Guest guest Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Extract from Wikepedia on I AM THAT I AM In the Hindu Advaita Vedanta, the South Indian sage Ramana Maharshi mentions that of all the definitions of God, " none is indeed so well put as the biblical statement “I am that I am†" . He maintained that although Hindu scripture contains similar statements, the Mahavakyas, these are not as direct as Jehovah. [1] Further the " I am " is explained by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj as an abstraction in the mind of the Stateless State, of the Absolute, or the Supreme Reality, called Parabrahman. It is pure awareness, prior to thoughts, free from perceptions, associations, memories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs wrote:[1] Further the "I am" is explained by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj as an abstraction in the mind of the Stateless State, of the Absolute, or the Supreme Reality, called Parabrahman. It is pure awareness, prior to thoughts, free from perceptions, associations, memories.Dear Alan, my regards to your very good self.Just a small note on the last part of your post, about the nature of "I Am".Both Nisargadatta and Bhagavan had speak about "I Am" and further on many interpretations of their words had also seen the light.Interestingly enough, Nisargadtta's notion of "I Am" seems to have evolved by the end of his life. Acording to many talks recorded by different devotees, the Maharaj saw the "I Am" as the Manifested Consciousness principle, Pure Consciousness in the sense of Consciousness without the imputities of the mind, i.e. I Am That (impure) - I Am (pure). This Manifested Consciousness is what we usually called Ishwara, or Saguna, Brahman with attributes, and this very I Am is its atribute, according to the Maharaj.By the end of his life, the Maharaj defined ParaBrahman as That principle which is beyond the I Am (he talked from that principle point of view often, in first person singular).Although we need to be carefull here, he didn't negate the I Am, since he always advocated the practice of coming back to the I Am until is disolved in the Supreme Reality (that we always are anyways).I know it is a slight semantic difference with the usual notion we have about Bhagavan's interpretation of the I Am, which is not jeopardized here in any case. I believe is two Jnanis talking about the same principle with their own particular view.I just wanted to make a note about your assertion that Nisargadatta considered the I Am as ParaBrahman.I am also sure that in Nisargadatta earlier literature that is also the case.All the best for you and all friends/brothers of this Sangha,Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs wrote:> Extract from Wikepedia on I AM THAT I AMDear Alan, little addendum to my recent post,I didn't notice that the posting was an excerpt, and not of your own.I should have addressed the note I wrote accordingly and not personally as if it was your own.Little slip of the mind...Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Hello Dear Alan and Mouna I will quote Nisargadata Maharaj on "I Am": March 4. 1981 Maharaj: How did you get this "I Amness"? Did it come spontaneously, or did you try for it? As the Absolute, you were free form all concepts, including the primary concept "I Am", suddenly you were caught up in this "I Amness". Who did it? Has it not happened spontaneously? Questioner: Yes, that is true. M: You did not have this concept " I Am" in the course of the nine month in the womb. Understand this state of affairs; the concept "I Am" comes spontaneously and goes spontaneously. Amazingly, when it appears, it is accepted as real. All subsequent misconceptions arise from that feeling of reality in the " I Amness". Try to stabilize in that primary concept "I Am". In order to lose that and with it all other concepts. Why am I totally free? Because I have understood the unreality of that " I Am". I offer my salutation to all the prophets, creeds, religions, etc. I know they are not real; they are only the play of this consciousness. The truth, the Eternal, cannot be witnessed. It ever prevails. In your true state there are no words, but you think yourself important and you embrace many words. Poor human beings are caught between worldly life and spiritual life. One in a million understand all this play of consciousness, transcends it. , Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs wrote:>> Extract from Wikepedia on I AM THAT I AM> > > In the Hindu Advaita Vedanta, the South Indian sage Ramana Maharshi mentions that of all the definitions of God, "none is indeed so well put as the biblical statement “I am that I amâ€". He maintained that although Hindu scripture contains similar statements, the Mahavakyas, these are not as direct as Jehovah. [1] Further the "I am" is explained by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj as an abstraction in the mind of the Stateless State, of the Absolute, or the Supreme Reality, called Parabrahman. It is pure awareness, prior to thoughts, free from perceptions, associations, memories.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Namaskars! Upon reading all the above posts, it is my simple understanding that Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's concept of " I AM " (impure) is the same as the concept of " I Thought " of Bhagwan Sri Ramana Maharshi. Basically it is our individual personality - our ego. Only when our ego completely vanishes All becomes ONE without a Second , i.e. " I Am That I AM " . Regards, Purnima , " mourad " <mourad_shamel wrote: > > > Hello Dear Alan and Mouna > > I will quote Nisargadata Maharaj on " I Am " : > > March 4. 1981 > > > > Maharaj: How did you get this " I Amness " ? Did it come > spontaneously, or did you try for it? As the Absolute, you were free > form all concepts, including the primary concept " I Am " , > suddenly you were caught up in this " I Amness " . Who did it? > Has it not happened spontaneously? > > Questioner: Yes, that is true. > > M: You did not have this concept " I Am " in the course of the > nine month in the womb. Understand this state of affairs; the concept > " I Am " comes spontaneously and goes spontaneously. Amazingly, > when it appears, it is accepted as real. All subsequent misconceptions > arise from that feeling of reality in the " I Amness " . Try to > stabilize in that primary concept " I Am " . In order to lose that > and with it all other concepts. Why am I totally free? Because I have > understood the unreality of that " I Am " . > > I offer my salutation to all the prophets, creeds, religions, etc. > I know they are not real; they are only the play of this consciousness. > The truth, the Eternal, cannot be witnessed. It ever prevails. > > In your true state there are no words, but you think yourself > important and you embrace many words. Poor human beings are caught > between worldly life and spiritual life. One in a million understand > all this play of consciousness, transcends it. > > > > > , Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs@> > wrote: > > > > Extract from Wikepedia on I AM THAT I AM > > > > > > In the Hindu Advaita Vedanta, the South Indian sage Ramana Maharshi > mentions that of all the definitions of God, " none is indeed so well put > as the biblical statement “I am that I am†" . He maintained > that although Hindu scripture contains similar statements, the > Mahavakyas, these are not as direct as Jehovah. [1] Further the " I am " > is explained by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj as an abstraction in the mind > of the Stateless State, of the Absolute, or the Supreme Reality, called > Parabrahman. It is pure awareness, prior to thoughts, free from > perceptions, associations, memories. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Dear Mourad, Many thanks for adding to this clarification. All best wishes, Yours in Bhagavan, Alan --- On Thu, 19/2/09, mourad <mourad_shamel wrote: mourad <mourad_shamel Re: I AM THAT I AM Date: Thursday, 19 February, 2009, 7:46 PM Hello Alan and Mouna I will quote Nisargadata Maharaj on "I Am": March 4. 1981 Maharaj: How did you get this "I Amness"? Did it come spontaneously, or did you try for it? As the Absolute, you were free form all concepts, including the primary concept "I Am", suddenly you were caught up in this "I Amness". Who did it? Has it not happened spontaneously? Questioner: Yes, that is true. M: You did not have this concept " I Am" in the course of the nine month in the womb. Understand this state of affairs; the concept "I Am" comes spontaneously and goes spontaneously. Amazingly, when it appears, it is accepted as real. All subsequent misconceptions arise from that feeling of reality in the " I Amness". Try to stabilize in that primary concept "I Am". In order to lose that and with it all other concepts. Why am I totally free? Because I have understood the unreality of that " I Am". I offer my salutation to all the prophets, creeds, religions, etc. I know they are not real; they are only the play of this consciousness. The truth, the Eternal, cannot be witnessed. It ever prevails. In your true state there are no words, but you think yourself important and you embrace many words. Poor human beings are caught between worldly life and spiritual life. One in a million understand all this play of consciousness, transcends it. , "upadesa" <maunna wrote:>> Alan Jacobs alanadamsjacobs@ wrote:> > > Extract from Wikepedia on I AM THAT I AM> > Dear Alan, little addendum to my recent post,> > I didn't notice that the posting was an excerpt, and not of your own.> I should have addressed the note I wrote accordingly and not personally> as if it was your own.> Little slip of the mind...> > Yours in Bhagavan,> Mouna> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Dear Mouna, It is quite OK. Thanks for your helpful clarification on this vital thread. All best wishes and warm regards, Yours in Bhagavan, Alan --- On Thu, 19/2/09, upadesa <maunna wrote: upadesa <maunna Re: I AM THAT I AM Date: Thursday, 19 February, 2009, 7:25 PM Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs@ ...> wrote:> Extract from Wikepedia on I AM THAT I AMDear Alan, little addendum to my recent post,I didn't notice that the posting was an excerpt, and not of your own.I should have addressed the note I wrote accordingly and not personally as if it was your own.Little slip of the mind...Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna 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.