Dear James,
Just a quick question. You always use the phrase “full and complete” and it is usually translated as, I am perfect as I am and nothing is missing, which is certainly a legitimate translation, but to me it seems to refer to a state of mind which can easily be used for spiritual bypassing.
But if i give it the meaning of i am all-encompassing and the totality, in the sense of i am everything, i am not aiming at a fulfilled state of mind, but at my very own experience of consciousness.
Do you think that’s a quibble? For me, these words give such a completely different sense and always refer to the experience of consciousness, while the other sense aims at perfection, which, however, is again only a thought construct and never reached by the mind.
It’s a good option but you need to add that it is a counterintuitive option because when people think of themselves they think they are not full and complete. Quite the opposite. Why? Because they include the body and the mind when the say or think the word I. But the I doesn’t have a body and a mind. So you need to include this idea when you use full and complete as a translation. Full and complete is a natural understanding for someone like you, whose Self-knowledge is firm.
James
