--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Actually, I get more insight into > the the artificial nature of the > small s self by comparing the changes > of my life with the sense of unchanging > continuity at the root of my experience. > Despite big swings in beliefs, affections, > aspirations and values, there's still > this sense of a self, of the consciousness > that's aware of all those changes, that > seems to be continuous. I figure that's > the large s Self. But it's still a Self, > which is supposed to be non-personal, so > what do I know.
I recall an advanced lecture that portrayed a sequence in experience of the Self from personal to non/impersonal. I can't remember any of the details, just the concept: *ultimately* the Self is experienced as impersonal, but it goes through stages to get to that point. That it may seem personal at an earlier stage doesn't mean it's not the Self, in other words. Oh, now a bit of it is coming back to me. The sequence was expressed as "me-ness," "I-ness," and finally "is-ness," the Self experienced as the essence of "me" (my Self), "I" (I Am Self), and "is" (Being Itself). As I recall, this was *not* a sequence of little-s self to big-S Self; all three were said to be big-S Self. Maybe somebody else remembers it more clearly?
