If the I AM awakening was really me unfolding as the universe, why did everything look like how my physical, limited eyeballs see? And why could I relate to the feelings enough to articulate them? Why was it comprehensible at all if reality holds more visual spectrum than the eye can decipher? Is there not really more to reality than that?
What did I really see as I was being the universe? The birth of the universe within? The birth of the human perspective of wholeness—all of it through physical filters that were no longer there yet applied nonetheless?
Could the reason for the vastest sense of awareness imaginable being comprehensible, as if through human limitations, be for the purpose of communicating it? Because the visual could have been more than I could comprehend and be relevant to me if it still felt like me.
This was no visionary experience, this was total immersion into-and-as wholeness. This was transpersonal in all directions. If this were a purely personal experience and there were something that did not compute to my eyeballs, but it still felt like me and I could still recognized it as my true face, it would not matter if I could communicate it to others. It would be enough that I knew the truth through feeling, even if I couldn’t express it in words. I had to reveal it to others as part of transcending the personal.
One quality of wholeness is meaning. Meaning does not exist in a vacuum; it exists in relationship. Ultimate meaning is not mine or yours; it is all of ours and so the ability to share it must be baked into the experience. The oneness experience—in fact oneness, full stop—contains duality. Contains all separation, all measurement, space and time. Oneness transcends and includes all-ness. Therefore, meaning is inherent to all-ness and so somewhere, out there in the vastness of space, exist living beings who are bearers and conveyors of meaning. We have met at least one example of such beings for sure and they are us.
So, the I AM experience must be comprehensible because it must be shared on all levels—through one’s actions as the “new” transcendent person, but also through basic articulation. We are not all on the same page with how we hear in a way that breaks through to us because we are carriers of multitudinous perspectives, biases, self-imposed limitations, learning disabilities, and so forth. We all need to understand the meaning of I AM, but we cannot all hear it the same way. Because of this, we tend to say things like, “Everyone’s truth is valid” or “All truths lead to the same place.” But this is wrong. Those supposed truths—if they come from one who speaks Truth—are what you have warped them into to completely miss their meaning. To miss their source, or more accurately, to miss Source.
Even so, even with the odds stacked against waking up, the fact of waking must be expressed and dispersed. It is choicelessly so. One who is choicelessly aware is acting from Truth and so speaks Truth without getting in the way. Choice only comes in as an act away from Truth, when you choose to disregard Truth for your own voice, to talk around and incorporate waking up into your daily life as a phony process of self-discovery. When you choose to treat Truth as knowledge.
We repress, most of us, and we need some “concrete” explanation to know we’re repressing for the call to stop doing that to make sense in the first place. Otherwise, your reaction to someone talking about the need to wake up and say, “I Am,” would be to respond with, “I already am,” and go on. Technically, and likely unbeknownst to you, you would be right.
But being technical and being right are not who you need to be here.