Some more quotes to assist understanding of Niz's teaching

[Guest guest]

Hey Stefan, Fuzzie, all --

 

That witness sense, and the sense of iamness or identity with

g-d are merely phases that pass, according to Niz.

 

Who you are isn't consciousness, isn't identity nor identifiable,

isn't a witness, isn't continuing -- according to Niz:

 

" The sweetness is the nature of sugar;

but that sweetness is there only so long as the sugar is present.

Once the sugar has been consumed or thrown away, there is no more

sweetness. So this knowledge " I am, " this consciousness, this

feeling or sense of Being, is the quintessence of the body. And if

that body essence is gone, this feeling, the sense of Being, will

also have gone. This sense of Being cannot remeain without the body,

just as sweetness cannot remain without the material, which is sugar.

Visitor: What remains then?

Maharaj: What remains is the Original, which is unconditioned,

without attributes, and without identity: that on which this

temporary state of the consciousness and the three states and the

three gunas have come and gone. It is called Parabrahman, the

Absolute.

This is my basic teaching. "

 

" The Ultimate Medicine, " p. 35

 

From Niz's " I am That " :

 

Who is there to be conscious of unconsciousness? As long as the

window is open, there is sunlight in the room. With the windows

shut, the sun remains, but does it see the darkness in the room? Is

there anything like darkness to the sun? There is no such thing as

unconsciousness, for unconsciousness is not experienceable.

Even faith in God is only a stage on the way. Ultimately, you

abandon all, for you come to something so simple that there are no

words to express it.

 

As long as one is conscious, there will be pain and pleasure. You

cannot fight pain and pleasure on the level of consciousness. To go

beyond them, you must go beyond consciousness, which is possible

only when you look at consciousness as something that happens to

you, and not in you, as something external, alien, superimposed.

Then, suddenly you are free of consciousness, really alone, with

nothing to intrude. And that is your true state. Consciousness is an

itching rash that makes you scratch. Of course, you cannot step out

of consciousness, for the very stepping out is in consciousness. But

if you learn to look at your consciousness as a sort of fever,

personal and private, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its

shell, out of this very attitude will come the crisis which will

break the

shell.

 

Is there a world outside your knowledge? Can you go beyond what you

know? You may postulate a world beyond the mind, but it will remain

a concept, unproved and unprovable. Your experience is your proof,

and it is valid for you only. Who else can have your experience,

when the other person is only as real as he appears in your

experience?

 

In reality nothing happens, there is no past nor future; all appears

and nothing is.

 

-- Dan

 

(nothing new below)

 

>Hi, Stefan:

 

> I don't think it gets much plainer than that. Here's another:

 

> " Know yourself to be the changeless witness of the changeful mind.

That is enough. "

 

> Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

 

> Thanks.

 

> fuzzie

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta (from " I am That " )

>

> I am now 74 years old. And yet I feel that I am an infant. I feel

> clearly that in spite of all the changes I am a child. My Guru told

> me: that child, which is you even now, is your real self

(swarupa). Go

> back to that state of pure being, where the 'I am' is still in its

> purity before it got contaminated with 'this I am' or 'that I am'.

> Your burden is of false self-identifications -- abandon them all.

My

> Guru told me -- 'Trust me. I tell you; you are divine. Take it as

the

> absolute truth. Your joy is divine, your suffering is divine too.

All

> comes from God. Remember it always. You are God, your will alone is

> done'. I did believe him and soon realised how wonderfully true and

> accurate were his words. I did not condition my mind by

thinking: 'I

> am God, I am wonderful, I am beyond'. I simply followed his

> instruction which was to focus the mind on pure being 'I am', and

stay

> in it. I used to sit for hours together, with, nothing but the 'I

am'

> in my mind and soon peace and joy and a deep all-embracing love

became

> my normal state. In it all disappeared -- myself, my Guru, the

life I

> lived, the world around me. Only peace remained and unfathomable

> silence.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

>

> Hey Stefan, Fuzzie, all --

>

> That witness sense, and the sense of iamness or identity with

> g-d are merely phases that pass, according to Niz.

>

> Who you are isn't consciousness, isn't identity nor identifiable,

> isn't a witness, isn't continuing -- according to Niz:

>

> " The sweetness is the nature of sugar;

> but that sweetness is there only so long as the sugar is present.

> Once the sugar has been consumed or thrown away, there is no more

> sweetness. So this knowledge " I am, " this consciousness, this

> feeling or sense of Being, is the quintessence of the body. And if

> that body essence is gone, this feeling, the sense of Being, will

> also have gone. This sense of Being cannot remeain without the body,

> just as sweetness cannot remain without the material, which is sugar.

> Visitor: What remains then?

> Maharaj: What remains is the Original, which is unconditioned,

> without attributes, and without identity: that on which this

> temporary state of the consciousness and the three states and the

> three gunas have come and gone. It is called Parabrahman, the

> Absolute.

> This is my basic teaching. "

>

> " The Ultimate Medicine, " p. 35

>

> From Niz's " I am That " :

>

> Who is there to be conscious of unconsciousness? As long as the

> window is open, there is sunlight in the room. With the windows

> shut, the sun remains, but does it see the darkness in the room? Is

> there anything like darkness to the sun? There is no such thing as

> unconsciousness, for unconsciousness is not experienceable.

> Even faith in God is only a stage on the way. Ultimately, you

> abandon all, for you come to something so simple that there are no

> words to express it.

>

> As long as one is conscious, there will be pain and pleasure. You

> cannot fight pain and pleasure on the level of consciousness. To go

> beyond them, you must go beyond consciousness, which is possible

> only when you look at consciousness as something that happens to

> you, and not in you, as something external, alien, superimposed.

> Then, suddenly you are free of consciousness, really alone, with

> nothing to intrude. And that is your true state. Consciousness is an

> itching rash that makes you scratch. Of course, you cannot step out

> of consciousness, for the very stepping out is in consciousness. But

> if you learn to look at your consciousness as a sort of fever,

> personal and private, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its

> shell, out of this very attitude will come the crisis which will

> break the

> shell.

>

> Is there a world outside your knowledge? Can you go beyond what you

> know? You may postulate a world beyond the mind, but it will remain

> a concept, unproved and unprovable. Your experience is your proof,

> and it is valid for you only. Who else can have your experience,

> when the other person is only as real as he appears in your

> experience?

>

> In reality nothing happens, there is no past nor future; all appears

> and nothing is.

>

> -- Dan

 

 

 

Hi, Dan:

 

I'm not sure about the translation of these texts, whether or not the

term " consciousness " therein designates " mind " or whether it

designates " being " . When I talk about the " I AM " , I am referring to

" being " , not a mental or intellectual construct. My posts are not

necessarily an interpretation of Sri Nisargadatta, but, more an

expression of my own understanding. Maybe if you could express your

understanding in your own words, the discrepancy to which you allude

could be more readily clarified.

 

Thanks for responding.

 

Yours,

 

fuzzie