Fwd: Justthis/all/Hunger?

[Guest guest]

NondualitySalon, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote:

 

Hi justthis,

 

Actually, not to 'knock' Jerry's efforts to sound like Nisargadatta

(in particular, his recommendation to stay with I AM is doubtless

a 'good thing'[tm]), but in essence, he missed.

 

Nisargadatta recommends staying with I AM for the " purpose " of going

beyond I AM. In fact, he always note(d) that I AM (or Beingness or

Consciousness) is a product of " the food-body " and disappears when

the body passes on -- and in later years, when ill, even referred to

the I AM (Beingness) as " mean, low and despicable " (Nectar of

Immortality).

 

Now, I don't agree with all of Nisargadatta's viewpoints (in

particular I leave open the possibility that the body appears as an

object of consciousness, rather than vice-versa, and that

consciousness may in fact continue in some form after the body

appears to die), but the I AM is certainly not what Nisargatta refers

to as 'real' (that he reserves for " The Supreme " or " Parabrahman " ).

 

He described I AM as " the only thing that isn't in doubt "

(paraphrased) and therefore being the most worthy of inquiry. Very

similar to Ramana's " Who am I? " inquiry, but not requiring an

affirmation of " I " (which is why I prefer Nisargadatta's inquiry).

It's possible to remain with the 'sense of Beingness' without

bringing a " who " into the matter, or the concept of " I. "

 

Namaste,

 

Tim

 

NondualitySalon, justthis2001 wrote:

> NondualitySalon, umbada@n... wrote:

>

> >

> > great responses to this. find and stay with what is real, with

what

> > isn't illusory, then you'll know what is real and what is

illusion.

> I

> > AM is never hungry. Stay with I AM and you will see.

> >

> > totally trying to sound like nisargadatta,

> > jerry

>

> ** ha ha, at least you admit it.

>

> All are blessed

> justthis

--- End forwarded message ---