What is the exact meaning of the two words "I am" that Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj refer

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Hi buddy, :)
Oh, is that true...then, that is insightful.
Would you say the ones repeating I Am over and over are missing the point? I dunno.

Hello Miss H, nice to see you :)

Not necessarily - I think it largely depends on the temperament of the meditator, I'm not a fan of mantra meditation myself but I could see how it could be effective for others, particularly in light of JASG's subsequent explanation (thanks for that, JASG, I thought you explained it very well).

Originally Posted by A human Being

Not necessarily - I think it largely depends on the temperament of the meditator, I'm not a fan of mantra meditation myself but I could see how it could be effective for others, particularly in light of JASG's subsequent explanation (thanks for that, JASG, I thought you explained it very well).

I'm not a fan of mantra meditation either. Vedantic meditation or Self-inquiry using "I Am" or one of the Vivekas doesn't entail repetition but more like you said about dwelling in the chosen line of inquiry during those moments of perfect stillness.

It does require a focused and concentrated mind, both for attaining the necessary stillness and at the same time maintaining awareness on the line of inquiry.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 32 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm not a fan of mantra meditation either. Vedantic meditation or Self-inquiry using "I Am"

Different strokes for different folks.

I have personally found chanting mantras to be very helpful in progressive meditations .... from one's ideal ... to the process of creation (like the OM symbology).... to the sense of unitary consciousness (the "I AM" for example) to that which lies beyond when even the "I AM" subsides into the stillness.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 21 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The way beyond mind is through mind. The way beyond "I" is through "I". The "I" thought is the stick and meditation on it first destroys all other thoughts and eventually destroys itself and all that is left is the Witness.

You have described the "I" (as well as the "I AM") quite well ... but, when you wrote that "all that is left is the witness", doesn't that still imply a subject/object relationship?

Even Ramana has said "that which is does not even say I AM". Here,we are beginning to go beyond words though.

The following link, which I posted before, still corresponds best to my understand of what Nisargadatta meant by "I AM" and it is consistent with my own experience as well.

https://acharyaprashant.medium.com/o...a-ee62bd3c1722

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I have personally found chanting mantras to be very helpful in progressive meditations .... from one's ideal ... to the process of creation (like the OM symbology).... to the sense of unitary consciousness (the "I AM" for example) to that which lies beyond when even the "I AM" subsides into the stillness.

Oh yeah, Advaita uses Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and also OM (AUM representing the three states of mind and the silence following is Turiya). In that sense I don't follow the typical meditation techniques usually associated with Advaita but that's because I started with mindfulness and progressed to do-nothing long before I came upon Advaita. In essence I was already there and the missing piece was Jnana, and that drove home the significance of that "Space" I had already "found".

In a way that's more or less the Advaita approach but with different meditation techniques and initially bereft of the knowledge component, however the Advaita position is the knowledge is very difficult to assimilate without first attaining a level of clarity and purity of mind.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

You have described the "I" (as well as the "I AM") quite well ... but, when you wrote that "all that is left is the witness", doesn't that still imply a subject/object relationship?

This is always the hardest part to verbalize because it is beyond intellect and language.

For me that's the "magic" of do-nothing meditation. One way to describe it is it's the do-nothing equivalent of Yogic Samadhi, where in the Yogic approach subject and object merge and there is no longer subject and object. In do-nothing there isn't attending an object to begin with but I'm pretty sure the end-state is the same. It's pure being, pure awareness. Witness is as good a word as any but it's not to be confused with observer.

I've never engaged Vedantic meditation/Self-inquiry but I'm also fairly certain that end-state of Yogic Samadhi and do-nothing is the same state of being, but being it is subjective it can't be measured, quantified and shared.

[Uday_Advaita]

Originally Posted by losnosuy

What is the exact meaning of the two words "I am" that Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj refers to?
Is it the "sense of me" or the "sense of presence, being, existance"?
I am a sincere seeker. I very hope to understand that!

Hello Losnosuy
My teacher who was a disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj would always say that:
“ All words are concepts. The tendency of the human mind was to create concepts and then try to ascribe meaning to those concepts

I AM are two words, hence two concepts, two sounds, two meanings – truly dual
Yet what Nisargadatta Maharaj meant to convey was not the meaning. He said “ Abide in I AM” Dwell in I AM

When a guru was pestered by his disciple constantly with the question – “ Who I am”, the Guru (Rishi) replied “Tat Twam Asi” – literally meaning “You are THAT” – For ages Sages have asserted that “All that is, is THAT”

In essence Nisargadatta Maharaj was trying refer to that “THAT”…. which is what “I AM” is.

Now what is this. “THAT” ? – a new concept
The only knowledge which no one can deny is when you say “I am”, you actually mean “You are” the eternal infinite source that permeates every single particle, every quanta of energy, every speck of space and whatever…. And nothing can be separate from that…

The Ultimate / Final understanding … as and when it happens ….is that, that there cannot be a you understanding “THAT” ...as you disappear and become THAT…. Like a river disappearing in the Ocean and becoming the Ocean itself.
Namaskar

[Miss Hepburn]

Thanks Uday...it was nice.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE 21 EXCERPT:



You have described the "I" (as well as the "I AM") quite well ... but, when you wrote that "all that is left is the witness", doesn't that still imply a subject/object relationship?

With both Witness and I am there is still identification with either something beyond oneself (which is what happens when one becomes a Spiritual being) or the Jungian "sense I am." And no, people don't need to be familiar with Jung to have a sense of I am because everybody has one of those. Both 'Witness' and 'I' provide a 'focal point'.

There seems to come a point when there is no-thing to identify with - no Witness, no I and no 'focal point'. It's difficult to put into words but usually people perceive themselves as a 'single point' but the awareness of this is being like a cloud or a field of consciousness.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 28 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Back to the thread topic... Swami Sarvapriyananda suggests closing one's eyes, stilling one's mind and silently saying to one's self "I". If any thought of body, mind, sensation or any other identity thought arises including "I Am", It's not been "found". That last bit about "I Am' sounds paradoxical but it's not. It's also impossible to explain. LOL!

I actually had that conversation person-to-person with Swami Sarvapriyananda over lunch at the Vedanta Society in NYC where we discussed Ramana Maharshi's "I-I" as well as Ramana Maharshi's "I AM". When one goes into depth on various subjects, one recognizes the fact that "only one way" is a myth as in the Vedanta saying attributed to Ramakrishna ... One Truth, Many Paths.