I have heard on this board that Buddhists say there is no identity of the I because when one tries to meditate on it there’s no concept. (I hope i got that right.) All due respects to Prince Gautama.
But if the I is a knowing power, can it know itself any more than the eye can see itself? if the mind is empty of forms, what is there to see? How can the perciever percieve himself (without a mirror)?
Therefore, it seems, that there can be a constant I beneath the phenomena – which seems at least a more comforting position.
Do you see any problems with this line of argument?
The [self] apperception, even the transcendental one (in the form of manasa-pratyaksa), is recognised by Buddhist teachers, see for instance the first part of Dharmakirti’s Nyaya-bindu. With such questions, I would recommend visiting the Buddhist Philosophy forum.
That is not possible that there be, “no identity of the I” because in as much as I am me I give the environment definition. So if there wasn’t any “identity of the I” then how would the environment have any identity either? It’s because I am me that I define that environment and in as much as the environment is itself, it gives me definition. So the “I” is a very concrete thing that has a clear identity.
It’s true, ‘the eye cannot see itself,’ but I can know myself because I know myself not just through my heart that is me but also through my mind that is I believe separate from me because our thoughts don’t seem to reside anywhere in particular, not inside of us or outside of us and that’s why they give us definition I believe! Therefore, I can see myself even though the ‘eye cannot see itself.’