I AM THAT with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Bourgo]

Has anyone read "I AM THAT" ?

I am currently reading this series of conversations with Maharaj, and I find them both a bit confusing and disturbing.

His dispassion and non-attachment is so complete that, applying that state of life to taking care of a family or raising children almost seems impossible.  Or at the very least, a bit irresponsible.

Maybe I don't fully understand, but I'm not sure I like his description of residing in the Absolute.

Anyone else have similar (or very different) thoughts on this?

Thanks!

[AumNaturel]

It is a modern spiritual classic, and it lives up to it, and then some. If anyone can really genuinely convey, through scattered and translated dialogues, the meaning of enlightenment, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I Am That" would be it.

I can see it taking some time to work through the book, reflect on it, and relate it to other beliefs and concepts going on in the mind. Such questions are often brought up in the book, and Maharaj answers them again and again without deflections or distortions from the only source available, which he sometimes refers to simply being Beyond. This of course can only happen if the questioners can also look beyond the limitations of the mind and really be with his responses.

Yes, I have also seen other comments on the book from talking to others who have either read it or just looked briefly into it that diverge well from your questions, and they have left me baffled. In both cases, there was considerable resistance in my attempts to discuss it more, so I let it be in peace. Learning opportunities are really everywhere.

[Bourgo]

Yea, I am only about 50 pages in, which is about 10% of the book....so I have a long way to go.  That said, I don't understand this: if everyone simply "is" and their natural state "is" the absolute, what is the point of realizing this during the lifetime?  Won't you eventually realize this upon death anyway?  And won't that mean that, upon death, everyone just basically "merges" into the absolute?  

It makes we wonder if (because obviously Maharaj can convey concepts that include knowledge of the absolute) the absolute awareness is "aware" that it is and once was innumerable human lives?  To the point that being the absolute awareness is like having total and complete love of all your family (and everyone else) while simultaneously being all of your loved ones.

[karl]

No need to understand it don't analyse it isn't necessary. What is needed will be taken.

[AumNaturel]

"The gospel of self-realization, once heard, will
never be forgotten. Like a seed left in the ground, it will wait for
the right season and sprout and grow into a mighty tree."
Sri N. Maharaj, I Am That, 182


Enjoy your reading!

[karl]

quote:Originally posted by AumNaturel

"The gospel of self-realization, once heard, will
never be forgotten. Like a seed left in the ground, it will wait for
the right season and sprout and grow into a mighty tree."
Sri N. Maharaj, I Am That, 182


Enjoy your reading!

absolutely, it needs no explanation, it was never meant to have one.

[emc]

It might be interesting to know that Nisargadatta never managed to combine That with family life. He chose not to be challenged the whole way, avoiding to have a woman by his side. That would surely have brought him a bit closer to integration here on earth, I believe.

[Bourgo]

quote:Originally posted by emc

It might be interesting to know that Nisargadatta never managed to combine That with family life. He chose not to be challenged the whole way, avoiding to have a woman by his side. That would surely have brought him a bit closer to integration here on earth, I believe.

In one sequence, someone asked him if 'he cared when his children were ill'....
He replied that he 'did what was necessary but did not care whether the outcome was good or bad'.

Currently, it escapes me how he can call this reaction "love".  I understand the need for non-attachment, etc. but this seems more like selfishness than anything else.

Many times you can see Maharaj's "personality" come through in his teaching...yet he claims to be "beyond consciousness" and not identify with the body.  If that were so, why does he relay information with such a personality?  

And a better question would be, how can he relay information if he has no identification with either the body nor the witness.  If the body knows nothing of the witness (and even less about the ultimate awareness) how could it possibly transmit information about it?

Most other stories of enlightened beings that I have ever heard, those people acted in a completely loving and "passionate" way, despite being non-attached and dispassionate..... Maharaj's behavior seems inconsistent to me.

[karl]

The problem is you are reading it explicitly and referencing the writer. It's not necessary, it does it's work regardless. Just like some rain refreshes plants and some rain drowns people, the rain is not inherently good or bad, it's just rain. This is the same with these books. Trying to analyse and understand is a pointless exercise, it's as pointless as trying to work out why the rain is the rain.

It took a while to realise this. Read it, put it on the shelf or give it away, it's work is done, no more will be found by trying to study it. The rain fell, it did what it needed to do and now go back to whatever it is you were doing. You already know the words as you received them because it is your world in which they appear, they are really your own creation.

[Bourgo]

quote:Originally posted by karl

The problem is you are reading it explicitly and referencing the writer. It's not necessary, it does it's work regardless. Just like some rain refreshes plants and some rain drowns people, the rain is not inherently good or bad, it's just rain. This is the same with these books. Trying to analyse and understand is a pointless exercise, it's as pointless as trying to work out why the rain is the rain.

It took a while to realise this. Read it, put it on the shelf or give it away, it's work is done, no more will be found by trying to study it. The rain fell, it did what it needed to do and now go back to whatever it is you were doing. You already know the words as you received them because it is your world in which they appear, they are really your own creation.

Karl, do none of the contradictory statements of a claimed jnani tarnish your view of him?

For instance, in one part he says there is no such thing as purpose only randomness -- in fact he has an entire protracted conversation telling a questioner that there is no such thing as purpose.  Then, in another conversation he says: "Let each act according to his nature.  The ultimate purpose will be served in any case."

It is difficult to have faith in the validity of such a person when they seem a liar.

[karl]

quote:Originally posted by Bourgo

quote:Originally posted by karl

The problem is you are reading it explicitly and referencing the writer. It's not necessary, it does it's work regardless. Just like some rain refreshes plants and some rain drowns people, the rain is not inherently good or bad, it's just rain. This is the same with these books. Trying to analyse and understand is a pointless exercise, it's as pointless as trying to work out why the rain is the rain.

It took a while to realise this. Read it, put it on the shelf or give it away, it's work is done, no more will be found by trying to study it. The rain fell, it did what it needed to do and now go back to whatever it is you were doing. You already know the words as you received them because it is your world in which they appear, they are really your own creation.

Karl, do none of the contradictory statements of a claimed jnani tarnish your view of him?

For instance, in one part he says there is no such thing as purpose only randomness -- in fact he has an entire protracted conversation telling a questioner that there is no such thing as purpose.  Then, in another conversation he says: "Let each act according to his nature.  The ultimate purpose will be served in any case."

It is difficult to have faith in the validity of such a person when they seem a liar.

I'm not critiquing the writer, I have no views on him. I see a book full of words that's all, just as I see petals on a flower. What the purpose of the flower is I cannot adequately define. I do not know its relationship, it is just part and parcel of everything. If it has relevance I cannot know it. Is it good, or bad, false or truth I cannot know it. It is and that is all I can know.

So read it and disagree or agree, it makes no difference. It is because it is. I don't want to seem as if I am somehow evading answering your question, I'm simply saying there isn't an answer. I don't choose not debate it, I just see nothing to debate. If you want to debate how best to set up motorcycle suspension, then we can do that, but philosophy isn't a fixed point.

Read, move on. It won't be the first or the last of books which are perplexing and contradictory, don't waste time on them.

[Etherfish]

Teachings can't be analyzed as if the words should be perfectly logical. What is being taught can't completely be put into words. Words are only an approximation.
Spiritual teachers can be learned from, even with imperfect language.
He is using "purpose" for two different meanings. One is God's will, which more often would not be defined as a purpose, and the first time he means individual purpose, like your ego thinking it can make a difference.

Finding imperfections in teachers won't get you anywhere. Some people will be helped by that teacher, but if he doesn't feel right for you, move on and find one who does. Different people need different teachings.

There is no such thing as one perfect teacher for everyone. I know that is controversial, as most religions think there is. But that is only perfect for them. If there were one perfect teacher for everyone, everyone would be drawn to only that one teacher.

[AumNaturel]

It would be a disservice to the teaching method if someone else were to resolve the apparent contradictions on terms other than our own. Only clues, and plenty of them at that, were already provided here because of that limitation, in response to what from my point of view represent perfectly natural and genuine reactions in working with the teachings. When those suggestions appear not enough at this point in time, when learning boundaries are being crossed, the only natural response has also already been provided:

quote:Originally posted by karl
Read it, put it on the shelf or give it away, it's work is done

[showup]

quote:Originally posted by Bourgo

Has anyone read "I AM THAT" ?

I am currently reading this series of conversations with Maharaj, and I find them both a bit confusing and disturbing.

His dispassion and non-attachment is so complete that, applying that state of life to taking care of a family or raising children almost seems impossible.  Or at the very least, a bit irresponsible.

Maybe I don't fully understand, but I'm not sure I like his description of residing in the Absolute.

Anyone else have similar (or very different) thoughts on this?

Thanks!

I did not read this book. But based on the point you mentioned the author’s view seems to be genuine to me. You feel it is hard to digest because there are several fundamental differences between AYP way of looking into things and from other point of view. That is it.

[Etherfish]

the next book: "That is It" by Showup