Why Nisargadatta's teachings are preferred by foreigners

[Guest guest]

...............................................................

 

Visitor: Why is there such a divergence between different gurus,

rishis, and realized yogis? Perhaps they're not realized?

 

Maharaj: No, this is to be explained as follows. Although

consciousness is universal and the knowledge " you are, " and whatever

knowledge there is, is all common, its expression through the body

and the mind is individualistic; there everything is different.

Therefore, the path expounded by each sage will be different; it is

bound to be so.

 

V: All those several paths lead to the...

 

M: They will all lead to the same. It is not that all paths lead to

Delhi? The paths will be different, but the destination is the

same. So you can't compare the path or what I am expounding with

somebody else's.

 

V: In your method--may I call it a method?--have you noticed any

siddhis...

 

M: No. But that is my own doing, because of the commands of my

guru. My guru told me, although you are realized, you will have to

expound knowledge only. No siddhi powers for you. I was very

eager...I thought, " I'll get certain powers, do miracles, remove the

sickness of people. " At first I was thinking along those lines, as

an initiate. But my guru told me, " Nothing of the sort for you. You

have to expound knowledge only. " There were no powers for me. And

then he also told me, " You must repeat all these bhajans three or

four times a day. You have to do it. " He said, for the sake of the

ignorant people, we have to do this.

I do not want to take you by the traditional, conventional,

tortuous ways. That is why my teachings are better liked by the

foreigners, because none of this traditional, conventional thing is

there.

 

V: The worshipping, the rituals, nothing is there.

 

M: That is the devotional path. But what I am giving you is atma-

yoga. I am not " doing " bhakti yoga; that is, bhajans, etc: It is

happening, going on by itself! Bhakti-yoga mean (a devotee) trying

to link up with God. It is not only going on here; it is going on

everywhere right from the ants. This means everybody has that

bhakti, even an ant wants to live, which is the same as bhakti. But

that ant does not know it. Only a human form...

 

V: My question is, even a jnani bhajans are devoted to some God, say

Krishna, which takes for granted saguna bhakti. [To the interpreter:]

Are you convinced by the answer? Then in turn you can convince me.

 

Interpreter: What has happened is this: as a jnani he would have

remained unknown to the world. that is what his guru thought. So he

told him, when Maharaj asked how he could repay his debt after he got

realization, you cannot repay this anyway. But if at all you want to

repay, you must do bhajans four times a day. Now the purpose of his

guru's command was that when some bhajan goes on somewhere, people

were alerted to the fact that this is a place where worship of God is

taking place. So that is how people started coming here. Initially,

there were mainly Indian people who were not primarily interested in

knowing themselves, but who had faith in God. Those people came

first, then subsequently others started flowing in, like Maurice

Frydman. And thereafter that book [referring to I Am That] was

published. Ultimately, you came to know of these teachings because

of him. So the purpose of this bhajan was indirectly to let people

know about him; otherwise he would have remained absolutely

unknown....Eventually, when you get true knowledge, ultimate

knowledge, then only will you come to understand that bhakti and

jnana yoga are one.

 

From " The Ultimate Medicine "

As Prescribed by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

Edited by Robert Powell,

Blue Dove Press, 1995

 

bhajans: devotional song

bhakti yoga: the devotional way, the practice of loving God.

jnani yoga: the way of knowledge; the practice of contemplation on

the impersonal Absolute as identical with one's real Self.

siddhis: psychic powers

[Guest guest]

Hi Hur,

 

<SNIP>

 

> V: The worshipping, the rituals, nothing is there.

>

> M: That is the devotional path. But what I am giving you is atma-

> yoga. I am not " doing " bhakti yoga; that is, bhajans, etc: It is

> happening, going on by itself! Bhakti-yoga mean (a devotee) trying

> to link up with God. It is not only going on here; it is going on

> everywhere right from the ants. This means everybody has that

> bhakti, even an ant wants to live, which is the same as bhakti. But

> that ant does not know it. Only a human form...

 

 

Thank you for posting this particular dialogue.

It should address the issue as to where did Nisargadatta stood on the

concept of volition.

And non-volitionality is really a concept.

 

 

> V: My question is, even a jnani bhajans are devoted to some God, say

> Krishna, which takes for granted saguna bhakti. [To the interpreter:]

> Are you convinced by the answer? Then in turn you can convince me.

>

> Interpreter: What has happened is this: as a jnani he would have

> remained unknown to the world. that is what his guru thought. So he

> told him, when Maharaj asked how he could repay his debt after he got

> realization, you cannot repay this anyway. But if at all you want to

> repay, you must do bhajans four times a day. Now the purpose of his

> guru's command was that when some bhajan goes on somewhere, people

> were alerted to the fact that this is a place where worship of God is

> taking place. So that is how people started coming here. Initially,

> there were mainly Indian people who were not primarily interested in

> knowing themselves, but who had faith in God. Those people came

> first, then subsequently others started flowing in, like Maurice

> Frydman. And thereafter that book [referring to I Am That] was

> published. Ultimately, you came to know of these teachings because

> of him. So the purpose of this bhajan was indirectly to let people

> know about him; otherwise he would have remained absolutely

> unknown....

 

 

This is spucatum tauri ( Bull shit in Latin) and examples what I was sharing

earlier, that an intrepretation, for it to capture the original essence, the

intrepreter

has to have the same quality of apperception as the Master.

 

Consciousness, or whatever, has no need to be known or to be unknown, no

need to announce itself, or hide itself, to lead other forms to itself.

 

(These bromides are relevant only to a " me-entity " in relationship to an

" other " you.)

 

 

It was delighting in the " bhajaning " through the body-mind complex of

Nisargadatta, it delights in this post through the body-mind complex of

Sandeep, in stating so.

 

In either movements, there is no purpose, there is nothing to be achieved.

 

 

>Eventually, when you get true knowledge, ultimate

> knowledge, then only will you come to understand that bhakti and

> jnana yoga are one.

 

There is no " you " to get anything, least of all knowledge.

 

Apperception is the non-volitional dropping of the " you " whether it comes

about " bhajaning " away, or sitting on your " jnanic " ass as per the

particular disposition of the body-mind complex in question or what is

called it's programming, it's conditioning.

 

 

Subsequent to apperception (itself a conceptual occurrence in a conceptual

phenomenality) who is then left to affirm anything about anything?

 

LOL.

 

 

Cheers

 

Sandeep

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Sandeep Chatterjee " <sandeepc@b...>

wrote:

 

> It should address the issue as to where did Nisargadatta stood on

the > concept of volition.

> And non-volitionality is really a concept.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain your interpretation.

 

> Apperception is the non-volitional dropping of the " you " ... per the

> particular disposition of the body-mind complex in question...

> Subsequent to apperception (itself a conceptual occurrence in a

> conceptual phenomenality...

 

Should it be this complicated?

 

Hur

[Guest guest]

>> Sandeep: Non-volitionality is really a concept...Apperception

>> is the non-volitional dropping of the " you " ... per the particular

>> disposition of the body-mind complex in question...Subsequent

>> to apperception (itself a conceptual occurrence in a conceptual

>> phenomenality...

 

> Hur: Should it be this complicated?

 

Descriptions and explanations are implicitly complicated.

 

Maharshi and Nisargadatta go for the jugular.

They exhort direct knowing, sans interpretation.

 

That's not to say anything is to be denied,

other than identification as self or other.

 

There's nothing to do

but silently witness whatever occurs

with wisdom and enjoyment.

 

Everything comes...

everything goes.

 

 

-tomas

[Guest guest]

Hiya Hur,

 

-

Hur <Hur1

<Nisargadatta >

Friday, January 19, 2001 11:16 AM

Re: Why Nisargadatta's teachings are preferred by

foreigners

 

 

> Nisargadatta , " Sandeep Chatterjee " <sandeepc@b...>

> wrote:

>

> > It should address the issue as to where did Nisargadatta stood on

> the > concept of volition.

> > And non-volitionality is really a concept.

>

> Perhaps you'd like to explain your interpretation.

 

 

What would you like to know about it?

 

 

 

> > Apperception is the non-volitional dropping of the " you " ... per the

> > particular disposition of the body-mind complex in question...

> > Subsequent to apperception (itself a conceptual occurrence in a

> > conceptual phenomenality...

>

> Should it be this complicated?

 

 

To whom does it appear complicated?

 

 

Dobeeee Dobeeee Dooooo

 

Cheers

 

Sandeep

[Guest guest]

There's nothing to do or not do.

Not even a " but " to it.

 

Anything said about it is saying

something about something

about which there is no

" about " :-)

 

Love,

Dan

 

 

> >> Sandeep: Non-volitionality is really a concept...Apperception

> >> is the non-volitional dropping of the " you " ... per the particular

> >> disposition of the body-mind complex in question...Subsequent

> >> to apperception (itself a conceptual occurrence in a conceptual

> >> phenomenality...

>

> > Hur: Should it be this complicated?

>

>Descriptions and explanations are implicitly complicated.

>

>Maharshi and Nisargadatta go for the jugular.

>They exhort direct knowing, sans interpretation.

>

>That's not to say anything is to be denied,

>other than identification as self or other.

>

>There's nothing to do

>but silently witness whatever occurs

>with wisdom and enjoyment.

>

>Everything comes...

>everything goes.

>

>

>-tomas