Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2001 NondualitySalon, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote: Hi justthis, Actually, not to 'knock' Jerry's efforts to sound like Nisargadatta (in particular, his recommendation to stay with I AM is doubtless a 'good thing'[tm]), but in essence, he missed. Nisargadatta recommends staying with I AM for the " purpose " of going beyond I AM. In fact, he always note(d) that I AM (or Beingness or Consciousness) is a product of " the food-body " and disappears when the body passes on -- and in later years, when ill, even referred to the I AM (Beingness) as " mean, low and despicable " (Nectar of Immortality). Now, I don't agree with all of Nisargadatta's viewpoints (in particular I leave open the possibility that the body appears as an object of consciousness, rather than vice-versa, and that consciousness may in fact continue in some form after the body appears to die), but the I AM is certainly not what Nisargatta refers to as 'real' (that he reserves for " The Supreme " or " Parabrahman " ). He described I AM as " the only thing that isn't in doubt " (paraphrased) and therefore being the most worthy of inquiry. Very similar to Ramana's " Who am I? " inquiry, but not requiring an affirmation of " I " (which is why I prefer Nisargadatta's inquiry). It's possible to remain with the 'sense of Beingness' without bringing a " who " into the matter, or the concept of " I. " Namaste, Tim NondualitySalon, justthis2001 wrote: > NondualitySalon, umbada@n... wrote: > > > > > great responses to this. find and stay with what is real, with what > > isn't illusory, then you'll know what is real and what is illusion. > I > > AM is never hungry. Stay with I AM and you will see. > > > > totally trying to sound like nisargadatta, > > jerry > > ** ha ha, at least you admit it. > > All are blessed > justthis --- End forwarded message --- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
