3. The Singularity Illusion
The illusion of “I Am” arises because of how we respond to our natural ability to make nominal distinctions among what is happening in sensory experience, such as the (very) helpful distinction we can make between a doorway and a wall when walking into a room. The “I Am” can appear to be a singularity, which is how it is often presented. However, it is actually a duality, albeit a very subtle one.
When a nominal distinction such as a “doorway” or”wall” is made, upon close inspection there arises what can be described as a subtle perspective or point of view with regard to experience, which is then interpreted as the arising of “consciousness” or “awareness”, and then is labelled “I Am”. After that, it is no longer “a doorway”, but “consciousness of a doorway” (and eventually “I Am conscious of a doorway”). In other words, there is no such thing as “nondual awareness” - what is labelled as “awareness” is inherently dualistic, in that it inevitably creates a subtle perspective, even if that is a perspective on nothing in particular.
The inherently dual nature of awareness is true even if we no longer perceive actual “things” that appear to complement the “I Am”. This occurs when working through the fetters (after the seventh fetter is gone), or by some other means, by which we no longer identify anything to be real except the underlying sense of “me”. If the “I Am” is thus laid bare, there can no longer be a perspective on something in particular, thus it is natural to assume that the “I Am” is a singularity. This experience might be assumed to be (and is sometimes described as) “a first without a second”, or it might be explained in terms of awareness or consciousness being aware or conscious of itself.
However, if the “I Am” illusion is in place, there is a natural tendency to nevertheless assume there is or could be something else (such as a doorway) that exists as well, even if such a thing cannot currently (or any longer) be found or known. The very nature of the “I Am” illusion is that it stands apart in some way, thus the potential is always there to notice something else if it should come into view. The belief that “I Am” runs so deep that tangible proof based on the existence of other things isn’t actually needed to know that “I Am” - merely what feels like the potential to compare and contrast is enough. It might be said that the “I Am” is a perspective waiting to happen.
Also, we never forget what it was like to have a tangible perspective on something else that was perceived to be just as real as “I Am”, even when the “I Am” is all that remains. Thus, when inquiring into the “I Am”, if we look closely, it seems as though the bare “I Am” is still casting about in vain for something to compare and contrast itself to - it is inherently dualistic, even if an obvious duality isn’t currently to hand.
If we don’t look closely, however, it can seem as though the “I Am” is inherently or innately present, and that it alone “just is”. This is similar to how, when inquiring into whether there is a separate “self” that is a controller or agent of what is happening, we can miss how quickly we reach the conclusion there is such a “self” when doing something as mundane as lifting our right hand - we instantly conclude that it was the “self” that did that. The assumed presence of the innate “I Am” arises even faster, which is necessarily the case since it arises as the foundation for the subsequent illusion of a separate “self”.
A singularity, whether it is referred to as awareness, “I Am” or something else, meets (or at least seems to meet) the unrealistic expectations we all tend to place on what we experience. In the Buddhist tradition, these expectations are often summarized as being three-fold: (1) we want there to be something (and indeed someone) that is indisputably real, true and substantial; (2) we want to know what is happening, and for there to be an internal, owned, permanent or innate aspect to experience by which what is happening is reliably known; and (3) we want to always feel good, regardless of what is happening. We are born with the underlying tendency to develop and have these three expectations, therefore it is understandable that what comes to be referred to as “I Am” is the result.
By assuming that the “I Am” exists, or that awareness or consciousness exists, this largely determines the course and outcome of spiritual “practice”. For example, it can shift the emphasis away from seeing how “I” don’t exist in any way and toward cultivating an understanding of the nature of that we are aware or conscious of. That nature might be seen as the result of what is presumed to be nondual awareness being aware of itself, or that everything is as impermanent as “I” am. Whatever the perspective, the “I Am” will end up being reinforced rather than relinquished.
When a nominal distinction such as a “doorway” or”wall” is made, upon close inspection there arises what can be described as a subtle perspective or point of view with regard to experience, which is then interpreted as the arising of “consciousness” or “awareness”, and then is labelled “I Am”. After that, it is no longer “a doorway”, but “consciousness of a doorway” (and eventually “I Am conscious of a doorway”). In other words, there is no such thing as “nondual awareness” - what is labelled as “awareness” is inherently dualistic, in that it inevitably creates a subtle perspective, even if that is a perspective on nothing in particular.
The inherently dual nature of awareness is true even if we no longer perceive actual “things” that appear to complement the “I Am”. This occurs when working through the fetters (after the seventh fetter is gone), or by some other means, by which we no longer identify anything to be real except the underlying sense of “me”. If the “I Am” is thus laid bare, there can no longer be a perspective on something in particular, thus it is natural to assume that the “I Am” is a singularity. This experience might be assumed to be (and is sometimes described as) “a first without a second”, or it might be explained in terms of awareness or consciousness being aware or conscious of itself.
However, if the “I Am” illusion is in place, there is a natural tendency to nevertheless assume there is or could be something else (such as a doorway) that exists as well, even if such a thing cannot currently (or any longer) be found or known. The very nature of the “I Am” illusion is that it stands apart in some way, thus the potential is always there to notice something else if it should come into view. The belief that “I Am” runs so deep that tangible proof based on the existence of other things isn’t actually needed to know that “I Am” - merely what feels like the potential to compare and contrast is enough. It might be said that the “I Am” is a perspective waiting to happen.
Also, we never forget what it was like to have a tangible perspective on something else that was perceived to be just as real as “I Am”, even when the “I Am” is all that remains. Thus, when inquiring into the “I Am”, if we look closely, it seems as though the bare “I Am” is still casting about in vain for something to compare and contrast itself to - it is inherently dualistic, even if an obvious duality isn’t currently to hand.
If we don’t look closely, however, it can seem as though the “I Am” is inherently or innately present, and that it alone “just is”. This is similar to how, when inquiring into whether there is a separate “self” that is a controller or agent of what is happening, we can miss how quickly we reach the conclusion there is such a “self” when doing something as mundane as lifting our right hand - we instantly conclude that it was the “self” that did that. The assumed presence of the innate “I Am” arises even faster, which is necessarily the case since it arises as the foundation for the subsequent illusion of a separate “self”.
A singularity, whether it is referred to as awareness, “I Am” or something else, meets (or at least seems to meet) the unrealistic expectations we all tend to place on what we experience. In the Buddhist tradition, these expectations are often summarized as being three-fold: (1) we want there to be something (and indeed someone) that is indisputably real, true and substantial; (2) we want to know what is happening, and for there to be an internal, owned, permanent or innate aspect to experience by which what is happening is reliably known; and (3) we want to always feel good, regardless of what is happening. We are born with the underlying tendency to develop and have these three expectations, therefore it is understandable that what comes to be referred to as “I Am” is the result.
By assuming that the “I Am” exists, or that awareness or consciousness exists, this largely determines the course and outcome of spiritual “practice”. For example, it can shift the emphasis away from seeing how “I” don’t exist in any way and toward cultivating an understanding of the nature of that we are aware or conscious of. That nature might be seen as the result of what is presumed to be nondual awareness being aware of itself, or that everything is as impermanent as “I” am. Whatever the perspective, the “I Am” will end up being reinforced rather than relinquished.