I Am That I Am

[abrakamowse]

How do you define the I AM? I ask this because I see that a lot of people like to say "there's nothing", "nothingness", "the void". That all this is true, but in my opinion it can be a bit deceptive, because the ego is always going to extremes. If it's nothing the other possibility doesn't exist. That's not how reality works.

In reality all the possibilities are there, in one. The I AM (or the self) is nothing, and everything. It doesn't exists and it exists.

So I see like confusion when people ask me what is no-self. I tell them that you can't find a self. "I" when is identified with the body, with impermanent things, like thoughts, feelings, skills, etc.... that I am doesn't exists, is fake.

But there's pure awareness, not identified with nothing yet it is everything, that's the I AM I talk about.

I searched some information about it, mostly from two of my favorites Advaita teachers, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi. Maharaj wrote the book that in my opinion is like the Bible of Advaita called "I AM THAT".

And that is what it says about them on wikipedia:

"The South Indian sage Ramana Maharshi mentions that in the Hindu Advaita Vedanta school, of all the definitions of God, "none is indeed so well put as the biblical statement 'I am that I am'". He maintained that although Hindu scripture contains similar statements in the Mahavakyas, these are not as direct as given in Exodus. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj explains the "I am" as an abstraction in the mind of the Stateless State, of the Absolute, or the Supreme Reality, called Parabrahman: it is pure awareness, prior to thoughts, free from perceptions, associations, memories."

 

I wanted to post this question several days ago but I was always postponing it so I wanna thanks because we were talking about the topic on another thread and what he has to say got my attention, even when we don't agree in this point. But he was very respectful and I really like to change opinions with others, that's how we grow.

Let me know guys what do you think about all this thing, does the I AM exists??? Or there's nothing at all???

How do you define "reality"?  In my opinion reality and the I AM are the same. What is not the same is the thought that I AM this body, I am a loser, I am ugly, etc... the identification with a separated self, that's not real. The self is one, and is the I AM, is nothing and everything. Is non-dual. It has both characteristics, is a self and no-self.

Is there a self, a no-self, awareness, reality, I AM that this or those, I AM not, etc etc etc...???????

And yara yara yara as Leo says.

 

[Frogfucius]

Conceptually, it is possible to break down "I am" into an illusion. "I am" is nothing more than language - language is a collection of symbols. Symbols are an illusion that the human mind holds meaning to when ultimately there is none. For example, if I showed you a picture of a swastika, your mind might immediately jump to the word "Nazi". However, the picture itself isn't Nazism - it's just markings. Show those markings to a tribe that has never heard of Nazis or swastikas, and they'll have no meaning associated with it. Or if you say "I am" to the same tribe, they don't speak the English language, so there's no meaning associated with the symbol of "I am" to that tribe. These symbols hold no truth, and where there is no truth, there is only illusion. Granted, the tribe might hold their own symbolic meaning of "I am", but that too is an illusion.

If "I am" is an illusion, what does that ultimately make it? It's deception that is withholding the truth behind the "I am". If you associate your being with that illusion, you're disengaged from what you truly ultimately are - the perceiver of consciousness.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Frogfucius

[key]

am I. 

 

That's it.

[Pav]

From what I can see, there is only perception, other than that; nothingness. 

[abrakamowse]

10 hours ago, Frogfucius said:

Conceptually, it is possible to break down "I am" into an illusion. "I am" is nothing more than language - language is a collection of symbols. Symbols are an illusion that the human mind holds meaning to when ultimately there is none. For example, if I showed you a picture of a swastika, your mind might immediately jump to the word "Nazi". However, the picture itself isn't Nazism - it's just markings. Show those markings to a tribe that has never heard of Nazis or swastikas, and they'll have no meaning associated with it. Or if you say "I am" to the same tribe, they don't speak the English language, so there's no meaning associated with the symbol of "I am" to that tribe. These symbols hold no truth, and where there is no truth, there is only illusion. Granted, the tribe might hold their own symbolic meaning of "I am", but that too is an illusion.

I understand I AM is just words. The truth cannot be really named because it's not a concept and not an object.

Having said that, I don't understand why people tend to say I AM is just words but Nothingness is the truth. The same thing happens with nothingness.

So what is the point saying this is the real way to call it, there's nothing and if you say I AM is wrong is a concept.

The concept that we have of I AM is wrong, we as a separated being are not the "I". There's no I in that sense. But we are one with reality, that's is what I AM. I AM = Truth = reality = everything = nothing.

10 hours ago, Frogfucius said:

If "I am" is an illusion, what does that ultimately make it? It's deception that is withholding the truth behind the "I am". If you associate your being with that illusion, you're disengaged from what you truly ultimately are - the perceiver of consciousness.

But is there a perceiver?

[cetus]

It's all a wonderful mystery. I mean, who can really say for sure from this perspective. What is awareness? What is the I am? what is nothingness? What is this? Why does existence happen at all? What happens to me when I pass? Is there anything that remains of the "I am" after the body falls away? These are questions that can't be answered by the mind. I have heard many different answers to all these questions. Which would be truth? There are so many inspirational teachers out there. There has always been for all of time. But so many differ too from each other too.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     My gut feeling is what it has always been since the first day I realized that there is more to us than meets the eye as an individual self. For some reason this universe (existence) wants to experience itself through awareness. It does through the entirety of the universe. Through different expressions of itself as different organisms that best suit it's environment. Imagine the diversity out there. The human organism being just one of a countless number on different planets. But one thing remains the same, awareness of the surrounding environment. When that organism dies, it's individual experience of awareness comes to an end. It's cycle is complete. But awareness is unstoppable, it continues without missing a beat through producing a new organism that continues that cycle of awareness that the previous organism physically produced ( the children of the human organism for example). So do I think there is an I Am? I think  " I am that I am" answers that best. As long as the "I Am" remains within the awareness of reality-  there is an "I Am". After that, it's lights out. If there is anything of the "I Am" that continues after my mind and body drops away, that would be an extra bonus. But I'm not counting on it at this point.  At the core of the individual as a separate self there exists the I Am or beingness. As Mooji has said, "The I Am is not the final state". I wonder what that "Final State" could be and what of the I Am will remain if any? Who really knows what happens???

[abrakamowse]

3 hours ago, Mat Pav said:

From what I can see, there is only perception, other than that; nothingness. 

And what is that nothingness? Who perceives? or what is being perceived by who? Is it possible to have perception without a perceiver? How consciousness perceives itself?

Nothingness is another word too... in my opinion that Nothingness is the I AM, the one that Buddhist call it Buddha Mind or Big Mind.

and they call our perception or wrong idea of I am this or that as Small Mind.

 

I feel there's a lot of confusion on this topic.

[abrakamowse]

3 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

It's all a wonderful mystery. I mean, who can really say for sure from this perspective. What is awareness? What is the I am? what is nothingness? What is this? Why does existence happen at all? What happens to me when I pass? Is there anything that remains of the "I am" after the body falls away? These are questions that can't be answered by the mind. I have heard many different answers to all these questions. Which would be truth? There are so many inspirational teachers out there. There has always been for all of time. But so many differ too from each other too.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     My gut feeling is what it has always been since the first day I realized that there is more to us than meets the eye as an individual self. For some reason this universe (existence) wants to experience itself through awareness. It does through the entirety of the universe. Through different expressions of itself as different organisms that best suit it's environment. Imagine the diversity out there. The human organism being just one of a countless number on different planets. But one thing remains the same, awareness of the surrounding environment. When that organism dies, it's individual experience of awareness comes to an end. It's cycle is complete. But awareness is unstoppable, it continues without missing a beat through producing a new organism that continues that cycle of awareness that the previous organism physically produced ( the children of the human organism for example). So do I think there is an I Am? I think  " I am that I am" answers that best. As long as the "I Am" remains within the awareness of reality-  there is an "I Am". After that, it's lights out. If there is anything of the "I Am" that continues after my mind and body drops away, that would be an extra bonus. But I'm not counting on it at this point.  At the core of the individual as a separate self there exists the I Am or beingness. As Mooji has said, "The I Am is not the final state". I wonder what that "Final State" could be and what of the I Am will remain if any? Who really knows what happens???

Thank you very much @cetus56 that is very clarifying.

I also heard Mooji once saying that the I AM can be very tricky, because awareness can be the I AM and the ego can say that too. Is there were we are confused and think we are the body, etc...

And Nisagardatta said that the I AM when you leave the I AM behind there's the Absolute. But I don't know why I think that Absolute is still and I AM. Hehehe... I think that the idea that we have of a "self" is limiting.

 

Thanks for the input. And really, thanks everyone for their opinions, even if we don't see it the same way. I grow when I listen to different voices and opinions that are not the same that I have at this moment.

Thanks!!!

Edited September 9, 2016 by abrakamowse

[cetus]

I think the words I Am is a bit misleading. If the I Am is pure awareness there is really no "I" in it. Maybe I'm just seeing it differently but to me I Am suggests the core being as a raw perceiver of reality. Beyond the individual as a separate self.

[abrakamowse]

11 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

I think the words I Am is a bit misleading. If the I Am is pure awareness there is really no "I" in it. Maybe I'm just seeing it differently but to me I Am suggests the core being as a raw perceiver of reality. Beyond the individual as a separate self.

That's the confusion I think... when we say I AM is the core being as a raw perceiver of reality as you said.

The separated self (ego) is the one that takes that "concept" and tries to own it, that's not the I AM. That can be called "I am this" or "I am a loser"... etc

That's how I see it. Or the way I understand... and I think basically we are talking about the same thing, but we get attached to the meaning of the words.

The question would be, "is reality or core being a self?" the true self?

 

In that sense nothing is separated in the I AM because everything is that. And the way it perceives itself is by creating an idea of a separated I that doesn't exist. But that doesn't imply there's no I AM. Not just "I". The being-ness, awareness and beyond.

Maybe just calling it being-ness without the I. But why the I implies separation? I think I/we can be everything and nothing.

Edited September 9, 2016 by abrakamowse

[abrakamowse]

Freud called ID "The id (Latin for "it",[4] German: Es)[5] is the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains a human's basic, instinctual drives. Id is the only component of personality that is present from birth.[6] It is the source of our bodily needs, wants, desires, and impulses, particularly our sexual and aggressive drives."

Ego for him was: "The ego (Latin "I",[18] German: Ich)[19] acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief.[20] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the [unconscious] commands of the id with its own [ preconscious ] rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess ... to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[21] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings, but instead to purchase those items.[22]"

and he also mentioned the Over I or super-ego:

The super-ego (German: Über-Ich)[27] reflects the internalization of cultural rules, mainly taught by parents applying their guidance and influence.[28] Freud developed his concept of the super-ego from an earlier combination of the ego ideal and the "special psychical agency which performs the task of seeing that narcissistic satisfaction from the ego ideal is ensured ... what we call our 'conscience'."[29] For him "the installation of the super-ego can be described as a successful instance of identification with the parental agency," while as development proceeds "the super-ego also takes on the influence of those who have stepped into the place of parents — educators, teachers, people chosen as ideal models."[30]

The terms "id", "ego", and "super-ego" are not Freud's own. They are latinisations by his translator James Strachey. Freud himself wrote of "das Es",[5] "das Ich",[19] and "das Über-Ich"[27]—respectively, "the It", "the I", and "the Over-I" (or "I above"); thus to the German reader, Freud's original terms are more or less self-explanatory. Freud borrowed the term "das Es" from Georg Groddeck, a German physician to whose unconventional ideas Freud was much attracted (Groddeck's translators render the term in English as "the It").[46] The word ego is taken directly from Latin, where it is the nominative of the first person singular personal pronoun and is translated as "I myself" to express emphasis.

 

I think what Freud is talking is not exactly what we are talking about, but he perceived something. In my opinion the idea of the ID and Ego is the "I am" in lowercase. And the Over-I would be the I AM in uppercase.

I just wanted to add this perspective that is just a pointer. I am not saying this is the truth.

[cetus]

Just now, abrakamowse said:

That's the confusion I think... when we say I AM is the core being as a raw perceiver of reality as you said.

The separated self (ego) is the one that takes that "concept" and tries to own it, that's not the I AM. That can be called "I am this" or "I am a loser"... etc

That's how I see it. Or the way I understand... and I think basically we are talking about the same thing, but we get attached to the meaning of the words.

The question would be, "is reality or core being a self?" the true self?

This is good. Maybe it's all just my ego working on a more subtle level, but I can't shake this feeling that there is an underlying presence that I can't explain.  A divinity maybe?  Maybe that's just wishful thinking though? I'm going to look into that one a little more.

[abrakamowse]

Just now, cetus56 said:

This is good. Maybe it's all just my ego working on a more subtle level, but I can't shake this feeling that there is an underlying presence that I can't explain.  A divinity maybe?  Maybe that's just wishful thinking though? I'm going to look into that one a little more.

That's the idea... I think Buddha was asked about this and he didn't want to answer. And I think he did that because he thought that clinging to the idea of "I" or a self (a big self) can be a trap of the ego for not getting enlightened. So, I think that's  the main purpose for me on this post. To find out that.

If that belief makes me stop of being enlightened I drop the belief hehehehe... I am still investigating.

 

[abrakamowse]

Maybe here's there's part of the response:

Anatta – the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism

Anatta is a central doctrine of Buddhism, and marks one of the major differences between Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhists do not believe that at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is any "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman". Buddhism, from its earliest days, has denied the existence of the "self, soul" in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In its soteriological themes, Buddhism has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person, amongst other things, realizes that he or she has "no self, no soul".

The traditions within Hinduism believe in Atman. The pre-Buddhist Upanishads of Hinduism assert that there is a permanent Atman, and is an ultimate metaphysical reality. This sense of self, is expressed as "I am" in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.1, states Peter Harvey, when nothing existed before the start of the universe. The Upanishadic scriptures hold that this soul or self is underlying the whole world.[117] At the core of all human beings and living creatures, assert the Hindu traditions, there is "eternal, innermost essential and absolute something called a soul, self that is atman."[5] Within the diverse schools of Hinduism, there are differences of perspective on whether souls are distinct, whether Supreme Soul or God exists, whether the nature of Atman is dual or non-dual, and how to reach moksha. However, despite their internal differences, one shared foundational premise of Hinduism is that "soul, self exists", and that there is bliss in seeking this self, knowing self, and self-realization.

[cetus]

Reality of Absolute, Infinite Awareness.

Countless people today ask what it means to live a deeper spiritual life.... Beyond the old dilemma of whether to renounce the world or immerse oneself in it, the enlightened "Free Beings" (the Avatâra-Incarnations and awake adepts) show us how to freely transcend yet pervade the world with Love and Light through the Power of Pure Awareness.

This Divine Reality of Pure Awareness, Open Presence or Spirit, the one Sacred Principle, is both beyond all yet within all. As the theologians say, this Divine Awareness/Reality is both transcendent and immanent. Not any kind of "thing" but the Source, Witness and Reality of all things, this God-Self is other than this world, yet right here animating and embracing this dreamlike world and all her deliciously unique beings.

Let's be completely clear about This: Awareness is Who You Really Are, right HERE, right NOW, the Infinite, Open, Imperceptible (but quite live-able or be-able) Host for all "guest" experiences, as the Zen masters say.

Awareness is the Supreme Self, the unseen Seer of seeing, the unheard Hearer of hearing, the unthinkable Thinker of thinking, as the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (our oldest wisdom text) revealed Divine Truth nearly 3,000 years ago.

Hence, anyone living and flourishing in/as Divine Awareness-Bliss-Love can be totally involved in the world while entirely uninvolved, fully engaged while completely free as the One Who Alone IS, the I AM THAT AM. This God-Self or Divine Dreamer, the true Living God, Pure Open Awareness, sports and adventures as "I am this" or "I am that," delightfully playing the always-poignant role of the individual human being or any kind of sentient being, eventually awakening ItSelf (from Its egocentric soul condition) to the clarity of Divine Presence, the only Reality. One's life, therefore, can be a beautiful unfolding flower of virtue, eventually fully blossoming into a life of Divine splendor.

[abrakamowse]

That's awesome @cetus56 where did you find it?

[cetus]

http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/

[abrakamowse]

9 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/

Cool, thanks!!! I never seen someone calling it that way "the Supreme Self, the unseen Seer of seeing, the unheard Hearer of hearing, the unthinkable Thinker of thinking"

Nice

[cetus]

A divine presents that pervades all.  Is that the I am? I think so.

[abrakamowse]

2 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

A divine presents that pervades all.  Is that the I am? I think so.

Sometimes is better not to name it... hehehehe... cool.

This thread was very helpful to me. I hope to others as well, and I also hope others will add their perspectives even if they are different of what was posted here so far. We need "radical open mindness"

Edited September 9, 2016 by abrakamowse