I AM THAT.

[Guest guest]

Questioner: It is a matter of daily experience that on waking up the world

suddenly appears. Where does it come from?

 

Maharaj: Before anything can come into being there must be somebody to whom it

comes. All appearance and disappearance presupposes a change against some

changeless background.

 

 

Q: Before waking up I was unconscious.

 

M: In what sense? Having forgotten, or not having experienced?

 

Don't you experience even when unconscious? Can you exist without knowing?

 

A lapse in memory: is it a proof of non-existence? And can you validly talk

about your own non-existence as an actual experience?

 

You cannot even say that your mind did not exist. Did you not wake up on being

called? And on waking up, was it not the sense `I am' that came first?

 

Some seed consciousness must be existing even during sleep, or swoon. On waking

up the experience runs: `I am -- the body -- in the world.' It may appear to

arise in succession but in fact it is all simultaneous, a single idea of having

a body in a world. Can there be the sense of `I am' without being somebody or

other?

 

 

Q: I am always somebody with its memories and habits. I know no other `I am'.

 

M: Maybe something prevents you from knowing? When you do not know something

which others know, what do you do?

 

 

Q: I seek the source of their knowledge under their instruction.

 

M: Is it not important to you to know whether you are a mere body, or something

else? Or, maybe nothing at all? Don't you see that all your problems are your

body's problems -- food, clothing, shelter, family, friends, name, fame,

security, survival -- all these lose their meaning the moment you realise that

you may not be a mere body.

 

 

Q: What benefit is there in knowing that I am not the body?

 

M: Even to say that you are not the body is not quite true. In a way you are all

the bodies, hearts and minds and much more. Go deep into the sense of `I am' and

you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotten? You keep

it in your mind until you recall it.

 

The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it

comes, or just watch it quietly.

 

When the mind stays in the 'I am' without moving, you enter a state which cannot

be verbalised but can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again.

 

After all the sense `I am' is always with you, only you have attached all kinds

of things to it -- body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these

self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be

what you are not.

 

 

Q: Then what am I?

 

M: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are.

 

For as long as knowledge means description in terms of what is already known,

perceptual, or conceptual, there can be no such thing as self-knowledge, for

what you are cannot be described, except as except as total negation.

 

All you can say is: `I am not this, I am not that'. You cannot meaningfully say

`this is what I am'. It just makes no sense.

 

What you can point out as 'this' or 'that' cannot be yourself. Surely, you can

not be 'something' else. You are nothing perceivable, or imaginable. Yet,

without you there can be neither perception nor imagination.

 

You observe the heart feeling, the mind thinking, the body acting; the very act

of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. Can there be perception,

experience without you? An experience must `belong'. Somebody must come and

declare it as his own. Without an experiencer the experience is not real. It is

the experiencer that imparts reality to experience. An experience which you

cannot have, of what value is it to you?

 

 

Q: The sense of being an experiencer, the sense of `I am', is it not also an

experience?

 

M: Obviously, every thing experienced is an experience. And in every experience

there arises the experiencer of it.

 

Memory creates the illusion of continuity. In reality each experience has its

own experiencer and the sense of identity is due to the common factor at the

root of all experiencer-experience relations. Identity and continuity are not

the same.

 

Just as each flower has its own colour, but all colours are caused by the same

light, so do many experiences appear in the undivided and indivisible awareness,

each separate in memory, identical in essence. This essence is the root, the

foundation, the timeless and spaceless 'possibility' of all experience.

 

 

Q: How do I get at it?

 

M: You need not get at it, for you are it. It will get at you, if you give it a

chance. Let go your attachment to the unreal and the real will swiftly and

smoothly step into its own.

 

Stop imagining yourself being or doing this or that and the realisation that you

are the source and heart of all will dawn upon you. With this will come great

love which is not choice or predilection, nor attachment, but a power which

makes all things love-worthy and lovable.

 

 

 

http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=2

[Guest guest]

Q: Your words are wise, your behaviour noble, your grace all-powerful.

 

M: I know nothing about it all and see no difference between you and me. My life

is a succession of events, just like yours. Only I am detached and see the

passing show as a passing show, while you stick to things and move along with

them.

 

 

Q: What made you so dispassionate?

 

M: Nothing in particular. It so happened that I trusted my Guru. He told me I am

nothing but my self and I believed him. Trusting him, I behaved accordingly and

ceased caring for what was not me, nor mine.

 

 

Q: Why were you lucky to trust your teacher fully, while our trust is nominal

and verbal?

 

M: Who can say? It happened so. Things happen without cause and reason and,

after all, what does it matter, who is who? Your high opinion of me is your

opinion only. Any moment you may change it. Why attach importance to opinions,

even your own?

 

 

Q: Still, you are different. Your mind seems to be always quiet and happy. And

miracles happen round you.

 

M: I know nothing about miracles, and I wonder whether nature admits exceptions

to her laws, unless we agree that everything is a miracle. As to my mind, there

is no such thing. There is consciousness in which everything happens. It is

quite obvious and within the experience of everybody. You just do not look

carefully enough. Look well, and see what I see.

 

 

Q: What do you see?

 

M: I see what you too could see, here and now, but for the wrong focus of your

attention. You give no attention to your self. Your mind is all with things,

people and ideas, never with your self.

 

Bring your self into focus, become aware of your own existence. See how you

function, watch the motives and the results of your actions.

 

Study the prison you have built around yourself by inadvertence. By knowing what

you are not, you come to know your self. The way back to your self is through

refusal and rejection.

 

One thing is certain: the real is not imaginary, it is not a product of the

mind. Even the sense `I am' is not continuous, though it is a useful pointer; it

shows where to seek, but not what to seek. Just have a good look at it.

 

Once you are convinced that you cannot say truthfully about your self anything

except `I am', and that nothing that can be pointed at, can be your self, the

need for the `I am' is over -- you are no longer intent on verbalising what you

are.

 

All you need is to get rid of the tendency to define your self. All definitions

apply to your body only and to its expressions. Once this obsession with the

body goes, you will revert to your natural state, spontaneously and

effortlessly.

 

The only difference between us is that I am aware of my natural state, while you

are bemused. Just like gold made into ornaments has no advantage over gold dust,

except when the mind makes it so, so are we one in being -- we differ only in

appearance. We discover it by being earnest, by searching, enquiring,

questioning daily and hourly, by giving one's life to this discovery.

 

>

> http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=2

>

[Guest guest]

Q: Yet, I cannot see how can anything come to be without a cause.

 

M: When I say a thing is without a cause, I mean it can be with out a particular

cause. Your own mother was needed to give you birth; But you could not have been

born without the sun and the earth. Even these could not have caused your birth

without your own desire to be born.

 

It is desire that gives birth, that gives name and form. The desirable is

imagined and wanted and manifests itself as something tangible or con ceivable.

Thus is created the world in which we live, our per­sonal world. The real world

is beyond the mind's ken; we see it through the net of our desires, divided into

pleasure and pain, right and wrong, inner and outer. To see the universe as it

is, you must step beyond the net. It is not hard to do so, for the net is full

of holes.

 

 

Q: What do you mean by holes? And how to find them?

 

M: Look at the net and its many contradictions. You do and undo at every step.

You want peace, love, happiness and work hard to create pain, hatred and war.

You want longevity and overeat, you want friendship and exploit. See your net as

made of such contradictions and remove them -- your very seeing them will make

them go.

 

 

> >

> > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=2

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Q: In sleep there is neither the known, nor the knower. What keeps the body

sensitive and receptive?

 

M: Surely you cannot say the knower was absent. The experience of things and

thoughts was not there, that is all. But the absence of experience too is

experience. It is like entering a dark room and saying: 'I see nothing'. A man

blind from birth knows not what darkness means. Similarly, only the knower knows

that he does not know.

 

Sleep is merely a lapse in memory. Life goes on.

 

 

 

Q: And what is death?

 

M: It is the change in the living process of a particular body. Integration ends

and disintegration sets in.

 

 

Q: But what about the knower. With the disappearance of the body, does the

knower disappear?

 

M: Just as the knower of the body appears at birth, so he disappears at death.

 

 

Q: And nothing remains?

 

M: Life remains. Consciousness needs a vehicle and an instrument for its

manifestation. When life produces another body, another knower comes into being.

 

 

Q: Is there a causal link between the successive body knowers, or body-minds?

 

M: Yes, there is something that may be called the memory body, or causal body, a

record of all that was thought, wanted and done. It is like a cloud of images

held together.

 

 

Q: What is this sense of a separate existence?

 

M: It is a reflection in a separate body of the one reality. In this reflection

the unlimited and the limited are confused and taken to be the same. To undo

this confusion is the purpose of Yoga.

 

 

Q: Does not death undo this confusion?

 

M: In death only the body dies. Life does not, consciousness does not, reality

does not. And the life is never so alive as after death.

 

 

Q: But does one get reborn?

 

M: What was born must die. Only the unborn is deathless. Find what is it that

never sleeps and never wakes, and whose pale reflection is our sense of 'I'.

 

 

Q: How am I to go about this finding out?

 

M: How do you go about finding anything? By keeping your mind and heart in it.

Interest there must be and steady remembrance. To remember what needs to be

remembered is the secret of success. You come to it through earnestness.

 

 

Q: Do you mean to say that mere wanting to find out is enough? Surely, both

qualifications and opportunities are needed.

 

M: These will come with earnestness. What is supremely important is to be free

from contradictions: the goal and the way must not be on different levels; life

and light must not quarrel; behaviour must not betray belief. Call it honesty,

integrity, wholeness; you must not go back, undo, uproot, abandon the conquered

ground. Tenacity of purpose and honesty in pursuit will bring you to your goal.

 

 

Q: Tenacity and honesty are endowments, surely! Not a trace of them I have.

 

M: All will come as you go on. Take the first step first. All blessings come

from within. Turn within. 'l am' you know. Be with it all the time you can

spare, until you revert to it spontaneously. There is no simpler and easier way.

 

> > >

> > > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=2

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Questioner: All teachers advise to meditate. What is the purpose of meditation?

 

Maharaj: We know the outer world of sensations and actions, but of our inner

world of thoughts and feelings we know very little. The primary purpose of

meditation is to become conscious of, and familiar with, our inner life. The

ultimate purpose is to reach the source of life and consciousness.

 

Incidentally practice of meditation affects deeply our character. We are slaves

to what we do not know; of what we know we are masters. Whatever vice or

weakness in ourselves we discover and understand its causes and its workings, we

over come it by the very knowing; the unconscious dissolves when brought into

the conscious. The dissolution of the unconscious releases energy; the mind

feels adequate and become quiet.

 

 

Q: What is the use of a quiet mind?

 

M: When the mind is quiet, we come to know ourselves as the pure witness. We

withdraw from the experience and its experiencer and stand apart in pure

awareness, which is between and beyond the two. The personality, based on

self-identification, on imagining oneself to be something: 'I am this, I am

that', continues, but only as a part of the objective world. Its identification

with the witness snaps.

 

 

Q: As I can make out, I live on many levels and life on each level requires

energy. The self by its very nature delights in everything and its energies flow

outwards. Is it not the purpose of meditation to dam up the energies on the

higher levels, or to push them back and up, so as to enable the higher levels to

prosper also?

 

M: It is not so much the matter of levels as of gunas (qualities). Meditation is

a sattvic activity and aims at complete elimination of tamas (inertia) and rajas

(motivity). Pure sattva (harmony) is perfect freedom from sloth and

restlessness.

 

 

Q: How to strengthen and purify the sattva?

 

M: The sattva is pure and strong always. It is like the sun. It may seem

obscured by clouds and dust, but only from the point of view of the perceiver.

Deal with the causes of obscuration, not with the sun.

 

 

Q: What is the use of sattva?

 

M: What is the use of truth, goodness, harmony, beauty? They are their own goal.

They manifest spontaneously and effortlessly, when things are left to

themselves, are not interfered with, not shunned, or wanted, or conceptualised,

but just experienced in full awareness, such awareness itself is sattva. It does

not make use of things and people -- it fulfils them.

 

 

Q: Since I cannot improve sattva, am I to deal with tamas and rajas only? How

can I deal with them?

 

M: By watching their influence in you and on you. Be aware of them in operation,

watch their expressions in your thoughts, words and deeds, and gradually their

grip on you will lessen and the clear light of sattva will emerge. It is neither

difficult, nor a protracted process; earnestness is the only condition of

success.

[Guest guest]

Q: Is then your `absolute being' (paramakash) un-consciousness?

 

M: The idea of un-consciousness exists in consciousness only.

 

 

Q: Then, how do you know you are in the supreme state?

 

M: Because I am in it. It is the only natural state.

 

 

Q: Can you describe it?

 

M: Only by negation, as uncaused, independent, unrelated, undivided, uncomposed,

unshakable, unquestionable, unreachable by effort. Every positive definition is

from memory and, therefore, inapplicable. And yet my state is supremely actual

and, therefore, possible, realisable, attainable.

 

 

Q: Are you not immersed timelessly in an abstraction?

 

M: Abstraction is mental and verbal and disappears in sleep, or swoon; it

reappears in time; I am in my own state (swarupa) timelessly in the now. Past

and future are in mind only -- I am now.

 

 

Q: The world too is now.

 

M: Which world?

 

 

Q: The world around us.

 

M: It is your world you have in mind, not mine. What do you know of me, when

even my talk with you is in your world only? You have no reason to believe that

my world is identical with yours.

 

My world is real, true, as it is perceived, while yours appears and disappears,

according to the state of your mind. Your world is something alien, and you are

afraid of it. My world is myself. I am at home.

 

 

Q: If you are the world, how can you be conscious of it? Is not the subject of

consciousness different from its object?

 

M: Consciousness and the world appear and disappear together, hence they are two

aspects of the same state.

 

 

Q: In sleep I am not, and the world continues.

 

M: How do you know?

 

 

Q: On waking up I come to know. My memory tells me.

 

M: Memory is in the mind. The mind continues in sleep.

 

 

Q: It is partly in abeyance.

 

M: But its world picture is not affected. As long as the mind is there, your

body and your world are there. Your world is mind-made, subjective, enclosed

within the mind, fragmentary, temporary, personal, hanging on the thread of

memory.

 

 

Q: So is yours?

 

M: Oh no. I live in a world of realities, while yours is of imagination. Your

world is personal, private, unshareable, intimately your own. Nobody can enter

it, see as you see, hear as you hear, feel your emotions and think your

thoughts. In your world you are truly alone, enclosed in your ever-changing

dream, which you take for life. My world is an open world, common to all,

accessible to all. In my world there is community, insight, love, real quality;

the individual is the total, the totality -- in the individual. All are one and

the One is all.

 

 

Q: Is your world full of things and people as is mine?

 

M: No, it is full of myself.

 

 

Q: But do you see and hear as we do?

 

M: Yes, l appear to hear and see and talk and act, but to me it just happens, as

to you digestion or perspiration happens. The body-mind machine looks after it,

but leaves me out of it. Just as you do not need to worry about growing hair, so

I need not worry about words and actions. They just happen and leave me

unconcerned, for in my world nothing ever goes wrong.

[Guest guest]

Q: I long for permanency, but I find it nowhere.

 

M: Are you, yourself, not permanent?

 

 

Q: I was born, I shall die.

 

M: Can you truly say you were not before you were born and can you possibly say

when dead: `Now I am no more'? You cannot say from your own experience that you

are not. You can only say `I am'. Others too cannot tell you `you are not'.

 

 

Q: There is no `I am' in sleep.

 

M: Before you make such sweeping statements, examine carefully your waking

state. You will soon discover that it is full of gaps, when the min blanks out.

Notice how little you remember even when fully awake. You just don't remember. A

gap in memory is not necessarily a gap in consciousness.

 

 

Q: Can I make myself remember my state of deep sleep?

 

M: Of course! By eliminating the intervals of inadvertence during your waking

hours you will gradually eliminate the long interval of absent-mindedness, which

you call sleep. You will be aware that you are asleep.

 

 

Q: Yet, the problem of permanency, of continuity of being, is not solved.

 

M: Permanency is a mere idea, born of the action of time. Time again depends of

memory. By permanency you mean unfailing memory through endless time. You want

to eternalise the mind, which is not possible.

 

 

Q: Then what is eternal?

 

M: That which does not change with time. You cannot eternalise a transient thing

-- only the changeless is eternal.

 

 

Q: I am familiar with the general sense of what you say. I do not crave for more

knowledge. All I want is peace.

 

M: You can have for the asking all the peace you want.

 

Q: I am asking.

 

M: You must ask with an undivided heart and live an integrated life.

 

 

Q: How?

 

M: Detach yourself from all that makes your mind restless. Renounce all that

disturbs its peace. If you want peace, deserve it.

 

 

Q: Surely everybody deserves peace.

 

M: Those only deserve it, who don't disturb it.

 

 

Q: In what way do I disturb peace?

 

M: By being a slave to your desires and fears.

 

 

Q: Even when they are justified?

 

M: Emotional reactions, born of ignorance or inadvertence, are never justified.

Seek a clear mind and a clean heart. All you need is to keep quietly alert,

enquiring into the real nature of yourself. This is the only way to peace.

 

 

http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=3

[Guest guest]

Q: Admitted that the world in which I live is subjective and partial. What about

you? In what kind of world do you live?

 

M: My world is just like yours. I see, I hear, I feel, I think, I speak and act

in a world I perceive, just like you. But with you it is all, with me it is

nothing. Knowing the world to be a part of myself,

 

I pay it no more attention than you pay to the food you have eaten. While being

prepared and eaten, the food is separate from you and your mind is on it; once

swallowed, you become totally unconscious of it. I have eaten up the world and I

need not think of it any more.

 

 

Q: Don't you become completely irresponsible?

 

M: How could I? How can I hurt something which is one with me. On the contrary,

without thinking of the world, whatever I do will be of benefit to it. Just as

the body sets itself right unconsciously, so am I ceaselessly active in setting

the world right.

 

 

Q: Nevertheless, you are aware of the immense suffering of the world?

 

M: Of course I am, much more than you are.

 

 

Q: Then what do you do?

 

M: I look at it through the eyes of God and find that all is well.

 

 

Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the

cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

 

M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to put an end

to them. God helps by facing man with the results of his actions and demanding

that the balance should be restored. Karma is the law that works for

righteousness; it is the healing hand of God.

 

 

>

> http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=3

>

[Guest guest]

Q: What are the guide-lines for such distinction? How am I to know which of my

desires are right and which are wrong?

 

M: In your case desires that lead to sorrow are wrong and those which lead to

happiness are right. But you must not forget others. Their sorrow and happiness

also count.

 

 

Q: Results are in the future. How can I know what they will be?

 

M: Use your mind. Remember. Observe. You are not different from others. Most of

their experiences are valid for you too. Think clearly and deeply, go into the

entire structure of your desires and their ramifications. They are a most

important part of your mental and emotional make-up and powerfully affect your

actions. Remember, you cannot abandon what you do not know. To go beyond

yourself, you must know yourself.

 

 

Q: What does it mean to know myself? By knowing myself what exactly do I come to

know?

 

M: All that you are not.

 

 

Q: And not what I am?

 

M: What you are, you already are. By knowing what you are not, you are free of

it and remain in your own natural state. It all happens quite spontaneously and

effortlessly.

 

 

Q: And what do I discover?

 

M: You discover that there is nothing to discover. You are what you are and that

is all.

 

 

Q: I do not understand!

 

M: It is your fixed idea that you must be something or other, that blinds you.

 

 

Q: How can I get rid of this idea?

 

M: If you trust me, believe when I tell you that you are the pure awareness that

illuminates consciousness and its infinite content. Realise this and live

accordingly. If you do not believe me, then go within, enquiring `What an I'?

or, focus your mind on `I am', which is pure and simple being.

 

 

Q: On what my faith in you depends?

 

M: On your insight into other people's hearts. If you cannot look into my heart,

look into your own.

 

 

Q: I can do neither.

 

M: Purify yourself by a well-ordered and useful life. Watch over your thoughts,

feelings, words and actions. This will clear your vision.

 

 

 

>

> >

> > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=3

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote:

>

> Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the

cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

>

> M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put an

end to them.

 

Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end to them,

he would have done so.

 

It is not within man's power to put an end to them.

 

The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them.

[Guest guest]

Questioner: What do you do when asleep?

 

Maharaj: I am aware of being asleep.

 

 

Q: Is not sleep a state of unconsciousness?

 

M: Yes, I am aware of being unconscious.

 

 

Q: And when awake, or dreaming?

 

M: I am aware of being awake or dreaming.

 

 

Q: I do not catch you. What exactly do you mean? Let me make my terms clear: by

being asleep I mean unconscious, by being awake I mean conscious, by dreaming I

mean conscious of one's mind, but not of the surroundings.

 

M: Well, it is about the same with me, Yet, there seems to be a difference. In

each state you forget the other two, while to me, there is but one state of

being, including and transcending the three mental states of waking, dreaming

and sleeping.

 

 

Q: Do you see in the world a direction and a purpose?

 

M: The world is but a reflection of my imagination. Whatever I want to see, I

can see. But why should I invent patterns of creation, evolution and

destruction? I do not need them and have no desire to lock up the world in a

mental picture.

 

 

Q: Coming back to sleep. Do you dream?

 

M: Of course.

 

 

Q: What are your dreams?

 

M: Echoes of the waking state.

 

 

Q: And your deep sleep?

 

M: The brain consciousness is suspended.

 

 

Q: Are you then unconscious?

 

M: Unconscious of my surroundings -- yes.

 

 

Q: Not quite unconscious?

 

M: I remain aware that I am unconscious.

 

 

Q: You use the words 'aware' and 'conscious'. Are they not the same?

 

M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless,

uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on

contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality.

 

There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness

without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is

relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is

partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it

is the common matrix of every experience.

 

 

Q: How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness?

 

M: Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness

in every state of consciousness. Therefore the very consciousness of being

conscious is already a movement in awareness. Interest in your stream of

consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state. It is at once

recognised as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love

and joy.

 

 

Q: Since reality is all the time with us, what does self-realisation consist of?

 

M: Realisation is but the opposite of ignorance. To take the world as real and

one's self as unreal is ignorance. The cause of sorrow. To know the self as the

only reality and all else as temporal and transient is freedom, peace and joy.

It is all very simple. Instead of seeing things as imagined, learn to see them

as they are. It is like cleansing a mirror. The same mirror that shows you the

world as it is, will also show you your own face. The thought 'I am' is the

polishing cloth. Use it.

 

> > >

> > > http://www.celextel.org/otherbooks/iamthat.html?page=3

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Questioner: Kindly tell us how you realised.

 

Maharaj: I met my Guru when I was 34 and realised by 37.

 

 

Q: What happened? What was the change?

 

M: Pleasure and pain lost their sway over me. I was free from desire and fear. I

found myself full, needing nothing.

 

I saw that in the ocean of pure awareness, on the surface of the universal

consciousness, the numberless waves of the phenomenal worlds arise and subside

beginninglessly and endlessly. As consciousness, they are all me. As events they

are all mine. There is a mysterious power that looks after them. That power is

awareness, Self, Life, God, whatever name you give it.

 

It is the foundation, the ultimate support of all that is, just like gold is the

basis for all gold jewellery. And it is so intimately ours! Abstract the name

and shape from the jewellery and the gold becomes obvious. Be free of name and

form and of the desires and fears they create, then what remains?

 

 

Q: Nothingness.

 

M: Yes, the void remains. But the void is full to the brim. It is the eternal

potential as consciousness is the eternal actual.

 

 

Q: By potential you mean the future?

 

M: Past, present and future -- they are all there. And infinitely more.

 

 

Q: But since the void is void, it is of little use to us.

 

M: How can you say so? Without breach in continuity how can there be rebirth?

Can there be renewal without death? Even the darkness of sleep is refreshing and

rejuvenating. Without death we would have been bogged up for ever in eternal

senility.

 

 

Q: Is there no such thing as immortality?

 

M: When life and death are seen as essential to each other, as two aspects of

one being, that is immortality. To see the end in the beginning and beginning in

the end is the intimation of eternity. Definitely, immortality is not

continuity. Only the process of change continues. Nothing lasts.

 

 

Q: Awareness lasts?

 

M: Awareness is not of time. Time exists in consciousness only. Beyond

consciousness where are time and space?

 

 

Q: Within the field of your consciousness there is your body also.

 

M: Of course. But the idea 'my body', as different from other bodies, is not

there. To me it is 'a body', not 'my body', 'a mind', not 'my mind'. The mind

looks after the body all right, I need not interfere. What needs be done is

being done, in the normal and natural way.

 

You may not be quite conscious of your physiological functions, but when it

comes to thoughts and feelings, desires and fears you become acutely

self-conscious. To me these too are largely unconscious. I find myself talking

to people, or doing things quite correctly and appropriately, without being very

much conscious of them. It looks as if I live my physical, waking life

automatically, reacting spontaneously and accurately.

 

 

Q: Does this spontaneous response come as a result of realisation, or by

training?

 

M: Both.

 

Devotion to you goal makes you live a clean and orderly life, given to search

for truth and to helping people, and realisation makes noble virtue easy and

spontaneous, by removing for good the obstacles in the shape of desires and

fears and wrong ideas.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> >

> > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation, the

cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

> >

> > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put

an end to them.

>

> Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end to

them, he would have done so.

>

 

 

Why would he do so?

 

Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of fear, pain and

misery?

 

Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and suffering?

 

 

Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy, prosperous and free

of agony and misery?

 

Or, is there FOCUS on something else?

 

Do they want 'something else' far more?

 

 

....

 

Does a blood sucking mosquito really want humans and animals to be free of pain

or, is it focus on something else?

 

....

 

Does Hitler want to rule the world, or, does he desire peace and happiness for

everyone more?

 

....

 

Does Bob wants to have his 'entertainment' (whatever it might be, most likely,

just an expression of his inner pain, anguish and loneliness), or does he desire

more to keep this forums free of abuse and others free of possible emotional

hurt?

 

....

 

What does a school bully wants more - to kids in the school to fear it or, to

all kids in the school to be free of fear and pain?

 

....

 

What does a gangster wants more - to people in the neighborhood to fear him so

that he gets what he wants or, to people in the neighborhood be free of fear and

pain?

 

 

....

 

Just having " power " doesn't mean it will happens. As I see it, men have power to

do both - heal or hurt.

 

 

 

 

 

> It is not within man's power to put an end to them.

>

> The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them.

>

[Guest guest]

[...]

 

> Q: Does this spontaneous response come as a result of realisation, or by

training?

>

> M: Both.

>

> Devotion to you goal makes you live a clean and orderly life, given to search

for truth and to helping people, and realisation makes noble virtue easy and

spontaneous, by removing for good the obstacles in the shape of desires and

fears and wrong ideas.

>

 

 

 

Q: So liberation, in my sense of the word, does not exist?

 

M: On the contrary, one is always free. You are, both conscious and free to be

conscious. Nobody can take this away from you. Do you ever know yourself

non-existing, or unconscious?

 

 

Q: I may not remember, but that does not disprove my being occasionally

unconscious.

 

M: Why not turn away from the experience to the experiencer and realise the full

import of the only true statement you can make: 'I am'?

 

 

Q: How is it done?

 

M: There is no 'how' here. Just keep in mind the feeling 'I am', merge in it,

till your mind and feeling become one. By repeated attempts you will stumble on

the right balance of attention and affection and your mind will be firmly

established in the thought-feeling 'I am'. Whatever you think, say, or do, this

sense of immutable and affectionate being remains as the ever-present background

of the mind.

 

 

Q: And you call it liberation?

 

M: I call it normal. What is wrong with being, knowing and acting effortlessly

and happily? Why consider it so unusual as to expect the immediate destruction

of the body? What is wrong with the body that it should die? Correct your

attitude to your body and leave it alone. Don't pamper, don't torture. Just keep

it going, most of the time below the threshold of conscious attention.

 

 

Q: The memory of my wonderful experiences haunts me. I want them back.

 

M: Because you want them back, you cannot have them. The state of craving for

anything blocks all deeper experience. Nothing of value can happen to a mind

which knows exactly what it wants. For nothing the mind can visualise and want

is of much value.

 

 

Q: Then what is worth wanting?

 

M: Want the best. The highest happiness, the greatest freedom. Desirelessness is

the highest bliss.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Sunday, February 21, 2010 6:35 PM

Re: I AM THAT.

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote:

>

> Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation,

> the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

>

> M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put

> an end to them.

 

Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end to

them, he would have done so.

 

It is not within man's power to put an end to them.

 

The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them.

-tim-

 

He is saying that it is man-made (through division, fragmantation) and then

that each man - as an individual (non-divided) - can end it. How?

By not being divided.

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation,

the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

> > >

> > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to > put

an end to them.

> >

> > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end to

them, he would have done so.

> >

>

>

> Why would he do so?

>

> Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of

> fear, pain and misery?

>

> Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and

> suffering?

>

>

> Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy,

> prosperous and free of agony and misery?

>

>(etc.)

 

Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end

suffering.

 

None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they wouldn't

be wanting to perpetuate it for others.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation,

the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

> > > >

> > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to >

put an end to them.

> > >

> > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end

to them, he would have done so.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Why would he do so?

> >

> > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of

> > fear, pain and misery?

> >

> > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and

> > suffering?

> >

> >

> > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy,

> > prosperous and free of agony and misery?

> >

> >(etc.)

>

> Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end

suffering.

>

> None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they

wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others.

 

People want to be free human beings.

 

And so they pick others who seem liberated to lecture to them, teach them

practices, tell them how to be, who they really are, and so on.

 

The last thing a person wants, or can want, is to be free of the person - which

is what freedom actually is.

 

The end of any quotes to maintain.

 

The end of any famous dead guys or gals (or live guys or gals) to emulate.

 

The end of my previous association with me and my world.

 

The end of my assumed contact with others in that world.

 

The end of the self constructed through that contact.

 

The person cannot want this, or aim at it, nor make a monument of it, nor

worship it, nor keep quotes about it, etc.

 

Simply because to the person it is so utterly unknown as to have no reality

whatsoever.

 

And yet, alone, this is real.

 

Ironic.

 

Because with the death of thought/memory/feeling complexes, the person dies.

 

It can only be spontaneous.

 

" I come as a thief in the night. "

 

It can't be known, sought, taught, or idealized by or as a person.

 

" No one ever said that life is fair (to the person). "

 

And no one keeps right on saying this.

 

Smiles,

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the exploitation,

the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

> > > >

> > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to >

put an end to them.

> > >

> > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an end

to them, he would have done so.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Why would he do so?

> >

> > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of

> > fear, pain and misery?

> >

> > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and

> > suffering?

> >

> >

> > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy,

> > prosperous and free of agony and misery?

> >

> >(etc.)

>

> Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to end

suffering.

>

> None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they

wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others.

>

 

 

What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering? That's as far from

any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim.

 

It would seem that their purpose was to prolong suffering in a concerted effort

to maintain power over their people.

 

It's usually that way.

 

If one has a hand at creating suffering that is wielding power and that begets

more suffering to ensure that this power is not taken away.

 

However, sooner or later, death has the ultimate power.....

death comes to the Idi Amin's of the world as it does to the Nisargadattas.

 

Proving the world is essentially and foremost, nondual in the experience of

historical characters.

 

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the

exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

> > > > >

> > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to >

put an end to them.

> > > >

> > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an

end to them, he would have done so.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Why would he do so?

> > >

> > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of

> > > fear, pain and misery?

> > >

> > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and

> > > suffering?

> > >

> > >

> > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy,

> > > prosperous and free of agony and misery?

> > >

> > >(etc.)

> >

> > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to

end suffering.

> >

> > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they

wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others.

>

> People want to be free human beings.

>

> And so they pick others who seem liberated to lecture to them, teach them

practices, tell them how to be, who they really are, and so on.

>

> The last thing a person wants, or can want, is to be free of the person -

which is what freedom actually is.

>

> The end of any quotes to maintain.

>

> The end of any famous dead guys or gals (or live guys or gals) to emulate.

>

> The end of my previous association with me and my world.

>

> The end of my assumed contact with others in that world.

>

> The end of the self constructed through that contact.

>

> The person cannot want this, or aim at it, nor make a monument of it, nor

worship it, nor keep quotes about it, etc.

>

> Simply because to the person it is so utterly unknown as to have no reality

whatsoever.

>

> And yet, alone, this is real.

>

> Ironic.

>

> Because with the death of thought/memory/feeling complexes, the person dies.

>

> It can only be spontaneous.

>

> " I come as a thief in the night. "

>

> It can't be known, sought, taught, or idealized by or as a person.

>

> " No one ever said that life is fair (to the person). "

>

> And no one keeps right on saying this.

>

> Smiles,

>

> Dan

>

 

Interesting synchronicity with what I just posted on NDS --

 

Gene:

 

> The drive to relax into reality, while at the

> same time, holding onto the conditioning

> which has created the 'me-thing', will suffer

> 'feelings of depersonalization', and such

> experience, over time, can lead to gross

> disability and even coma.

 

Tim:

 

That's the fear of the loss of the psychological self.

 

" Dying, or going crazy " , one might say.

 

And so, it just has to happen... or not.

 

Self-activity is based on fear, and it's a fear that can't be faced, given that

the 'facer' is the fear.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

 

> " No one ever said that life is fair (to the person). "

>

> And no one keeps right on saying this.

>

> Smiles,

>

> Dan

>

 

No one ever listens, too.

 

No one seems to find it interesting.

 

So keep talkin', if ya like ;-).

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the

exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

> > > > >

> > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to >

put an end to them.

> > > >

> > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an

end to them, he would have done so.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Why would he do so?

> > >

> > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of

> > > fear, pain and misery?

> > >

> > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and

> > > suffering?

> > >

> > >

> > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy,

> > > prosperous and free of agony and misery?

> > >

> > >(etc.)

> >

> > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to

end suffering.

> >

> > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they

wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others.

> >

>

>

> What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering?

> That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim.

 

Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna.

 

Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a projected

person 'out there' on the Net.

 

Toodle-oo.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the

exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power to

> put an end to them.

> > > > >

> > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put > an

end to them, he would have done so.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Why would he do so?

> > > >

> > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of

> > > > fear, pain and misery?

> > > >

> > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and

> > > > suffering?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy,

> > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery?

> > > >

> > > >(etc.)

> > >

> > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power to

end suffering.

> > >

> > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they

wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others.

> > >

> >

> >

> > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering?

> > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim.

>

> Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna.

>

> Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a

projected person 'out there' on the Net.

>

> Toodle-oo.

>

 

 

You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim.

 

Sadly.

 

It doesn't suit your net personna either.

 

~A

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Q: How can you say that all is well? Look at the wars, the

exploitation, the cruel strife between the citizen and the state.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > M: All these sufferings are man-made and it is within man's power

to > put an end to them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put >

an end to them, he would have done so.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Why would he do so?

> > > > >

> > > > > Does a Osamma Bin Laden really desires 'infidels' to be free of

> > > > > fear, pain and misery?

> > > > >

> > > > > Does Saddam really want people of Iraq be free of pain, fear and

> > > > > suffering?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Does Bernie Maddoff really want his 'victims' to be happy,

> > > > > prosperous and free of agony and misery?

> > > > >

> > > > >(etc.)

> > > >

> > > > Exactly. All your examples above show that it's not within man's power

to end suffering.

> > > >

> > > > None of the above examples were able to end it for themselves, or they

wouldn't be wanting to perpetuate it for others.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > What makes you think the examples wanted to *end* suffering?

> > > That's as far from any truth as I've heard in a long long time, Tim.

> >

> > Well then don't imagine that's what I actually said, above, Anna.

> >

> > Then you won't have to worry about a projected falsehood coming from a

projected person 'out there' on the Net.

> >

> > Toodle-oo.

> >

>

>

> You have learned to play the neo advaita shuffle well, Tim.

>

> Sadly.

>

> It doesn't suit your net personna either.

>

> ~A

 

Well then stop playing the neo-advaita shuffle, Anna.

 

I didn't say any of the above examples wanted to end suffering, aside perhaps

for themselves, as all obviously do.

 

Go read it again, and stop behaving like an ignoramus.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

> Actually, it seems here that if it was within man's power to put an end to

them, he would have done so.

>

> It is not within man's power to put an end to them.

>

> The attempt to put an end to them, creates/maintains them.

 

On the level of form, a man who realizes his wholeness won't shoot himself in

the foot.

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " ac " <adithya_comming wrote:

> Just having " power " doesn't mean it will happens. As I see it, men

> have power to do both - heal or hurt.

 

The way I see this is that what is commonly seen as power is not the power to

which he refers. The wholeness, bubbling up unimpeded through man, balances

itself.

 

Julie