I Am That

[Elle]

From I am That:

The world is there because I am, but I am not the world. God is not running the world, All happens by itself.

The supreme is not conscious, but it gives rise to consciousness. The supreme state is entirely one and indivisible, a single solid block of reality. The only way of knowing it is to be it. The mind cannot reach it. To perceive it does not need the senses; to know it, does not need the mind.

The world and the mind are states of being. The supreme is not a state. It pervades all states, but it is not a state of something else. It is entirely uncaused, independent, complete in itself, beyond time and space, mind and matter.

M: Within the prison of your world appears a man who tells you that the world of painful contradictions, which you have created, is neither continuous nor permanent and is based on a misapprehension. He pleads with you to get out of it, by the same way by which you got into it. You got into it by forgetting what you are and you will get out of it by knowing yourself as you are.

It seems so easy to get pulled away by the mind, it's funny how tries to figure even "awakening" out...

[runstrails]

Thanks for posting, Elle. I'm also reading I AM That right now. Pretty amazing book, isn't it?

[Elle]

Thanks for posting, Elle. I'm also reading I AM That right now. Pretty amazing book, isn't it?

Yes indeed!!!! I have to take it a little at a time because I can contemplate just one answer at a time, his words are so simple yet so alive and rich, cuts right to the heart of the matter!

[dreamingson]

I love "I am that." so great. At the same time it has to be seen in the context of
his environment to which he was born and lived.

The bigger challenge we seem to have in the west to to abide in the I am
but at the same time be involved in the world of the mind because
we live in a much more complex world than him in his little shop.

[vivianamis]

Nisargadatta differs between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness is always about something. Here we find the "Self" or "I am" , but not the absolute. Awareness gives rise to consciousness. Awareness can exist without consciousness, but consciousness cannot exist without awareness. We are not consciousness...we are beyond. It is hard to grasp with the mind, that which is beyond mind.

[dijmart]

Yes, this is what he says, except the "Self" is awareness/the absolute, not the manifested consciousness or I AM.

I am the Self, the Witness of Consciousness,
pure Awareness.

I am only the Self , which is universal and
imagines itself to be the outer self, a person.
Nisargadatta

I really resonate with what he says and am thankful I came across his words.

[vivianamis]

In the "absolute" even the Self disappears.

61
Immortality is freedom from the feeling: ‘I am’. Yet it is not
extinction. On the contrary, it is a state infinitely more real, aware
and happy than you can possibly think of. Only self-consciousness
is no more. Who would remain even to say ‘I am the witness’?
When there is no ‘I am’, where is the witness? In the timeless state
there no self to take refuge in.

I think we are saying the same thing : )

[Enlightened2B]

I read the 'Pointers' book by Ramesh Balsekar. I liked Nisargadatta's pointers. He does distinguish between consciousness and Awareness, as a means to point to exactly what the title of his book was meant to be by him "I AM".

The way I see it and it's just perhaps my own limited view for now, to say there 'is no self' is a bit of a conundrum of sorts. After all, you wouldn't be able to know of any 'state' without some sort of Self to experience as such.

Absolute to me, merely indicates 'Amness' or 'Isness'. It's simply the Isness or existence of any and every aspect of experience. It's the unconditional acceptance that allows all experience to be. In order to claim there is anything in existence be it in the lowest densest physical environment, or in the highest realms of non-physical, there still must be a level of 'I AM' that experience. There is no anything, without some level of experience.

So, to claim that the Self disappears, is (again in my opinion) often when people interpret an experience a certain way in which it feels like incredible Oneness or No Self, but in actuality, there is most certainly a Self that is experiencing in order to claim the experience to be.

[vivianamis]

The "absolute" is not a state nor is there any experience. There is only silence. This silence is no-thing yet not empty, but full to the rim and running over. It is both and neither. A beautiful contradiction : )

[Enlightened2B]

The "absolute" is not a state nor is there any experience. There is only silence. This silence is no-thing yet not empty, but full to the rim and running over. It is both and neither. A beautiful contradiction : )

Yes, I would agree with that. In other words, it's not a state, because you can't experience what you already are. Silence, Isness, Amness all point back to that which all exists within/as. And if Silence/Isness is devoid of any relativity/contrast, then nothing could be known. There would just be I AM or AM... Energy. Who can even say?

[vivianamis]

Here is a great explanation in regards to consciousness and awareness and how Nisargadatta used these words:

http://www.prahlad.org/disciples/preman ... RENESS.htm

[vivianamis]

So when he says to dwell in the "I am", what is he referring to?

Here is a link to give you more insight into what Nisargadatta meant:

http://www.nisargadatta.net/IamThat1.html

[dijmart]

In the "absolute" even the Self disappears.

61
Immortality is freedom from the feeling: ‘I am’. Yet it is not
extinction. On the contrary, it is a state infinitely more real, aware
and happy than you can possibly think of. Only self-consciousness
is no more. Who would remain even to say ‘I am the witness’?
When there is no ‘I am’, where is the witness? In the timeless state
there no self to take refuge in.

I think we are saying the same thing : )

Perhaps I misunderstood, it's all good.

[dijmart]

You are the Supreme Reality- all there is. Just trust and remember that. Wisdom lies in never forgetting the Self, the Supreme Absolute as the ever-present Source of both the experiencer and the experience. I am beyond consciousness and so in consciousness I cannot say what I am. Yet I am.

But, this sounds like what I thought before in regards to the Self (capital S), not self (ego).

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. A ‘jnani’ is not guided by a concept.

[vivianamis]

It is a complicated concept, since everything we are witnessing and saying is happening within Consciousness.... which includes that which we are conscious of and unconscious of. When we become conscious of the Self, we have let go of the belief and identity of being the body and mind and so realized our real Self as pure consciousness.

This is a great place to be as we have detached ourselves to a certain degree from suffering. This state is commonly known as enlightened, yet it is still a state and all "states" appear in consciousness/mind. Most people that seek enlightenment seek this state, because of the detachment from the physical(body and mind) which is the cause of suffering.

Beyond consciousness is no-thing/awareness/no thought/silence/absolute.....not even a Self - that I am, meaning that silence i am, I am That whatever you want to call it since it has no name, no identity.

Those that have gone beyond "enlightenment" move between awareness and consciousness to still be able to "appear" in this world, as spirit can not hold on to the body in pure awareness.