More on the subject of our true nature

May 20, 2009

A short while ago the question was raised: how long does it take to realize our true nature? And then some opinions were expressed which questioned whether or not we indeed have a true nature.

So firstly, let me state that from my point of view, the perception and expression of what it is that is our true nature is simply another way that attempts to describe what we are in actual fact, It is (to borrow Geoâ€™s term) realizing our self as the 'ground' from which every thing arises.

Although we can never be anything other that what we are, we can certainly live in a state of blissful ignorance as to what that is. So when one reaches a state where the desire to understand what is really going on in this life becomes significantly precious, it is then that the process of self-inquiry really begins to take a firm foothold in our life. This involves a process of trying to resolve the perplexing questions such as â€œwhat am I, reallyâ€, and/or â€œwhat is this â€˜meâ€™ that I sense?â€ It is within this process that it will eventually be revealed that it is our own mind(s) that have very often led us away from our self by constructing elaborate structured worlds of thought, (worlds built upon the very formidable, but nevertheless strictly mental ideas of

duality) which over time we have allowed to be accepted as our reality.

So, returning to the original question about the time it takes to realize our true nature, whatever length of time is involved in this process is really a matter of the amount of time it takes to unravel our thought world(s). As is confirmed intuitively, the conceptual ideas which the mind has fashioned and amassed over a lifetime, must in turn be disassembled and deconstructed by the very same mind. (neti neti). So the further we delve into this process of self-inquiry, and the more we scrutinize the basis of the house of cards which we have built for our selves, the more we find this house of cards collapsing under its own weight. And so, it turns out that what we are is that which remains after removing all our mental ideas, including the very primary idea of â€˜I

amâ€™.

I think all on this site would agree that this process is not really for the faint of heart, since the further we inquire into the nature of our self, the more the individual entity disappears.

However, what remains after all this deconstructing is still most assuredly our self, as must be the case without there being any possibility of any doubt. Although the mind cannot quite fathom this self, as it can never be bound within any limited structure, we often find it convenient to use the title of calling it That.

Time and again the great self-realized sages have professed the need to quiet the mind in order to be able to transcend the mind. Why is this necessary? Because to realize our self we must find that which precedes thought itself â€“ One must come to a place where one can comfortably accept his or her self as the ground; that which is prior to all things; to comfortably settle into the place of understanding where it is realized that what we refer to as our self is ultimately the very source of all there is.

Following is an excerpt taken from one of the quiet musings of Nisargadatta, in which he walks us through his process. I will let it speak for itself:

â€œPeople think that I am a Jnani. They come to me from all over the world â€” from Canada to Australia and New Zealand, from England to Japan. Most of them have read I Am That and come all the way to Bombay only to meet me.

With great difficulty they are able to locate this little old house of mine in a dirty, narrow street. They climb up the stairs and find a small dark man in the simplest of clothing, sitting in a corner. They think: This man doesn't look like a Jnani; he does not dress impressively, as someone known as Nisargadatta Maharaj could be expected to do. Could he really be the one? What can I say to these people? I tell them quite frankly that my education is up to the level which can barely put me in the category of the literate; I have not read any of the great traditional scriptures and the only language I know is my native Marathi. The only enquiry I have pursued, but pursued it relentlessly â€” like a hunter pursues his quarryâ€” is this: 'I know I am and I have a body.

How could this happen without my knowledge and consent? And what is this knowledge I am?' This has been my life-long pursuit and I am fully satisfied with the answers I have reached. This is my only Jnana, yet people believe I am a Jnani. My Guru told me: "You are Brahman, you are all and everything. There is nothing other than you." I accepted my Guru's word as truth, and now, for forty odd years I have been sitting in this very room doing nothing except talking about it. Why do people come to me from distant lands? What a miracle!

After pursuing my enquiry to its logical conclusion what have I arrived at? The whole thing is really simple, if only one sees the picture clearly. What is this 'me' that I am concerned with? The immediate answer, of course, is â€” 'this me, this body'. But then the body is only a psychosomatic apparatus. What is the most important element in this apparatus which qualifies it to be known as a sentient being? It is undoubtedly the consciousness without which this apparatus, while perhaps technically alive, would be useless as far its functioning is concerned. This consciousness obviously needs a physical construct in which to manifest itself. So, consciousness depends upon the body.

But what is the body made of? How does the body come into existence? The body is merely a growth in the woman's womb during a period of about nine months, the growth of what is conceived by the union of the male and female sexual fluids. These fluids are the essence of the food consumed by the parents. Basically, therefore, both consciousness and the body are made of, and are sustained by food. Indeed, the body itself is food â€” one body being the food of some other body. When the food-essence, the vital sexual fluids, grows from conception into a tiny body and is delivered out of the mother's womb, it is called 'birth'. And when this food essence gets decayed due to age or illness and the psychosomatic apparatus happens to get destroyed, it is called 'death'. This

is what happens all the time â€” the objective universe projecting and dissolving innumerable forms; the picture keeps on changing all the time. But how am 'I' concerned with this? I am merely the witness to all this happening. Whatever happens during the period of the happening, in each case, affects only the psychosomatic apparatus, not the 'I' that I am.

This is the extent of my 'knowledge', basically. Once it is clear that whatever happens in the manifested world is something apart from me, as the 'I', all other questions resolve themselves.

At what stage exactly did I come to have the knowledge of my 'existence'? What was I before this knowledge 'I am' came to me? This knowledge 'I am' has been with me ever since I can remember, perhaps a few months after this body was born. Therefore, memory itself must have come with this knowledge 'I am', this consciousness. What was the position before that? The answer is: I do not know. Therefore, whatever I know of anything has its beginning in consciousness, including pain and pleasure, day and night, waking and sleeping â€” indeed the entire gamut of dualities and opposites in which one cannot exist without the other. Again, what was the position before consciousness arose? These interrelated opposites inevitably must have existed but only in negation, in unicity, in wholeness. This must

then be the answer. This unicity is what I am. But this unicity, this identity, this wholeness cannot know itself because in it there exists no subject as separate from an objectâ€”a position that is necessary for the process of seeing, or knowing, or cognizing. In other words, in the original state of unicity, or wholeness, no medium or instrument exists through which 'knowing' may take place.

Mind cannot be used to transcend the mind. The eye cannot see itself; taste cannot taste itself; sound cannot hear itself. 'Phenomena' cannot be phenomena without 'noumenon'. The limit of possible conceptualization â€” the abstract of mind â€” is noumenon, the infinity of the unknown.

Noumenon, the only subject, objectifies itself and perceives the universe, manifesting phenomenally within itself, but apparently outside, in order to be a perceivable object. For the noumenon to manifest itself objectively as the phenomenal universe, the concept of space-time comes into operation because objects, in order to be cognizable, have to be extended in space by giving them volume and must be stretched in duration or time because otherwise they could not be perceived.

So, now I have the whole picture: The sentient being is only a very small part within the

process of the apparent mirrorization of the noumenon into the phenomenal universe. It is only one object in the total objectivization and, as such, 'we' can have no nature of our own. And yet â€” and this is importantâ€” phenomena are not something separately created, or even projected, but are indeed noumenon conceptualized or objectivized. In other words, the difference is purely notional.

Without the notion, they are ever inseparable, and there is no real duality between noumenon and phenomena.

This identity â€” this inseparableness â€” is the key to the understanding, or rather the

apperceiving of our true nature, because if this basic unity between the noumenon and the

phenomenon is lost sight of, we would get bogged down in the quagmire of objectivization and concepts. Once it is understood that the noumenon is all that we are, and that the phenomena are what we appear to be as separate objects, it will also be understood that no entity can be involved in what we are, and therefore, the concept of an entity needing 'liberation' will be seen as nonsense; and 'liberation', if any, will be seen as liberation from the very

concept of bondage and liberation.

When I think about what I was before I was 'born', I know that this concept of 'I am' was not there. In the absence of consciousness, there is no conceptualizing; and whatever seeing takes place is not what one â€” an entity â€” sees as a subject/object, but is seeing from within, from the source of all seeing. And then, through this 'awakening', I realize that the all-enveloping wholeness of the Absolute can not have even a touch of the relative imperfection; and so I must, relatively, live through the allotted span of life until at the end of it, this relative 'knowledge' merges in the no-knowing state of the Absolute. This temporary condition of 'I-know' and 'I-know-that-I-know' then merges into that eternal state of 'I-do-not-know' and 'I-do-not-know' that 'I-do-not-know. â€œâ€¢â€¢

Marv

May 20, 2009

...........When I think about what I was before I was 'born', I know that this

concept of 'I am' was not there. In the absence of consciousness, there is no

conceptualizing; and whatever seeing takes place is not what one â€ " an entity

â€ " sees as a subject/object, but is seeing from within, from the source of all

seeing. And then, through this 'awakening', I realize that the all-enveloping

wholeness of the Absolute can not have even a touch of the relative

imperfection; and so I must, relatively, live through the allotted span of life

until at the end of it, this relative 'knowledge' merges in the no-knowing state

of the Absolute. This temporary condition of 'I-know' and 'I-know-that-I-know'

then merges into that eternal state of 'I-do-not-know' and 'I-do-not-know' that

'I-do-not-know. â€œâ€¢â€¢

> Â

> Marv

>

Do you imagine, Marv, that the mind can conceptualize its own " condition " ?

toombaru

May 20, 2009

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> ..........When I think about what I was before I was 'born', I know that this