Guest guest Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Staying put in the " I Am " prior to words is meditating on the presence of being. " I am not the body-mind " is the first negation. What confounds " me " is how am " I " not the body-mind if the vehicle for knowledge,...consciousness( " I Am " )...is the " taste " of the body and depends on the body for existence? When the body dies, consciousness also dissolves into the impersonal awareness prior to consciousness, ie., the " Absolute " . " I " don't understand how consciousness/ " I Am " can be primordial to the body-mind. Nisargadatta teaches that manifestation always occurs in duality. This would mean that " I Am " /consciousness appears simultaneously with form. If " I " negate the body-mind then " I " am negating " I Am " /consciousness as well, correct? " I " don't understand the instruction to abide in the " I Am " and negate the body-mind. Wouldn't both have to be negated simultaneously? Also, this would mean that there can be no such thing as disembodied/formless " Universal Consciousness " to identify with either, correct? So this leaves only the " Absolute " as the identity, correct? This skips Nisargadatta's instruction to first abide in the " I Am " , then as Universal Consciousness, then, and only then, as the " Absolute " . Where have " I " misunderstood, if indeed " I " have? 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.