I Am

I feel quite confused about looking at what you tell us, the true nature of ourselves in which this all appears. I cannot find anything. And it's strange, because who is asking the question what the true nature of me is? Let's stick with your first observation. That is, when you look for yourself, you can't find anything. What I think you mean is that you can't find anything that has objective qualities, like a thought or a feeling. You can't find yourself. But at the same time, if you didn't exist, there would be no experience. Is it a me, because it's a you, it's a you, it's a you? What we are calling you or I is that which knows or is aware of your experience. If that one was not present, there would be no experience. In other words, you are undoubtedly present now. You cannot deny your own existence. So whilst it is true, your first observation is true, when I look for myself, I cannot find myself. And then I refined your statement, when I look for myself, I cannot find myself as any kind of objective experience. And yet, it is also true that I undoubtedly am. Yes, so what? So the conclusion of these two statements, let's reverse them, I undoubtedly am. And yet what I am cannot be found as an object. What is the inevitable conclusion of that? What I am has no objective qualities. Just because it has no objective qualities doesn't mean that it is not present. Do you cease to exist in deep sleep? It depends on the definition of existing. No, it depends on the definition of you. Do you cease to be present? You're quite right. By existing in this context, I mean be present. Do you cease to be present in deep sleep? No, in a way, I'm not. But you have no experience of objects in deep sleep. And what element of yourself remains in the absence of objective experience in deep sleep? I wouldn't know, nothing. But when you say, I slept well, you refer to an experience. Well, my children say… No, no, you don't ask your children whether you slept well, your children ask you whether you slept well, and you say, yes, I slept well. To what experience do you refer when you say, I slept well, given that when you were sleeping well, there was no objective experience present? What were you referring to? A kind of not being aware. If you had not been aware, you wouldn't have known whether you slept well or not. You would answer, I don't know, to my children. But you didn't, you answer yes to your children, because you know you had the experience of sleeping well in the absence of objects. What is it that had that experience? It was you. What is the nature of the you that had it? I don't know. You don't know yourself? Do you have a sense now? Can you say from your experience now, I am? Is that a statement that you can legitimately make? Can you simply say, I am? Yes. Kind of. Why kind of? Do you only have a partial sense of being present? Or is it obvious to you that I am? Okay, I am. Yeah. Okay. Now, to what experience do you refer when you say I am? You were knowing that someone is sitting here? No. You didn't refer to the experience of someone sitting here. You referred to your being. You referred to simply I am. I didn't ask you, do you have the experience of sitting on a chair? I asked you, do you have the experience of simply being? I didn't ask you, can you say from your experience, I am sitting on a chair? I asked you, can you say from your experience simply, I am? You are not always sitting on a chair, but you always are. There are many times during the day when you cannot say from your experience, I am sitting on a chair. Can you ever say from experience, I am not, or I am nonexistent? Have you ever had the experience of being nonexistent? It's just yes or no. Have you ever had the experience of being nonexistent? No. Good. In other words, you always have the experience of being present. It is your continuous experience. I am present. Or simply, I am. That's what I am means. I am present. That is your continuous experience. I am or I am present. Now, is any other experience continuous? Have you ever had any other experience apart from I am that is continuous? No. Continuous. Until so far, the body. No, an actual experience. All you experience of the body is a flow of sensations and perceptions. Have you ever had a sensation or a perception that was continuous, that lasted forever? I don't know. No, you do know. Have you ever had a sensation that lasted forever? Take the sensation of your hand on the mic. Has that sensation been with you all your life? No. Take the sensation of sitting on the chair. Has that sensation been with you all your life? Obviously not. Have you ever had a sensation that lasted forever, that has been with you all your life? No. Have you ever had a perception that was with you all your life? No. Have you ever had a thought or a feeling? No. So your thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perceptions are discontinuous. They come and go. You've already said that I am, the knowledge I am, is with you all the time. So I am the knowing of your own being. It's the only experience that is continuous. No other experience is essential to you because thoughts are always disappearing. Your feelings are always disappearing. Your sensations are always vanishing. But the pure I am is always present. Yes? What is the nature of that I am? Yeah, that's a good question. It is indeed. But you're getting close. You've already agreed, although you may not quite yet realize it, that you've agreed to it, that no thought, feeling, sensation, or perception is essential to what I am because I am is always present and thoughts and perceptions are continually coming and going. So you agreed with this, not intellectually. I could tell you agreed from your experience. I know I'm leading you, but I'm not putting words in your mouth, I hope. I hope I'm formulating perhaps what your experience is. But you are following me in your experience. You have, in effect, said, I am always present. My thoughts and perceptions are not always present. Therefore, they are not essential to me. They come and go. But I always am. And that I that I am, no thought or feeling or sensation or perception is inherent in it. So what is the pure I am prior to thoughts and perceptions? Don't say I don't know because you've already said from your experience, I am. When you say I am, you are referring to an experience of yourself. Pure existence. And you know that experience. And because you know that experience, you can say, I am. If you didn't know that experience, you would say, I'm not sure that I am. Or even, I am not. But you agree. You cannot legitimately say, I am not. Or you cannot legitimately say even, I'm not sure whether I am or not. You are absolutely certain that I am. In fact, if you look at it, you are more certain that I am than you are about any other thing. Are you sure that this is an outside world? You can't be sure. Because it disappears when your mind disappears. What is your experience of the world in between two perceptions? There's no experience of the world in between two perceptions. Because all we know of the world is perception. How do we know that there is more to the world than perception? We don't. And all perception is an activity of our minds. Therefore, we cannot be sure that this is an outside world. Because our only knowledge of this outside world is the activity of our own mind. So we have to question the reality of the outside world. We cannot be sure of it. But the knowledge of yourself, the knowledge that enables you to say, I am, is more secure than your knowledge of the world. It is the most secure knowledge. It is the only knowledge, in fact, of which you can be absolutely certain. And yet, most people spend their whole, go through their whole lives without even noticing the experience to which we refer when we say simply, I am. In other words, most people go through their whole life without recognizing who they are. And they wonder why they suffer. So you see, it's true when you say, when I look for myself, I cannot find myself, if by that you mean I cannot find myself as an object. You're right. I cannot find myself as an object either. And yet, at the same time, you know that you are. What is that you that you are in the absence of all objective experience? It has no objective qualities and therefore it cannot be limited. Still it exists. It exists. It is. I am. But that I am has no objective features. It is unlimited. It is not confined to a body or a mind. It is unlimited. It doesn't start in time. It doesn't end in time. It wasn't born. It doesn't die. It's not confined to your body. It's eternal. In other words, it's infinite, which simply means it is ever present and without limits. Now, when I formulate it like that, you get frightened and you say, oh, no, no, no, I don't know that I am eternal and infinite. But in fact, I'm only formulating what you've said. So if you just go back in your own experience and rehearse this conversation and go back again and again to your experience of yourself, not the self that you can find as an object, but the self that you undoubtedly are, if you go back there again and again, this conviction, this experiential conviction of what you essentially are, will grow deeper and deeper in you. And then we don't have to know what it is. We cannot know what it is because it's only possible to know what something is when we separate ourselves from that thing. We cannot know ourselves. We can only be ourselves knowingly.