Guest guest Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 Hi: Although I have been on the spiritual paths for a bunch of decades, I am very new to Sri Nisargadatta. I started reading I Am That several months ago, and at the same time I joined a discussion group on the book at a local yoga institute here in NYC (only a few miles from where the Republican National Convention is now taking place). I am writing in the hope that someone can clarify the question below. Maharaj suggested meditating on the thought-feeling " I am, " and it was never clear to me precisely what he meant by " I am. " One problem at least for me is that the phrase " I am " is obviously an English translation from Maruthi. Also, my feeling is that the cultural and spiritual traditions in Bombay make a precise definition and understanding of the term " I am " difficult. I am a mere mortal and assume that my sense of " I am " is far different than what Maharaj meant. I understand that we lose the sense of " I am " as soon as we begin the process of false identification (I am a man or woman, old or young, or I am the body, etc.). My instructor at the discussion group was never able to give me a satisfactory answer to what Maharaj meant by " I am " and, by extension, how to meditate (or focus during daily activities) on " I am. " It is easier for me to grasp, at least intellectually, the meaning of the phrase " I Am That. " In this phrase, " That " means the supreme reality, the big kahuna, God, cosmic consciousness, etc. " That " is even better than eating the right proportion of carbs, fats and proteins and being " In the Zone. " Having said all of the above, I came across the following passage on page 159 of I Am That: " When I say `I am,' I do not mean a separate entity with a body as its nucleus. I mean the totality of being, the ocean of consciousness, the entire universe of all that is and knows. " (I know what you're thinking: that would make a great pick-up line in a bar if someone asks you who you are.) To my way of thinking, that statement seems to lead us full circle. When Maharaj advises us to continually focus on the sense of " I am " this means " I am not a separate body/mind, I am the ocean of consciousness. " In other words, I Am That. So " I Am " equals " I Am That " ? When Maharaj suggests that we continually focus (or meditate) on the sense of " I am, " does that mean we should be focusing on ourselves as the " supreme reality " (or whatever phrase you want to use). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I am not necessarily looking for very complex philosophical replies. Anything that could fit into my forthcoming book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, would suffice. Thanks, Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " phil2bfree " <phil2bfree> wrote: > Hi: > > Although I have been on the spiritual paths for a bunch of > decades, I am very new to Sri Nisargadatta. I started reading I Am > That several months ago, and at the same time I joined a discussion > group on the book at a local yoga institute here in NYC (only a few > miles from where the Republican National Convention is now taking > place). I am writing in the hope that someone can clarify the > question below. > > Maharaj suggested meditating on the thought-feeling " I am, " > and it was never clear to me precisely what he meant by " I am. " One > problem at least for me is that the phrase " I am " is obviously an > English translation from Maruthi. Also, my feeling is that the > cultural and spiritual traditions in Bombay make a precise definition > and understanding of the term " I am " difficult. I am a mere mortal > and assume that my sense of " I am " is far different than what Maharaj > meant. I understand that we lose the sense of " I am " as soon as we > begin the process of false identification (I am a man or woman, old > or young, or I am the body, etc.). My instructor at the discussion > group was never able to give me a satisfactory answer to what Maharaj > meant by " I am " and, by extension, how to meditate (or focus during > daily activities) on " I am. " > > It is easier for me to grasp, at least intellectually, the > meaning of the phrase " I Am That. " In this phrase, " That " means the > supreme reality, the big kahuna, God, cosmic consciousness, > etc. " That " is even better than eating the right proportion of carbs, > fats and proteins and being " In the Zone. " > > Having said all of the above, I came across the following > passage on page 159 of I Am That: " When I say `I am,' I do not mean a > separate entity with a body as its nucleus. I mean the totality of > being, the ocean of consciousness, the entire universe of all that is > and knows. " (I know what you're thinking: that would make a great > pick-up line in a bar if someone asks you who you are.) To my way of > thinking, that statement seems to lead us full circle. When Maharaj > advises us to continually focus on the sense of " I am " this means " I > am not a separate body/mind, I am the ocean of consciousness. " In > other words, I Am That. So " I Am " equals " I Am That " ? When Maharaj > suggests that we continually focus (or meditate) on the sense of " I > am, " does that mean we should be focusing on ourselves as > the " supreme reality " (or whatever phrase you want to use). > > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I am not > necessarily looking for very complex philosophical replies. Anything > that could fit into my forthcoming book, The Complete Idiot's Guide > to Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, would suffice. Thanks, Phil Look into the question: " I am what? " , and what do you see? I am a body with a history, a name and as you say, a mere mortal. But what is the one thinking himself or herself being mortal other than a thought/feeling of being mortal? Is a thought/feeling mortal? Maybe nothing ever goes away, but thoughts and feelings are sometimes at least hidden or obscured, so as a thought/feeling " I am mortal " you are mortal at least as in the illusion of forgetting. But are you a thought/feeling? Are you a body? Do you know what a body is? A body is a biological machine made of food. But this machine and the rest of the material universe is the _same_ machine. You experience a separation as a body, but there is no real separation between a human body and for example a building. All forms of separation are joined in awareness. Awareness is _aware_ of separaton. See? How can something be aware of separation, without itself being no- separartion? It can't! So the " I am " is awareness itself. Awareness _is_ itself. Ask yourself: " What is aware? " If the answer is " I am aware " , then you have failed to see that this is only a thought in awareness. There is no 'I' in awareness. Awareness is aware of the 'I' and the 'not I', but itself is neither the 'I' or the 'not I', so I will recommend that instead of looking into the question " I am " to instead look into the question " am " . :-) The impersonal pure am-ness is awareness itself. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 Phil, Interesting question. Although I'm not sure I can provide " the definitive answer " I'll take a shot at this. I would start with whatever the thought " I Am " brings up in you. What is actually there in terms of experiencing at this moment? Never mind whether it seems good, bad, pleasant, spiritual, or whatever. Let it be as it is, while " you " look on. Another thought that has been of great interest and utility to me from N: He states a couple of times in IAT that we need to meditate with the right mixture of attention and affection - and that we need to find this for ourselves. As someone who has experimented with the " attention " or " mindfulness " part for decades, the admonition to add some affection to the mix was refreshing and helpful. None of this involves self-flagellation -- N refers to roughhousing yourself as " a grievous error. " So don't sweat too much about " getting it right. " J. Krishnamurti (of whom N. speaks approvingly) urged his listeners to " experiment " and to " play " with it. Start now and any needed adjustments will occur on the way. Sven Nisargadatta , " phil2bfree " <phil2bfree> wrote: > Hi: > > Although I have been on the spiritual paths for a bunch of > decades, I am very new to Sri Nisargadatta. I started reading I Am > That several months ago, and at the same time I joined a discussion > group on the book at a local yoga institute here in NYC (only a few > miles from where the Republican National Convention is now taking > place). I am writing in the hope that someone can clarify the > question below. > > Maharaj suggested meditating on the thought-feeling " I am, " > and it was never clear to me precisely what he meant by " I am. " One > problem at least for me is that the phrase " I am " is obviously an > English translation from Maruthi. Also, my feeling is that the > cultural and spiritual traditions in Bombay make a precise definition > and understanding of the term " I am " difficult. I am a mere mortal > and assume that my sense of " I am " is far different than what Maharaj > meant. I understand that we lose the sense of " I am " as soon as we > begin the process of false identification (I am a man or woman, old > or young, or I am the body, etc.). My instructor at the discussion > group was never able to give me a satisfactory answer to what Maharaj > meant by " I am " and, by extension, how to meditate (or focus during > daily activities) on " I am. " > > It is easier for me to grasp, at least intellectually, the > meaning of the phrase " I Am That. " In this phrase, " That " means the > supreme reality, the big kahuna, God, cosmic consciousness, > etc. " That " is even better than eating the right proportion of carbs, > fats and proteins and being " In the Zone. " > > Having said all of the above, I came across the following > passage on page 159 of I Am That: " When I say `I am,' I do not mean a > separate entity with a body as its nucleus. I mean the totality of > being, the ocean of consciousness, the entire universe of all that is > and knows. " (I know what you're thinking: that would make a great > pick-up line in a bar if someone asks you who you are.) To my way of > thinking, that statement seems to lead us full circle. When Maharaj > advises us to continually focus on the sense of " I am " this means " I > am not a separate body/mind, I am the ocean of consciousness. " In > other words, I Am That. So " I Am " equals " I Am That " ? When Maharaj > suggests that we continually focus (or meditate) on the sense of " I > am, " does that mean we should be focusing on ourselves as > the " supreme reality " (or whatever phrase you want to use). > > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I am not > necessarily looking for very complex philosophical replies. Anything > that could fit into my forthcoming book, The Complete Idiot's Guide > to Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, would suffice. Thanks, Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 Hi Phil, - " phil2bfree " <phil2bfree <Nisargadatta > Wednesday, September 01, 2004 3:10 PM Nisargadatta 101 > Hi: > > Although I have been on the spiritual paths for a bunch of decades, I am very new to Sri Nisargadatta. I started reading I Am > That several months ago, and at the same time I joined a discussion group on the book at a local yoga institute here in NYC (only a few > miles from where the Republican National Convention is now taking place). I am writing in the hope that someone can clarify the > question below. > > Maharaj suggested meditating on the thought-feeling " I am, " and it was never clear to me precisely what he meant by " I am. " -------- When all the definitions of all held-identites is cast aside, denied, what is left is the sense of beingness, pointed to, by the term " I AM " . --- > One problem at least for me is that the phrase " I am " is obviously an English translation from Maruthi. Also, my feeling is that the > cultural and spiritual traditions in Bombay make a precise definition and understanding of the term " I am " difficult. >I am a mere mortal ------- Interesting. And what is the basis of that conclusion? What is that identity that you hold on to, which is mortal? ------------- > and assume that my sense of " I am " is far different than what Maharaj meant. I understand that we lose the sense of " I am " as soon as we > begin the process of false identification (I am a man or woman, old or young, or I am the body, etc.). My instructor at the discussion > group was never able to give me a satisfactory answer to what Maharaj meant by " I am " and, by extension, how to meditate (or focus during > daily activities) on " I am. " -------- The attention to " I AM " is actually not a positive attention (for what the mind conceives as the " I AM " is just another identity),.................but a dis-engagement from what that " I AM " is supposed to be. As soon as the mond supplies the answer, to Who am I,..........that answer, any answer,........is disengaged, through a non-verbalised, non-articulated questioning as to who believes that. For example, the supposition that " I am a mere mortal " ,...........who is it, that holds such an assumption? In the droppinf of the answer as " mere mortal " ,....dropping any answer....is the beingness of I AM. (Which is also a durational state) -------- > > It is easier for me to grasp, at least intellectually, the > meaning of the phrase " I Am That. " In this phrase, " That " means the > supreme reality, the big kahuna, God, cosmic consciousness, > etc. " That " is even better than eating the right proportion of carbs, > fats and proteins and being " In the Zone. " -------- " That " is when,................all conceptualizations of " that " has ceased. Inclduing the conceptualization of a " that " . -------- > > Having said all of the above, I came across the following passage on page 159 of I Am That: " When I say `I am,' I do not mean a > separate entity with a body as its nucleus. I mean the totality of being, the ocean of consciousness, the entire universe of all that is > and knows. " (I know what you're thinking: that would make a great pick-up line in a bar if someone asks you who you are.) --------- :-) If you are all that there is,.............who are you going to pick up? ------- To my way of > thinking, that statement seems to lead us full circle. When Maharaj advises us to continually focus on the sense of " I am " this means " I > am not a separate body/mind, I am the ocean of consciousness. " --------- " Ocean of Consciousness " is another conceptualization which the mind latches onto. Drop it. --------- > In > other words, I Am That. So " I Am " equals " I Am That " ? When Maharaj suggests that we continually focus (or meditate) on the sense of " I > am, " does that mean we should be focusing on ourselves as the " supreme reality " (or whatever phrase you want to use). --------- See above -------- > > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I am not necessarily looking for very complex philosophical replies. Anything > that could fit into my forthcoming book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, would suffice. Thanks, Phil LOL Its a tale told by an idiot, full of sounjd and fury Signifying nada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 Dear Phil to my knowledge the 'I AM' is non dual existence itself or pure consciousness. i thinks its 'sat chit ananda' . it is the you behind the you, the I-I. to meditate on this is watchfulness or awareness watching awareness. before anything there is that consciousness which is silent and still. i try to stick to that in meditation. as the mind focuses on that it will try to figit, being relaxed draw it back to the first 'person' the first 'place'. the bindu. my favorite line from the ashtavakra gita, though i forgets its chapter and verse, is " i accept nothing, i reject nothing. i am content " i think the vedic statement of " i am THAT " is similar to the meditation provided by Nisargadatta, but not exactly. it just leaves out the 'THAT' because if you are that then there is no need to meditate on two different things just the first part of 'I AM' warmest regards, tyrone Nisargadatta , " phil2bfree " <phil2bfree> wrote: > Hi: > > Although I have been on the spiritual paths for a bunch of > decades, I am very new to Sri Nisargadatta. I started reading I Am > That several months ago, and at the same time I joined a discussion > group on the book at a local yoga institute here in NYC (only a few > miles from where the Republican National Convention is now taking > place). I am writing in the hope that someone can clarify the > question below. > > Maharaj suggested meditating on the thought-feeling " I am, " > and it was never clear to me precisely what he meant by " I am. " One > problem at least for me is that the phrase " I am " is obviously an > English translation from Maruthi. Also, my feeling is that the > cultural and spiritual traditions in Bombay make a precise definition > and understanding of the term " I am " difficult. I am a mere mortal > and assume that my sense of " I am " is far different than what Maharaj > meant. I understand that we lose the sense of " I am " as soon as we > begin the process of false identification (I am a man or woman, old > or young, or I am the body, etc.). My instructor at the discussion > group was never able to give me a satisfactory answer to what Maharaj > meant by " I am " and, by extension, how to meditate (or focus during > daily activities) on " I am. " > > It is easier for me to grasp, at least intellectually, the > meaning of the phrase " I Am That. " In this phrase, " That " means the > supreme reality, the big kahuna, God, cosmic consciousness, > etc. " That " is even better than eating the right proportion of carbs, > fats and proteins and being " In the Zone. " > > Having said all of the above, I came across the following > passage on page 159 of I Am That: " When I say `I am,' I do not mean a > separate entity with a body as its nucleus. I mean the totality of > being, the ocean of consciousness, the entire universe of all that is > and knows. " (I know what you're thinking: that would make a great > pick-up line in a bar if someone asks you who you are.) To my way of > thinking, that statement seems to lead us full circle. When Maharaj > advises us to continually focus on the sense of " I am " this means " I > am not a separate body/mind, I am the ocean of consciousness. " In > other words, I Am That. So " I Am " equals " I Am That " ? When Maharaj > suggests that we continually focus (or meditate) on the sense of " I > am, " does that mean we should be focusing on ourselves as > the " supreme reality " (or whatever phrase you want to use). > > Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I am not > necessarily looking for very complex philosophical replies. Anything > that could fit into my forthcoming book, The Complete Idiot's Guide > to Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, would suffice. Thanks, Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 I had been familiar with *I Am That* for over a decade, and felt I understood what he was talking about. But then, at a VERY CRUCIAL point for me, I came to ask myself, " What does he *really* mean by 'I Am'? " . And in meditation I enquired... not as an intellectual exercise, but in *deep ernest*. As I did so I came to witness a series of pulses emanating as if in a stream. I realized that each pulse could potentially become a complex " issue " or scenario of experience. They were seeds. Then it occured to me to shift my (inner) vision to the right, and there I witnessed again a series of pulses, but this time they were " cooler " , and had a sense of a blue cast. I realized that these were also a series of seeds, and each one, if *chosen*, could become a complex thought scenario. Then I shifted my attention back to the left. Again I witnessed the series of emanating seeds as before. It was clear that these seeds (on the left) were " warmer " and emotive. Then I shifted my attention to the right again, and again witnessed the series of cooler seeds, seeds of thought. And then, again, I shifted my attention to the left, and again witnessed the " warmer " seeds emanating in a pulsing stream. At that point something remarkable occurred to me: " Who is looking from left to right, to left...? " And then, in a startling recognition, something pure and independent, something that had *no* investment, something that I hazard not to name...and I got up and moved into a very changed life. In that moment I found Freedom. Bill - phil2bfree Nisargadatta Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:40 AM Nisargadatta 101 Hi: Although I have been on the spiritual paths for a bunch of decades, I am very new to Sri Nisargadatta. I started reading I Am That several months ago, and at the same time I joined a discussion group on the book at a local yoga institute here in NYC (only a few miles from where the Republican National Convention is now taking place). I am writing in the hope that someone can clarify the question below. Maharaj suggested meditating on the thought-feeling " I am, " and it was never clear to me precisely what he meant by " I am. " One problem at least for me is that the phrase " I am " is obviously an English translation from Maruthi. Also, my feeling is that the cultural and spiritual traditions in Bombay make a precise definition and understanding of the term " I am " difficult. I am a mere mortal and assume that my sense of " I am " is far different than what Maharaj meant. I understand that we lose the sense of " I am " as soon as we begin the process of false identification (I am a man or woman, old or young, or I am the body, etc.). My instructor at the discussion group was never able to give me a satisfactory answer to what Maharaj meant by " I am " and, by extension, how to meditate (or focus during daily activities) on " I am. " It is easier for me to grasp, at least intellectually, the meaning of the phrase " I Am That. " In this phrase, " That " means the supreme reality, the big kahuna, God, cosmic consciousness, etc. " That " is even better than eating the right proportion of carbs, fats and proteins and being " In the Zone. " Having said all of the above, I came across the following passage on page 159 of I Am That: " When I say `I am,' I do not mean a separate entity with a body as its nucleus. I mean the totality of being, the ocean of consciousness, the entire universe of all that is and knows. " (I know what you're thinking: that would make a great pick-up line in a bar if someone asks you who you are.) To my way of thinking, that statement seems to lead us full circle. When Maharaj advises us to continually focus on the sense of " I am " this means " I am not a separate body/mind, I am the ocean of consciousness. " In other words, I Am That. So " I Am " equals " I Am That " ? When Maharaj suggests that we continually focus (or meditate) on the sense of " I am, " does that mean we should be focusing on ourselves as the " supreme reality " (or whatever phrase you want to use). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I am not necessarily looking for very complex philosophical replies. Anything that could fit into my forthcoming book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, would suffice. Thanks, Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 Dear Phil, you are asking about the thought " I am " and what it means to stay with it. I think the answer to your question is very simple, there is no problem with translation from Marathi or some complex deep meaning which you have to get at first. So I will try to convey to you some of my experience. When you are in deep sleep there is no thought. When you wake up, what is your first thought? Every morning you have to confirm again that you exist as an " I " . And you confirm where this " I " is located in time and space. This is like a habit, it reassures us that we can make it through the day, somehow. It is like the initial check up your computer makes when it is booted. With this basic thought you are confirming that you exist. It is the basic condition for what you call " your life " . So: why should we practise to " stay " with this thought when it is anyway coming like an old habit and is even representing the identification that you are maybe unhappy with? I will try to give you an answer from my point of view, but then you also just have to trust a master like Nisargadatta and his good advice and intention. We are living with the sense " I am " day in, day out. But our continously wandering mind forgets to remember this thought as soon it is cought by something else. The mind is really crazy. You will realize this very soon if you try to stay with the basic thought " I am " . You will be surprised, your wife tells you " coffee is ready " and you forgot it already. This is crazy. Your mind brings something up like " maybe that I stay with I am is meant to be something else " and - buff - you forgot to stay with it. To stay with it means to stay aware. Take a walk down the block, at the first corner you catch up with the awareness of " I am " . How many blocks can you wark without losing this awareness? Maybe not even a block, maybe just from one streetlight to the next. In normal life we use to stay aware on one basic thought only for seconds. Awareness is light, it will shed light on those concepts of your mind that are keeping you from your natural state. Those concepts can only survive in darkness. They will try to hide and send you thoughts like " this I am thing is crazy, I better stop it " or " I have to do something else now " . But staying with this basic thought " I am " (which is anyway there, you do not need to create or interprete it) is shedding light, giving you tremendous awareness. You become like a cat that is just wathing at the mousehole, ready to jump at any moment but still utterly relaxed and centered in awareness. Just check this in the morning when you wake up: your first thought, it is almost no thought, more like a feeling " I am " . And when you really stay with " I am " you have to be prepared, that the " I " will disappear. You should think about if you really want this... All the best and good luck on your journey and feel free to ask or criticize or whatever Stefan Nisargadatta: " Go deep into the sense of 'I am' and you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotton? You keep it in your mind until you recall it. The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am', without moving, you enter a state that cannot be verbalized but can be experienced. All you need to do is to try and try again. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 " And then, in a > startling recognition, something pure and independent, > something that had *no* investment, something that I > hazard not to name...and I got up and moved into a > very changed life. > > In that moment I found Freedom. > > Bill > What Freedom Can an 'I' find? As long as there is a sense of 'I' to evaluate something found, could that freedom be more than comparing two states? Does the mind, when comparing two states creates a third state? So what had " *no* investment " , was that doing the comparing? Was not that only a memory being compared to another memory, when the comparing was going on? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 " And then, in a > startling recognition, something pure and independent, > something that had *no* investment, something that I > hazard not to name...and I got up and moved into a > very changed life. > > In that moment I found Freedom. > > Bill > What Freedom Can an 'I' find? As long as there is a sense of 'I' to evaluate something found, could that freedom be more than comparing two states? >>>>>>>>>>> You are picking at words. Using the word " I " in the sentence does not entail a " sense of 'I' " . There is so such thing as a " sense of 'I' " as far a *I* am concerned. That last statement is not a contradiction in terms. <<<<<<<<<<< Does the mind, when comparing two states creates a third state? >>>>>>>>>> Freedom as I spoke of it is not a " state " . <<<<<<<<<< So what had " *no* investment " , was that doing the comparing? Was not that only a memory being compared to another memory, when the comparing was going on? Pete >>>>>>>>>> As I indicated I can not put into words what it was that I noted with a startling recognition. And it is not something that I think about. It is not even important, as far as I am concerned. An indirect way of putting it is that I saw that the " streams of pulses/seeds " were not me and something shifted. I noted afterward that I no longer felt any sense of obligation or investment... that a concern about " what I do " was now mysteriously absent. I referred to that as Freedom. There have been a few more (perhaps lesser) " shifts " since the time of the account I gave in the previous post. I find all of it baffling to talk about because what seems to be happening is a progressive elimination of subjective experience. How can I talk about an experience of a lessening of subjective experience? I do note that there is not really a sense of my " state " , of " how I am " ... and I realize that such has not always been the case. I laugh when people try to catch me on " logical flaws " in what I say (such as when you said, " What Freedom Can an 'I' find? " ), since what I say is not derived from or produced via logic. I don't worry about using words like " I " and " me " ... I know they don't refer to any entity. I say what I say, letting the words come as they will. I don't know where the words come from. Indeed, why even consider that they come *from* someplace? The words happen, and that is enough for " me " I would not speak of myself as " having found Freedom " now, though back at the time I described that was an important description for me. I don't feel motivated to make any such statement anymore. What is the case for me now I simply cannot describe, but I *can* say many things that are *not* the case, including any sense of what I am, who I am, or how I am, and any " sense of an 'I' " . Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > " And then, in a > > startling recognition, something pure and independent, > > something that had *no* investment, something that I > > hazard not to name...and I got up and moved into a > > very changed life. > > > > In that moment I found Freedom. > > > > Bill > > > > What Freedom Can an 'I' find? > > As long as there is a sense of 'I' to evaluate > something found, could that freedom be more than > comparing two states? > >>>>>>>>>>> > You are picking at words. Using the word " I " > in the sentence does not entail a " sense of 'I' " . > There is so such thing as a " sense of 'I' " as > far a *I* am concerned. That last statement is > not a contradiction in terms. > > <<<<<<<<<<< > Does the mind, when comparing two states creates > a third state? > >>>>>>>>>> > Freedom as I spoke of it is not a " state " . > > <<<<<<<<<< > So what had " *no* investment " , was that doing the > comparing? Was not that only a memory being compared > to another memory, when the comparing was going on? > > Pete > >>>>>>>>>> > As I indicated I can not put into words what it > was that I noted with a startling recognition. > And it is not something that I think about. It is > not even important, as far as I am concerned. An > indirect way of putting it is that I saw that the > " streams of pulses/seeds " were not me and something > shifted. I noted afterward that I no longer felt > any sense of obligation or investment... that a > concern about " what I do " was now mysteriously > absent. I referred to that as Freedom. > > There have been a few more (perhaps lesser) " shifts " > since the time of the account I gave in the previous > post. I find all of it baffling to talk about because > what seems to be happening is a progressive elimination > of subjective experience. How can I talk about an > experience of a lessening of subjective experience? > I do note that there is not really a sense of my " state " , > of " how I am " ... and I realize that such has not always > been the case. > > I laugh when people try to catch me on " logical flaws " > in what I say (such as when you said, " What Freedom Can > an 'I' find? " ), since what I say is not derived from or > produced via logic. I don't worry about using words > like " I " and " me " ... I know they don't refer to any > entity. I say what I say, letting the words come as > they will. I don't know where the words come from. > Indeed, why even consider that they come *from* > someplace? The words happen, and that is enough for > " me " > > I would not speak of myself as " having found Freedom " > now, though back at the time I described that was an > important description for me. I don't feel motivated > to make any such statement anymore. > > What is the case for me now I simply cannot describe, > but I *can* say many things that are *not* the case, > including any sense of what I am, who I am, or how I > am, and any " sense of an 'I' " . > > Bill Good! This seems clearer. So 'that something..'could at times present itself as pure sensation, pure in the sense of being free of thought, or a sense of a perceiver. What is there, is there in its sensated wholeness. As if the body had adquired an extra sense by which to feel what was seen before as the world. And what was before the outside, is now as intimate as the subjective was before. No objective, no subjective, only this. The me/memories come and go on this, but are no longer an 'I' in need of protection. Solidity and voidness interchange places like the two views of an optical illusion that has been cracked. The endless subject is the infinite object, and yet neither. That sort of thing? > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Pete: <<<<<<< Good! This seems clearer. So 'that something..'could at times present itself as pure sensation, pure in the sense of being free of thought, or a sense of a perceiver. >>>>>>>> By " that something... " I assume you are referring to where I wrote " > " And then, in a > > startling recognition, something pure and independent, > > something that had *no* investment, something that I > > hazard not to name...and I got up and moved into a > > very changed life. My account is admittedly rather confusing (though not a lot I can do about that). The " something " I refer to there is something that I " apprehended " at that particular time and which I haven't really thought about since, except the couple of occasions such as this when I have described that experience. I did sense " something " but it was so *rarified*... and I feel some kind of inhibition at even trying to describe. And I know if I *did* try to describe it would be generally misinterpreted. Anyway, whatever that " something " was, I don't dwell on it. It is not important it seems. What *was* important for me -- it seems -- is that I somehow saw in a very clear way that neither my feelings or my thoughts were " me " nor were they in a sense even *OF* me (not that there is a " me " mind you... words are such a tangle!). I realized that I *really didn't know* what Niz meant by " I Am " , even though I had considered all along that I did. And I went from realizing that I didn't know what he meant to deeply inquiring in what the " I am " really is/really means. And somehow through that inquiry I came out not identified with (it would seem) *beingness*. The very appearance of subjective sensation no longer had the hold on me it formerly did. This is a point I have tried very hard to get across on some of the non-dual lists in some of my posts in recent months past. But very few seemed to get what I was trying to say. It seems to me that the big illusion that isn't really talked much about but which is the real " gotcha " for most of us is the illusion of having subjective experience. We can get into a philisophical fantasy of how the mountains and trees etc etc aren't *really* real, but our own feelings and thoughts, those seem *certainly* real because by the very evidence of our direct sense of them. Even if we consider that thoughts and feelings are misleading and not to be trusted, many of us will believe that they are real, that they exist, etc. This is a difficult topic, but I believe it can be addressed rigorously. But either the other party already " gets it " (very very few IMO), or the other party doesn't get it and is in no mood for a rigorous investigation. And I have lost the felt need to convey about it anyway. Pete: <<<<< What is there, is there in its sensated wholeness. As if the body had adquired an extra sense by which to feel what was seen before as the world. And what was before the outside, is now as intimate as the subjective was before. No objective, no subjective, only this. The me/memories come and go on this, but are no longer an 'I' in need of protection. Solidity and voidness interchange places like the two views of an optical illusion that has been cracked. The endless subject is the infinite object, and yet neither. That sort of thing? >>>>> Yep. What a wierd sensation to read what you wrote above. The way you put " sense " into it... I don't know if I would want to do that... but am unsure. Yes, it is all one ball of wax... But I can't apprehend " What Is " as such. Sometimes/often/most always(/maybe always?) it seems as if there is a kind of " void numbness " (and I *really* hesitate to put those words to it)... it is just *so wierd*... it is vivid, it is clear, yet there is no HANDLE anywhere. It is as if my ability to appercieve had been surgically removed. It is as if the whole world (including my own subjectivity) were like the blind spot of the eye. Or again, as if What Is were a " null pointer " and that all I sense there is a vague, broadly spread kind of numbness. So yes, as you say, in that subjective/objective are inseparable... but the " whole " that supposedly represents " all of it " now... that whole I cannot " sense " per se. But really that makes sense, for any " I " can only be that " whole " , and that whole cannot sense itself. In that regard the blind spot of the eye is a perfect analogy. Bill PS: Talking about this seems to be therapeutic for me. I have been not-at-all-understood by many when I have attempted to speak about the above. I found solace in a quote from the Ashtavakra Gita that someone shared with me yesterday: I think of things without thinking. All my impressions of the world Have dissolved. And only those like me Understand my ways. Who understands " thinking of things without thinking " ? Who understands " All my impressions of the world have dissolved. " ? The above lines are the parts of the chapter I especially relate to. To see the whole chapter (The Fool) see: http://www.swcp.com/~robicks/gita14.htm Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > " And then, in a > > startling recognition, something pure and independent, > > something that had *no* investment, something that I > > hazard not to name...and I got up and moved into a > > very changed life. > > > > In that moment I found Freedom. > > > > Bill > > > > What Freedom Can an 'I' find? > > As long as there is a sense of 'I' to evaluate > something found, could that freedom be more than > comparing two states? > >>>>>>>>>>> > You are picking at words. Using the word " I " > in the sentence does not entail a " sense of 'I' " . > There is so such thing as a " sense of 'I' " as > far a *I* am concerned. That last statement is > not a contradiction in terms. > > <<<<<<<<<<< > Does the mind, when comparing two states creates > a third state? > >>>>>>>>>> > Freedom as I spoke of it is not a " state " . > > <<<<<<<<<< > So what had " *no* investment " , was that doing the > comparing? Was not that only a memory being compared > to another memory, when the comparing was going on? > > Pete > >>>>>>>>>> > As I indicated I can not put into words what it > was that I noted with a startling recognition. > And it is not something that I think about. It is > not even important, as far as I am concerned. An > indirect way of putting it is that I saw that the > " streams of pulses/seeds " were not me and something > shifted. I noted afterward that I no longer felt > any sense of obligation or investment... that a > concern about " what I do " was now mysteriously > absent. I referred to that as Freedom. > > There have been a few more (perhaps lesser) " shifts " > since the time of the account I gave in the previous > post. I find all of it baffling to talk about because > what seems to be happening is a progressive elimination > of subjective experience. How can I talk about an > experience of a lessening of subjective experience? > I do note that there is not really a sense of my " state " , > of " how I am " ... and I realize that such has not always > been the case. > > I laugh when people try to catch me on " logical flaws " > in what I say (such as when you said, " What Freedom Can > an 'I' find? " ), since what I say is not derived from or > produced via logic. I don't worry about using words > like " I " and " me " ... I know they don't refer to any > entity. I say what I say, letting the words come as > they will. I don't know where the words come from. > Indeed, why even consider that they come *from* > someplace? The words happen, and that is enough for > " me " > > I would not speak of myself as " having found Freedom " > now, though back at the time I described that was an > important description for me. I don't feel motivated > to make any such statement anymore. > > What is the case for me now I simply cannot describe, > but I *can* say many things that are *not* the case, > including any sense of what I am, who I am, or how I > am, and any " sense of an 'I' " . > > Bill Good! This seems clearer. So 'that something..'could at times present itself as pure sensation, pure in the sense of being free of thought, or a sense of a perceiver. What is there, is there in its sensated wholeness. As if the body had adquired an extra sense by which to feel what was seen before as the world. And what was before the outside, is now as intimate as the subjective was before. No objective, no subjective, only this. The me/memories come and go on this, but are no longer an 'I' in need of protection. Solidity and voidness interchange places like the two views of an optical illusion that has been cracked. The endless subject is the infinite object, and yet neither. That sort of thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Tyrone: my favorite line from the ashtavakra gita, though i forgets its chapter and verse, is " i accept nothing, i reject nothing. i am content " >>>> What a great quote... I found the reference here: http://www.swcp.com/~robicks/gita13.htm Byrom (trans.) has it as: I accept nothing. I reject nothing. And I am happy. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > What Freedom Can an 'I' find? > > As long as there is a sense of 'I' to evaluate > something found, could that freedom be more than > comparing two states? > >>>>>>>>>>> > You are picking at words. I must say in defense for Pete that IMO he is not picking words at all, he just showed that his mind is sharpened like a sword should be that is meant to cut the ropes of duality. You should not be affected by this statement either, no need :-)) Greetings Stefan 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.