Releasing the Misconception "I Am" is Freedom!

realization SG

from: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Clinging_to_the_notion_I_Am.htm

The Blessed Buddha once noted:
It is by clinging, friends, that the notion: 'I am' occurs, not without clinging!
And by clinging to what does the notion: 'I am' occur, not without clinging?
It is by clinging to form, to feeling, to perception, to mental constructions, &
to consciousness that the notion: 'I am' occurs, and not without this clinging!
Suppose, friends, a young woman, or a young man, fond of fashion & jewelry,
would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure,
clear, clean water: She would look at it with clinging, not without clinging...
Even and exactly so too, it is by clinging to form, to feeling, to perception,
to mental constructions, & to consciousness that the notion: 'I am' occurs!
It is not without this subconscious, quite detrimental, deep and rigid clinging!
Clinging to what is impermanent, transient and prone to decay is very painful..
What is changing & painful cannot be 'Mine', nor 'What I Am', nor 'My Self'!
Understanding this, the intelligent Noble disciple is disgusted with all forms,
all feelings, all perceptions, all mental constructions, and every consciousness. Being disgusted induces disillusion. This disillusion launches into mental release! When released, then mind becomes unagitated! By being entirely imperturbable
one attains Awakening right there and then, and one instantly understands:
This mind is irreversibly freed! Rebirth is ended, this Noble Life is concluded,
done is what should be done, there is no state of being after or beyond this...

Comments:
Let's take a closer look at the seemingly self-evident statement "I Am"...
There are two components: An "I" and an "Am"... Which is the wrong here?
The "Am" part designating existence cannot be denied. This "existence"
is however neither static, nor being of an entity, nor presence of an "I"...!
What is it then that "Ams"=IS?

It is just these 5 dynamic & ever-changing processes (& not entities!): Of form, feeling, perception, construction and consciousness, that arise and cease according to their conditioned causes!

What is it then, that have a form, a body to be seen there in the mirror?
It is the process of form itself, that has this frame of appearance...
What is it then, that feels pleasure, pain and neutral feeling?
It is the process of feeling itself, that feels pleasure, pain and neither!
What is it then, that perceives, that experiences, if it is not "Me"?
It is the process of perception itself, that perceives various 'objects'!
What is it then, that constructs, intends, plans, & hopes, if it is not "I"?
It is the process of mental construction itself, that creates tendencies!
What is it then, that is conscious, if it is not "myself", "my ego or soul"?
It is the process of consciousness itself, that arises & ceases ever again...
Nothing else......, than these ownerless conditions, these selfless states,
these coreless phenomena without independent substance, is ever there!

So: In conclusion regarding the statement "I Am": The "Am" part is OK,
since the 5 clusters of clinging actually are momentarily in existence...
However the "I" part is wrong, since this "ego in there" is an illusion!
An illusion in conclusion hehehe ;-) Don't feel any existentialistic nausea
here. Just let this 'ego' evaporate as it may... It was never really 'there'
in the first place, so nothing is lost and a fundamental freedom is gained!
This selflessness is sublime... :-)

Aik TC SG

from: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Clinging_to_the_notion_I_Am.htm

It is just these 5 dynamic & ever-changing processes (& not entities!): Of form, feeling, perception, construction and consciousness, that arise and cease according to their conditioned causes!

I found this article on the Buddhist site ‘Mingkok’. The author seems to have a difference view on the subject of ‘Ego’. Haven’t actually thought through what he said anyway.

Third Noble Truth: In the Midst of Suffering, There Is Release from Suffering.

Lewis Richmond

General Sources 2011-08-05

I have talked in recent posts about the Buddhist teachings on self and soul, and most recently about Buddhist meditators' tendency to spiritual bypassing, i.e. moving past the messy and often painful work of wounds, selfish tendencies, traumas, life problems and developmental needs to try to reach an imagined state of transcendence where all of that can be left behind.

A lot of that terrain can be summarized by the pop phrase getting rid of the ego, which many seem to equate with the goal of spiritual practice. This phrase, which has over 15 million Google hits, implies two things: first, that there is something intrinsically wrong with the ego, and second, that once gotten rid of, everything will be better.

Ego originally was a term from Freudian psychoanalysis, or rather an English translation of Freud's original term Ich, which simply means I in German. I have come to believe that translations are a major stumbling block to understanding deep matters, whether it is Freudian or Buddhist or something else. For Buddhism, the words ego-istic and self-ish are more relevant than the words ego or self. Selfish and egoistic refers to behavior, whereas self and ego refer to identity. Selfish behavior is a problem; it causes suffering for oneself and others. Self or identity is just a feature of our existence. We each have an identity; even Gautama Buddha had an identity, as he walked the dusty paths of rural 5th century B.C. India offering his teaching to all and sundry. What the Buddha taught is not that we have no identity at all, but that our identity is not fixed; it keeps changing. It has no own-being, to use a technical term from the Heart Sutra.

Identity is perhaps a somewhat more workable term than ego, because most of us understand that our identity does change. When we are young, we have an identity as college students, or law firm interns, or brides-to-be, or new parents. We have a job, a family, friends, relationships -- taken together this is our identity, which changes day by day, year by year. Because identity changes, it includes loss. We graduate from college and endure the loss of the dorm mates, the Fall leaves in the quad, the favorite professors -- and move into an unknown new world. This is loss, and throughout life loss is always with us, just as the Buddha taught. But when we are young a job comes eventually, we rent an apartment, we find new friends and lovers. in youth, the renewal of our identity comes to us without huge effort. Even a failed endeavor leads to new chances. A failed relationship leads to a new one.

It is on the downhill slope of life that the losses to our identity begin to outnumber the renewals. If we lose a job, it is hard to find another one (somebody younger is competing with you for it). If we get divorced, it is hard to find a new partner; all the good ones seem to be taken. Loss hits us harder, and renewal requires more effort.

That is why I've come to feel that, as the ancient Hindus thought in their Four Stages of Life, the second half of life is a fertile time for spiritual inquiry and practice. Buddha taught that loss -- dukkha -- is embedded in the fabric of life. But it is when we are older that the truth of that fact truly hits home. I think the experience of loss is what brings people to want to study Buddhism, and the desire to understand and transform ours and others' losses is what keeps us at it. That was true for prince Siddhartha and it is so for us.

There is no need to get rid of the ego. The ego, the self, the ever-changing landscape of identity -- none of those are the actual problem. The actual problem is that when loss comes we clutch, we tend to respond fearfully and selfishly, with clinging and resistance; we become ego-istic. Paying attention to all of that, examining it closely over and over with the practices of precepts, mindfulness, and meditation, is the nub of Buddhist practice. It is the work of a lifetime. Loss is not all there is. The fundamental spiritual message of Buddhism is upbeat, not downbeat. Joy in the midst of suffering and loss is not only possible, but attainable. That is Buddha's third noble truth: in the midst of suffering, there is release from suffering.

I actually don't know what it means to get rid of the ego. But I have had cherished good teachers and wise spiritual friends who have transformed ego and identity into a vessel of awakening and compassion, and who dedicate themselves to continuing their spiritual efforts and working for the relief of suffering wherever they can.That is a good identity to have. It's called Buddha, which means awake. Buddha is our deepest identity; it is always with us.

realization SG

Thanks Aik, for sharing :)

Some thoughts after reading:

In Richmond's article, he says that through the practices of precepts, mindfulness and meditation, fearful and selfish clinging may be overcome. This bit I have no quibble.

The part where alarm bells start ringing, is where he says that self and ego are not the problem; behaviour is. Hence, he thinks that there is no need to 'get rid' of the ego/self/identity, which in anycase changes with the seasons of life.

Here, I see that there is departure from the teaching of No Self.

In the first place, the ego or self is not an entity that needs to be gotten rid of. There is No Self to begin with; hence, also nothing to get rid of.

Bikkhu Bodhi (first article) explains that there is no self, only processes. There are the processes of form, feeling, perception, mental construction and consciousness. In other words, there is only phenomena, but no owner.

With regards to the part where Richmond says it is behaviour that needs to change in order for suffering to be alleviated, I beg to differ. For unawakened persons, behaviour is to a large degree dictated by our concepts of Self-ness and "I"-ness. Selfish behaviour does not come about unless there is a concept of a self we need to protect; and there will be no egocentric behaviour if we didn't fundamentally believe that we have distinct and special identities.

So really, it is this delusion that there is a self which first needs to be seen through. When we can realise that there is essentially No Self, behaviour that clings and attempts to protect the ego can also be relinquished.

Richmond is indeed correct to say that mindfulness, precepts and meditation will help overcome clinging. I think this can happen when true insight into selflessness is also gained, but not solely via the examination and checking of behaviour, which is what he is suggesting we do.

This "getting rid of the ego" terminology comes from pop psychology. It's a trendy way of saying, "let's not take ourselves so seriously" or "let's not be so full of ourselves". It's a popular take on the teaching of No Self, and of course mainstream society is not going to be examining selflessness from the perspective of the 5 aggregates like we do. (haha!)

--------------------------------------

Let me know what you make of it when you find time...