Who am I?

[dwai]

We were conceived, developed from a zygote into a baby in our mother's womb, and after nine months we entered this world, crying and screaming. Then we grew older, progressively, our bodies and minds changed. We say the bodies "aged" and the minds "matured". There is however one thing that didn't change. The feeling of "I".

 

When we identify ourselves, we say "I am so and so" and then further "I am son or daughter of so and so" and then further more, "I live in such and such a place and belong to this or that group". Further we say "I am a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, and so on". It seems that our identity is hinged something other than our own self.

 

We look at our body and say "This is my body". Our mind formulates thoughts and our body acts accordingly. But when we break all of that down, cut away all the material trappings of country, language, profession, property, religion, etc; it is "my mind, my body" that we come down to.

 

Yet, we don't say "me mind, me body". The mind and the body belongs to me. Who is that me? The answer comes back - "I am". So tell me, you, this complex being of bones, flesh, blood and gray matter, grew from a zygote into what you are today (young person, middle-aged person, old person). Yet your "I" sense has remained unchanged, when you strip away all the "I am this, I am that" kind of thinking. All the cells in your body, even the cells in your brain, where you think your "consciousness" exists have died and rebuilt themselves entirely, over and over again. Yet you, the "I am", remains unchanged. How then can you say, that your consciousness is a function of your body, made of matter. Matter that is impermanent and ever changing...

 

So ask yourselves this, my friends - "Who am I?" and listen for the answer.

 

[allinone]

who knows what meta you have attached to that call.

[3bob]

Does not Buddhism teach about consciousness in this (aggregate like) way and if so how can the historic Buddha say such?

Edited May 11, 2017 by 3bob

[3bob]

no bites so far, interesting and an age old dichotomy that many have been saddled with.

[s1va]

Is the aim of such questioning "who am I", to really find who I am, or for the mind to understand that questioning does not produce results and just observe, quieten, and get out of the way?

 

If it is to quieten the mind, why not directly engage in activities that quieten the mind, like pranayama instead of questioning?  Can an agitated mind even question intelligently?

[dwai]

Is the aim of such questioning "who am I", to really find who I am, or for the mind to understand that questioning does not produce results and just observe, quieten, and get out of the way?

 

If it is to quieten the mind, why not directly engage in activities that quieten the mind, like pranayama instead of questioning?  Can an agitated mind even question intelligently?

 

This is the direct method. To go straight to the source. The aim of this type of inquiry is to do the following --

 

1. make you analyze about your "being" and realize what you are NOT
2. as you do this type of inquiry, as you get closer and closer to the source, the "I am", the mind begins to quieten down, and eventually by tracing every thought that arises back to the source, by responding to each thought that arises with a "who am I?", the mind becomes still.

 

People use pranayama and other methods too...but those are indirect methods. Not everyone can do the "direct method" and for some people preparation is needed to be able to do the direct method of inquiry.

 

For me personally, when I tried the direct method first, it didn't work. After a 15+ years of taiji, neigong and meditation, I was able to do this direct method.

Edited May 11, 2017 by dwai

[3bob]

Well Dwai,

You brought up the refutation of the Historic Buddha's teaching on consciousness in your own way, whether you admit it or not, are you not going to follow through with it?  And why not deal with a major source of what you imply is false instead of openly asking all us less renown "you" people at this site?

 

Btw, the True Self or True I view is often and openly refuted by Buddhists who are not shy about doing so and sometimes quote a hundred verses or volumes to try and prove it.

 

If we can't take the heat what are we doing in the kitchen?

Edited May 11, 2017 by 3bob

[dwai]

Well Dwai,

You brought up the refutation of the Historic Buddha's teaching on consciousness in your own way, whether you admit it or not, are you not going to follow through with it?  And why not deal with a major source of what you imply is false instead of openly asking all us less renown "you" people at this site?

 

Btw, the True Self or True I view is often and openly refuted by Buddhists who are not shy about doing so and sometimes quote a hundred verses or volumes to try and prove it.

 

If we can't take the heat what are we doing in the kitchen?

 

Were you asking me to debate something? What? I don't understand. Could you please explain what the issue is to me?

 

IMHO, the topic of "True Self" or "Absolute Being" is beyond both what we would consider being or non-being. So if someone wants to call it "True Non-Self" or "Absolute Non-being", it is just a use of words that cannot represent that which is beyond all duality. I don't see any issues either way. I don't think the Buddha or Nagarjuna were wrong. 

 

Oh and the bit about "You" being used, is because this is something I posted to my friends on Facebook...not with the intention of talking down at anyone. I'm sorry if it came across that way...

Edited May 11, 2017 by dwai

[3bob]

the op tends to infer or stirs the pot for a debate being you are making a personal point that is counter to what many others hold to... but who choose not to reply to so far.   

[dwai]

[Marblehead]

I am my body, my thoughts, my words, and my deeds.  I am also the sum of all the things I have ever been.  But strangely, I am greater than the sum of all the parts because within me reside the potential of future of what I am physically, including all my future thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

"I am" is a collection, not anything singular.

[dwai]

I am my body, my thoughts, my words, and my deeds. I am also the sum of all the things I have ever been. But strangely, I am greater than the sum of all the parts because within me reside the potential of future of what I am physically, including all my future thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

"I am" is a collection, not anything singular.

Why not "we are" then?

[Marblehead]

Why not "we are" then?

 

Well, sure.  If "I am" then it should be a given that "we are".

 

And equally, as we interact with our thoughts and words you are a part of me and I of you.  But we shouldn't over-do this concept of inter-connectedness.

[AussieTrees]

I am my body, my thoughts, my words, and my deeds.  I am also the sum of all the things I have ever been.  But strangely, I am greater than the sum of all the parts because within me reside the potential of future of what I am physically, including all my future thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

"I am" is a collection, not anything singular.

Language fails,we use 'I'to identify self body,I I I I express my views,to conform within groups,yet this is not a singular view.

The term we use to identify ourselves does not give a full description of the universality within,mind body connections with external energies of the earth,Sky,and all living things in between,the sun,moon and the whole universe.

It takes much time to acclimatise and grow within the physical body,the life spirit is not accustomed to the physical realm.

This 'I'unit is running amok,ok,I will shut my pie hole,it was just a thought bubble of what is going wrong with the 'I'.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, words fail.  but we still must try, mustn't we?

[C T]

Is there some way to ensure allinone does not pose this question to No One? 

[AussieTrees]

Is there some way to ensure allinone does not pose this question to No One? 

Whose on first,that right.haha

[Gerard]

Practice with effort and putting all your heart into it until you find out what the 'illusory I" is? Reading books or intellectualising over this subject won't help, I'm afraid.

 

One clue: you are the whole Universe in a small dot and the dot is....FIND OUT for yourself.

 

One clue: the body is just a reflection of various forces at play + your own karma. But there is a lot more to this.

 

Happy hunting/journeying

Edited May 12, 2017 by Gerard

[allinone]

if ask "who i am" its for to cancel your sense-consciousness and object contact made reality. You find yourself just in body and silence.

Silence is place where your sense consciousness originate(rising). You can switch between ear and eye consciousness there is you see you need use intent for that and that intent has a feeling or taste.

 

Once you get pass that you cultivate next type of sensation where your eyes move and are open, intent is in the eyes "wtf, holy .." sensation. Next head moves..

 

"piss at the tip of the urethra" type of sensation after intent related sensations are sublimated into field, this field what makes your openings(like mouth, eyes) congeal.

[allinone]

 

 

Yet, we don't say "me mind, me body". The mind and the body belongs to me. Who is that me? The answer comes back - "I am". So tell me, you, this complex being of bones, flesh, blood and gray matter, grew from a zygote into what you are today (young person, middle-aged person, old person). Yet your "I" sense has remained unchanged, when you strip away all the "I am this, I am that" kind of thinking. All the cells in your body, even the cells in your brain, where you think your "consciousness" exists have died and rebuilt themselves entirely, over and over again. Yet you, the "I am", remains unchanged. How then can you say, that your consciousness is a function of your body, made of matter. Matter that is impermanent and ever changing...

 

So ask yourselves this, my friends - "Who am I?" and listen for the answer.

 

 

when you refer that sense of self doesn't change and the explanations and examples.

 

you can see that when you talk about the sense of self that its unchanging you look at it in your mind, it is an object derived, risen from silence or black substance, deep ocean.

Basically then when you focus on silence it will cut the life force from sense consciousness and then you start hearing pleas, urges and now may read wrongly into what is discipline, its not to cut of the nourishment but to hear the urges and notice the source of these urges and its to use all means not to indulge before you have seen at least something.

[Stosh]

An imagined subset of what we are , is who I am , and that is a waterspout, a transient thermodynamic trend of complexity , or as one dude put it, a lotus.

A manifestation of the mud, potentially perforating to a rarefied realm.

So while I get the challenge implied by the question is supposed to lead to a mental reconciliation of sorts  ,,having the answer already , its not going to work for me , ,, but dont blame me for that , I am not the first to let the cat out of the bag.  

Edited May 12, 2017 by Stosh

[dwai]

An imagined subset of what we are , is who I am , and that is a waterspout, a transient thermodynamic trend of complexity , or as one dude put it, a lotus.

A manifestation of the mud, potentially perforating to a rarefied realm.

So while I get the challenge implied by the question is supposed to lead to a mental reconciliation of sorts ,,having the answer already , its not going to work for me , ,, but dont blame me for that , I am not the first to let the cat out of the bag.

why stop at being that imagined subset? Let that imagination dissolve and disappear. Then what remains?

[Stosh]

why stop at being that imagined subset? Let that imagination dissolve and disappear. Then what remains?

The trend of dust blowin in the wind?  

[Marblehead]

 

 

[cold]

Ashes to ashes dust to dust.