NISARGADATTA BLAMES HIS STUDENT'S THICKNESS AND MY RESPONSE:
"You people come here wanting something. What you want may be knowledge with a capital 'K' - the highest Truth - but nonetheless you do want something. Most of you have been coming here for quite some time. Why? If there had been apperception of what I have been saying, you should have stopped coming here long ago! But what actually has been happening is that you have been coming here day after day, identified as individual beings, male or female, with several persons and things you call 'mine'. Also, you think you have been coming here, of your own volition, to see another individual - a Guru - who, you expect, will give you 'liberation' from your 'bondage'.
Do you not see how ridiculous all this is ? Your coming here day after day only shows that you are not prepared to accept my word that there is no such thing as an 'individual'; that the 'individual' is nothing but an appearance; that an appearance cannot have any 'bondage' and, therefore, there is no question of any 'liberation' for an appearance.
Like Krishnamurti he blames his students for not getting what he offers. It just takes a long time, perseverance, and earnestness on a path of self-exploration.
He was far too much stuck in theory and Hindu spiritual terms which caused confusion.
He needed to emphasize that there is no truth in words, including his, because words cannot convey his state. All words cause problems until and even after one has entered emptiness, but gradual identification with emptiness removes the importance of words and their deluding capacity.
Second, he needed to emphasize even more the necessity of finding the I Am sensation and dwell their for a long, long time. Not searching for the I-thought or where it arising, but feeling the I-sensation, the I Am.
But he talked too much about too many things, which made him an entertainer instead of the greatest guru ever.
Fortunately Pradeep Apte combed through all of Nisargadatta's book and abstracted the 100+ paragraphs dedicated to the I Am and self-inquiry.
The exact same criticism can be leveled at Ramana. He had a simple and clean awakening to the nature of his existence, but because he did not see through words and concepts, he kept adding Advaita concept after concept for the next 50 years, totally obscuring the simplicity of what his teachings could have been.
Tony Daniels: You make a distinction between finding the I Am sensation and searching for the I thought. There is no difference. The "I" or "I am" thought is the primary thought of the mind. Putting the attention there causes it to finally dissolve revealing only undifferentiated awareness without thought. To become established in that as your true nature is to know the Self.
Tony Daniels: You write about wanting to come back to simplicity yet you are adding complexity to what is essentially very simple. The "I" thought is what gives you a sense of egoic identity as individuated consciousness. It doesn't matter whether you refer to it as a feeling, sensation or something you inquire into. You are turning the attention back to the source. As Ramana said, if you inquire into this primary thought it cannot sustain itself without identification with an object and therefore dissolves, showing the ego to be an illusion like the rope and snake. The void may appear to be a cold unfeeling place for many at times, but if you persevere, there will come a time when it is seen as vibrant and full of life, inclusive of everything, both unmanifest and manifest. That is a permanent state, but prior to that realization it will be temporary until the mind finally dissolves into the spiritual heart that is the Self. The only obstacle to revealing your true nature is mind. It must be transcended to reveal what is already there. The way you present it is as if there are two alternative truths, one pointing to emptiness and one to being alive as a person. There is just one truth totally encompassing both as a unified whole. That is the true meaning of Self Realization.
Edward Muzika Tony, why do you deny that we exist as human beings in a context of relations as human beings, experiencing life, even while our primary identification drops to deeper levels of Consciousness.
Why use terms like transcendent that are so abstract they help no one?
Why fail to make the distinction between observation and feeling?
Why use a term like ego, about which no two people agree what it is?
What is a spiritual heart?
Why are you trying to fix me, I am fine without such abstract fixing?
This is what I dislike so much about Ramana and all the neo advaitins who claim him as their source: the very abstract nature of the terms and metaphors he uses that fail to convey the experience?
I am conveying my experience using my words, which do not use abstractions.
Tony Daniels · I don't deny we exist as human beings. Where have I said that? The personal aspect and changing phenomena don't disappear after Realization. The great maya shakti is an expression of infinite consciousness. I said that the totality of what you are is all inclusive. The crucial thing is dropping identification and attachment to objects. Once there is a shift to identify with the unbounded, the expression in the field of diversity and as a human being is all one movement of the Self. But this has to be realized. What I see happening is that you get teachers who have glimpsed a deeper aspect of themselves and then get embroiled in all the non duality stuff and then go round saying things like, there is no one here, I am not the doer etc. it's often just an intellectual understanding, but they're doing satsangs already. It only has truth as a realization. It is beyond words.
The word "transcendent" is perfectly clear to anyone who experiences silent awareness. There is nothing abstract about it. It has meaning. When you throw around words like "energies" would you say that is less abstract?
Your determination to make a distinction between observation and feeling is not an important issue. What matters is going back to the source, to cultivate the discrimination between awareness and thought.
In psychology circles with which you will be familiar, it is true that ego can be defined in so many ways. But to suggest it is confusing to use the word ego to describe a simple sense of identity as I have is baffling to me.
Spiritual heart is the Self. You know how it is Ed. You use some of your words and I use some of my words. We don't need to call the cops to arbitrate on what is acceptable. Or do you want to set the rules on acceptable terminology.
I am not trying to fix you. Do you think you are in need of fixing?
I am conveying my experience using my words, which do not use abstractions.
Edward Muzika Define ego Tony, I have no idea what it means. Define transcendent in another way than silent awareness. I have no idea of what that term means. What do you mean by "simple sense of identity?" Identity to what and what identifies?
"Energies" to me is self-evident. They arise from various places in the body and course through it, and are experienced something akin to a subtle electrical shock, which gradually become more organized the deeper on efeels them, eventually becoming an observed "presence" within and around one's body.
The distinction between observation and feeling is absolutely critical. You can observe an emotion dispassionately, or feel it fully, allowing it to enter one's heart so to speak, one's essence, where it comes alive and dissolves into bliss.
The energies eventually transform into bliss.And yes, you have used many abstractions, such as ego. What is your experience of ego, silent awareness? Flesh these terms out so that I can understand what you are saying as I fleshed out energies and emptiness.
You see, we do not have the same expressions, we do not have the same experiences. We are different as are all human beings. Each has his or her own truth, and I can only express mine, and you yours.
Tony Daniels: Are you serious. You have no idea what ego means? You refer to the I Am quite frequently. Everyone is aware of I am, the sense of a personal self. We can call it ego. Anyone can understand this. What is your agenda in seeking more and more complexity. I feel it is merely a strategy to repudiate what I have written so as to assert your perceived authority.
Energies to me is not self evident. In fact I cannot find a post from you that is not full of abstractions.
Energies don't transform into bliss. Ananda which is the peace which passes all understanding is the essence of what you are. Nothing transforms into it. It is always there but for the veil of ignorance which obscures what has always been there. Is this too abstract for you? You put too much emphasis on emotions and mistakenly think that a deeply felt emotion is indicative of your essence. It most definitely is not. Why? Because it comes and goes. You have to transcend (please look this word up in a dictionary) mind to experience the unchanging reality of unbounded awareness. Does this not mean anything to you? Have you not experienced the clarity of a still mind, or do deep emotional states appeal more to you. It appears to make you feel alive, but so does silence. More so.
Edward Muzika: Finally. You have offered a definition of ego. It is the I Am. But it is absolutely not true that everyone is aware of the I Am. Are you speaking of the I-thought or the I Am sensation? They are not the same. You are just absolutely wrong here. The sense of personal self is not real, but the I Am sensation is as real a subjective sensation as one can have, as real as anger or love.
True, energies are not self-evident to everyone. One has to dig deep inside to penetrate through to the energy body. You just have not experienced it yet, that is why it is not self-evident to you. But they are self-evident to energy workers like Reikei or Quantum Touch, to Kundalini students, to kriya yogis, etc.
Emotions and energies are gateways to bliss and emptiness is deeper than emotions, bliss, or the body sensations and penetrates them all.
Don't you see Tony, you are taking your own words and experience as the total and only truth.
Your truth is not mine. Yes, I have experienced the clarity of a still mind, but my emphasis is on the empty space that pervades both the body and mind, which apparently you do not experience.
We are different, don't you get that? Different experiences, different "truths." I speak to those who want to experience or have experienced what I have. But you come onto my page arguing with me. What is the point of that? Do I come onto your page and say you are wrong?
Tony Daniels: I understand. You only want to invite those to comment who agree with you and follow you.
Edward Muzika Tony, there is a big difference between you and I. You think that you have reached the final truth, and can faithfully repeat Ramana's teachings as your own.
I know I am not finished. But I also know that I have experiences and understandings you have not yet reached. You have silent mind and ego transcendence, whatever that means for you.
I have the Void, emptiness lit by the light of Consciousness,
I have an energy body, the Subtle Body which you have not yet experienced. I have had long periods of ecstatic bliss, and the experience of God living within and through me. I am able to experience deep sadness and joy and totally let both flow in and through me.
I have experienced complete surrender to God, and realized the Manifest Self arise in me as a volcano of light and energy which as never left.
You have a silent mind.
Tony, you don't have a clue as to what I am talking about, and I don't want to shrink to fit your experience.
Geoffrey Levens If you don't know the difference between a thought and a feeling i.e. sensation, then it seems like an arbitrary, semantic quibble. Once you "get it" you will start to see that it is the root of much of the interpersonal grief in the world, ruptured relationships, arguments, divorces, destructive child raising practices... the list goes on. Try reading some Alice Miller, "Drama of the Gifted Child" is probably best place to start. If you read slowly and really pay attention to what she says and your own inner reactions it might reveal...something.
Edward Muzika Thank you Geoffrey for expanding on the distinction. I would also recommend "Focusing" by Eugene Gendlin who describes "felt sense."