Nisargadatta teachings

[ThatMan]

So I studied some of the teachings of Nisargadatta, many of the things he says I have come to know through direct experience even before finding the teachings of this man.

He sees the "Absolute" as the state that which beyond "being" and "no-being", where there's not even the known of one's existence. This state being known as Nirvana if I get it right.

I believe he missed the most important thing. The impression I got from his teachings it that there's a going out and a coming in into this "ultimate state beyond all". He gave the example of birth and death, you come from "it" when you are born and you're going in "it" when you die. The thing he missed, in my opinion, based on my inner truth, there's no coming in and going out from it, you have never left it. You are in the "being" and "no-being" right now.

He talks about a dream where he saw the male and female giving birth to "I" ( if I rememeber right ), but it was not the male and the female, in my opinion, it was "being and not-being", only this "duo" gives birth to the "I".

This relationship "being and no-being" makes the absolute, you are and you are not.

You are - that which appears to be.
You are not - that which it is always.

This "duo" of being and not being gives birth to all.

I believe this is what Buddha realised.

What's your opinion?

So when you die, nothing really changes, it only appers that something has changed. The "being and not being" is ever present, one can not be without the other, they are one and the same. So, death comes, the "I" we identify with leaves its identification with the body and enters into another plane of existence, this "I" is the sum of everything that it has ever experienced, this "I" never lost its "being and not being". This "I" is very much like our human "I", it is but it is not, it only appears to be.

As I understand his teaching is no different that that of Ramana Maharshi or any other classic Hindu non-dualist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisarg...of_true_nature

2. Next only the beingness, or the consciousness, which is the world. "I Am" means my whole world. Just being and the world. Together with the beingness the world is also felt - that is Atman.

3. The Ultimate principle that knows this beingness cannot be termed at all. It cannot be approached or conditioned by any words. That is the Ultimate state.

It's that Ultimate principle or Turiya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya

Not inwardly cognitive, nor outwardly cognitive, not both-wise cognitive,
not a cognition-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive,
unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, having no distinctive mark,
non-thinkable, that cannot be designated, the essence of assurance,
of which is the state of being one with the Self
the cessation of development, tranquil, benign, without a second,
such they think is the fourth. He is the Self (Atman). He should be discerned.

This is what I was getting at in the other thread. It's beyond anything and everything the mind can conceive and language can express, even the most subtle thought or feeling of "I Am". It's indescribable because it is Ineffable. It cannot be known but can be "known".

The difficulty is we have a great (almost irresistible!) tendency to superimpose mind upon It because that's what we identify with. One way I would put it is the difference between "I am conscious" and "I am Consciousness Itself", and being Consciousness Itself I only witness mind and just as any other object of Awareness.

It's a massive shift in perspective. What is within what?

[ThatMan]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

As I understand his teaching is no different that that of Ramana Maharshi or any other classic Hindu non-dualist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisarg...of_true_nature

2. Next only the beingness, or the consciousness, which is the world. "I Am" means my whole world. Just being and the world. Together with the beingness the world is also felt - that is Atman.

3. The Ultimate principle that knows this beingness cannot be termed at all. It cannot be approached or conditioned by any words. That is the Ultimate state.

It's that Ultimate principle or Turiya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya

Not inwardly cognitive, nor outwardly cognitive, not both-wise cognitive,
not a cognition-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive,
unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, having no distinctive mark,
non-thinkable, that cannot be designated, the essence of assurance,
of which is the state of being one with the Self
the cessation of development, tranquil, benign, without a second,
such they think is the fourth. He is the Self (Atman). He should be discerned.

This is what I was getting at in the other thread. It's beyond anything and everything the mind can conceive and language can express, even the most subtle thought or feeling of "I Am". It's indescribable because it is Ineffable. It cannot be known but can be "known".

The difficulty is we have a great (almost irresistible!) tendency to superimpose mind upon It because that's what we identify with. One way I would put it is the difference between "I am conscious" and "I am Consciousness Itself", and being Consciousness Itself I only witness mind and just as any other object of Awareness.

It's a massive shift in perspective. What is within what?

His teachings go as far as saying there is no "I" (I am talking about the Supreme I) , but no "I" means no absolute ( that thing beyond all ) by definition, "I" is part of the absolute and appears in relationship with the "non-I", that which you are not, that which you are, that which can not be put into words.

You are IT right now ( that which can not be put into words ), you only appear to not be IT and in this appearance, beingness is born - the I AM. The "I" is never lost because you are that which you seek though for a while you appear not to be IT.

I like your final conclusion, in simple words, Atman is Brahman.

Originally Posted by ThatMan

His teachings go as far as saying there is no "I" (I am talking about the Supreme I) , but no "I" means no absolute ( that thing beyond all ) by definition, "I" is part of the absolute and appears in relationship with the "non-I", that which you are not, that which you are, that which can not be put into words.

You are IT right now ( that which can not be put into words ), you only appear to not be IT and in this appearance, beingness is born - the I AM. The "I" is never lost because you are that which you seek though for a while you appear not to be IT.

I like your final conclusion, in simple words, Atman is Brahman.

I'd just say there's only the Absolute however one wishes to label It. Existence Itself. Consciousness Itself. Bliss Itself, though this is the most confusing, misleading and hardest to grasp. In any case all three expressions are one in the same.

Because of superimposition (a trick of Ahamkara) we say things like I exist, I am conscious, I am happy, sad, angry, etc... By doing so we limit the Limitless but only in our mind. The Witness (Atman) isn't fooled.

For me the way to realize that Absolute is through Consciousness. It's palpable, unmistakable. It's "known" in one sense but unknown in another. It is the Absolute, ever-present and unchanging.

[ThatMan]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'd just say there's only the Absolute however one wishes to label It. Existence Itself. Consciousness Itself. Bliss Itself, though this is the most confusing, misleading and hardest to grasp. In any case all three expressions are one in the same.

Because of superimposition (a trick of Ahamkara) we say things like I exist, I am conscious, I am happy, sad, angry, etc... By doing so we limit the Limitless but only in our mind. The Witness (Atman) isn't fooled.

For me the way to realize that Absolute is through Consciousness. It's palpable, unmistakable. It's "known" in one sense but unknown in another. It is the Absolute, ever-present and unchanging.

Nice to know that there are people like you, in this world, that can see this deep.

I think this whole mental self is only the means Atman knows Itself as Brahman, it must do it from a "place" that seems to be outside Itself in order to know Itself. In fact, this is my first realisation, when I became aware of that I am not the self but something deeper. This may be the point where Atman starts knowing Itself, when one becames aware of the fact that it is not the self.

I like this: "known" in onse sense but unknown in another.

Originally Posted by ThatMan

Nice to know that there are people like you, in this world, that can see this deep.

I think this whole mental self is only the means Atman knows Itself as Brahman, it must do it from a "place" that seems to be outside Itself in order to know Itself. In fact, this is my first realisation, when I became aware of that I am not the self but something deeper. This may be the point where Atman starts knowing Itself, when one becames aware of the fact that it is not the self.

I like this: "known" in onse sense but unknown in another.

The Kena Upanishad says it all about knowing but not knowing. The below passages are from the translation by Swāmi Nikhilānanda.

https://universaltheosophy.com/sacre...ena-upanishad/

The teacher replied: It is the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind, the Speech of speech, the Life of life, and the Eye of the eye. Having detached the Self [from the sense-organs] and renounced the world, the wise attain to Immortality.

The disciple said: I do not think I know It well, nor do I think I do not know It. He among us who knows the meaning of “Neither do I not know, nor do I know”—knows Brahman.

Both passages speak to Consciousness. Well, all of it does. All the Upanishads are about Consciousness.

[Miss Hepburn]

Nisargadatta is my friend's favorite guy - I have never seen a book
more marked up and bent as his, 'I Am That'!
A lot of what Nisagar talks about doesn't interest me, oh well...much does, tho.
I don't seem to care about comings and going and this and that, ie,
"What's before the apple seed"---I just love God by whatever Name and that's about all I care about...the invisible Power
in the apple seed 'now' in this moment that is all around and in me.

Nisarg is cool ...but can stretch my mind too much...almost giving me a headache.
While too much love-talk is tough for others that are more cerebral. Ha!
It's all good.

[ThatMan]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Nisargadatta is my friend's favorite guy - I have never seen a book
more marked up and bent as his, I Am That!
A lot of what Nisagar talks about doesn't interest me, oh well...much does, tho.
I don't seem to care about comings and going and this and that, ie,
"What's before the apple seed"---I just love God by whatever Name and that's about all I care about...the invisible Power
in the apple seed 'now' in this moment that is all around and in me.

Nisarg is cool ...but can stretch my mind too much...almost giving me a headache.
While too much love-talk is tough for others that are more cerebral. Ha!
It's all good.

He really goes very very far. I know, people really like his teachings, simple and straight to the core of things. No waste of words.

Yes, in the Light of Truth, one thing remains, that which was always there, here: LOVE.

This is why I "stop" here and start living, start admiring the view as long as I am here.

[pixiedust]

Look at the doubt, ThatMan and relax in that presence of awareness.

[ThatMan]

Originally Posted by pixiedust

Look at the doubt, ThatMan and relax in that presence of awareness.

Thank you, this is what I do, I have been doing this daily for quite some time.