|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 2, 2019 9:03:39 GMT -5
I don't think Niz***** needs an introduction. But for those who need one, there is some interesting information about him on his wikipedia page. Shawn gave him a 5-star rating. Not really a surprise. I think most here will agree with this rating. It seems Niz had been known locally only for quite some time. However, after the publication of 'I Am That' (a compilation of his dialogs with seekers by Maurice Frydman) he suddenly became very famous. The wikipedia article quotes Niz saying: "I used to have a quiet life but the book I Am That by Maurice has turned my house into a railway station platform."  'I Am That' is not the only book though. Some people probably don't know that. As Shawn mentions in his review: " I Am That is a good introductory collection of Maharaj’s dialogues from the early 1970s. The stern, bare-bones talks of the last year of his life are collected in Consciousness and the Absolute... Other books include Seeds of Consciousness and Prior to Consciousness." It's been a while since I've read 'I Am That'. But I remember when I first read it (more than a decade ago), it took me a while to get thru the book. And the other books I've never really read from cover to cover. But I can share Shawn's impression that there's a difference between the dialogs published in 'I Am That' and the dialogs from the 1980's up to his death in the other books. What I can tell from memory is that the later dialogs seem more straight to the point but also more abstract at the same time. Anyone here who has had a similar impression? Would be interesting to see if Niz' style and focus had just changed or his message, too. So I think I'm going to start with 'I Am That' again and then move on to the other books. Let's see. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 2, 2019 9:08:34 GMT -5
The Sense of ‘I am’ (1)
Q: What benefit is there in knowing that I am not the body?
M: Even to say that you are not the body is not quite true. In a way you are all the bodies, hearts and minds and much more. Go deep into the sense of ‘I am’ and you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotten? You keep it in your mind until you recall it. The sense of being, of ‘I am’ is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly.
When the mind stays in the ‘I am’, without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalized but can be experienced. All you need to do is to try and try again. After all the sense ‘I am’ is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it — body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 10:15:57 GMT -5
The Sense of ‘I am’ (1)Q: What benefit is there in knowing that I am not the body? M: Even to say that you are not the body is not quite true. In a way you are all the bodies, hearts and minds and much more. Go deep into the sense of ‘I am’ and you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotten? You keep it in your mind until you recall it. The sense of being, of ‘I am’ is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the ‘I am’, without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalized but can be experienced. All you need to do is to try and try again. After all the sense ‘I am’ is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it — body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not. I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 1 I like this quote. It clarifies some of the confusion. You are not the body and you are the body. You are notthing and you are everything. These are useful pointers given a specific context and understanding, but as a dictum they become a neck weight. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 2, 2019 10:32:37 GMT -5
The Sense of ‘I am’ (1)Q: What benefit is there in knowing that I am not the body? M: Even to say that you are not the body is not quite true. In a way you are all the bodies, hearts and minds and much more. Go deep into the sense of ‘I am’ and you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotten? You keep it in your mind until you recall it. The sense of being, of ‘I am’ is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the ‘I am’, without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalized but can be experienced. All you need to do is to try and try again. After all the sense ‘I am’ is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it — body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not. I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 1 I like this quote. It clarifies some of the confusion. You are not the body and you are the body. You are notthing and you are everything. These are useful pointers given a specific context and understanding, but as a dictum they become a neck weight. It's basically what Ramana says here: "The jnani says, 'I am the body'. The ajnani says, 'I am the body' - what is the difference? ‘I am’ is the truth. The body is the limitation. The ajnani limits the ‘I’ to the body. The ajnani’s ‘I’ is the body only. That is the whole error. The jnani’s ‘I’ includes the body and everything else. " |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2019 1:15:04 GMT -5
Anyone here who has had a similar impression? Would be interesting to see if Niz' style and focus had just changed or his message, too. So I think I'm going to start with 'I Am That' again and then move on to the other books. Let's see. I can't find the source of what I'm about to say, so I could be wrong. I did a quick internet search and I can't find it. But... I believe I read somewhere that some of the tone and content in I Am That is not from Nisargadatta, but from the the translator, Maurice Frydman, and that people who were present for the live talks asked Nisargadatta about the differences, and Nisargadatta said something like "Frydman is a gnani, whatever he said is right." |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2019 8:33:28 GMT -5
The Sense of ‘I am’ (2)
Q: Then what am I?
M: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. For, as long as knowledge means description in terms of what is already known, perceptual, or conceptual, there can be no such thing as self-knowledge, for what you are cannot be described, except as total negation. All you can say is: ‘I am not this, I am not that’. You cannot meaningfully say ‘this is what I am’. It just makes no sense. What you can point out as ‘this’ or ‘that’ cannot be yourself. Surely, you cannot be ‘something’ else. You are nothing perceivable, or imaginable. Yet, without you there can be neither perception nor imagination.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2019 8:36:01 GMT -5
The Sense of ‘I am’ (3)
Q: The sense of being an experiencer, the sense of ‘I am’, is it not also an experience?
M: Obviously, every thing experienced is an experience. And in every experience there arises the experiencer of it. Memory creates the illusion of continuity. In reality each experience has its own experiencer and the sense of identity is due to the common factor at the root of all experiencer-experience relations.
Identity and continuity are not the same. Just as each flower has its own colour, but all colours are caused by the same light, so do many experiencers appear in the undivided and indivisible awareness, each separate in memory, identical in essence. This essence is the root, the foundation, the timeless and spaceless ‘possibility’ of all experience.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2019 8:43:56 GMT -5
I can't find the source of what I'm about to say, so I could be wrong. I did a quick internet search and I can't find it. But... I believe I read somewhere that some of the tone and content in I Am That is not from Nisargadatta, but from the the translator, Maurice Frydman, and that people who were present for the live talks asked Nisargadatta about the differences, and Nisargadatta said something like "Frydman is a gnani, whatever he said is right." I think you might be right. A lot this may be due to different translators. Jean Dunn writes in the introduction to Prior To Consciousness: "Maharaj spoke only in Marathi and at each meeting there was a translator, not always the same one; we are very grateful to them. The most frequent ones were Sri S.K. Mullarpatan, Dr. D.Doongaji, Ramesh S. Balsekar and S.V. Sapre, and the evening translator whom I remember only as Mohan. There were others at different times, but generally these were the day-to-day translators." |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2019 19:25:40 GMT -5
It's been a while since I've read 'I Am That'. But I remember when I first read it (more than a decade ago), it took me a while to get thru the book. And the other books I've never really read from cover to cover. But I can share Shawn's impression that there's a difference between the dialogs published in 'I Am That' and the dialogs from the 1980's up to his death in the other books. What I can tell from memory is that the later dialogs seem more straight to the point but also more abstract at the same time. Art, the guy who used to post as "living"/"gypsywind"/"verby" etc., found this the other day from here: Andy mentioned this dichotomy, years ago, he was the first that I remember pointing it out. Haven't read those other books yet .. but there is a dialog in "I AM THAT", #51: "Be Indifferent to Pain and Pleasure", where Niz says that he's 74 years old, and he lived for 10 years longer. So that gives a point of reference for the relative interval between the different groups of dialogs. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 8, 2019 4:27:15 GMT -5
Obsession with the Body
Q: Maharaj, you are sitting in front of me and I am here at your feet. What is the basic difference between us?
M: There is no basic difference.
Q: Still, you are different. Your mind seems to be always quiet and happy. And miracles happen around you.
M: I know nothing about miracles, and I wonder whether nature admits exceptions to her laws, unless we agree that everything is a miracle. As to my mind, there is no such thing. There is consciousness in which everything happens. It is quite obvious and within the experience of everybody. You just do not look carefully enough. Look well, and see what I see.
Q: What do you see?
M: I see what you too could see, here and now, but for the wrong focus of your attention. You give no attention to your self. Your mind is all with things, people and ideas, never with your self. Bring your self into focus, become aware of your own existence… All you need is to get rid of the tendency to define your self. All definitions apply to your body only and to its expressions… Once this obsession with the body goes, you will revert to your natural state, spontaneously and effortlessly. The only difference between us is that I am aware of my natural state, while you are bemused. Just like gold made into ornaments has no advantage over gold dust, except when the mind makes it so, so are we one in being — we differ only in appearance. We discover it by being earnest, by searching, inquiring, questioning daily and hourly, by giving one’s life to this discovery.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 2
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 8, 2019 5:04:23 GMT -5
It's been a while since I've read 'I Am That'. But I remember when I first read it (more than a decade ago), it took me a while to get thru the book. And the other books I've never really read from cover to cover. But I can share Shawn's impression that there's a difference between the dialogs published in 'I Am That' and the dialogs from the 1980's up to his death in the other books. What I can tell from memory is that the later dialogs seem more straight to the point but also more abstract at the same time. Art, the guy who used to post as "living"/"gypsywind"/"verby" etc., found this the other day from here: Andy mentioned this dichotomy, years ago, he was the first that I remember pointing it out. Haven't read those other books yet .. but there is a dialog in "I AM THAT", #51: "Be Indifferent to Pain and Pleasure", where Niz says that he's 74 years old, and he lived for 10 years longer. So that gives a point of reference for the relative interval between the different groups of dialogs. Well, thanks, Art! Now I have to buy another Niz book.  'I Am That' stands out in the sense that it is classic advaita while the books with the later dialogs are more or less neo advaita. But interesting that Niz would say that. I mean, editing for the sake of compiling is one thing, but adding your own stuff is quite another. The book 'Pointers from Nisargadatta' by Balsekar probably belongs into the 'adding one's own stuff' category as well. Now the question is, how reliable are the other compilations that had been published, like the Jean Dunn books? ETA: Maybe this was the tape the book is referencing? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 8, 2019 5:16:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 9, 2019 10:53:43 GMT -5
The Living Present
Q: Between the body and the self there lies a cloud of thoughts and feelings, which neither serve the body nor the self. These thoughts and feelings are flimsy, transient end meaningless, mere mental dust that blinds and chokes, yet they are there, obscuring and destroying.
M: Surely, the memory of an event cannot pass for the event itself. Nor can the anticipation. There is something exceptional, unique, about the present event, which the previous, or the coming do not have. There is a livingness about it, an actuality; it stands out as if illumined. There is the ‘stamp of reality’ on the actual, which the past and future do not have.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 3
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2019 3:38:48 GMT -5
The Real World is Beyond the Mind
Q: On several occasions the question was raised as to whether the universe is subject to the law of causation, or does it exist and function outside the law. You seem to hold the view that it is uncaused, that everything, however small, is uncaused, arising and disappearing for no known reason whatsoever.
M: Causation means succession in time of events in space, the space being physical or mental. Time, space, causation are mental categories, arising and subsiding with the mind… When I say a thing is without a cause, I mean it can be without a particular cause…. For everything there are innumerable causal factors. But the source of all that is, is the Infinite Possibility, the Supreme Reality, which is in you and which throws its power and light and love on every experience. But, this source is not a cause and no cause is a source. Because of that, I say everything is uncaused. You may try to trace how a thing happens, but you cannot find out why a thing is as it is. A thing is as it is, because the universe is as it is.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 4
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2019 3:43:46 GMT -5
What is Born must Die
Q: Is the witness-consciousness permanent or not?
M: It is not permanent. The knower rises and sets with the known. That in which both the knower and the known arise and set, is beyond time. The words permanent or eternal do not apply.
Q: And what is death?
M: It is the change in the living process of a particular body. Integration ends and disintegration sets in.
Q: But what about the knower. With the disappearance of the body, does the knower disappear?
M: Just as the knower of the body appears at birth, so he disappears at death.
Q: And nothing remains?
M: Life remains. Consciousness needs a vehicle and an instrument for its manifestation. When life produces another body, another knower comes into being.
Q: Is there a causal link between the successive body-knowers, or body-minds?
M: Yes, there is something that may be called the memory body, or causal body, a record of all that was thought, wanted and done. It is like a cloud of images held together.
Q: What is this sense of a separate existence?
M: It is a reflection in a separate body of the one reality. In this reflection the unlimited and the limited are confused and taken to be the same. To undo this confusion is the purpose of Yoga.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 5
|
|
