I Am That I Am

[cetus]

Right now I'm in a really nice space. As Mooji would say, "It is not a shared space because that would imply there are two."

[comp13]

I am subtle, simple, completeness.

And the "I AM" absolutely exists. It's the only 'thing' that does exist.

[cetus]

48 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

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

Here is something I read yesterday that may relate to that. "Give up even the desire to be experiencing the bliss of being it all".

[Pav]

2 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

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.

I've never found a perceiver and I don't see any reason why there would have to be a perciever. The perception is just 'there'. It fills nothingness, just as matter fills empty space.

You cannot experience the nothingness directly, but you can get a sense of it. Look down at your body and trace it all the way up to where your head should be, what is there? Nothing.

I think the confusion comes when we try to put it in words.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Mat Pav

[abrakamowse]

12 minutes ago, Mat Pav said:

I think the confusion comes when we try to put it in words.

I agree with that.

[abrakamowse]

26 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Here is something I read yesterday that may relate to that. "Give up even the desire to be experiencing the bliss of being it all".

Yeah, that's exactly what I am (not really "me" hehehe) thinking....

[abrakamowse]

15 minutes ago, Mat Pav said:

I've never found a perceiver and I don't see any reason why there would have to be a perciever. The perception is just 'there'. It fills nothingness, just as matter fills empty space.

You cannot experience the nothingness directly, but you can get a sense of it. Look down at your body and trace it all the way up to where your head should be, what is there? Nothing.

I think the confusion comes when we try to put it in words.

Do you feel identified more with the idea of a separated "I" or with nothingness? Just curious. It happened to me and now a shift in the way of thinking is appearing and I wanted to know.

I used to feel very identified with the identity and I couldn't think of reality as myself, that I AM everything and nothing at the same time.

Maybe is there some pointer? I don't know...

[Pav]

7 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

Do you feel identified more with the idea of a separated "I" or with nothingness? Just curious. It happened to me and now a shift in the way of thinking is appearing and I wanted to know.

I used to feel very identified with the identity and I couldn't think of reality as myself, that I AM everything and nothing at the same time.

Maybe is there some pointer? I don't know...

I don't identify with anything. I think any form of identification would just be a thought. Everything is just 'happening'.

[abrakamowse]

This is a quote from Alan Watts I find interesting.

 

 

[abrakamowse]

1 minute ago, Mat Pav said:

I don't identify with anything. I think any form of identification would just be a thought. Everything is just 'happening'.

So you don't see the objects as yourself, like there's no difference between perceiver and being perceived.. everything is happening, but something is perceiving it, right?

 

Just asking, I'm interested in different points of view. Thanks.

[Pav]

6 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

So you don't see the objects as yourself, like there's no difference between perceiver and being perceived.. everything is happening, but something is perceiving it, right?

 

Just asking, I'm interested in different points of view. Thanks.

Why must there be a perceiver? 

I find the concept of 'yourself', and the dichotomy between the perceiver vs the perceived to be mere fiction.

The quote by Alan Watts explains it well.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Mat Pav

[abrakamowse]

4 minutes ago, Mat Pav said:

Why must there be a perceiver?

Why not?

4 minutes ago, Mat Pav said:

I find the concept of 'yourself', and the dichotomy between the perceiver vs the perceived to be mere fiction.

A fiction that creates everything?

[Pav]

7 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

Why not?

A fiction that creates everything

I think the 'I' label is arbitrary, you may assign 'I' to whatever you choose. It is just a thought. 

[abrakamowse]

Just now, Mat Pav said:

I think the 'I' label is arbitrary, you may assign 'I' to whatever you choose. It is just a thought. 

I agree with that, but the same thing goes with 'nothing' it's just a label too... a concept and a thought.

 

What do you think?

[Pav]

9 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

I agree with that, but the same thing goes with 'nothing' it's just a label too... a concept and a thought.

 

What do you think?

Yes it is too. So just look with your own awareness without any conceptualising. 

[abrakamowse]

34 minutes ago, Mat Pav said:

Yes it is too. So just look with your own awareness without any conceptualising. 

That's the spirit! Yes, I agree and I arrived to the same conclusion, maybe that's what I wanted to find out.

 

Thanks!!!

[Markusl]

I think, as has been mentioned by others earlier in this post, that attributing qualities to the self is not possible. As @abrakamowse noted, attributing ''I'' or ''Nothingness'' to that which is the recipient of perception cannot be done, for the self is outside of linguistic conception. The only thing one can truly say about the ''perceiver of perception'', is that it's there. It's of such a nature that you paradoxically locate it when you realize that you cannot point at it, or describe it's qualities. It is basically the empty, eternal space (properties attributed to it for illustrating intentions only) to which neurons send their message.
In the tradition of Advaita, as well as in the field of Indian philosophy as a whole, one of the main presumptions is that ''that which endures, is ultimately real'', or, more precisely, that that which is ''longer enduring'', carries a higher ontological status. Seeing as nothing in the manifest material world is permanent, and that the self allegedly is eternal, indivisible, unexplainable etc. It is revered as that with the highest ontological status. 

[abrakamowse]

Thanks @Markusl for the post, really deep. And clarifying. It's hard to talk about it that I think the best option is not to name it.

I understand now in the old Jewish tradition why they never call him/her/it/whatever by its name.