On 23 March 2011 20:52, YouWho? <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, how can you honestly say that you know there is a world 'over > there' or anywhere, functioning on its own, without "I Am"? >
I have been in some fairly impressive states of inebriation and the sorts of things one would have expected to have happened in the time I was not there happened without me LOL > It is intellectual theory and unprovable. > disagree - in this age of technology anything is provable - even things that are not true :) > The world arose from "I Am," "I Am" did not arise from the world. "I > am and individual" arose from the world after the world arose from "I > Am." > and this is provable? > If you let go of "I Am" as you suggest, where is the world to be > found? > there doesn't need to be a sense of being for a world to exist > > And by whom? The answer to question of "by whom(or what)?" is the real > pith or essence. > there isn't anyone - IT is the illusion > How do you really let go of "I Am" until the body stops drawing > breath? You can let go of it momentarily as a mental excercise, but > the non-conceptual understanding that it is not true is the final > resolve. "I Am" is knowledge, the primal illusion which is without an > individual to let go of it. Only does the changeless stillness that is > its silent witness recognize the transience or untruth of that > Knowledge that is "I Am." Surely "I Am" is the sense of a being a "me" in the world which showed up when I was a child before which there was simply what was happening Yes, realization of "I am not," or perhaps better said, "I am not only > I Am, but the knower of I Am," is a more accurate pointer, but lo and > behold, when that is understood, "I Am" is there/here shining in and > as its illuminative brilliance as an adornment on mySelf. "I am not" > is true for the individual, but "I Am" is both true and not true for > the real You, the Supreme Self, the Absolute. You'll have to explain this more clearly? Thanks Mark
