To know there is no I can makes us free from suffer?

[Miriam]

Is the I something more that what makes me simply introduce myself saying, for example, "Hi, I'm Miriam!" Something more that this sense that let me know and act as an organised living being. Something that is simply an ennunciation to the feelings and perceptions coming from the same living organism. If that us so then it's quite clear to me. But, does this certainty keep me free of suffer?

[Damon Kamda]

Hi Miriam,

I moved your post to the appropriate forum.

Good questions.

Do you understand the method by which we work here? No speculation, theorizing, debate- just simple, direct looking at your experience and writing from there...

Something more that this sense that let me know and act as an organised living being.

Who or what is knowing and acting as an organised living being?

But, does this certainty keep me free of suffer?

If the I is nothing more than a sense of I, who is there to be kept free from suffering?

[Miriam]

Thanks Nomad~Kanda, I understand.

An interior and immediate sense of, if I catch something with my hand I know that's me - this organised living being - who catched and anybody else, when a feeling arises I know that's my feeling, it came from this body, often from what I'm living in that precise moment or from some association or memory but not exactly past, instead alive from contiguity. That is, I can feel something sad for example, that can come with a memory of some sad life event, but that comes because I am sad in that moment, if I am not that kind of feelings don't arise. I said "as an organised living being" because all feelings, perceptions, fhoughts, emotions, actions, fantasies, behaviours, all that, I know it happens in my body and psyche (which is also brain processes). It's like a tree that have a trunk and branches, and all branches come from the same trunk. It's the consciousness of it.

I understand your second question, it seems logic but yet that's not what happens. This sense of I feels suffer sometimes. And when I suffer I'm not thinking "my I is experiencig suffer", I simply suffer, and I know that's me and not another person who is suffering.

[Damon Kamda]

Ok, Miriam, let's start at the beginning.

What exactly brings you to this forum- what are your expectations of this?

all feelings, perceptions, fhoughts, emotions, actions, fantasies, behaviours, all that, I know it happens in my body and psyche (which is also brain processes)

What makes this body and psyche YOURS?
What is the YOU who owns this experience?

This sense of I feels suffer sometimes. And when I suffer I'm not thinking "my I is experiencig suffer", I simply suffer, and I know that's me and not another person who is suffering.

How can a sense of I feel?
How can a sense of I suffer?
How can a sense of I think?

[Miriam]

I came here to see if there is some true in what you say you discovered about the existence of an I, and to see if that can make liberaled people free from suffer.

[Miriam]

That's not about something making this body and psych mine, they are 'me' simply, I simply say "It's me" if someone asks "Whose there?"

[Miriam]

Who feels, suffer and think, it's me and not the sense of I which is not something apart,

[Damon Kamda]

I came here to see if there is some true in what you say you discovered about the existence of an I, and to see if that can make liberaled people free from suffer.

Could you go into a bit more detail about this? There seems to be an idea in your mind that equates "liberation" with being free from suffering? Can you explain how you see this?

That's not about something making this body and psych mine, they are 'me' simply, I simply say "It's me" if someone asks "Whose there?"

So saying "me", "mine" is just a figure of speech that has a practical use?

Who feels, suffer and think, it's me and not the sense of I which is not something apart,

This is unclear, can you please rephrase this? What do you mean?

[Miriam]

Isn't that what you guys say? That as there is no 'I', there is no one to suffer and so there is no suffer?
No figure of speech, that is another thing, a word. The practical use of the word 'I' is the reference to me. What else could it be?
You asked me "how can a sense of I suffer?" and I answered you that the sense of I is not something different (appart) from me - I know that this person who is now writing to you is me and not any other - so, the sense of I is not different from me, it's me knowing that it's me. And, when I suffer, it's not my sense of I which is suffering, but me.

[Miriam]

Do you mean that you have not a sense of I? Don't you know that who is doing this dialogue with me is you and not another person?

[Miriam]

Sorry, I have been busy those two last weeks.

[Damon Kamda]

Sorry, I have been busy those two last weeks.

That's fine, it's good to see you're back!

Do you mean that you have not a sense of I? Don't you know that who is doing this dialogue with me is you and not another person?

The insight that we are guiding people towards on this forum consists exactly of clearly seeing that all there is to the self, is a sense of I. Self is an idea, a feeling, an image. There is no actual person here nor there- it is all an illusion, all of it.

The illusion exists, however, as an illusion.
So, the sense of self may very well persist, it has its use in the scheme of things, yet it can be clearly recognized to be illusory.

Isn't that what you guys say? That as there is no 'I', there is no one to suffer and so there is no suffer

There has never been anyone to suffer.
That does not make suffering disappear though.

No figure of speech, that is another thing, a word. The practical use of the word 'I' is the reference to me. What else could it be?

What else could it be?
An idea- an image- a sense- a habit.

Do you believe words point to things, Miriam?
If so, explain what the ME is that the word I points to.
In detail.

You asked me "how can a sense of I suffer?" and I answered you that the sense of I is not something different (appart) from me - I know that this person who is now writing to you is me and not any other - so, the sense of I is not different from me, it's me knowing that it's me. And, when I suffer, it's not my sense of I which is suffering, but me.

You're talking in circles here, and are not engaging the issue fully.

You make mention of a person, that is YOU, that is writing this.

So could you elaborate on this? How does this work?

There is a YOU that is a PERSON?

Can you go into some detail here? In what way does this YOU, this PERSON have existence? Where does it exist, in what way, in what from? How did it come into being?

[Miriam]

It's not sufficient not to see a thing to say that it doesn't exist.

[Miriam]

If suffering doesn't disappear, what is the difference then? Is there something you feel in a different way?

[Miriam]

There is not a you that is a person, there is me and I'm a person, and there is you who are another person too. And he that is not true, are you a robot, a machine, an animal?