What the fuck does Nisargadatta mean by "I Am"?
Tags:
Nisargadatta Maharaj gives seekers the same advice his guru gave him: abide in the "I Am".
I have looked and looked and couldn't find in "I Am That" him explaining exactly what he means by that. Maybe it is included in other books.
Anyone know?
Of course I have my own speculations but I want to be sure since it seems to be a key issue.
Please, if you give your assumptions, please indicate that is a such otherwise please, if you can, include the quote of his explanation.
Bookmark this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
Being
(My conclusion was that) it means being, just to be, to be a subject with no objects observed - the ultimate type of meditation.
That was also my understanding
That was also my understanding.
A question may arise: why doesn't he call it therefore also "abide in the self" or "abide in the center" or "abide in the being"? All may refer to just being in the subject without giving attention to objects. Why, at least in the translation to English, it is limited to the term "I Am"?
I also think we should clear the exact mental difference between "I Am" and "I". If the "I" does not exist, isn't the "I Am" supposed not to exist too as it includes in its definition the "I"?
Weird
I'm more interested in the optical illusion in Lalo's avitar. Does it seems that the little man is running much faster when you look away from him so that he's in your peripheral vision?.......Or is that just me? Hehe.
You catched me
You catched me.
The little man is my mind. When I'm not observing it, it gets more hectic, when I am focusing on it, it get's more relaxed and slow.
I thought it happens only when I'm the one observing... :-)
Now, what about "I Am"?
"Now, what about "I Am"?" I
"Now, what about "I Am"?"
I guess we'll have to shoot the little man to find out. Hehe.
:-)
:-)
Phroggy! be serious!
Okay, I'll be serial
Okay,I'll be serial.
I've had a few discussions with folks asking the same question you did about Niz' meaning of 'I AM'. I haven't read the entire book and so I haven't offered my half-baked opinion, but his wording is clearly unclear to me. At times he seems to be referring to the ego identity, but at others he's clearly talking about the same thing every other guru is talking about; the sense of Beingness that we really are, as Omkara has described it. I didn't figure it was worth sorting out why the dead guy talked about it the way he did so I dropped it.
Could be...
... that he referred to it in a couple different ways; after all, there are no rules saying a term has to be solidly defined ;-). The book "I Am That" is a compilation of talks with different people over time, and so the context is going to differ as well.
From here (and fwiw), the 'sense of Beingness' usage is the important one, and the one the OP refers to when he talks about N. saying to "abide in it" (clearly he didn't mean abide in the ego-identity).
http://www.omkaradatta.info
who is OP?
who is OP?
I found Nisargadatta's descriptions very consistent throughout "I Am That".
They indeed somehow change in the later years and especially in the last talks in the days before he passed away.
Don't overlook the gold
Phroggy - are you familiar with the tale Eckhart Tolle mentions in the beginning of "The Power of Now"? about a bagger sitting on a box full of gold for years without knowing it?
Give Nisargadatta a chance. Give "I Am That" a chance. It is nothings similar to any other text and you are so fortunate to encounter it given the fact that Nisargadatta is relatively not that popular and known.
I write you this only because I see the spark in your comments and posts here.
Hi Nancy Yeah, I did give it
Hi Nancy
Yeah, I did give it a chance. I read about a third of it and wasn't hearing anything new.
In case nobody has answered it, OP means 'original poster'.
I think the magic of his
I think the magic of his words is more in the way he says them rather than in the content. I have never encountered such a direct and clear way of phrasing these issues.
But people are different and so the texts that they feel drawn to are different, that's why there are many approaches and gurus out there so that everybody can pick the right thing for himself...
Exactly! It is explained by Eckhart in his teachings!
Jai Shri Guru!
"I am that" is the being, the awareness......
Eckhart Tolle has explained this so well in his book, "The power of Now"
My Favorite Book and Author
Yeah. My favorite book. They all seem to say the same thing, or point to it, but as Nancy suggested, Tolle, and specially his Power of Now book, resonates with me very much. I flip between New Earth and Power of Now depending on where I happen to be in degree of conscious as I read either one. But perhaps if I were to keep just one...it might just be Power of Now. It's more transformative, whereas New Earth leans more towards informative.
Now let's see if this post lands where I want it to. :)
He is serious, my friend.
Phroggy was serious my friend. Apparent zaniness of Zen masters are actually calculated and measured. You have to read between his lines. His first post was very subtle. Perhaps too subtle, if you are not familiar with it.
His post about shooting it, was a bit more direct. Not to be taken literally of course. But he was pointing to the point of all this, and which you also point too, but you did not even notice your own wisdom because your mind gets in the way. Happens to me too, almost all the time.
When mind slows down, a higher dimension of awareness, Being, comes through. It comes through in direct proportion to how much mind get's out of the way.
Paramahansa Nithyandanda said it so nice somewhere on youtue, "Thoughts block the flow of cosmic energy." Personally, words like "cosmic energy" are too dramatic for me. Use what ever word works for you. To me it means "Thoughts block interfere with our connection." Sometimes you are "connected." You know you have been. Sometimes you are not. You were connected when you said the little guy slows down when you focus on it and are detached. You were not connected when you asked Phroggy to be serious.
You are wiser than you think.
Namaste.
Little Man
Lets kill the little man!!!
Seems to be the whole point...
So cool
What a great example of the effect of the observed or not observed phenomenon. He definitely seems to run faster when not being directly observed!!
I LOVE IT!
Omkar Blue
Seeker of the day-to-day experience of Consciousness,
Creative and Compassionate Co-creation, and
Merger with the Blue Pearl
55-21-3217-2212 home
55-21-9901-9874 cel
msnmsgr: steelrio@hotmail.com
skype: steelrio
Subjective time
Actually, it demonstrates how we create a subjective sense of time. We all know (I think) that the more events occur in our lives, the faster time seems to go. Our sense of time is determined by the quantity of events that the mind takes note of. If a lot of events happened, it seems that time 'flies'. If few events happened, time 'drags'.
If you look directly at the little man in the box, you notice all the intricate movements of the arms and legs, and each of these is an event to the mind. When you look away, you can't see most of the movements and so can't register them as events. Mostly, you just see a blob moving around the square. The fewer events noted, the slower subjective time goes, and the little man seems to slow down.
Sense of time when meditating
This is indeed a good test for the subjective sense of time. The opposite is when we do nothing, not even thinking, only observing, in other words, when we sit in meditation for example and know that this session is about to be for an hour - it looks like time is moving so slowly. This is by the way the horror people have regarding meditation.
What it is...
When N. refers to the "I AM", he usually means the sense of "felt Beingness" (which is normally taken to be in the body). The feeling of aliveness or existence in the body, which isn't a thought or idea but an ongoing sensation that sort of fills the entire body. One *does not* have to refer to the body conceptually to feel this, it's simply the 'inner' perception of existence as opposed to experiencing the 'outer' world. Thus, it is not a thought about 'me' or 'I' but simple/basic Being.
http://www.omkaradatta.info
On what do you base this interpretation?
On what do you base this interpretation?
Can you give quotes that support this?
He's my guru...
... and I base it on "direct experience". There's your quote, in the sentence before this one ;-).
P.S. if you want more info, you can Email me at fewtch )at( yahoo.com, or maybe find a famous/published dead fellow to give you the sort of support you want.
http://www.omkaradatta.info
sorry, i didn't understand
sorry, i didn't understand.
How did you arrive to your conclusion of what "I Am" is? It is somewhat very different from the other interpretations I have seen.
Why email? Let's let others benefit too, if you don't mind of course...
Simple...
I found out through "just BE-ing, without being this or that", as N. prescribed. The sense of "I-Am-Ness" is simply the sense of localness, here-ness if you will. Your sense of presence or Being, which isn't involved in thought.
This is not a far-out conclusion by any means, it's simply verifiable by anybody who cares to verify. Just stop thinking about externals, turn inward, turn to your sense of Beingness - easily recognizable, as there's no other Beingness around but that. If you can't find it, you're deeply caught up in the mind, lost in it.
Pay full attention to your arms, legs, torso, head, the whole gestalt of your body at once and you'll notice the current of life energy in you, a sense of Presence or existence. This is the "I Am". If you can abide in it as N. suggested, your mind will subside and you may get a 'glimpse' of something...
http://www.omkaradatta.info
A few questions
Hey tnx!
A few questions regarding what you explained:
When I did it in the past, I felt as if I am present but not here, not in the body. I felt that the body and the senses are external layers separating "me" from the here, from the external surroundings. You suggest to pay attention to the body organs which seems to me as still preserving the "I Am THAT", of being SOMETHING.
Is what you describe can be termed as being a subject without objects observed (as someone here suggested)? This depiction is easier for me to adopt but I want to be sure that we are talking about the same thing.
Answers...
> When I did it in the past, I felt as if I am present
That's what you want, to feel as if you are present.
> I felt that the body and the senses are external layers
> separating "me" from the here...
What you really mean above is that you *thought* that. You're thinking too much. What you're looking for is to feel your own sense of existence - it may feel like a sort of 'glow' of Presence. It doesn't matter where it's located.
> Is what you describe can be termed as being a
> subject without objects observed
You could say that, but again this isn't about descriptions or terms, this is about feeling your Presence and abiding there. Just be. It may take awhile to get in touch with it.
http://www.omkaradatta.info
i wish thinking could have bring me to such realizations
> I felt that the body and the senses are external layers
> separating "me" from the here...
It is much more than thinking, when you experience this... you are like being reduced to a dimensionless point... you can't observe "your" body... you realize that you are not "here"... it is like you have an access to things through a periscope (your senses)... it is hard to describe in words... never mind
Description...
Let me describe what things 'feel like' here. There's no sense of inner/outer at all, I'm simultaneously aware of the whole body and external surroundings. It's as if my Being extended everywhere. It's neither an inner focus nor an outer focus, but both at the same time.
The mind separates and divides 'inner' from 'outer', because we're used to thinking that way -- we have little/no awareness of our Being normally, we're lost in either thoughts or (individual) perceptions.
Can you get a sense of the 'gestalt' of your existence? I don't mean you the "thought-person", but you as a Being. Otherwise, I don't know what to say...
http://www.omkaradatta.info
Mind states
Hi Lalo
I'm getting it that you had a powerful experience and that you're wanting to get there again. I don't dismiss such experiences because they're meant to show us something, but the danger is becoming attached to these experiences. Lots of folks have experiences of Oneness or bliss or divine Love or whatever it might be, and spend decades trying to repeat it, while really it was meant as only a one-time glimpse. I've had a few powerful glimpses myself that never happened again and didn't need to. One of the problems in repeating it is that there's a 'me' trying to do that while the first time it likely happened because the 'me' didn't show up for whatever reason.
The problem is that these experiences take the form of mind states. Mind is capable of infinite mind states. One way we can tell it is a mind state is that it didn't last. All states come and go. Another way we can tell is that there's a 'me' that this experience happened to, and of course the 'me' is an illusion.
You may find it frustrating to decribe these experiences to others because it was uniquely yours. Again, not to dismiss the significance of it for you, but it's a little like describing an LSD trip and expecting others to recognize it.
Does that make any sense?
an no no no
I totally agree with you but this is not the case. I can easily enter into this state whenever I want by abiding in the being of subject without objects, as i understand this state. Then, I immediately feel estranged to the body and then when I check if I am present here and now, I then feel that the here is not actually here in the room where my body is but in some non-dimensional non-physical "place" and that I sense the "here" of the body second-hand through the body and senses.
I noticed it a few years ago while practicing the "state of presence" of Gurdjieff. Whenever I was deep in it, I never felt that my presence is here in this physical spot. At the beginning I was upset and then respected this. This impression stayed with me ever since when I do something involved with presence, being in the here and now, being etc.
I did have a few nice glimpses over the years and yes i did try to repeat them and yearned very much for them but then also arrived to the conclusion that it is beyond my control so I let it go...
Interesting...
That's interesting, and sounds like a 'correct' perception - you are not the body, but timeless Being. The body is an object, awareness is the subject.
Has this affected your life in any way - are you more peaceful, or anything? What happens to 'bring you back' to the body?
If you're coming in and out of it, it's a mind state as Phroggy said, however it could be a productive one in terms of 'seeing' the truth.
http://www.omkaradatta.info
But.......
But have you ever experienced your presence as anywhere but right here? I seem to have trouble with that.
Dunno
His description is sorta cryptic (got a feeling English isn't his first language), so I don't know for sure.
http://www.omkaradatta.info
It's hard to describe in words
It's hard to describe in words. The closest description is that I felt I am a dimensionless point, not here, not there, just a point, certainly not in this euclidean space.
btw, I felt exactly the same when I was practicing Ramana's self enquiry after long sessions of receding of the "I".
It is a mind state. Whenever
It is a mind state. Whenever I am not fully aware I return to identify with my body. But ever since when I stop the daily automatic mode and check my body, I always feel naturally, clearly and instantly that I am not the body. That's the residue I have got from that experience.
I cannot say that it affected my life in the way you mention. The things that truly affected my life to be more peaceful or happy were (1) when I started accepting and observing mental objects instead of resisting them as I had done for years (suddenly all emotional pains are not translated into suffering anymore and thus do not bother me anymore) and (2) When I learned to stop my thinking (in a similar way to the ones described in http://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/stopping-thinking-no-conflict and in http://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/reverse-bootstrapping-shutdown-mind ) - this was truly a magic. It made me way more peaceful and insightful and strange things started happening around, just by stopping the thinking process.
Nice work
That sounds great, Lalo.
From my perspective, which may or may not be useful, some clarity has occurred, essentially from your own dedication, and this is what has resulted in the changes. The methods and practices themselves are more of an expression of this dedication and take the form of a story written about how these changes came about.
Accepting does not really come about through practice, but through the willingness to accept. It's really that simple. If your willingness to accept takes the form of a practice such as standing on your head and singing the Star spangled banner, then this 'practice' will seem to have brought about acceptance.
This has no significance except possibly the realization that you did nothing but cease the resistance of your doing, and this realization could bring about a deeper humility that may further convince ego that it truly can do nothing but sit in the corner and suck it's thumb. This is the most powerful thing it can do because nothing else stands in the way. Ego may get angry, or it may hang it's head and give you the sad puppy eyes, but just ignore it. This is a good thing.
Thanks phroggy
Thanks phroggy, i really appreciate what you wrote.
As you say: acceptance is terribly easy. There was someone here once who cried out loud how acceptance is effective and easy and yet so few adopt it (http://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/end-suffering-so-simple) and I identified with her words so much.
I don't know if I was the one who dropped resistance or it just happened, what I can say is that it is terribly effective.
The acceptance worked miraculously for me. Mental obsessions, mental pains, jealousy, emotional residues, anger, just name it, all turned one day into "pain only" and stopped affecting me. Most of the things just vanished without me even noticing as they did not bother me anymore. All this happened after years of psychoanalysis. I was amazed to see how such a simple switch in my mind's patterns was so influential.
I consider this acceptance stuff more of a psychology thing than of a spirituality thing although I have the feeling that it has some importance also in the spiritual aspect.
Yes, I find myself very committed on the path and I even don't know why. I am not one of those who desire enlightenment and I am already happy and content in daily life. It is just a very strong pull like the urge to eat that one day 10 years ago caught me and unlike other things in my life has not dropped ever since.
Psychospirituality
Yeah, I see a lot of psychology in this stuff too. In fact, I studied psychology before I ever became involved in spirituality, and existential psychology was my introduction. We could say it's all spiritual stuff I guess, but the difference seems to be a set of notions that help us to transcend some limits that psychology doesn't even recognize as existing.
There's no reason to ever accept that ultimate dualistic fulfillment isn't possible until it's seen clearly that it isn't. There's no reason to surender control unless control is seen for the illusion it is. No reason to stop improving ego as long as the person is believed to be real.
Still, psychology is very helpful in ending the games of unconscious denial and projection.
Eating
It's interesting, as you said you weren't feeling you were the body, and yet eating entirely promotes the body. It supports the Beingness or "I Am" (N. talked about this quite a bit in his later talks, referring to the food-body supporting the Beingness). I have a theory as well that those who over-eat are using it as a way to return to themselves and the feeling of Beingness.
http://www.omkaradatta.info
Porridge and Being
This is so true, not just for those who overeat. I don't meditate much but when I finish my porridge in the morning and I had a nice cup of coffee and may be a toast and a piece of fruit I feel so satisfied and fulfilled that I don't want to get up from the table. I just stay there, my mind is happy, sitting in the corner and sucking it's thumb and my body is happy, sitting comfortably on the chair with nothing to do...and I find some lovely peace and quiet and a true sense of Being, just Being...until I fall asleep. Then it's time to get up.
Response
My guru has asserted that the only thing human beings are ever doing is attempting to align themselves with God's will (God's will can be read as "Beingness"; it is synonymous with all of the big words,truth, God, existance, take your pick.) It's interesting that your theory of over-eating seems to have the same flavor.
Don´t ask for Seconds
Phroggy,
Thanks for this insight about not looking to repeat previous experiences of Oneness. Great advice!!
I will let go of my attachment to this regarding my own blue pearl experience, it was that and that is all.
Omkar Blue
Seeker of the day-to-day experience of Consciousness,
Creative and Compassionate Co-creation, and
Merger with the Blue Pearl
55-21-3217-2212 home
55-21-9901-9874 cel
msnmsgr: steelrio@hotmail.com
skype: steelrio
Inner Body Awareness?
Is this the same thing as "inner body awareness" that Tolle talks about?
Like the case of Gurdjieff's "Remember yourslef"
It reminds me the case of Gurdjieff's "remember yourself". Also central in the doctrine, also an instruction to enter into a certain mental state and also terribly enigmatic and thus prone to numerous interpretations and misinterpretations of followers.
Be "there is"
The "I Am" is indeed a bit enigmatic in Maharaj's texts while it is a central issue in his teachings.
Strange. Let's speculate why it was so and then maybe we could arrive at a learned conclusion about its meaning. You cannot blame Maharaj for being negligent in his descriptions. Also, it is unlikely that him not describing in detail the exact meaning of "I Am" is some kind of a trick because Maharaj plays no tricks, he is very direct.
My conclusion therefore was that this "state" is simply impossible to be described in words.
Indeed, for things that cannot be described in mind-understandable words (which naturally are the most valuable), we sometimes need some signposts, some vague clues so that we can begin our quest somewhere and then let something to navigate us onwards.
Specifying what the thing is NOT usually serves as a good signpost as it tries to define the thing using concepts that we are already familiar with (by negating them). So "I Am" is indeed no objects. But according to my experience it is also without the subject. It is just a being, a "what is there" that seems to be originated from and to necessitate the subject but it does not.
"Being subject without observing objects" is a very good start for abiding in the "I Am" but at some point you should also loose the center, the subject. It is not "abide in the I", the "I Am" is not the subject nor the objects, it is more of "what is" that precedes the introduction of the subject and the objects.
For me the sentence "Be 'there is'" served better than "Abide in the 'I Am'". Note that it is not "Be in the 'there is'" or "Abide in the 'there is'" but directly "Be 'there is'". The I in the "I Am" always made my mind be drawn to the "I" while the "I Am" is the very being that looks like "the being of the 'I', the subject" but actually it does not need the subject and was there prior to the subject (which actually never been there but this is another story...).
I agree (finding the I Am)
Fwiw, I agree with this interpretation. The mental "I" requires a mental "you", but the "I Am" does not, as it's the sense of Being (and obviously we can't feel the Beingness of others directly through them). So there's no objective Beingness to be found, thus no subjective.
You know the sense of comfort/ease throughout the body after eating a meal? That's the Beingness (in one version, anyway). When you're enraged, the feeling of 'burning' in the body is the Beingness in another incarnation. The feel of being intoxicated on alcohol or drugs is yet another 'tainted' Beingness. Find the pure Beingness that exists in between these states as well, and abide in it. This really isn't difficult or complicated... the mind likes to over-complicate everything. N. wouldn't have recommended it if it wasn't easily available to everyone.
P.S. the Beingness is supported by the body, but it isn't the body... so don't worry about it affirming the body. It's affirming the I Am, not the body. There's no need to give the body a single thought (and in fact you should not). This is about feeling your Being, not thinking about the body.
http://www.omkaradatta.info
P.S. Supporting this
For anyone who's wondering "Are you sure about this interpretation of I Am" the answer is yes. I would stake my life on it. The reason for the ego (plus corresponding negative emotions) is that we lost touch with our Being at an early age, and so ego arises, along with corresponding feelings that 'bring us back' to the Beingness. It's the mental way we get back in touch with our Being, so to speak. Get back in touch with it now, and there's no need anymore for the ego.
"All is due to your having forgotten your own Being" - Nisargadatta, I Am That
http://www.omkaradatta.info
Thanks!
Thanks omkaradatta, erez, phroggy, lalo and nancy,
You are doing a huge service in sharing this knowledge with others and stimulating these out-of-the-box discussions.
Pleasure... and fwiw...
It's a pleasure... and (as this is a Guru site, I thought I'd add) - in my view, 'outside the box' is what you should be getting from a 'proper' guru. If not, he's parroting, and probably in there with ya ;-).
http://www.omkaradatta.info
I totally agree
I totally agree. Unfortunately, so few of the gurus really generate out-of-the-box insights (and out-of-the-box can be sometimes a very trivial statement too).
Minimize yourself
Just reduce yourself to the minimum, whatever you see pertaining to yourself, subtract.
You can try to abide in the "I Am" directly or else you can do it indirectly by using Ramana's Self Enquiry. Both end in the same state of "I Amness", see in Self Inquiry - Tips the 4th tip.
"I AM" in "Seeds of Consciousness"
see http://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/advices-nisargadatta-part-2#comment-2443
It is an excellent collection of Maharaj's explanations of "I AM" from the book "Seeds of Consciousness".
Hi
The answer is very simple
and should have been the most obvious, unless the most obvious wasn't hidden from the eyes of the unawared.
I am, is actually just that...I am.
and it is the recognition of yourself.
it's written everywhere that the thing that we're not aware of is Ourselves. we don't see ourselves, we don't know ourselves, and we're not Ourselves.
if you didn't see your father for lets say 10 years...at the moment you'll meet him...you will shout...Daddy!
it will happen immediately in the moment you recognize him.
That's also what happens when you get to meet yourself
as obscure as it may sound
the recognition of consciousness with and in itself is expressed, not by "Daddy" ;) but with 'I am'.
It is the Action of being.
I never read any of Nisargadatta's books
and never liked the title "I am that"...always thought that the 'that' addition is spoiling the uncompromisable direction of "I am".
repeating "I am" in one's mind anyhow doesn't really imitates the real thing, but any sincere practice of "I am" awareness, even if questional, immediately invokes a certain awareness to one's self.
the awareness energy is turning over to yourself at once
and it may also be noticed that that's the opposite direction of the regular mind which is usually pointed Outside...to the external, instead of to the internal.
so the I am practice is pointing directly to the core
and that's why I believe he used it as his main practice.
Gurdjieff also mentioned and used 'I am' quite a lot
he wrote somewhere that when an aware man is referring himself...a rolling Thunder of 'I am' is being expressed in the center of his being.
and there's also his famous quote: "life is real only then when I am"
" I am "
I dont know I can makeyou understand or not -
Specially in spirituality you are divided yourself into 3 parts.
They are 1. Body 2.Mind(nothing but thinking) and 3.Soul.
When you do meditation, you will reach certain levels, where you will find "I am".
Here body and mind are not permanent. The soul is the permanent. That Permaneant is 'Iam'.
Suppose if somebody asks you a question, that - who are you? If you are not in the depth, you will answer Iam so and so and my name is...
When you reach deeper levels you will answer- Iam a Soul. This is my Souls Body. As the soul takes number of births, the soul is permanant there not the body. This is what "Iam".
khbbind
What does "I Am" mean?
That's what God says.
(You can substitute truth, existance, love, etc. for the word God if it bugs you. It's all the same thing.)
I Am
Oh, by the way, I guarantee you that my answer is not speculation.
Good luck.
what?
I don't have a clue what you wanted to say in these two comments and how it relates to the question in the post.
And for sure your answer is not a speculation. A speculation argues about something...
What am I?
Strongly and sincerely bring up the question "What am I?" and see what appear in your own mind. Keeping that clear question is your own treasure. It doesn't matter what Nisargadatta or anyone else says on the subject. What matters is examining for yourself.
Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
"I Am" VS "I Thought"
This summons the phantom sense of I, The I Thought not the "I Am".
You do experience "I Am" state at some point during the self enquiry when you recede enough to the ultimate subject. You feel like a point in a dimensionless dimension. You are just are without objects.
Re: "I Am" vs "I Thought"
> You do experience "I Am" state at some point
Experiences come and go all the time. We can create all sorts of names for various states that appear at some point ("I Am state" or "Mind" or "Self" or "Irving" etc).
Sometimes, you may feel like a point in a dimensionless dimension. Other times, different feelings and ideas appear and disappear. But one thing always remains clear: what do you perceive, what are you doing, just-now? It isn't dependent on any of these names, words, thoughts, ideas.
Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
Perceiving the actuality of
Perceiving the actuality of what is in front of you (something you had difficulty doing in the last post I responded to, BTW) is being conscious and present, but none of that has to do with "I Am". What should always remain clear is not the object of perception but the subject. Who or what is perceiving?
Re: Perceiving the actuality
> Perceiving the actuality of what is in front of you
> (something you had difficulty doing in the last post I
> responded to, BTW)
How do you know what I do or don't perceive? Are you claiming to be a mind-reader?
If you're not a mind-reader, then you can IMAGINE what someone else perceives, you can PRETEND to know what someone else perceives. You can even project your own ideas onto someone else and truly believe that your projection is reality. In all these cases, your claims are disconnected from experience; just "mind games."
> What should always remain clear is not the object of
> perception but the subject.
Why?? Say you're driving down the road and come to a traffic light. If your mind is filled with thinking (concepts about "subject" or "object" or "I Am" or whatever), then how can you be clear about whether the light is red or green? Such fogginess can bring suffering to yourself, as well as innocent pedestrians.
> Who or what is perceiving?
Wonderful question! What are you? Do you know?
Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
"How do you know what I do
"How do you know what I do or don't perceive? Are you claiming to be a mind-reader?"
Maybe you didn't perceive what I said correctly. I said you didn't perceive what was in that post of mine. I know this by your response! No mind reading required.
The rest of your post has drifted even further into unconsciousness. Learning to see what is in front of you without the ego clouds should be your number one priority now. If you can't do that, how are you to see the far more subtle Truth of your Being?
All good points
Whilst reading down interested in all points I couldnt help to think about the "Little Man"....He does run slower, Crazy
!!!! Prob why i am struggling meditating. People say i have A.D.H.D but reckon th ..Oh look a fire engine!
Abiding in I AM = Practicing "Inner Body" Awareness??????
So, after reading more of these posts, is practicing Tolle's "Inner Body Awareness" the same as "Abiding in the I AM?"
Tolle vs Nisargadatta
> after reading more of these posts, is practicing
> Tolle's "Inner Body Awareness" the same as "Abiding
> in the I AM?"
Let's say you wanted to know how many fingers there are on a hand. You wouldn't have to ask an expert, read a book, or use Google. You have your very own hands, right there at the end of your arms, so you can count the fingers for yourself.
Investigating the "I" is similar. Do you have an "I"? If not, then no problem. If you do, then you can bring up the question, "What is this 'I'?" You're inquiring into the experience that's right here, so you don't need to worry about what Tolle or Nisargadatta or anyone else thinks. Just ask for yourself, and see.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
What stands behind the term "I Am"
What stands behind the term "I Am" is something that can not be depicted in language, the phrase "I Am" is the closest we can say about it using language.
It is the being without subject and without the action, it sounds strange and confusing due to the limitation of language. It is not "I", it is not "am", it is what happens between these two phantoms, the relation that exists before these phantoms were invented and wrongly seems as if was created as a result of these two phantoms.
EVERYTHING IS PERFECT WHY
EVERYTHING IS PERFECT
WHY DONT YOU RATHER SAY THAT IT CANT BE DESCRIBED. I THINK THAT IS CLOSEST TO WHAT CAN BE SAID ABOUT REALITY
perfect has no meaning
perfect has no meaning, it is a matter of perspective. In the same way and validity i can say that everything is imperfect.
I DONT THINK HE MEANT
I DONT THINK HE MEANT ANYTHING BY TELLING "I AM THAT" TO ANY ONE ELSE; IT MEANT EVERYTHING TO HIM. NOW WE HAVE TO DISCOVER REALITY BY OUR OWN. ALL THE HELP THAT BEST SELLER CAN GIVE IS A HINT AND NOTHING ELSE. IT CANALSO BE GOOD FOR DISCUSSING A LOT OF THINGS AND FEEL TAHT WE KNOW SOMETHING. REALLY WE MAY KNOW SOMETHING BUT IT DOES NOT HELP.....
all so confusing
All so so confusing, and complicated, and totally unhelpful. Thank God, belieiving in God is very natural to me, else I would spend decades discussing emptiness.
BEING wants nothing. Needs nothing. Needs to know nothing. It just is.
BEING has no opposite, although it (the experience of it) can be obscured.
Thoughts (i.e. identification with thoughts) obscure the experience of Being...in my case, I lose touch with the Peace of God (Presence of God), when my mind is troubled (noisy stressed), and when in the middle of noisy and stressed situations. I find peace if quiet solitude. Then I can feel the presence of God.
My practice:
Focusing on my breath/inner body awareness is not God. It is not the experience of the Presence of God. But it facilitates the experience of the presence of God. Focusing my mental activity and attention on my breath, or my foot, or my foot steps, or my hands, or any other inner body sensation, and holding it there for 2-5 or more if I'm good, seconds, forces the mind to be less noisy. When my mind is less noisy, I am more able to experience Peace. At nights when everyone else is asleep, when everything is quiet, and I am in the kitchen, I can feel more at peace. Serence. I enjoy the peace of quiet solitude.
Amen.
May you all find God.
There is an experience that the mind can have.
..If you can imagine the present moment as having an awareness all of its own..If you can imagine the present moment as an entity in and of itself, and understand that there is no form to the present moment which encompasses all and exists beyond the past and the future, which are still the present to the present moment..If you can imagine that this present moment can "wake up" through you, you can begin to understand that you are not you but the presence of the ever awakening present moment. It is like a fuse that when lit, is for eternity creating a spark with no beginning and no end and leaving no trail.
Is the present moment a form? Can it be measured? Can it be limited to any quality or qualification? Only the present moment can say I am nothing yet I am. The present moment does not say "I am" and it does not say "I am nothing". It is free from nothingness and free from form. This can be a glimpse to the mind or this can be reality when the mind excuses itself from trying to BE the Present Moment.
Good post...but EGO is the most cunning of all creatures
Here is why, from my experience:
It becomes my midn pretending to BE the Present Moment. Then it becomes my mind watching my mind BE the Present Moment. Then it's my mind watching my mind watching my mind watching my mind....watching my mind pretending to BE the Present Moment. Then it ....on an on. Like a feedback loop.
I resiged myself to give up that above.
Practice:
That's why I only focus on my breath/inner body awareness now. So, it becomes just my mind focusing on just my breath/inner body. And it's less noisy. When it's less noisy, I feel "more connected."
Ego and God
"Ego is the most cunning of all creatures" ...Seriously
I mean look who created ego in the first place! lol
It is easy with all these experiences, philosophies, and mumbo jumbo talks to lose site of God. It's good that you remind us of this with your own experience and understandings. For me, I know I am nothing without my Father,(You can call God whatever you like..I just like father). I really don't even know how I still exist unless it is my Father anyway. And as much as one can can love God, the opposite temperament exists right along with it. So I also know I am nothing really that can love God. But, I continue to try to hold God near with ego. It just sucks when God cant be held with ego..lol..I think this begins the annihilation of ego which is a very difficult process to go through unless one can remain unattached to ego. This is where philosophies may have a use that can facilitate such a process or help one to bypass altogether such a process by expounding on the illusory nature of ego and mind. This is why Divine Grace is such a wonderful wonderful gift to us all. And what is Divine Grace without a Divine?
Hello Brother..
Are you a man of God? I been looking for one on this forum.
I call him Father too, specially during prayer. Sometimes I say "Heaveny Father." Your words are music to my ears.
It's nice to see a man of God who marries Christian Grace with the eastern methods of achieving the same thing. To me, there is no conflict. Eastern methods give actual methods, practices, hope to those who somehow not born with "Faith" to have the same experience as those who were born with "Faith". That's my story, anyway.
And, still, yeah, I hear you about the mumbo jumbo. It can get out of hand, nonetheless.
A note on what you wrote: "I am nothing.."
We have to be careful about that one. Per Eckart Tolle, and I agree with it from my own experience, that to say we are nothing is just as much the ego acting up as to be arrogant.
One who feels he is some sort of "nothing", as a way of trying to be a "humble Christian" is just as much ego as one who is arrogant. It is still ego. God is none of that. Sorry.. I meant.. "BEING" is none of that.
I spent my entire childhood, early adulthood, adulthood, and until this past year, practicing this misguided version of "humility" thinking that if I sat in ashes and wore sackcloth, considered myself "unworthy" that I deserved a better heaven. Ego. All that is Ego.
And EGO, whether an Arrogan pompous one, or a humiliated one, is still ego, and ego obscures BEING.
Better to sidestep ego completely. Disassociate from it. Disidentify from it.
I focus on my breathing. Or my inner body awareness. That way, my mind is busy doing only one thing. And when it is busy with only one thing versus 1 megamillion things, BEING is less obscured. Sort of like the state of joy you have when you sit in a coffee shop on a rainy day, with a warm cop of tea or coffee, watchign teh world go by.
Sometimes I don't need to focus on my breathing. Sometimes my mind is already less noisy than at other times. And I feel connected, or "close to God." And being on the shore, I don't need to stay on the raft (i.e. method).
Sometime I need to get back on the raft (method) to quiet my mind and bring be back to the other shore.
Namaste.
Absolutely no conflict
Thank you for the kind words and insights!
Speaking one's truth from the heart is under rated and under utilized and always refreshing, so thanks again. Even with a differentiation in experience and perspective that we all have, as long as we speak from the heart, the Common Truth that we all share will do the necessary speaking. This includes the hidden truths and messages in all the "mumbo jumbo". God is everywhere and in everything right?
When I was young, God was my Dad. As I grow older it is still natural for me to refer to the Personal God as my Father. The life and story of Christ were very dear to me as a youth. It was all I knew of God. This inspired in me the urge to know God as Christ new God. I mean why not? Christ even said, "Whatever I do, ye can do even greater things". I took those words to heart. I took the words "seek and ye shall find" to heart. And I also took the words "the kingdom of heaven is within you" to heart. Religions are an attempt to preserve the truths they represent..But can Truth be confined and preserved in a religion? If one seeks God, then anything that an ego or mind has created to limit God will be shattered. This is where humility is born for me. I don't think I was so humble before. I mean..I thought I could know God! lol ...Anyway, only the mind seeks to attribute qualities to the various expressions of God and thereby identify and limit itself with those qualities.
The advaitic truths are always with us whether they wear the garments of religion or philosophy or not. I've only been familiar with the philosophy of advaita since I joined this site a few months ago but some of these truths were taught to me the hard way..Which seems to be the modus operandi for alot of us. Reading Ramana Maharshi has done a lot to repair my mind and put things in order. Reading the works of some of my favorite Christians have done a lot to inspire my heart that is devoted to God. As it is, I'm not the doer right? Christians like to say "God works in mysterious ways"...So..whatever comes..humility or stupidity...Is God's work not mine.....LOL
........Good talking with you
Opposites
"And as much as one can can love God, the opposite temperament exists right along with it. "
That is because there are emotions that are of the mind, and ego, which by nature contain within themselves their opposite. Love turns to hate. Excitement turns to disappoitnment. These are mind based emotions. They are the fruit of the knowledgte of opposites (i.e. of "good-evil"). Tall is understood in relationi to short. Full in relation to hungry.
Emotions that emnation from "BEING" are not really emotions at all, but STATES OF BEING. STATES of BEING have no opposite. This is the TREE of LIFE. However, they can be obscured by thoughts, identification with thoughts, and identificaiton with ego based (polar) emotions.
I just paraphraged Eckhart Tolle from A New EArth. I can find the pages if you need me to.
But I gree wit him from my experience.
this man using obnoxious word
Is this forum permits using objectionable and filthy words?
The questioner uses f..., a four letter word which is unethical and highly impolite.
I am just entering firstly into this forum and shocked to see such aword that too on such a holy webpage at very first interaction.
Can I know the feedback from others.
Kind regards/drsundaram
Objectionable, obnoxios, and filthy
It's worth remembering that it's always our own thinking that turns mere letters and words into something obnoxious or filthy. "g" isn't more objectionable than "b"; "y" isn't less filthy than "s."
If you find a word objectionable, the root may not lie in the 3 or 4 letters or the word itself. Our own thinking attaches to the word, turning simple letters into something we believe to be obnoxious or filthy.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
My mind-ego says: I see your point...here's another to consider
My mind/ego says: I see your point. But it is still a little difficult to imagine Santa Claus, or a Bell Ringing Santa Claus going around using the "F" word around kids.
FASTFORWARD to a huge stretch of the imagination:
It probably doesn't take much to be inured to more and more, where eventually casual and rampant brutality and violence is a thing that is no better or no worse than "f" being worse than "N", and ...get my drift?
This here daddy thinks some degree of propriety still needs to be adhered to or practice, because in my humble opinion it doesn't take more to be inured to more and more. So, some line has to be drawn somewhere. N'est pas?
re: another point to consider
> So, some line has to be drawn somewhere. N'est pas?
Yes indeed. The line can be drawn based on intention. Using any type of words is OK, but the intention behind the words ought to be helping other people, not just saying/doing what feels good "for me."
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
Beautifully Said
This momma agrees with your propriety issue completely. Children cannot be expected to understand the wider ramifications of words and therefore should be protected from that violence.
But for us "adults," there is an opportunity here to go beyond the word itself to the sayer of the word and realize that all anger (portrayed in violence) comes from a deep desire for "correctness" which stems from the deeper desire to align with God. Automatically, the "sayer" is wrong, in that any presumption of knowledge as to what is "correct" is wrong (even when it is right because of the inherent limitation), but the actual desire that stimulates it belongs to the divine.
In short, I see the word to be benign. If I can diffuse anger and violence (created in Me!) by seeing the divinity that inspired it I can respond to the person instead of reacting to the word.
Nice
>>>In short, I see the word to be benign. If I can diffuse anger and violence (created in Me!) by seeing the divinity that inspired it I can respond to the person instead of reacting to the word.<<<
Beautifully put
There is a wisdom behind this "fuck"
Taste the wine and ignore the bottle, language is just the means. It is redundant to take things literally. Anyway, what can be wrong with a word, any word?
I like the fact that he used such a word. It makes people to give the attention, to get out of the automation. We are overfludded with information and this is sometimes the way to cope with this overfludding to make sure people draw their attention to the important things, and this subject of "I Am" is extremely important. I think he didn't use the word accidentally, see his other posts, he is heavy.
The same case is with the IDGF stuff which turned to be enormously effective on people partly because of the slogan ("I don't give a fuck"), see in http://www.gurusfeet.com/blog/idgf-state.
Qualities
It's seems obvious that both sides have valid and useful points. It also seems obvious that words have qualities just as thoughts, or actions, or foods have qualities. Some of these are pure and light and some of these are dark and heavy. Someone may be able to fully understand theoretically they are not the body but that doesn't mean we should down a mug full of arsenic and not have to worry about its effects. We may be able to understand that the F word is only a word made up of only letters but of course it has an effect whether you are desensitized to it or not. As long as we still swim around in the three gunas we will be effected by the three gunas(the sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic qualities)..And as long as we still function in illusion we will still be effected by its illusions. It seems obvious that the F word has a quality to it for those that are familiar with the word and it doesn't seem to be totally sattvic.
This reminds me of the work of Dr. Masaru Emoto, who scientifically created a method through the medium of water to prove that words and thoughts have an effect on matter.
http://www.hado.net/hado/powerword.php
http://www.hado.net/watercrystals/index.php
http://www.hadousa.com/comparisons.html
http://www.hadousa.com/words.html
I can reason with myself that it is only a word too and can even find it endearing..lol But is it ONLY a word?
As it is, it was obviously a great use of the word as it has created a buzz around a great topic.
Wisdom
Words are gurus...they evoke reaction swiftly and wake you up. Do you control them or do they control you?
I inlcude a link that elucidates the usage of the subject word...
PLEASE DO NOT REVIEW THIS LINK IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY THE USE OF THIS WORD!
Otherwise, it is funny and enlightening and pulls our experience of "spirituality"--our life back down to earth.
The Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D7rWLzloOI
re: Wisdom
Example: An eminent Buddhist teacher once said, "Even to mention the word 'Buddha' is like dropping a load of shit on your head."
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
I Am
I AM = Universal Mind.
Draw a small circle = this represent the Conscious Mind.
Draw a bigger circle around the small circle, about say 14 times bigger thatn the first = this represent Subconscious Mind
Both conscious mind and subconscious mind reside inside you. Specific to you only.
Universal Mind== is inside you. And all around you. Common to everyone and all things, and common to All. This represent the "I Am", "Being", "Mind of God", "God", "Divine Matrix", "Quantum Field", "Zero Point Field", "Kingdom of Heaven", "Father", "Abba", "Unity", "One", "Eternity", "Timeless Wonder", "Soure", "Source Energy", "Higher Self", "Higher Dimension of Consciousness",....etc, etc, etc......
Conscious mind and subconscious mind are the realm of opposites. Hot is understood in relation to cold. Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Subconscious mind has access to Universal Mind.
Universal Mind has no opposite. It is the realm of pure potentiality. It just IS. It is in the Present Tense. Always was, always will be, alpha-omega, and well.. it "IS."
It even said so to Moses, when it said, "I AM". Not, I was, or I will be. but "I AM."
BEING has no opposite, but it can be obscured. Too many thoughts, or identified with thoughts, obscures being.
Disidentificaiton with thoughts/mind/ego allows a higher dimension of consciousness to arise within you.
Practice: Go take a walk in nature. Go sit in a bookstore on a rainy day in teh cafe and enjoy a cup of tea with a good book. Play with your cat. Meditate.
supporting texts of maharaj
Where do you find support to your proposed meaning of "I Am" in Maharaj's texts???
It is completely out of the context and meaning used by Maharaj, to the best of my knowledge, I will love to see the supporting words of maharaj.
None at all. So shoot me.
BEING said nothing. It needs nothing. Doesn't have a want to know to know anything.
However, y Ego and my Mind Says:
It is based on my own intuitive digestion of all the books I've read. A marrying of what I understand intuitively and what I have read from other books.
I can tell that you're ego and your mind is quite ready to pounce on me. Go ahead.
:)
The real way is to find out what "I Am" is NOT
The power as well as the problem with "I Am" is that it is not comprehensible through words-based definition. So many people were mistaken in their speculations about "I Am", even direct devotees such as Wolinski.
The only bright explanation I heard about "I Am" was by a man in India who said more or less the following:
Like all other ultimate concepts that relate to the beyond, the only way to realize what the concept means is through negation because words, of course, cannot define it. So see what it is clearly NOT and then you will be left with the notion of this concept.
"I Am" is not "I" - i.e. it is not the subject, the center, a person, not even a soul.
"I Am" is not "Am" - i.e. it is not the action of being.
"I Am" is not "that" - i.e. it is not an object.
Therefore "I Am" is the state devoid of all the above but that includes all the above together in an unbreakable way.
See what it is by feeling and seek it. Again, make sure to realize it by negative rather than positive process.
Well said
Well said. This negative approach seems as yielding the best explanation of "I Am" here and the practical recommendation at the end is precious - follow that which remains when you omit all that "I Am" is not and sense it rather than intellectualize it.
He explained meaning at the
He explained meaning at the start of his book:
"That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being -- I am that."
To me I am that means, I am the part of that Universal giant super consciouness, I am also part of that.
Two different concepts
The question here was about "I Am", not "I am That" - these are two different concepts used by Maharaj.
"I Am That" means I am everything (not part of it) and is taken from the scriptures. "I Am" is more complicated to understand as demonstrated in this forum.
I AM That,, and I Am Not That
Ram Dass gave a very nice summary of two apparently paradoxical approaches that lead to the same end.
One is through negation. I am not this, I am not that, I am not (fill in any word you wish.) What remains is the inconceivable Absolute.
The second is to take everything into you, and to realize oneness with all, which leads to a oneness with the Absolute.
Sounds simply enough to know about intellectually. So, how come I don't actually experience it? What is getting in the way of experiencing it? My desire is strong, it costs no money, but why is it that I do not have the experience?
It's like, I know about New York, from reading, videos, media, second hand stories, but I have never experienced New York first hand; have never BEEN there.
Is it my thoughts that prevents the experience of Union with the Absolute?
I am the supreme soul
He explained meaning at the start of his book:
"That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being -- I am that."
To me, I am that means, I am the part of that Universal Supreme giant super consciouness, I am also part of that supreme soul.
I knew that...now I want to experience it.
Very much like a virgin who wants to finally experience sex.
Interesting enough, the bible seems to use sexuality and marriage as metaphors for Union with God (The Absolute). The song of Solomon, if I remember correctly, is about the lover's (us) desire for the Beloved (The Absolute).
And Jesus used wedding's and marriages in his parables. And Jerusalem was depicted somewhere in the Bible as the Bride of God. I don't remember if that symbology is in the book of Revelations.
Funny how real life models Spirituality.
I can even use Video Games on DVD to explain a concept of how time does not exist, past present, future, even with personal choices along the way, are already all there. Diff topic...lol.
Re: I knew that...
> now I want to experience it. Very much like a virgin
> who wants to finally experience sex.
If in this metaphor, sex represents experiencing God or Truth... then in fact you're already experiencing God or Truth right now, every moment. So you're not so much like a virgin wanting to experience sex, more like a prostitute who somehow thinks she's a virgin.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
Hey Stu....
I ready our blog about "satvia(?)". Very interesting stuff. You said somethings that I was considering yesterday, and recently. Anyway, I can relate to your stories.
This quote from you: "...more like a prostitute who somehow thinks she's a virgin."
Heavens, that can be taken any way. But, choosing the path that a Buddha might have taken, i.e. what would Buddha do..I'll go ahead turn the other cheek and and take that as a compliment.
Cheers.
You already know why
You said, "One is through negation. I am not this, I am not that, I am not (fill in any word you wish.) What remains is the inconceivable Absolute.
The second is to take everything into you, and to realize oneness with all, which leads to a oneness with the Absolute."
Why not pick one and do it? Keep it up all day, as much as you are conscious. Each thought that appears "I am not that" or "That, too, is a part of me." How much do you want it?
My Guru teaches this--he sets up the experience of negation...he offers a 13 week class to help people first recognize their thoughts, then experience the truth about them. I'm sure other masters offer this, too.
I'll tell you a secret that I know from experience...if you can really do it, with just one thought, it will work. I experienced it when I dropped the lifelong "knowing" that my mother was a power greater than me. When still a child, I faced her and knew in my heart that she was just a child, too. My heart relaxed it's position of fear and contraction and went the other way into increasing compassion for her. That did it! But it doesn't work with your head, only a "change of heart" did it.
This is why the masters stress renunciation...all of your rules are walls keeping you out.
P.S. Talking about it won't do anything for you other than help you towards the decision to "do it."
All of this is what my Beloved, my Guru has brought to me.
I Am and I
Dear Friends,
If 4 cards converge from 4 different directions on each other and finally touch each other , there is a space between them. This space can have any shape square, rectangle( say if it is three cards a traingle etc).Now we now the cards are "real".So how "real" is the shape? can we say that the traingle/square is also real? Or is it only "space"?
that space is the "I".One of the cards could be the body. One of the cards could be the memories. One card definetly is the " I AM" or the sense of being. maybe we can do away with all the cards except one. The I AM.
A person can still say " I" even if all the memories are wiped clean but none amonst us can say I if the" I Am/ sense of being is taken away. SO I and I Am are one and the same. So this gopinadh/james/robert/ego or the I still remain as long as this sense of I Am is percieved. Only when it is not , say like in sleep the person/gopinadh/ roberts/ego/I , also dissapear.
To some I Am is a sense of being, sweet, self love and the love to be.But looking at a different perspective I Am is also instinctively realised as the craving, the original desire which Buddha supposedly talks of.
That is why Nisargadatta maharaj himself states that even this I Am is not the ultimate. I recollect maharaj even goes on saying that even I AM is also a lie and only a concept.
A concept much like the card example.However this I Am need not be a card but in its own realm it itself could be a shape formed by converging of other cards. For instance the cards of consciousness, senses, craving etc.
Then where is that freedom or self realisation.It is like saying there is no self so what is to be realised. And as though like UG says there is no hope.I think that this comment is getting too lengthy. I would stop here and shallnot vex you further but I will end it by sharing with you that there is really no hope. Because what is is more than hope.More beautiful than the self. More whole and more fun. Bye.
Brilliant
The cards allegory is brilliant. Brilliant.
And indeed Maharaj in later books encourages to go even beyond "I Am".
But "I" and "I Am" are certainly not the same. Maharaj has never said or implied that it is so, on the contrary.
"I Am" is a sense of being devoid of anything else. It is being after you peel everything, including the sense of "I", sweetness, love, craving, desire and all the other qualities you mention. And still after all the peeling, a distilled sense of being remains, this is "I Am".
I and I Am
Dear Friends
I say “ I” because “ I AM”. A tree has come out of a small seed. That tree is not the seed one might say. How come? ..another person might say” How come? The tree is the very seed. Any way,
Dear friends a sense of being cannot be a distilled sense of being or a composite one. It is simply a sense of being. The I Am might look sacred, fundamental, peaceful when compared to a person/ego/gopinadh/james/ . And it might look that abiding hence in that “I Am” is enlightenment or the self. Such an idea is further cherished because by abiding in that “ I AM” we instinctively realise a feeling of oneness and such pleasant experiences. But dear friends with whom do we then have a felling of oneness? For a “1” to be there has to be a 2.
Dear friends isn’t this what our grandpa nisarga tries telling us? Isnt this what our Buddha lovingls calls us to see? Dear Friends this “ I AM” or this sense of being( okay distilled , peaceful, simple have your say) is the very root of separation. Dear Friends This “ I AM” is the very root /seed of the tree called or known as ego/person/gopinadh..
Stand up dear friends,( like hanuman did when he was about to jump towards lanka) stand up, I say, realise that this I AM itself is the ego.
Then find “you” have wings. Then find “you” are the heart of a tender butterfly. Then find that “ you” know absolutely nothing and are still suckling like a new born baby. Dear Friends stand up I say.
Hee hee got poetic. And friend when I say “ you” please don’t take it that it is a self or any thing like that. You are not what you perceive ,neti neti right? So just ask yourself who then is looking at this “ I Am’.One answer would be it itself is looking, being a pure awareness, a distilled/peaceful sense of being that it is. OR you can stand up like Hanuman did and say there is no one looking at it. Simply that. No one is looking at it.Bang in that instant dear friends gopinadhprabhala/ Roberts/ james /ego ends up being a laughter( I am not denying it will cease or anything but hey a laughter). A heart full and heartfelt laughter.
Bye
dear friends, kindly read in
dear friends,
kindly read in the last para " I am not denying it will cease......." as " I am not saying it will cease or anything". Bye.
"Nisargadatta Maharaj gives
"Nisargadatta Maharaj gives seekers the same advice his guru gave him: abide in the "I Am".
I have looked and looked and couldn't find in "I Am That" him explaining exactly what he means by that. Maybe it is included in other books.
Anyone know?"
Old trail, probably cold, but maybe not, and it's a good question.
I think that the answer's in 'I Am That', but I also think that even if you study it, it's not easy to understand.
* He says there are both real and unreal versions of the 'I Am':
"Q: Is the sense 'I am' real or unreal?
N: Both. It is unreal when we say: 'I am this, I am that.' It is real when we mean 'I am not this, nor that.'"
So, there are different kinds of 'I am'.
* He contrasts it with what he calls the witness:
"Q: Is 'I am' itself the witness, or are they separate?
A: Without one the other cannot be. Yet they are not one. It is like the flower and its colour. Without flower - no colours; without colour - the flower remains unseen. Beyond is the light which on contact with the flower creates the colour. Realize that your true nature is that of pure light only, and both the perceived and the perceiver come and go together."
This is really interesting, cuz it means that the 'I Am' isn't your true nature. This is emphasized again when N. says: "The 'I Am' is always witnessed."
So, neither real nor unreal 'I am' are what you are, because both of them are witnessed. So, my idea of the 'I am' is that it's simply how you experience yourself - the idea you have of yourself, basically, but with all the emotions that arise out of that and all the sensations you ascribe to that. So, if you think of yourself as your body, that's your 'I am'. If you think of yourself as your personality, that's your 'I am'. And if you've seen through both of those illusions, then that state of not buying into 'I'm my personality and my body' is your 'I am'.
* Next, you can be without an 'I am'. N. reported this about his own awakening:
"The mind ceased producing events. The ancient and ceaseless search stopped - I wanted nothing, expected nothing - accepted nothing as my own. There was no 'me' left to strive for. Even the bare 'I am' faded away."
So again, the 'I am' isn't what you are, but something witnessed by what you are. It can, as Nisargadatta says, fade away, drop away. So although he doesn't come right out and say it, my take on the 'I am' is that it's what we call self-image - how you see yourself, how you feel yourself, what you take yourself to be.
* Now, the interesting bit is why he recommends hanging out in the 'I am'. (Presumably he's talking about the real 'I am' that refuses to identify with anything it experiences.) My guess is that he recommends it simply because it worked for him. But there's a possibility that it's a universal approach that works for most people, simply because the 'I am' is somehow a mere step away from what you really are, that it's somehow closer to real identity because everything that is expressed by reality expresses itself via the 'I am' and everything that is experienced by reality is experienced via the 'I am'. (Actually, N. calls the witness the bridge, but he also says that witness and 'I am' are inextricably linked, so perhaps the 'I am' is like having a foot on the bridge. Pure speculation on my part, of course.)
:-)