4. Abiding in "I Am"
In addition to the “I Am” duality being subtle enough to avoid detection, discovering and affirming that “I Am” (i.e., self-realization) as a singularity can appear to be the goal of the spiritual life due to the positive changes that “realizing” it brings. In particular, the level of suffering experienced when there is just “I Am”, without any “I Am That”, can make it seem as though there is nothing more to do except “just be”, and the sense that there couldn’t be anything more to do in order to fully awaken. This underscores the fact that this realization is in fact a very substantial change, and that no longer identifying with our thoughts, bodies, minds, memories or anything else is actually quite far along the way to full awakening. However, though the level of suffering experienced is substantially less than when we started, there is still further to go.
Additionally, how the “world in and around us” looks when only the “I Am” remains is more or less how it will look upon full awakening. Because of this, how those who are fully awake describe the experience of what they see, hear and think will be substantially similar to those who have fully realized and abide in the “I Am”. If so, these two “levels” of experience might be conflated or equated, particularly if we go into the spiritual life with the intention of seeing “the way things really are”, rather than “the way I really am not”. We might therefore conclude that no longer seeing “actual” books and tables in the room means that we are fully awake and enlightened.
The prospect of losing all sense of “I” or “I Am” can be a scary proposition. For example, we might fear that losing “me” will result in a desolate void of emptiness, by which even more suffering will result. While it may be helpful to read the words of Nisargadatta, the Buddha and others who describe it as a necessary step by which we will no longer suffer at all, that may or may not tip the scales in favor of embarking of a fundamental change which is difficult to describe or understand until it happens. If not, staying with the safety and familiarity of “me” may seem preferable.
Another obstacle to going beyond “I Am” is that staying with just the fundamental sense that “I Am” can be a welcome and even alluring place from which to live. One person I know describes it as how it can feel very nice when moving in and out of the “me/not me” separation, to sometimes feel “at one with the universe”, and then sometimes feel there is just the bare “I Am”. In doing so, there can be the lingering belief in one’s existence, while also having a readily-available way in which to rationalize or qualify that existence, as if to say “but I’m really everything”.
There may also be preconceived notions regarding what the experience of enlightenment will be, such as full of bliss, meaning, or “just being”, which abiding in a nondual Self naturally brings. All of this is readily available when there is only “I Am”, and one may therefore be reluctant to leave all that behind. As one contemporary teacher puts it, when comparing the “I Am” to the no-self experience where there is no longer any “I” sense, “(t)he falling away of self is something else altogether. It is not “better” or “more loving” or more anything other than more true. It is ultimate Reality, and ultimate Truth. That’s why I say that if you want all the good stuff spirituality has to offer, go for Self Realization. But we are all destined for the state of no-self (whatsoever), for it is where we all came from and where we will all return to."
That the “I Am” seems to be a singularity of awareness or consciousness can also lead us to predetermine that everyday experience, with all of its apparent distinctions such as doorways and walls, is somehow unreal or less real, and that it is simply a reflection of awareness or consciousness being aware or conscious of itself. What makes such a conclusion so difficult to disprove is that it cannot be tested at its own level: if awareness and consciousness are assumed to be real and existent, all inquiry is a matter of being aware or conscious of whatever is sought, including awareness or consciousness itself. In effect, the theory is set up in a way that proves its own validity, and effectively precludes all inquiry and exploration, because the eventual “I Am” cannot be questioned.
This is no different than holding firm to the belief that there really is a separate “self” that is the agent or controller of what is happening, which belief precludes taking the first step on the path to awakening. With this belief, we are able to assert that the separate self is the agent for, and is in control of, itself and all that it owns or is. So too, assuming that “awareness” is real and a given, and that it is aware of itself, allows the illusory “I Am” singularity to go unquestioned. In both of these cases, we remain in the realm of concept and belief rather than seeing what actually is (and isn’t) happening. Thus, concluding ahead of time that there is a singularity that can be labelled “I Am”, and that “awareness being aware of itself” is the description of what is happening and why, predetermines the outcome of the spiritual “path”, process or undertaking.
Additionally, how the “world in and around us” looks when only the “I Am” remains is more or less how it will look upon full awakening. Because of this, how those who are fully awake describe the experience of what they see, hear and think will be substantially similar to those who have fully realized and abide in the “I Am”. If so, these two “levels” of experience might be conflated or equated, particularly if we go into the spiritual life with the intention of seeing “the way things really are”, rather than “the way I really am not”. We might therefore conclude that no longer seeing “actual” books and tables in the room means that we are fully awake and enlightened.
The prospect of losing all sense of “I” or “I Am” can be a scary proposition. For example, we might fear that losing “me” will result in a desolate void of emptiness, by which even more suffering will result. While it may be helpful to read the words of Nisargadatta, the Buddha and others who describe it as a necessary step by which we will no longer suffer at all, that may or may not tip the scales in favor of embarking of a fundamental change which is difficult to describe or understand until it happens. If not, staying with the safety and familiarity of “me” may seem preferable.
Another obstacle to going beyond “I Am” is that staying with just the fundamental sense that “I Am” can be a welcome and even alluring place from which to live. One person I know describes it as how it can feel very nice when moving in and out of the “me/not me” separation, to sometimes feel “at one with the universe”, and then sometimes feel there is just the bare “I Am”. In doing so, there can be the lingering belief in one’s existence, while also having a readily-available way in which to rationalize or qualify that existence, as if to say “but I’m really everything”.
There may also be preconceived notions regarding what the experience of enlightenment will be, such as full of bliss, meaning, or “just being”, which abiding in a nondual Self naturally brings. All of this is readily available when there is only “I Am”, and one may therefore be reluctant to leave all that behind. As one contemporary teacher puts it, when comparing the “I Am” to the no-self experience where there is no longer any “I” sense, “(t)he falling away of self is something else altogether. It is not “better” or “more loving” or more anything other than more true. It is ultimate Reality, and ultimate Truth. That’s why I say that if you want all the good stuff spirituality has to offer, go for Self Realization. But we are all destined for the state of no-self (whatsoever), for it is where we all came from and where we will all return to."
That the “I Am” seems to be a singularity of awareness or consciousness can also lead us to predetermine that everyday experience, with all of its apparent distinctions such as doorways and walls, is somehow unreal or less real, and that it is simply a reflection of awareness or consciousness being aware or conscious of itself. What makes such a conclusion so difficult to disprove is that it cannot be tested at its own level: if awareness and consciousness are assumed to be real and existent, all inquiry is a matter of being aware or conscious of whatever is sought, including awareness or consciousness itself. In effect, the theory is set up in a way that proves its own validity, and effectively precludes all inquiry and exploration, because the eventual “I Am” cannot be questioned.
This is no different than holding firm to the belief that there really is a separate “self” that is the agent or controller of what is happening, which belief precludes taking the first step on the path to awakening. With this belief, we are able to assert that the separate self is the agent for, and is in control of, itself and all that it owns or is. So too, assuming that “awareness” is real and a given, and that it is aware of itself, allows the illusory “I Am” singularity to go unquestioned. In both of these cases, we remain in the realm of concept and belief rather than seeing what actually is (and isn’t) happening. Thus, concluding ahead of time that there is a singularity that can be labelled “I Am”, and that “awareness being aware of itself” is the description of what is happening and why, predetermines the outcome of the spiritual “path”, process or undertaking.