I am not the following:
space, time, avatar, 6th density being, infj, wanderer, imagineer, realist, practicalist, wordly, other-worldly, dreamy, immanent, abstract, literal, metaphoric, son of god, god, sun, moon, healer, mystic, traveler of worlds, psychonaut, loner, lover, hater, socialite, good, bad, proud, humble, mystical, cooperative, competitive, technie, citizen, warrior, genius, vague, clear, fog, bright, dull, dark, life, death, creation, destruction, black, white…
I am none of the concept-association-meaning-infused-worlds.
All meaning worlds appear in me.
Even great integrative life-near super meta-concept worlds appear in me.

All of this, appears in me, and as me, and it is me, and not me too, because I am infinitely greater than any one formation.
My mind is like tape playing linearly in time, various formations, one at a time.
They are all plays in the realm/screen I call my mind.
The part of me outside of this grand mind screen, the dimension above, is learning that “I AM NOT” deeper and deeper, and this understanding is gradually getting infused and pervading my mind-dimension experiences too.
This higher knowledge is organically and gradually infusing and spreading.

The knowledge of “I AM NOT” is the greatest knowledge I can ever possess.
Another way to describe this would be:
I am the MIRROR, whatever appears is me, but I am eternally free of my reflection images.
I am “Infinite unborn potential & the Infinite born manifest”.
“All is Empty”, “All is a form within me”, “I am the formless containing all the forms”, “I am the infinite nothing that contains all possible somethings”.
But whatever I say I am, I am narrowing the infinite I am down to that conception (This conception might be incredibly inclusive and vast, but it still excludes the equally vast pole/world of its opposite).
For instance, even if I say I am the universe as an assertion, then what about the infinite non-universe/beyond-universe?
So, no thing/word/concept/idea/thought/world defines me.


2 Replies to “I AM …THAT…”

  1. I have an idea for you to try. Consider avoiding all being verbs (particularly “is”) in all pronouncements about anything. I have attempted this for the last year. It “is” difficult, but a worthwhile exercise. “A is B” is a lie perpetrated by the being verb. A “is” only A. B can only be a characteristic (or I think you would say, a “description). (Notice my failure to avoid “Is” and other being verbs). Perhaps communication fails without reference. I think that, at least IS true.

    In this regard, “I AM…” is sufficient. “THAT” points beyond the truth of “I AM” (pure, unreferenced being–or more accurately, being referenced only by I AM NOT). Do you agree?

    1. Yea, I agree.
      This is a huge limitation of language esp. English.
      Alan Watts talks a lot about it.
      Basically ghost nouns in our language.
      For instance – It is lightning.
      The It here is the ghost noun which is doing the lightning as a verb/action.
      But in reality there is only the action “lightning” as such, and no “It”.
      And what is lightning without the sky/clouds/ground etc.?
      So what we call lightning “goes along with” the rest of the conditions.
      We cannot separate the lightning phenomena from all this context.
      So “lightning” is inseparate from the rest of the universe.
      Lightning is the way it is, because the whole universe is the way it is, and it relies inseparably on the rest of the universe for its definition.
      So how can we draw a boundary when there is total mutual interrelationship?
      So we arrive at the ONE, which cannot be spoken about because even the entity making the assertion about the ONE is the ONE.

      Generally the way I see it, is that, when talking about some “thing”, we are always referring to a delimited slice of reality…I usually break it down as dimensions…3D = Noun, 4-D = Process in Time, 5D = Adjective/Blueprint/Pattern…as we move up the dimensions, we are broadening our truth vision more and more.
      There is a relativity here also, in the spectrum of:
      [Smaller Truth] —–Noun—–Process——Pattern——– [Greater Truth]
      So we could say:
      3D – Noun = IT
      4D – Verb = IS
      5D – Adjective = ISNESS
      Like 3D = Flower, 4D = Flower Process, 5D = The fractal of Flowering.
      5D steps into fractals, it is outside of time.
      4D is in pattern in time.
      3D is the object as it appears in one slice of time.
      So on a similar note:
      I could say “I AM THAT” = i.e. I am saying “I” (separate from that) AM (unioning with) …THAT… (the transcendent 5-D object which I have apprehended, the dots representing the endless fractal)
      Then eventually the I unions with …THAT… and as there is only …THAT…
      OR I could say there is only the “I” – existing as its nature.
      Then the final question is ‘what is separating itself and making this assertion?’ which takes you into the wordless ONE.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: