I Me Mine - a longer discourse on the origin of distress

I almost wrote the "organ" of distress - may have been more catchy if I had.

Buddhism has certain basic principles within it that are universally recognized and accepted by all Buddhist schools, sects and sub sects.

Although the interpretation and explanations can sometimes differ, the teaching of "anatta" or "no-self" is one of those common principles. It is also one of the defining marks that makes Buddhism stand out from the crowd of religions in general.

In our ordinary experiencing of the world we have this emotional and cognitive separation or categorization of what we call "reality" into a distinct "me" that is here, and a distinct "not-me" that is over there or that is other than me.

This separation seems absolute, and it even appears to us that this "duality" really and truly exists as a THING because to us, there are THINGS apparently existing as independent THINGS, and there is this "me-THING" apparently existing as an independent "being" or me-"THING".

One of the ways to deconstruct and test this hypothesis is to use logic. We have already used logic to deconstruct [to some extent] the "other", the "objects" that appear in this experience of duality as being object-THINGS. Now we turn to the "subject" side or the "me-THING" to see if it can be similarly deconstructed.


What are we saying when we use these terms like "I", "me", or "mine"? What do these terms refer to? Is there something truly there (here) that is my actual being? Am I a soul? If such a thing did exist it should be ultimately findable by ultimate analysis, and so, we will use that analysis. But first, we have to identify what it is we're looking for.

Ordinarily then, we have this experience of "I" as being an unchanged, enduring un-dividable, independent, self standing THING (a being) we refer to as "I" or "me" or my "self". We view this "me", this "self" as an actual solid THING that exists just as it appears to -or is assumed to- exist.

We say for example "my body" as though it were owned by something perhaps within the mind. We say "my mind" as though it were owned by something perhaps within the body. But is there an owner? And if so, where is he/she?


What if, one day you woke up and discovered that what (who) you thought you were was not really THAT at all? That this "self" that you THINK you are (or thought you were), that you THINK exists as a THING is not that at all, that in fact, what you THINK you perceive as this THING (hint, please note the similarities between those two words) was instead almost the complete opposite of what you thought? What if you discovered that your "self" was in fact every other "thing" except what you had been THINKING of as your "self"?

This situation is much closer to the truth than we might be willing to accept.

If we could find out that we are not actually bound by these ever recurring concepts of "me", that there is no real me-"THING" to be defensive about, to be offensive with, or to contain within any kind of "fence", if we could find this to be the case, the implications would be big!

Some of the implications that could follow such a discovery are things like, release of stress, contentment, a sense of peace, a sense of purpose, greater compassion and patience. In other words, what could follow from this kind of discovery is "release and benefit" - in Buddhist terms, "liberation" or "enlightenment".

Our biggest fears - and therefore our most fundamental source of anxiety - stem from our sense of self. Not just our merely experienced sense of self, but our sense of a self-THING that is "here" as OPPOSED to "there", that is "alive" as OPPOSED to "dead", that is "me" as OPPOSED to "you".

THAT, is a lot of 'opposition' to carry around, and THAT is the source of our most pervasive type of suffering.


Traditionally, in Buddhism there are 3 levels of unhappiness or what is called "suffering".

There is one kind of unhappiness that we all experience as pain - physical pain, emotional pain, experiences that we all can recognize as painful or distressful.

Another level of unhappiness or suffering is called the "suffering of change". Here, we find temporary relief from the first kind of suffering, but this will eventually revert to pain once again. We maybe can take drugs for example, or we win the lotto, or we can change what THINGS we are surrounded by - in other words, we 'move THINGS around' and this change gives us some temporary relief from our pain. This "relief" doesn't last, it changes back eventually to distress.

But the most basic level of suffering is called "all pervasive suffering". This is the basic level (foundation) of ALL our suffering because it is based in the mis-perception of experience as containing a "me" that is a real THING experiencing "THINGS" out there.

When we attach (or grab) at this mis-perception that "I am here" opposed to "everyTHING else", in other words, when we take this mere collection of conditions, of experiences, and we conceive this idea that "here" is a real, truly existing THING called "me", when that happens, the only long term outcome can be distress or suffering.

We get very protective of such an idea and this protectiveness contains extreme amounts of emotional energy.

So what if that "me" was not so solid after all? What if "I" did NOT stand in opposition to "other"?

What if also, this experience that we call "my life" was NOT even in opposition to some THING called "my death"?

We are so sure that there is this "me", that "I" exist, even that this "me" is in essence an eternal "soul" - and we only hope that "eternal" is the actual case.

We also fear death based on this because we think there is an actual "ending" that is coming at us.

Where is "me"? What is this THING that I mean when I use the term "I" or "me" or "mine"?

Is me these thoughts? If so, why not call my thoughts by my name?

Is me this body? If so, when I lose a limb there should be less "me" than before, and less "me" than others have (who have all their limbs).

Is me this brain? If so, we should be able to fall in love with some brain tissue.

Is me a ghost like presence hovering around my body, or maybe inside of it? If so, why can't we see it or measure it?


Lets look closer at the possibility of a "me" that is constantly existing as (or within) my mental process - Am I my mind?

We think that we have only one consciousness but this is not the actual case. Consciousness is constantly changing and is made up entirely of conscious experiences.

Lets say it this way, if you analyze your mind in meditation you can see that concepts for example or "thoughts" have an audible component, a visual component usually, an emotional aspect, a subtle or sub-conscious factor, even associated smells and happy or negative feelings associated with them. Consciousness is multifaceted, ever changing with every new experience and sensation. My consciousness could never be a constantly abiding "me".

Am I the feelings that are there in my experiencing of touch?

No. My touch consciousness changes with every new tactile sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?

Am I the odors that are there in my experiencing of smell?

No. My smell consciousness changes with every new olfactory sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?

Am I the flavors that are there in my experiencing of taste?

No. My taste consciousness changes with every new palatable sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?

Am I the sounds that are there in my experiencing of hearing?

No. My hearing consciousness changes with every new audible sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?

Am I the emotions that are there in my experiencing of moods?

No. My mood consciousness changes with every new emotional sensation. Can what changes be considered a constant being?

Am I the ideas that are there in my experiencing of thoughts?

No. My conceptual consciousness changes with every new thought. Can what changes be considered a constant being?

Am I the habitual impulses that are there in my experiencing of inclination and tendencies? Am I my sub-conscious?

No. My impulsive consciousness changes with every new experience. Can what changes be considered a constant being?


By this reasoning, we can see that the self, the "me", the "I" that we think is "there" as our mind, or as a THING in our mind, is in fact not there.

Does this mean we are nothing at all? No.

It means we are not a particular THING. We are cause and conditions. But even cause and conditions have an illusory appearance as THINGS. Not even cause and conditions exist as THINGS that we can conceptualize or capture as an idea. We are ineffable. We are experience - but not experience as a THING that you can point out.

And lest you jump to the conclusion that because we don't exist as "self-THINGS" its ok to kill or bring harm to other "no-self-beings" you should consider this:

Each being, each non-self being, is an entire universe unto themselves. Why? Because each being is a unique 'experiencing of' being, of reality. Each one has experience, each one has a mind, not a self, but a unique mental process of experience. You harm a single being and you harm an entire universe. Now carry THAT karma around with you for a while!


The analysis could go on and on all night, but in the final analysis, when you try to find a single THING that is the real, actual, truly existing THING we call "I" or "me", you can't find it!

So I ask again, does that mean I don't exist at all? Not really.

When we jump to the opposing conclusion that "I don't exist" we make the same mistake that we did when we thought that "I do exist". The mistake is that we conceptualize this experience that we are having right now into a THING called "existing". When you do that, you instantly make a THING called not-existing.

Can you see this?

Lets take this idea of death for example. Death is not an end - there are no endings.

But why? How could this be?

It's because there is no THING to be contrasted with death. There is no real THING called "life", no real THING called "existing". And also, there are no existing object or subject THINGS that could possibly end.

There are no beginnings, no birth, no life.

But why?

Because there are no THINGS that begin, and also, because there is no THING there that can be contrasted with some non existing "THING" called "beginning". If you don't have THINGS then you don't have beginnings or endings because these are merely qualities of THINGNESS.

What we experience ordinarily as "THINGS" are compound, made of "other", they completely lack this "THINGNESS" in their reality. This applies not just to certain "objects" but to every experience we have. In other words, to all phenomena.

No THINGS, no beginnings , no endings!

Like pointing to a mountain and claiming "THAT" is the mountain. What is the mountain? Height? Rock? Snow? Sky? Clouds? Steepness? Is there a being living inside of all this called the mountains "me"?

In the same way, you should see that there is no living. Because there are no THINGS that are living THINGS. And there is also no THING called living that is opposed to a THING called not-living.

Even in science, we cannot absolutely distinguish what is living from what is not living..is a virus alive or not alive?

There is just this.

What is "this"?

This is just this.

Experience this.

When you look out on all this, when this is your experience, what you see can be described as just change. Not THINGS changing - there are no THINGS - there is just change.

But you can get caught in the trap here of THINKing that this THING called change is a real THING that you can look at. It's not.

Change is not a THING!

Change is ineffable. Interdependence is ineffable. Change is voidness. Voidness is ineffable. These labels are all descriptive of the same experience and this experience can't be compared to any THING.

So this is release. Release and benefit.

This is the fact that you are not what you THINK you are. If you really want to point to your self, point to other.

"There" is the me! I am that, not this.

BTW, that is the basis of compassion.

But even this is not truly a THING.

I could tell you that according to the most subtle teachings of Buddhism 'you are Buddha' or you are 'your Buddha nature' but that instantly becomes a THING to you when it is meant to be everything EXCEPT that.

THINGS are limitation, containment

Ultimately, YOU are unlimited, uncontainable

So for now its best to leave it as an experience you must have.This is what Buddhism is telling you, have this experience, find out for yourself what "me" is.

The teaching of anatta (no-self) - when directly and non-conceptually realized - brings us to a realistic relationship with all of our experiences. This is described as release because the tension that is balled up as all that fear, as defensiveness and so forth, all that vanishes.

In actuality it becomes limitless love and compassion in the highest sense and that is what is meant by "benefit".

In fact, the deeper meaning of the term "release" is that your true nature is utterly without limit in any way. In Buddhism, the descriptions of what seems to be "supernatural" phenomena, all of this is based on the unlimited-ness that is voidness-interdependence, the fundamental ground of reality.

Those are some big words there which just mean that the mind is pretty powerful when it's potential is fully actualized.

So this experience of our self, our "I ME Mine" "exists" to the extent that "it" (like all experiences are) is conditional, made of everything else, interdependent with everything else. Conventionally, relatively, it is merely a name that we give to certain experiences that appear AS experiences.

Ultimately, the true self, the Buddhaness, the no-self, the NOT-self, the no-THING that is our uniqueness of experiencing, this is completely beyond any description.

It is truly not-self.
It is everything.
That is how it looks when realized.

How you get to that realization is -in part- by not making that (self or "me") into a THING.

Recognizing this (not an easy thing to do) frees the self-contained energy within from it's bounded state of anxiety associated with the reification and protection of it's appearance.

All this works because once you know the truth, once you recognize it, you can't go back, you can't UN-know it.

Sorry for all the words here.