Do I exist?

The question of the near-universal restricting sense of "I" afflicting humans is a highly interesting and puzzling one. I say "near" universal because there are some people - let's call them "No-I"s - who don't have this restricting sense of "I", they have lost it either intentionally or fortuitously; and "afflicting" because it seems to be at the bottom of nearly all the suffering in human society. The No-Is can still say "I" but it doesn't mean the same thing for them as it does for us unregenerates.

Taking myself as an example, how is it that I have this particular sense of "I" and not some other person"s sense of "I"?  Of course, if I had some other person's sense of "I" I would not be aware of that, I would believe I was that other person, so it seems like a very silly question.  But give it some thought. It can have an effect rather like some of those drawings by M C Escher.

The sense of "I" seems to go with a particular body. As far as I am concerned, this body I am associated with is the centre of my universe.  But is this restricted sense of "I" really necessary?  Some - those who have lost it - say that it's a handicap, and life is infinitely better without it.  Sure, the body-mind organism is still there for use as necessary, but the sense of their personhood has gone.  It's an illusion we would be better discarding.  Each of us thinks that he/she is a person, with goals, problems, etc. but, say the No-Is, this is simply an illusion which dramatically restricts your life and is the cause of all suffering. It sticks, too.  You can't get rid of it easily, because you really do think you are a person - don't you?  It would  be like committing suicide!

The Buddha, it is said, sat under a bodhi tree and vowed not to get up until that illusion had released its hold on him. It did so release, and he did get up, to teach others. He is famously supposed to have said, "Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no doer thereof."

Many will become very indignant when I suggest that the belief that they are a person may be mistaken. It's just a suggestion, but it deserves some thought.

If we are going to find out something new, we have to be ready to admit we have been wrong all the time.

Think about this for a moment:  If you can perceive something - be aware of anything - in any way - see it, think about it, feel it, hear it, smell it, that something is not you.  You must be the one doing the perceiving etc.  You are the one aware of whatever-it-is.

If I have an opinion about my self, that "myself" is not me.   If I notice a thought, that thought is not me.

"I" cannot have any characteristics, because those characteristics can be noticed and described, so I must be the one noticing them, so they are not a part of me.

So everything we think we know about ourselves is just not a part of ourselves at all.  It's like clothes we put on. And even that simile doesn't go far because clothes have to go on a body and this "I" has no solidity.

What we think of as "the real me", or some such descriptive phrase, is not me at all.  It's a bunch of thoughts and habits of thought.  And what are habits but thoughts we habitually think.

Just what is this "I", then?  Seems it's just pure awareness.  It cannot have any characteristics, any distinguishable parts.  It can't be unique in any way, because that uniqueness could be described, I could be aware of it, so it cannot be a part of the awareness.  Eyes don't see themselves.

Seems this "I" is not personal in any way.  That's a difficult thought to have.  Perhaps this whole "I" business is just a gigantic illusion?