In the teachings of Alice Bailey^Master Djwhal Khul1 the expression 'I am' is related to the personality, 'I am that' to the soul and 'I am that I am' to the monad,2, 3, 4 whereby the monad is related to spirit, the soul to consciousness and the personality to matter.5, 6
Now related to the above mentioned personality, soul and monad are the concepts of individualisation, initiation and identification,7 and we thus get an overview as in figure 1 below.
|I am that I am
|I am that
Now individuality basically signifies a state of inseparability.8 This stands in contrast with identification wherein one given is equalled to another, indicating thus a dividedness between at least two givens that are brought to unity.9 Therefore Bailey can equal an identification to an "at-one-ment".10
The above is also reflected in the expressions that are under contemplation. Where 'I am that I am' contains two times 'I am', whereby one is put identical with another, there does 'I am' contain only one inseparable 'I am'.
Now the soul, consciousness, is not just an isolated given that is accidentally placed between the personality and the monad, between matter and spirit. It relates the two. The process of evolution for man runs from individualisation in the personality through initiation in the soul towards identification in the monad.11
Where the expressions under contemplation are concerned does the 'I am that' relate the 'I am' to the 'I am that I am'. The focus in the 'I am that' state of being is on the 'that', and this 'that' can be considered as the given that separates the inseparable 'I am' into the dual 'I am that I am'. For that is exactly what the expressions indicate. The 'that' of the soul relates the 'I am' to the 'I am that I am' by separating it into two through an intermediary positioning. But the opposite is also true: The 'that' unifies the dual 'I am that I am' into the one 'I am'. For in the end the 'I am' and the 'I am that I am' are one God, one Jhwh.12
Now the English 'that' has a same source as the Sanskrit 'tat' that occurs in the famous expression 'aum tat sat', and 'tat' also refers, like 'that', to a certain objectivity.13 When we then replace 'that' with 'tat' we get the expression 'I am tat I am', which is still similar in meaning but reflects a more perfect symmetry with a central 'a' accompanied by a 't' on both sides bordering the two 'I am's. All this can be drawn in a figure such as shown below.
What we see in this figure is that 't1at2' intermediates in identifying 'I am2' with 'I am3' and in dividing, much like a prism, the individual 'I am1' into the identical 'I am2' and 'I am3', but also in bringing the latter two in at-one-ment with the former one. After all 'I am1' is identical with 'I am2 t1at2 I am3', be it that the first is an expression of its individual mode of being and the latter of its identifying mode of being.14 All of this goes of course mutatis mutandis also for the other 'I am's and 'tat's.
Interesting to give attention to is the 'a' at the centre of the figure. For the sound 'a' is the first letter in the Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek and Latin alphabets as 'अ', 'א','α' and 'a', and the Hindu god Krishna claims identity with that letter.15 But also the Christ as son of the god Jhwh who proclaimed to be the 'I am' and the 'I am that I am' claims to be the 'α' (together with the 'ω').16
Here we must not make the mistake of taking 'I am1', 'I am2' and 'I am3' as three different 'I am's. And neither should we take the different formable 'I am tat I am's as non-identical with each other. In reality, comparable to the Holy Trinity of the Christians, all elements are one in the 'I am tat I am', in the 'I am'.17
|Central spiritual sun
|Heart of the sun