Is I am mantra hard for Buddhists?

[John C]

Here's a question I have had that perhaps K-man or someone could help me with. The I am mantra is recommended, but I come from a Buddhist background, and a basic fundamental teaching in Buddhism, is Anatta, No self.  And when i've tried to use the I am mantra as recommended, it just seems to emphasize the existence of a self, by mentally repeating, I am, I am, etc.  Does anybody have problems with that.  According to Buddhism, the sense of self is an illusion that should be experieced as a trick the mind plays on us, that is a barrier to experiential understanding of the Dharma, the Truth?
Maybe other people also from the Buddhist background could help me out, but doesn
't this seem like a conflict to the Buddhist teaching of Anatta?

[vijikr]

Hi John,

It has nothing to do with being a Buddhist I am mantra don't take the literal meaning of the same just concentrate on the sound of Iam i think u like me have some difficulty because of religious background so just instead of IAM try using this mantra AYAM and just concentrate on the sound of the mantra rather than on the meaning. Anahatta is the unstruck sound which one will achieve once one finds refinement in the mantra and could go into the DEEP SILENCE between the mantra GAP!

I hope this helps you for time being.

[Clear White Light]

The mantra in AYP is not intended to have any sort of literal meaning.  It is just a sound.  Eventually the mind will get past trying to analyze the mantra, and you won't have to worry about conflicts like that anymore.  Without the activity of your mind the sound is just a sound.  The reaction that it causes in your mind is the real source of conflict, not the sound.

[Christi]

quote:Originally posted by John C

Here's a question I have had that perhaps K-man or someone could help me with. The I am mantra is recommended, but I come from a Buddhist background, and a basic fundamental teaching in Buddhism, is Anatta, No self.  And when i've tried to use the I am mantra as recommended, it just seems to emphasize the existence of a self, by mentally repeating, I am, I am, etc.  Does anybody have problems with that.  According to Buddhism, the sense of self is an illusion that should be experieced as a trick the mind plays on us, that is a barrier to experiential understanding of the Dharma, the Truth?
Maybe other people also from the Buddhist background could help me out, but doesn
't this seem like a conflict to the Buddhist teaching of Anatta?

Hi John,

As Vajikr and Clear White Light say, the I AM manta is used for it's sound, not for it's meaning so there is no difficulty here for Buddhists.

One of the suttra additions in Samyama practice is the suttra "I thought- Who am I?" in lesson 351:

http://www.aypsite.com/plus/351.html

Even this is not an inquiry as the sutra is simply a question which is released into stillness.

The contemplation of the nature of the true Self doesn't come in in AYP until we begin Self inquiry practice.

The anatta teaching in Buddhism is not a doctrine that there is no self at all and that this should be believed by all Buddhists. Instead the Buddha was careful to point out that practitioners should believe nothing, especially the things that he (the Buddha) was teaching. He encouraged people to find out for themselves rather than relying on any belief or fixed position.

The anatta teaching is part of an inquiry practice into the nature of reality. The practice is to contemplate that whatever arises in the mind or appears to the senses has three fundamental characteristics. That of impermanence (annicha), that of being not who you are (anatta), and of not giving lasting happiness (dukkha). The practice is that of vippasana, or insight inquiry. In other words the anatta teaching is an inquiry into the nature of phenominal existence (maya) rather than an existential doctrine.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

 

quote:In Buddhism, anatta... refers to the notion of "not-self". In the early texts, the Buddha commonly uses the word in the context of teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.

And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
 

quote:Not-self (Pâli: anatta; Sanskrit: anâtman) is the third mark of existence. Upon careful examination, one finds that no phenomenon is really "I" or "mine"; these concepts are in fact constructed by the mind. In the Nikayas anatta is not meant as a metaphysical assertion, but as an approach for gaining release from suffering. In fact, the Buddha rejected both of the metaphysical assertions "I have a Self" and "I have no Self" as ontological views that bind one to suffering.[51] When asked if the self was identical with the body, the Buddha refused to answer. By analyzing the constantly changing physical and mental constituents (skandhas) of a person or object, the practitioner comes to the conclusion that neither the respective parts nor the person as a whole comprise a self.

This is a useful discussion on the subject by Thanissaro Bikkhu:

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/noself.html

Christi

[mimirom]

Hi John,

it is actually a vitally important attribute of a mantra, that it has no meaning at all.  AYAM is really like the other ones - Shreem, Kleem, Ayim, Ayam....
They are sounds.