HOW DID THE ‘I’ ARISE

The I can be viewed in myriad ways... always needing to go beyond the words... as we are only trying to describe the indescribable:

Awareness becomes aware of Its unawareness- this is the rising of the I. And yet, unawareness remains unaware of its awareness – impacted or disturbed or stirred not by awareness!

Only analogy can help us go beyond the language of duality – its like us having a point which is aware of our deep sleep state even while we are in deep sleep – so that one aspect is aware of our deep sleep of rest – and yet the deep sleep is not affected or disturbed or woken by this point of awareness.

You can try this pictorially: Become the mother (awareness) who is looking at her child deeply asleep (unawareness); as the mother who knows her child has had a wonderful, fulfilled day and is thus deeply asleep and at rest and fulfilled - you are aware of the child’s beautiful fulfilled state of deep sleep…  aware of his blissful unawareness … yet  the child’s unawareness is not experienced by the child himself (unawareness)…only experienced by you the mother (awareness)

Also while we have to use linear language, and say the I ‘rises’, or awareness ‘becomes’ aware- in real absolute beyond linear terms - the I is an inherent aspect of the Absolute… awareness is an aspect of Its unaware state… the sleeping Self (unawareness) always has an aspect that is aware even of its sleeping Self (unawareness) ... this is the I. But in linear language we say ... awareness 'becomes' aware... the 'I' rises...

Only analogy can help us go beyond the language of duality: If we describe water as wet, transparent, white, liquid etc… it doesn’t ‘become’ wet when we focus on its wetness! It doesn’t ‘become’ transparent when we focus on its transparency, it‘s whiteness doesn’t arise when we describe or view it as white…! Indeed these are all inherent aspects of water and they only become different when we focus on each aspect in labeling or description! In the same manner awareness, unawareness, the I, consciousness , unconsciousness, void, creation etc  etc are all inherent aspects of the absolute… and only in understanding them do we segregate them… and speak of them in terms of ‘rising’ or ‘becoming’…but just as waters whiteness or liquidness or transparency cannot be separated from each other or the water and doesn’t arise when we focus on it  … these aspects (awareness, unawareness, the I, consciousness , unconsciousness, void, creation etc) only ‘arise’ in understanding the absolute!

***

Another way of seeing the I: We confer onto an act/state of witnessing- an identity- and thus turn a ‘state of witnessing’ into ‘a’ Witness. And this   vast, all-inclusive, all-penetrating act/state of witnessing - is that which we label as Self-I.   However as we move into, establish and abide as this all encompassing ‘Witness/I’ there comes its own dissolution – we move even from this vastest identity – into pure beingness and a state of witnessing - without any identity whatsoever. No I/Self even… no hooks to hang our hats on

The narrower, more surface, much excluding & based in time & space is what we call the participant-self-i  .Thus as we move from self to Self, as we expand our sense of i to I… we increasingly move from being participant into further and further degrees of being the witness…till we abide as the Witness. But then as said above, there comes upon Its own dissolution – the move from identification- the move from ‘being the witness’ to the identity less   state of witnessing!  Thus in the ultimate sense it is not only the ego-self that dissolves, but also the I/Self/.

 As we move from i to I - even ‘I Am’ dissolves… there is just isness… no identity... not even I... as “I” implies another/exists… surely  only in reference to someone or something else other than I – can the notion of I arise…. otherwise where even the notion even of  an “I”? So its we “i’s” who intellectually know about “I”ness, who refer to it as “I” .But as That... (Wordless sate)  It would not say “I”... surely.. .for where the notion of I when there is no other!

We need to go beyond the need to call this state something…even the word ‘no-self’ becomes a sort of self as it gives form to the formless and description to the descirptionless! No hooks to hang your hats on!

A state of witnessing rather than there being a witness! “Events and deeds happening but no doer there of…” NOT EVEN I

***

Imho I AM is derived from AOM (OM) - The universal sound that emanates as Unawareness (That) becomes aware (I Am) and revels in Its pure beingness. Imho AOM (OM) is the frequency/vibration of this state of Pure Beingness/Awareness - which we in duality, have translated as I AM!