I Have VS. I AM

-
The other day it came to my attention, when a friend cried out, "I have Power!" that this is part of the fundamental problem, particularly when it comes to some of the new age and alternative thinking. It is the basic distinction of Having versus Being: like I 'have' prosperity' rather than I 'am' properity; or I 'have' enlightenment, rather than I 'am' enlightenment. (Also note the distinction 0f I am enlightenMENT versus I am EnlightenED.) The I "Have" creates a duality that is less subtle even than I Am. I AM is a doorway; I HAVE is a very definite 'me' and 'not me'.

Let's get into grammar for a moment. In Sanskrit (and a number of other languages) there is actually not a verb for 'to have'. You can 'be with' something, like 'I am with this car' or 'this car is being with me' or even 'it is my car,' but not I have this car. (I know, subtle distinction.) But it does say something about the language, which works in subtle ways. For instance, you would tend to say, I am consciousness, rather than I have consciousness. It is as if you recognize something as 'Being' intrinsically who and/or what you are, rather than something thata 'YOU' possess.

Another example, the Ashtavakra Samhita says "If you consider yourself Free you are free and if you consider yourself bound you're bound." And, "Where there is an I there is bondage and where there is no I there is freedom." Our tendency is to think in terms of our western language set up of, which has a tendency for maintaining an individuated "I". This is less common in many other languages. For instance, I have heard that in many native languages there are no nouns, per se, but rather all verbs. A house is not a house, but a 'housing'; a person is a 'personing'. In other words, everything is a movement, an arising of what is in that moment. You don't exist as a concrete thing, but rather a momentary apparency in the ocean of potentiality. Therefore, how can you have something?

Another distinction is that you either are or are not something, and often you can reccognize that you not only ARE this attribute, but have never not been it. To have something, has more of a tendency to allow for not having it. Today I have it, but tomorrow I may not have it, (or vice versa) as opposed to I am, have always been and will always BE consciousness, light, love, this-ness, divinity, whatever. Energetically, you can feel the difference. Try saying, "I have power," and then "I AM power." Or, "I have peace," and then "I AM peace". "I have love," and then, "I AM love." Just see how they feel. Does one FEEL more real? Is one experienced more as a recognition of what is true, rather than a sort of hopeful affirmation of what might be true?

Explore the possibility of "I AM" versus "I Have" and 'be' fun.

Blessings!

Popular posts from this blog

Touch Starved

-
  What DOES it mean to be human? Virtually everything that you have learned is wrong. It is NOT your fault. The problem is, nearly everything you learn has somebody's agenda behind it, very often the obvious ones of making money, etc., but very often hidden. This is why our western society is so very sick. We are taught about political, social, cultural, gender, and religious correctnesses. We are NOT taught about HUMAN correctness. We are told we should follow the laws of the government, but not the universal laws. We are told we should follow the "correct-ness" laws, but not the human laws. We believe we can make up the human laws. We can not!   The largest organ of the body is the skin. In a grown man, it covers about 19 square feet and weighs about 8 pounds. A piece of skin the size of a quarter contains more than 3 million cells, 100 to 340 sweat glands, 50 nerve endings and 3 feet of blood vessels.  Many people are aware of research done with monkeys no...
Read more

A Deeper Look at Inquiry

-
For years I have spoken on, and written, about Self Inquiry, but I'd like to make a clearer distinction. There are two basic facets of Self Inquiry: 1. The direct recognition of Self, and 2. The letting go, or deconstructing of that which is NOT the Self, specifically, the beliefs. 1. The direct recognition can best be described through the teachings of Ramana (the inquiry "Who am I?) or Nisargadatta's abiding as 'I Am'. The consistent and continuous practice of these methods, point us directly at that which precedes our thoughts and beliefs. It is the discrimination between what is sat and asat, or real and unreal, or permanent and impermanent. The focus of attention is not on the objects of awareness, but on the recognition that You ARE the awareness itself, without bounds or constrictions - formless. Generally, in going through this process, we 'drop' into this recognition, realize our freedom, and for moments, hours, or even days, there is just what I...
Read more

Be As You Are

-
Many people are familiar with the phrase "Be as you are," and many are also familiar with the book of the same name by David Godman, about the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. But how many are really familiar with what it is to Be As You Are? What I'd like you to do for a moment is really explore and investigate the 'feeling' that accompanies being as you are. Right now, be as you are! Now a question might come up of what does this mean, or how do I do that. The real question is how do you NOT do that? How can you not be as you are? Primarily by trying to be something that you're not. I ran into a wonderful quote the other day. It's from the Hasidic tradition featuring Rabbi Zusya. The quote has Rabbi Zusya saying, "When I reach the next world, God will not ask me, 'Why were you not Moses?' Instead, he will ask me, 'Why were you not Zusya?'" This is exactly the problem. Everyone is trying to be a Buddha or a Jesus or an anything ot...
Read more