Who am I?
It seems that this question is so simple and doesn’t require a serious attention. In fact, I don’t have to squeeze my mind for me to be able to answer this question. All I have to do is to know and be familiar with all my personal informations, such as my name, birth date, accomplishment or achievement and the like. I also must know what are my skills and talents as these add more to my personal description.
However, diagnosing those informations which supposedly would tell something about me, I found myself in question. Am I really those descriptions? Are those informations really refer to me or to the “I” in question. In other words, am I the same or referred to as my name, skills, personal traits, etc.?
It is very tempting to say yes to all those informations and descriptions about me and leave it intact. Anyway, why bother so much on this question. There is more business to do than just letting my precious time used by keeping myself busy figuring the answers to this simple question.
Unfortunately, I am always bothered by the fact that there is something wrong. Those informations doesn’t really reflect the real me. The voice within keeps on shouting that the “I” is not what is being described and more so identified. “I” am not those informations. “I” am not the name. “I” am not the descriptions.
Names and descriptions then are there not for identification of the real “I” but for the practical purpose of singling out entities. It must not therefore be construed as the real “I”. This is to give justice and let the “I” be known in terms of its realness. The great danger about descriptions is when we take them to be the real “I”. As a result, identity crisis emerged. The image formulated and taken to be real alienates the “I”. It is then just but proper to take personal informations only as a pragmatic signs of the real “I”. It is then important to note that when it comes to the identification of the real “I”, the appropriate action should always be to keep silent.
Truly, the “I” is not what is described. In fact the “I” is indescribable. The “I” is more than the names, qualities and personal informations. The “I” is more than words. The moment it is identified thru words, it becomes what is now and therefore limited. The “I” is not what is now. On the contrary, it is unlimited and absolute.
Similar to this refection is the idea of Brahman and Atman in the Indian culture. The Atman which is the individual self is one with Brahman which is the “true self”. However, the self now or the individual self (with all those qualities and contingent description) is not the true self. The true self is that which no words could define it. The idea is that the language which we used to describe is very limiting. But real self is not limited. It is actually full of possibilities. In this regard, it is the neti, neti (not this, not that). It is therefore implied that I must tell nothing about Brahman in order to avoid misidentification.
It seems that this question is so simple and doesn’t require a serious attention. In fact, I don’t have to squeeze my mind for me to be able to answer this question. All I have to do is to know and be familiar with all my personal informations, such as my name, birth date, accomplishment or achievement and the like. I also must know what are my skills and talents as these add more to my personal description.
However, diagnosing those informations which supposedly would tell something about me, I found myself in question. Am I really those descriptions? Are those informations really refer to me or to the “I” in question. In other words, am I the same or referred to as my name, skills, personal traits, etc.?
It is very tempting to say yes to all those informations and descriptions about me and leave it intact. Anyway, why bother so much on this question. There is more business to do than just letting my precious time used by keeping myself busy figuring the answers to this simple question.
Unfortunately, I am always bothered by the fact that there is something wrong. Those informations doesn’t really reflect the real me. The voice within keeps on shouting that the “I” is not what is being described and more so identified. “I” am not those informations. “I” am not the name. “I” am not the descriptions.
Names and descriptions then are there not for identification of the real “I” but for the practical purpose of singling out entities. It must not therefore be construed as the real “I”. This is to give justice and let the “I” be known in terms of its realness. The great danger about descriptions is when we take them to be the real “I”. As a result, identity crisis emerged. The image formulated and taken to be real alienates the “I”. It is then just but proper to take personal informations only as a pragmatic signs of the real “I”. It is then important to note that when it comes to the identification of the real “I”, the appropriate action should always be to keep silent.
Truly, the “I” is not what is described. In fact the “I” is indescribable. The “I” is more than the names, qualities and personal informations. The “I” is more than words. The moment it is identified thru words, it becomes what is now and therefore limited. The “I” is not what is now. On the contrary, it is unlimited and absolute.
Similar to this refection is the idea of Brahman and Atman in the Indian culture. The Atman which is the individual self is one with Brahman which is the “true self”. However, the self now or the individual self (with all those qualities and contingent description) is not the true self. The true self is that which no words could define it. The idea is that the language which we used to describe is very limiting. But real self is not limited. It is actually full of possibilities. In this regard, it is the neti, neti (not this, not that). It is therefore implied that I must tell nothing about Brahman in order to avoid misidentification.
No comments:
Post a Comment