While I do get the whole point of Netti Netti, it of course does not get us away from self, as it repeatedly references self in comparison to that which is saying “not this, nor that...rinse and repeat”. And in truth, I do find all this negativity a bit of a downer. In the end, the sayer (e.g. Adyashanti) might stop at, “I am awareness”, which still keeps the I but leaves it undefined. Anyway, awareness is more of a quality or property of something rather than an entity to “be”. A more proper statement might be “I am that which is aware.” While this does read better, it still retains a “that”, which “I am”, whatever “that” may be. I suppose I could go further and say I am not that which is aware but rather that which is aware of that which is aware, but I see no point in this as it can go on forever, reductio ad infinitum. I suppose theoretically if we take the derivative, we do get to zero, but infinity is a long process and even longer here as its negative all the way down.

I agree it is a valid view point, “I am not this, nor that”, but it is always a valid viewpoint from the point of view of the point doing the viewing. To see that it is “not” something, the point must move and view what it is not (or no longer) from a different point of view. It begins to feel like a process of perpetually running away from oneself. I wonder if it is not equally valid, and much easier, to say, “I am this, and I am that, ad infinitum”. It is much more positive and inclusive don’t you think? Perhaps we are all those things and more, much more. I am my body, I am my mind, I am consciousness, I am that which is aware. Perhaps we could even cut to the chase and just say “I am that which I am aware of”. In any given moment in time, I am that which fills my awareness, and though it is always changing in scope and nature, and is never permanent, there is one thing that persists through it all, always, I am.