"Nullification"

[Guest guest]

Hi Tim,

>

>Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj speaks of focusing upon "I AM," of holding

>tenaciously to the sense "I AM." Also, "I AM" is a commonly used phrase

>associated with nonduality that is assumed to be nondual in nature. But "I

>AM" is still dual. "I AM" suggests an entity, and a state of being of that

>entity ("am-ness"). If "I AM" can be true, then "I AM NOT" can also

be

>true. This is duality.

 

"I AM" is dual mostly because of the nature of our language, which causes

us to think in subject-predicate terms. Not all languages are like this.

But that verb "to be" (am) is an unusual one - we mainly use it as a

connector, to connect or identify the I with something else. I am a

woman... I am a teacher... I am tired... I am going now... I am

happy... I am angry... I am short... I am tall.. etc., etc... So when

a person gets used to saying "I AM" without nothing connected, no

qualifying words, that can bring about a change in awareness right there.

A sense that all the things I might put after "I am..." are irrelevant to

what I really am... and they are... they are all part of manifestation...

but the root, the source, is unmanifest.

>

>Thus, let us take a step beyond "I AM." Let us focus simply on "I."

 

That's okay for meditation, but to say "I" doesn't mean anything in our

language. To say "I AM" seems to express pure existence... with nothing

else, no qualifiers... There are NO words that can denote or connote or

express or explain the experience of the unmanifest from which all

manifestation constantly arises... the ground of being. I think "I AM" is

about as good as we can do, given the nature of our language.

 

"I AM" is more than just "a popular phrase." It was no accident that when

Moses met divinity, he called it YHWH (usually written Yahweh). It seems

to have meant "I am that I am" or "I am what I am." I think it was Moses'

best understanding and expression (conscious or unconscious) of what he had

experienced.

>There

>is nothing else. There is no state of being, no existence, and never was.

 

In the unmanifest there is nothing... and everything... nothing in

particular, everything in potential... pure potentiality, you might say...

pure existence?... but there are no words...

>The Self knows the Self as "I."

 

Does it? I suspect that it takes the manifested consciousness to look

inward and say "I am THAT." Or "I AM."

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

At 08:45 PM 3/17/99 PST, you wrote:

>"Ah Sam" <ah__sam

>

>"Nullification" --> by Tim Gerchmez

>

>Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj speaks of focusing upon "I AM," of holding

>tenaciously to the sense "I AM." Also, "I AM" is a commonly used

>phrase associated with nonduality that is assumed to be nondual in nature.

>But "I AM" is still dual. "I AM" suggests an entity, and a state of being

of

>that entity ("am-ness"). (further discussion of "I" being superior to

"I AM")

>

>Hi,

>

>I AM lost.

>

>"I" implies "NOT I" implies duality???

 

No - in the word "I," in the simple existence of "I" there is no duality.

How can "I" be negated? There's no "hook" for negation to "grab

onto."

 

Think about the words "I AM." There is a subject (I) and a state of being

(AM-ness). If there is AM-ness, there must be AM-NOT-ness as well. The

word "AM" is the "hook" I spoke of in the last paragraph. Thus, the simple

feeling or sense of "I" (not to be confused with the little ego 'me') seems

purely nondual to this person.

 

With just the "I," there is subject only. There is nothing there to

negate. It's clear to me that "I AM" implies the possibility that "I AM

NOT." But how exactly does "I" imply "Not I" when "I" is taken as the

*UNIVERSAL* "I?"

 

Keep in mind that this is only "my thing," and being on the path of

jnana-yoga, I "play with" this kind of stuff all the time. But I find much

more benefit in getting a "sense of" or "feeling of" *I* while meditating,

than a sense of *I AM.* Sometimes first I will get a sense of I AM, which

naturally progresses to I. I. I. I. I. repeated over and over, until even

"I" is silenced, and there is the void.

 

Anyone else?

 

Tim

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on spiritual topics.

[Guest guest]

At 11:00 PM 3/17/99 -0600, you wrote:

>>Thus, let us take a step beyond "I AM." Let us focus simply on "I."

>

>That's okay for meditation, but to say "I" doesn't mean anything in our

>language.

 

*But that's part of the point!* Think about it - removing the lingual

meaning removes the monkey-mind's ability to interject meaning where

PERCEPTION is called for. The sense "I" can be a purely *FELT* sense, a

complete and utter sense of UNIVERSALITY. "I AM" more often demands

analysis (I AM? I AM WHO?), and thus engages the mind, and in my opinion

makes a poor mantra or "object" of contemplation.

>>The Self knows the Self as "I."

>

>Does it? I suspect that it takes the manifested consciousness to look

>inward and say "I am THAT." Or "I AM."

 

I don't know... if someone asked me, "Who are you," I would not normally be

tempted to answer "I Exist" (I AM), but more likely to say "I AM myself" or

"I am I" (which can be boiled down to simply "I.")

>In the unmanifest there is nothing... and everything... nothing in

>particular, everything in potential... pure potentiality, you might say...

>pure existence?... but there are no words...

 

The "sense" of *I* is not a word, but a sense of universality. Try it in

meditation sometime before dismissing it... go from "I AM ALL" to "I AM" to

"I" to silence (void) in progressive stages and see if it "works for you."

:-) If not, great, if so, fantastic.

 

I only offer what has worked for me in the hope that it will be of benefit

to others, I certainly look for neither fame nor fortune in any of this :-)

 

With Love,

 

Tim

 

 

-----

The CORE of Reality awaits you at:

http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html -

Poetry, Writings, Live Chat on spiritual topics.