In defense of the "I"

[rebelrebel]

This is an interesting subject to me. A lot of the time in traditions, realization or enlightenment is equated with the dropping of the I. Now personally for me, I don't see that much of a problem with the I. it just gives one stability and something to center oneself in in reality. Anyways, I see "I" as referring to my individual body and mind. What is wrong with that? Some say that there really is no chooser/controller and no doer. Of course there is. The mind itself is the chooser/controller, it's very nature is to choose and control and the body is the doer (probably mind too).

 

My life was a lot better before I got into all this "get rid of the I" stuff when I actually cared about having some sort of identity and stable personality. I could interact with people better, I had more interest in life. Now it just seems so...empty. And not empty in a good way. Real or not, I'm considering living through the I again.

 

What are your thoughts on the I?

Edited November 2, 2009 by rebelrebel

[Vajrahridaya]

This is an interesting subject to me. A lot of the time in traditions, realization or enlightenment is equated with the dropping of the I. Now personally for me, I don't see that much of a problem with the I. it just gives one stability and something to center oneself in in reality. Anyways, I see "I" as referring to my individual body and mind. What is wrong with that? Some say that there really is no chooser/controller and no doer. Of course there is. The mind itself is the chooser/controller, it's very nature is to choose and control and the body is the doer (probably mind too).

 

My life was a lot better before I got into all this "get rid of the I" stuff when I actually cared about having some sort of identity and stable personality. I could interact with people better, I had more interest in life. Now it just seems so...empty. And not empty in a good way. Real or not, I'm considering living through the I again.

 

What are your thoughts on the I?

 

This is a common Western Dilemma, where the I is given so much importance, defined by personal identity for the sake of striving for the materialist dream and putting "me" out there in order to "get" that dream! In the East of course the I... until recent Western influence, was more defined by family and culture, religion, etc. Not that the Western mode of strong egoism is not a good and healthy balance, but it needs to be less stern I think and not so brick.

 

Really, what the wisdom paths are getting at is just being flexible... when we hold on to a stiff definition of "I", we loose our flexibility to learn and re-evaluate ourself depending upon the situation at hand. We are to be more like water with this "I", formless and evolving, not stagnant, "This is who I am and damnit I ain't changin' for nobody!"

 

We don't have to change for anybody but if we wish to evolve, we need to realize the our I originates dependent upon causes and conditions and if we reflect more the causes and conditions of the now, then we are more appropriate within the now, more in line with it, merged into the moment sort of speak and less contracted about being open to new and exciting challenges in life that will help us evolve and also please us, as life is really to be enjoyed. Being stagnant like a pond cut off from the ever evolving currents of the ocean is really boring.

 

That's all... it doesn't mean not having an I per say, just being more flexible in handling ourselves is all.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[rebelrebel]

This is a common Western Dilemma, where the I is given so much importance, defined by personal identity for the sake of striving for the materialist dream and putting "me" out there in order to "get" that dream! In the East of course the I... until recent Western influence, was more defined by family and culture, religion, etc. Not that the Western mode of strong egoism is not a good and healthy balance, but it needs to be less stern I think and not so brick.

 

Really, what the wisdom paths are getting at is just being flexible... when we hold on to a stiff definition of "I", we loose our flexibility to learn and re-evaluate ourself depending upon the situation at hand. We are to be more like water with this "I", formless and evolving, not stagnant, "This is who I am and damnit I ain't changin' for nobody!"

 

We don't have to change for anybody but if we wish to evolve, we need to realize the our I originates dependent upon causes and conditions and if we reflect more the causes and conditions of the now, then we are more appropriate within the now, more in line with it, merged into the moment sort of speak.

 

That's all... it doesn't mean not having an I per say, just being more flexible in handling ourselves is all.

Cool Vajra. I like your response.

[Vajrahridaya]

Cool Vajra. I like your response.

 

Thank you... I've made a few more poetic editions since you've last been here.

[goldisheavy]

This is an interesting subject to me. A lot of the time in traditions, realization or enlightenment is equated with the dropping of the I.

 

This is largely a misunderstanding of those traditions. If you read the primary sources carefully, I am pretty sure you'll come away with a different opinion. But people in our culture like reductionism. We like to summarize and reduce everything into a soundbite. Unfortunately, the soundbite is both wrong and easy to memorize for the same reason: it lacks subtlety and nuance that a longer and more correct exposition would have.

 

Longer expositions are more correct, but pretty much impossible to memorize. So what gets a lot of cultural circulation is the castrated version. Someone remembers, "Buddhism = dropping of the I" and just goes around saying that, and soon the popular impression of Buddhism is formed. I'm using "Buddhism" as just one example, I don't mean to imply that you're a Buddhist.

 

Now personally for me, I don't see that much of a problem with the I.

 

The "I" has good and bad points. The "I" is our preferences and beliefs. Because of our preferences and beliefs we can feel things like joy and even bliss, but at the same time, those same forces are responsible for feelings of anguish and despair. For example, if I like ice cream, and you give it to me, I feel elated. If I am eating the ice cream I like and you come along and take it away, I hate it. So preferences have this quality.

 

Unfortunately it's impossible to live without preferences. For example, not having any preferences is itself a preference. Meditating in the cave is a preference. Light body is a preference. Enlightenment is a preference. Preferences are everywhere and if you think you don't have them, you are deluded, even if others call you "Buddha". Even Buddha had preferences -- millions of them.

 

So if you understand that preferences can be transformed but not gotten rid of, and if you understand the "I" to be made up of preferences, then you understand that the "I" cannot be gotten rid of. You can transform it though.

 

it just gives one stability and something to center oneself in in reality.

 

It's the source of stability and instability at the same time. When things are calm it's the source of stability. When things are turbulent, it's the source of worry and instability. It's not only this or only that. The impact of identity depends on situation.

 

Anyways, I see "I" as referring to my individual body and mind. What is wrong with that? Some say that there really is no chooser/controller and no doer. Of course there is. The mind itself is the chooser/controller, it's very nature is to choose and control and the body is the doer (probably mind too).

 

My life was a lot better before I got into all this "get rid of the I" stuff when I actually cared about having some sort of identity and stable personality. I could interact with people better, I had more interest in life. Now it just seems so...empty. And not empty in a good way. Real or not, I'm considering living through the I again.

 

What are your thoughts on the I?

 

You are good. Take care of yourself.

[Sunya]

Some say that there really is no chooser/controller and no doer. Of course there is. The mind itself is the chooser/controller, it's very nature is to choose and control and the body is the doer (probably mind too).

 

you choose and control? really now?

that's like saying you go into an amusement park and "choose" which rides to go on. all the paths have been created already, and the rides have been created. where is the choice? your choice is already predicated upon your beliefs, and conditioning. where did you get that conditioning? through past experience. the I is just a snowball rolling down a hill that collects things on its way and "thinks" that whatever pops to the surface is by its free will.

 

My life was a lot better before I got into all this "get rid of the I" stuff when I actually cared about having some sort of identity and stable personality.

 

i hear you. life is way better before you start thinking about truth and all that jazz. living in ignorance sure is bliss, but you can't go back. as much as you may try. it'll just be an act, and underneath will always be the looming shadow of 'this doesn't feel right'

[goldisheavy]

you choose and control? really now?

that's like saying you go into an amusement park and "choose" which rides to go on. all the paths have been created already, and the rides have been created. where is the choice? your choice is already predicated upon your beliefs, and conditioning. where did you get that conditioning? through past experience. the I is just a snowball rolling down a hill that collects things on its way and "thinks" that whatever pops to the surface is by its free will.

 

Buddha has specifically denounced this line of thinking.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

i hear you. life is way better before you start thinking about truth and all that jazz. living in ignorance sure is bliss, but you can't go back. as much as you may try. it'll just be an act, and underneath will always be the looming shadow of 'this doesn't feel right'

 

No... not bliss... just conditional pleasure. Liberation is bliss, like no other.

 

Of course to get there one has to go through the dross and damage that we have hidden underneath all that pretense.

 

Which can be painful... but, if we don't deal with it now while we are aware of it... ??

 

EDIT: Or rather the physical capacity as a human being to deal with it.

 

Buddha has specifically denounced this line of thinking.

 

Mikey is right on. He's not saying that this is liberation, he's saying that this is the conditional reality that we think we are in control of, but actually controls us... So yes, we renounce that line of thinking... because what Mikey was speaking about, is exactly what bondage is.

 

Which is why one chooses a path to liberation from this exact ignorance.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Mikey is right on. He's not saying that this is liberation, he's saying that this is the conditional reality that we think we are in control of, but actually controls us... So yes, we renounce that line of thinking... because what Mikey was speaking about, is exactly what bondage is.

 

Which is why one chooses a path to liberation from this exact ignorance.

 

Too bad. Mike is wrong. The reason he is wrong is that nothing ever enters into an extreme of any kind. For example, a fool is not extremely foolish -- had this been the case, there'd be no hope for wisdom. A sick person is not in the extreme of sickness -- had this been the case, there'd be no hope for healing. A wise person is not in the extreme of wisdom -- had this been the case, vigilance would no longer be necessary. A Buddha is not in the extreme of Buddhahood -- had this been the case, there would be no people like Vimalakirti.

 

You see, when we appear to be out of control, we are never totally out of control. Conversely when we appear in control, we are never totally in control.

 

Why not? Because to claim that some or other condition has gained totality is to denounce hidden unmanifest potential. It also amounts to claiming that identity (which you would need to rely on to identify the condition) is stable and substantial.

[Vajrahridaya]

Too bad. Mike is wrong. The reason he is wrong is that nothing ever enters into an extreme of any kind. For example, a fool is not extremely foolish -- had this been the case, there'd be no hope for wisdom. A sick person is not in the extreme of sickness -- had this been the case, there'd be no hope for healing. A wise person is not in the extreme of wisdom -- had this been the case, vigilance would no longer be necessary. A Buddha is not in the extreme of Buddhahood -- had this been the case, there would be no people like Vimalakirti.

 

You see, when we appear to be out of control, we are never totally out of control. Conversely when we appear in control, we are never totally in control.

 

Why not? Because to claim that some or other condition has gained totality is to denounce hidden unmanifest potential. It also amounts to claiming that identity (which you would need to rely on to identify the condition) is stable and substantial.

 

Very good. I applaud that.

 

Mikey was speaking within an extreme and was only partially correct. Indeed.

[C T]

Too bad. Mike is wrong. The reason he is wrong is that nothing ever enters into an extreme of any kind. For example, a fool is not extremely foolish -- had this been the case, there'd be no hope for wisdom. A sick person is not in the extreme of sickness -- had this been the case, there'd be no hope for healing. A wise person is not in the extreme of wisdom -- had this been the case, vigilance would no longer be necessary. A Buddha is not in the extreme of Buddhahood -- had this been the case, there would be no people like Vimalakirti.

 

You see, when we appear to be out of control, we are never totally out of control. Conversely when we appear in control, we are never totally in control.

 

Why not? Because to claim that some or other condition has gained totality is to denounce hidden unmanifest potential. It also amounts to claiming that identity (which you would need to rely on to identify the condition) is stable and substantial.

Man you are some word player you know that?

 

*I agree with your comment here, but i cannot totally agree - you know why? Because there is no totality in what you are pointing out. Neither this or that, neither here or there. Hence your assertions(?) are meaningless.

 

The last paragraph, for example - it appears like a *total* statement of fact, yet the earlier paras you reject totality.

 

Hello??

[Vajrahridaya]

Man you are some word player you know that?

 

*I agree with your comment here, but i cannot totally agree - you know why? Because there is no totality in what you are pointing out. Neither this or that, neither here or there. Hence your assertions(?) are meaningless.

 

The last paragraph, for example - it appears like a *total* statement of fact, yet the earlier paras you reject totality.

 

Hello??

 

I think he's basically saying that emptiness takes precedence no matter if you are conscious of it or not, there is space there, in every situation... malleability.

[Marblehead]

Well, I am sure that by now y'all know how important "I" is.

 

Afterall, I cannot realize the not-I if I doesn't exist.

 

Darn! I feel the need to say this one more time again:

 

First there is a "I" then there is no "I", then there is.

 

Okay, so I modified the original but y'all get the point, don't you?

 

If we pretend we don't exist we are being delusional. If we try to convince others that we don't exist they are going to think we are crazy and they will wnat to put us away so we don't harm others.

 

Yes, Vajrahridaya's first post was excellent. He was walking the middle path. Very Buddhist. Hehehe.

 

 

So yes, "I" is important. But we should not expand on this character so that it becomes the word 'island'.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Oh! May I make one more statement?

 

Of course you may.

 

Nature does not like emptiness. It is constantly trying to fill emptiness.

 

The same with our essence; we don't like emptiness, we are constantly trying to fill our emptiness.

 

So, yes, it is good to understand that our physical essence, the "I", is not complete, in and of itself, but we need the "I" in order to fullfill this manifest existence that we have been afforded.

 

Peace & Love!

[exorcist_1699]

In Taoist practice , it is because there is a pseudo "I" so that a real I can be nourished . Without making use of this trivial , mortal , humble "I" , hardly can we get a more respected and potent I.

 

Or, in Buddhist expression , there is only one I in existence, one being entangled . What we have to do is just to release it from those shackles .

 

But why it is necessary to being waken up ? Do we not live well in that illusory world? As those rebels in the movie " Matrix" , is it necessary to swallow that pill leading to a real , much clearer mind/ world ?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

It is very important to consider the following quote with Clarity.. it touches the essence of suffering..

Afterall, I cannot realize the not-I if I doesn't exist.

Even the Buddha's suffering is predicated on trying to unbalance this natural equation.. ALL of the wisdoms, religions, paths, and 'knowings', are experienced and conceived by Uniquely Manifested Beings.. it is plainly observable and directly experiencable..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Or, in Buddhist expression , there is only one I in existence, one being entangled . What we have to do is just to release it from those shackles .

 

 

Please expand? This thus far sounds more Hindu Monism.

 

 

 

Even the Buddha's suffering is predicated on trying to unbalance this natural equation..

 

 

I'm sorry... it may be because it's really early in the morning and I've been working all night... but the meaning of this statement is not revealing itself to me right now. Can you expand?

[Marblehead]

But why it is necessary to being waken up ? Do we not live well in that illusory world? As those rebels in the movie " Matrix" , is it necessary to swallow that pill leading to a real , much clearer mind/ world ?

 

Yes. There is that question. I doubt that there is an all-inclusive answer. (I don't accept the concept of 'absolutes' anyhow.)

 

The only reason I can suggest that we should wake up to the world of the 'real', that is, the physical, the Manifest, is that, in my understanding, the only reason we are given a Manifest existence is so that we may experience the Manifest.

 

To run off and hibernate in a cave once we have achieved 'awareness' is to deny manifest creation. I think that this is a 'wrong view'. I think it is a 'right view' to totally immerse oneself in the Manifest once one has achieved 'awareness' and, as the Buddhists would say, help others to become liberated from suffering. And I suggest that in doing this one will experience the fullness of the Manifest while livinging the emptiness.

 

The "I" then becomes the "We" and "We" becomes "Oneness".

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes. There is that question. I doubt that there is an all-inclusive answer. (I don't accept the concept of 'absolutes' anyhow.)

 

The only reason I can suggest that we should wake up to the world of the 'real', that is, the physical, the Manifest, is that, in my understanding, the only reason we are given a Manifest existence is so that we may experience the Manifest.

 

To run off and hibernate in a cave once we have achieved 'awareness' is to deny manifest creation. I think that this is a 'wrong view'. I think it is a 'right view' to totally immerse oneself in the Manifest once one has achieved 'awareness' and, as the Buddhists would say, help others to become liberated from suffering. And I suggest that in doing this one will experience the fullness of the Manifest while livinging the emptiness.

 

The "I" then becomes the "We" and "We" becomes "Oneness".

 

Peace & Love!

 

I can accept the wisdom in this for sure.

[C T]

In Buddhism, 'I' is viewed as one extreme, and 'Not I' is viewed as the other extreme. It teaches the path that leads to cessation of clinging to all views. When clinging has been abandoned, even the teachings are abandoned. This is why Buddhism is sometimes called the path-less path. Or in Zen, to walk through the gate-less gate.

[TzuJanLi]

The only reason I can suggest that we should wake up to the world of the 'real', that is, the physical, the Manifest, is that, in my understanding, the only reason we are given a Manifest existence is so that we may experience the Manifest.

 

To run off and hibernate in a cave once we have achieved 'awareness' is to deny manifest creation. I think that this is a 'wrong view'. I think it is a 'right view' to totally immerse oneself in the Manifest once one has achieved 'awareness' and, as the Buddhists would say, help others to become liberated from suffering. And I suggest that in doing this one will experience the fullness of the Manifest while livinging the emptiness.

 

The "I" then becomes the "We" and "We" becomes "Oneness".

 

Peace & Love!

Clarity!! Appropriately Tao in every respect..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

The "I" then becomes the "We" and "We" becomes "Oneness".

 

Peace & Love!

 

The thing is... there are all these misunderstandings about Buddhism that are prevalent in the minds of the masses who have not actually studied directly the teachings.

 

Jokes like... "What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor? 'Make me one with everything!'"

 

Buddhism does not see a cosmic consciousness, yes, there is awareness of the workings of the cosmos, but there is no one that all things are... there is no one energy that all is.

 

This is considered a very subtle level of mis-understanding meditative experience that most paths cling to as absolute Truth.

 

There is no oneness in a literal sense in Buddhism, only the recognition of interconnectivity, and emptiness, which is why the awareness expands and seems to fill everything in meditation, but it's not becoming one with everything, it's merely seeing through everything, but those without right view are thinking it's a oneness thing. When it's really not. It's merely inter-connection and the fact that nothing has any inherent existence in and of itself, not even awareness.

 

Take care.

 

Reality is a field of relativity, and this is absolutely true.

 

 

In Buddhism, 'I' is viewed as one extreme, and 'Not I' is viewed as the other extreme. It teaches the path that leads to cessation of clinging to all views. When clinging has been abandoned, even the teachings are abandoned. This is why Buddhism is sometimes called the path-less path. Or in Zen, to walk through the gate-less gate.

Quite correct.

 

The same with the identification with oneness or manyness. Buddhist non-duality is referring to emptiness, no inherent existence, which is the possibility of total fullness, not oneness. Because the fact that all things and consciousness are inherently empty of an sort of self existence, awareness can be free.

 

Non-dual means, Not-two, but in Buddhism it also means, Not-one.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The thing is... there are all these misunderstandings about Buddhism that are prevalent in the minds of the masses who have not actually studied directly the teachings.

The thing is... you seem to believe that everyone else is concerned with the Buddhist teachings, it is not so.. what Buddhists fail to realize is that it is Buddha that is the source of their suffering.. Please notice that this is a Taoist forum, and those claiming to be Taoists are here, not in a Buddhist Forum telling the Buddhists what is not right about their beliefs.. that seems a bit 'evangelistic', eh?

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

The thing is... you seem to believe that everyone else is concerned with the Buddhist teachings, it is not so.. what Buddhists fail to realize is that it is Buddha that is the source of their suffering.. Please notice that this is a Taoist forum, and those claiming to be Taoists are here, not in a Buddhist Forum telling the Buddhists what is not right about their beliefs.. that seems a bit 'evangelistic', eh?

 

Be well..

 

Read the welcome page for this site.

 

Welcome to The Tao Bums discussion forum. This is an informal community created to discuss Tao (Dao), particularly as is expressed in key philosophical texts such as the well known Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu, health and cultivation practices such as Tai Chi and Qigong (Chi Kung), nonconceptual meditation approaches such as Zuowang (sitting and forgetting), and also the historical developments of Taoism as the bona fide Chinese religion of Taoist priests and shamans. Don't let this intro scare you though. Most of us are syncretic at heart. Discussion is encouraged to wander eclectically across a wide range of spiritual thought and practice, whether Buddhist, Yogic, Tantric, Judaic, Advaitic, Christian, Islamic, Shamanic, Occult, "New Age", Integral... As long as you are up for a good time, you're welcome to discuss your path. Though we can get rowdy at times, we all do our best to keep it civil. We are, almost as a rule, rather strange, but we have good hearts and even better senses of humor. If you are not already a member, registration is a three step process. First create a username for yourself. Make sure you use a valid email address because, next step, check your email and validate your email address. The final step to full membership; go to The Lobby forum and create a new post introducing yourself to the group, and telling us a little about yourself. It's just a little ritual we have here, your post can be as short or as long as you'd like. Again, welcome to The Tao Bums.

The Buddha is not the source of anyones suffering. He (Or I should say, that level of awareness which he represented) is the source of understanding the causes and conditions of suffering.

 

Let go... we are all here sharing valuable ideas... or you can think they are not. Being effected shows buttons of clinging.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Man you are some word player you know that?

 

*I agree with your comment here, but i cannot totally agree - you know why? Because there is no totality in what you are pointing out. Neither this or that, neither here or there.

 

I agree.

 

Hence your assertions(?) are meaningless.

 

I disagree.

 

The last paragraph, for example - it appears like a *total* statement of fact, yet the earlier paras you reject totality.

 

Hello??

 

Can you elaborate? What is your complaint, more specifically? Can you explain a situation where there could be harm caused by the last paragraph?

 

In any case, what I say is not dogma. It's just my opinion.

[C T]

I agree.

I disagree.

Can you elaborate? What is your complaint, more specifically? Can you explain a situation where there could be harm caused by the last paragraph?

 

In any case, what I say is not dogma. It's just my opinion.

It was not a complaint. Just an observation, or more accurately, an opinion.