Q: I recently read this question: “Is there really a 'me,' at all, anywhere, in any way, shape,
or form? Was there ever?” Will an awake person always answer “no”
to this question?
A: This question is often used by
teachers when students are on the edge – just ready to drop into
the vastness but a bit afraid. It's cleverly worded because it makes
the student aware that s/he doesn't have to do anything or go
anywhere since there was never an obstacle to the realization in the
first place!
But without this context, to ask this
question and expect the answer to be a statement of fact is very
problematic. Language by its nature is dualistic. It is language that
invents the ideas “me” and “not me.” Maybe someone has a
great moment of liberation and discovers they don't really exist.
Then they bring that realization back into the usual dualistic
consciousness from which thought arises and declare it the absolute
truth. But the problem is that in that relative world
what they have discovered can't be captured. And if one declares
that there is no “me,” one may find oneself on guard to make sure
no “me” thoughts ever appear again. Good luck!
The
way out is to see that the “me” isn't a problem. The problem is
not recognizing that the “me” exists in a larger context in which
all of life, time, space, and all appearances, including “me” and
“no-me” arise – and that we are
this context – this context is what is meant by essential
nature.
Addendum: I'm trying to post a response to Pat's comment, but Blogger won't let me, for some reason. So I'll do it here.
I checked out the Buddha at the Gas Pump site and also a few moments of Francis Bennett. Both gems -- thanks for sharing them.
You mentioned something about straddling the fence between "me" and "no-me." I want to say that, for myself anyway, I don't experience it as straddling. It's more like there's a "me" in my everyday life, but because of having realized no-me, the "me" is now experienced differently. I know it is really transparent -- a creation of thought -- and that it's not essentially who I am. It is almost as though I could put my hand through it and, touching things seemingly outside "me," actually sense that I'm touching myself. The sense of this is very subtle, almost a sixth sense sort of thing. None of this is intellectual, such as when we straddle political positions or something like that.
That probably doesn't make anything clearer!
And Kim, I tried to thank you for your comment when you left it as well, but also couldn't figure out how at that time. So I'll do it now. Yes, context is everything. I'm glad if what I said clarified that.
Addendum: I'm trying to post a response to Pat's comment, but Blogger won't let me, for some reason. So I'll do it here.
I checked out the Buddha at the Gas Pump site and also a few moments of Francis Bennett. Both gems -- thanks for sharing them.
You mentioned something about straddling the fence between "me" and "no-me." I want to say that, for myself anyway, I don't experience it as straddling. It's more like there's a "me" in my everyday life, but because of having realized no-me, the "me" is now experienced differently. I know it is really transparent -- a creation of thought -- and that it's not essentially who I am. It is almost as though I could put my hand through it and, touching things seemingly outside "me," actually sense that I'm touching myself. The sense of this is very subtle, almost a sixth sense sort of thing. None of this is intellectual, such as when we straddle political positions or something like that.
That probably doesn't make anything clearer!
And Kim, I tried to thank you for your comment when you left it as well, but also couldn't figure out how at that time. So I'll do it now. Yes, context is everything. I'm glad if what I said clarified that.
NOTE: The previous post, on detachment, may now be found on the FAQ page.
