Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

[3bob]

Excerpts from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's, "I AM THAT":

 

"I am not even Consciousness, which is dual and perceivable:

I am the unkown Reality beyond."

[xabir2005]

Interesting topic, I just commented on something related yesterday which I then updated into my Who Am I? e-book/journal:

 

Found some quotations by Indian teacher Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, and wrote some comments in red:

 

"Now the consciousness, when it gets involved with the body-mind, is the individual. It is conditioned by body and mind. Mind is concepts. Whatever it receives through the five senses, and is stored, that is the mind. And whatever the words that flow out, that is also mind. So when that consciousness is conditioned by the body and the mind, it is individualistic, a personality."

 

Comments: this is the normal state of ordinary sentient beings, identified totally with their stories, mind, body, "I am this and that".

 

"And I always tell people, you depersonify yourself by not identifying with the body-mind. When you do that, you are that manifest principle; you are no more a personality, you are only consciousness. When you are in that consciousness state, you are in a position to observe the mind flow, any thoughts occurring to you - you are apart from thought. You don't identify with that thought. Since you observe the body and its actions, you are not one with those; you are apart from that body. Thus, you are now in consciousness; this is the first stage. So when you are only consciousness, you are all manifest; this is to be realized. Then, provided you are, everything is, your world is, and your god is. You are the primary cause, the prerequisite for anything else to exist, whether it be your god or your world. You abide only in consciousness. In your attention, only consciousness should be there. That is the meditation."

 

Comments: this is one of the four aspects of I AM: the impersonality aspect. It is seen here that everything is the manifestation of the Universal Source, the Consciousness, and no individual persons is involved in the doing/creating/manifesting/perceiving of life and phenomena: Impersonal Consciousness alone is that which manifests and perceives and animates all lives. A personal self as such is non-operational and non-existent.

 

"Now the next step is - the question raised in the morning - are you in a position to observe consciousness? This is also the final step. When you are in a position to observe or witness consciousness - and, of course, the vital breath, body and its actions - then by virtue of that very observation, you are apart from the consciousness.

 

So when you are in a position to observe consciousness, you are out of consciousness. Then you are what we call 'the awareness state,' the vijnana or jnana state. Is it firmly stabilized in you, or are you still wavering, vacillating?"

 

Comments: this is the Realization of I AM. The realization of the True Essence of Being that transcends and is prior to all manifest. It is that Existence, that Self-Existing, Self-Shining Awareness, that stands prior to and witnesses manifest-consciousness. IT does not come and go, it is Pure Existence-Awareness that is Still, Unmoving, Abiding - the non-objective Principle of Awareness alone that witnesses the coming and going of consciousness, as well as dream, and deep sleep.

 

For my case, impersonality is experienced only after the Realization of I AM - but why is Nisargadatta talking about impersonality first? I asked Thusness this question and he said the order does not matter. And yes, it makes sense - I remember in the past I had episodes of experiencing the 'Intensity of Luminosity' (one of the four aspects of I AM) even before Realization of I AM. Also, Thusness mentioned how Christians can experience the Impersonality aspect and have the experience of 'being lived' through prayer and submission to God alone (without going through the I AM realization). So there is no particular order, they are all important insights and complements each other. There is no 'higher' or 'lower' realizations, they are all necessary.

 

The reason why Nisargadatta spoke of Impersonality as 'first step' is probably because that is how it unfolded for him, just as I would speak of the realization of I AM as 'first step' because this is how it unfolded for me. It does not have to apply for everyone. The important thing isn't about how it 'unfolds', since these are just some timeless facts that can be discovered/verified at any 'time' (actually, only discovered in timeless Now) with no particular necessary order. Stories of 'unfolding' are simply relative truths.

 

--------

 

*(from an old post about the 4 aspects of I AM)

Thusness told me that at present try not to talk too much about non-dual (to someone else in another forum) and he also talked to me about the deepening of the "I AM" in 4 aspects: 1) the aspect of impersonality, 2) the aspect of the degree of luminosity, 3) the aspect of dissolving the need to re-confirm and abide in I AMness and understanding why such a need is irrelevant, 4) the aspect of experiencing effortlessness.

 

Impersonality will help dissolve the sense of self but it has the danger of making one attached to a metaphysical essence. It makes a practitioner feel "God".

 

The degree of luminosity refers to feeling with entire being, feel wholely and directly without thoughts. Feeling 'realness' of whatever one encounters, the tree bark, the sand, etc. (see the next post)

 

Dissolving the need to re-confirm is important as whatever is done is an attempt to distant itself from itself, if there is no way one can distant from the "I AM", the attempt to abide in it is itself an illusion.

 

On the other hand, abiding in presence is a form of meditative practice, like chanting, and leads to absorption. It can result in the oceanic experience. But once one focuses on the 4 aspects mentioned above, one will have that experience too.

Edited August 6, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Excerpts from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's, "I AM THAT":

 

"I am not even Consciousness, which is dual and perceivable:

I am the unkown Reality beyond."

 

Hello Bob,

 

It is important to realize that Maharaj-ji did not know english and the terms used were in Marathi. So the translation of what term he used to "Consciousness" is dubious.

[xabir2005]

Hello Bob,

 

It is important to realize that Maharaj-ji did not know english and the terms used were in Marathi. So the translation of what term he used to "Consciousness" is dubious.

What you call Awareness, Maharaj-ji calls Consciousness. What you call Consciousness, Maharaj-ji calls Awareness.

 

Apparently Maharaj-ji uses different terminologies from the Upanishads.

Edited August 6, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

"Comments: this is the Realization of I AM. The realization of the True Essence of Being that transcends and is prior to all manifest. It is that Existence, that Self-Existing, Self-Shining Awareness, that stands prior to and witnesses manifest-consciousness. IT does not come and go, it is Pure Existence-Awareness that is Still, Unmoving, Abiding - the non-objective Principle of Awareness alone that witnesses the coming and going of consciousness, as well as dream, and deep sleep". From Xabir

 

Well said Xabir

 

Om

[3bob]

Hello Bob,

 

It is important to realize that Maharaj-ji did not know english and the terms used were in Marathi. So the translation of what term he used to "Consciousness" is dubious.

 

Ok. Although after a certain point in discussions such as these most words can be dubious in a sense, but if the they help convey or point to meanings then why not, in fact such is their purpose.

 

Jai Ganesha

Edited August 6, 2010 by 3bob

[dwai]

What you call Awareness, Maharaj-ji calls Consciousness. What you call Consciousness, Maharaj-ji calls Awareness.

 

Apparently Maharaj-ji uses different terminologies from the Upanishads.

 

Problem of translation...the word for consciousness in sanskrit is "chit". The sanskrit word for awareness is "bodha" (hence the word Atma-bodha or Self-Awareness). The question is what word did he use...because based on usage, it means different things...

 

But I do see your point...

[3bob]

Problem of translation...the word for consciousness in sanskrit is "chit". The sanskrit word for awareness is "bodha" (hence the word Atma-bodha or Self-Awareness). The question is what word did he use...because based on usage, it means different things...

 

But I do see your point...

 

Some Vedic related schools (for instance Advaita Vedanta) point to "Satchidananda" as ultimate, other schools (for instnace Saiva Siddanta) point to "Parasiva" as ultimate. Are you of the Advaita Vedanta school?

 

Om

[forestofclarity]

On topic:

 

http://www.advaya.nl/deur2_en.htm

[3bob]

On topic:

 

http://www.advaya.nl/deur2_en.htm

 

Thank you but is there an English version?

Edited August 7, 2010 by 3bob

[forestofclarity]

Click on the British symbol, go to articles, and go to I is a Door Part II. The whole series is great, but the Nisargadatta one explains the difference in the term translated as "consciousness."

 

Thank you but is there an English version?

[Vajrahridaya]

All this stuff is good, but it's still missing the insight of dependent origination. Oh well.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Oh well, indeed.

 

I don't see how Nisargadatta is incomplete because he doesn't include your Buddhist concept of dependent origination.

Edited August 7, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh well, indeed.

 

I don't see how Nisargadatta is incomplete because he doesn't include your Buddhist concept of dependent origination.

 

Yeah, he takes an experience of transcendence as ultimate... so... nope. He sure ain't complete. He'll either resolve into a formless realm for a long while, or play with his favorite representation of a formless state, depends on his karma. Maybe Krishna/Vishnu?? But, he hasn't even entered into the first stage of Bodhisattvahood.

 

All great things, but not liberation.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Some Vedic related schools (for instance Advaita Vedanta) point to "Satchidananda" as ultimate, other schools (for instnace Saiva Siddanta) point to "Parasiva" as ultimate. Are you of the Advaita Vedanta school?

 

Om

 

Hi Bob,

 

Yeah I follow the Advaita Vedanta tradition. I also practice the Southern Siddha Yoga/Tantra tradition...there is only difference in labels and slight nuances of academic interest (Satchidananda is Parasiva)

 

One of Bogarnath's compositions:

 

Invite the breath,

the outer space,

to come within your house.

 

If you are unwavering,

placing it there

as though you were

putting oil in a lamp,...

They shall meet.

Breath and God

becoming one.

Like wind becoming breath

there is no individual intelligence.

 

The Great Awareness becomes Siva.

He and breath

merge into one.

 

It is this light becoming breath

that redeems the soul.

Surely this is the truth

of Siva Yoga!

Edited August 7, 2010 by dwai

[3bob]

Hi Bob,

 

Yeah I follow the Advaita Vedanta tradition. I also practice the Southern Siddha Yoga/Tantra tradition...there is only difference in labels and slight nuances of academic interest (Satchidananda is Parasiva)

 

One of Bogarnath's compositions:

 

Invite the breath,

the outer space,

to come within your house.

 

If you are unwavering,

placing it there

as though you were

putting oil in a lamp,...

They shall meet.

Breath and God

becoming one.

Like wind becoming breath

there is no individual intelligence.

 

The Great Awareness becomes Siva.

He and breath

merge into one.

 

It is this light becoming breath

that redeems the soul.

Surely this is the truth

of Siva Yoga!

 

Dwai,

Thanks for sharing the lovely quote.

Btw, "(Satchidananda is Parasiva)" may be so to the school or schools

you are involved with, but not so to Saiva Siddanta school.

 

Om

[dwai]

Dwai,

Thanks for sharing the lovely quote.

Btw, "(Satchidananda is Parasiva)" may be so to the school or schools

you are involved with, but not so to Saiva Siddanta school.

 

Om

 

 

Shaiva Siddhanta school and the school I'm learning from have common philosophies and common texts...their approach is different (our system, ie that of Bogar, etc focuses on Shakti aspect more).

[dwai]

Dwai,

Thanks for sharing the lovely quote.

Btw, "(Satchidananda is Parasiva)" may be so to the school or schools

you are involved with, but not so to Saiva Siddanta school.

 

Om

 

 

Shaiva Siddhanta school and the school I'm learning from have common philosophies and common texts...their approach is different (our system, ie that of Bogar, etc focuses on Shakti aspect more).

[3bob]

Shaiva Siddhanta school and the school I'm learning from have common philosophies and common texts...their approach is different (our system, ie that of Bogar, etc focuses on Shakti aspect more).

 

Ok, To me it's kinda of incredible when many of those who have never studied "Hinduism" lump it all together under a few stereo-types... when it more or less ranges from A-Z, (sorry I don't know much sanskrit) and even after hundreds of years of study one probably wouldn't know much about its vastness!!

 

Om

Edited August 7, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok, To me it's kinda of incredible when many of those who have never studied "Hinduism" lump it all together under a few stereo-types... when it more or less ranges from A-Z, (sorry I don't know much sanskrit) and even after hundreds of years of study one probably wouldn't know much about its vastness!!

 

Om

 

First of all the Brit's are the ones who lumped it all together. There are many definitions and from some, Buddhism could even be considered Hinduism as a tradition from India. But, most consider Hinduism any path that takes the Vedas and Upanishads as shruthi (revealed truth) and since Buddhism doesn't do that, then it's not Hinduism. I don't think Jainism or Sikhism can be considered Hindu due to this fact as well, even though they believe much as the Hindu's believe that there is one god that all things are an emanation of. Basically Hinduism comes under a few categories; Dvaita, Advaita and VishishtAdvaita. After that it gets rather complicated with the Sampradayas.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

All this stuff is good, but it's still missing the insight of dependent origination. Oh well.

 

 

Can you tell us why dependent origination is superior to any other tradition and system? Or why any system or view of reality is lacking without it?

[Vajrahridaya]

Can you tell us why dependent origination is superior to any other tradition and system? Or why any system or view of reality is lacking without it?

 

So many have tried here, but without direct intuitive experience the descriptions might escape you.

 

Basically, it shows that there is not a transcendent of phenomena, there is only the insight into the empty nature of phenomena, so it's more grounded and makes no excuses for ignorance as in, "It's God's will", or, "God made me this way", or "It's beyond thought and our capacity to understand", etc. It shows that things don't come from a causeless cause and all other paths describe a causeless cause that is mysterious and beyond our ability to understand. Most paths teach independent origination and that this transcendent all "thing/non-thing" is both the alpha and omega of all things so we should surrender to it. The Buddha doesn't insult the human capacity with such mystic ignorance.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

So you are saying that mysticism is ignorant and a wrong view, according to the Buddha? So this also implies those that posit the existence of God are wrong as well? I don't know if it's just you, or other Buddhists too, but you come off as arrogant, Vajrahridaya. Like your comment earlier in this thread, when you sniffed, "All this stuff is good, but it's still missing the insight of dependent origination. Oh, well". That's some nice spiritual snobbery. Why would you not be able to explain the importance of dependent origination without saying "Without direct intuitive experience, the descriptions might escape you"? So dependent origination is intuive? It seems then that a mystic might say that without direct experience of the Mystery of God, you wouldn't be able to understand. It seems it's your experience versus other's.

 

Why do you look down your nose at other's experience of reality as lacking because yours happens to coincide with your meditative experiences? Isn't this the basis of all religious disagreements that lead to terrible suffering in the world? In all your "wisdom", you disregard Nisargadatta out of hand as inferior. Why? Because you were raised in a Hindu Shaivite environment and you are now an expert because you chose Buddhism? Arrogant views.

[3bob]

So many have tried here, but without direct intuitive experience the descriptions might escape you.

 

Basically, it shows that there is not a transcendent of phenomena, there is only the insight into the empty nature of phenomena, so it's more grounded and makes no excuses for ignorance as in, "It's God's will", or, "God made me this way", or "It's beyond thought and our capacity to understand", etc. It shows that things don't come from a causeless cause and all other paths describe a causeless cause that is mysterious and beyond our ability to understand. Most paths teach independent origination and that this transcendent all "thing/non-thing" is both the alpha and omega of all things so we should surrender to it. The Buddha doesn't insult the human capacity with such mystic ignorance.

 

VJ,

We can not force prove anything to another and the more we try the deeper the ditch we dig.

 

Proverbs 26: 27, "Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him"

 

Om

Edited August 8, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

So you are saying that mysticism is ignorant and a wrong view, according to the Buddha? So this also implies those that posit the existence of God are wrong as well? I don't know if it's just you, or other Buddhists too, but you come off as arrogant, Vajrahridaya. Like your comment earlier in this thread, when you sniffed, "All this stuff is good, but it's still missing the insight of dependent origination. Oh, well". That's some nice spiritual snobbery. Why would you not be able to explain the importance of dependent origination without saying "Without direct intuitive experience, the descriptions might escape you"? So dependent origination is intuive? It seems then that a mystic might say that without direct experience of the Mystery of God, you wouldn't be able to understand. It seems it's your experience versus other's.

 

You're pretty angry.

Why do you look down your nose at other's experience of reality as lacking because yours happens to coincide with your meditative experiences? Isn't this the basis of all religious disagreements that lead to terrible suffering in the world? In all your "wisdom", you disregard Nisargadatta out of hand as inferior. Why? Because you were raised in a Hindu Shaivite environment and you are now an expert because you chose Buddhism? Arrogant views.

 

Ooo... more super anger.

 

I just see a true liberation. I see that Nisargadatta has a high view, it's just not perfectly clear is all.

 

P.S. I have noticed something about you Songs. You are very easily annoyed.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya