as
we feel we are losing control of something that is ours, we feel in danger oflosing possession of
it. “Me” and “mine” are closely related to the sense of control.
The medium by which we experience everything inside and everything outside, everything
“me” and “mine” and “not me” and “not mine” is the body. Through the senses, the body is the
meeting place of self and experience.
And oddly, our own inner self‐sense is as observable (to ourselves) as any object of outer
perception.
TFrom what viewpoint do we observe self and other? That question calls for a moment of
introspection, here and now, before going on.
THE EMERGENCE OF CONTROL
The process of maturation involves a growth in the powers of self‐control.
Self‐control doesn’t mean self‐repression; it means self determination, autonomy,
responsibility.
Control isn’t absolute; it’s a matter of degree.
A human infant starts with survival instincts and no control over excretion. The survival
instincts, such as suckling and bonding with the mother, come alive as a racial(or species)
inheritance (“The GreatInheritance”), automatically active. Control over excretion, also a racial
inheritance, has to be learned.
The felt view, “I am the body” is a common part ofthat inheritance, and we don’t commonly
question it. It’s so second‐nature that the view rarely comes up for consideration, even at times
of death.
Learning is a primal attribute oflife, especially of human life: in the process of maturation,
first the given, inherited repertoire of functions and behaviors comes alive; then, with mastery of
those functions and behaviors, transcendence and outgrowing of those functions and behaviors
occurs, one by one, as new, self‐determined functions and behaviors emerge. Creativity starts on
the foundation provided by the automatic, basic inheritance and then builds upon, and often
transforms, the automatic inheritance. The concert violinist must be toilet‐trained, speak a
language, and be able to dress – but the ability to play the violin transcends those functions.
Learning involves inclusion and transcendence.
The entire spectrum of human experience – sensation, behavior, perception, cognition,
values, logic and intuition ‐‐ continues from generation to generation as a GreatInheritance,
much ofit unquestioned, “given and taken as right and true.” Individuals grow into the
spectrum of experience, and that growth process evolves, as we see from person to person and
culture to culture,ratherthan being standard and uniform among all individuals.
As each facet of the human inheritance comes alive in a person, the person attains a measure
of control overit. We become responsible for automatic (inherited) behaviors and, to a degree,
capable of modifying them.
As we mature and gain control over ourfunctions and behaviors, physical, emotional and
mental, each function ceases to be “it” and becomes “I” ‐– no longer, “It happened,” or “I
couldn’t help it,” but “I did that.”
THE INTERFACE OF THE SENSES
All living, sentient beings (somas)relate to whatis outside them by facing things or by
avoiding things, turning toward them orturning away from them; we relate to what is inside us
by facing them orrefusing to face them, putting attention on them or minimizing attention on
them.
What both externalfacing and internalfacing have in common is attention. To sense
things, we direct attention toward them.The body is the vehicle ofthe senses; it incorporates the sense organs. Attention to the senses
(i.e., the body) provides an impression ofthe world. The body is the medium by which we gain a
window on the physical world – but it’s more a perceptual and behavioral filter or set of filters
than a clear window – filters inherited without awareness from family, culture, education and the
mass communications media, and even via the very form of the body. These inherited perceptual
filters answerthe questions, “What exists?” “What’s important?” “What do we do about it?”
But the body is also an object of the senses. The sense organs carried by the body also
registerthe body as a sensation. The body (soma)is self‐sensing as well as other‐sensing, with
the difference between “self” and “other” being a matter of control and oflabeling.
Does that make the body “self” or “other”? Does the body belong to the world (as an object,
to be observed by others) or does it belong to ourselves (as the medium of ourintention to have
experiences)?
… another moment of introspection and contemplation.
THE SELF‐SENSE OF THE BODY
Somehow, we feel the body to be ourselves.
Now, just because we feel something doesn’t mean we identify it as ourselves, so there must
be something unique about the body‐feeling that makes itfeel like, “me”.
A sense of control over our own actions is a part ofit, but there are aspects of our bodily
selves over which we have no control, and yet we still considerto be ourselves. “I can’t believe I
did that.”
What we are talking aboutis identification – self‐identification.
Self‐identification is a feeling; it’s also a subtle intention. It’s the feeling ofthe intention, “to
be” or “to exist” or “to be alive”. It’s also the feeling of the intention to act or have experience
turn out a certain way – to control experience.
Self‐identification actually a state oftension – an effort to control life (self and other), so as to
keep our memories of the way things are intact or developing along lines of ourimagining.
All states oftension either show up as actions or as states ofreadiness to act(intentions).
Intentions manifest as patterns oftension in the musculature corresponding to the actions for
which we are ready. “Getready, get set…”
Maturation involves acquiring more and more readiness for more and more kinds of
experience – and generally, more and more tension. Socially, people look down upon
unreadiness.
To the degree that we hold on to states ofreadiness, we identify as the do‐er, who holds on to
intentions and their associated perceptions (sensations); identity forms.
Ourracial inheritance consists ofintentions and ways of acting, of perceptions and ways of
interpreting perception, that give rise to certain experiences. That’s enculturation. To the degree
that we hold on to ourinheritance, in this sense, thatthat degree we identify as the do‐er of our
lives, and so form and hold on to an identity. Identity is a set ofintentions and sensations
(attention habits) automatically held in memory, generally without attention on those intentions,
but on the objects those intentions seek to control. Self seeks to control other. The foothold of self
by which it pushes against experience is the sense ofidentity.Now, here’s another oddity: The sense of selfis a sense ofintention (readiness for anything);
the sense of the body (as most people sense it)is the sense ofits tension. People commonly
mistake the sense of contraction (ortension, orintention) forthe sense of self.
Tensions come and go, intentions come and go, sensations come and go,feelings come and
go, but the sense of being a self, having experiences, is constant. What is the nature of that self?
THE BODY AS MEMORY
Memory is the persistence of patterns, nothing more.
Memory is thought to reside in the brain, and thatis true, but not a complete accounting for
memory.
Healing is a mysterious phenomenon in which somehow the body remembers its shape and
reconstitutes it, or a close approximation ofit.
DNA is a means of memory storage in which patterns offunction pass from generation to
generation without a brain being involved.
The very persistence of a pattern is the memory ofit. In that sense, the entire kosmos
(objective cosmos and subjective world), is a memory (or a memory of many memories)
embodied in the spectrum of experience from matterto the subtleties of mind and consciousness.
Memory is not absolute. Memories change, and so does the body‐pattern, and so does the
experience ofthe body,from inside. The Universe is a living, evolving memory. (It doesn’t just
include memory; it is a form of memory. The forms of matter, energy, and experience persist over
time.)
But there is some sense in which we don’t change at all, and that is the consciousness of being
present to the experiences of the senses, present in the world, “here”, wherever we may be. The
content changes, the location changes, but the sense of self as a center of “hereness” does not. It’s
everywhere we go,familiar or unfamiliar, equally,regardless of whether we feel good orill.
How odd.
Are we the body? Are we the memory of a way of experiencing?
Before you answer,recognize that the only one that can answeris the individual self (or
soma), and that is subject to change, made of change.
MADE OF CHANGE
It’s an oddity, but we can experience only change. Any sensation that persists without
changing quickly fades. (Try staring at something and see what happens.) We perceive by
contrast, which is another name for changing experience. Some teachings call that, “duality.” It’s
not only the contrast between opposites on a single continuum, such as light and dark, but also
the contrast between things that are categorically different, apples and oranges. It’s any contrast.
What persists overtime fades from awareness. It’s called, “getting used to it.” What we take
for granted, we soon cease to notice. Most of our species inheritance is so persistent that, having
faded, as second nature, is largely inaccessible to us. Itruns on automatic, perfectly apparentin
its operation, but unnoticed, the elusive obvious. For example, all somas put objects from their
environmentinside themselves,forthe sake of continuation. It’s called, “feeding ourselves.”
Ponderthat. Isn’t that weird? Now, considerteeth. Teeth are cutting and grinding devices, and
yet their display in a smile is reassuring. Now that’s weird! But we take itfor granted.Because life is dynamic, even weird, the changes oflife keep perception refreshed –
sometimes too refreshed, as when contrasts are intense, or sudden large changes occurin life.
Changes of state keep the body sense refreshed – changing sensations, whetherinternal or
external. The memory of the body‐sense contrasts with changing sensations. That’s the basis of
excitement. Boredom is a last‐ditch effort to maintain a refreshed state in the face of unchanging
conditions – generally a strong impulse to move, to go somewhere else orto do something else –
anything to create a contrast, to refresh the sense of aliveness.
The body lives by changing (mostly within stable limits, as cycles of equilibrium that mostly
change gradually) and so the sense ofthe body is made of changes – changes of sensation,
changes of perception, changes of behavior, some subtle, some gross – temperature, hunger,
balance…
But the oddity is that the sense of “here” (defined as “where I am”) never changes.
The ultimate contrast is between change (perpetual “this and that”) and no‐change
(perpetual, “Primordial Hereness”). Oddly, in that contrast, only change (“this and that”) stands
out, while Primordial Hereness rests unnoticed in the background.
When changes quiet down, the sense of “here” shifts from being defined by the conditions of
ourlocality (this and that) to the background, primordial “hereness” of our being. Primordial
Hereness has no form, but is always present, silent and in some sense,resonant;receptive and
constantly originating new creations as thoughts and impersonal events. (Note that the feeling of
hereness, ifitis a feeling, is part of “this and that‐ness” and is not Primordial Hereness, but “local
hereness.” When “local hereness” relaxes and disappears, we also disappear and merge with
formless, Primordial Hereness.)
The challenge is to fall consciously through the boredom of distraction with “this and that‐
ness” into the substratum of Primordial Hereness (where we always, inevitably, are), to become
conscious of that which we already are, the context and nature of all of our “this and that‐ness.”
Then, we are here, but without the sense of “I” or “we” (things that change). Is the body, our
self, ourself? Who says so?
CREATION
There is something between “Primordial Hereness” and “this and that‐ness.” It’s newness.
Newness refreshes by being the bridge between Primordial Hereness and “this and that‐
ness” Newness is unknown, atfirst, incomprehensible. In that sense, it’s felt to be the same as
Primordial Hereness, withoutform. But then, the newness wears off! And the process of that
“wearing off” is that it becomes familiar, which is to say, it starts to integrate with this‐and‐that
(basically, as soon as it appears, as incomprehensible as it may be).
The integration of the new with “this and that” is constantly occurring. The unknown “new”
is constantly being made into, and becomes known as, a new “this orthat.”
Newness shows the common identity of Primordial Hereness with “this and that,” since the
moment of transition from newly‐emergent newness (incomprehensible) to familiar “this and
that‐ness” (known) is the moment when we feel we comprehend it and label it as something
known. It hasn’t changed; our mind has changed! The thing, itself,retains its essential nature as
an expression (emergence) of the unknown from Primordial Hereness, as a form of Primordial
Hereness!The new, as it emerges, is always constrained by limitations, defined by limitations, made of
limitations, even as it comes out of “Primordial Hereness” (no limitation) as an expression of
local hereness (this and that). As itintegrates with “this and that‐ness,” it becomes part of The
GreatInheritance we take for granted and that shapes ourlives, often without conscious
recognition.
The GreatInheritance is an inheritance oflimitations, memory formations; memories fade or
change.
In humans, the growth of control involves a growth of consciousness (orthe reach of
attention) to include what has faded due to persistence and familiarity, so that new creative will
can be turned onto the faded foundation from which we have operated, to freely create what has
not yet existed, out of the empty, butresonant void of Primordial Hereness.
The question, “Is the body self or other?” has more to do with whether we can exercise
control over ourinherited (or even previously created) patterns of experience and behavior, or
whetherthose patterns control us.
To the degree that we identify with the body‐sense (hold onto intentions, as the do‐er), we
hold on to remembered ways of doing things,ratherthan adapt to changing conditions or bring
something new into existence from Primordial Hereness.
To act, we must be the doer and identify as the body; to grow or change, we mustrecognize
that the do‐eris (the act of) clinging to an intention and a kind of experience that, in the face of
life’s changes, is a memory (even the memory of an imagining).
The question, “Is the body self or other?” is a trick question. The answeris, “It depends.”
As a display of observable sensations in consciousness, body is “other”; as our means of
taking action, body is self.
As long as we identify as the do‐er of actions, we fail to observe the sense of being the do‐er.
The effort of desire seems to imply, and so gives rise to the assumption of, an identity, but
without awareness of the sense of identity as a sense of tension orlimitation.
If we only observe the embodied self‐identity, we cease to participate in experience, but
instead arrest and undermine the sense of self‐identity.
Neither of these positions is a problem; the pair are a contrast of alternatives.
Fixation in form is an illusion of time, a convincing delusion of self‐identity.
Wisdom recognizes the body to be a memory without any intrinsic or essential self‐nature,
but one that exists in time and appears to have, by virtue of the existence ofrelationships, self‐
nature.
Anyway, that was not the trick of the trick question.
The trick of the trick question is this: Whether we decide that the body (soma) is “self” or
“other,” either decision is a state of mind held in memory. What we considerto be the body is
also a state of mind held in memory. Memory is made of “this and that‐ness,” but what we are is
both Primordial Hereness, not defined by “this and that‐ness,”and local hereness, which is “this
and that‐ness.” Selfis here, body is here, only temporarily defined as “this and that‐ness.”
The assumption of the alternatives posed by the question was the trick ofthe question.Observe local hereness.
Notice thatit exists in Primordial Hereness.
Let go of local here‐ness;relax into Primordial Hereness. You’re still locally here!
EVOLUTION
All things change in time. Whetherthe body is self or otheris only a matter of perspective
and temporary definition.
Practically speaking, we are recipients of a species inheritance that defines us as “this and
that,” but in a state of Primordial Hereness which is limited by neitherthis northat, butis our
essential or original nature.
Fixation in memory temporarily binds us. Memories and imaginings surface in time; the
imperative oflife (newness) is the emergence ofthe unknown into form,from Primordial
Hereness and continuing in Primordial Hereness as an expression of Primordial Hereness!
Practically speaking, to the degree that we identify with the contracted (or memory‐fixated)
state of body and mind (soma), to that degree do we constrain the emergence of newness from
Primordial Hereness (formlessness)into local hereness (manifestation). The emergence of
newness requires space.
Forthatreason, our evolution depends upon recognition and dis‐identification from
memory‐fixated states, through inclusion and transcendence, so that they/we are free to leave
space for newness.
Practically speaking, since recognition depends upon perception and perception depends
upon contrast, we can use a couple of different contrasts to perceive and recognize aspects of
ourselves thatremain familiarly hidden, to release their binding nature and create space:
1. contrast between what we desire and what we resist
2. contrast between ourintuition of Primordial Hereness and local conditions
for option 1: At any moment when we may feel stuck, we can deliberately feel what itfeels like
to be someone who resists what we are experiencing in the moment and then what it would feel
like to be someone who desires that experience. By alternating in those two feelings, we create a
contrast between them, make them more vivid, and so prepare forthe next step: to feel both
feelings simultaneously and equally. To feel them simultaneously reveals a new sensation,
previously hidden, but somehow familiar: a sense of identity felt as a kind of effort ortension
that we can relax. At the moment ofrelaxation, we may have a perception of Primordial
Hereness – or of whateverremaining tension we have around the issue (in which case, we repeat
the process).
for option 2: We may deliberately alternate between putting attention on feeling stuck and on
ourintuition of Primordial Hereness. That contrast may be sufficient to discern the tension we
are experiencing in the moment(resistance to our present experience or desire for an alternative),
so that we can relax it.
The space liberated by either ofthese options brings relieffrom the stress of memory and
imagining automatically generated by The GreatInheritance. Then, there’s room forthe
emergence of newnessinto our experience as our own creative action or as ourrefreshed
perception ofthe conditions of ourlocal hereness.Is the body “self” or “other”? “Body”, “self”, and “other” are features of The Great
Inheritance, patterns of memory, changeable by the emergence of newness. There is no such
thing as “body,” “self” or “other,” but only durable patterns of memory always being modified
by the emergence of newnessfrom the Primordial Hereness.
