“I”, “I am”, “I am that” and “You are that”.

Have you ever been confused by the use of these words? I was reading a noted mystic the other day that in one part of his book dismissed the “that”, only to recommend it a few pages later.

Let me say this first. Any translation of one’s work into another language is fraught with the possibility of error. Even when we are interpreting one’s words with no translation necessary, there are misperceptions. The “voice” of the author may be intended in concrete terms or alternatively, intended to be metaphorical in nature, creating confusion. All we have to do is check Webster’s to find that most words have multiple meanings. The calculus of meaning can become almost insurmountable.

Back to the issue at hand, I have been confused with the “am” and the “that”. I can understand that the “I am” is supposed to convey being, however, the “am” reintroduces the body back into the discussion. The “that” points in a direction, so I am fine with its use, but isn’t it better to just say I, or mind’s eye or the eye of the I? Better yet, how about simple silence? But somehow that doesn’t satisfy, now does it? I guess we could add a smile to the silence, there we go – silence with a smile! Don’t the words just get in the way?