Nisargadatta's 'I Am'

June 21, 2005

A friend of mine posted this after I mentioned that this is all there

is(yep a real common term around here).This hits home hard so enjoy

yourself,Doug...............

I was reading from Nisargadatta's 'I am That' this morning and found

these interesting few lines. If OK with you I would want to say a

few words about this, although I am sure there are members of our

group much better equiped to elaborate on his teaching.

Nisargadatta:

' You are on the level of mind. When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I

am all' comes. Whe the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I

am' goes, reality alone is... (snip Moller).

My sense of what Nisargadatta tries to communicate here is that the

levels of 'mind' are very subtly embedded in our being and we could

very easily mistaken aspects or projections of mind for reality.

The first level of confusion is when I am totally identified with

mind. The center of everything is me and myself and this me presents

itself as the observer, the doer, the thinker, the consciousness

behind all experiences which it regards as not-self. This is the

fundamental dualistic condition of the 'I' in the I-conscious state.

Here mind takes on the dualistic vision of me and myself, the

separate self-sense.

When this world of self and other (I am myself) begins to fall apart

through introspection and perhaps some kinds of insight, it becomes

apparent that this dualistic proposition is no longer sustainable.

Mind then projects a vision of what it believes wholeness is and

comes to the conclusion that 'I am all'. Here the delusion of

separation is not so apparent because while we are absorbed in the

mind, any projection of mind as wholeness appears to us as wholeness

itself.

For instance, I have often been critical of what I have called the

Advaitist Dream. Here, being unknowingly caught in the world of

thought (mind), when thought projects the notion of the non-

separation of everything in and as Consciousness, the individual

truly believes that they stand in the fullness of the Unitive nature

of Consciousness. (Please I am not suggesting there is such

a 'thing' as Consciousness. I am merely repeating their supposition

that there is). In this, the projection of thought about Wholeness is

mistaken for reality, and the individual lives a misunderstanding

mistaken for Truth. This makes many truly feel that they are

enlightened, while in truth they are only busy with the thought about

enlightenment (nonduality), which clearly is not the living,

experiential reality of this fact of non-duality. Here the delusion

is very difficult to break free from, because the individual is

deeply convinced that the state they describe is the real thing.

Now ,someone comes along and tap such a person on the shoulder and

say to them: ' Listen, my friend, perhaps you are fooling yourself

about your own enlightened state. If you were to stop for one moment

projecting the notion (thought) of your inherent wholeness, would you

still be enlightened, whole, nondual? So, what came first, your

enlightenment, or the thought of enlightenment? Does your

enlightenment exist as a living truth when thought is not around to

confirm its own projection about 'your' (note the dualism) nondual

state?'

This sets the guy thinking again, and let's say they abandon their

identification with the thought if nondualism.

Now they ask themselves, but to whom did this thought occur? After

all, this thought did occur to some inner principle, otherwise how

could it have been noticed? Here the fellow moves into the third

state of delusion Nisargadatta points to: 'I am'. Now the person

becomes convinced that there is is nothing more fundamental to their

life than this mere sense of 'I am'. And when they read books about

these matters, they get confirmation from many advaitist writings

that this 'I am', is the genuine article. It is the Witness, the

One behind all appearances. This makes immediate sense to such a

person because it confirms the suspicion they have always had that

the observer is real and that everything appears to me as the

observer. But because this dualistic state has never been properly

inspected, so that the falseness of it has been seen for what it is,

the individual now becomes totally convinced that the Witness is the

final truth to human life. They now assume the position of the

objective observer, the mere Witnesser of passing events. No longer

affected by the visitudes of changing life circumstances.

Yet again we notice the subtle delusion Nisargadatta is pointing to

here. This is still a state of mind, and of no higher quality than

any other projection of thought. The Witness still rests on the

subtle projection of separation between the observer and the

observed. Thought may create the image of the free person who merely

looks at life as a mirror would reflect events objectively to

itself, and therefore as existing separately from its own reflective

surface. Again we see the power of identification. Because such an

individual has not investigated the binding power of identification

and the inner workings of thought and attention which hold such forms

of identification in place, they completely become identified with

this new projection of thought - the Witness, 'I am'. And this

notion finds resonanace in many of the traditional teachings where

consciousness is described as the Ultimate Witness, and the need for

identification between one's personal sense of the 'observer', (the

Jiva or 'I') and the Universal notion of 'Consciousness'. In this

way, Nisargadatta points out, the delusion of separateness remains in

tact.

Then, when this illusion of the free separate observer gets shattered

by the challenges of life and the painful realization that such

objective 'Witnessing' does not resolve deep emotional and traumatic

incidents in one's life, other than as a form of resistance,

avoidance or escape, it may begin to dawn on such an individual that

yet another step needs to be taken. Freedom from suffering is not

yet the case. But how?

Again, if through luck, co-incidence or the kind suggestion of a

true spiritual friend, such a person is made aware, or become aware,

of the falseness of the entire project of thought projecting some

truth about things and how through identification with this 'truth'

it assumes the disposition of reality, the direct path to freedom is

entered. Although still deeply conditioned by the power of

identification, projection and transference, the individual now

begins to assume responsibility for their own inner activities. They

begin to observe the workings of thought, attention, awareness,

identification and so on. And with correct guidance and a dedicated

heart, it may gradually dawn on such a person that mind is the slayer

of truth. That no aspect of mind could be trusted to allow for the

revelation of the natural nondual condition of the living moment.

This has to be re-cognized, understaood and gradually transcended.

At this point the whole thing begins to relax and when the entire

process of seeking and projection begins to fragment and starts to

fall away by non-use, and the instruments of delusion no longer

function in unawareness, 'reality alone' begins to shine through the

fog of confusion and self-delusion. Here no sense of 'I'

exists. 'There is only This'.

Hand in hand,

Moller de la ouviere

www.spireitualhumanism.co.za

Author of: Spirituality Without God.

June 21, 2005

Nisargadatta , " chefboy2160 " <chefboy2160>

wrote:

> A friend of mine posted this after I mentioned that this is all there

> is(yep a real common term around here).This hits home hard so enjoy

> yourself,Doug...............

>

> I was reading from Nisargadatta's 'I am That' this morning and found

> these interesting few lines. If OK with you I would want to say a

> few words about this, although I am sure there are members of our

> group much better equiped to elaborate on his teaching.

>

> Nisargadatta:

>

> ' You are on the level of mind. When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I

> am all' comes. Whe the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I

> am' goes, reality alone is... (snip Moller).

>

> My sense of what Nisargadatta tries to communicate here is that the

> levels of 'mind' are very subtly embedded in our being and we could

> very easily mistaken aspects or projections of mind for reality.

>

> The first level of confusion is when I am totally identified with

> mind. The center of everything is me and myself and this me presents

> itself as the observer, the doer, the thinker, the consciousness

> behind all experiences which it regards as not-self. This is the

> fundamental dualistic condition of the 'I' in the I-conscious state.

> Here mind takes on the dualistic vision of me and myself, the

> separate self-sense.

>

> When this world of self and other (I am myself) begins to fall apart

> through introspection and perhaps some kinds of insight, it becomes

> apparent that this dualistic proposition is no longer sustainable.

> Mind then projects a vision of what it believes wholeness is and

> comes to the conclusion that 'I am all'. Here the delusion of

> separation is not so apparent because while we are absorbed in the

> mind, any projection of mind as wholeness appears to us as wholeness

> itself.

>

> For instance, I have often been critical of what I have called the

> Advaitist Dream. Here, being unknowingly caught in the world of

> thought (mind), when thought projects the notion of the non-

> separation of everything in and as Consciousness, the individual

> truly believes that they stand in the fullness of the Unitive nature

> of Consciousness. (Please I am not suggesting there is such

> a 'thing' as Consciousness. I am merely repeating their supposition

> that there is). In this, the projection of thought about Wholeness is

> mistaken for reality, and the individual lives a misunderstanding

> mistaken for Truth. This makes many truly feel that they are

> enlightened, while in truth they are only busy with the thought about

> enlightenment (nonduality), which clearly is not the living,

> experiential reality of this fact of non-duality. Here the delusion

> is very difficult to break free from, because the individual is

> deeply convinced that the state they describe is the real thing.

>

> Now ,someone comes along and tap such a person on the shoulder and

> say to them: ' Listen, my friend, perhaps you are fooling yourself

> about your own enlightened state. If you were to stop for one moment

> projecting the notion (thought) of your inherent wholeness, would you

> still be enlightened, whole, nondual? So, what came first, your

> enlightenment, or the thought of enlightenment? Does your

> enlightenment exist as a living truth when thought is not around to

> confirm its own projection about 'your' (note the dualism) nondual

> state?'

>

> This sets the guy thinking again, and let's say they abandon their

> identification with the thought if nondualism.

>

> Now they ask themselves, but to whom did this thought occur? After

> all, this thought did occur to some inner principle, otherwise how

> could it have been noticed? Here the fellow moves into the third

> state of delusion Nisargadatta points to: 'I am'. Now the person

> becomes convinced that there is is nothing more fundamental to their

> life than this mere sense of 'I am'. And when they read books about

> these matters, they get confirmation from many advaitist writings

> that this 'I am', is the genuine article. It is the Witness, the

> One behind all appearances. This makes immediate sense to such a

> person because it confirms the suspicion they have always had that

> the observer is real and that everything appears to me as the

> observer. But because this dualistic state has never been properly

> inspected, so that the falseness of it has been seen for what it is,

> the individual now becomes totally convinced that the Witness is the

> final truth to human life. They now assume the position of the

> objective observer, the mere Witnesser of passing events. No longer

> affected by the visitudes of changing life circumstances.

>

> Yet again we notice the subtle delusion Nisargadatta is pointing to

> here. This is still a state of mind, and of no higher quality than

> any other projection of thought. The Witness still rests on the

> subtle projection of separation between the observer and the

> observed. Thought may create the image of the free person who merely

> looks at life as a mirror would reflect events objectively to

> itself, and therefore as existing separately from its own reflective

> surface. Again we see the power of identification. Because such an

> individual has not investigated the binding power of identification

> and the inner workings of thought and attention which hold such forms

> of identification in place, they completely become identified with

> this new projection of thought - the Witness, 'I am'. And this

> notion finds resonanace in many of the traditional teachings where

> consciousness is described as the Ultimate Witness, and the need for

> identification between one's personal sense of the 'observer', (the

> Jiva or 'I') and the Universal notion of 'Consciousness'. In this

> way, Nisargadatta points out, the delusion of separateness remains in

> tact.

>

> Then, when this illusion of the free separate observer gets shattered

> by the challenges of life and the painful realization that such

> objective 'Witnessing' does not resolve deep emotional and traumatic

> incidents in one's life, other than as a form of resistance,

> avoidance or escape, it may begin to dawn on such an individual that

> yet another step needs to be taken. Freedom from suffering is not

> yet the case. But how?

>

> Again, if through luck, co-incidence or the kind suggestion of a

> true spiritual friend, such a person is made aware, or become aware,

> of the falseness of the entire project of thought projecting some

> truth about things and how through identification with this 'truth'

> it assumes the disposition of reality, the direct path to freedom is

> entered. Although still deeply conditioned by the power of

> identification, projection and transference, the individual now

> begins to assume responsibility for their own inner activities. They

> begin to observe the workings of thought, attention, awareness,

> identification and so on. And with correct guidance and a dedicated

> heart, it may gradually dawn on such a person that mind is the slayer

> of truth. That no aspect of mind could be trusted to allow for the

> revelation of the natural nondual condition of the living moment.

> This has to be re-cognized, understaood and gradually transcended.

> At this point the whole thing begins to relax and when the entire

> process of seeking and projection begins to fragment and starts to

> fall away by non-use, and the instruments of delusion no longer

> function in unawareness, 'reality alone' begins to shine through the

> fog of confusion and self-delusion. Here no sense of 'I'

> exists. 'There is only This'.

>

> Hand in hand,

> Moller de la ouviere

> www.spireitualhumanism.co.za

> Author of: Spirituality Without God.

'There is only This' is one of the last and greatest delusions of them

all. Just enough to keep one hanging on to some thing. Those that

promote it can't give it up as it is a dependency always denied. For

then what would they have to point to? What need for their services?

Guidance? Elaborations of the psychology of realization, the art of

reading between lines and in between words is a highway to hysteria.

Lewis

June 21, 2005

-

Lewis Burgess

Nisargadatta

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:43 PM

Re: Nisargadatta's 'I Am'