Selflessness of Phenomena

         Phenomena is that which appears to our faculties. That is, the object which presents itself is nothing without our senses having grasped its presence and our minds having interpreted the there that is there within the object as it is perceived. Without the dynamic of just my seeing the computer sitting on my desk, this computer would mean absolutely nothing to me. In the same way, a face in the crowd is but a face in the crowd until the body donning such a face bumps into me or makes some form of interaction with me or some form of gesture that grabs my attention. Therefore, Phenomena is a no-thing and as a no-thing it is devoid of any idea of "Selfness".

    Had I lived on some secluded island far off the grid, extracting nectar from some paradisiacal fruit for my sustenance and had never known even what "the grid" means, how might I approach the introduction of a computer? And, you know what? Let's just say, for argument's sake, that the computer happened to just be there and I didn't know why. I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't eat it but I couldn't say for sure. I mean, there are so many other prerequisites concerning how much I know and how I much don't know based on the environment I was thrown into. Nevertheless, would I sniff this foreign object? Give it a good lick? I don't know. All that I can really say is that it would mean nothing to me unless somebody who hailed from far away knew that this foreign object needed electricity. Now, if I do know what electronics are, I can probably better assume that this foreign object has a likeness of an electronic but what it is would still be hard to discern. But, now this noble individual from who knows where is here to power this object up and show me just what it does.

    What about this desk? Or these pencils? Or that mug over there? Or the tape dispenser? All these objects are so common to us just like the computer is today - not to mention the All Mighty cellphone - that one has to slow down everything in order to see each object in the abstract. That is, break each thing down until it is merely a thought. And, why do this other than to isolate this thing called a thought? Once we break the desk down to this thing which I am resting my arms on as I type away at this keyboard as accurately as possible, all of a sudden we have wood and plastic to deal with. Now, I'm no expert on all the wood types but I'm thinking this is mahogany. Regardless of what it is or where it came from, what I'm working out here is that point of contact between me - the perceiver - and this computer and it's ontology - the perceived.

    Isn't it quite a thing to look out into a crowd of faces that literally mean nothing to you? Even if we watch the Kiss Cam at the Baseball Game and see some strangers on it - assuming they are lovers (broadly speaking) - we have this ability to see an event play itself out from a vastly different vantage point than if we actually knew them. Just my mere speaking of "lovers" or "Kiss cam" or "Baseball Game" only means something if you have experienced them. If you haven't, all you can do is take my word for it - or not. But, assuming you do know what a Baseball Game is, I am pretty positive you can put yourself there in your mind. Can you taste the hot dog? The beer? Can you hear the announcer? Now, in your mind, look out across the seats. All you have is an ocean of faces.

    Everything means something to the one who is imbuing the meaning into that something which is perceived - even these words which I pour out. If a word means nothing, how can one make the correct inferences? More than isolating a thought, in order to "touch" the idea of Phenomena, one has to isolate "nothing". Since Phenomena is nothing then no matter how I look at it, I can't touch it, see it, smell it, hear it, or taste it. In the Cartesian sense, it is a "non-extended thing". As a nothing, Phenomena likewise doesn't touch, see, smell, hear, or taste. It just is what is - which is absolutely nothing.

    Those faces in the crowd are each individuals who obtain a "Self" component. Each perceives all the things and no-things in the world through their own faculties in just the way their own paradigms understand the things and no-things which they perceive. Self is that title which we utilize to categorically differentiate the "I" from the "You". There's this my-Self and there's this your-Self. The  Ego is the conscious aspects of our Being from which we apply definition to what this Selfness which we perceive appears to be. But nothingness is the absence of appearance all together.

    Thus, Phenomena is devoid of Self. Since it is nothing, how can it be any other way? So, now we isolate Phenomena as it is. But for what purpose? To realize that all these definitions which we apply to others or ourselves are just that - definitions. These definitions are projections which we put out into the world based on our comprehensions of what we have experienced in the past. Selfless Phenomena now becomes a mirror by which we can "see" the contrast between what is and what isn't.

    Since Phenomena is devoid of perception, only sentient Beings can even conceive of its presence. When I "look" at it, I see the very thing that vivisects my own Being. This nothing that stands between the me that I was and the me that I am becoming is the nothing that helps me realize what parts of myself are really me and what parts of myself are what I tell myself that I am. I rip off my name and the location I hail from and discover that I am ultimately human. Just like those humans on the other side of the border - let alone the ocean. This is important because if I look deep down, the very thing that separates me from somebody sitting across the room is literally nothing. All we have is our individual stories and conditions. But just like the nothing that separates me from myself, the nothing that separates me from some other person is nothing more than the nothing which I am perceiving.

    So shall we continue projecting onto this nothing or shall we see it objectively? Or, more than seeing it objectively, would it be worthwhile to take this Selfless Phenomena and use it as a baseline when we cross paths with any being - sentient or not? Could we maybe see them for as they are rather than merely as we think they are in regards to our own story? Could we see that they themselves have their own stories? When I stop my mind from applying data from the past onto a new face, suddenly there's one less thing I have to work through when I make contact. Even these narratives I may tell myself about being incapable of making any sort of approach come to nothing. All that extra chatter is gone and I can simply see my fellow being as a fellow being. Suspended judgment suspends all the possibilities which I may manifest and of all the things which I wish to manifest, authenticity is always what I aim for. But, to be authentic, I must cast the narratives of myself and others into the void and just walk steadily on with grace wherever I go and whatever I do. And suddenly - I am truly alive.