Can a simple “I” stay a map, not a label?
In the early suttas, “I” appears often, but the Buddha does not seem to be inviting us to install a little owner behind the eyes. In MN 10, attention is trained to see body, feeling, mind and mind-objects as they are, not as “my” possession. The same pattern appears in SN 22.59, where the five aggregates are seen as not-self.
That raises a practical question for me: when we say “I am walking” or “I am breathing,” is the pronoun a helpful pointer, or does it quietly harden into a story about a separate self? A plain “I” may be enough for everyday speech. In practice, it may be better to keep it light—close to a label, not a throne.
I am curious how others read this. Do you find “I” useful in meditation, in loving-kindness, and in daily life? Does it help, and when does it start to claim more than the early texts seem to allow?