I is, or I am?

What feels better to say, "I is," or "I am?" As the mind pondered this today, the answer seemed intellectually strange. But it did not feel strange.

When you begin the great Advaita inquiry, "Who am I?" it is a phrase that naturally feels right. Many have heard this instruction, and they've thought about it intellectually, but few have really looked. I mean REALLY looked!

It seems to dead end when no path is found. Inquirers give up when they get into the vague territory of this well known, but really challenging, simple question. J. Krishnamurti said, "Truth is a pathless land." How right he was! Looking for who, or what I am, is one of the most profound investigations an apparent person can do.

Needless to say actually pursuing this to the end seems to be the territory of very rare birds. The natural proclivity to believe long held assumptions is like a veil that protects this inquiry from going too deep. This is also why it is usually necessary to have a teacher, "One who knows," take a look with you.

For the rare bird that has looked into the bottom of the "I am" well, and not come back, "I am," looses some of its punch. Once one becomes acquainted with Awareness directly, as Awareness, "I am" no longer sits quite right.

What begins to feel right, without searching, without asking, is "Isness." Awareness Is. I is. I am NOT this or that! I is.

Isness has a sense of immediacy, of presence, of moment to moment. It is beyond nowness, as now implies a past and a future. Awareness is, such as it is.