No subject

[Shashikanth Hosur]

Namaskaram
        One of my friends has typed the first chapter of "I am That"
        containing conversations with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, which
        I am sending herewith.

shashi

 1. THE SENSE OF 'I AM'
 ----------------------

 Questioner: It is a matter of daily experience that on waking up the  world
 suddenly appears. Where does it come from?

 Maharaj: Before anything can come into being there must be somebody to whom
 it comes. All appearance and disappearance  presupposes  a  change  against
 some changeless background.

 Q: Before waking up I was unconscious.

 M: In what sense? Having forgotten, or not having  experienced?  Don't  you
 experience even when unconscious? Can you exist without knowing? A lapse in
 memory: is it a proof of non-existence? And can you validly talk about your
 own non-existence as an actual experience? You cannot even  say  that  your
 mind did not exist. Did you not wake up on being called? And on waking  up,
 was it not the sense 'I am' that came first? Some seed  consciousness  must
 be existing even during sleep, or swoon. On waking up the experience  runs:
 'I am - the body - in the world.' It may appear to arise  in succession but
 in fact it is all simultaneous, a single idea of having a body in a  world.
 Can there be the sense of 'I am' without being somebody or other?

 Q: I am always somebody with its memories and habits. I know  no  other  'I
 am'.

 M: Maybe something  prevents  you  from  knowing?  When  you  do  not  know
 something which others know, what do you do?

 Q: I seek the source of their knowledge under their instruction.

 M: Is it not important for you to know whether you  are  a  mere  body,  or
 something else? Or, maybe nothing at all?  Don't  you  see  that  all  your
 problems are your  body's  problems  -  food,  clothing,  shelter,  family,
 friends,  name, fame, security, survival - all these lose their meaning the
 moment you realize that you may not be a mere body.

 Q: What benefit there is in knowing that I am not the body?

 M: Even to say that you are not the body is not quite true. In  a  way  you
 are all the bodies, hearts and minds and much more. Go deep into the  sense
 of 'I am' and you will find. How do you find a thing which you have mislaid
 or forgotten? You keep it in your mind until you recall it.  The  sense  of
 being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it  comes,  or
 just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am',  without  moving,
 you enter a state which cannot be verbalized but can  be  experienced.  All
 you need to do is to try and try again. After  all  the  sense  'I  am'  is
 always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it  -  body,
 feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these  self-identifications
 are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not.

 Q: Then what am I?

 M: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what  you  are.
 For as long as knowledge means description in  terms  of  what  is  already
 known,  perceptual,  or  conceptual,  there  can  be  no  such   thing   as
 self-knowledge, for what you are cannot  cannot  be  described,  except  as
 total  negation. All  you  can say is: 'I am  not this, I am not that'. You
 cannot meaningfully say 'this is what I am'. It just  makes no sense.  What
 you can point out as   'this' or 'that' cannot be yourself. Surely, you can
 not be 'something' else. You are nothing perceivable, or  imaginable.  Yet,
 without you there can be neither perception nor  imagination.  You  observe
 the heart feeling, the mind thinking, the body  acting;  the  very  act  of
 perceiving shows  that  you  are  not  what  you  perceive.  Can  there  be
 perception, experience, without you? An experience must 'belong'.  Somebody
 must come and declare it as his own. Without an experiencer the  experience
 is not real. It is the experiencer that imparts reality to  experience.  An
 experience which you cannot have, of what value is it to you?

 Q: The sense of being an experiencer, the sense of 'I am', is it  not  also
 an experience?

 M: Obviously, every thing  experienced  is  an  experience.  And  in  every
 experience there arises the experiencer of it. Memory creates the  illusion
 of continuity. In reality each experience has its own experiencer and  the
 sense  of identity is  due  to  the  common  factor  at  the  root  of  all
 experiencer - experience relations. Identity and  continuity  are  not  the
 same. Just as each flower has its  own colour, but all colours  are  caused
 by the same light, so do many experiencers  appear  in  the  undivided  and
 indivisible awareness, each separate in memory, identical in essence.  This
 essence  is  the  root,  the   foundation,  the  timeless   and   spaceless
 'possibility' of all experience.

 Q: How do I get at it?

 M: You need not get at it, for you are it. It will get at you, if you  give
 it a chance. Let go your  attachment  to  the  unreal  and  the  real  will
 swiftly and smoothly step into its own. Stop imagining  yourself  being  or
 doing this or  that and the realization that you are the source  and  heart
 of all will dawn  upon you. With this will come great  love  which  is  not
 choice or predilection, nor attachment, but a power which makes all  things
 love-worthy and lovable.
                        ******************************