Changing 'I' and 'You' statements

Spirituality
#1

It has occurred to me that virtually all of us have a way of speaking that promotes identification with our body, mind, personality. Rather than recognizing our body, mind and personality as something belonging to us, we directly identify ourselves with it e.g, “I am beautiful” as opposed to saying “This body that I have is beautiful” It may seem like they are saying exactly the same thing, but there is a psychological difference: “I am beautiful” presupposes a belief that you are the body. This means whatever happens to the body, happens to you too. If the body is in a bad condition, then you are in a bad condition. If the body is diseased, then you are diseased. If one day the body is lost, you are lost.

On the other hand, the statement, “The body that I have is beautiful” creates a separation between you and your body. The fact that the body is beautiful, does not mean you are beautiful. It is a credit to the body. Thus you can never develop the problem of vanity. Whatever happens to that body, or whatever condition it is currently in, it cannot affect you. If the body is diseased, it does not follow you are diseased. If one day you lose that body, it does not mean you lose yourself.

There are many ‘I’ and ‘you’ statements we make that presuppose a belief and psychology that identifies us with an object of our awareness. Statements like “You are beautiful” presupposes a belief that we think another person is the body. Instead to say “You have a beautiful body” does not create identification, and then we can approach the person without prejudice. Often when we approach somebody of the opposite sex whose body we are attracted to we feel anxiety in approaching them because we identify the beauty of their body with them. Actually, their body being beautiful is no credit to them. It does not follow they are beautiful, if their body is beautiful. If we approach with this attitude then we can approach them without anxiety.

Can you think of any ‘I’ and ‘You’ statements you make and what would be an alternative statement to make that does not produce identification?

#2

There is of course a certain level of impracticality to using statements without identification. Take the statement, “I am going out” In this statement the actual agent that is going is the body, not the I. However if we said, “This body is going out” you are going to get funny looks :smiley: Although the latter statement is accurate, it is impractical to use for the purpose of communication.

#3

But the I is going out with the body, the I isn’t still at home, Where has the I been left then?..:confused:

#4

The ‘I’ is always ‘at home’, no matter where the physical body is.

#5

I did not understand what you said exactly. The ‘I’ is never going anywhere. It is the body that is going. Like for example space does not go anywhere. It is the background on which all thing are coming and going. In like manner, the ‘I’ is like space, it does not like come or go anywhere, it is the background within which all perception takes place, in which the whole universe is known. Hence the Upanishads say that Brahman is everywhere at once, it moves swiftly without moving at all. The ‘I’ is the constant background of all existence.

#6

Om Surya Deva.
My statement was meant as a reply to kareng as it made me smile. I smiled because of the memory of my thinking a good while back. I would have produced a very similar response as kareng to your initial two posts.
Of course, the ‘I’ is never going anywhere as it is, as you rightly pointed out, the background of all existence and whether this physical body is going anywhere or staying where it is, the ‘I’ is not affected. My egoic mind perceives itself in its limited way as being connected to the body and therefore thinks it is going ‘with’ the body (and for the thinking mind, this might even be true). However, the ‘I’ is in union with the vastness of existence, beyond this universe. The term ‘in union’ however already creates the possibility of separation which does not exist.

#7

Thanks Arati. My reply was also to Kareng. Sorry for the confusion :slight_smile:

#8

[[QUOTE=Arati;73756]Om Surya Deva.
My statement was meant as a reply to kareng as it made me smile. I smiled because of the memory of my thinking a good while back. I would have produced a very similar response as kareng to your initial two posts.
Of course, the ‘I’ is never going anywhere as it is, as you rightly pointed out, the background of all existence and whether this physical body is going anywhere or staying where it is, the ‘I’ is not affected. My egoic mind perceives itself in its limited way as being connected to the body and therefore thinks it is going ‘with’ the body (and for the thinking mind, this might even be true). However, the ‘I’ is in union with the vastness of existence, beyond this universe. The term ‘in union’ however already creates the possibility of separation which does not exist.[/QUOTE]

Oh…right okay, so, …I am going now, or am I? have I gone? no I haven’t, i am still here, no I am not, but wait, I am, I have left, no I havent… :eek:

I am a dim wit and thank you

#9

Karen, what Arati and I are saying that the part that is going is the body not the ‘I’ The I is never going anywhere, it watches the body go. Here is your proof: Next time you move from point A to point, watch your body moving. You will realize the the part that is moving is your body and not you, the watcher. The watcher is always still.

#10

Hi surya

Yes I got it in the end xx Thanks

#11

kareng,

Just say…“I am not my body,” and the rest goes away.

siva

#12

stop using self identifying words. and you will stop identifying. this can be taken very far.
Im going to the store. becomes going to the store.
we good? becomes good?
Use of articulation will increase.
Tone of voice eventually will be necessary as well as body language.
Eventually a psychic knowing will be needed.
One of the highest forms of communication is to communicate purely through the eyes.

It just depends how far you want to take it.
I.me.mine.ours.yours.his.hers.we.myself.yourself. etc. all these are words of identification. :stuck_out_tongue:

#13

“I” once read an article that was talking about sexism in job titles and recommending that we remove Man or Men from all titles and substitute gen which was to be considered gender neutral.

Policegen, Firegen, Mailgen, etc.

Of course “Me” being “me” thought that Mailgen could also be considered sexist based on pronunciation therefore it should be Gengen… then since “I” am “I” i quickly thought the whole thing was silly

What do “You” think

Cogito ergo sum

#14

I like what this is saying - We all have to realize separation from the self.
The reason for you, me, any of us have a self - we are conscious, selfish-minded, selfish-motivated, so no wonder our language comes through in such a way.

Lena Ausby

#15

Hi Folks,

If you haven’t read it yet… One of my heroes.

I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

peace,

siva

#16

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;73668]On the other hand, the statement, “The body that I have is beautiful” creates a separation between you and your body. The fact that the body is beautiful, does not mean you are beautiful. It is a credit to the body. Thus you can never develop the problem of vanity.[/QUOTE]my mind loves the way your mind thinks :smiley:

#17

The Rastas seem to have come to this awareness long ago. They say “the I” for I and “I and I” for we.

#18

Some actually experience pain when saying I, me, or mine. This person or the I works much better for some. Give thanks to the enlightened crowd called the Rastas.

#19

I believe it is important to understand that we aren’t the bodies we use. However, it is important to not make the mistake of getting caught up in an assertive intellectual understanding of this fact rather than a genuine knowing.

Because of experiences I’ve had I’m quite certain that I am not my body, yet in some ways I still identify with it. I don’t know if it is possible to have a healthy and balanced complete non-identification with a body while we are using one.

Regarding how we can’t take credit for our body looking beautiful-good body maintenance aside-that’s a good point that I haven’t considered. Thank you for mentioning it.

I believe it is significant to add that a mind’s image of how a body looks is quite a different thing than what a body actually is. In truth a body is a collection of biological organs that are surrounded by a large number of skin cells. The related biochemical processes have little to do with a statement such as, “Man she’s hot.”

I’ve found it helpful to meditate on how I can’t share love with another person’s body, body image, or sexual energy. I can only share love with the spirit being of such a person. When we share love in this way it is irrelevant which body a soul is occupying.

#20

:smiley: this one made me laugh oh yes I i i did. As long as one knows the difference who cares? The difference has been well pointed out in this thread so the only things I have to add is as long as one knows the difference then it becomes a difference that makes no differAAnce, therefore use the tools of I, me, mine so others wearing bodies may understand you an not make communication even harder.

There are too many word languages now as it is why create more with fine distinctions of i me and mine?

If somene sees you as being drowned in ego because you use the term I, Me & Mine and has an issue with it how does the old saying go? don’t fault me for the splinter in my eye when you have yet to remove the plank from your own.

Just tools for communication. Knowing the difference yourself is what matters not silly words. Besides that these are the tools we have been given to use to communicate.

I would like to read one post on this forum or any other wher the ego is totaly absent as a tool for communication. The reply to this challenge is not possible.

Meditate and the differences become known.