Okay, So Who Am I Really?
This is actually the ultimate question. The pat Buddhist answer is that I (or you for that matter) does not exist. But what do we mean by that? This refers to the dependent nature of all phenomena. All things and beings are not only dependent on causes and conditions in order for them to come into being, they are also dependent on their parts.
Simple example. You are sitting in front of your computer. The computer has a keyboard, a screen, all the computer guts like the microprocessor and all that stuff. But if we examine the computer closely and try to find where the computer-ness of the computer actually is, we will fail. The computer only exists as a sum of its parts; it is not in the keyboard, not in the screen, etc. You may say that the computer is in the microprocessor. But where in the microprocessor? If you dissect the microprocessor, it is also dependent on its parts. And when the power is turned off, is it still a computer? Or is it a paperweight? As a result of this analysis we must come to the conclusion that the computer does not exist inherently, but only as the sum of its parts. And likewise for all of its parts.
Now if I turn this type of analysis toward myself and try to find what I call "me" I must come to the same conclusion. I can look at my limbs and ask if I am my limbs? I must conclude that I am not because if I lose my limbs, I am still me. How much of my body could I lose and still be me? Well, have you ever seen someone and thought, "I wish I had his or her body?" Clearly we believe that our "self" is not a function of our bodies. So what of our mind? Sitting in meditation and looking at the mind we can see that the mind is imbued by a series of thoughts, one after another, the present thought being an effect of the previous and the cause for the next. So our thoughts are not who we are. But what is behind all of these thoughts? What is the nature of the mind? Is that where we reside? Mind seems to be a process not a thing so I do not think I could posit being into it.
This is where I'm at with the whole "who am I?" thing. I do not exist other than the sum of my parts and processes. "I" is utterly dependent and does not exist inherently.
Most religions deposit self in something called a soul or atman. But if you look for it, it cannot be found. It is a "blind faith" belief. And I have a serious problem with blind faith.
Well "I" need to go to work. So "I" will continue later tonight with the problem of dualities. Oh boy, you can hardly wait.
Simple example. You are sitting in front of your computer. The computer has a keyboard, a screen, all the computer guts like the microprocessor and all that stuff. But if we examine the computer closely and try to find where the computer-ness of the computer actually is, we will fail. The computer only exists as a sum of its parts; it is not in the keyboard, not in the screen, etc. You may say that the computer is in the microprocessor. But where in the microprocessor? If you dissect the microprocessor, it is also dependent on its parts. And when the power is turned off, is it still a computer? Or is it a paperweight? As a result of this analysis we must come to the conclusion that the computer does not exist inherently, but only as the sum of its parts. And likewise for all of its parts.
Now if I turn this type of analysis toward myself and try to find what I call "me" I must come to the same conclusion. I can look at my limbs and ask if I am my limbs? I must conclude that I am not because if I lose my limbs, I am still me. How much of my body could I lose and still be me? Well, have you ever seen someone and thought, "I wish I had his or her body?" Clearly we believe that our "self" is not a function of our bodies. So what of our mind? Sitting in meditation and looking at the mind we can see that the mind is imbued by a series of thoughts, one after another, the present thought being an effect of the previous and the cause for the next. So our thoughts are not who we are. But what is behind all of these thoughts? What is the nature of the mind? Is that where we reside? Mind seems to be a process not a thing so I do not think I could posit being into it.
This is where I'm at with the whole "who am I?" thing. I do not exist other than the sum of my parts and processes. "I" is utterly dependent and does not exist inherently.
Most religions deposit self in something called a soul or atman. But if you look for it, it cannot be found. It is a "blind faith" belief. And I have a serious problem with blind faith.
Well "I" need to go to work. So "I" will continue later tonight with the problem of dualities. Oh boy, you can hardly wait.
posted by Mark at
7:53 AM
2 Comments:
What The Bleep Do We Know??
Regarding your comment, I've nursed two babies... so I sypathize very much with Milk Cows.. not to mention that many of the babies born to "humanely treated" cows are sold for veal.
Personally, I don't look down on anyone either for either eating meat or dairy.. it's just hard for me to swallow it for me, because it goes against my beliefs.
I was lucky to be raised a vegetarian.. I often wonder if I had been raised a meat eater if I would be a vegetarian..?
btw, I'm a pacifist who loves war movies too..
The argument is that we are NOT more than the sum of our parts; we are simply the sum of our parts.
Therefore when our body stops functioning, and the aggregate parts separate, the person labeled "I" ceases to be. The elements of the body continue to exist, the continuum of mind goes on, but there is nothing left to the self that we once clung to. We are only the sum of our parts, nothing more, we do not inherently exist.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home