Expert: Joe McSorley - 11/18/2010

Question
Hi Joe,

I was told that this poem would be a good introduction to the concepts of Buddhism. However, I don't understand what points this poem is trying to make in relation to what Buddhism is all about. Could you provide any insight? Thanks in advance!

Who Are You?
My name is Peter.

If you went to Nicaragua, you’d be called Pedro. Are Pedro and Peter one person or two?
One, because I am only who I am.

Are you a name?
No, of course not.

Then who are you?
I am a man.

You mean you are not a woman?
No. I mean that I am a man.

But you are only a man because you are not a woman.
Who are you?
I am an Englishman.

If you went to Japan, would you be a Japanese man?
No.

Why?
Because I was born in England and I speak English.

If you had been born in England but raised in China, would you be Chinese or English?
I would be English.

Oh, then, you are not a person, rather you are a country.
Who are you?
I am the grandson of a famous Arctic explorer. He returned from the North Pole with a frozen polar bear in the hull of his ship.

And which do you think you are defined by more, your grandfather or the polar bear?
How could I be defined by my family? I’m just me.

Then you are more like a polar bear?
No. I am an intelligent, accomplished man. That’s what everyone says.

Now, let me see: you are Peter who is intelligent and accomplished and special because your grandfather was a famous Arctic explorer. What else sets you apart?
My youngest daughter is a world-class gymnast and my mother died when I was a child.

Ah, you are Peter the tragic, Peter the successful. Which would you say is the real you: a motherless son or the father of a successful daughter?
Both are within me.

Where?
What do you mean?

When you say they are within you, are they closer to your head or your toes?
Closer to my heart.

It’s a feeling?
Yes.

How big is it?
I’m not sure.

What colour is it?
It doesn’t have a colour.

A form?
No.

But it’s inside you?
Yes.

If we cut open your heart, could we see it?
I don’t suppose so.

Then where is it?
I don’t know.

Are you sure it is inside you?
Where else could it be?

Come here. Look in the mirror. Do you see intelligence? grandfather? accomplishment? gymnast?
No.

Do you see English?
No.

Do you see Peter?
I don’t know.

Good. Now we can begin.
Who are you?

Answer
Hello Lynne,
  I get the point the poem is trying to make but it is a bit too convoluted for my tastes.  This all comes down to self- identity, who we think we are as opposed to whom we really are.  I think the point is made easier by a story attributed to the historical Buddha and it is:
 A man comes to study with the Buddha and is having a difficult time understanding his ideas.  The Buddha’s disciples have spoken to the man but he still does not understand so they send him to the Buddha.  The Buddha welcomes him but does not face his questions rather he asks him about his journey to meet him.  The Buddha asks, “how did you get here” and the man replies ‘ on a chariot’, the Buddha then says ‘I’m sorry but I don’t know what a chariot is, can you describe it to me?’ The fellow proceeds to tell him how a chariot is constructed and its layout from axel, wheels, buckboard, shroud to harness and horses.  The Buddha takes this in and says ‘ so all of these things together make a chariot?’ and the man says “yes”.  The Buddha asks, “ When is it no longer a chariot?  When you take away the wheels is it no longer a chariot or the buckboard or the axel?  At what point does it become or not become a chariot?”  The man doesn’t know how to answer and the Buddha says, “this is a conglomeration of things you call a chariot but what really is the chariot?’  The man is puzzled by this and ponders for a while.  Then the Buddha says “who are you?  Are you your thoughts, desires, senses, memories, arms, legs or torso?  Remove which of these and you are no longer you?  When do you become you or not you by this composite of aggregates?”  Now this plunges the man into a deep inquiry of who the self really is.
      The basic Buddhist concept here is this; we know that we are but don’t know who we are.   When we follow a religion or belief system we are starting out with an assumption of who it is that is the sinner or saint, who it is that was born and will die and who it is that will become awakened but the fundamental question is; who is this self?
The poem, in its meandering way, is trying to point this out.  The Buddha tries to go right to the heart of the matter, when do you become you, a self?  How do you know yourself to be?  In the Indian tradition they say we only know ourselves by negation or by what we are not.  I am I because I am not the other things I observe.  This means I only know myself by distinguishing myself from other things but I never know who I am just by myself.  If you had never seen yourself in a mirror how would you recognize who you are?  Having never seen yourself in a mirror you would not base your identity on physical characteristics because you wouldn’t know them to identify with them.  
  So, like the chariot, we only know our selves as a collection of aggregates that we say is our self, classically called the five aggregates in Buddhism. These aggregates are: form, sensation, perception, volition/will and consciousness; they are how we know that we ‘are’ and how we distinguish ourselves from others and how we judge the world as outside of us and not us.  They create our sense of self.  These are like the components of the chariot; at which point upon losing them are you not you?  I would reduce it to self-consciousness.  When you can no longer be conscious of a self separate from the rest of the world, if there can no longer be a sense of ‘I’, then you are no more.  The crux is, who is it that says I?  What is the root of self-identity?

  If I were to be sitting with you and I put my hand on your arm would you say I was touching you?  Chances are that you would.  If your arm had become amputated and now I was standing across the room from you touching it would you say I was touching you?  Most likely you would say I was touching your arm.  That which was a minute ago, you, is now apart from you and not you.  So who is saying they are you?
  You awaken on a hospital bed not realizing you’ve been in an accident. You feel no pain and can only see straight up.  A doctor stands over you and says “ are you wholly you”?  From your perspective nothing has changed so what do you reply?  Probably, yes, I am I, whole and intact.  The doctor then says “I am sorry to tell you but you lost your legs”, are you wholly you?  Not knowing your legs were lost you said yes but what of now?  If you say no, then what changed and if yes, then what is the ‘you’ that is diminished? Without knowing what physically happened you have no sense of being changed, it had to be perceived.  Now the doctor says,” actually it’s worse than that, you are just a head.”  Are you wholly you?  If not, why not?  Moments ago before your perspective changed you said yes and now why not?  And now the terrible ending, you were burnt and have no face, are you wholly you?  If you are then what is the you that has been untouched? If not wholly you what of you is less?  Why does your perspective determine who you are.  Now suppose you’ve been in the hospital for days, suffering with the news and trying to deal with it and the doctor walks in with a big smile and says, “Sorry, none of what I told you was true, you’re fine”. Besides hating the doctor you are now suddenly whole again and so is everything alright now?.  In a sense yes but in another sense you, the true you which observed all this, was never diminished.  The you that is unconditional, not known by distinction, that is before birth and death, is untouched but the self you think you are has been greatly effected by this ordeal.
    This is something that really needs to be thought of deeply and not just read once and discarded.  If you really understand this it will open your eyes to an entire new way of seeing.  Your self-identity is based mainly on your looks, desires, history, cognition and many other things but none of these by their self is you so when does the you that you say is your self arise?  Clearly you have a sense of self, that you are independent of the rest of the world and that you have your own being but, again, who is that self?  We attach so greatly to our idea of self.  We have such strong likes and dislikes, beliefs, tastes and opinions on what will make us happy or unhappy.  We feed this idea constantly but we never get fulfilled by it.  This is best seen in rock stars.  They have everything all the money, sex and adulation there is but they are still unfulfilled, why?  Because the self cannot be added to or taken away from as you hopefully saw in the hospital example I gave.  So no matter what you gain it does not add to you and no matter what you lose, it does not diminish you.  Your perspective might change but the you behind it all does not and yet we don’t know whom this ‘you’ is.
     This is what the poem is trying to convey. I hope this helps you.
Take care,
                         Joe