When there is the thought of doing, and by doing, one refers to all action, whether it is speaking, eating, thinking, sleeping, working etc., one refers to a being, that is oneself, that is doing all these actions, is it not? When one questions, who is this “self”, or “I”, one immediately makes a gesture by pointing out to oneself, as me. But, who is this “me”? Sure, the body, eats, sleeps, thinks etc., but is it also the body that remembers a past experience, such as emotional suffering, pain, pleasure, anger, etc? Surely, then one says, it is my mind ofcourse that can remember it. Is the mind, me? Is the mind, this psychological being, that is, “me”, that feels, experiences, etc? Does this psychological being, that is, “me”, exist, as factually as, my physical body does? Can one point it out quite the way one would the physical body?
When one probes into this “me”, the “I”, deeply, one realizes, it doesn’t actually exist except in one’s thoughts. When thoughts cease, there is no awareness of “me” as a being either, is it not? It is thought that gives continuity to this self or me. Therefore, if the “me” is not actually real except in one’s thought, what does “me” mean? Does it exist at all actually, or, does it keep giving itself continuity through various actions, of thinking, feeling, experiencing, lest it might not exist, at all? And why does it give itself continuity at the cost of such self-deception when it doesn’t really exist and towards what purpose? And, who needs to realize this self-deception but that very self, is it not?
When the self realizes this about itself, what then? Does action cease altogether or does action continue in good order in the practical spirit? One eats when hungry, and not when one is depressed, one sleeps when the body is tired, one works, because this life demands it and doesn’t mull over its results endlessly at the expense of one’s health, one relates to another in the present moment without holding onto images of another based on one’s perceptions, prejudices, past experiences etc., is it not? But the “me” must cease entirely on its own, and not through any effort, for then, it would be the “me” making that effort and in that it strengthens itself by giving itself continuity through “spiritual progress” and so on. And when the “me” is not, and action is performed, to whom may one attribute such action to, sir?
There is a certain vastness that the “me” can never penetrate. That vastness certainly must have existed before, and will continue to be, for all of creation to have sprung into life from, including, the many little “me’s”, and the vast universes that is known, and still unfolding, is it not? If that vastness is ordained with such intelligence for all of creation, then that vastness, must have ordained in it, the intelligence for action too, is it not? So who must this insistent petty little “me” be, that has accorded itself such great importance, when it can never, hope to know, cannot know, anything that is not within the scope of its own definitions?