7. Inquiry into "I Am"
Inquiring into the “I Am” entails looking for what seems to trigger such identification with or as experience, such as the sense that there is some sort of consciousness or awareness of a coffee cup, and looking underneath that for something that makes that differentiation or distinction in the first place. There will of course be various thoughts and sensations also occurring, but the focus is on the coffee cup and, most importantly, what “I” have or am that subtly determines that there is an “I” different from the coffee cup. If you instead deconstruct what is happening, the coffee cup becomes an uninterpreted array of thoughts and sensations, and the “I Am” becomes affirmed as that which is aware or conscious of those thoughts and sensations.
It might be said that the sense that “I Am” or “I Exist” is our most treasured possession, and quite literally the last thing we want to (and eventually do) give up. An exceedingly subtle exploration is therefore needed to see that there is in fact no “I Am”, and it was by far the longest stage for me - it required almost a year and a half of steady exploration. If I didn’t have the list of ten fetters to refer to, I might have stopped at the “I Am” (after the seventh fetter), since that shift was such a profound change, and it wasn’t immediately clear that “I Am” was in fact an illusion. I was fortunate, however, that I had no idea whether or not the “I Am” was an actual singularity: all I knew is that there was an omnipresent and undeniable “me” aspect. I also had great confidence that the list of fetters was a reliable set of signposts, and that like the previous fetters that had been “broken”, the “I Am” was also going to be seen as an illusion.
In terms of inquiry, it is a very subtle exploration, looking underneath what appears to be an undeniable sense of consciousness, awareness, presence or similar, and discerning what happens by which we then infer there is something like consciousness, awareness or presence. In other words, why does the sense that there is such a thing as “awareness” or “consciousness” arise in the first place? If that goes unquestioned, perhaps as something that is beyond arising, it can seem natural to recognize awareness or consciousness as not just existing, but also “what I Am”.
The belief that “I Am” can be dispelled by seeing that all of the aspects that go into such a belief, such as “awareness”, “consciousness”, etc. are themselves inferences and illusions. This is possible because we can notice when the sense of “I Am” starts to emerge, and investigate what happens just prior to that. The “I Am” is not a spatial duality in which there are two distinct physical locations involved. Instead, it might be described as more of an experiential duality, by which there seems to be some sort of existing or innate aspect to experience, a sense of beingness or ultimate identity, that is subtly cordoned off.
Many people experience the arising of the sense that “I Am” as what feels like a slight “stepping back” from experience when something in particular is discerned - that is how the perspective or point of view can arise. For example, if we see something interesting, provocative or even threatening, the sense of “I Am” can quickly arise, and it can physically feel like a subtle “stepping back” from what is happening. This step, which is experiential rather than a physical step, is so subtle that we might not detect it, therefore during the course of inquiry a good deal of time is often needed in order to become sensitive to and notice it. Eventually, that once-subtle “stepping back” becomes quite obvious.
In this, it is important to allow the natural distinguishing or differentiation that occurs, such as seeing a book or a table, to be just that: a book or a table, in whatever way it currently seems to be a book or a table. Otherwise, we might be inclined to dismiss it as “merely the thought about a book or table”, by which the nominal differentiation disappears, and there is no longer anything to work with. Or, we might prefer to be in “direct experience”, where nominal differentiations are also absent, in addition to there being an enhanced sense of awareness or consciousness. Also, when working with the fetters, at this stage when we no longer see actual or “real” things as if they exist in and of themselves, it isn’t necessary to remind ourselves that what we see isn’t as “real” as it once seemed.
The intent is to get a sense of what seems to happen just prior to that stepping back, by which the sense of “awareness” or “consciousness” come into being. For example, it may seem that a subtle form of differentiating, distinguishing, filtering or other process happens. Or it may seem like there is a subtle boundary that is demarcated around “me”, even if there is no longer anything assumed to be on the other side of the boundary. If so, there is some sort of differentiator, distinguisher, filter or demarcator that makes that happen. For example, I eventually noticed that it seems as though some sort of “filter” became active, and sorted what was happening into “me” and “not me” piles, as if it were inherently able to do so.
Whatever it seems to be, it is critical to not immediately label what happens as “awareness” or consciousness”, but just allow that there is a belief that a sort of filter, distinguisher or something similar exists somewhere, and allow that to do whatever it seems to do. This similar to, when inquiring into the separate “self”, not immediately attributing what is happening to the agency of that “self”.
The suggested inquiry is therefore a matter of looking for that which seems to be a differentiator, distinguisher, demarcator or similar. The apparent result of that, such as an actual difference or boundary, can also be searched for. In other words, the inquiry is not about looking for a “who”, but looking for a “what” that we eventually identify as “me” or “I Am”. While previously we may have identified with this or that, such as a body, a mind, memories and so forth, here we are looking for something we identify as.
How an inquiry into “I Am” might unfold, and how it is that we can obtain the proper vantage point as it were by which to see there is nothing that could be labelled “I” or “me”, can be viewed here.
It might be said that the sense that “I Am” or “I Exist” is our most treasured possession, and quite literally the last thing we want to (and eventually do) give up. An exceedingly subtle exploration is therefore needed to see that there is in fact no “I Am”, and it was by far the longest stage for me - it required almost a year and a half of steady exploration. If I didn’t have the list of ten fetters to refer to, I might have stopped at the “I Am” (after the seventh fetter), since that shift was such a profound change, and it wasn’t immediately clear that “I Am” was in fact an illusion. I was fortunate, however, that I had no idea whether or not the “I Am” was an actual singularity: all I knew is that there was an omnipresent and undeniable “me” aspect. I also had great confidence that the list of fetters was a reliable set of signposts, and that like the previous fetters that had been “broken”, the “I Am” was also going to be seen as an illusion.
In terms of inquiry, it is a very subtle exploration, looking underneath what appears to be an undeniable sense of consciousness, awareness, presence or similar, and discerning what happens by which we then infer there is something like consciousness, awareness or presence. In other words, why does the sense that there is such a thing as “awareness” or “consciousness” arise in the first place? If that goes unquestioned, perhaps as something that is beyond arising, it can seem natural to recognize awareness or consciousness as not just existing, but also “what I Am”.
The belief that “I Am” can be dispelled by seeing that all of the aspects that go into such a belief, such as “awareness”, “consciousness”, etc. are themselves inferences and illusions. This is possible because we can notice when the sense of “I Am” starts to emerge, and investigate what happens just prior to that. The “I Am” is not a spatial duality in which there are two distinct physical locations involved. Instead, it might be described as more of an experiential duality, by which there seems to be some sort of existing or innate aspect to experience, a sense of beingness or ultimate identity, that is subtly cordoned off.
Many people experience the arising of the sense that “I Am” as what feels like a slight “stepping back” from experience when something in particular is discerned - that is how the perspective or point of view can arise. For example, if we see something interesting, provocative or even threatening, the sense of “I Am” can quickly arise, and it can physically feel like a subtle “stepping back” from what is happening. This step, which is experiential rather than a physical step, is so subtle that we might not detect it, therefore during the course of inquiry a good deal of time is often needed in order to become sensitive to and notice it. Eventually, that once-subtle “stepping back” becomes quite obvious.
In this, it is important to allow the natural distinguishing or differentiation that occurs, such as seeing a book or a table, to be just that: a book or a table, in whatever way it currently seems to be a book or a table. Otherwise, we might be inclined to dismiss it as “merely the thought about a book or table”, by which the nominal differentiation disappears, and there is no longer anything to work with. Or, we might prefer to be in “direct experience”, where nominal differentiations are also absent, in addition to there being an enhanced sense of awareness or consciousness. Also, when working with the fetters, at this stage when we no longer see actual or “real” things as if they exist in and of themselves, it isn’t necessary to remind ourselves that what we see isn’t as “real” as it once seemed.
The intent is to get a sense of what seems to happen just prior to that stepping back, by which the sense of “awareness” or “consciousness” come into being. For example, it may seem that a subtle form of differentiating, distinguishing, filtering or other process happens. Or it may seem like there is a subtle boundary that is demarcated around “me”, even if there is no longer anything assumed to be on the other side of the boundary. If so, there is some sort of differentiator, distinguisher, filter or demarcator that makes that happen. For example, I eventually noticed that it seems as though some sort of “filter” became active, and sorted what was happening into “me” and “not me” piles, as if it were inherently able to do so.
Whatever it seems to be, it is critical to not immediately label what happens as “awareness” or consciousness”, but just allow that there is a belief that a sort of filter, distinguisher or something similar exists somewhere, and allow that to do whatever it seems to do. This similar to, when inquiring into the separate “self”, not immediately attributing what is happening to the agency of that “self”.
The suggested inquiry is therefore a matter of looking for that which seems to be a differentiator, distinguisher, demarcator or similar. The apparent result of that, such as an actual difference or boundary, can also be searched for. In other words, the inquiry is not about looking for a “who”, but looking for a “what” that we eventually identify as “me” or “I Am”. While previously we may have identified with this or that, such as a body, a mind, memories and so forth, here we are looking for something we identify as.
How an inquiry into “I Am” might unfold, and how it is that we can obtain the proper vantage point as it were by which to see there is nothing that could be labelled “I” or “me”, can be viewed here.