1. "I Am" in the Buddhist Tradition
In the teachings ascribed to the historical Buddha, he recognized that people tend to not just embrace the notion “I Am”, but also identify with this or that, by which they conclude “I Am This” or “I Am That”.
Prior to receiving instruction, people regard form (such as the body) as "me", or that "I" possess form, or form is in "me", or "I am" in form. They regard sensations, perceptions, conditionings and consciousness in these ways as well.
If they do regard any of these as “me”, something “I” possess, something that is in “me”, or something in which “I” am, the notion “I Am” has clearly not been eradicated in them. Because the notion “I Am” persists, they settle into a “body” and its various sensory experiences. (from SN 22.47)
While the notion “I Am” is therefore the underlying issue, the Buddha often recommended a two-step approach. In the first step, one reflects on form, sensations and all else which one typically identifies with, and reminds oneself that “this is not “me”, this is not (an) “I Am”, this is not mine”.
By that or some other approach, one can release all such identification with other things, by which the phrases “I Am This” or “I Am That” no longer have any meaning. While some are able to do this in one rather large step, for many a more gradual approach is needed, such as with the fetters approach where the first seven fetters describe the increasingly subtle ways in which we identify with “this” or “that”.
Once that identification as “this” or “that” stops, there remains what seems to be an irrefutable sense that “I Am”. It might be said that though we no longer identify with anything in experience, we still identify as experience itself. There is what appears to be consciousness (or awareness, “presence,” a sense of “being,” or similar), by which the experience sensations and thoughts further supports the notion “I Am”. That this is so, and is so subtle, was summarized by a monk named Khemaka:
By that or some other approach, one can release all such identification with other things, by which the phrases “I Am This” or “I Am That” no longer have any meaning. While some are able to do this in one rather large step, for many a more gradual approach is needed, such as with the fetters approach where the first seven fetters describe the increasingly subtle ways in which we identify with “this” or “that”.
Once that identification as “this” or “that” stops, there remains what seems to be an irrefutable sense that “I Am”. It might be said that though we no longer identify with anything in experience, we still identify as experience itself. There is what appears to be consciousness (or awareness, “presence,” a sense of “being,” or similar), by which the experience sensations and thoughts further supports the notion “I Am”. That this is so, and is so subtle, was summarized by a monk named Khemaka:
Regarding the five types of phenomena normally clung to (form, sensations, thoughts, conditionings, and consciousness), I no longer believe any of them to be "me" or to belong to "me". And yet, the notion 'I am' has not yet vanished in me in relation to these five types of phenomena, even though I do not regard any of them as “I Am This”. It is like freshly laundered clothing which, though clean, has the lingering scent of soap which still must be removed. (from SN 22.89)
In the fetters approach, after the seventh fetter (the illusion that “I am perceiving things”) falls, there is no longer an actual “something” such as a body or mind to identify with - the phrase “I Am That” can no longer ring true. And yet, there is still an undeniable sense of “me”, which is felt and expressed as “I Am” or “I Exist”. It feels so fundamental that it doesn’t need any proof derived from identifying with “this” or “that”. It may seem as though there is “beingness”, even though it is now clear that there is no separate or distinct “being”. It can feel like there is an inherent and innate awareness or consciousness, a presence, and an aliveness. There can be an enhanced sense of immediacy and intimacy to experience.
As a result, this bare sense of “I Am” can make it seem as though the process or path of letting go of illusions and awakening is complete. There very much seems to be a “me”, albeit an empty “me”, by which phrases like “I am everything” will ring true. There may no longer seem to be a separate “self” (which is the first fetter), but it certainly seems there is an innate or inherent Self that will always exist. The truth of phrases such as “I Know That I Am” or “I Am that I Am” seem irrefutable.
And yet, the “I Am” is also a complete fiction: it is an illusion. Step 2 is therefore a matter of letting go of the underlying illusion of “I Am”. When all sense of “I Am” is finally gone, traditional Buddhist literature describes it as though we have drawn back from something we were once stuck to, and are finally free from it. We free ourselves by abandoning the notion “I Am”, cut out its very roots, make it like a hollow stump, and eradicate it so it can no longer grow back. After that, it is impossible that a twinge of doubt or uncertainty about “I Am” can arise - the rooting out of the notion “I Am” is in fact the escape from doubt and uncertainty. One is then liberated from all notions of being. (from AN 4.38, 6.13, 3.58)
As a result, this bare sense of “I Am” can make it seem as though the process or path of letting go of illusions and awakening is complete. There very much seems to be a “me”, albeit an empty “me”, by which phrases like “I am everything” will ring true. There may no longer seem to be a separate “self” (which is the first fetter), but it certainly seems there is an innate or inherent Self that will always exist. The truth of phrases such as “I Know That I Am” or “I Am that I Am” seem irrefutable.
And yet, the “I Am” is also a complete fiction: it is an illusion. Step 2 is therefore a matter of letting go of the underlying illusion of “I Am”. When all sense of “I Am” is finally gone, traditional Buddhist literature describes it as though we have drawn back from something we were once stuck to, and are finally free from it. We free ourselves by abandoning the notion “I Am”, cut out its very roots, make it like a hollow stump, and eradicate it so it can no longer grow back. After that, it is impossible that a twinge of doubt or uncertainty about “I Am” can arise - the rooting out of the notion “I Am” is in fact the escape from doubt and uncertainty. One is then liberated from all notions of being. (from AN 4.38, 6.13, 3.58)