"I am" vs "I am feeling"

Invincible_summer

I've read several pieces on mindfulness that emphasize acknowledging one's emotions in terms of "I am feeling..." rather than "I am."

Now, the semantic differences are quite obvious, but my question is is it really fundamentally different? When people say "I am angry," I would assume they really mean "I am feeling angry."

But by being mindful and actually acknowledging that it is a feeling... does this really cultivate a higher level of understanding?

PietroPumokin

nanadhaja

When noting the various things that arise during vipassana meditation,the first thing is to remove the "I" factor.I am angry would indicate an owner of anger,like wise I am feeling angry.During your session or at anytime during the day we merely see that things arise and cease,without attaching anything to them.We see walking as walking,sitting as sitting,aches and pain as aches and pain.If you note the rising of the abdomin for instance,you can see that rising has a beginning a middle and an end.As time goes by you will know that all arising phenomenon are the same.Impermanent and outside our control.

Mountains

It's often the smallest differences that make the most difference. Semantically, "I am" vs. "I feel" is small difference, but the implications are profound.

Invincible_summer

nanadhaja wrote: »

When noting the various things that arise during vipassana meditation,the first thing is to remove the "I" factor.I am angry would indicate an owner of anger,like wise I am feeling angry.During your session or at anytime during the day we merely see that things arise and cease,without attaching anything to them.We see walking as walking,sitting as sitting,aches and pain as aches and pain.If you note the rising of the abdomin for instance,you can see that rising has a beginning a middle and an end.As time goes by you will know that all arising phenomenon are the same.Impermanent and outside our control.

I can definitely see how removing the "i" is possible with physical activity as you've mentioned. But how about emotions? When I am feeling angry because someone nearly runs me over with their car (yes, this happens to me more often that you'd think), I just mentally acknowledge the feeling of anger arising in me, and then discard it?

What would seeing emotions "as they are" or "acknowledging" them look like?

Thank you for the reply though, it is very insightful.

Nalone1

nanadhaja wrote: »

When noting the various things that arise during vipassana meditation,the first thing is to remove the "I" factor.I am angry would indicate an owner of anger,like wise I am feeling angry.During your session or at anytime during the day we merely see that things arise and cease,without attaching anything to them.We see walking as walking,sitting as sitting,aches and pain as aches and pain.If you note the rising of the abdomin for instance,you can see that rising has a beginning a middle and an end.As time goes by you will know that all arising phenomenon are the same.Impermanent and outside our control.

^wow. thanks for that. I can see how this can be applied to so many things. And I see how this relates to the question above.

Its seems apparent to me, that emotions are just a flux of feeling that come and go. One is never truly angry. One just experiences anger for a moment, which inevitably surpasses.

For example, in a car accident last week, you may say "I felt angry". But in a deeper sense, anger was just a feeling or outside force that found its way into you, and later left.

So in that sense, I suppose anger truly doesn't belong to anyone. Maybe visualize it as a bug floating around, that once in awhile finds its way into you.

Not sure if that makes sense nanadhaja, but that what I gained from your post.

federica

Nalone1 wrote: »

.....
For example, in a car accident last week, you may say "I felt angry". But in a deeper sense, anger was just a feeling or outside force that found its way into you, and later left.

herein lies the crux of the matter:

If you were in a car accident, and you thought "I felt angry".... the secret would have been to have noticed that Anger arising, recognising it at the time, as transitory and invasive, and dissipating it, chanelling it safely, to safeguard your verbal and physical reaction to the accident, and preventing Anger from making itself known.

Also, much as I completely agree with the "There is no 'I' " teaching, the words I, me, and mine, are impossible to eliminate from discussion. That's pretentious. It's part of grammar and effective communication.

We know what we mean.
If you go to the doctor, you would say, "When I raise MY arm, I feel a pain here...."

You wouldn't get all highfalutin and esoteric, and explain that "There is a feeling of pain and discomfort when this arm, or aggregation element is raised, but the pain is illusory, yet still manifests...."

Knowing my doc, I'd probably get locked up.....

Nalone1

federica wrote: »

herein lies the crux of the matter:

If you were in a car accident, and you thought "I felt angry".... the secret would have been to have noticed that Anger arising, recognising it at the time, as transitory and invasive, and dissipating it, chanelling it safely, to safeguard your verbal and physical reaction to the accident, and preventing Anger from making itself known.

very true! "I", "me", and "mine" have to be used for effective communication, otherwise we'd have a lot of pretentious conversations.

to be quite honest, i know hardly anything about Buddhism. i only watched two video's last night, which blew me away!

your practical approach makes a lot of sense. you can always think more clearly, and react positively when emotions like anger are dissipated. not only are you doing yourself a favor, but your also helping out the person who hit your car. its the only win-win situation i can think of.

Invincible_summer

federica wrote: »

herein lies the crux of the matter:

If you were in a car accident, and you thought "I felt angry".... the secret would have been to have noticed that Anger arising, recognising it at the time, as transitory and invasive, and dissipating it, chanelling it safely, to safeguard your verbal and physical reaction to the accident, and preventing Anger from making itself known.

Also, much as I completely agree with the "There is no 'I' " teaching, the words I, me, and mine, are impossible to eliminate from discussion. That's pretentious. It's part of grammar and effective communication.

We know what we mean.
If you go to the doctor, you would say, "When I raise MY arm, I feel a pain here...."

Excellent! Thanks so much for this elaboration on nanadhaja's post.

You wouldn't get all highfalutin and esoteric, and explain that "There is a feeling of pain and discomfort when this arm, or aggregation element is raised, but the pain is illusory, yet still manifests...."

Knowing my doc, I'd probably get locked up.....

This made my day. I laughed pretty hard.