I # 1
'I am the body, I am the mind".
This is a simplistic thought, a wrong notion, consisting of superimposing the notion "I" over the changing aggregates. Both Buddhist and Vedantic analysis have shown that this body-mind or five aggregates combo is not one's "I".
I # 2
The relative I.
In terms of our dualistic experience, we appear as if we were separate entities. We impute the notion of "I" to the appearance of a personhood, to a name and a form, which is nothing else but, again, the five aggregates, the body-mind complex. Still knowing and understanding that no "I" is a person, we can acknowledge or recognize its apparent existence for practical matters and for communication in the context of our dualistic (subject/object) perception.
I # 3
"I am an eternal soul among other eternal souls".
It has been proved impossible to differentiate or to isolate such an entity beyond the changing five aggregates. This is the idea of "atman" -as a discrete eternal being- that Buddhism is denying in its doctrine of "anatman". Advaita Vedanta neither accepts such notion, specifically stating that the atman is not apart of Brahman.
I # 4
"I am That"
Here, "That" is the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute, which is ineffable or beyond intellectual aprehension. Buddhism, in general, has taken a negative approach to point towards it: "Shunyata", meaning "groundless, without bottom". It cannot be scanned or grasped thoroughly because "That" (reality-as-it-is) is not a discrete thing or object. All phenomena are interdependent, and hence absent of discrete -or separate, or concrete- existence. Vedanta, in general, has taken a positive approach to name it: "Brahman". However, Brahman cannot be explained or described (and, therefore, one of the Advaita Vedanta methods consists of discarding simplistic notions: "neti, neti"). The Great Perfection teachings, pinnacle of the Buddhayana, call the ultimate "Mind" or "Consciousness". The Chittamatra school of Buddhist philosophy uses similar designations. Important to clarify that these Buddhist vehicles use of positive denominations does not imply that they attribute any kind of concreteness or thingness to "That". They are content enough naming it too as "Suchness" and as "Thusness".
Since we all have a sense of being, pointed by the spontaneous expression "I am", we can conclude that the "I" that "I am" is not the body-mind five aggregates combo (# 1), is not the relative "I" that derives from our dualistic perception as if we were self-existing persons; notion that we can agree to keep for practical matters (# 2), is neither a celestial being nor a formless individual soul eternally existing among other similar entities (# 3), but is "That" which can not be described (# 4), the wholeness of What-Is, beyond quiescence and movement, impossible to concretize as a 'thing', so call it Mind, Consciousness, God, Absolute, Suchness, Self, Being, Not-being, Shunyata, Dharmakaya or Buddhahood.
"I Am that I Am."
'I am the body, I am the mind".
This is a simplistic thought, a wrong notion, consisting of superimposing the notion "I" over the changing aggregates. Both Buddhist and Vedantic analysis have shown that this body-mind or five aggregates combo is not one's "I".
I # 2
The relative I.
In terms of our dualistic experience, we appear as if we were separate entities. We impute the notion of "I" to the appearance of a personhood, to a name and a form, which is nothing else but, again, the five aggregates, the body-mind complex. Still knowing and understanding that no "I" is a person, we can acknowledge or recognize its apparent existence for practical matters and for communication in the context of our dualistic (subject/object) perception.
I # 3
"I am an eternal soul among other eternal souls".
It has been proved impossible to differentiate or to isolate such an entity beyond the changing five aggregates. This is the idea of "atman" -as a discrete eternal being- that Buddhism is denying in its doctrine of "anatman". Advaita Vedanta neither accepts such notion, specifically stating that the atman is not apart of Brahman.
I # 4
"I am That"
Here, "That" is the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute, which is ineffable or beyond intellectual aprehension. Buddhism, in general, has taken a negative approach to point towards it: "Shunyata", meaning "groundless, without bottom". It cannot be scanned or grasped thoroughly because "That" (reality-as-it-is) is not a discrete thing or object. All phenomena are interdependent, and hence absent of discrete -or separate, or concrete- existence. Vedanta, in general, has taken a positive approach to name it: "Brahman". However, Brahman cannot be explained or described (and, therefore, one of the Advaita Vedanta methods consists of discarding simplistic notions: "neti, neti"). The Great Perfection teachings, pinnacle of the Buddhayana, call the ultimate "Mind" or "Consciousness". The Chittamatra school of Buddhist philosophy uses similar designations. Important to clarify that these Buddhist vehicles use of positive denominations does not imply that they attribute any kind of concreteness or thingness to "That". They are content enough naming it too as "Suchness" and as "Thusness".
Since we all have a sense of being, pointed by the spontaneous expression "I am", we can conclude that the "I" that "I am" is not the body-mind five aggregates combo (# 1), is not the relative "I" that derives from our dualistic perception as if we were self-existing persons; notion that we can agree to keep for practical matters (# 2), is neither a celestial being nor a formless individual soul eternally existing among other similar entities (# 3), but is "That" which can not be described (# 4), the wholeness of What-Is, beyond quiescence and movement, impossible to concretize as a 'thing', so call it Mind, Consciousness, God, Absolute, Suchness, Self, Being, Not-being, Shunyata, Dharmakaya or Buddhahood.
"I Am that I Am."
No comments:
Post a Comment