I am who I am

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: not a big fan of wiki, but...

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:14 am
gaffo wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:50 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:35 am https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

I particularly like this interpretation: Who am I? I am who I am, and never you mind.
exactly, none of your business Earthling.

this all ties into Judaistic Theology, and knowing the True Name (and why YHWH allowed Adam to give the True Name of all the animals in Genesis (to have domenion over them), then later in that book, Adem, ate of 1 of the 2 trees he should not have, and "fell"............... - even of God - allows others to have power over Him.

so YHWH told Moses - i aint going to tell you my True Name, and go pound sand.
and the whole it's none of your business what my name is schtick is in keepin' with god, in ecclesiastes, sayin' where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?...it's I'm God, and that's all you need to know about or worry yourself with

agree with your Humble view here - per your reference of Ecclesiastes (my dad fav work of the bible - though dead now, nor ever was a Christian (though had a mind and heart and valued good literature) my fav is Amos, not read Ecclasiastes myself - maybe poorer for it, and i should someday?

anyway - per your above, never knew that work had the phrasiology, because that is straight out of Job, my 3rd fav work - after Jonah.

I find that interesting myself.

thanks for the education about Ecclesiastes, that in there is a reference to a part of Job, i never knew.

Peace to you sir.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm you have managed to interpret the “I AM-ness” of God as having no more of a personal identity or self-awareness than that of the flavor of an apple.
Yes. Exactly.

What we call "flavour of apple" is God (besides "seeing the color red","feeling the wind on the skin" or "a thought about pink unicorns").
The statement could have been reduced to "I am that AM" or "I am that I" or "I am BEING" or "I am REALITY" - but this would be even harder to understand, wouldn't it?

Gospel of Thomas 77b: "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there."
seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm ...was simply meant to imply that it was “undirected love/bliss/and happiness” that was somehow conveying the information stated in the chapter?
As I see it, there was no separate one conveying the message - the message might have just been arising as a vision, as random thoughts in his mind... who knows... ultimately its only a story - not to be taken literally.
seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm And that it was “undirected love/bliss/and happiness” that Moses was afraid to look upon?
Yes, he was afraid to look at this “undirected love/bliss/and happiness”. Why? Because it is void of individuality. Because it swallows the "you" and leaves no trace but “undirected love/bliss/and happiness” (without a "you" being happy). This can be scary. At least when it happens the first time.
The ego (what you thought yourself to be until this happened) is scared as it spells its own demise, it is the death of the ego (until it is reborn again in normal daily routine).
seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm I mean, you are certainly free to suggest the possibility that Moses (in some kind of meditative stupor) may have “inferred” (imagined) all of those things while gazing at the bush, but clearly that is not how Exodus 3 presents the scenario.
I think its all just a story - but the core of the story, the message it conveys (when read accordingly) is quite enlightening.
seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm The point is that when it comes to your personal interpretation of Biblical dogma and of the phrase “I AM THAT I AM,” you are doing precisely what my Rorschach example suggests of the human propensity to interpret such things so that they fit in with our personal beliefs and biases.
Yes, sure. Everything comes down to "personal interpretation", not only Bible stories, simply everything we interpret and describe are "personal beliefs and biases".
Some based on common/conventional understanding/belief and some more "out there" , but ultimately none absolutely true - while the experience of "taste of apple" is always absolutely true. "Taste of apple", like "God" or "I AM" is not conceptual, there is no question of it being true or false, it simply is.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:24 am
Age wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:07 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:33 pm Everybody is himself/herself so they can say I am who I am. Interestingly this phrase doesn't give more than any obvious information. I am wondering why people consider this as a definition of God.
Before you could accurately wonder why people consider that as a definition of God, you would have to KNOW some people who consider that as a definition of God. So, to you, what people EXACTLY considers that as a definition of God?
God is the creator.
I ask you the question, What people, EXACTLY, consider the saying; "I am who I am", as a definition of, the word, 'God'?

But then you respond, by answering with, "God is the creator".

WHY did you respond this way?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by Age »

AlexW wrote: Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:08 am
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:33 pm I am wondering why people consider this as a definition of God.
Maybe you wonder because your quote is incorrect - it should say: I am THAT I am (and not: I am WHO I am).
When God was saying: "I am THAT I am" he told Moses that he is the fundamental/basic "I am" (and not an individual, not a being separate from existence, but rather this very existence itself)
It is as such an impersonal "I am", not a "WHO", which would point to a separate individual existence.

This is also why it says in Psalm 46: "Be still and know that I am (is) God."
Unfortunately the "is" is left out in many translations, which is a mistake, as it departs from the real message - it should read: "Be still and know that I am IS God"
This is interesting as it fits in PERFECTLY with my definition of 'God'.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:55 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:33 pm Everybody is himself/herself so they can say I am who I am. Interestingly this phrase doesn't give more than any obvious information. I am wondering why people consider this as a definition of God.
It is not a definition of God.

No, it’s merely another example of humans demonstrating their cluelessness as to what God actually is.
But what God actually IS, is ALREADY KNOWN.
seeds wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:55 pm Proclaiming that God is “I AM” is no more a definition of what God truly is than saying that God is “LOVE,” or that God is “ONENESS,” or any other such nebulous nonsense.

Furthermore, based on the responses thus far, it would appear that asking us forum members to give our personal interpretation of what the Biblical phrase “I AM THAT I AM” means, is pretty much the equivalent of asking us to give our interpretation of one of Rorschach's inkblots:

Image

I see two grizzly bears high-fiving each other as they rip open the chest of a hunter who tried to shoot them, and then use his blood to paw-paint on the walls of a cave. :D

What do you see?
_______
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:32 am
AlexW wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:11 am
seeds wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:55 pm Proclaiming that God is “I AM” is no more a definition of what God truly is than saying that God is “LOVE,” or that God is “ONENESS,” or any other such nebulous nonsense.
One could say the same about many things... what is "consciousness", what is "self"... saying that God is "I AM" or "LOVE" is only nebulous if one doesn't know his/her own being - if one doesn't know what "I AM" points to then yes, it might sound nebulous...
Yes, one can know what the term “I AM” points to, but it offers absolutely nothing that would actually “describe” (ontologically) what the “I AM” truly is.

It’s like trying to describe the eye of the mind, or whatever it is that sits at the throne of our consciousness and wields the fabric of our thoughts and dreams.
_______
ALREADY KNOWN, and EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to explain AND describe. But NOT to those who BELIEVE that this can NOT be known or that this can NOT be explained NOR described.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:55 pm
Image

I see two grizzly bears high-fiving each other as they rip open the chest of a hunter who tried to shoot them, and then use his blood to paw-paint on the walls of a cave. :D

What do you see?
_______
What are you on seeds? Anyone can see it's two garden gnomes Morris dancing.
PeteJ
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: I am who I am

Post by PeteJ »

bahman wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:33 pm Everybody is himself/herself so they can say I am who I am. Interestingly this phrase doesn't give more than any obvious information. I am wondering why people consider this as a definition of God.
What a good question.

On this view God is the pristine awareness of 'I Am'. You may say 'I am' but like Descartes you do not know who you are. If you know who you are then when you say 'I Am' you are speaking as God.

There are subtleties. It is possible to re-phrase this without using the word 'God'.

So, In Exodus when God sends a message and is asked who the messenger should say sent it, he says 'Tell them I Am sent it'.

Standard stuff for mysticism. Meister Eckhart covers the ground. .
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: I am who I am

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:25 am
seeds wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:55 pm
Image

I see two grizzly bears high-fiving each other as they rip open the chest of a hunter who tried to shoot them, and then use his blood to paw-paint on the walls of a cave. :D

What do you see?
_______
What are you on seeds? Anyone can see it's two garden gnomes Morris dancing.
How dare you insult my belief? I spit on your Morris dancing garden gnomes. You are an infidel born of pigs.

However, I do admit that I may have been experiencing the delusion inducing effects of drinking half a bottle of Ensure when I saw the grizzly bears (I’ve been trying to cut back).
_______
Last edited by seeds on Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by Atla »

PeteJ wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:48 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:33 pm Everybody is himself/herself so they can say I am who I am. Interestingly this phrase doesn't give more than any obvious information. I am wondering why people consider this as a definition of God.
What a good question.

On this view God is the pristine awareness of 'I Am'. You may say 'I am' but like Descartes you do not know who you are. If you know who you are then when you say 'I Am' you are speaking as God.

There are subtleties. It is possible to re-phrase this without using the word 'God'.

So, In Exodus when God sends a message and is asked who the messenger should say sent it, he says 'Tell them I Am sent it'.

Standard stuff for mysticism. Meister Eckhart covers the ground. .
The 'pristine awareness' doesn't speak, now does it.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: I am who I am

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm ...you have managed to interpret the “I AM-ness” of God as having no more of a personal identity or self-awareness than that of the flavor of an apple.
AlexW wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:05 am Yes. Exactly.

What we call "flavour of apple" is God (besides "seeing the color red","feeling the wind on the skin" or "a thought about pink unicorns").
The statement could have been reduced to "I am that AM" or "I am that I" or "I am BEING" or "I am REALITY" - but this would be even harder to understand, wouldn't it?

Gospel of Thomas 77b: "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there."
Yes, and the exact same thing expressed by Thomas would also apply to Berkeleyan Idealism, wherein because the entire universe is the literal mind of God, then every material phenomenon therein would be formed from the living fabric of God’s very being. Therefore, wherever one probes into the essence of universal matter, one will find the presence of God.

However, if you will just include the fact that the Bible also asserts that humans (more specifically, the human mind and soul) are created in the image of God,...

(thus some of what we are can be turned around and applied to God in certain limited ways)

...then you will realize why it is logical to conclude that God also possesses an individual, self-aware, Cartesian “I Am-ness” (just like we do).

Now if you doubt that (which I am sure you do) then file your complaint with this guy:

Image

And furthermore, just as our own “I Am-ness” exists above and outside of the fabric of our thoughts and dreams, likewise, so does God’s “I Am-ness” exists above and outside of the fabric of universal matter,...

...which upon closer inspection is simply an extremely advanced and ordered version of the same fundamental (holographic-like) substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are constructed - as is depicted in one of my fanciful illustrations:

Image
seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm And that it was “undirected love/bliss/and happiness” that Moses was afraid to look upon?
AlexW wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:05 am Yes, he was afraid to look at this “undirected love/bliss/and happiness”. Why? Because it is void of individuality. Because it swallows the "you" and leaves no trace but “undirected love/bliss/and happiness” (without a "you" being happy).
Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that sounds?

Of how ridiculous it is to imply that something “you-less” (i.e., something that doesn’t seem to possess any fixed or central means by which to process sensory information) could somehow experience love/bliss/and happiness?

Yeah, yeah, I get it. It only sounds ridiculous to someone who has not experienced the true meaning of nonduality as is expressed in the “old paradigm” dogmas of Advaita Vedanta.

Alex, you don’t seem to understand (or care) that you are promoting a form of existential nihilism, to which I suggest that it’s time for you to step up into higher (more logical and more hopeful) visions of our ultimate purpose and destiny.
seeds wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:10 pm I mean, you are certainly free to suggest the possibility that Moses (in some kind of meditative stupor) may have “inferred” (imagined) all of those things while gazing at the bush, but clearly that is not how Exodus 3 presents the scenario.
AlexW wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:05 am I think its all just a story...
Agreed.
AlexW wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:05 am ...but the core of the story, the message it conveys (when read accordingly) is quite enlightening.
I suggest that what you are inadvertently implying when you say “...when read accordingly...” is that the core of the story is enlightening after it has been filtered through the membrane of our personal belief system.

In which case, again, the message seems to be whatever we wish it to be.
_______
Last edited by seeds on Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm However, if you will just include the fact that the Bible also asserts that humans (more specifically, the human mind and soul) are created in the image of God,...
Sure... and I wouldn't stop there.
I would say that everything - not only "the human mind and soul" - is created in the image of God ... which leads us to: everything (which is real) IS God.
The question is only: What is real and what is imagined?
To me, everything that can be directly experienced is real - and whatever can only be imagined is "unreal" (or ratherL not more than an idea, belief or conceptual interpretation).
seeds wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm ...then you will realize why it is logical to conclude that God also possesses an individual, self-aware, Cartesian “I Am-ness” (just like we do).
Well... the question is:
What exactly is this "we" you are referring to? What is it that is self-aware? And what does it mean to actually be self aware?

To me, self awareness is a thought based process.
No thought, no separate/conceptual self to be aware of.
This thought based self is what makes up the person, the individual - nothing more (and nothing less).

Now we can say that every normally functioning human body contains such a person/self - but this person is "made of thought" (memories etc) and self awareness is nothing but another thought stating "This person! Hey! Thats me!" Try to be "self aware" (or really aware of any separate object) without thought... its simply impossible!
Thats all. No big secret...
seeds wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm Of how ridiculous it is to imply that something “you-less” (i.e., something that doesn’t seem to possess any fixed or central means by which to process sensory information) could somehow experience love/bliss/and happiness?
This "love/bliss/and happiness" is not an experience experienced by something or someone. It simply is.
Just like the nature of water is "wetness" so the nature of God/I am is "love/bliss/and happiness" - there is no separation between water and wetness, its simply what it is.
seeds wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm Alex, you don’t seem to understand (or care) that you are promoting a form of existential nihilism, to which I suggest that it’s time for you to step up into higher (more logical and more hopeful) visions of our ultimate purpose and destiny.
I am not promoting anything - I am only reporting from my own direct experience.
If you want to promote a fanciful story about our "ultimate purpose and destiny" thats fine with me... I am not really interested in that.
I am interested in what is here/now and not in dubious ideas and grand visions for our destiny - these kinds of stories have been preached over thousands of years (see: the religions of the world).
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by Atla »

AlexW wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:59 am
seeds wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm However, if you will just include the fact that the Bible also asserts that humans (more specifically, the human mind and soul) are created in the image of God,...
Sure... and I wouldn't stop there.
I would say that everything - not only "the human mind and soul" - is created in the image of God ... which leads us to: everything (which is real) IS God.
The question is only: What is real and what is imagined?
To me, everything that can be directly experienced is real - and whatever can only be imagined is "unreal" (or ratherL not more than an idea, belief or conceptual interpretation).
seeds wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm ...then you will realize why it is logical to conclude that God also possesses an individual, self-aware, Cartesian “I Am-ness” (just like we do).
Well... the question is:
What exactly is this "we" you are referring to? What is it that is self-aware? And what does it mean to actually be self aware?

To me, self awareness is a thought based process.
No thought, no separate/conceptual self to be aware of.
This thought based self is what makes up the person, the individual - nothing more (and nothing less).

Now we can say that every normally functioning human body contains such a person/self - but this person is "made of thought" (memories etc) and self awareness is nothing but another thought stating "This person! Hey! Thats me!" Try to be "self aware" (or really aware of any separate object) without thought... its simply impossible!
Thats all. No big secret...
seeds wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm Of how ridiculous it is to imply that something “you-less” (i.e., something that doesn’t seem to possess any fixed or central means by which to process sensory information) could somehow experience love/bliss/and happiness?
This "love/bliss/and happiness" is not an experience experienced by something or someone. It simply is.
Just like the nature of water is "wetness" so the nature of God/I am is "love/bliss/and happiness" - there is no separation between water and wetness, its simply what it is.
seeds wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm Alex, you don’t seem to understand (or care) that you are promoting a form of existential nihilism, to which I suggest that it’s time for you to step up into higher (more logical and more hopeful) visions of our ultimate purpose and destiny.
I am not promoting anything - I am only reporting from my own direct experience.
If you want to promote a fanciful story about our "ultimate purpose and destiny" thats fine with me... I am not really interested in that.
I am interested in what is here/now and not in dubious ideas and grand visions for our destiny - these kinds of stories have been preached over thousands of years (see: the religions of the world).
Seriously, how can you think that this constant "love/bliss/happiness" is anything more than your unusual psychological state? What a weird story to come up with.
This "love/bliss/happiness" doesn't have more to do with the "I am" than hatred does, or than a rock does. And why call any of that "God" in a Biblical sense, when that god is clearly an entity, a personal god?
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by AlexW »

Atla wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:54 am Seriously, how can you think that this constant "love/bliss/happiness" is anything more than your unusual psychological state?
Its not a constant psychological/mental state at all - its rather something that emerges once all conceptual mental activity ceases. Its whats left when no more stories are produced about what is here/now.
Atla wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:54 am This "love/bliss/happiness" doesn't have more to do with the "I am" than hatred does
Hatred requires mental activity, there can be no hatred outside of thoughts. Hatred is as such what you call an "unusual psychological state" - I would even call it a mental sickness - and not the natural state of happiness (but maybe you simply don't like the positivity that the words love or happiness carry ... maybe you prefer equanimity - its all of that, but definitely not hate or any other kind of directed, dualistic state)
Atla wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:54 am And why call any of that "God" in a Biblical sense
Why? Simply because God himself states: "I am THAT I am"
Its in the Bible, thats why.
The bible also states: God Is Love - but this is not a love that is directed towards someone or something, its the happiness and equanimity of the non-conceptual "I am" (it is what "I am" is - at least when wrapped into words that have a certain meaning for us)

I doesn't say: God is Hatred - does it?
Last edited by AlexW on Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: I am who I am

Post by Atla »

AlexW wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 5:12 am
Atla wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:54 am Seriously, how can you think that this constant "love/bliss/happiness" is anything more than your unusual psychological state?
Its not a constant psychological/mental state at all - its rather something that emerges once all conceptual mental activity ceases. Its whats left when no more stories are produced about what is here/now.
Atla wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:54 am This "love/bliss/happiness" doesn't have more to do with the "I am" than hatred does
Hatred requires mental activity, there can be no hatred outside of thoughts. Hatred is as such what you call an "unusual psychological state" - I would even call it a mental sickness - and not the natural state of happiness (but maybe you simply don't like the positivity that the words love or happiness carry ... maybe you prefer equanimity - its all of that, but definitely not hate or any other kind of directed, dualistic state)
Atla wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:54 am And why call any of that "God" in a Biblical sense
Why? Simply because God himself states: "I am THAT I am"
Its in the Bible, thats why.
The bible also states: God Is Love - but this is not a love that is directed towards someone or something, its the happiness and equanimity of the non-conceptual "I am"

I doesn't say: God is Hatred - does it?
Yes when the conceptual mental activity ceases, most people get into a more blissful state, but that's just a more basic psychological state. If you cling to that psychological state and pretend that it's something more than that, you are still chasing something.

The 'I am' has no such nature. A hilarious counterexample was U. G. Krishnamurti who never got this blissful state at all upon awakening, rather the contrary, he called it the calamity.

And why should we think that what God says in the Bible, has anything with the ground of being? Based on the context it probably meant something like: I am that entity which I am, I am the creator but am reluctant to speak my name. Why do you think that the primitive tribal god of the Israelites had anything to do with nondualism.
Post Reply