He should develop the perception of
impermanence so as to uproot the conceit, 'I am.' For a monk
perceiving impermanence, the perception of not-self is made firm. One
perceiving not-self attains the uprooting of the conceit, 'I am'
which is nibbana here and now. AN 9: 1
There is the case where a monk might say, 'Although "I am" is gone, and
I do not assume that "I am this," still the arrow of uncertainty &
perplexity keeps overpowering my mind.' He should be told, 'Don't say
that. You shouldn't speak in that way. Don't misrepresent the Blessed
One, for it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed
One wouldn't say that. It's impossible, there is no way that — when "I
am" is gone, and "I am this" is not assumed — the arrow of uncertainty
& perplexity would keep overpowering the mind. That possibility
doesn't exist, for this is the escape from the arrow of uncertainty
& perplexity: the uprooting of the conceit, "I am."' A 6: 13
The ordinary man is unaware of the subtle fundamental attitude, the underlying tendency or conceit I am.' It makes him, in perceiving a percept, automatically and simultaneously conceive in terms of 'I,' assuming an I-relationship to the percept, either as identical with it or as contained within it, or as separate from it, or as owning it. This attitude, this conceiving, is only given up with the attainment of Arahantship, not before. (See e.g. M . 1 and M .49.)
'I am' is derivative, not underivative. Derivative upon what? Derivative upon form, feeling, perception, determinations, and consciousness."
S. 22:83
"When any monk or brahman, with form (and the rest) as the means, which is impermanent, suffering and subject to change, sees thus 'I am superior' or 'I am equal' or 'I am inferior,' what is that if not blindness to what actually is?"
S. 22:49
(Questioned by Elders, the Elder Khemaka said:) "I do not see in these five aggregates affected by clinging any self or self's property ... yet I am not an Arahant with taints exhausted. On the contrary, I still have the attitude 'I am' with respect to these five aggregates affected by clinging, although I do not see 'I am this' with respect to them .... I do not say 'I am form' or 'I am feeling' or 'I am perception' or 'I am determinations' or 'I am consciousness,' nor do I say 'I am apart from form ... apart from consciousness'; yet I still have the attitude 'I am' with respect to the five aggregates affected by clinging although I do not see 'I am this' with respect to them. Although a noble disciple may have abandoned the five more immediate fetters*, still his conceit 'I am,' desire 'I am,' underlying tendency I am,' with respect to the five aggregates affected by clinging remains as yet unabolished. Later he abides contemplating rise and fall thus: 'Such is form, such is its origin, such its disappearance' (and so with the other four), till by so doing, his conceit 'I am' eventually comes to be abolished."
*"An untaught ordinary man who disregards noble ones ... lives with his heart possessed and enslaved by the embodiment view, by uncertainty, by misapprehension of virtue and duty, by lust for sensuality, and by ill will, and he does not see how to escape from them when they arise; these, when they are habitual and remain uneradicated in him, are called the more immediate fetters.
M. 64
Ven Nanananda: In a war between gods and demons, the gods are victorious and the demons are defeated. The gods bind Vepacitti, the king of the demons, in a fivefold bondage, that is, hands and feet and neck, and bring him before Sakka, the king of the gods.
This bondage has a strange mechanism about it. When Vepacitti thinks `gods are righteous, demons are unrighteous, I will go to the deva world', he immediately finds himself free from that bondage and capable of enjoying the heavenly pleasures of the five senses. But as soon as he slips into the thought `gods are unrighteous, demons are righteous, I will go back to the asura world', he finds himself divested of the heavenly pleasures and bound again by the fivefold bonds.
After introducing this parable, the Buddha comes out with a deep disquisition of Dhamma for which it serves as a simile.
"So subtle, monks, is the bondage of Vepacitti. But more subtle still is the bondage of Màra. Imagining, monks, one is bound by Màra, not imagining one is freed from the Evil One. `Am', monks, is an imagining, `this am I' is an imagining, `I shall be' is an imagining, `I shall not be' is an imagining, `I shall be one with form' is an imagining, `I shall be formless' is an imagining, `I shall be percipient' is an imagining, `I shall be non-percipient' is an imagining, `I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient' is an imagining. Imagining, monks, is a disease, imagining is an abscess, imagining is a barb, therefore, monks, should you tell yourselves: `We shall dwell with a mind free from imaginings, thus should you train yourselves'."
