In the Old Testament we read that Yhwh instructed Moses to name Him before the people of Israel as "I am that I am" and "I am".1 These expressions are also used in the ageless wisdom. There the 'I am' principle is said to be embodied by the personality, the 'I am that' principle by the ego (or soul), and the 'I am that I am' principle by the monad.2 'I am' expresses thereby the identification with an isolated self, with the personality. With 'that', referring to an alterity, added to the aforementioned expression does 'I am that' express an identification with what lies beyond an isolated self, with the soul, with a group. And when then 'I am' is again added to the aforementioned does 'I am that I am' as a rounded off expression without loose ends express an identification with all there is.3
The above expression 'I am that I am' and its deconstruction can be seen as a Western esoteric and Christian equivalent of the Eastern esoteric and Hindu expression 'aum tat sat' with its deconstruction. This expression was already contemplated in another context in 'The Fractalness of 'Aum Tat Sat'' in the 'Contemplationam' series.4 There it was found that 'sat' refers to a subjectivity, 'tat' to an objectivity and 'aum' to an intermediary of these two. 'Sat' then can be compared to the 'I am' identification with an isolated self, 'tat sat' with the 'I am that' (or rather 'that I am') identification with a group beyond oneself, and 'aum tat sat' with the 'I am that I am' identification with all there is. The second 'I am' then must in comparison with 'aum' be considered to refer to the between subjectivity and objectivity intermediating function.
To consider the second 'I am' as intermediating between the first 'I am' and 'that' is explainable. For in expression being identical to the first 'I am' it bends so to speak the ending of 'that' back to its beginning when the two aforementioned identical expressions are unified. Something similar was the case in the expression 'aum tat sat' where the 'a' of 'aum' had a same reference as 'sat' and the 'm' thereof had a same reference as 'tat'.
We thus get the following overview, wherein not only a semantic but also a remarkable phonetic closeness between 'aum' and 'I am' and between 'tat' and 'that' can be noticed.
|Tat sat||I am that (that I am)|
|Aum tat sat||I am that I am|
May we thus become that we are.