Am I realy taking antibiotics?

george's picture

Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

I caught a flu and I'm taking antibiotics. Wait a minute, actually, I am not taking antibiotics, I am giving antibiotics, I'm giving my body antibiotics.

If it was a case of me taking antibiotics, in other words me taking antibiotics to cure some malfunction of me, I would probably choose a more efficient and quick healing method: I would simply stop being ill. If it is really me being ill than I am supposed at the very least to be able to control this otherwise what actual meaning is there to this me?

Moreover, antibiotics are used to kill bacterias. Bacterias are unicellular organisms, living organisms by themselves known nowadays to have consciousness by themselves! Do I contain these coming-and-going other organisms and consciousnesses as part of my monolithic, inherent, autonomous "me"? If I take these organisms out of the definition of "me" isn't what left also can be called "me"? It there any meaning to this "me" if I can manipulate its fluid definition so easily?

Some may argue that this is a game of semantics, a game of words, and such games lead to nothing except of entanglement in more words. They are absolutely correct! But our perceptions, identifications and conditionings are directly influenced by the selection of words which are prime building blocks of most of our gross thoughts and stream of consciousness.

Others may argue that even a careful selection of words is still too limited in the ability to make a transformation. They are also correct! We know by our own past experiences that even words of wisdom from sages we have absolute trust in proved to have a transient influence if any on our consciousness. Whatever realization based on words and logic happens not to sink deep enough to truly influence our deep-rooted conditioning. We soon tend to forget and return to our old unconscious habits of belief and thinking.

But still there is a fragile way to exploit the glimpse I have just had, the glimpse of words-based realization that it is my body that I am giving the antibiotics and that this body cannot be me. The way is not get stuck in more words and logic-based deductions (If... then... else...) but to abandon the words and logic at this point and exploit the glimpse as a signpost to experience with full attention and awareness a deep yet simple wordless feeling that I am not the body. As opposed to experiences involving words, this is a sharp non-linear concentrated pointed discrete-in-time instantaneous experience, I am experiencing it right after whenever I put the antibiotics pills in the mouth - the best words that can give clue about this instantaneous experience are "I am not the body" but the experience is more profound and whole than what can implied by this overused abused sentence.

Omkaradatta's picture

The body...

The body is what is seen by others. People want to be the body... otherwise, they are invisible to their loved ones.

There are good reasons for our attachments, we need to find the root attachment(s) and address them. From here, fear of aloneness (and its converse, desire for togetherness) is one of the basics.

Spending a lot of time alone (for certain periods, not always) can help overcome this attachment, "in my experience" anyway. The more comfortable we get with it, the more it will be OK to not be the body.

Omkaradatta | Wed, 02/11/2009 - 15:15
superwoman's picture


(1) Excellent case study - trivial daily situations when attended with full awareness and clear mind can yield invaluable insights.

(2) Remember that though this demonstrates that the "me" cannot be the "body as a whole" it still does not prove that the "me" is some metaphysical subject, it can still be a conscious phantom generated by the brain designed by evolution to cease when the brain is no more like the operating system initiated by a computer.

(3) The instantaneous realization you describe in the last paragraph is the valuable 3rd level understanding presented in

(4) Get well with the flu! (I mean your body) :-)

superwoman | Wed, 02/11/2009 - 15:15
Omkaradatta's picture

I say it's not even that...

"Remember that though this demonstrates that the "me" cannot be the "body as a whole" it still does not prove that the "me" is some metaphysical subject, it can still be a conscious phantom generated by the brain designed by evolution to cease when the brain is no more like the operating system initiated by a computer."

I say it's not even that fancy.. it's just our Being, split into "me" and "you". For -- aren't we addressed as "you" by others half the time, and the other half are "me" to ourselves?

Whether our Being halts with the end of the brain really is irrelevant, for it's not that we fear losing. Rather, we fear losing whatever we're attached to, and the brain is not one of our attachments, nor is our bare sense of Being.

Omkaradatta | Wed, 02/11/2009 - 15:20
superwoman's picture

I am interested in the level

I am interested in the level of conscious personal experience vs. metaphysics. For me it is very relevant.

superwoman | Wed, 02/11/2009 - 15:31
Omkaradatta's picture

What are you seeking

What are you seeking through this interest? Something specific to find out? (if you don't mind saying anyway, it's going a bit off topic... we could chat via PM).

Omkaradatta | Wed, 02/11/2009 - 15:38
Phroggy's picture


I think she's sugesting that this existence, even if we call it awareness, could be a biological function and may end with the biology. The perception that 'I am not the body or thoughts or anything that can be perceived' doesn't make awareness a metaphysical function.

Phroggy | Thu, 02/12/2009 - 03:48
suzi's picture

This is a rare example in

This is a rare example in which an anlytical process can yield a realization (and not the usual mind intellectual conclusion), a process similar to that of a koan.

suzi | Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:19