|
|
Post by Reefs on May 1, 2017 0:14:42 GMT -5
Yes, very old thread. And it seems that Source = TRF.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 1, 2017 3:46:04 GMT -5
IAM --The complete ‘I am’ quotes of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/iamquotesofnisargadatta.pdf"The ‘I am’ 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 yourself anything except ‘I am’, and that nothing can be pointed at, can be your self, the need for the ‘I am’ is over..." Maybe the whole axe thing is about this. It's basically a way of saying: move along, now, nothing more to see. I agree that the 'I am' thingy is useful, but I suggest that it's a doorway to what lies beyond. I didn't remember this thread, and I'd be interested to know where the quote Andrew posted came from. Was it from Niz or Ramana? The one on page 4 was Niz. I have posted a lot of Niz quotes over the years and the great majority are from his later works, like 'The Ultimate Medicine'. It seems to me that as his teaching unfolded over the years he became more drawn to pointing beyond I am, and this is where my interest has lain. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 1, 2017 4:10:21 GMT -5
I agree that the 'I am' thingy is useful, but I suggest that it's a doorway to what lies beyond. I didn't remember this thread, and I'd be interested to know where the quote Andrew posted came from. Was it from Niz or Ramana? The one on page 4 was Niz. I have posted a lot of Niz quotes over the years and the great majority are from his later works, like 'The Ultimate Medicine'. I t seems to me that as his teaching unfolded over the years he became more drawn to pointing beyond I am, and this is where my interest has lain. From an I am perspective .. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 1, 2017 4:17:16 GMT -5
The one on page 4 was Niz. I have posted a lot of Niz quotes over the years and the great majority are from his later works, like 'The Ultimate Medicine'. I t seems to me that as his teaching unfolded over the years he became more drawn to pointing beyond I am, and this is where my interest has lain. From an I am perspective .. I guess there is no other kind of perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 1, 2017 4:28:49 GMT -5
From an I am perspective .. I guess there is no other kind of perspective. You wuda thought .. This was inline with my explanation a while ago speaking of the drop in the ocean that is I, that relates to beyond I that is the ocean . Only the drop known as I can know of the Ocean . My thoughts on the sense of I that changes / shifts coincide with niz's unfoldment . You said once before that niz had a different perspective in relation to his later book/s . This is exactly what I mean . Something changed / shifted I would say that allowed the unfoldment even though realisation was had beyond I and beyond any perspective . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 1, 2017 4:39:14 GMT -5
The one on page 4 was Niz. I have posted a lot of Niz quotes over the years and the great majority are from his later works, like 'The Ultimate Medicine'. I t seems to me that as his teaching unfolded over the years he became more drawn to pointing beyond I am, and this is where my interest has lain. From an I am perspective .. One thing about Niz is that he doesn't talk a whole lot about the nature of his experience, and I am sure there is good reason for that. I think this gives a bit of insight though. ''The I am is absent only in the state of samadhi when the self merges in the Self. Otherwise it will be there. In the state of a realized person the I am is there, he just doesn't give much importance to it.'' What you call realization T, others call samadhi. I'm not sure it matters what it is called, and sometimes I think there is too much focus on the word 'realization'...as in, who is defining it correctly. The point is that there has to be a merger between self and Self. That is also one of the only quotes in which, to me, he sounds like Ramana. I think a difficulty for a Niz student is that Niz sort of writes off I am, but in other passages will emphasize the huge importance of focusing on I am. I'm not confused by it, but I imagine it could be confusing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 1, 2017 4:41:48 GMT -5
I guess there is no other kind of perspective. You wuda thought .. This was inline with my explanation a while ago speaking of the drop in the ocean that is I, that relates to beyond I that is the ocean . Only the drop known as I can know of the Ocean . My thoughts on the sense of I that changes / shifts coincide with niz's unfoldment . You said once before that niz had a different perspective in relation to his later book/s . This is exactly what I mean . Something changed / shifted I would say that allowed the unfoldment even though realisation was had beyond I and beyond any perspective . My impression is that the realization deepened over the years, and also that his teaching adjusted to the many kinds of students that he faced. Darn I just used that word. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 1, 2017 5:06:36 GMT -5
From an I am perspective .. One thing about Niz is that he doesn't talk a whole lot about the nature of his experience, and I am sure there is good reason for that. I think this gives a bit of insight though. ''The I am is absent only in the state of samadhi when the self merges in the Self. Otherwise it will be there. In the state of a realized person the I am is there, he just doesn't give much importance to it.'' What you call realization T, others call samadhi. I'm not sure it matters what it is called, and sometimes I think there is too much focus on the word 'realization'...as in, who is defining it correctly. The point is that there has to be a merger between self and Self. That is also one of the only quotes in which, to me, he sounds like Ramana. I think a difficulty for a Niz student is that Niz sort of writes off I am, but in other passages will emphasize the huge importance of focusing on I am. I'm not confused by it, but I imagine it could be confusing. I think many experience Samadhi, butt as said there are lots of differential types supposedly, butt the self merging in the Self doesn't always happen to those that have a different sense of I when experiencing certain types of Samadhi . We spoke of what you termed the absolute Samadhi the other day which I would say is when self merges into Self, butt as you know these made up terms are just that . The actual reality of merging self into Self is all that holds any weight in my book in regards to realizing that beyond self is what you are that is Self or the ocean . That's why I call it a realization because the merging changes everything once the sense of I returns . Entering different types of Samadhi doesn't hold the same weight . Like said most peeps enter a type of Samadhi during their normal day, my sister had a security blanket when she was little, she used to go into Samadhi then, my mum used to watch her do it lol and my sister at the time didn't consciously join the dots although on some level she would acknowledge the different states before and after . This type of Samadhi isn't a life changer . I think in terms of I being important and then not, it will depend on if one's thirst is quenched or not . When your dying of thirst your attention is on only water, when your thirst is quenched water is not as important . I think this illustrates why peeps see things differently as things unfold . I agree that I am is only absent when the drop becomes the Ocean . This is why only from I am the drop can one relate to what you are of the ocean . I don't know why this has been difficult to comprehend for some . It's a point that I have stressed often and this is the key difference between the realization itself and post realization . The difference is as vast as the blinkin Ocean . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 1, 2017 5:14:10 GMT -5
You wuda thought .. This was inline with my explanation a while ago speaking of the drop in the ocean that is I, that relates to beyond I that is the ocean . Only the drop known as I can know of the Ocean . My thoughts on the sense of I that changes / shifts coincide with niz's unfoldment . You said once before that niz had a different perspective in relation to his later book/s . This is exactly what I mean . Something changed / shifted I would say that allowed the unfoldment even though realisation was had beyond I and beyond any perspective . My impression is that the realization deepened over the years, and also that his teaching adjusted to the many kinds of students that he faced. Darn I just used that word. .. I can relate to the deepening or the integration had .. it can mean that at one point one relates I am to be an illusion to I am being what you are . All one knows in the immediate sense is I am not I as I am was absent and yet there is what you are . It can take days, weeks, months, years, decades to integrate / attain a deeper understanding of Self being all there is . Peeps think I say it often for the fun of it, butt it does relate to my integration / understandings . Just as the water becomes not so important, the so called illusory I stuff doesn't . If a peep is thirsty for a sense of I am this and not that, then so be it . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 1, 2017 5:54:31 GMT -5
One thing about Niz is that he doesn't talk a whole lot about the nature of his experience, and I am sure there is good reason for that. I think this gives a bit of insight though. ''The I am is absent only in the state of samadhi when the self merges in the Self. Otherwise it will be there. In the state of a realized person the I am is there, he just doesn't give much importance to it.'' What you call realization T, others call samadhi. I'm not sure it matters what it is called, and sometimes I think there is too much focus on the word 'realization'...as in, who is defining it correctly. The point is that there has to be a merger between self and Self. That is also one of the only quotes in which, to me, he sounds like Ramana. I think a difficulty for a Niz student is that Niz sort of writes off I am, but in other passages will emphasize the huge importance of focusing on I am. I'm not confused by it, but I imagine it could be confusing. The actual reality of merging self into Self is all that holds any weight in my book in regards to realizing that beyond self is what you are that is Self or the ocean . That's why I call it a realization because the merging changes everything once the sense of I returns This for me is the key bit. I agree merging does change everything, and I would agree that the sense of I am returns, but as part of that change, it is no longer experienced or known in the same way. I would say the attachment to the sense of existing has fallen away, so the sense becomes largely inconsequential. In one way we no longer experience ourselves as separate FROM the sense so experientially, by and large, it is as if it is not there, even though it is there ( unless we drop again into the deeper state in which nothing is happening ) |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 1, 2017 9:55:21 GMT -5
From an I am perspective .. One thing about Niz is that he doesn't talk a whole lot about the nature of his experience, and I am sure there is good reason for that. I think this gives a bit of insight though. ''The I am is absent only in the state of samadhi when the self merges in the Self. Otherwise it will be there. In the state of a realized person the I am is there, he just doesn't give much importance to it.'' What you call realization T, others call samadhi. I'm not sure it matters what it is called, and sometimes I think there is too much focus on the word 'realization'...as in, who is defining it correctly. The point is that there has to be a merger between self and Self. That is also one of the only quotes in which, to me, he sounds like Ramana. I think a difficulty for a Niz student is that Niz sort of writes off I am, but in other passages will emphasize the huge importance of focusing on I am. I'm not confused by it, but I imagine it could be confusing. Andrew: Thanks for this quote and the one on page 4. I think all of us agree that the I am is totally absent in deep samadhi. I do not call samadhi a realization (as Tenka does) because it has duration and is not an event. One can fall into deep samadhi and remain there for hours with no sense of time (or anything else) until consciousness of one's environment returns. In that state there is only pure awareness without any content at all. My point about the I am being absent in everyday consciousness is somewhat subtle, but this Niz quote explicates it somewhat. When I write about it being absent, I do not mean that it's not accessible; I mean that there is often no reference to it or awareness of it. This is equivalent to Niz's quote, "In the state of a realized person the I am is there, he just doesn't give much importance to it." IOW, some degree of reflection is necessary for there to be awareness of the sense of existence. If the mind is totally quiescent, there is no conscious reflectivity. For all practical purposes there's no one there; the body/mind has disappeared into the activity of whatever is happening, and there is no reflectivity occurring. This is the basis of my disagreement with statements such as, "There is an I am in relation to whatever is happening." For one thing, there can't be a relationship unless there are two, and there isn't except when the mind reflects. For a second thing, when a human is totally focused on some activity, they are in a state that is something like deep samadhi; there is no sense of time, space, selfhood, I am, or anything else. Nothing is known, intellectually, and the body does whatever it does in a state of internal silence. If we reflect about what's happening in that state, we can say that the body sees the world in that state and knows it directly, but within the state itself nothing is reflectively known about whatever is seen and nothing is known, reflectively/intellectually, about what's happening. The body is psychologically at-one with "what is" and is moving around like a blood cell moving through veins or arteries. This is the state of being that Zen people call "no mind." It is seeing and being without knowing. Can a sage become aware of the sense of existence? Sure, but this involves some degree of psychological reflection. It's like the brick-laying-samadhi mason who, at the end of the day, left that state of no-mind intimacy to reflect about his work. During the workday his habitual form of consciousness fell away and the body became one-with what was happening. I suspect that he found that state deeply peaceful. Zen people call that kind of samadhi "positive samadhi" to distinguish it from "absolute samadhi" (NS). I think Ramana is pointing to the same thing when he talks about "sahaja samadhi." The brick layer, as far as we know, has not attained SS because at the end of the day his ordinary sense of being a separate volitional entity returns. If he attained SR, then the sense of being a separate volitional entity would not return. What Ramana and NIz are both pointing to is a permanent way of life and a state of mind that is psychologically unified with "what is." It's like flowing along in the river of life and being the flow without reflecting about it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 10:19:16 GMT -5
The actual reality of merging self into Self is all that holds any weight in my book in regards to realizing that beyond self is what you are that is Self or the ocean . That's why I call it a realization because the merging changes everything once the sense of I returns This for me is the key bit. I agree merging does change everything, and I would agree that the sense of I am returns, but as part of that change, it is no longer experienced or known in the same way. I would say the attachment to the sense of existing has fallen away, so the sense becomes largely inconsequential. In one way we no longer experience ourselves as separate FROM the sense so experientially, by and large, it is as if it is not there, even though it is there ( unless we drop again into the deeper state in which nothing is happening ) I am is a sense. So you are there 'prior' to 'observe' that sense. You perceive the sense I am from a place that is empty of all sense perception. That is your true home. You can either look outward at the sense of I am or you can look at it from the outside. You determine where you want to look from. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on May 1, 2017 11:25:04 GMT -5
"What do you mean by study? That means you are only trying to remember the concepts. What I am saying is that you become concept-free. Put an ax to the concepts, including the concept ‘I am’."
Ah okay. I Am as a concept only. Not 'experienced.'
|
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on May 1, 2017 11:39:37 GMT -5
prahlad.org/gallery/nisargadatta/books/Nisargadatta-The_Ultimate_Medicine.pdfFrom page 5 of Ultimate Medicine: "Because that food-body is there, and that slice of bread, the "I-am-ness" appears. Since this is dependent on the body, it is ignorance; therefore, this "I-am-ness" knowledge cannot remain permanently, it is a function of this food-body. So long as the food-body is present, this "I-am-ness" will remain. Thereafter, it will go." ... "When the food-body is dropped by the vital breath, the "I-am-ness" will set. So "I-am-ness" is not permanent either; the consciousness is not permanent." page 7 "When you are in consciousness, you understand the nature of consciousness and you recede. Your progress continues. This consciousness and you recede. Your progress continues. This consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself; knowingly it is disappearing. But nothing affects You, because that is the Absolute. Just like when the flame is gone, the smoke is gone, the sky remains." ... "That is the Brahman of death, the moment of death. Watching occurs, the vital breath is leaving the body, :I-am-ness" is receding, vanishing. That is the greatest moment, the moment of immortality. "The body, the flame, that "I-am-ness," is there; its movements are there, and I observe. And it is extinguished. the vital breath deserts the body, that flame is not there. You observe that. That observation occurs to you. The ignorant one at the moment of death is in a great fright: he is struggling. But not the jnani; for him it is the happiest moment, the most blissful one."
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 1, 2017 11:43:39 GMT -5
One thing about Niz is that he doesn't talk a whole lot about the nature of his experience, and I am sure there is good reason for that. I think this gives a bit of insight though. ''The I am is absent only in the state of samadhi when the self merges in the Self. Otherwise it will be there. In the state of a realized person the I am is there, he just doesn't give much importance to it.'' What you call realization T, others call samadhi. I'm not sure it matters what it is called, and sometimes I think there is too much focus on the word 'realization'...as in, who is defining it correctly. The point is that there has to be a merger between self and Self. That is also one of the only quotes in which, to me, he sounds like Ramana. I think a difficulty for a Niz student is that Niz sort of writes off I am, but in other passages will emphasize the huge importance of focusing on I am. I'm not confused by it, but I imagine it could be confusing. Andrew: Thanks for this quote and the one on page 4. I think all of us agree that the I am is totally absent in deep samadhi. I do not call samadhi a realization (as Tenka does) because it has duration and is not an event. One can fall into deep samadhi and remain there for hours with no sense of time (or anything else) until consciousness of one's environment returns. In that state there is only pure awareness without any content at all. My point about the I am being absent in everyday consciousness is somewhat subtle, but this Niz quote explicates it somewhat. When I write about it being absent, I do not mean that it's not accessible; I mean that there is often no reference to it or awareness of it. This is equivalent to Niz's quote, "In the state of a realized person the I am is there, he just doesn't give much importance to it." IOW, some degree of reflection is necessary for there to be awareness of the sense of existence. If the mind is totally quiescent, there is no conscious reflectivity. For all practical purposes there's no one there; the body/mind has disappeared into the activity of whatever is happening, and there is no reflectivity occurring. This is the basis of my disagreement with statements such as, "There is an I am in relation to whatever is happening." For one thing, there can't be a relationship unless there are two, and there isn't except when the mind reflects. For a second thing, when a human is totally focused on some activity, they are in a state that is something like deep samadhi; there is no sense of time, space, selfhood, I am, or anything else. Nothing is known, intellectually, and the body does whatever it does in a state of internal silence. If we reflect about what's happening in that state, we can say that the body sees the world in that state and knows it directly, but within the state itself nothing is reflectively known about whatever is seen and nothing is known, reflectively/intellectually, about what's happening. The body is psychologically at-one with "what is" and is moving around like a blood cell moving through veins or arteries. This is the state of being that Zen people call "no mind." It is seeing and being without knowing. Can a sage become aware of the sense of existence? Sure, but this involves some degree of psychological reflection. It's like the brick-laying-samadhi mason who, at the end of the day, left that state of no-mind intimacy to reflect about his work. During the workday his habitual form of consciousness fell away and the body became one-with what was happening. I suspect that he found that state deeply peaceful. Zen people call that kind of samadhi "positive samadhi" to distinguish it from "absolute samadhi" (NS). I think Ramana is pointing to the same thing when he talks about "sahaja samadhi." The brick layer, as far as we know, has not attained SS because at the end of the day his ordinary sense of being a separate volitional entity returns. If he attained SR, then the sense of being a separate volitional entity would not return. What Ramana and NIz are both pointing to is a permanent way of life and a state of mind that is psychologically unified with "what is." It's like flowing along in the river of life and being the flow without reflecting about it. yeah....with some minor differences, that's pretty much how I see it. |
|
