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...
Little Man
Lets kill the little man!!!
Seems to be the whole point...
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
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.