At the risk of detracting from this critical understanding, may I invite the further clarification of the 'I am' term. In the forthcoming, excellent book 'Resurrection', Chris contemplates the grand biblical deception where Jesus is quoted as saying, 'I am the way, the truth and light. No one comes to the father but through me'. But the more accurate version was, ' I am, IS the way to the truth and the light. No one comes to the one but through the I am'. ...Inclusionary vs exclusionary of all approaches, practices and religions. The nefarious trap...' division from the true self within, and from everyone else without'. Then, ' ..every soul is unique, and therefore has a unique journey to the one, yes. We are The one- the 'I am'.
The above article quotes, 'Neither is pure presence the "I am state" - because that still presupposes a phenomenal being. We must break through all such illusions.'

These statements might seem to be contradictory, but the distinction lies in being the one and being defined as the state of being the one. The one has no qualities or definition as it precedes those things. Thus, as in experiencing the torus in its totality, we are taken to the edge of the bottomless pool in the analogy, the metaphor. The closest conscious experience is sitting on the edge and peering in. The total being would be the dissolution of jumping in. So, the concept of being included as the one and the identity necesitates an intellectual frame of sorts to approach the totality of the concept, then a further push where intellectualism gives way to pure knowing. And then, saying I am the one equates with saying I am nothing. This is a paradox is it not? One I can live with.