'Who am I?' vs. 'I am'

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Ramesh,

 

I stand corrected. It would not be correct to say that the Buddha said

"No opinions are correct" to mean that "All opinions are wrong". I

must have qualified that statement more correctly and say that "All

ideas about enlightenment are subject to the conditions of avijja, and

hence are not acceptable as truth." I concede that "no opinions are

correct" could have confused everyone quite a bit.

 

I think this is a fallacy which both Advaitists as well as Buddhists

face. The dvaitists argue against the advaitists saying that the

Advaita Vedantic idea of "Brahman alone is, jagat is mithya..." is

that the theory of maya is applicable to the idea itself. For example

they say that since Sankara said that all that we perceive in this

universe is subject to avidya, even the statement "Atman=Brahman" is

subject to avidya.

 

While I am aware of all the counter-arguments against this, I must let

you know that the statement "no opinions are correct" is not a rule.

It is qualified more correctly in Buddhist literature. However, very

often we do find statements like "...no opinions are correct, oh

bhikkus..." - MN-cxvii-2. However, they are always classified more

appropriately.

 

Opinions about nirvana or enlightenment require knowledge beyond the

senses, and since we donot have it, we cannot form any opinion about

it. Knowledge/Wisdom referred to in the Pali Canon as 'panna' or

'pragna'.

 

There have been arguments such as "That nirvana is beyond the senses

is also an opinion and hence is not correct." have also been discussed

in the Abhidhamma pitika, where the Buddha points out the method of

interpreting his teachings.

 

I think I had written about the Buddha's method of classification of

questions and giving them fit replies and also mentioned whether they

needed to be interpreted or not. A detailed study of the Canon would

make a person understand that the statement "no opinions are correct"

is not meant as "all opinions are wrong".

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

advaitin, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@g...>

wrote:

> bhikkuyogi wrote:

>

> > > There is a vast territory between "every opinion is correct."

and "no

> > > opinions can be correct."

> >

> > If you mean to say that "all opinions are correct", I would only say

> > that we disagree. I am clearly asserting that "no opinions are

> > correct" as you rightly quoted me.

> >

> >

> >

> >

------

> >

> "No opinions are correct" is itself an opinion and hence a logical

> fallacy. To my knowledge "no opinions are correct" is not exactly what

> the Buddha said, but since you are an expert on that, I dont wish to

say

> anything further.

>

> Yours in the Dharma

> Ramesh

[Guest guest]

> There is a strong tradition of advaitins that holds that constant

> contemplation on the truth of "Who am I?" is the nididhyAsana

> enjoined by shruti. Therefore when someone opines that...

 

Let me mention that I am not against such a tradition. From what I

understand, the meaning of "Who am I?" in Bhagwan Ramana's tradition

is not a method of finding the "I", but a method of NOT finding that

"I". I have clearly mentioned that this is not being attacked.

 

When the Buddha was asked if all paths lead to the same result, the

Buddha replied clearly in the negative. He made it very clear that

only those methods that deal with:

 

1. Knowing the nature of stress and suffering in and out

2. Knowing the root cause of suffering as ignorance leading to clinging

3. Development of equanimity and knowledge on the basis of the four

main characteristics of a yogi (metta, mudita, kruna, upekkha).

4. The path to enlightenment necessarily requires one to follow

scruples and ethics, develops the control of the mind, rising of

knowledge/wisdom on the basis of anatta.

 

can lead to enlightenment.

 

> > > "Those who wish to be truly enlightened should not ask vain

questions

> > > like "Do I exist?", "Who experiences this?", "Who am I?" etc.,

 

These questions directly lead to the notion of "I" and affirm the

presence of an "I" which is actually only illusory. Ramana's method of

"Who am I?" is not the same as the one mentioned here in league with

the other questions. It is but an admirable fallacy of language that

the same statement when made a different intention can lead one to

different things. The "Who am I?" of Ramana aimed at helping a person

realize the illusory aspect of attachment or "me", "mine" etc. But the

"Who am I?" of the questions you quoted above intends to find the

origin of this "I" and defines it as "the body, the mind, etc.". The

question "Who experiences this?" directly points to the idea of a

feeling element.

> > krshna bhagawan ....

 

Whether, offerings to lesser Gods/Goddesses would lead to one ultimate

God or not was not of importance. It was more important to become one

permanently situated in wisdom/knowledge (thitapanno in Buddhist

literature or Sthitaprajna in Bhagawad Gita)

> And here a shraddhAvAn sAdhaka asks about contemplating on "who am I?"

> - a method sanctioned by shruti and declared effective by realized

> sages but then he is advised that it is vain to ask such questions--

> not on the basis of shruti, not on the basis of any other sacred text,

> not even on the basis of ones personal experience-- just that someone

> happens to hold that view.

 

It may also be noted that I donot wish to advise anyone to do this or

that. I am sorry to have given such an import. However, the point

still remains that the meaning of the teaching "Who am I?" should be

understood very carefully. It is not a joke.

 

Personally, I prefer the Buddha's "anatta" or the Upanishadic "Neti,

neti" or "Brahmaiva satyam" or "tattvam asi" rather than "Who am I?"

or "I am", although I donot decry them. It is only because I see it as

a potentially dangerous one if interpreted incorrectly, and not

because I feel the method is wrong.

 

-Bhikku Yogi