A self reflection on 'I amness'

[CosmicTrekker]

Below is an AI transcription of my audio recording, since they can't be directed posted here.

 

It'd be interested in any comments anyone can make about the accuracy of what's presented, especially stuff I might be misunderstanding or misconstruing.

Many thanks. 

---
To say that I’ve been doing anything like reflecting or investigating would just be bullshit. All I am basically doing—and again, "doing" is not the right word—is witnessing. "Doing" implies that I have some sort of autonomy in the decision-making in terms of what actually flows. In reality, there is no autonomy that I can speak of with any degree of confidence.

I just feel like I’m being pushed into a corner that I can't escape from, and it’s not my doing. If it were based on my own free will and choice, I certainly wouldn't be pushing myself into a corner. This has nothing to do with my doing, and that is the whole truth.

I know teachers like Robert Adams say, "Okay, fine, you're not in charge, you're not the doer, but you have to act in the world as if you were the doer." I don't know about that. Because when you seem to act, all you come across is just another wall—a big sign saying "No Entrance" or "Private Property."

I woke up this morning with that idea as well: everything is unfolding as it has to. There is something bigger at play here. If you look at our experiences in terms of what we experience in the moment, we don’t really have a choice. We are just presented with situations and circumstances. In a particular situation, it may appear that you have a choice, but that choice is just going to be another arising.

Something happened earlier today that was quite distinct from previous observations. It was this idea of "I-amness." I probably won't do it justice in my description, but I’ll try my best. This "I-amness" is always there. No matter what situation arises, the "I-amness" is the background. Whether it is observing a particular thought or a sensory experience, the "I-amness" is the thing that is always there. That is the thing that is unchanging and always present.

I suppose this is what they mean by "resting in I am." There are a million and one different ways that teachers describe this, but essentially it boils down to: what is the background of all experiences?

Speaking of experiences, we tend to have a very dualistic view of what they are. We think there is a thing behind the experience that is observing the experience, which creates duality. In essence, however, reality forms into that experience. When you are worrying about something, there is a collection of thoughts and feelings in the body. That whole thing—including the sense of someone seeing those things—is all one. It comes as one complete package. When we shift from one experience to the next, that "thing" simply reconfigures itself as a different experience.

Irrespective of what the experience is about, there is this sense of "I-amness." You can’t really pinpoint it because when you first attempt to do so, you take the attributes of the things being observed and attribute them to the "I-amness." But "I-amness" is attribute-less; it doesn't have any attributes of its own. It is the background or the screen, so to speak.

The insight was simply this: all of the teachings are about filtering out as much of "not you" as possible and disidentifying from the sense of "I" to see what remains. Once you strip everything away, you can't really "look" at this "I-amness." It isn't even a feeling. To call it a feeling is a misnomer because it is there before the feeling. It has to be there before the feeling can be experienced. This "I-amness" is the essence of who we are.

Do things open up if you rest in this "I-amness" and keep going back to it over and over again? Does realizing that every experience is just a transitory phenomenon—a reconfiguration of this space—open up new ways of understanding? I don't know. But certainly, "I-amness" seems to be the ground of reality and the root of everything, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps even "I-amness" eventually dissolves into nothingness, which is what people like Nisargadatta Maharaj talk about—that even consciousness is a product of nothingness. My gut instinct is that "I-amness" is inherent in that nothingness. The attribute-less emptiness of your true being seems to be the base. Perhaps there is a deeper layer where even "I-amness" disappears into nothingness, which is amazing to think about—that out of nothingness first comes a sense of self, an "I."

That "I" is then entangled. But to say it is "entangled" implies it is separate from the thing it is entangled with. I don't think that's the case. I think both the "I am" and the thing that "I am" is observing—the witness aspect—are one and same. It’s like a shape-shifting thing where the center is always "I am." There is a common locus around which thoughts and sensory experiences shape-shift.

That’s the best I can do in terms of articulating my experiences and the conclusions that arise from them. What reality actually is, I don't know. I’ve only been able to condense it down to these few things. "I-amness" seems to be the prerequisite for any sort of experience. It can also exist in the absence of experience, other than the experience of itself—the "knowingness" that I am.

Recognizing this permanent background is the first step. Perhaps if one were to rest there, deeper insights would arise. For the time being, at this level, it seems to be the base. I had an experience many years ago where I saw what pure "I-amness" is, bereft of any experience. It was like a uniform, self-illuminating white light. It seemed to be the substrate, though God knows how many other layers are hidden behind that.

For now, I'm just going to keep coming back to this "I-amness." In thought, it's easy to get caught up in a virtual world and forget. It is important to keep returning to the "I-amness" and try to experience it in the absence of thought. If the absence of thought cannot be achieved, then at least acknowledge that it is always there in the background. From there, maybe something will open up. For now, it is sufficient to keep returning to the "I" and understanding that it is the common denominator. Let’s leave it at that.