How I Met Nis

[Guest guest]

Thank you AC, Lewis, and Devi for sharing

your memories. It's interesting not only

how we met Nis, but also how we met

each other here, thanks to Hur. As you

all know he started this list back in November

2000, and the list almost floundered. It had

only 2 postings in Dec. Then Sandeep, Dan

Mark Hovila, Jerry Katz and a handful of others

joined and saved the day. Of those only Dan

is still around. Hur used to post more then.

Below are two posts by Hur on that very lean

period. I joyned in the spring of 2002.

 

Pete

 

" Hur " <HurG

Mon Dec 11, 2000 7:41am

The seeker is he who is in search of himself.

 

 

 

HurG

Send Email

 

 

 

I came across Nisargadatta's teachings for the first time at this

site: www.ccnet.com/~rudra/yoga/nisargad.htm

 

I fell in love shortly after reading these words of Sri Nisargadatta

Maharaj:

 

" The seeker is he who is in search of himself.

 

Give up all questions except one: 'Who am I?' After all, the only

fact you are sure of is that you are. The 'I am' is certain. The 'I

am this' is not. Struggle to find out what you are in reality.

 

To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you

are not.

 

Discover all that you are not - body, feelings, thoughts, time,

space, this or that - nothing, concrete or abstract, which you

perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are

not what you perceive.

 

The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be

described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the

end of your search and realize that you are the limitless being. "

 

 

----

 

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is peculiarly free from all disparagement

and condemnation, the sinner and the saint are merely exchanging

notes: the saint had sinned, the sinner shall be sanctified. It is

time that divides them, it is time that will bring them together. The

teacher does not evaluate; his sole concern is with 'suffering and

the ending of suffering'. He knows from his personal and abiding

experience that the roots of sorrow are in the mind and it is the

mind that must be freed from its distorting and destructive habits.

Of these the identification of the Self with its projections is the

most fatal. By precept and example Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj shows a

shortcut, alogical but empirically sound. It operates when

understood. "

 

Source: www.ccnet.com/~rudra/yoga/nisargad.htm

 

---

 

 

 

7 thejohnward

Mon Dec 18, 2000 0:50am

Jiva and the Self thejohnward@ the

Send Email

 

 

 

Dear Fellow Members of the group

May I ask some questions?

I would be grateful if anyone can help to explain the differences

between the jiva and the Self.

Is the jiva existent or non-existent?

If the jiva is non-existent, is the jiva the seeker?

If the jiva is the seeker, is the jiva in search of himself?

If the seeker is in search of himself, can the non-existent jiva

be in search of the Self?

How can the Self be in search of the Self?

How can the Self forget the Self?

Is the Self the existent or the non-existent?

If the Self is the non-existent, is the non-existent jiva a different

form of non-existence?

Why am I identified with the jiva?

How long have I been identified with the jiva?

Was I identified with the jiva before conception?

How can I cease to identify with the jiva? Permanently?

When I cease to identify with the jiva, what happens to him?

Why does the jiva believe he is a self?

If the jiva is non-existent, how does he exist in my consciousness,

or in the universal consciousness?

If I am before the jiva, how did he first appear in consciousness?

Why is it very uncomfortable being a jiva?

Do the jiva and the Self have anything in common?

Does the Self feel compassion for the jiva?

Do I have one particular jiva with which I identify, or can I

identify with any of the many jivas that appear in the subtle

universe? In the course of time can the Self identify

with more than one jiva?

 

Greetings to the group from John. Happy New Year.

Has this happened before, and will do so again?

 

 

 

 

8 Hur Guler <HurG

Wed Jan 3, 2001 9:39am

Re: Jiva and the Self HurG

Send Email

 

 

 

Hi John,

 

Thank you for the posting. Sorry I have not been able

to respond before. I'll try to address some of your

challenging questions as best as I can.

 

According to Vedanta Jiva, the individual or the ego,

comes into being as a result of false identification

of the Atman with the body. Atman is the

Consciousness.

 

Jiva is like a wave on the Ocean of Self, its

separation is only a concept, created by the mind.

Therefore the body exists but *you* or jiva exists

only as a concept in the mind by the artful (I prefer

artful to false) identification.

 

Think of the mind as a (virtual) reality machine,

creating a player called *you* and interpreting the

game for *you*. It's when the Consciousness/Self

identifies with the player called *you* then the

(virtual or real?) play of Leela takes place. In a

realm of duality, when the Self steps into the Leela's

play Self-forgetting as a concept and Self-remembering

as a concept are the parameters that the mind

operates on. Another analogy I like is...imagine the

revealed reality as a movie, played, directed and

written by the Self...Self playing all the roles.

Again this is only an explanation from the mind's

perspective.

 

The final model of reality in the form of a little

story that I'd like to indulge is that let's pretend

Tolstoy wrote Anna Karenina in the year 10,000 by

using a virtual reality language. The advanced

technology allows each character to have

consciousness. As the novel is played out in virtual

format, either due to the plot or a glitch in the

system, Anna becomes aware of Tolstoy and talks about

her " mystical " experience. Anna's lover Vronsky

claims that Tolstoy only exist in Anna's mind. Anna

responds by saying that Vronsky and herself both exist

in Tolstoy's mind and in fact she is Tolstoy. The

question is then is Tolstoy dreaming himself to be

Anna or is Anna dreaming herself to be Tolstoy?

 

 

In the play of Consciousness, we can come up with

various models but in truth, the sense of " I am " or

Consciousness is the only capital that we're born

with. " I am this or that " is a temporary attachment.

Consciousness is the link to the Spirit (or Atman,

Self or whatever you call).

 

Ok, it's getting late and I'd better end this madness

here.

 

Hur

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

> Thank you AC, Lewis, and Devi for sharing

> your memories. It's interesting not only

> how we met Nis, but also how we met

> each other here, thanks to Hur. As you

> all know he started this list back in November

> 2000, and the list almost floundered. It had

> only 2 postings in Dec. Then Sandeep, Dan

> Mark Hovila, Jerry Katz and a handful of others

> joined and saved the day. Of those only Dan

> is still around. Hur used to post more then.

> Below are two posts by Hur on that very lean

> period. I joyned in the spring of 2002.

>

> Pete

 

 

You could light a candle in some chapel near you...thanks goodness

you joined in the spring of 2002.

 

)

[Guest guest]

In 1984, when I was living in Westport CT, I saw a bodyworker who

told me that Ramesh B. would be holding a session of some kind at a

friend's apartment in Manhattan, and that I should check it out.

 

When I asked who Ramesh was, she told me to read " I Am That " which I

could get at Pymander, the local new-age bookstore.

 

I bought the book and immediately knew that it was very " special " in

some way.

 

Eventhough I had bought " Talks With Ramana Maharshi, " I never could

get a handle on Self-Inquiry and the whole Advaita thing remained

somewhat of a mystery.

 

But as soon as I started reading " I Am That " , things began to

immediately open up, and I knew that I was onto a new phase in

my " spiritual career, " for lack of a better term.

 

In the 20 or so years that have ensued since first buying a copy

of " I Am That " , there have been ups and downs and zigs and zags and

ins and out, but " I Am That " has always remained, along with

the " Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna " (Hello, Vibe-Man Flemming!) the rock

of my foundation.

 

" On Niz the solid rock I stand

All other ground is sinking sand. "

 

To the Niz I bow. Beedies and all.

 

Baba Garydas

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote:

> In 1984, when I was living in Westport CT, I saw a bodyworker who

> told me that Ramesh B. would be holding a session of some kind at a

> friend's apartment in Manhattan, and that I should check it out.

>

> When I asked who Ramesh was, she told me to read " I Am That " which I

> could get at Pymander, the local new-age bookstore.

>

> I bought the book and immediately knew that it was very " special " in

> some way.

>

> Eventhough I had bought " Talks With Ramana Maharshi, " I never could

> get a handle on Self-Inquiry and the whole Advaita thing remained

> somewhat of a mystery.

>

> But as soon as I started reading " I Am That " , things began to

> immediately open up, and I knew that I was onto a new phase in

> my " spiritual career, " for lack of a better term.

>

> In the 20 or so years that have ensued since first buying a copy

> of " I Am That " , there have been ups and downs and zigs and zags and

> ins and out, but " I Am That " has always remained, along with

> the " Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna " (Hello, Vibe-Man Flemming!) the rock

> of my foundation.

>

> " On Niz the solid rock I stand

> All other ground is sinking sand. "

>

> To the Niz I bow. Beedies and all.

>

> Baba Garydas

 

 

Dear Baba Garydas:

 

This bit about " How I Met the Niz " reminds me of some Christian Youth

Ministry having the " saved " testify about how they found the Lord.

 

I can't remember how I found " I Am That " . But, I got a copy of it. It

took me a long time to read it. I was more into doing it than reading

it. The same with Ramana. It took me " forever " to get thru " Talks

with... " It's really not necessary to read all that stuff. The main

thing is to do it, i.e., be it (the sense of " I am " ). Be " I am " .

That's all. There's no need to read " I am " . Or, to say it. Be it.

That's the ticket.

 

Alright, then.

 

Yours,

 

Baba fuzzie ananda boo boo