Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 10:44:21 GMT -5
"The ‘I am’ concept is the last outpost of the illusion, hold on to it, stabilize in the ‘I am’, then you are no more and individual. Without doing anything you have the knowledge ‘I am’, it has come spontaneously and unwillingly on you, stay there and put an ax to the ‘I am’." ~ The Nisargadatta Geeta - Abide in
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 11:00:50 GMT -5
Totally accept the knowledge ‘I am’ as oneself, and with full conviction and faith firmly believe in the dictum ‘I am that by which I know I am’. Reality prevails prior to the knowledge ‘I am’; you must stay put at the source of your creation, at the beginning of the knowledge ‘I am’.
The root habit is the ‘I am’ and it has arisen from the domain of the five elements and three qualities which are unreal.
Worship the knowledge ‘I am’ as God, as your Guru, the message ‘I am’ is there, the mind- flow is there, stay in the ‘I am’ and realize you are neither.
The essential thing to be convinced about is that the original concept ‘I am’ is false, only accept that which is conducive to this development.
The primary concept ‘I am’ is dishonest, a cheat. It has tricked you into believing what is not. Focus sharply on the ‘I am’ and it’ll disappear.
From non-being to being, how is it known? By the knowledge ‘I am’. Stay there in the ‘I am’, then you’ll go back from being to non-being.
The borderline between ‘I am’ (beingness) and ‘I am not’ (nonbeingness) is the precise Location where the intellect subsides. It’s the ‘Mahayoga’ state. Be there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 11:16:45 GMT -5
"The ‘I am’ concept is the last outpost of the illusion, hold on to it, stabilize in the ‘I am’, then you are no more and individual. Without doing anything you have the knowledge ‘I am’, it has come spontaneously and unwillingly on you, stay there and put an ax to the ‘I am’." ~ The Nisargadatta Geeta - Abide in
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 11, 2014 16:10:41 GMT -5
Niz was freaky looking/acting enough to not even need a replacement picture.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2014 20:45:44 GMT -5
Niz was freaky looking/acting enough to not even need a replacement picture. I'll bet he actually brought an ax with him to Satsang.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 12, 2014 21:36:35 GMT -5
"i AM".. the acknowledgment that that which makes the claim exists, and what follows 'I am' is a description of how the experiencer interprets existing.. to stand in opposition to 'i am' is to affirm its actuality..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 6:24:12 GMT -5
Niz was freaky looking/acting enough to not even need a replacement picture. I suppose that explains the ax metaphor. Perhaps if he had seen Brad PItt in the mirror he would have said something more flowery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 6:28:27 GMT -5
"i AM".. the acknowledgment that that which makes the claim exists, and what follows 'I am' is a description of how the experiencer interprets existing.. to stand in opposition to 'i am' is to affirm its actuality.. I think the idea was that busting up the I Am does away with a final conceptual impedance to what you might refer to as still mind. Of course I'm taking liberties with your still mind concept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 9:42:38 GMT -5
So the strategy with the I Am bizness is to basically use that as a conceptual anchor/label for being aware of being aware/existing/being? And he spent two years constantly doing that and when a sufficient weight to the anchor was created, or something, he destroyed the concept? So then it's just being all the time. Do I got that right?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2014 11:04:42 GMT -5
So the strategy with the I Am bizness is to basically use that as a conceptual anchor/label for being aware of being aware/existing/being? And he spent two years constantly doing that and when a sufficient weight to the anchor was created, or something, he destroyed the concept? So then it's just being all the time. Do I got that right? Up to "destroyed the concept", this is more or less what I interpret his descriptions to mean. He describes a practice, just like ATA or Tolle's "watch the thinker", that involved "refusing all thoughts but 'I Am'": seeker: How is it done? Niz: Refuse all thoughts except one: the thought 'I am'. The mind will rebel in the beginning, but with patience and perseverance it will yield and keep quiet. Once you are quiet, things will begin to happen spontaneously and quite naturally without any interference on your part. It's so beautifully and simply direct and literal: any thought arising that fits the pattern "I am <fill in the blank>" is false, and the strategy of the practice is to replace it with "I Am". As far as getting to the other side of the looking glass is concerned, he's also quite clear on the point that there is no doer and nothing to be done. It can all seem quite paradoxical to someone applying logic and reason, and he essentially acknowledges this in one dialog: Niz: Reality is neither subjective nor objective, neither mind nor matter, neither time nor space. These divisions need somebody to whom they happen, a conscious seperate center. But reality is all and nothing, the totality and the exclusion, the fullness and the emptiness, fully consistent and absolutely paradoxical. You cannot speak about it; you can only lose yourself in it. When you deny reality to anything, you come to a residue which cannot be denied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 12:35:40 GMT -5
So the strategy with the I Am bizness is to basically use that as a conceptual anchor/label for being aware of being aware/existing/being? And he spent two years constantly doing that and when a sufficient weight to the anchor was created, or something, he destroyed the concept? So then it's just being all the time. Do I got that right? Up to "destroyed the concept", this is more or less what I interpret his descriptions to mean. He describes a practice, just like ATA or Tolle's "watch the thinker", that involved "refusing all thoughts but 'I Am'": seeker: How is it done? Niz: Refuse all thoughts except one: the thought 'I am'. The mind will rebel in the beginning, but with patience and perseverance it will yield and keep quiet. Once you are quiet, things will begin to happen spontaneously and quite naturally without any interference on your part. It's so beautifully and simply direct and literal: any thought arising that fits the pattern "I am <fill in the blank>" is false, and the strategy of the practice is to replace it with "I Am". As far as getting to the other side of the looking glass is concerned, he's also quite clear on the point that there is no doer and nothing to be done. It can all seem quite paradoxical to someone applying logic and reason, and he essentially acknowledges this in one dialog: Niz: Reality is neither subjective nor objective, neither mind nor matter, neither time nor space. These divisions need somebody to whom they happen, a conscious seperate center. But reality is all and nothing, the totality and the exclusion, the fullness and the emptiness, fully consistent and absolutely paradoxical. You cannot speak about it; you can only lose yourself in it. When you deny reality to anything, you come to a residue which cannot be denied. Seems like his Geeta is chock full of I Am destruction messages. Perhaps this is similar to him pointing out the problem of attachment as you note with the term du jour Awareness. Sort of like the old rowboat getting to the shore story. Leave the boat once you get to the shore even though it worked quite well getting you there in the first place. There's probably a natural evolution of the teaching for the Advance Teacher set, where the power of their initial teachings must be subverted later on to shake off all the old clingy students who're dutifully following their words. I can imagine Tzu some day admonishing his followers to forget the Still Mind already, it's just a story about stuff. Like training wheels. Of course the modern method of teaching kids to ride bikes is to not use training wheels at all, just take the pedals off and lower the seat. They get to the necessity of balancing right away but are still safe because they can always put their feet down. And so this is what I'm wondering. If the I Am is akin to training wheels, why build up a contrivance in the first place? "I Am" seems like an unnecessary label. But maybe I'm not appreciating the build-up-an-anchor or foundation in this I-Amness. "Don't push the flower" as a pal of mine said once.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 12:45:37 GMT -5
"In the absence of the basic concept ‘I am’, there is no thought, no awareness, and no consciousness of one’s existence."
that's pretty rad. So who's swinging the axe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 12:49:15 GMT -5
"You are in the ‘I am’ without any effort, so be there. Don’t try to interpret the ‘I am’."
IOW, STFU!!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2014 18:59:52 GMT -5
"In the absence of the basic concept ‘I am’, there is no thought, no awareness, and no consciousness of one’s existence... and no ax." that's pretty rad. So who's swinging the axe?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 14, 2014 19:29:48 GMT -5
Up to "destroyed the concept", this is more or less what I interpret his descriptions to mean. He describes a practice, just like ATA or Tolle's "watch the thinker", that involved "refusing all thoughts but 'I Am'": It's so beautifully and simply direct and literal: any thought arising that fits the pattern "I am <fill in the blank>" is false, and the strategy of the practice is to replace it with "I Am". As far as getting to the other side of the looking glass is concerned, he's also quite clear on the point that there is no doer and nothing to be done. It can all seem quite paradoxical to someone applying logic and reason, and he essentially acknowledges this in one dialog: Seems like his Geeta is chock full of I Am destruction messages. Perhaps this is similar to him pointing out the problem of attachment as you note with the term du jour Awareness. Sort of like the old rowboat getting to the shore story. Leave the boat once you get to the shore even though it worked quite well getting you there in the first place. There's probably a natural evolution of the teaching for the Advance Teacher set, where the power of their initial teachings must be subverted later on to shake off all the old clingy students who're dutifully following their words. I can imagine Tzu some day admonishing his followers to forget the Still Mind already, it's just a story about stuff. Like training wheels. Of course the modern method of teaching kids to ride bikes is to not use training wheels at all, just take the pedals off and lower the seat. They get to the necessity of balancing right away but are still safe because they can always put their feet down. And so this is what I'm wondering. If the I Am is akin to training wheels, why build up a contrivance in the first place? "I Am" seems like an unnecessary label. But maybe I'm not appreciating the build-up-an-anchor or foundation in this I-Amness. "Don't push the flower" as a pal of mine said once. Other than the excerpts on the forum I've only read "I AM THAT", but from what I can tell there are two different things going on: - as you say, his later writings include more treatment of letting go of the "I am" and it's probably a decent speculation that by then there were a collection of students who had personalized the practice and were attached to it. - but even his earlier dialogs from "I AM THAT" include two different treatments of "I am". From the perspective of the typical peep that's very mind/body identified, the "I am", is a beacon for retracing one's steps back to a state before all of the "I am a man, I am an American, I am a provider, I am a husband, I am a homeowner" attachments were formed. From this perspective, looking back, the sense of being is the pony at the bottom of the pile, the pearl buried in the mud of the sty, the diamond at the bottom of the landfill. Now though, in an impersonal context, one in which realization has occurred or some woo woo has revealed the truth already, the "I am" is the original sin. It's the first distinction upon which all others are based. I like to think of Nizzy's contexts flips around this by the metaphor of Alice falling into the looking glass -- on one side the "I am" is a lure that pulls one out into form, while on that other side, once the person has entangled themselves, the sense of being points in the direction back home. As far as the training wheel metaphor is concerned, I'd say that the issue is one of getting peeps attention. If someone thinks they're a separate peep that does stuff, then giving them something to do makes sense ... certainly to them it does anyway. I know it did for me when I read "watch the thinker".
|
|