The Reminder that There is No "Me"
Pablo Picasso
The reminder of “no me” or “no self” (Pali anattā) contradicts the underlying belief that there is a “me” or “I”, which is generally assumed to be both the cause and witness of experience. It’s not that there is a “me” or “I” that is insubstantial, or one that is impermanent: there’s no such thing whatsoever. This reminder is necessary because we are born with the underlying tendency to assume there is a “me” that exists within our body, by which we seem to naturally have a certain perspective on experience.
While this belief is in place, no words or concepts are needed to know that it seems like there is a “me” - we know it in our bones as it were. Simply intoning the terms “me… me...” or “I… I…” will reveal the resonance with these terms - there really does seem to be someone “in here”, even if we cannot point to a cause or manifestation of that someone. It also doesn’t require identification with any particular aspect of experience, such as consciousness, memory, the body or anything else; “I Exist”, and that is that. In the fetters approach, the eighth fetter is the belief that “I Am” or “I Exist”, by which even when one strips away the first seven fetters, taking along with them the belief that there is anything that is owned by (or proves that there is a) “me” or “I”, we are still left with the fundamental and unmistakable sense that “I Am”.
No “Me” Whatsoever
The reminder of “no me”, if approached conceptually, often relies upon the argument that, because everything is impermanent, nothing can have the permanent substance that we might presume it has. Not only is this argument conceptual, it is quite abstract as well, and encourages us to look around at all of the people and things around us to see how they exist impermanently, rather than see that we don't exist at all. On the other hand, a more experiential version of the “no me” reminder doesn’t need to rely upon anything else such as the notion of “impermanence”: instead, it is verifiable in simple and direct experience. Put another way, rather than a conceptual or even analytical approach to seeing how or why there isn’t or cannot be a “me” or “I”, an experiential approach such as “direct pointing” reveals that there is no such thing.
The reminder of “no me” is therefore meant to be thorough and complete - there is no such thing, of any sort. While some interpretations of this term are that there is no permanent “me”, not only does that rely on the conceptual duality of permanence versus impermanence, but it can also serve to keep the illusion of an impermanent “me” more firmly in place. This is because anything (or anyone) that is thought to be “impermanent” will, by definition, elude our grasp should we try to find it or verify its existence. Therefore, the fact that we cannot find a “me” may in fact serve to affirm that “I” do in fact exist in an impermanent way.
Also, the reminder of “no me” is limited to only the “me” which we (appear to) experience, as opposed to it referring to anything or anyone else. We may tend to be more open to analyzing whether or not things and people “out there” are what they appear to be, as opposed to questioning whether we are what we appear to be. However, the only “person” about whom we have any direct information is about ourselves.
Dispelling the belief that there is a “me” of any sort is therefore a central focus of Buddhist practice. While the overall intent or outcome of the Buddhist path is of course the cessation of suffering, it is the “I” or “me”, and all of its apparent proofs and manifestations, that is the most obvious sign of whether or not we have sufficiently let go of untrue assumptions.
The Experience of “No Me”
For some, seeing that there is no “me” whatsoever might be done in one (rather large) step. In the Buddhist tradition, the monk Bahiya was told that “in the seen, there is simply the seen… there is no “you” in any of that”, and that was all it took. However, that is very much the exception, and the the Buddha is recorded to have remarked that Bahiya was the only one who was able to immediately take that large step. Non-Buddhist teachers, such as Nisargadatta, have also presented a path in which this substantial leap all the way to and then past the “I Am” is the primary focus, though he himself noted that so few were able to take that leap.
Most people will therefore find a gradual path more practicable. The fetters approach is one such approach, which strips away each layer of “me” until all that remains is the bare sense of “me”, or “I (Am)”. With this gradual approach, we begin to appreciate what the “no me” reminder is pointing toward when the first fetter falls, seeing that there is no separate “self” or ego that goes by a certain name and is the agent or controller of experience. Eventually, when the eighth fetter falls, we conclusively and forever see that there is no “me” whatsoever: at that juncture, all sense of identity, and thus resonance with terms like “I” or “me”, evaporates completely.
When one has completely dispelled the belief in “I” and “me”, no words or concepts are necessary to know the fact that there isn’t (and never was) such a thing - it is entirely experiential. It should be emphasized that, while all sense of “me” evaporates, it’s not that experience goes blank or that we become some sort of mindless zombie; the only thing missing from experience at that point is the belief in a “me” or that “I Am”, and of course the suffering that belief once brought about.
While anattā or “no me” is thus technically still true once fully awake, it is also no longer of any use: we no longer need to be reminded of the fact that there is no “me” because the belief has completely fallen away. It is rather like having had a bad cold for several days and then fully recovering: rather than going through each day thereafter reminding ourselves that we don’t have a cold, the fact that there is no longer a cold present is simply the “new normal”. Whether or not we have a cold is therefore no longer important.
Similarly, when all sense of “me” evaporates, this too becomes the “new normal”, whereby all else in life continues on: the only thing missing is a “me” to which anything could be referenced. We also no longer habitually project an essence or substance onto anyone or anything else either, even as we nominally recognize things like coffee cups and red stop lights in the course of daily life. As the Zen saying goes, upon awakening, mountains are still mountains and waters are still waters, albeit not the “real” sort of mountains and rivers we originally thought they were. The most important change, though, is that we no longer believe there is a “me” or “I” that is the center or basis of experience, and no reminder of this is necessary.
While this belief is in place, no words or concepts are needed to know that it seems like there is a “me” - we know it in our bones as it were. Simply intoning the terms “me… me...” or “I… I…” will reveal the resonance with these terms - there really does seem to be someone “in here”, even if we cannot point to a cause or manifestation of that someone. It also doesn’t require identification with any particular aspect of experience, such as consciousness, memory, the body or anything else; “I Exist”, and that is that. In the fetters approach, the eighth fetter is the belief that “I Am” or “I Exist”, by which even when one strips away the first seven fetters, taking along with them the belief that there is anything that is owned by (or proves that there is a) “me” or “I”, we are still left with the fundamental and unmistakable sense that “I Am”.
No “Me” Whatsoever
The reminder of “no me”, if approached conceptually, often relies upon the argument that, because everything is impermanent, nothing can have the permanent substance that we might presume it has. Not only is this argument conceptual, it is quite abstract as well, and encourages us to look around at all of the people and things around us to see how they exist impermanently, rather than see that we don't exist at all. On the other hand, a more experiential version of the “no me” reminder doesn’t need to rely upon anything else such as the notion of “impermanence”: instead, it is verifiable in simple and direct experience. Put another way, rather than a conceptual or even analytical approach to seeing how or why there isn’t or cannot be a “me” or “I”, an experiential approach such as “direct pointing” reveals that there is no such thing.
The reminder of “no me” is therefore meant to be thorough and complete - there is no such thing, of any sort. While some interpretations of this term are that there is no permanent “me”, not only does that rely on the conceptual duality of permanence versus impermanence, but it can also serve to keep the illusion of an impermanent “me” more firmly in place. This is because anything (or anyone) that is thought to be “impermanent” will, by definition, elude our grasp should we try to find it or verify its existence. Therefore, the fact that we cannot find a “me” may in fact serve to affirm that “I” do in fact exist in an impermanent way.
Also, the reminder of “no me” is limited to only the “me” which we (appear to) experience, as opposed to it referring to anything or anyone else. We may tend to be more open to analyzing whether or not things and people “out there” are what they appear to be, as opposed to questioning whether we are what we appear to be. However, the only “person” about whom we have any direct information is about ourselves.
Dispelling the belief that there is a “me” of any sort is therefore a central focus of Buddhist practice. While the overall intent or outcome of the Buddhist path is of course the cessation of suffering, it is the “I” or “me”, and all of its apparent proofs and manifestations, that is the most obvious sign of whether or not we have sufficiently let go of untrue assumptions.
The Experience of “No Me”
For some, seeing that there is no “me” whatsoever might be done in one (rather large) step. In the Buddhist tradition, the monk Bahiya was told that “in the seen, there is simply the seen… there is no “you” in any of that”, and that was all it took. However, that is very much the exception, and the the Buddha is recorded to have remarked that Bahiya was the only one who was able to immediately take that large step. Non-Buddhist teachers, such as Nisargadatta, have also presented a path in which this substantial leap all the way to and then past the “I Am” is the primary focus, though he himself noted that so few were able to take that leap.
Most people will therefore find a gradual path more practicable. The fetters approach is one such approach, which strips away each layer of “me” until all that remains is the bare sense of “me”, or “I (Am)”. With this gradual approach, we begin to appreciate what the “no me” reminder is pointing toward when the first fetter falls, seeing that there is no separate “self” or ego that goes by a certain name and is the agent or controller of experience. Eventually, when the eighth fetter falls, we conclusively and forever see that there is no “me” whatsoever: at that juncture, all sense of identity, and thus resonance with terms like “I” or “me”, evaporates completely.
When one has completely dispelled the belief in “I” and “me”, no words or concepts are necessary to know the fact that there isn’t (and never was) such a thing - it is entirely experiential. It should be emphasized that, while all sense of “me” evaporates, it’s not that experience goes blank or that we become some sort of mindless zombie; the only thing missing from experience at that point is the belief in a “me” or that “I Am”, and of course the suffering that belief once brought about.
While anattā or “no me” is thus technically still true once fully awake, it is also no longer of any use: we no longer need to be reminded of the fact that there is no “me” because the belief has completely fallen away. It is rather like having had a bad cold for several days and then fully recovering: rather than going through each day thereafter reminding ourselves that we don’t have a cold, the fact that there is no longer a cold present is simply the “new normal”. Whether or not we have a cold is therefore no longer important.
Similarly, when all sense of “me” evaporates, this too becomes the “new normal”, whereby all else in life continues on: the only thing missing is a “me” to which anything could be referenced. We also no longer habitually project an essence or substance onto anyone or anything else either, even as we nominally recognize things like coffee cups and red stop lights in the course of daily life. As the Zen saying goes, upon awakening, mountains are still mountains and waters are still waters, albeit not the “real” sort of mountains and rivers we originally thought they were. The most important change, though, is that we no longer believe there is a “me” or “I” that is the center or basis of experience, and no reminder of this is necessary.