The following quote is a reminder of the closing words of “Confronting The Mind (part 4): Tragic Division
The truth is that all the inner friction is caused by this ‘inner companion’ which never seems to let up with the accusations, judging, and condemning. What’s more, for many, those inner accusations, judgements, and condemnation are not of one’s own making; they are deep-rooted conditioning.
However, generally speaking, the conflict occurs as the direct result of our own thoughts rather than anything or anyone else. This is the tragic inner division, created by identification with thought.
And, it’s the madness almost no one wants to face:
That the "I" is not one voice, but many, often contradictory, frequently at odds, all claiming authority.
And yet, this inner division is normalised. We're taught to ‘trust ourselves’ without even knowing who or what that ‘self’ is. We say "I want to eat better" and "I deserve a treat" in the same breath, as if we are one coherent being.
Not only do we live with this inner chaos, we call it 'me.'
Can there be any peace while one continues to identify with the voice of thought as “I”?
Right away, I want to shut down the notion that there is a "sufferer", an "experiencer", a "knower" and all similar notions. "I" is nothing more than a point of reference; much like "chair" or "lion" is a label used for the purpose of identifying a particular object; a label used to reference a pattern of thoughts, feelings, and sensations.
Actually, there is no sufferer other than the mind itself.
The mind both as actor and observer, tormentor and victim is the duality most people unconsciously live by.
The mind creates the illusion of separation, finds fault with people, situations, and all manner of things as they are; as they exist, behave, unfold, or transpire - including the reactions it (the mind) creates to its own thoughts, and then it creates the desire to change these "things".
It is the desire to change "what is" that creates the problem and, therefore, it is the mind that creates the suffering and believes itself to be the sufferer.
The mind resists reality, invents preferences, measuring every experience against its own imagined ideal and then blames life for the disturbance it created.
Thus, the one who believes oneself to be the mind also believes oneself to be the one who suffers.
Right at this intersection is where most people get tangled.
They have the experience of suffering, so they assume there must be a sufferer.
But the experience of suffering does not require a self, only a belief in one.
The belief fuels the illusion.
Until we understand that we are not the mind, that the mind "plays these games" with itself, and that we have the ability to choose which thoughts are the important ones and which are the unimportant, problem creating, nonsensical thoughts, we will inevitably desire change, thereby we perpetuate the problem. In this confusion, we are the mind.
One might respond, “Yes, but who is choosing which thoughts to keep?”
Which, of course, circles back to the illusion of agency.
To identify with the "I" is to cause oneself endless and needless mental torture and to deny oneself any semblance of peace or contentment.
Now that we have pulled back the veil on that entire construct, quite naturally, the next reflective question might be:
If the mind creates both the illusion and the suffering, and there is no real "I" behind it, then what happens to the idea of free will? Can there be freedom without a "self" to be free?
Let’s look at these questions separately.
Firstly, to conclude that there is no real "I" would be to miss the point.
There is still a "sense of self". Otherwise, one would become a mindless automaton, void of feeling or experience.
Let me be clear here, so as to close this loop.
It is not my intention to completely dismiss the “I”. My aim is to expose its limited domain.
There is a sense of self, but it’s not the owner of life, not the source of suffering, not the chooser of truth. It’s simply a functional reference point, like coordinates on a map: useful, but not the terrain.
The one who chooses which thoughts are the important thoughts is the self aware individual, unidentified with the aimless meandering content of the mind; the one who has clarity of mind when the need arises.
Someone asked me, recently, on social media, "How can I distinguish between Truth and conditioned beliefs?"
My only response was this, "Truth is self evident".
To some extent, there is no choosing. Truth, which is clarity of mind, is known intuitively.
Choosing, on the other hand, requires effort.
To enter into the endless, exhausting intellectual debate people try to engage in about what’s “real” and what’s “programming” would be futile.
Self-evidence requires no validation. It doesn’t need to be “proven” through analysis, it’s felt, known viscerally.
Effort is the signal of illusion. Truth does not ask anyone to try.
Some of this may sound paradoxical. And, to some extent it is. However, to discuss any paradox is to again enter into the futile practice of intellectualisation. Such are the games of the mind.
Secondly, the questions of free will and freedom are two different questions.
Now, allow me to get to the bottom of the free will debate.
If I go to buy a new shirt, and I have the choice of two that I like, one blue and the other black, and I choose the blue shirt, did I act out of free will, or was I always destined to choose the shirt I did?
It doesn't matter. Whether I have free will or not in this respect, is irrelevant.
While this doesn’t “solve” the debate, it does disarm it.
This is freedom. This is the refusal to be baited by mental rabbit holes that never end.
Let me lay it down simply: the body follows nature. Nature doesn’t ask questions. Nature just moves. And the mind wants to believe it’s above that, but it is not.
I’ll put it another way.
"I" live in this body - if there is an "I".
Some would argue, "I am not the body".
This also, is irrelevant, because if you try to exist without the body, where will you be then?
The human body is the same as the lion body, the dog body, the body of every species we know, and all of nature itself. If you disagree, you have still not understood the nature of the illusion of separation.
Nature has no free will. The human mind wants to believe in free will.
The body must do as nature requires it to do in order to survive. At the physical level, therefore, there is no free will.
The same thought experiment can be applied to mental processes.
Does it really matter whether I choose a particular colour shirt by my own free will or otherwise, or is it enough that I chose a shirt when I needed or wanted to?
Needless and pointless questions and their subsequent debates may be entertaining to some people. Ultimately, though, they go nowhere.
Now let's take a closer look at "freedom".
True freedom (for the so-called individual) is clarity of mind.
It is the ability to understand one's place in the universe. It is the ability to make informed decisions based on clear evidence. Such as the decision as to the exact extent to which one wishes to engage with the society that wants everyone to fit in and behave in certain acceptable ways.
I’m not talking about freedom to do whatever one wants. I’m talking about freedom from the distortion; from the compulsion to identify, from the delusion of needing something “other”.
Freedom is the ability to see clearly.
So, can there be freedom without a "self" to be free?
Yes.
But, to be free - truly free - one must understand that "I", "me", "self" can never be free, because the very structure of “I” requires separation. And freedom is not something that can exist within separation. Freedom is the ending of separation.
Freedom is also a deep, coherent sense of clarity; an unshaken sense of calm, unbothered by whether it conforms to belief systems or not.
The “I” that claims to suffer, to choose, to know, is nothing but the mind’s own reflection, mistaking itself for substance. As long as this illusion is clung to, peace cannot exist. The self has never truly been more than a convenient label. Suffering is not born of life but of the mind insisting that its voice is “me”. The mind invents the sufferer and then complains of suffering, chasing its own tail in an endless loop. The moment the illusion of a separate “I” is exposed, the torment collapses. To see through this illusion is to recognise that nothing needs to be added or removed. Neither freedom nor Truth are acquired. They are simply the falling away of the false.
Because of an unending commitment to truth over comfort, even my own comfort, in part six and beyond, I will continue my reflections by going back over some of the ideas I have expressed in parts one to five. I will assess the assumptions underneath those ideas, and I will explore any possible blind spots.
This post is also Available on YouTube (audio)
Tap/Click➡️ Claim YOUR free one-hour consultation with Zander Glasgow
This introductory exchange is an opportunity for us to connect, serving as the potential first step in a journey of insightful and transformative discussions.