The questions
"Who are you?" / "Who am I?", like "Who are you really?" /
"Who am I really?", if they're
answered
colloquially in a traditional environment, point to different
possibilities than if they're
answered
in a transformed environment.
Answered
in a traditional environment, who you are / who I am is my name, my
beliefs,
my religion
etc. If
answered
in a transformed environment, who you are / who I am is the
space ie is the context in which my name, my beliefs,
my religion
etc occur /
show up.
Even if
answered
in a traditional environment as who I really am is my
enlightened Self,
answered
in a transformed environment, who I really am is the space ie is the
context in which all experiences, including the experience of
being enlightened
itself, occur /
show up.
Now, a bit of basic math: if something
shows up
in something else, then that which
shows up,
has got to be (a bit) smaller than that in which it
shows up,
yes? So if the events of my
life
show up
in the context of who I really am, then who I really am has got to be
bigger
than the events of my life which
show up
in the context of who I really am. And so to cut to the chase: how
big
does that context have to be when I experience
the universe?
That's right: who I really am, must be
bigger
than that ie
bigger
than
the universe
(you won't get that logically, rationally, or intellectually; you might
just get it experientially).
That is a daunting tenet. Colloquially, traditionally, it can't
possibly be true. But this is not a colloquial, traditional
conversation. It's a
graduate
conversation.
To be clear, it sounds unlikely that there's a finite limit to the size
of the context of who I really am.
The universe
is expanding anyway, so it would be just a tad inconvenient if there
were to be a finite limit to the size of the context of who I really
am, in which the expanding
universeshows up.
For all intents and purposes, the context of who I really am, has no
limits. In a
word,
who I really am, is unlimited - or (to use another
word
deployed by the ancient
mystics
and
yogis)
who I really am, is unbounded. And the ancient
mystics
and
yogis
may not have referred to a "space" or a "context". They may have
referred to an awareness ie an unlimited, unbounded
awareness. So that is who you really are / who I really
am: space / context / unlimited, unbounded awareness.
Almost as soon as the impact of the realization hits, that who you
really are / who I really am is unlimited, unbounded awareness, the
question "What can I do with this?" / "How can I use this to my
advantage?" arises, the answers to which are "Nothing" and "You
can't.". You can't simply swap the false identity we've labored under
until now, for the newer, flashier who you really are / who I really
am, as unlimited, unbounded awareness. At best, knowing who you really
are / who I really am, lets us proceed with greater
authenticity
than has been available until now. It also brings forth possibilities
for powerful
actions
that were unavailable to us when we falsely identified with our names,
our beliefs, our
religions
etc. But if you think you can use this new realization to win with, to
succeed with, to be better with, that is more than unclear on the
concept. It's: who you think you really are / who I think I really am,
isn't it at all.
The danger in conceptualizing who you really are / who I really am, is:
who you really are / who I really am, is the space ie is the context in
which concepts of who you really are / who I really am, occur /
show up.
And so concepts of who you really are / who I really am, keep it out of
reach of
direct experience.