What actually IS the science of I AM?

[Honza]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Speak to a priest or pastor about it then. Maybe you require religious counselling.

What could a Priest possibly be able to do about it? Priests ignore the Eastern spirituality and don't face the issues involved. I'd rather embrace what is happening and find some sort of answer.

[Honza]

Originally Posted by markings

There cannot be a debate about them in order to declare winner and loser as you seem to wish.

You want the mystical ideas to lose - for everyone.

That is not going to work. You can only make it to lose for you by walking away from it. Is that not good enough?

Be careful about presuming to know what I want or don't want. Or to KNOW what it is that I am dealing with. Understanding builds up slowly over time. You seem to feel you understand me already.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Honza

Who is most of us? Most of the people here at SF? I know my Dad who was a Christian found the clash difficult. Most Westerners tend to keep their heads down about the matter. Either that or embrace the Eastern spirituality.

To me it is like my core reality has been shaken. So I investigate the issues at stake. You are welcome to avoid my ramblings.

If your ' core reality ' has been shaken then it must have been weak anyway

A flexible tree never breaks, loosen up a little and if ' I am ' is bothering you then forget about it and walk away.

[Honza]

Originally Posted by sky123

If your ' core reality ' has been shaken then it must have been weak anyway

A flexible tree never breaks, loosen up a little and if ' I am ' is bothering you then forget about it and walk away.

Are YOU strong and flexible? It is easier said than done.

[markings]

Originally Posted by Honza

Be careful about presuming to know what I want or don't want. Or to KNOW what it is that I am dealing with. Understanding builds up slowly over time. You seem to feel you understand me already.

I started out with 'seem to wish', conveniently ommitted.
Winners and losers, have you ever taken a position of supporting or just carefully exploring the ideas behind I AM?
I AM is really not difficult except that grammatical rules interfere with its meaning. It can be partly resolved by replacing I AM with THERE IS.

You could try this as an exercise, replacing every I with THERE with appropriate changes to suit our grammar, e.g.

I am writing a post -> There is writing of a post
I am dressing -> There is dressing happening
I am eating breakfast -> Breakfast is (being) eaten

It removes the central actor from our language use and therefore from our thoughts and with a little bit of persistence that may change one's view quite a lot.
One simply cannot understand the 'I' of 'I AM' as long as one identifies this 'I' with self, ego, personality, character, soul, in fact anything personal and individual.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by Honza

People say that I AM is a science of sorts. The gist of it is that within us there is the inner light and inner universal "I". That self love in fact rules the Universe.

My query is: is not the outer "you" a science as well? Or is not the higher "God" a science too?

I cannot get my mind round the idea that there is no scientific you out there. Or that scientifically nothing is actually higher than me.

Scientifically speaking I do not rule the Universe. In what scientific way Am I God?

Honza,

I think you will find the three references enclosed herein ample evidence of what you are seeking in your question.

The science of I Am is that You Are the technology.

Reference: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...67&postcount=8

Reference: http://archive.is/http://holofractal...phic-universe/

Reference: http://www.gaianxaos.com/holographic...y_of_being.htm

[Honza]

Interesting thanks.

[Molearner]

Originally Posted by markings

I AM is really not difficult except that grammatical rules interfere with its meaning. It can be partly resolved by replacing I AM with THERE IS.

You could try this as an exercise, replacing every I with THERE with appropriate changes to suit our grammar, e.g.

I am writing a post -> There is writing of a post
I am dressing -> There is dressing happening
I am eating breakfast -> Breakfast is (being) eaten

It removes the central actor from our language use and therefore from our thoughts and with a little bit of persistence that may change one's view quite a lot.
One simply cannot understand the 'I' of 'I AM' as long as one identifies this 'I' with self, ego, personality, character, soul, in fact anything personal and individual.

markings,


Interesting......:) I have in the past espoused a similar grammatical exercise. I have advocated understanding the 7 I am statements of Jesus that appear in the Gospel of John. My grammatical suggestion is to insert the verb 'is' after 'I am' in each of the statements. For example......."I am IS the bread of life"......etc. 'I am' then becomes understood as a something rather than an individual. This something can then be seen as a dynamic force such as the obtaining and effort to realize Christ consciousness but is inclusive of the self(minus ego) within the collective unity of all souls. Consider.........:)

[Molearner]

Further explanation might be warranted....:) I base my understanding of the "I AM" on what some might term as self-realization. Personally, I dislike that term...…..I prefer Christ-realization. This is from the Apostle Paul who declared...…"it is no longer I that live, but Christ that is within me". If each of us is given the divine spark of life then we cannot claim this to be a unique gift peculiar to our individual self. It is something that we all possess...…..the divine spark is Christ within us. This obviously is a Christian understanding.....if others reject Christ then they must accept a rationale that omits Christ and explain that the divine spark is unique only to them...….:)

[uloDoe Youn]

Originally Posted by Honza

People say that I AM is a science of sorts. The gist of it is that within us there is the inner light and inner universal "I". That self love in fact rules the Universe.

My query is: is not the outer "you" a science as well? Or is not the higher "God" a science too?

I cannot get my mind round the idea that there is no scientific you out there. Or that scientifically nothing is actually higher than me.

Scientifically speaking I do not rule the Universe. In what scientific way Am I God?

Your Misunderstanding What the IAM is When You Refer to YourSelf AS You. The ATMA is the SELF that LIES Within, Not the WIThOut, So You SAying:

Or that scientifically nothing is actually higher than me.

Is An INVALID TeXT ANd CLAIM, YOU Is the Body, the PHySical ApperAnce, Not The Depth of the SOul Spark Deep Down Within, So Long You Dont See That; You HAve Not REaCHed EnLightenment Yet OF So Far.

People say that I AM is a science of sorts. The gist of it is that within us there is the inner light and inner universal "I". That self love in fact rules the Universe.

My query is: is not the outer "you" a science as well? Or is not the higher "God" a science too?

The Inner You" The Inner Light is Not Your Personage, But the Individuality of The ExistAnce of LiFe, the PHySICal "YOU" is the Body and The Experience of Life In the 3Dimensions Outputted. If You ReFer YouRSelf to the "you", It is the SoulIsh Realm of YourSelf in You.

The Mindset From Where You Coming From WithOut DisTain, Has Not Yet Grasped That The PHYSical is Stuck In MAtERialistic Realm, And the Soul On its, In its, Own SeLf REalM.

It is As DiffERent as the Bones And Flesh MAtter, One Soft, The Other Solid. If By Soul You See Midst or Fog, or Spirit AS What It Seems Feel OF You.
Don't Mix THe Outer Reality UP WiTH The Inward, One Goes Back to Dust From Where It CaME From, And The Other Goes To Where IT CAme From Outside of This Realm And Dimension Itself.

I Do Not Say That the Soul Has No Body, I Say It's Body Cant Be Witnessed OF Seen In This Realm, Except By ExPression and HEarT Felt Of SOul.