The “I” is the reference


Note: Avyakt7 is gone. Ananda is in from now on.
No change in blog’s name this time… 🙂
Beliefs systems are meant to enhance the “I.”
“I” will go to heaven. “I” will become illuminated.
“I” will experience death. “I” feel pleasure, etc.

Out of all those “enhancements” a religion or a philosophy will build some sort of blueprint to take the believer “safely” to the other “side”… The “good” side..Or so goes the belief.
There is the “creator” and the “creation.” There is “I” and the Universe. There is “I” and God. Separation exists here.
Such is the world and consciousness in the belief of the “I.”

There is an “opposite” belief which states the following: “Aham Brahmasmi.” (Upanishads)
The translation is “I am the Universe.” That translation is not accurate and because of that many “new agey” groups as well as religions who preach about the “non- I” have been grossly misunderstood by book learners and guru followers alike who would like to “ascend” and become “someone.”

There is no “I,” that is all there is to “Aham Brahmasmi.”

Our language cannot convey that absence of “I-ness” so we made up a more sophisticated word: “ Omnipresence,” There is still “I” but everywhere… 🙂

Mr. Logical will affirm: “One of those 2 positions is obviously the right one. There is either an “I” or there is none. If there is an “I” and there is no-I at the same time… That is irrational.”

That belief in “holy rationality” brought logic and analysis as “reality” rather than the paradoxical experience of life. That is how we use the “world at the office” to understand life and in turn we get confused when life does not work under the hierarchies of the “office’s world.”

The above realization is not coming from quoting books, gurus and “experts” who are engrossed in rationality. This is not book learning here.
We need to experience it to understand it.
Thus, it is not a rational understanding but paradoxically, this understanding is non-rational.

Our minds have created that separation: The believers in the “I” vs the believers in “omnipresence” which is another misrepresentation by the logical mind.
It is the dichotomy of the “I” vs the “non-I” to put it in a few words, however; for those who have experienced those 2 states of being, there is no separation but it is just a different manifestation of “what is.”

God is everywhere. I am God. We are God. He is God, there is no God….
All true and false at the same time. 🙂

It just depends on the consciousness that someone is coming from.
“Your” consciousness is “your” reality.

The history of religious “thought” could be explained in the “I” separated from the Universe, which is the typical rational consciousness of the world- called “Collective consciousness,” or the “Aham Brahmasmi” which is coming from another type of consciousness. From that point many beliefs arose which gave every belief system a distinct flavor.

Ananda was “seeing” the Ocean.
There is no Ananda, there is no Ocean. The subject and the object are not separated until the “I” comes to do so, creating loneliness and attachment.
Consciousness is what binds us together and that consciousness acquires a personality when the belief of being separated arrives.
That is the experience of most and the reason for many “self-help” books and gurus.

If we want to change our experience of life, we need to change our beliefs.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s