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.
I am that I am
The only way that you can really describe reality is to say "there is what there is." Any attempt to expound upon what is takes away from what is, and therefore is an imperfect description. When you understand that "what is" is simply you, then there is another way of describing it. "I am that I am." Sound familiar? If not, it's what God says his name is in the bible. Very interesting. It really is the truth. But it's not some external God. It's you. It's me. It's all that there is. I am that I am.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think the concept of self/Not-self makes the "I am that I am" (sorry, can't help but think of Popeye!)too simplistic and overly inaccurate.
The Buddha, upon enlightenment saw things as they really were, and they were what they were, because they were what they were.
This is entirely different to your thread title....
"Things aren't as they seem. Nor are they otherwise"
"I am that I am" definitely refers to a mystical state. In the Hindu system of tattvas, this is Sadashiva.
And as this is a Buddhist website, I tend to lean towards that side of discussion....
Trust me - you're talking to me. I know and understand the kalama sutta. I am giving you my opinion. if you don't like it, I really don't care. I'm not really bothered about saying what you want me to say, or what you want to hear. I've said what I've said, and am happy with that.
If you're not, then that's your problem.
To me, the above statement seems to not only assume existence, but of a 'I' in relation to that existence. From a logical point of view, it might be a good idea to provide some kind of justification for the premise that 'what is' exists, and then another justifying that there exists an 'I' in relation to that existence. As it is, it relies on the tautology 'what is, is.' This doesn't make it invalid, but it doesn't make it very convincing either.
Next it might be helpful to address how the above works in relation to Buddhism. It may be argued, for example, that the above is a form of metaphysical subjectivism that conflicts with certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy.
For example, Descartes cogito (a type of metaphysical subjectivism) conflicts with the commentarial tradition of Theravada in that Descartes assumed thoughts imply a thinker, whereas Buddhaghosa drew the opposite conclusion, based upon the teachings on dependent co-arising and not-self, that there's no thinker independent of thoughts (see The Path of Purification, pg. 513 and What the Buddha Taught, pg. 26).
It may not seem like a very big distinction, but without establishing some basis for the knowledge of existence, or for the need of an 'I' in relation to existence (or a mover in relation to movement, a thinker in relation to thoughts, etc.), it'll be harder to defend.
I think what may work for you is to completely stop wanting to be so convincing, and just go with the flow. There is no need for force, there is no need to be convincing. the only one who needs to be utterly convinced, is you. speak plainly, don't be cryptic, because truly, it's articulate, but it's not clever. Speak your truth simply, and let things ride smoothly.
You're trying too hard.
She said I am was God's name or something. I think the scripture is God is who the prophet or whomever is to say sent them. And God said I am that I am has sent you or something like that.
When we do not know the Buddha & the Dhamma, our mind's ignorance & self-grasping falls back on these religious books & phrases.
Instead of discerning them with wisdom, our mind discerns them with ignorance & infatuation. Our mind gets all excited with whatever religious notions it reads.
Our mind bounces off concepts, from concept to concept, imagining similarities between quite discordant ideas.
I must confess, my mind has been through this. It is best described as "drunkenness"
When I reflect back on it, it was like my mind was very deluded. It is quite embarrasing.
We are yet to see "what is what".
Take care with inter-faith.
:-/
Visit various religious groups, especially various Christian groups.
Generally, these people & groups will have absolutely no interest in what we are raving on about.
Your post states: "I desire to see the truth in all faiths".
You use the words "the truth". The impression gained is your description of your intention is not flawed. It is indicative of the nature of your posts on this thread.
The impression gained is you desire to see "the truth", that is, "one single truth", that is, what you personally subjectively regard as "the truth", in all faiths.
The impression gained is you do not desire to see the various truths in various faiths but desire to see "the same truth".
In reality, each faith has its unique truths or truth. Also, many faiths (religions) share similar truths.
In interfaith inquires, we must be careful to discern the mutual truths and discern the non-mutual truths.
All the best
All that is is what is, and what is is everything. Therefore everything is true. Yet because it is all true, none of it is true.
Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
[Alternatively: "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE"]
The Buddha also used a statement of authority. This authority he called 'Dhamma Niyama' or 'The Law of Nature'.
It follows both religions share assertions of authority or lawfulness. This 'truth' is the same.
But their respective basis of lawfulfulness are different.
The Buddha said: The I AM of the Bible imparted moral law. That is all. To me, I AM WHO I AM is not intended to be a transcendent notion. It is simply like a father or school teacher laying down the moral law to children.
"I AM" Concept From Moses to Ken Wilbur [to TheJourney]
The problem with asserting that everything is a unity or oneness is that one has to account for change and the appearance multiplicity. For example, Shankara (as well as Heraclitus to some extent) did this by asserting that the appearance of change and multiplicity was ultimately and illusion, that everything is Brahman and Brahman alone is real (or, in the case of Heraclitus, all things are simply a manifestations of fire).
The Buddha, on the other hand, took a more pragmatic approach, side-stepping the metaphysics of cosmology in favour of his unique contribution to Indian thought, dependent co-arising (SN 12.48).
For you to say 'I' you would also need an 'other.' Without an other, 'I' doesn't make much sense. If there is no other then there is no I. Of course, the tendency to grasp is very strong, so what many traditions do is identify with awareness and say I am That. But, who is identifying? There is nobody.
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata it has not been established.
"If I were to say, 'I don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say, 'I both know and don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be just the same. If I were to say, 'I neither know nor don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a fault in me.
"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.
AN 4.24
Saying "I am that I am" is construing a seer, is it not?
That would mean, "I exist because I exist," which is the same as saying, "Red is the color red."
Extending this it could mean, "I'm meat because I am meat." IOW, I am just a piece of meat to a carnivore literally (red meat) and figuratively (the lion does not care about my good personality).
Double meanings abound but that does not mean the person who makes the statement has any intention of expressing those meanings or even understands that s/he's implying them.
Could be a mentally retarded..., er..., I mean..., mentally challenged or ingenious answer depending on the question that is asked.
WOW. Look at how much "computing power" these human brains have compared to the vagaries of language! No wonder things get out of control, meaning-wise, so quickly.
Oops! Sorry. Too much coffee!
:coffee:
But reifying this change still raises questions of its own like, What changes? Energy? If yes, then to be consistent, you'd have to modify your position that there isn't a set thing. Or, at the very least, you'd have to add an additional proposition equating energy with change, making it simply the characteristic of material processes (a thing that's no-thing).
However, even if we don't introduce energy into the equation, the question of, What changes? can still arise. Or, Why is there change in the first place? And, if there's an element of self-identification involved in this change (e.g., 'I am what there is'), How does one escape suffering (How does one escape from change)?
For example, Buddhism has the concept of elements (MN 115) in conjunction with this/that conditionality (SN 12.61), so in that sense, it recognizes the reality of change. Conditioned phenomena, which are inherently void of self, arise and cease dependent upon conditions, and persist for only as long as the conditions for its existence persist. Suffering arises due to ignorance and self-identifying with selfless, changing phenomena.
But at the same time, Buddhism doesn't commit itself to a metaphysical cosmology of oneness or manyness, nor does it reify change, leaving open the possibility of the mind abandoning ignorance and turning away from conditioned phenomena towards the deathless element (MN 64), the permanent stilling of fabrications and stressful qualities that's said to lie at the end of the path (Iti 37).
This conception of nibbana as an actuality — variously described as an element (dhatu), a base (ayatana), a reality (dhamma), a state (pada), etc. — implies the reality of an absence of change as well. However, if change is the only thing that's real, that doesn't seem to leave much room for the Buddhaghosan nibbana.
But this isn't a very big problem if we limit nibbana to its practical, psychological effects: the cessation of attachment to changing phenomena, the self-identification of changing phenomena and the elimination of the desire for changing phenomena to be other than it is.
So in the end, I think your 'truth' that change is the only real thing can lead to the abandonment of the mental components that give rise to suffering by pointing out the inconstancy of phenomena (anicca), and by consequence, their selfless nature (anatta). The only hang up I see is the seeming reification of change as a 'real thing,' and the possibility of identifying with it (I am change/changing phenomena).
It's a more subtle form of self-view for sure, but a self-view nonetheless—one that could potential prevent the mind from fully liberating itself from clinging to phenomena that are neither fixed nor stable by making the unfixed (anicca) stable (atta).
My whole thing is that I urge people not to get caught up in my words. You are right, if you view change as some sort of thing than you still have a view of self. But change is no thing. Nothing changes. "Change" is everything. It is just a word used to describe everything. But really "change" is no real thing, it is just the best way to describe how there is no lasting self, imo.
Vedanta is tremendously rich, as it has accommodated the conversation with Samkhya on the one side and buddhist philosophy on the other. As with most of other aspects of what we call Hinduism, there is more of a continuum of beliefs than any monolithic, definitive central ideas.
I think what some people are trying to point out, in other threads also, is that a non-dual point of view, is still a point of view regardless. While the Buddha simply did not harbor any view to begin with. Neither dual, nor non dual, both would simply not be applicable. As it says in the above post "but in the Tathagata it has not been established"