Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
using the word "I"
RichardH
Veteran
As Buddhists we like to be non-egocentric, or at least maybe feel like its best to move away from ego based language. Yet , If we are going to be humble then we need to speak from our own practice and this requires 'I" and "Me" (I understand.. My practice is..). When we communicate not using "I" and "MY" it often conveys a presumption of objectivity ( It is.... Practice is...) that can house a stealthy whopper of a self view.
I met guy, a Buddhist who was trying to eradicate I and Me from his language, and apart from getting hung up on form, the result sounded acutely selfconscious which was not the intended effect.
Any thoughts on this ?
I met guy, a Buddhist who was trying to eradicate I and Me from his language, and apart from getting hung up on form, the result sounded acutely selfconscious which was not the intended effect.
Any thoughts on this ?
0
Comments
Idk.
DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them."
SN 1.25: "
[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
...
Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.1
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech,
He would speak conforming to such use.2"
I do not think that the word 'I' or 'my' is necesarilly egotistical, maybe in certain contexts, but it is, in itself, needed in order to refute egotism.
I will quote the sutta if I get any time today.
Is this from the Brahmajala sutta btw?
I hope someone realizes this.
Well you have a point here. Which is why I walys think the non-self concept is not something to be practiced in day to day life. I don't think we can understand non-self by that. If so most of us should be enlightened by now. It is something to be "experienced" in meditation.
When we are encouraged to look at "I" it is to examine the nature of thought, not the thought of I itself.
No, it's from the Potthapada Sutta (DN 9).
If you don't carry the realization of not-self into daily life then it's utterly useless. There's a difference between saying to yourself "hey, dats not-self!" and never clinging to it as such to begin with though.
Not really. The problem lies in clinging to that which you refer to by "I."
However, ultimately, the "I" and "mine" are empty, merely sankhara or elements.
When one cannot penetrate this truth, the mind is trapped in 'white-darkness'.
When effort is made to avoid the "I" in the inappropriate situation, it is though it is regarded as something real.
It is important to have a properly functioning personality. 'Personality" is just empty functionalness; just nature.
'I think you should probably focus less on yourself and more on the scriptures' . . . .can easily lead to a clash between the 'I' and the 'You'.
'One should probably focus less on oneself and more on the scriptures' . . . may be less likely to be misconstrued as it is 'de-personalised'.
I think if you want to you language as your ally use right speech, you know, no false, divisive, abuse speech and idle chatter. What makes you say such things is precisely your sense of self, and it is quite possible to hurt someone profoundly without saying any "I" or "mine" or "your".
Mundus, the point here is this. You can practice not clinging to the ego concept all your day and sure it will help ease your suffering day to day. I have tried that and yes it feels comforting. But is that the real thing? I don't think so. When someone you love dies you will still cry and feel a lot of pain because you are still attached to them and you are attached to yourself that you need their love. When someone scolded you, you will still get annoyed. You will still feel anger, pain, grief and suffering when specific incidences happen. You will see that suffering will still be there caused due to suttle defilement.
Thus practicing non-self day to day sure feels better but that is not the real emancipation or enlightenment. You are unenlightened with suttle defilement until the point you experience non-self in meditation and attain Nibbana
I am not saying not to carry the "realization of not-self into daily life". All I'm saying is you cannot see the real thing by just doing that. Enlightenment is a meditative experience as I understand.
That is of course the case, but that should not mean that one uses language carelessly or intentionally which upsets others, as we are not yet perfect in our equanimity either as writers or readers on web forums - or that's my experience so far.
you can't just cut it off.
just know that
Changes within need not result in an outwardly odd appearance or strange use of language. When conventional language is appropriate, use it. But you don't have to believe the 'I' exists, nor cherish it, in order to do so.
Of course, it also works in reverse - eccentric dress and behaviour is no indication of change within. I kept having to tell one of my students that a black cloak and hat did not make him Orson Welles. LOL
It would be a little strange if we all followed Aleister Crowley's example and cut ourselves each time we used the word 'I'.
Yeah, I guess changes within that manifest outwards in some odd appearance or strange use of language=hypocrisy.
But to not use the word 'I' at least for an hour can mean that either you want to do the impossible, either you've read so many books that you know how to avoid using a very frequent word by covering it with tons of other words.
Peace,
Levi
It seems to me he wants to sound profound. I think worrying about words is just the ego getting bigger. Tell him that "I" think he is being a dummy and that if he was around "ME" I'd make fun of him.
Language can be helpful - perhaps not in communication with others but with mindfulness, noting what arises. So if we notice a feeling of anger arising, it might be better to think "anger has arisen" than to think "I feel angry". It means we don't identify so strongly with the anger.
P
P
When you speak with another, you are oblidged to make yourself understood. In this world, where most people believe they are the ego, and the language grew up around this belief, you use the word I as both convenient and efficient.
This is similar to speaking French, when if France, to a Frenchman.
Would speaking French make you a French citizen? “Of course not.” ; ^ )
I don’t believe Buddha wanted us to fight with our environment, to no purpose, but rather to adapt in a wise way while not falling into it or identifying with it in a wrongful manner.
Not saying ‘I’ will not extricate us from the ego, any more than putting on mommy/daddy’s clothes as a young child turned us into mommy/daddy or made us an adult. ; ^ )
If it were only that easy, wouldn’t it be grand? : ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
N: I do not think that the word 'I' or 'my' is necessarily egotistical, maybe in certain contexts, but it is, in itself, needed in order to refute egotism.
S9: Just curious:
How do the words ‘I’ and ‘my’ refute ego, in your opinion? That is an interesting idea, but not one that I can get my head around without your help.
Warm Regards,
S9
M: Then that is not the speaker's issue but the recipient's, and a good opportunity for their own practice.
S9: When blame starts getting passed around, there always seems to be plenty for everyone. No need to scrimp. We can all have a generous helping with plenty of leftovers for tomorrow. ; ^ )
Smiles coming your way,
S9
In the book "Joyful Wisdom", Youngey Mingyur Rinpoche told a story about a man he met in India who had tried to take the exact same approach. In trying to develop insight into "emptiness of self", instead of using the normal approaches such as meditation and cultivation, etc., he thought it would be much faster and easier to just stop using the words "I" and "me" to refer to himself. I will have to revisit this story to give a quote, but needless to say, this approach didn't have the desired results he had hoped for. In fact I think he had a difficult time fitting into society in general after a period of time.
Shortcut's can often get you lost
As for me, I only think about blood when I am donating it.....:p
Kowtaaia seems to do this. I learned it from him. Not as a hard and fast rule, obviously, but any time "I" comes up in writing, it is time to take a hard look at what's going on.
Does this make sense?
I disagree. The way we think about things can be of great significance in understanding what is really going on.
P
Exactly what do you disagree with?
Kind regards,
Sukhita
We can use words with some efficiency in trying to describe were we are coming from, or where we live from. But, we look out at the world more from an experiential attitude, wouldn’t you agree?
Everything is colored by who we think we are, or identity.
Warm Regards,
S9
That changing the way we think is just a literary exercise and not a useful practice. Our thoughts create the world, as it says in the Dhammapada.
P
Yes, that's why it's important to think differently, to challenge established patterns of thought.
P
Words are just the container of our clarity, wisdom, and insights. First you see clearly, and only then do you say what you have seen.
Not the other way around.
That would be like “Putting the cart b/4 the horse.”
If I said a porcupine was made of silk, no magic would accompany those words. It still wouldn’t be wise to lie down on his back and take a nap. : ^ (
Smiles,
S9
She said that if the thought process doesn't change and we're just replacing words after the fact for the sake of trying to look like crazy advanced Buddhists with no ego, then it's just a literary exercise. The Buddha laid out the path to Nibbana and it didn't include anything like this. Even the Buddha used those words, after fully realizing anatta...
Hey, Mundus... that should be He said...
You have elucidated my post quite nicely... thanks.
I don't think it's as simple as that, and I see if more like a feedback loop. By deliberately changing the way we think our awareness changes and insights arise.
P
I'm talking about changing words before the fact.
P
P: I don't think it's as simple as that, and I see if more like a feedback loop.
S9: But, in that case it would all be built in, as who can find in a circle where it actually began? (Similar to Hard Determinism) If, on the other hand, it did begin, or something more like a spiral, lets us say, isn’t clarity the initiator even of that spiral?
P: By deliberately changing the way we think our awareness changes and insights arise.
S9: I hope you can see that it would be pretty hard to be deliberate about anything without first seeing with some clarity a reason to change.
Warm Regards,
S9
How about chicken and egg?:p
P
P: How about chicken and egg?
S9: That’s pretty good. But I like chicken and dumplings. ; ^ )
I guess we are all unique in what rings our bell.
Warm Regards,
S9