ahankara

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter,

 

Thank you so much for your welcome. According to Nisargadatta

Maharaj, " Ahankara " , the sense of " I am, " is the only capital we are

born with.

 

" I am only trying to describe the state before 'I am' arose, but the

state itself, being beyond the mind and its language is

indescribable...There is a difference between awareness as reflected

in consciousness and pure awareness beyond consciousness. Reflected

awareness, the sense of 'I am' is the witness, while the pure

awareness is the essence of reality. Reflection of the sun in a drop

of water is a reflection of the sun, no doubt, but not the sun

itself. "

 

This is perhaps one of the reasons why I've been attracted to

Nisargadatta's teachings for he's pointed an ego-less level, a state

of pure awareness that cannot be described. How can the dualistic

mind describe the pure awareness of no-thing while no-i present? Of

course it's only the ego that is in awe after the memory of

experience and becomes fascinated with its own birth and

consciousness of being. Soon after that the ego owns the experience

and calls " That " my mystical experience while " That " happened to

it.

 

In this surprising mystery of being,

 

Hur

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Dear Hur and friends

> Congratulations on starting the Nisargardatta

> group.

> I have read a few books on Nisargardatta's teaching and am

> rapidly coming to the understanding that everything perceivable

> belongs to ahankara,even conciousness itself. The only exception

> seems to be a certain awareness that seems to be. Is this so?

>

> Love and best wishes

> Peter

[Guest guest]

Hello to all, and salutations to that Lord existing as consciousness,

i have just joined your list thankyou for hosting it.

 

bindu.

 

In reply to ahankara, here is the second sutra from The Avadhuta Gita

of Dattareya....... with a commentary by jagadananda..

 

 

2. How shall I salute the formless Being -

indivisible, auspicious and immutable,

who fills all this with His Self

and also fills the self with His Self?

 

*********************************************

Commentary

********************************************

The Formless Being:

 

There are great volumes written on the realization, on the

enlightenment. Amazing descriptions are given, and great discourses

have been given by great Sages on the nature of " The Absolute "

of " The Brahman " of " Turiya " , of " The Peace Which Passes

Understanding " ; However to the last they say: " IT " cannot be

described, " IT " can only be inferred. The location of " The Self "

cannot be ascertained, nor can its face be seen etc.

 

Yet an allegorical metaphor, rather than an attempt at description

may help:

 

Beyond and before the existence of all things, people, beings,

objects and forms, beyond the very Cosmos itself, there is an

infinite ocean of purest will.

 

Yet when infinity is referred to, one imagines infinite space, it is

not like that;

 

It is " an infinite potential-for-space-to-appear " if the

manifestation of form occurs.

 

Being formless, " IT " , in the very act of existence, is not

objectified, as it is self-referring and therefore inferential of

self.

 

" IT " , appears to consciousness to be ocean-like in itself, yet on the

occurrence of an ascription of " I-ness " (the rationale that " I "

observe this or that) a form seems to glide or push up from beneath

the calm, like a fishes wake is seen in a perfectly calm lake though

the fish itself is never seen.

 

The fish of course is not the lake itself, though if we forget the

fish, it appears that the lake grew a ripple out of itself and the

shape appeared. We thus think we exist. As the water fills the ripple

so does " The Self " fill all that exists.

 

The disturbance/form in " The Calm Absolute " is created by the effect

of the Omnipotence of " Absolute Stasis " upon non-existence. (i.e non-

existence is " The Omnipotent Will " Itself). as manifested out of " It "

is every utter thing, even the Cosmos which displays the effects of

that Omnipotence within itself.

 

This truth can be seen immediately in the thought that " One Exists "

because at the moment of the thought of " I-ness " the whole cosmos

comes into existence as a support for the existence of the thought.

 

The mistake is that form is given, ascribed or attributed to " The

Self moving beneath the Lake " by the reflection of the form in the

surface of the lake of consciousness.

 

Having attained the lake shore, if the shape of a body is conceived

as " The Self " ; if any body, any form, any conception, any

description, any object is noted or named, the calm lake surface

automatically and instantly shatters, and the infinite is hidden once

more in diversity.

 

Yet to dive into " The Lake of Being " having attained it, is very

difficult indeed, to that end there is the following:

 

That Formless Un-named Space in each physical object and being, in

which each thing, each biological organ, each atom and all things are

manifested (the Cosmos included) is nothing but " The Absolute: yet

when that space is objectified as the container of things, the things

are looked at by reference to others and again " The Self " disappears.

 

So to " Dive " into " That Self " one must become the space first, then

dive in as space. But how to become space? Again many, many books etc

exist on that subject; yet no conclusion is reached finally; yet we

meditate and try to find " The Self " who is said to dwell within, and

thereby find " The Truth " .

 

Yet for millennia we are born again and again only to lose our way

again and again in what is called the Yogamaya of the Lord. But what

is Yogamaya if not ascription and designation of this-ness to that

which transcends existence, is it not attributing form, no matter how

subtle, fine or sublime to that which is without Form " ?

 

After realization, after dissolution in The Ocean of Bliss -

after meditation, who is it that rises out of that Ocean?

Certainly it is not " I " - but Jagadananda!