I am that I am

Mintyfresh0

"I am" or "I am that I am" is the only true statement that can ever be made. Once you accept non duality as the fundamental foundation of existence, you can appreciate this statement on a much higher level. "I am" is the one thing that is truly not open for debate... I don't see how this thread has so many posts lol.

DhammaDhatu

People have a hard time understanding my words...

I have an easy time understanding the Buddha's words because they describe exactly 'what is what'.

For example, when the Buddha describes consciousness, he calls it 'consciousness'. When the Buddha describes form, he calls it 'form'. When the Buddha describes sound, he calls it 'sound'. When the Buddha describes dog, he calls it 'dog'. When the Buddha describes Nibbana (perfect peace), he calls it 'Nibbana'. When the Buddha describes "I am", he calls it 'delusion' or 'wrong view'.

Buddha does not describe "Nibbana" as "God". Buddha does not describe natural phenomena (such as the elements of earth, wind, fire, water, space, consciousness, feeling, thought, masculinity, feminity, etc) as "I am". Instead, the Buddha describes the various elements as "elements" (dhatu).

The Buddha describes what is seen as "the seen", what is heard as "the heard", what is smelt as "the smelt", etc.

People have a hard time understanding gobbledegook but the Buddha is different.

The Buddha's words are 'svakato bhagavata dhammo', namely, 'perfectly spoken'.

Imagine if some of us called cars 'dogs' and mosquitoes 'elephants'. How confused would the world be?

For anyone who speaks in a tongue [gobbledegook] does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

Anyone who speaks in a tongue [gobbledegook] edifies themselves...

1 Corinthians 14

DhammaDhatu

"I am" or "I am that I am" is the only true statement that can ever be made.

"I am" is just a thought. It has not greater or lesser significance than the thought "Krusty the Clown".

The Buddha called himself 'Tathagata' or 'Abiding in Suchness', 'Thusness'.

"I am" is simply delusion.

Silence is better than "I am".

All the best

DhammaDhatu

My whole thing is that I urge people not to get caught up in my words.

Be assured, I am not getting caught up in your words.

Next you will telling us mantras like 'zibop zup pooha' that arose spontaneously from your spiritual illumination and saying they have a deep profound meaning.

:eek2:

MindGate

Dhamma Dhatu, even though I'm an asshole, you seem to be a bigger one than me.

Sorry... :-/

DhammaDhatu

No worries Mind Gate.

To have like-minded friends is good.

Never forget in DD, you have a friend.

We could call ourselves 'The Asshole Brothers' or 'The Asshole Twins'.

Two assholes may be better than one.

MindGate

I don't particularly agree with "I am that I am."

Well, I suppose it depends on its meaning. I don't really believe in an "am."

So... just all I gotta say is SAM I AM.

DhammaDhatu

salute to "I AM":

MindGate

WineGod

"I am" is often considered in Hinduism the one thing that cannot be denied, because even if you DO deny it, you must be present to do so, thus confirming your existence. Holding onto the "I am" is considered the gate to The Absolute by teachers like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. It must be noted that the "I am" they propose holding onto is NOT the final truth but the "gate" to it. The Absolute is the final truth. Many neo-Advaita teachers get this part wrong.

In Buddhism, the thought "I am" is just another phenomena and quite probably a "clinging" as well. In fact, one of the BEST discourses in the original Pali Canon is Sariputtra saying that the "sense of I am" is the LAST thing to go before complete and final Nibbana.

""In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

karmadorje

anatman means a negation ("a") of the hindu view of soul ("atman")...

That is anachronistic. Lord Buddha was engaging the Samkhya view, not the current view of atman in most vedanta schools. These later vedantic viewpoints developed a thousand years after his time and in philosophical environments entirely conversant with Buddhist epistemology and ontology. The view of atman that came out of Adi Shankara's thought was actually referred to as "crypto-buddhism" by his contemporaries. There are great parallels between this particular Hindu view and both the Madhyamaka and Yogacara viewpoints.

It is moot what Shakyamuni would have had to say in response to these viewpoints.

karmadorje

"I am" is often considered in Hinduism the one thing that cannot be denied, because even if you DO deny it, you must be present to do so, thus confirming your existence. Holding onto the "I am" is considered the gate to The Absolute by teachers like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. It must be noted that the "I am" they propose holding onto is NOT the final truth but the "gate" to it. The Absolute is the final truth. Many neo-Advaita teachers get this part wrong.

Sri Ramana always advocated searching for the source of the "I" thought, rather than merely holding on to a particular thought. As you say, the feeling of "I am-ness" is used as a gateway to understanding. In enlightened sages such as the Maharshi I think it is safe to say that they didn't cling to any residual thought whatsoever. The only difference is in approach-- some prefer the via negativa and some the via positiva. In Vedanta teaching, there is the method of "neti, neti" which is really the same as analytical meditation in Buddhism as an example of via negativa. Then there is this method of "hunting the I-thought" which is similar to certain approaches of mahamudra and dzogchen that exemplify the via positiva. The end result is the same.

Vincenzi

"I am the am" // am 'verb, sono il verbo, and so on... (it still sounds better in sanskrit)

TheJourney

Some of you are still so caught up in words. You won't really understand me if you still think that words have their own inherent self-existence. When you think that you cling to some concept or person, and you don't understand the truth for yourself.

Joshua

"I am the am" // am 'verb, sono il verbo, and so on... (it still sounds better in sanskrit)

wtf are you talking about?

shanyin

These later vedantic viewpoints developed a thousand years after his time and in philosophical environments entirely conversant with Buddhist epistemology and ontology.

I always thought the Vedic or Hindu notion of atman preceded Shakyamuni? Arn't there suttras where he says he does not want to side with the teachings of an industrucstable Atman?

shanyin

dhatu

karmadorje

I always thought the Vedic or Hindu notion of atman preceded Shakyamuni? Arn't there suttras where he says he does not want to side with the teachings of an industrucstable Atman?

There is no monolithic viewpoint on atman within the various vedic traditions. Shakyamuni was specifically targeting the Samkhya view. The later advaita viewpoints were heavily shaped by their exposure to the Buddhist discourse, much as current Hindu vegetarianism is largely a result of Buddhist traditions of ahimsa.

DhammaDhatu

You won't really understand me...

The Messiah is back. The "me" is back.

The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.

What did he mean when he said, ‘You will look for me, but you will not find me,’ and ‘Where I am, you cannot come’?”

On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. ”

You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.

...

DhammaDhatu

You won't really understand me...

Is TheJourney the reincarnation of Lao Tzu?

:eek:

My words are easy to understand and
easy to perform,
Yet no man under heaven knows them
or practices them.

My words have ancient beginnings.
My actions are disciplined.
Because men do not understand, they
have no knowledge of me.

Those that know me are few;
Those that abuse me are honored.
Therefore the sage wears rough
clothing and holds the jewel in his
heart.

Vincenzi

the OP should read more about TriLaksana (3 marks of existance ...IIRC)

"I am the am" // am 'verb, sono il verbo, and so on... (it still sounds better in sanskrit)

wtf are you talking about?

'made a post almost only in sanskrit which was deleted.

"तथागत (Tathāgata) is the name the Buddha of the scriptures uses when referring to himself. The term means, paradoxically, both one who has thus gone (tathā-gata) and one who has thus come (tathā-āgata)." from wiki

...but there was a phrase used before Shakyamuni, that was very similar.

MindGate

Bob Saget is a ... ... really nice guy. Hehe, you thought I was gonna say something else.

Sorry. There was too much tension in the thread. Had to make a joke.

Mintyfresh0

Dhamma Dhatu : At this point I think you're either trolling this thread or feeding your ego? Perhaps both?

If you actually spoke with TheJourney or even looked at some of his posts with an open mind you would see he is an extremely wise and intelligent individual with many things to say that can be of benefit to the community and even you.

DhammaDhatu

Sorry Minty. I must disagree with your opinion.

All the best

Simonthepilgrim

shanyin

sukhita

I'm quite naive when it comes to "advanced" Buddhist teachings, so please bear with me for asking the following questions:

[1] Did the Buddha teach "I am that I am".
[2] If so, in which sutta/sutra can I find this teaching?

Metta

shanyin

Sukhita I'd bet 500 bucks that he didn't based on my knowledge.

Personally I don't even know what I am that I am means. I could'nt understand most of the original post either... so I don't have much opinion about it.

seeker242

Dhamma Dhatu : At this point I think you're either trolling this thread or feeding your ego? Perhaps both?

If you actually spoke with TheJourney or even looked at some of his posts with an open mind you would see he is an extremely wise and intelligent individual with many things to say that can be of benefit to the community and even you.

DD may not be very "politically correct" but he has extensive knowledge of the scriptures, imo. One should not be so quick to discount his words since they are solidly based in scripture. He could be a little nicer about it though. There is always room for improvement, for everyone, in the "being nice" category.

Dazzle

Dhamma Dhatu : At this

point I think you're either trolling this thread or feeding your ego? Perhaps both?

If you actually spoke with TheJourney or even looked at some of his posts with an open mind you would see he is an extremely wise and intelligent individual with many things to say that can be of benefit to the community and even you.

DD may not be very "politically correct" but he has extensive knowledge of the scriptures, imo. One should not be so quick to discount his words since they are solidly based in scripture. He could be a little nicer about it though. There is always room for improvement, for everyone, in the "being nice" category.

DD is probably the most experienced practitioner in the group, as well as
having a great sense of humor.

We really don't need to be all 'kissie-huggies and chokkie bikkies' with others all the time to be able to offer or learn important facts about the Dharma.

.

TheJourney

But he's caught up in "scriptures." That's the thing. You look for authority in the scriptures. That's why you cannot see the truth.

Jason

Looks like this thread has run its course, so I'm taking the liberty of closing it before the personal jabs turn into uppercuts.