Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. > > Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. > > Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? > > Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. > > Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. > > Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. > Very simple and that's it, Tim, thanks. Eventually one could ask what has that to do with advaita or non-duality ? It has nothing to do with it, and that is the beauty of it. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. > > Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. > > Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? > > Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. > > Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. > > Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. Thanks for posting this quote and others. I'm glad to learn more about Nisargadatta's teachings. The more that I've learned, the more I find resonances with what I've experienced. When I've heard people discuss Nisargadatta, they often stick to certain concepts, maybe that are more accessible, about being consciousness, and simply being, for example. His discourse about being nothing and not even nothing, is often given short shrift, as are comments such as the one above about inquiry and crisis. Yet, all of this teaching works together. One isn't simply being. Therefore, advice to simply be isn't of much use. Inquiry makes sense, as one being honest understands that one is not simply being. One is dealing with a sense of separation, division. This inevitably returns one to one's self, to one's intent to have an existence and to look out from a center, which Nisargadatta refers to as the sense " I am. " The quote above is nice, it points to the inevitability of crisis. How can there not be a crisis, if there is investment in what is not, in having what isn't there to be had? The sense of security one has attempted to establish must be rocked, which is to say one is rocked, because one is the attempt at security. To say one is rocked, is to stay that the world is rocked, because one is not separate from the world one experiences. (Notice what is happening " in the world " - this is not an individual's inquiry, the untenability of individual existence is what is inquired into, hence the world will be rocked, non-stop as a matter of fact. The more apparent individuals as attempts at existence, the more it will be rocked.) Indeed, it's a matter of honesty, because the false sense of security is being knocked and rocked, but the knocking is ignored. The knocking is ignored so further attempts can be made to fix things. The more attempted fixing, the more security is rocked and knocked, requiring more ignoring and fixing. Thus, the ever-heightening tension, conflict, and economic trouble in the world. Which is continually ignored, as new leaders are found with new promises and new fixes, who then continue to butt heads with each other and with " reality. " " I am " being knocked and rocked. Stop ignoring, and the crisis is immediate. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Pretty much what Nisargadatta is saying above (the door opens both ways). However, when teachers speak to students, inevitably it ends up sounding like the inquiry is made by an individual. The teacher sounds like an individual who resolved a personal dilemma. This is the limitation of teaching. It always has to be directed somewhere, and that somewhere ends up being individual students in relationship with the teacher. Any teaching involves the assumption that someone is providing something meaningful to someone else. And the inquiry is not done by an individual. The inquiry is inquiry into the untenability of an individual point of being, life, existence. Hence, the untenability of an individual's point for making an inquiry, and really the untenability of an individual's point for offering teaching. You could say the universe is the inquiry, the individual is the resistance, and the inquiry is complete the instant that the individual isn't there to try to claim the inquiry (I am seeking, I am making this inquiry) or anything else, such as a state of being (I am rich, I am good-looking, I am happy, I am powerful, I am pissed off, I am in-the-know, I am blissful, I am miserable, I am wretched, etc., etc.) So, the universe (the all, totality) making the inquiry is the answer of the inquiry once the resistance is understood as what it is. It's a totality kind of deal. The resistance isn't something an individual is doing wrong. The resistance is the attempted holding of awareness into a position. Awareness is misunderstanding to whatever extent the positioning seems to " have a hold " or to " make a placement " for awareness. You could say that it's impossible for awareness to misunderstand. Which is true, but only at the point that there is no individual to know this. Which there in fact, is not. Which means not only that resistance is futile, but that resistance in all its aspects, isn't actually resisting anything. Thus, the dream never happened. There is nothing to wake up from or to. The world of the dream, formed by resistance, hasn't formed, hasn't taken place. Peace, - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. > > > > Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. > > > > Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? > > > > Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. > > > > Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. > > > > Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. > > Thanks for posting this quote and others. > > I'm glad to learn more about Nisargadatta's teachings. The more that I've learned, the more I find resonances with what I've experienced. > > When I've heard people discuss Nisargadatta, they often stick to certain concepts, maybe that are more accessible, about being consciousness, and simply being, for example. > > His discourse about being nothing and not even nothing, is often given short shrift, as are comments such as the one above about inquiry and crisis. > > Yet, all of this teaching works together. One isn't simply being. Therefore, advice to simply be isn't of much use. Inquiry makes sense, as one being honest understands that one is not simply being. One is dealing with a sense of separation, division. This inevitably returns one to one's self, to one's intent to have an existence and to look out from a center, which Nisargadatta refers to as the sense " I am. " No, Dan, To look out from a center is not what Nis refered to as the sense " I am " . For him being, consciousness and the I am are just one and the same. The I am is all there is, or consciousness is all there is. Werner > > The quote above is nice, it points to the inevitability of crisis. > > How can there not be a crisis, if there is investment in what is not, in having what isn't there to be had? > > The sense of security one has attempted to establish must be rocked, which is to say one is rocked, because one is the attempt at security. To say one is rocked, is to stay that the world is rocked, because one is not separate from the world one experiences. > > (Notice what is happening " in the world " - this is not an individual's inquiry, the untenability of individual existence is what is inquired into, hence the world will be rocked, non-stop as a matter of fact. The more apparent individuals as attempts at existence, the more it will be rocked.) > > Indeed, it's a matter of honesty, because the false sense of security is being knocked and rocked, but the knocking is ignored. The knocking is ignored so further attempts can be made to fix things. The more attempted fixing, the more security is rocked and knocked, requiring more ignoring and fixing. Thus, the ever-heightening tension, conflict, and economic trouble in the world. Which is continually ignored, as new leaders are found with new promises and new fixes, who then continue to butt heads with each other and with " reality. " > > " I am " being knocked and rocked. Stop ignoring, and the crisis is immediate. > > Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. > > Pretty much what Nisargadatta is saying above (the door opens both ways). > > However, when teachers speak to students, inevitably it ends up sounding like the inquiry is made by an individual. The teacher sounds like an individual who resolved a personal dilemma. This is the limitation of teaching. It always has to be directed somewhere, and that somewhere ends up being individual students in relationship with the teacher. Any teaching involves the assumption that someone is providing something meaningful to someone else. > > And the inquiry is not done by an individual. The inquiry is inquiry into the untenability of an individual point of being, life, existence. Hence, the untenability of an individual's point for making an inquiry, and really the untenability of an individual's point for offering teaching. > > You could say the universe is the inquiry, the individual is the resistance, and the inquiry is complete the instant that the individual isn't there to try to claim the inquiry (I am seeking, I am making this inquiry) or anything else, such as a state of being (I am rich, I am good-looking, I am happy, I am powerful, I am pissed off, I am in-the-know, I am blissful, I am miserable, I am wretched, etc., etc.) So, the universe (the all, totality) making the inquiry is the answer of the inquiry once the resistance is understood as what it is. It's a totality kind of deal. > > The resistance isn't something an individual is doing wrong. The resistance is the attempted holding of awareness into a position. Awareness is misunderstanding to whatever extent the positioning seems to " have a hold " or to " make a placement " for awareness. > > You could say that it's impossible for awareness to misunderstand. Which is true, but only at the point that there is no individual to know this. Which there in fact, is not. Which means not only that resistance is futile, but that resistance in all its aspects, isn't actually resisting anything. > > Thus, the dream never happened. There is nothing to wake up from or to. The world of the dream, formed by resistance, hasn't formed, hasn't taken place. > > Peace, > > - Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. > > > > > > Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. > > > > > > Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? > > > > > > Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. > > > > > > Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. > > > > > > Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. > > > > Thanks for posting this quote and others. > > > > I'm glad to learn more about Nisargadatta's teachings. The more that I've learned, the more I find resonances with what I've experienced. > > > > When I've heard people discuss Nisargadatta, they often stick to certain concepts, maybe that are more accessible, about being consciousness, and simply being, for example. > > > > His discourse about being nothing and not even nothing, is often given short shrift, as are comments such as the one above about inquiry and crisis. > > > > Yet, all of this teaching works together. One isn't simply being. Therefore, advice to simply be isn't of much use. Inquiry makes sense, as one being honest understands that one is not simply being. One is dealing with a sense of separation, division. This inevitably returns one to one's self, to one's intent to have an existence and to look out from a center, which Nisargadatta refers to as the sense " I am. " > > > No, Dan, > > To look out from a center is not what Nis refered to as the sense " I am " . > > For him being, consciousness and the I am are just one and the same. > > The I am is all there is, or consciousness is all there is. > > Werner Hi Werner -- It may be that I'm attempting to merge Nisargadatta's thought with Krishnamurti's in a way that doesn't fit for Nisargadatta. If so, my apologies to Nisargadatta. My rationale for speaking that way was that it seems to me that the sense of existing (I am) requires an assumed center to feel it, to know it in that way, to experience the sense of existing. Even if " I am " seems to be all pervading, to be all there is, there is one who is aware of that, who is sensing that, a subtly assumed center. But perhaps that is my way of understanding the text, and doesn't fit well for you. (Probably I won't be able to ask Nis. directly about this, but apparently you are speaking in his behalf.) At any rate, the far more key issue here, from my reading, is that * " I am " is not all there is* according to Nis.'s teaching. I submit that when you represent his teaching that way, it is an incomplete representation. Otherwise, why would Nis. refer to " I am " as a door that locks you in and lets you out, that swings both ways? Lets you out to what? If " I am " were all that is, it wouldn't " let you out " to beyond I am. Nisargadatta said, in Song of Beyond I Am: When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... (And I would say, even the most subtle center is not.) At any rate, " I am " is not all, is not what Nis. is referring to above as " reality. " At other times, he referred to reality as " nothing, not even the idea of nothing. " So " I am " is not all that is, nor is consciousness. He also said: Awareness is my nature; ultimately I am beyond being and non-being. He also said: This 'I am' is an announcement: it is not the real. It has come out of something else. What the real is, I am not telling you, because words negate that. Whatever I am telling you is not the truth, because it has come out of that 'I am'. The fact is, I cannot describe reality to you, I cannot explain it, because it is beyond expression. Let's not disregard this statement, Werner. What you know as " consciousness " is known through " I am, " and goes when " I am " opens the other way, when it is clear that " I am " is not the real (as stated above), that the real is not any known quality. Nis. also said: When you are in consciousness, you understand the nature of consciousness and you recede. Your progress continues. This consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself; knowingly it is disappearing. But nothing affects You, because that is the Absolute. Just like when the flame is gone, the smoke is gone, the sky remains. So, Werner, it is clear, is it not, that he was not teaching that " consciousness is all that is " ? Otherwise, would he say " consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself " ? Would he refer to knowing consciousness as a knowing " through 'I am,' and 'I am,' as " just the announcement " ... and " not the reality. " And the reality as " beyond expression " ? - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. > > > > > > > > Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. > > > > > > > > Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. > > > > > > Thanks for posting this quote and others. > > > > > > I'm glad to learn more about Nisargadatta's teachings. The more that I've learned, the more I find resonances with what I've experienced. > > > > > > When I've heard people discuss Nisargadatta, they often stick to certain concepts, maybe that are more accessible, about being consciousness, and simply being, for example. > > > > > > His discourse about being nothing and not even nothing, is often given short shrift, as are comments such as the one above about inquiry and crisis. > > > > > > Yet, all of this teaching works together. One isn't simply being. Therefore, advice to simply be isn't of much use. Inquiry makes sense, as one being honest understands that one is not simply being. One is dealing with a sense of separation, division. This inevitably returns one to one's self, to one's intent to have an existence and to look out from a center, which Nisargadatta refers to as the sense " I am. " > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > To look out from a center is not what Nis refered to as the sense " I am " . > > > > For him being, consciousness and the I am are just one and the same. > > > > The I am is all there is, or consciousness is all there is. > > > > Werner > > Hi Werner -- > > It may be that I'm attempting to merge Nisargadatta's thought with Krishnamurti's in a way that doesn't fit for Nisargadatta. If so, my apologies to Nisargadatta. > > My rationale for speaking that way was that it seems to me that the sense of existing (I am) requires an assumed center to feel it, to know it in that way, to experience the sense of existing. > > Even if " I am " seems to be all pervading, to be all there is, there is one who is aware of that, who is sensing that, a subtly assumed center. > > But perhaps that is my way of understanding the text, and doesn't fit well for you. (Probably I won't be able to ask Nis. directly about this, but apparently you are speaking in his behalf.) > > At any rate, the far more key issue here, from my reading, is that * " I am " is not all there is* according to Nis.'s teaching. I submit that when you represent his teaching that way, it is an incomplete representation. > > Otherwise, why would Nis. refer to " I am " as a door that locks you in and lets you out, that swings both ways? > > Lets you out to what? > > If " I am " were all that is, it wouldn't " let you out " to beyond I am. > > Nisargadatta said, in Song of Beyond I Am: > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... > > (And I would say, even the most subtle center is not.) At any rate, " I am " is not all, is not what Nis. is referring to above as " reality. " > > At other times, he referred to reality as " nothing, not even the idea of nothing. " > > So " I am " is not all that is, nor is consciousness. > > He also said: Awareness is my nature; ultimately I am beyond being and non-being. > > He also said: This 'I am' is an announcement: it is not the real. It has come out of something else. What the real is, I am not telling you, because words negate that. Whatever I am telling you is not the truth, because it has come out of that 'I am'. The fact is, I cannot describe reality to you, I cannot explain it, because it is beyond expression. > > Let's not disregard this statement, Werner. What you know as " consciousness " is known through " I am, " and goes when " I am " opens the other way, when it is clear that " I am " is not the real (as stated above), that the real is not any known quality. > > Nis. also said: When you are in consciousness, you understand the nature of consciousness and you recede. Your progress continues. This consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself; knowingly it is disappearing. But nothing affects You, because that is the Absolute. Just like when the flame is gone, the smoke is gone, the sky remains. > > So, Werner, it is clear, is it not, that he was not teaching that " consciousness is all that is " ? Otherwise, would he say " consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself " ? Would he refer to knowing consciousness as a knowing " through 'I am,' and 'I am,' as " just the announcement " ... and " not the reality. " Nis said a lot of things, Dan, and I am afraid that some of what he said is just nonsense. Especially his idea that awareness is prior to consciousness. And his ideas about the 'Absolute' is for me totally undigestible or in short, I don't understand it at all. My understanding of consciousness I derived from neuroscience and not from mysticism or from any sage or saint. Interesting is that the way Krishnamurti was using consciousness is pretty close to neuroscience. Werner > > And the reality as " beyond expression " ? > > - Dan - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nis said a lot of things, Dan,and I am afraid that some of what he said is just nonsense. Especially his idea that awareness is prior to consciousness. And his ideas about the 'Absolute' is for me totally undigestible or in short, I don't understand it at all.My understanding of consciousness I derived from neuroscience and not from mysticism or from any sage or saint.Interesting is that the way Krishnamurti was using consciousness is pretty close to neuroscience.Werner Jeeezzz....werner is beyond all hope...literaly :>() ....neuroscience????!!!! -egg- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. > > > > > > > > > > Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. > > > > > > > > > > Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting this quote and others. > > > > > > > > I'm glad to learn more about Nisargadatta's teachings. The more that I've learned, the more I find resonances with what I've experienced. > > > > > > > > When I've heard people discuss Nisargadatta, they often stick to certain concepts, maybe that are more accessible, about being consciousness, and simply being, for example. > > > > > > > > His discourse about being nothing and not even nothing, is often given short shrift, as are comments such as the one above about inquiry and crisis. > > > > > > > > Yet, all of this teaching works together. One isn't simply being. Therefore, advice to simply be isn't of much use. Inquiry makes sense, as one being honest understands that one is not simply being. One is dealing with a sense of separation, division. This inevitably returns one to one's self, to one's intent to have an existence and to look out from a center, which Nisargadatta refers to as the sense " I am. " > > > > > > > > > No, Dan, > > > > > > To look out from a center is not what Nis refered to as the sense " I am " . > > > > > > For him being, consciousness and the I am are just one and the same. > > > > > > The I am is all there is, or consciousness is all there is. > > > > > > Werner > > > > Hi Werner -- > > > > It may be that I'm attempting to merge Nisargadatta's thought with Krishnamurti's in a way that doesn't fit for Nisargadatta. If so, my apologies to Nisargadatta. > > > > My rationale for speaking that way was that it seems to me that the sense of existing (I am) requires an assumed center to feel it, to know it in that way, to experience the sense of existing. > > > > Even if " I am " seems to be all pervading, to be all there is, there is one who is aware of that, who is sensing that, a subtly assumed center. > > > > But perhaps that is my way of understanding the text, and doesn't fit well for you. (Probably I won't be able to ask Nis. directly about this, but apparently you are speaking in his behalf.) > > > > At any rate, the far more key issue here, from my reading, is that * " I am " is not all there is* according to Nis.'s teaching. I submit that when you represent his teaching that way, it is an incomplete representation. > > > > Otherwise, why would Nis. refer to " I am " as a door that locks you in and lets you out, that swings both ways? > > > > Lets you out to what? > > > > If " I am " were all that is, it wouldn't " let you out " to beyond I am. > > > > Nisargadatta said, in Song of Beyond I Am: > > > > When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is... > > > > (And I would say, even the most subtle center is not.) At any rate, " I am " is not all, is not what Nis. is referring to above as " reality. " > > > > At other times, he referred to reality as " nothing, not even the idea of nothing. " > > > > So " I am " is not all that is, nor is consciousness. > > > > He also said: Awareness is my nature; ultimately I am beyond being and non-being. > > > > He also said: This 'I am' is an announcement: it is not the real. It has come out of something else. What the real is, I am not telling you, because words negate that. Whatever I am telling you is not the truth, because it has come out of that 'I am'. The fact is, I cannot describe reality to you, I cannot explain it, because it is beyond expression. > > > > Let's not disregard this statement, Werner. What you know as " consciousness " is known through " I am, " and goes when " I am " opens the other way, when it is clear that " I am " is not the real (as stated above), that the real is not any known quality. > > > > Nis. also said: When you are in consciousness, you understand the nature of consciousness and you recede. Your progress continues. This consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself; knowingly it is disappearing. But nothing affects You, because that is the Absolute. Just like when the flame is gone, the smoke is gone, the sky remains. > > > > So, Werner, it is clear, is it not, that he was not teaching that " consciousness is all that is " ? Otherwise, would he say " consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself " ? Would he refer to knowing consciousness as a knowing " through 'I am,' and 'I am,' as " just the announcement " ... and " not the reality. " > > > Nis said a lot of things, Dan, > > and I am afraid that some of what he said is just nonsense. Especially his idea that awareness is prior to consciousness. And his ideas about the 'Absolute' is for me totally undigestible or in short, I don't understand it at all. > > My understanding of consciousness I derived from neuroscience and not from mysticism or from any sage or saint. > > Interesting is that the way Krishnamurti was using consciousness is pretty close to neuroscience. > > Werner Werner, Nis. offers a teaching that isn't divided. You pick the part that you like, and throw out the part you don't like. Of course, you're entitled to do that. Indeed, one can't help doing what is being done, it simply is as it is. The part of Nis.'s teaching you are throwing out, though, is key, imo, is essential to the teaching. Is really the basis for, and is the depth of the teaching, imho. For whatever that's worth. You said, " maybe I don't understand it. " And that's just it. It isn't understandable. Krishnamurti also discussed the unknowable, and the release of knowledge and the known, did he not? So, one comes up to the limit of what is understandable, what is knowable. One can turn back and stick with what is understandable and what is knowable. Or one can dig into the very sense of knowability, so to speak, and its limits. Or it might be more correct to say, " one is being dug into, nonvolitionally, as the attempt to maintain a knower (or a be-er, and " I am. " ). One can dig into the very sense of " I am " and its limits, as Nis. suggested. This only happens nonvolitionally. It can't be forced or made to happen. Nis., like Jesus, suggests that " it comes like a thief in the night. " And if it happens, then there is loss, not gain. The knower that sticks with the known goes, along with the known. One isn't able to choose what isn't known. And one isn't there, as knower, to know about it. -- D -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. > > > > Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. > > > > Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? > > > > Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. > > > > Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. > > > > Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. > > Thanks for posting this quote and others. > > I'm glad to learn more about Nisargadatta's teachings. The more that I've learned, the more I find resonances with what I've experienced. > > When I've heard people discuss Nisargadatta, they often stick to certain concepts, maybe that are more accessible, about being consciousness, and simply being, for example. > > His discourse about being nothing and not even nothing, is often given short shrift, as are comments such as the one above about inquiry and crisis. > > Yet, all of this teaching works together. One isn't simply being. Therefore, advice to simply be isn't of much use. Inquiry makes sense, as one being honest understands that one is not simply being. One is dealing with a sense of separation, division. This inevitably returns one to one's self, to one's intent to have an existence and to look out from a center, which Nisargadatta refers to as the sense " I am. " > > The quote above is nice, it points to the inevitability of crisis. > > How can there not be a crisis, if there is investment in what is not, in having what isn't there to be had? > > The sense of security one has attempted to establish must be rocked, which is to say one is rocked, because one is the attempt at security. To say one is rocked, is to stay that the world is rocked, because one is not separate from the world one experiences. > > (Notice what is happening " in the world " - this is not an individual's inquiry, the untenability of individual existence is what is inquired into, hence the world will be rocked, non-stop as a matter of fact. The more apparent individuals as attempts at existence, the more it will be rocked.) > > Indeed, it's a matter of honesty, because the false sense of security is being knocked and rocked, but the knocking is ignored. The knocking is ignored so further attempts can be made to fix things. The more attempted fixing, the more security is rocked and knocked, requiring more ignoring and fixing. Thus, the ever-heightening tension, conflict, and economic trouble in the world. Which is continually ignored, as new leaders are found with new promises and new fixes, who then continue to butt heads with each other and with " reality. " > > " I am " being knocked and rocked. Stop ignoring, and the crisis is immediate. > > Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. > > Pretty much what Nisargadatta is saying above (the door opens both ways). > > However, when teachers speak to students, inevitably it ends up sounding like the inquiry is made by an individual. The teacher sounds like an individual who resolved a personal dilemma. This is the limitation of teaching. It always has to be directed somewhere, and that somewhere ends up being individual students in relationship with the teacher. Any teaching involves the assumption that someone is providing something meaningful to someone else. > > And the inquiry is not done by an individual. The inquiry is inquiry into the untenability of an individual point of being, life, existence. Hence, the untenability of an individual's point for making an inquiry, and really the untenability of an individual's point for offering teaching. > > You could say the universe is the inquiry, the individual is the resistance, and the inquiry is complete the instant that the individual isn't there to try to claim the inquiry (I am seeking, I am making this inquiry) or anything else, such as a state of being (I am rich, I am good-looking, I am happy, I am powerful, I am pissed off, I am in-the-know, I am blissful, I am miserable, I am wretched, etc., etc.) So, the universe (the all, totality) making the inquiry is the answer of the inquiry once the resistance is understood as what it is. It's a totality kind of deal. > > The resistance isn't something an individual is doing wrong. The resistance is the attempted holding of awareness into a position. Awareness is misunderstanding to whatever extent the positioning seems to " have a hold " or to " make a placement " for awareness. > > You could say that it's impossible for awareness to misunderstand. Which is true, but only at the point that there is no individual to know this. Which there in fact, is not. Which means not only that resistance is futile, but that resistance in all its aspects, isn't actually resisting anything. > > Thus, the dream never happened. There is nothing to wake up from or to. The world of the dream, formed by resistance, hasn't formed, hasn't taken place. > > Peace, > > - Dan Wow... some interesting thoughts, Dan, thanks :-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Questioner: How is it that the question `Who am I' attracts me little? I prefer to spend my time in the sweet company of saints. > > > > > > Nisargadatta: Abiding in your own being is also holy company. If you have no problem of suffering and release from suffering, you will not find the energy and persistence needed for self-enquiry. You cannot manufacture a crisis. It must be genuine. > > > > > > Questioner: How does a genuine crisis happen? > > > > > > Nisargadatta: It happens every moment, but you are not alert enough. A shadow on your neighbour's face, the immense and all-pervading sorrow of existence is a constant factor in your life, but you refuse to take notice. You suffer and see others suffer, but you don't respond. > > > > > > Questioner: What you say is true, but what can I do about it? Such indeed is the situation. My helplessness and dullness are a part of it. > > > > > > Nisargadatta: Good enough. Look at yourself steadily -- it is enough. The door that locks you in, is also the door that lets you out. The `I am' is the door. Stay at it until it opens. > > > > Thanks for posting this quote and others. > > > > I'm glad to learn more about Nisargadatta's teachings. The more that I've learned, the more I find resonances with what I've experienced. > > > > When I've heard people discuss Nisargadatta, they often stick to certain concepts, maybe that are more accessible, about being consciousness, and simply being, for example. > > > > His discourse about being nothing and not even nothing, is often given short shrift, as are comments such as the one above about inquiry and crisis. > > > > Yet, all of this teaching works together. One isn't simply being. Therefore, advice to simply be isn't of much use. Inquiry makes sense, as one being honest understands that one is not simply being. One is dealing with a sense of separation, division. This inevitably returns one to one's self, to one's intent to have an existence and to look out from a center, which Nisargadatta refers to as the sense " I am. " > > > > The quote above is nice, it points to the inevitability of crisis. > > > > How can there not be a crisis, if there is investment in what is not, in having what isn't there to be had? > > > > The sense of security one has attempted to establish must be rocked, which is to say one is rocked, because one is the attempt at security. To say one is rocked, is to stay that the world is rocked, because one is not separate from the world one experiences. > > > > (Notice what is happening " in the world " - this is not an individual's inquiry, the untenability of individual existence is what is inquired into, hence the world will be rocked, non-stop as a matter of fact. The more apparent individuals as attempts at existence, the more it will be rocked.) > > > > Indeed, it's a matter of honesty, because the false sense of security is being knocked and rocked, but the knocking is ignored. The knocking is ignored so further attempts can be made to fix things. The more attempted fixing, the more security is rocked and knocked, requiring more ignoring and fixing. Thus, the ever-heightening tension, conflict, and economic trouble in the world. Which is continually ignored, as new leaders are found with new promises and new fixes, who then continue to butt heads with each other and with " reality. " > > > > " I am " being knocked and rocked. Stop ignoring, and the crisis is immediate. > > > > Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. > > > > Pretty much what Nisargadatta is saying above (the door opens both ways). > > > > However, when teachers speak to students, inevitably it ends up sounding like the inquiry is made by an individual. The teacher sounds like an individual who resolved a personal dilemma. This is the limitation of teaching. It always has to be directed somewhere, and that somewhere ends up being individual students in relationship with the teacher. Any teaching involves the assumption that someone is providing something meaningful to someone else. > > > > And the inquiry is not done by an individual. The inquiry is inquiry into the untenability of an individual point of being, life, existence. Hence, the untenability of an individual's point for making an inquiry, and really the untenability of an individual's point for offering teaching. > > > > You could say the universe is the inquiry, the individual is the resistance, and the inquiry is complete the instant that the individual isn't there to try to claim the inquiry (I am seeking, I am making this inquiry) or anything else, such as a state of being (I am rich, I am good-looking, I am happy, I am powerful, I am pissed off, I am in-the-know, I am blissful, I am miserable, I am wretched, etc., etc.) So, the universe (the all, totality) making the inquiry is the answer of the inquiry once the resistance is understood as what it is. It's a totality kind of deal. > > > > The resistance isn't something an individual is doing wrong. The resistance is the attempted holding of awareness into a position. Awareness is misunderstanding to whatever extent the positioning seems to " have a hold " or to " make a placement " for awareness. > > > > You could say that it's impossible for awareness to misunderstand. Which is true, but only at the point that there is no individual to know this. Which there in fact, is not. Which means not only that resistance is futile, but that resistance in all its aspects, isn't actually resisting anything. > > > > Thus, the dream never happened. There is nothing to wake up from or to. The world of the dream, formed by resistance, hasn't formed, hasn't taken place. > > > > Peace, > > > > - Dan > > Wow... some interesting thoughts, Dan, thanks :-). You're welcome, Tim. I'm glad they were entertaining. Now, they're gone. Bye, bye! - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > So, the universe (the all, totality) making the inquiry is the > answer of the inquiry once the resistance is understood as what it > > is. It's a totality kind of deal. I often just call it 'life'. What remains when the (illusion of) the individual is gone, is what was there all along. And, I suspect 'life' will eventually rid itself altogether of the illusion of individuality. The notions of past and future are cognitive categories that may have been very beneficial to survival at one point, but don't appear so anymore. 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.