Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 Jim, The question you ask is a good one, it's the same question I asked just a few messages above. It's a tough question to answer because the very tools we hire out to understand/comprehend our experiences, such as the ego, intellect, feelings, etc. are useless in this quest. The ego doesn't want to relinguish it's (apparent) command - and it will even go so far as to think of " I Am " as some form of fulfillment of Itself - sort of a Be all you can Be kind of thing. Little does the ego know that it's destiny is to be extinguished. Why do you think it is so hard for people to make and keep New Year's Resolutions? Because there is no one there to make them, there is no one there to keep them. The very notion of a central person (ego) in charge is a myth, it's an illusion. This flies in the face of everything we've always been told - - the rugged individual, staking out his claim, realizing his full potential, blah blah blah. Little does the ego suspect that it doesn't really exist. So why bother - the Illusion ain't so bad. Little does the ego know it is really Cosmic Ego. Welcome, Larry Jim, please tell me you didn't take the red pill Nisargadatta , " James W. ORourke <jimwend41> " <jimwend41> wrote: > Hi, > My name is Jim and I am new to the group and fairly new to the thought > and teaching of Nisargadatta. One question I have is, Nisargadatta > suggests that we " hold onto the sense of I Am " . How is this done? The > only book of his I have is " I Am That " but it is really something. > thank you > Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 Nisargadatta , " James W. ORourke <jimwend41> " <jimwend41> wrote: > Hi, > My name is Jim and I am new to the group and fairly new to the thought > and teaching of Nisargadatta. One question I have is, Nisargadatta > suggests that we " hold onto the sense of I Am " . How is this done? The > only book of his I have is " I Am That " but it is really something. > thank you > Jim hi jim, welcome to the group. i should have a standard reply to the new members who sometime ask this question. far from being the official response, this is my very personal understanding: " i am " without words means Consciousness or Awareness of existence. whether we're talking about ramana's Self-inquiry method or nisargadatta's method the sense of " i am " the both are pointers for Consciousness. buddhists call the sense of " i am " , the emptiness, the old time hindus called it brahman, the latter day devotional hindus called it krishna or shiva and sufis call it love. i heard christians talk about the presence. personally i like the old hindu formula atman=brahman (the self is awareness). this is how i interpret maharaj's gurus' advice of holding to the sense of " i am " meditate as consciousness on consciousness nothing else hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 Dear Jim, Nisargadatta , " James W. ORourke <jimwend41> " <jimwend41> wrote: Hi, My name is Jim and I am new to the group and fairly new to the thought and teaching of Nisargadatta. One question I have is, Nisargadatta suggests that we " hold onto the sense of I Am " . How is this done? The only book of his I have is " I Am That " but it is really something. thank you Jim KKT: I AM = the sense of << being >> = the sense of existence. One can say that one knows nothing about oneself as well as about the world. But there is one thing one << knows >> for sure: this is the sense of << I AM >> This is the << unique >> knowledge. So hold onto this sense of I AM. Peace, KKT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.