Notes on Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Guest guest]

There are some notes about Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM) in the website

below claiming that NM still felt the " I am the body " idea rising up

again and again. NM also apparently said that there is an " endless

journey of self-discovery " , which seems contradictory to the final

state of advaita siddhi where the " journey " finally ends in Supreme

Steady Abidance in the Self.

 

Can someone please confirm or deny the statements about NM here:

 

http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/sahaja.aspx

 

" In the case of Sri Ramana, the ego ended in the experience in

Madurai, and from that moment onwards, Sri Ramana says there was no

change in his experience. That is consistent with Sri Ramana’s

description of Sahaja Samadhi.

 

The case if Sri Nisargadatta is quite different. Sri Nisargadatta

continued until the end of his life to describe the changes that were

occurring. For example he said that previously he thought he was free

of the ‘I am the body’ identification but that now he could see that

some had remained, etc.

 

Also Sri Nisargadatta had the view that after Self-Realization there

is an endless journey of discovering oneself. Both these are

consistent with those who go in and out of kevala Samadhi. However

those descriptions are completely inconsistent with Sahaja Samadhi.

 

In Sahaja Samadhi there is no longer an entity that can undergo

changes in the level of ‘I am the body’ identification and there is

no longer an entity that can go on learning about itself and there

are no parts in the Self so that one part can be revealed to another

part.

 

Thus the state that Sri Ramana Maharshi was in is called Sahaja

Samadhi. The state that Sri Nisargadatta was in and out of and in and

out of is called kevala samadhi. "

 

 

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin , S Jayanarayanan <sjayana wrote:

>

> There are some notes about Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM) in the website

> below claiming that NM still felt the " I am the body " idea rising up

> again and again. NM also apparently said that there is an " endless

> journey of self-discovery " , which seems contradictory to the final

> state of advaita siddhi where the " journey " finally ends in Supreme

> Steady Abidance in the Self.

>

 

Sir, could you provide sources of these statements?

 

Regards,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

A famous quote of NM's is " When I am everything, this is love; when I

am nothing, this is wisdom. Between these two my life moves. " This

would indicate a fluctuation.

 

However, NM was a teacher who liked to 'pull the rug out' from under

his students. As such he would respond to the particular concept a

student had, even if it meant NM's contradicting himself (which he did

often). So his words may be taken with a grain of salt.

[Guest guest]

" Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> A famous quote of NM's is " When I am everything,

> this is love; when I am nothing,

> this is wisdom. Between these two my life moves. "

> This would indicate a fluctuation.

 

Just for the sake of accuracy and to avoid further misunderstandings,

here is that quote " in context " :

....

Question: I find it hard to grasp what exactly do you mean by saying

that you are neither the object nor the subject. At this very moment,

as we talk, am I not the object of your experience, and you the subject?

Maharaj: Look, my thumb touches my forefinger. Both touch and are

touched. When my attention is on the thumb, the thumb is the feeler

and the forefinger - the self. Shift the focus of attention and the

relationship is reversed. I find that somehow, by shifting the focus

of attention, I become the very thing I look at and experience the

kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing.

I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness -

love; you may give it any name you like. Love says: 'I am

everything'. Wisdom says: 'I am nothing.' Between the two my life

flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject

and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both,

and neither, and beyond both.

Question: You make all these extraordinary statements about yourself.

What makes you say those things? What do you mean by saying that you

are beyond space and time?

Maharaj: You ask and the answer comes. I watch myself I watch the

answer and see no contradiction. It is clear to me that I am telling

you the truth. It is all very simple. Only you must trust me that I

mean what I say, that I am quite serious. As I told you already, my

Guru showed me my true nature and the true nature of the world. Having

realized that I am one with, and yet beyond the world, I became free

from all desire and fear. I did not reason out that I should be free,

I found myself free unexpectedly, without the least effort. This

freedom from desire and fear remained with me since then. Another

thing I noticed was that I do not need to make an effort; the deed

follows the thought, without delay and friction. I have also found

that thoughts become self fulfilling; things would fall in place

smoothly and rightly. The main change was in the mind; it became

motionless and silent, responding quickly, but not perpetuating the

response. Spontaneity became a way of life, the real became natural

and the natural became real. And above all, infinite affection, love,

dark and quiet, radiating in all directions, embracing all, making all

interesting and beautiful, significant and auspicious.

 

(I AM THAT, pages 257 & 258)

....

 

So far as I understand, no fluctuations there.

 

Regards,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

A friend of mine spent some time with Nisargadatta Maharaj in the

1970s. You can read his account of Maharaj here.

 

2007/02/10/meeting-nisargadatta-maharaj-by-dr-

lakshyan-schanzer/

 

Namaste and love

Harsha

 

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> A famous quote of NM's is " When I am everything, this is love; when I

> am nothing, this is wisdom. Between these two my life moves. " This

> would indicate a fluctuation.

>

> However, NM was a teacher who liked to 'pull the rug out' from under

> his students. As such he would respond to the particular concept a

> student had, even if it meant NM's contradicting himself (which he

did

> often). So his words may be taken with a grain of salt.

>

[Guest guest]

--- Mouna <solracartist wrote:

 

> advaitin , S Jayanarayanan <sjayana

> wrote:

> >

> > There are some notes about Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM) in the

> website

> > below claiming that NM still felt the " I am the body " idea rising

> up

> > again and again. NM also apparently said that there is an

> " endless

> > journey of self-discovery " , which seems contradictory to the

> final

> > state of advaita siddhi where the " journey " finally ends in

> Supreme

> > Steady Abidance in the Self.

> >

>

> Sir, could you provide sources of these statements?

>

 

If you had read my full posting, you would've realized that that was

precisely my point - I wanted to know the exact references for the

statements on NM:

 

---

Can someone please confirm or deny the statements about NM here:

 

http://www.albigen. com/uarelove/ sahaja.aspx

 

" In the case of Sri Ramana, the ego ended in the experience in

Madurai, and from that moment onwards, Sri Ramana says there was no

change in his experience. That is consistent with Sri Ramana’s

description of Sahaja Samadhi.

 

The case if Sri Nisargadatta is quite different. Sri Nisargadatta

continued until the end of his life to describe the changes that were

occurring. For example he said that previously he thought he was free

of the ‘I am the body’ identification but that now he could see that

some had remained, etc.

 

Also Sri Nisargadatta had the view that after Self-Realization there

is an endless journey of discovering oneself. Both these are

consistent with those who go in and out of kevala Samadhi. However

those descriptions are completely inconsistent with Sahaja Samadhi.

 

In Sahaja Samadhi there is no longer an entity that can undergo

changes in the level of ‘I am the body’ identification and there is

no longer an entity that can go on learning about itself and there

are no parts in the Self so that one part can be revealed to another

part.

 

Thus the state that Sri Ramana Maharshi was in is called Sahaja

Samadhi. The state that Sri Nisargadatta was in and out of and in and

out of is called kevala samadhi. "

---

 

> Regards,

> Mouna

>

>

 

Regards,

Kartik

 

 

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

[Guest guest]

--- Mouna <solracartist wrote:

 

> " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

> >

> > A famous quote of NM's is " When I am everything,

> > this is love; when I am nothing,

> > this is wisdom. Between these two my life moves. "

> > This would indicate a fluctuation.

>

> Just for the sake of accuracy and to avoid further

> misunderstandings,

> here is that quote " in context " :

> ...

> Question: I find it hard to grasp what exactly do you mean by

> saying

> that you are neither the object nor the subject. At this very

> moment,

> as we talk, am I not the object of your experience, and you the

> subject?

> Maharaj: Look, my thumb touches my forefinger. Both touch and are

> touched. When my attention is on the thumb, the thumb is the feeler

> and the forefinger - the self. Shift the focus of attention and the

> relationship is reversed. I find that somehow, by shifting the

> focus

> of attention, I become the very thing I look at and experience the

> kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the

> thing.

 

This is an important point - why does NM feel the need to " shift the

focus of attention " at all?

 

If NM were truly absorbed in the Self, how can there be a " shifting

of the focus of attention " from the Self to " something else " ?

 

Besides, what does NM mean by saying, " I become the inner witness of

the thing " ? The use of the word " become " is rather strange - because

the advaita VedAntins always say that the final experience is one of

pure BEING and not BECOMING.

 

> I call this capacity of entering other focal points of

> consciousness -

> love; you may give it any name you like. Love says: 'I am

> everything'. Wisdom says: 'I am nothing.' Between the two my life

> flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the

> subject

> and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am

> both,

> and neither, and beyond both.

> Question: You make all these extraordinary statements about

> yourself.

> What makes you say those things? What do you mean by saying that

> you

> are beyond space and time?

> Maharaj: You ask and the answer comes. I watch myself I watch the

> answer and see no contradiction. It is clear to me that I am

> telling

> you the truth. It is all very simple. Only you must trust me that I

> mean what I say, that I am quite serious. As I told you already, my

> Guru showed me my true nature and the true nature of the world.

> Having

> realized that I am one with, and yet beyond the world, I became

> free

> from all desire and fear. I did not reason out that I should be

> free,

> I found myself free unexpectedly, without the least effort. This

> freedom from desire and fear remained with me since then. Another

> thing I noticed was that I do not need to make an effort; the deed

> follows the thought, without delay and friction. I have also found

> that thoughts become self fulfilling; things would fall in place

> smoothly and rightly. The main change was in the mind; it became

> motionless and silent, responding quickly, but not perpetuating the

> response. Spontaneity became a way of life, the real became natural

> and the natural became real. And above all, infinite affection,

> love,

> dark and quiet, radiating in all directions, embracing all, making

> all

> interesting and beautiful, significant and auspicious.

>

> (I AM THAT, pages 257 & 258)

> ...

>

> So far as I understand, no fluctuations there.

>

> Regards,

> Mouna

>

>

>

 

 

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

[Guest guest]

S Jayanarayanan <sjayana wrote:

 

> If you had read my full posting, you would've realized that that was

> precisely my point - I wanted to know the exact references for the

> statements on NM:

 

Dear Kartik:

 

I must apologize, for some mysterious reason, when I went to the link

I didn't read the end of that article. I should ask the sources to the

person writing that article. Sorry.

 

 

 

> This is an important point - why does NM feel the need to " shift the

> focus of attention " at all?

> If NM were truly absorbed in the Self, how can there be a " shifting

> of the focus of attention " from the Self to " something else " ?

> Besides, what does NM mean by saying, " I become the inner witness of

> the thing " ? The use of the word " become " is rather strange - because

> the advaita VedAntins always say that the final experience is one of

> pure BEING and not BECOMING.

 

Unfortunately, The Maharaj is no longer around to ask him these

questions, and all we can do from here is speculate on possible

answers to the questions. It takes a jnani to understand a jnani...

 

I think I filled the quota of postings I had for today, please forgive

me if I went over, I'm withdrawing from further postings (mmm...at

least for today...)

 

 

Yours in All,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

why does NM feel the need to " shift the

> focus of attention " at all?

 

It seems we must always shift focus no matter what our

state, realized or not. What difference would shifting

focus make to one who is realized? I'm not sure

shifting focus is an issue at all! If one is realized

the realization has to do not with the outer world and

what goes on there, but rather internally? Given that

internal and external are relative terms and that we

have to work with language...

 

Unless one is going to die upon realization, it would

not be a good idea not to shift focus if one has to

drive on the motorways of Great Britain or the

expressways of the United States. But the one who

shifts focus seems beyond the shift in focus and what

focus is shifted onto...seems to me, anyway!

 

 

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <solracartist wrote:

>

> " Richard " <richarkar@> wrote:

> >

> > A famous quote of NM's is " When I am everything,

> > this is love; when I am nothing,

> > this is wisdom. Between these two my life moves. "

> > This would indicate a fluctuation.

>

> Just for the sake of accuracy and to avoid further misunderstandings,

> here is that quote " in context " ...

 

The quote that follows in your post is a good one and puts things into

perspective.

 

As I mentioned though, to know of what Nisargadatta spoke there are

caviats. 1.Much of what he said was for shock value, to get the seeker

out of his/her concepts. Therefore he often contradicted himself. 2.If

a question was asked in a foreign language, it was translated to NM and

then his Marathi reply was translated back to the foreigner. This led

to misunderstandings. 3.Your quote is from " I Am That " . This book was

put together and had much input by Mr. Frydman. 4.To know the core of

NM's teachings, his deeper message, best to read the later books such

as those edited by Jean Dunn. " Prior to Consciousness " is an excellent

one.

 

Also recommended is to read books of NM's guru, Siddharameshwar

Maharaj, to get a feel for the lineage teachings.

 

Mouna, I'm glad you are not really silent and correct my inaccuracies.

thank you.

 

Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

 

Agree with most of what you said.

 

At a certain point you wrote:

> 3.Your quote is from " I Am That " . This book was

> put together and had much input by Mr. Frydman.

> 4.To know the core of

> NM's teachings, his deeper message, best to

> read the later books such

> as those edited by Jean Dunn.

> " Prior to Consciousness " is an excellent one.

 

Let me give a link of a wonderful article written by David Godman

called " Remembering Nisargadatta Maharaj " . It is not only a treasure

for NM lovers but also a clear and well edited description of what the

life and methods of teaching of a jnani looks like, from an

experiential point of view, since David Godman was there. Here it is:

 

http://davidgodman.org/interviews/nis1.shtml

 

I will include an extract of this article that speaks about the

relationship between NM, Maurice Frydman, and the book I Am That.

 

" ... One morning Maharaj seemed to be more-than-usually frustrated

about our collective inability to grasp what he was talking about.

'Why do I waste my time with you people?' he exclaimed. 'Why does

no one ever understand what I am saying?'

I took my chance: 'In all the years that you have been teaching

how many people have truly understood and experienced your teachings?'

He was quiet for a moment, and then he said, 'One. Maurice

Frydman.' He didn't elaborate and I didn't follow it up.

I mentioned earlier that at the conclusion of his morning puja he

put kum kum on the forehead of all the pictures in his room of the

people he knew were enlightened. There were two big pictures of

Maurice there, and both of them were daily given the kum kum

treatment. Maharaj clearly had a great respect for Maurice. I remember

on one of my early visits querying Maharaj about some statement of his

that had been recorded in I am That. I think it was about fulfilling

desires.

Maharaj initially didn't seem to agree with the remarks that had

been attributed to him in the book, but then he added, 'The words must

be true because Maurice wrote them. Maurice was a jnani, and the

jnani's words are always the words of truth.'

 

....

 

> Mouna, I'm glad you are not really silent and correct my inaccuracies.

> thank you.

 

We are Lovers of Truth, aren't we? Thank you...

 

All the best, Richard, and best... the All.

Mouna

[Guest guest]

--- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana wrote:

 

> There are some notes about Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM) in the website

> below claiming that NM still felt the " I am the body " idea rising

> up

> again and again. NM also apparently said that there is an " endless

> journey of self-discovery " , which seems contradictory to the final

> state of advaita siddhi where the " journey " finally ends in Supreme

> Steady Abidance in the Self.

>

> Can someone please confirm or deny the statements about NM here:

>

> http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/sahaja.aspx

>

> " In the case of Sri Ramana, the ego ended in the experience in

> Madurai, and from that moment onwards, Sri Ramana says there was no

> change in his experience. That is consistent with Sri Ramana’s

> description of Sahaja Samadhi.

>

> The case if Sri Nisargadatta is quite different. Sri Nisargadatta

> continued until the end of his life to describe the changes that

> were

> occurring. For example he said that previously he thought he was

> free

> of the ‘I am the body’ identification but that now he could see

> that

> some had remained, etc.

>

> Also Sri Nisargadatta had the view that after Self-Realization

> there

> is an endless journey of discovering oneself. Both these are

> consistent with those who go in and out of kevala Samadhi. However

> those descriptions are completely inconsistent with Sahaja Samadhi.

>

>

> In Sahaja Samadhi there is no longer an entity that can undergo

> changes in the level of ‘I am the body’ identification and there is

> no longer an entity that can go on learning about itself and there

> are no parts in the Self so that one part can be revealed to

> another

> part.

>

> Thus the state that Sri Ramana Maharshi was in is called Sahaja

> Samadhi. The state that Sri Nisargadatta was in and out of and in

> and

> out of is called kevala samadhi. "

>

 

Here's what I received in a personal email:

 

----------------------------

The reference to the Above quote is in the book " Consciousness and

the Absolute " edited by Jean Dunn, beginning with the November 21,

1980 entry, the first paragraph:

 

Maharaj: " Whatever I had thought earlier has now changed. What is

happening now is that even the slightest touch of individuality has

completely disappeared, and it is consciousness as such which is

spontaneously experiencing. The result is total freedom. All the

time there was complete conviction that it was consciousness which

was experiencing; but that " I " which the consciousness was

experiencing was there. Now that has totally disappeared;

therefore, whatever happens in the field of consciousness, I, who am

there before consciousness, am not concerned in any way. The

experience is of consciousness experiencing itself. "

----------------------------

 

It seems that NM had changed his ideas (!) on the nature of

Self-realization after the publication of the book " I AM THAT "

(1973).

 

It should be noted that Ramana Maharshi NEVER " changed " his teachings

on Self-realization.

 

Regards,

Kartik