64. Why Conflict is Easy to Come by?

Why is it so easy to be in some kind of friction and conflict with people all the time? Why annoyance, anger, deceit, jealousy, criticism and hatred come easily, and why reverence, gratitude, integrity, empathy and compassion are difficult to come by?

Survival Instinct.

Friction and conflict necessarily imply a rigid boundary. All the former qualities promote friction, and the energy generated in these emotions is used up to fortify the boundaries of the personality; whereas all the latter ones, promote inclusiveness, and the energy generated in these emotions dissolves the personality. The mind, the artificial intelligence that it is, knows this very well. Your individuality can survive only if friction thrives. And therefore, the most fundamental of its algorithms—that of survival—ensures to always have some friction buzzing in the background, and brings up such experiences more often. Furthermore, you even consider the particularities of your friction with the world (dissent with person X, criticizing person Y etc.) as part of your unique identity. Thus prevails the addiction to the sadistic pleasures (which is eventually pain) born of those frictional emotions. We may give any number of external reasons for having those emotions, but ultimately this is only a desperate internal attempt to survive, or Abhinivesha (one of the five fundamental afflictions) as Patanjali calls it.

When the latter emotions are pitched up, their intensity dissolves you, and it is elevating and blissful. We do experience these emotions, but accidentally and rarely. Largely we are a hard shell that is in conflict with the rest of the existence. We get bruised and deformed into a peculiar shape, and on top of that take pride in it that "I am unique". Survival instinct, which is actually a mechanism needed only for the physical organism, somehow gets unnecessarily extended to our inner dimension as well.

But the more conscious you become, the more you realize that it is the latter qualities that, by diffusing your individuality, by negating friction, give you true joy, freedom, lightness, firmness and expansiveness. Then ensues a tug of war between this longing to dissolve and the instinct of preservation of your beloved personality. The deep rooted unconscious algorithm slowly begins to get overwritten, until one day you are really willing to dissolve completely.

The next time some irritation crawls up inside you, remember that essentially it is your own survival instinct strengthening itself with the pretext of something 'wrong' outside. The external situation only stimulated and manifested the core friction that already lies within. The individual wants conflict, he seeks conflict, he thrives on conflict, whatever energy is generated in conflict is invested in fortifying the individual, but eventually he blames the world for giving him conflict and acts all innocent. This is a twisted out mess that needs a lot of beating by life to straighten up. We can wait for it to happen. The other choice is that we can become aware of this right now, and take responsibility for whatever we go through within ourselves; instead of cursing, we can be thankful to the external situation for manifesting what lies within, and making us aware of it. The same energy can then dissolve the individual.

So is there nothing wrong outside? That is not the point. External action can be consciously performed as needed, but scapegoating it for the inner friction is self-deception. If needed you can even fight a battle, but you need not be in friction within yourself - युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः (Cast off this inner turbulence and fight, Gita 3.30)

63. I will not come Alive, for I will Die!

When a situation makes you laugh your head off, or cry your heart out, or burn in rage, or sink in fear you will try to walk out of the situation saying "I cannot take this anymore". And if you do not or cannot avoid the situation, you will either faint, or lose mental balance, or perhaps even die. The system will break in some way.

When life intensity, whatever its form, crosses a certain limit, you can no more bear it, even if it is in a desirable form (as in joy and laughter). That means presently, you cannot experience life beyond a certain level of intensity; if you try to go beyond it, if you get too overwhelmed, things get dangerous.

When more aliveness, even through pleasant means, is thus perceived as danger or death, what will the human mind unconsciously do? It will make sure that you will live in low voltage, in the safe zone content with tidbits ("choti choti khushiyaan"). Although we claim to want to 'live life fully', all our attempts will be to somehow manage to live without becoming too alive; to live avoiding life. Until one is truly conscious of this irony, it continues no matter which area of life one is in, including Yoga. Life within will temporarily and apparently settle.

But when you become conscious of this limitation upon you, factually and not just as an idea, can you still accept this and settle for it? Does not your innate nature say "I want more" as it has been doing all along with everything? When they said 'seek God', 'seek Enlightenment' etc. what was it they were referring to? Some esoteric entity other than life? Could it be this very thing we are avoiding all the time — to be blazingly Alive, but still be Stable?; to be blissfully intense just by ourselves without any external stimulus?; to be an explosion within, and still not break physically or mentally? Could it be that when deluged by aliveness, we die not physically, but absolutely, and thus really live life totally?

Robert Ingersoll (an American agnostic): "We have an orange here, and we want to squeeze all the juice out of it" [indicating that a worldly man lives life fully, and there is no need of any spiritual pursuit]

Swami Vivekananda: "I have some fruit, and I too want to squeeze out the juice. Our difference lies in the choice of the fruit. You want an orange, and I prefer a mango [indicating that no pulp is wasted]... Your study is the manifestation of life, mine is the life itself"

62. Nirdhara — If you are Sure you are Dead

Our entire schooling system has trained human mind to come to an answer as quickly as possible. Only the one who gets to the answer the quickest is appreciated and rewarded. Slower ones are always neglected.

The repercussions of this are enormous. Human intellect is now always in a hurry to conclude. The mind has been deeply programmed with the reward-penalty system administered during schooling. Now he thinks that the more quickly he concludes, the smarter he is — a self-conferred reward.

So now he concludes about every bit of life that comes his way, including himself, with reprehensible urgency, and as a result, all possibilities of further enquiry are eliminated. He knows what he is, what others are, what happiness is, what a relationship is, what life is, what death is, what spirituality is, what God is... you name it and he knows what it is (words from books, or some lame logic). So smart!

This kind of arriving at a conclusion as quickly as possible is suitable and needed in analytical and executive fields of life, where an outcome, a decision has to come about as quickly as possible. But having idiotically extended this pattern to all aspects of life, not at all stopping for a moment to reflect deeply upon fundamentals of his life, including 'What am I? What am I seeking in life?', is rampaging his life, and he is not even noticing it? His intellect has turned so impotent that it cannot think about anything or anybody without strongly concluding about them; he cannot hold onto a certain fundamental question and inquire deeply into it for two minutes straight. He has forgotten what it is like to be aflame and alive with '?'.

In Samskrita one of the words for Conclusion is निर्धार (Nirdhara), and the word is very interesting. Nir-dhara can mean 'holding on thoroughly' and it can also mean 'devoid of flow'. Concluding in analytical and executive areas of life would refer to the former meaning, and it is very much needed. But concluding about life itself would refer to the latter meaning, and you would become stagnant, dead, numb to life - 'Ah big deal, I know what it is'; 'Oh I know all about him'; 'You know who I am?'



While the religious ones today are dead sure about everything (even God's name, address, family members etc.), the Vedic Rishis boldly declared "We do not know".

If you are sure, you are dead!

61. Role of External Supports in Spiritual Sadhana

I will pick up the following thread of discursion from the previous post and elaborate on it:

"Should we do things on the outside to crackle our aliveness, or should we do things on the outside because we are crackling with aliveness? Which way should it be? Aliveness first or Action first?"

Here one may ask the question — if it is said that Aliveness is first, then can we not seek the support of the external environment to enhance the state of our consciousness?

There are several things to be addressed here.

Firstly, note that this is a different issue than the one in the original thread. When I say "doing things on the outside to crackle our aliveness" I am referring not to spiritual supports, but to all the things that people pursue to charge themselves with liveliness — relationships, hobbies, pleasures etc. Here, which way should it be? Aliveness first or Action first? We may presently be dependent on the outer actions to keep our spirits up, but there is no question that this should be reversed. Our engagement in the world should be to exude our aliveness, not consume it. As living beings we should be producers of aliveness, not consumers.

How do we put Aliveness first? It was already so in our early childhood, but as we grew up the psychology got conditioned in many ways and the equation reversed. And now we are all the time running around looking for charging points to remain up and alive, very much the same way we look for charging points for our phone. In breaking out of this conditioning Yoga kriyas can help greatly. From my personal experience I am referring here specifically to Shambhavi Mahamudra and Shakti Chalana kriya that I have learnt from Isha and have been regularly practicing. I have come to see how it makes the energies exuberant, and how there is a natural buzz of aliveness in the system. There may be many such Kriyas taught by many other schools. In this regard, one can also use the faculties of intellect and emotion to engage in Self-enquiry and Devotion respectively; but these are greatly dependent on the temperament of the individual whereas Kriyas are well-defined techniques that anyone can make use of. With regular practice they bear fruit, of life.

Coming to the question of external support, there may be two different points that need to be addressed — using external support, and creating external support for our use.

With regard to using external support — apart from practicing specific Yogic techniques, one can certainly take all the external support available to them — conducive places, times, objects, food regulation, company of people etc. But then one should be careful not to go into the whining mode "I am not progressing because this particular support is absent". While the availability of some support is certainly a boost, absence of it should not be painted as a roadblock. Moreover, today in the age of internet we have access to plenty of spiritual content, online sessions etc. at our fingertips which we can use to keep ourselves oriented and focussed. Compare this to the situation a hundred years ago when a seeker had to leave his house to go in search of a teacher. So, what are we complaining about, really? If we go into that mode, where do we draw the line? There can be really no end to it. We can go to the extent of saying that only after there is a great transformation in the society, only when it reverberates with a spiritual ambiance, is it possible for me to transform myself. That would be fool's paradise. Why can't we be the ones who begin that transformation in the society? Or do you want to be the last fool to transform? Therefore even in regard to this aspect of using external support, the first focus should be upon ourselves. We may use all the support available, but it should not become an excuse to whine and wait. We cannot put the onus on others to provide the support and demand it from them. No one is obligated to support us in our journey. It is our own. Whatever support comes from outside is only a bonus, and we should be thankful for it, not cynical complaining about a lack of it. This sense of ungratefulness is by itself very unbecoming for a spiritual seeker.

Also, external supports are eventually meant to be transcended. One should be attentive to make sure that it does not become a dependence of a new kind. For e.g. children use ruled notebooks to practice writing so that they can eventually write without those printed lines. But in the name of practice if they are made to write in moulded grooves of the letters it will just become a new dependency. They will never be able to write with ease without that support.

With regard to creating external support — there is this possibility of creating a simpler external support to hold us up. Swami Vivekananda points out that the Puja Griha in Indian houses is meant to be a place which should be gradually charged with sattvik reverberations. We should use that space/room only for spiritual sadhana, and imbue the space with that quality over time. Just as we build a physical house brick by brick, just as we accrue a bank account rupee by rupee, it is possible to build an energized space bit by bit. We can make a space come alive, and then use it as a support — "...when you are miserable, sorrowful, doubtful, or your mind is disturbed, the very fact of entering that room will make you calmer" (Raja Yoga, chapter 2)

There are also some who argue that the external environment at large, because of its highly materialistic nature, is too unfavourable for spiritual sadhana, and that we will have to first work towards bringing about a major change in the society to make it conducive, and then (or parallelly) use that to transform ourselves. But this sounds absurd. How can a man, who is himself unconscious, inspire and change the people and society around him? He may exhibit lot of fire and will, but a man without clarity of perception and inner balance will only add to the problem no matter how much of good intentions he has. We see a whole lot of such enthusiastic individuals having great plans to transform the world. But one can change the outside only to the extent he is stable and aware. Not more. One's impact on the society is equivalent to the amount of his own transformation. You can have great slogans, create web pages, market yourself well, make videos with spiritual messages, become a keyboard warrior preaching spirituality and debating with random people on the internet, or even open a Yoga center — but people will listen to you only to the extent you are fragrant and vibrant. Not more. You may be teaching Bhagavadgita, but people will resonate with it only to the extent Bhagavadgita resonates in you. Therefore with regard to this aspect too, our transformation comes first. Only then we will earn the listenership of others, and can perhaps be of some support to others who need it.

But it is possible for someone to become a tool in someone else's hands, and thereby create a much bigger impact on the society than they can by themselves. For e.g. I have been working at Isha as a fulltime volunteer from a couple of years. I was primarily part of the team that translated and dubbed Sadhguru's English videos to Kannada. The Kannada channel now has over 2.5 lakh subscribers, and many more things have happened in the Karnataka domain. This is much bigger an impact on the society than I can make by myself in my present state of awareness. So as I was working upon myself, parallelly I was also a tool that was enabling some large scale change in the society. This is what all the volunteers at Isha experience. This requires the quality of keeping oneself aside, and simply doing what is asked without preferences, likes and dislikes. Therefore here too our transformation comes first, in that your special individuality is no more a priority in your psyche. The only difference is that here our transformation produces a magnified impact on the society instead of just an equivalent impact. So, if you dream of great changes in the world and you really mean it, then you should keep yourself aside, and join hands with such organizations (to whatever extent you can) — whichever you wish. If you cannot empower yourself quickly, you can at least quickly become an empowered tool.

In summary, no matter which angle you approach the matter from, it comes to the inevitable conclusion that our transformation, our aliveness, is first and primary. The other side may or may not be pertinent. We cannot afford to focus on the other end more than ourselves.

Therefore, this should indeed become our mantra:

Adhyatma - fundamental responsibility rests always on myself.

The moment we begin to point fingers on the other side, we are on a ride down an endless slippery slope.

60. Yoga and Astrology

I am going to talk about Astrology here; not in support of it, not against it, but about it. I am not even bothered if it works, and if it works how it works. I am only going to say something about it based on the general claim that it works. To be precise, I am going to see what the limit of astrology is. Certainly, one cannot claim that it is unlimitedly potent in its working. Therefore, I just wish to explore its limitation. This is important even for people who study astrology; because no matter what branch of knowledge we study, "What is its limitation?" is also an important aspect of that knowledge. Otherwise there is the common danger of eulogizing it beyond its scope. So, this is an article intending to look at something as it is, and is not meant to oppose it or support it. But because I am talking specifically about its limitation, it may look like I am speaking against it.

There are several things that are involved in Astrology. More fundamentally there are the impersonal aspects — of signifying certain times as auspicious or inauspicious, suitable or unsuitable for certain activities (irrespective of people). For e.g. many Indian festivals are based on specific astronomical positioning of the Sun and the Moon with respect to Earth. This is said to have a certain energy impact upon the planet, and thus upon our system. A simple example is that of a full moon.

And then there are very personalized aspects of Astrology. Based on the date, time and place of birth, a detailed chart known as the horoscope is prepared for an individual. And based on that (or just on certain parameters such as janma nakshatra), astrologers predict what kind of person you will be, and what kind of events are likely to occur in your life in the coming years. And then most of them also prescribe methods which can alleviate the [ill] effects of the planets [footnote 1].

I have two responses to this. You may use these responses as suggested directions for your personal exploration.

___________________________________________________

The first response is more fundamental, direct, and without much spice [for the intellect]. What if I saw that I am not the body or the mind? How astrology describes the personality, which the world identifies me with, became irrelevant; for I saw that I am not it. The events that occur on the outside, what people say and do also became irrelevant, in the sense it does not matter to me if things go this way or that way. Astrology can describe and predict all it wants, to the smallest detail, but 'I' simply do not care. For I know that none of it touches me. This may sound insipid and boring to an onlooker, but the inner experience of the person may be far from it as we will see below.

___________________________________________________

Now for the elaborate response. This includes the above, and more.

Suppose astrology predicts that I will lose a big amount of money today. And I do end up losing some money proving the prediction right. Very well. But can astrology predict and determine what I feel within me? Right this moment, can astrology determine if I feel pleasant or unpleasant within me?

It is only because the outside and the inside are very tightly connected (loss of money = sorrow; gain in money = joy etc.) for most people that planets seems to rule their life. Otherwise astrology is just laying out the course of events on the outside. It actually does not have any say in how I am within me. I may have lost money, but I may still be undisturbed.

Why is the outer and the inner so tightly connected for people? Here is a brief explanation. All of us are looking for intensity and liveliness, none is looking for dullness. When we are not able to crank up our aliveness by ourselves, we will use several external stimuli (people, substances, money, entertainment, recognitions etc.) to come alive, to become intense. Most people are like puppets that are held up alive through these strings.

The moment we rely on the outside for our intensity, the nature of intensity (joy, anger, fear, anxiety, sorrow etc.) is also naturally determined by the outside. If a string snaps, suddenly the puppet slouches in boredom or depression. But if it was possible for us to burst forth our aliveness by ourselves, then naturally the nature of that intensity also will be in our hands, and we would obviously choose to be pleasant and sweet within ourselves. And because we are already so intense, the outside has no further intensity to contribute to it. We can have all those things in our life, but with no strings attached [footnote 2].

So, I can make myself in such a way that astrology has no say in how I am within myself; it can only predict the events outside. I can end the article with this. But this has already opened up new avenues which we can explore. The moment we acknowledge that the outer need not rule the inner, the moment the invasive onslaught of the outer has been neutralized (second circle), forcing the outer on the backfoot also becomes a possibility; or in other words, determining the outside events also becomes a possibility. If you had earlier let the outer influence the inner (first circle), why can't now the inner influence the outer (third circle)? Let me explain.

If I am very alive and pleasant by my own nature, and if the outside cannot contribute any further intensity to it, it means I have no vested interests outside. And therefore I am no more reactive and compulsive. Presently the situation is such that if someone says 'Ping', you say 'Pong' almost automatically. And because you say 'Pong' someone else says 'Dong' and so on. The whole thing is in some kind of automated mode. I have condensed a very complex reaction into just one word here. Because things are very complex in its details, it appears as though we are doing and saying some new things everytime. But fundamentally we are unconsciously doing the same things (driven by self-defence, survival instinct, aggression etc.) in reaction to specific stimuli from the outside. And this ping-pong has created layers and layers of automation upon us, and when eventually some 'Gong' returns to us (after making a long trip), it appears as though something is happening to us randomly for which we are not responsible at all. No, it is just the chain reaction of which our 'Pong' was a link.

So now, if I am no more reactive, I will not do 'Pong', but will consciously respond in some other way. As I am more aware, my clarity of perception is enhanced (about myself and others), and that enhances the quality of my decisions and actions to become more inclusive. Now suddenly the unconscious chain is broken. This different response may give a jolt to and begin to wake up the other people around you too (at least after several such instances). Well, the unconscious chain will not break with just one jerk, for it has grown quite robust in the long absence of awareness. But gradually, the more awake you are, the more you will break this automation. Things around you will also slowly come alive and awake, reciprocate with you, and arrange themselves as you need. While you let unconsciousness from the outside swallow you earlier, now you are swallowing everything around you into your consciousness. Slowly, the reactive Gongs that were coming to you change to responsive Songs. You do not have to wait till the planets sing melodies to you, but can make your own. Thus, you will begin to determine what will happen around you on the outside too.

They say good and bad are always battling. I beg to differ. It is consciousness and unconsciousness that are always at war. You either get swallowed by unconsciousness, or you swallow it.

However, in this process of coming awake, the impersonal aspects mentioned earlier have been used as a support in Yoga. Certain times of the day (the sandhya hours), certain days/months are said to have some significance, and are advocated as conducive for spiritual sadhana. For e.g. in the Bhagavadgita, Sri Krishna says "Among months, I am the Mārgaśīrṣa" (10.35) Mārgaśīrṣa is the time of the year (~ 22 Nov to 21 Dec) when Earth is closest to the Sun (winter solstice), and this is said to have a certain energy impact upon the human system which a spiritual seeker can make use of. But all such support is made use of with the full awareness that one will eventually go beyond these dependencies.

"Astrology is a science" — I have heard this several times. Granted. But a science of what? It is a science of unconsciousness — especially the personal aspects of it. Therefore, this is the limit of astrology — it works only to the extent you are unconscious. It is like this. Physics may be a very robust science; but biological systems go beyond it, and are not ruled just by gross physical laws. A stone has to stay down obeying Gravity, but a plant shoots upward defying it. A plant can very well remain as a stone, thinking that its future can then easily get determined by the laws of motion and Gravity. There is a sense of security and safety in certainty. But the very nature of life is to trascend boundaries and venture into the unknown. This is the very conflict we undergo within ourselves — between the instinct to remain safely unconscious within a certain boundary, and the longing to wake up and transcend them. But note that the safety of the unconsciousness is anyway an illusion. Even if you remain like a stone safely rolling about in your comfort zone, you will never know when another unconscious stone will come and crash at you! And only when that happens do people wake up. But even then most people, through astrology, seek only to somehow avoid getting hit by other stones; they still do not want to be anything more than a stone; they still do not seek to become a plant and shoot upward.

Planets may have their influences upon you. But you are a conscious being; whether you will let inanimate things influence you is still in your hands. The trajectory of your life need not go in cycles like that of the planets. Being cyclical is the fundamental characteristic of the physical; the more rooted we are in the physical the more cyclical we are within ourselves too. And the more conscious we are the freer we are within ourselves from the clutches of the physical and its cycles; the more conscious we are the less vulnerable we are to the influence of the planets [footnote 3]. That means, the more you vouch for astrology, the more you are vouching for unconsciousness. There is nothing right or wrong with it. That is how it is.

If you want the inner to be ruled by the outer, if you are fine remaining compulsive and cyclical, Astrology is a great science to know your future. If you want the inner to rule the outer, if you wish your consciousness to blossom, Yoga is a great science to make your future the way you intend, or at least be untouched by it [footnote 4].

So, apart from the impersonal aspects, is there no other conscious use of astrology at all?  Of course there is. The moment we are fully aware of the limitation and drawback of a certain tool, we will use it discreetly and wisely [footnote 5]. There is surely some use of it at individual discretion (either upon ourselves or upon others), mostly as a last resort like Opioids, but an en masse acknowledgement of it (as is happening today) amounts to an encouragement of it in the social psyche. If you administer opioids extensively and recklessly, you are encouraging people to be unconscious and irresponsible in how they use their body, and come to the doctor demanding pain-relief every other day. They will no more eat in awareness, thinking that if they get a stomach-ache doctors will anyway take care of it. So it is with astrology. If it becomes an everyday affair in a society, it promotes unconsciousness.

One last bit in this regard. I mentioned earlier that astrologers prescribe certain things to people to alleviate the effects of the planets upon them. There are many aspects to these remedial measures, but one aspect of this is — it is precisely to break the unconscious rut that one is in. The astrologer asks you go and feed animals, or give some donation to a temple etc. You open up a bit from your constipation [footnote 6]. And that small change alters the unconscious chain of events, the Gong, that was to unfold. If such small changes in actions can do it, why would you not wish to come awake fully by yourself? Why changing just one action here and there? Why not change the very way you are? Why do you want to wait till astrologers tell you? Why the stinginess in transformation? If you could alleviate the impact of the planets once, if you accept that it is possible to overrule the planets, why don't you get the urge to fully go beyond this bondage?

---

[1] Just noting something that I have observed. In the Mahabharata and the Ramayana I see plenty of instances of the impersonal aspect of astrology at play. But I have not found instances of the personal aspects of astrology, horoscope, matching horoscope for marriage etc. in these ancient texts (correct me if I am wrong). On the contrary it is the latter that is rampant today.

[2] Should we do things on the outside to crackle our aliveness, or should we do things on the outside because we are crackling with aliveness? Which way should it be? Aliveness first or Action first? योगस्थः कुरु कर्माणि - Establish yourself in Yoga, and then Act (Gita, 2.48) 

[3] I have heard that traditionally astrologers did not predict anything for you if you are on the spiritual path, because you are waking up and will move away from the unconscious cycles. But not sure if today's astrologers are aware of this.

[4] Why I separate these two possibilities is that there are some Yogis who do not actively engage in the world, and even if they do, they are largely indifferent to things outside.

[5] Some tell me that just like the impersonal aspects, even the personal aspects of Jyotish are used in certain esoteric spiritual schools.

[6] There is much more to explore here. Very briefly: when a cell in an organism tries to live its own exclusive life with no regard to the whole, it is called as a cancerous cell, and it faces resistance and hostility from the rest of the organism; but a healthy cell receives all the support it needs to thrive. Just so, when one's individuality is very constricted and disregardful of the Whole, they experience abundant friction in their life. But healthy individuals who are considerate of the Whole get reciprocated by the Whole; their life seems to go very smoothly with their needs getting fulfilled with ease, almost like magic. This is Cosmic Biology, so to speak.

59. From Nothing to Something to No-Thing

You may have the notion that you are an individual first, and that only as a consequence you developed the idea of 'mine'. This is because 'me' is assumed to be a certain concrete entity, whereas 'mine' is merely a process — an act of assertion and defense. So one unconsciously favors the notion that the concrete entity 'I' came into being first, and then 'I' developed the impulse of defending some other entity as 'mine'. But look into this keenly.

If 'I' am entity X, calling a distinct entity Y as 'mine', what about X? Is X also mine? We are necessitated to say 'Yes', because if X is not mine, if I am not mine, then how can I assert anything else as mine? But if X is mine, then how is X any different from Y? That which is mine is intuitively understood as something apart from me. If X is mine, how can it be 'me' at the same time?

We can posit many things here and write a philosophical paper to argue that X is both me and mine. But nevertheless, something seems off. We do sense that at the very core, it cannot be that 'I' defend a distinct 'mine'; at some point 'I' and 'mine' have to converge. But this does not seem to work out coherently if we start with a concrete 'I' into which 'mine' eventually converges. So, can it be the other way round? Can it be that 'mine' is first into which 'I' converges? Can it be that at the core there is no concrete entity at all?

What does this mean? This means that at the very core, the very impulse of defense IS 'me'.  A claim 'mine' of nothing IS 'me'. The very resistance IS the individual—the 'original sin', the first error, a defense of nothing, a dummy claim, a resistance towards existence for the sake of nothing, upon which accrues all the paraphernalia, giving rise to a complex personality. The great show that is put up upon this nothing makes it look like there is indeed something very precious at the core ('soul' and the like), and the individual accrues more and more protective layers upon it (including 'spiritual' layers), and becomes more and more defensive in a vicious manner, resisting the rest of the existence, and becoming increasingly constipated.

But this very hardening cracks it one day, giving a glimpse of the idiocy of the whole affair. A longing to end the drama, a force to counter the stagnant fortress, rises, not resting until the whole structure is dissolved.

Defending nothing comes into being some-thing

And dissolving that something remains the Being that is No-Thing