Just discovered this site. I am a student of Nisargadatta and compliment you on a superb explanation of what I AM is all about. Plan to return here again.
I use "I am" along with: "To whom is this thought arising?" "to me" says the mind, "Who am I?" is replied and all thought stops and you drop into being.
I never knew the I am is in the chest!! N Nisargadatta is my favorite! I don't know how else to say it. I love him. I listen to his meditations to sleep quite often. Thank you so much!
THANK YOU for finally explaining what people mean when they say, 'the heart'. I always thought it was a metaphor because no one ever expands on it but I noticed that when I stop thinking and rest on awareness, it works best when I focus around the area. For me it's usually heart level but it's usually right at the back of my body. I thought this was what they mean but i've never heard anyone explain it properly. So many people use 'heart' and 'love' in metaphors so it's easy to get confused.
Thank you, recently began sensing my body after many years of neglecting it's presence. After you mentioned that the spiritual you resides in the heart, it finally made sense to me.
Cosmo ; I have the same experience. For years I have not loved my body .Now I feel that the body is really the temple of my deepest being on this planet.
Fantastic, in fact this seems a similar idea to 'inhibition' in the Alexander Technique - stopping the 'endgaining'. I think F.M. Alexander was actually a rather amazing and enlightened being.
Roger says that abiding in I Am, from the heart and not the mind, will enhance our sense of beingness, which implies we derive a sense of wellbeing from "source " if you will. Rogers teaching provides an RX to suffering. His focus is not on the esoteric sense of that "oneness " experience but rather in knowledge that doership sets up an attachment to outcomes which is dualistic; either good or bad, as a result of our actions, and is the basis of suffering. His guru Ramesh believes that enlightenment is the absence of suffering. True happiness is not found in duality, which is to be understood as the normal flow of life. It's in detachment from the outcomes that we can find a sense peace and thus contentment, and rest in I am. I've found this to be the only non dual teaching I've found so far that helps relieve suffering. The pointer about dropping from the mind, as the point of consciousness, and into the heart, as the junction where source consciousness flows through the body/mind, in a truly human sense, is a good one!
I'm essentially in agreement with the argument about the character of obsessive thinking and how dominant an influence it is, giving rise as it does to unneeded suffering and the notion that one is a "doer" in control. However, the "I AM" is really the sentient experience of the sense of oneself on a deep level and is not really the I AM "thought" as Roger characterizes it nor would one have to have the experience at just the heart level(if by that he's pointing to the physical heart). So, as described by Nisargadatta, it's then the SENSATION one feels and then adheres to as much as one can as the Rx to the obsessive thinking.
Your expectation of something unique and dramatic, of some wonderful explosion, is merely hindering and delaying your Self Realization. You are not to expect an explosion, for the explosion has already happened - at the moment when you were born, when you realized yourself as Being-Knowing-Feeling. There is only one mistake you are making: you take the inner for the outer and the outer for the inner. What is in you, you take to be outside you and what is outside, you take to be in you. The mind and feelings are external, but you take them to be intimate. You believe the world to be objective, while it is entirely a projection of your psyche. That is the basic confusion and no new explosion will set it right! You have to think yourself out of it. There is no other way. - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Gracias Aurelio Yuga por compartir este video con subtitulos. Me gusta mucho Roger Castillo,pero no había encontrado ninguno con subtitulos ( en español)
See it's all about what stricks in your mind what the message is.. people will make the message easy just by listening the real guru only .. but not who else explaining it . Message was clear before some1 else came in between to explain. It.. better we listened the real source .. the clue is the root.. Happ life ever1..
A serious question: isn't this video and it's commentary simple more thinking? Doesn't anyone who draws something from it simply add to their own thinking? For example, if I say, 'Wow, what a wonderful video - this so explains things!', isn't this just another example of thinking?
Follow the words to their source. They simply point you to your own being, which is free from thought. ‘Use the boat to cross the river, but hen you arrive, don’t carry the boat around on your back.’
Without words the video would be just silence. books would be just empty pages. Words are dualistic and imperfect but they are necessary. However, they ar not to be held onto any longer than necessary once they have served their purpose of pointing (thorn to remove a thorn as John K perfectly mentioned above)
If the intuitive apperception appears will be clear that the teaching of Nisargadatta Maharaj is not prescriptive but descriptive. The so-called sensation or thought I AM is a dependent state, a mere expression or modification of the Absolute. Where was the feeling I AM 150 years ago?, Maharaj asked. The thoughts simply appear and there is no volitional or autonomous entity that can do or not do something to stop them. The dwelling in the I Am is not a trick to stop thoughts. This should be clear. What might happen when dwelling in the I Am is that the clarity comes showing that the ultimate reality is not the I AM which Maharaj calls a "temporary disease" but the ineffable Absolute that make all manifestation possible. All the confusion comes when we try to mix the teaching of Ramana Maharshi and others with that of Nisargadatta Maharaj. Finally the teaching of Maharaj is not for the benefit of the person, he warned about it again and again.
When I tried it couple of times today, I found it very effective to keep myself in the present. But I think I am not very clear at some point. Won't it boost ones self-awareness (Ego) ?
Self awareness is not ego Ego is self awareness plus the body form and name Its like when you wake up from sleep The period between it is made of stirring of consciousness..thats what is meant by self awareness
Mahesh Dusane 🐟 10. EGO (THE “I” THOUGHT): The Latin pronoun “EGO” is one of the most misused words in the English language, especially in spiritual circles, where it is used as a noun, although it is a poor translation of the Sanskrit “ahaṃkāra”, which is more accurately a verb. “Ahaṃ” simply means “I/Ego”, and “ahaṃkāra” means “Creating the I/self”, or “Activating the sense of self”, or “Constructing one's identity”. As an aside, some Sanskrit scholars have noticed that the word “ahaṃ” is formed of a+ha+ṃ, a triad of Śiva (a), Śakti (ha) and bindu (ṃ). The whole Sanskrit alphabet is enclosed by those two syllables, just as the Greek tongue begins and ends with “alpha” and “omega”, respectively. “I am the Alpha and the Omega!”, said God in the book of “Revelations”. Incidentally, the palindrome of “ahaṃ” is “mahā”, meaning “GREAT”. False egoity (“ahaṃkāra”) is an errant conception of oneself. In other words, it is the idea that “I am an independent agent, with the volition to freely think, feel and behave as I choose”, instead of simply an unqualified “I AM” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit) or at the very least, “I am all-encompassing existence” (“ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit). The most accurate definition of “Ego/I” is: “the self, which is a conscious PERSON”. A human person is the Stainless Consciousness of Source acting through a particular body-mind complex, which in turn, is an ever-morphing biological organism. Therefore, whenever the word “ego” is heard in practically any spiritual/religious context, it is not to be taken literally (“I”) but in the sense of “ahaṃkāra” (an exaggerated sense of self-importance). So, when the true self (which is Brahman, the TOTALITY of existence) misidentifies itself with the temporal body-mind, it is “false ego” (ahaṃkāra) but when the self/Self identifies with Conscious Awareness (Brahman), acting through the body-mind organism, it is the “real ego” (“ātmana/Paramātmana”, in Sanskrit). Humans usually believe that they are the body-mind organism. Those who have awakened (or at least spiritually aware) consider themselves to NOT be their body-mind. One who is truly enlightened knows for certain that he is both a human being on the relative level, but quintessentially the very ground of being in the Absolute sense. When properly analysed, the phrase “I am Spirit” or “I am All” (“ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit) means “I, the ego (the relative persona) am Nothing/Everything/All/Brahman/Tao/Spirit (the Absolute Ground of Being)”. Finally, it could be argued, with some degree of merit, that since the English language already has a word for oneself (“I”), that we ought to keep using the ENGLISH dictionary definition of “ego” (as the false sense of oneself). However, because the great majority of advanced religionists and spiritual practitioners outside Bhārata (India) who speak of these concepts, base their language on Sanskrit and/or Pali, it is far more accurate to separate “ego” (ahaṃ) from “false egoity” (ahaṃkāra). The literal translation should be paramount, to avoid ambiguity. “The first and foremost of all thoughts, the primeval thought in the mind of every man, is the thought ‘I’. It is only after the birth of this thought that any other thoughts can arise at all. It is only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen in the mind that the second personal pronoun, ‘you’, can make its appearance. If you could mentally follow the ‘I’ thread until it led you back to its source you would discover that, just as it is the first thought to appear, so it is the last to disappear. This is a matter which can be experienced.” Venkataraman Iyer, (AKA Śri Ramana Maharshi), South Indian Sage. “If we are not humble, if we arrogantly think we already know everything, and we think we are God (because the ego believes that it is God…) - that has to be humbled in order for us to realize that we really ARE God. But what we are is God who forgot it was God, and then creates an ego that pretends it is God. And so the ego of the false pretence that it’s already God must be ‘popped’, so that the Real God emerges.” Robert “Shunyamurti” Shubow, Sat Yoga Institute, Costa Rica.
Hi , fews days ago i did a translation to this video to spanish but i still not see it as a posibility. Aurelio is this depending of you to allowed it?
I stopped listening to this clip after 10seconds. It is not "obsessive thinking". it is "incessant incoming thoughts" which we can't control. Maharaj said thoughts aren't our own thoughts it is collective. We have to be ale to think! Think something amazing. Think love. Think bliss. Without active thinking, we can't create, invent, evolve, nor expand. We are suffering from incoming thoughts associated from the memories(past), or imagining negative future. I love Nisargadatta Maharaj,. When people talk about what he said, one need to choose the words extremely carefully and correctly, otherwise there will be more distortions and misunderstandings. The idea is, stick with originals. Just my opinion.
Yes, but when we lack awareness, we tend to feed off the thoughts coming at us. If a thought comes into our head and we are not aware, we will usually engage with it and start this Cascade of thoughts.
you are not able to control thoughts. You are not one that have to think. You can t choose what you wont. You are not suffering. It s not you. But, you are still picking what you are, and you are not that.
One thing that is a little unclear is exacerbated by the term 'book end'. I have not heard that term before, but there is usually a book end on each side of the books or just one; that could be at the beginning or the end. 'I am' can be the beginning of a 'doing' thought, 'I am doing happiness' etc. So 'I am' would be before the books in that case. BUT i think what you are saying is that 'I am' has the power to end a thought? This is confusing as it seems to suggest the 'I am' is the correct way of looking at things. Does 'I am' mean, being without an 'I'. OR What is the 'I' in 'I am'?
This video answers the question exactly, that i have had since reading some Nisargadatta, and seeing Ramakant recently. Thank you Roger an Aurelio!
I'm glad this video helped you my friend!
Aurelio Yuga hi, Abide in my love
Awareness lands on the obsessive thinking. Love that ❤
Just discovered this site. I am a student of Nisargadatta and compliment you on a superb explanation of what I AM is all about. Plan to return here again.
Thank you, Namaste
Consciousness is in the chest. Mind BLOWN
Thankyou 🙏much love from India🇮🇳
Over thinking is hurting the self. Self love is I am
I use "I am" along with: "To whom is this thought arising?" "to me" says the mind, "Who am I?" is replied and all thought stops and you drop into being.
You say "I use..." but who even is that "I"?
I never knew the I am is in the chest!! N Nisargadatta is my favorite! I don't know how else to say it. I love him. I listen to his meditations to sleep quite often. Thank you so much!
THANK YOU for finally explaining what people mean when they say, 'the heart'. I always thought it was a metaphor because no one ever expands on it but I noticed that when I stop thinking and rest on awareness, it works best when I focus around the area. For me it's usually heart level but it's usually right at the back of my body. I thought this was what they mean but i've never heard anyone explain it properly. So many people use 'heart' and 'love' in metaphors so it's easy to get confused.
Thank you, recently began sensing my body after many years of neglecting it's presence. After you mentioned that the spiritual you resides in the heart, it finally made sense to me.
Thank Roger:)
Cosmo ; I have the same experience. For years I have not loved my body .Now I feel that the body is really the temple of my deepest being on this planet.
Fantastic, in fact this seems a similar idea to 'inhibition' in the Alexander Technique - stopping the 'endgaining'. I think F.M. Alexander was actually a rather amazing and enlightened being.
This is the explanation I needed to hear.
Roger says that abiding in I Am, from the heart and not the mind, will enhance our sense of beingness, which implies we derive a sense of wellbeing from "source " if you will.
Rogers teaching provides an RX to suffering. His focus is not on the esoteric sense of that "oneness " experience but rather in knowledge that doership sets up an attachment to outcomes which is dualistic; either good or bad, as a result of our actions, and is the basis of suffering. His guru Ramesh believes that enlightenment is the absence of suffering. True happiness is not found in duality, which is to be understood as the normal flow of life.
It's in detachment from the outcomes that we can find a sense peace and thus contentment, and rest in I am.
I've found this to be the only non dual teaching I've found so far that helps relieve suffering.
The pointer about dropping from the mind, as the point of consciousness, and into the heart, as the junction where source consciousness flows through the body/mind, in a truly human sense, is a good one!
+Michael Locey I'm glad you like it, my friend!
Aurelio Yuga - Guruji - such clear n simple language to understand ! Thank you very much 💖💖
:)
Michael MJL a@
Thank you Roger for explain the teachings so well 🙏 Thank you Nisargadatta 🙏
Beautiful
'Abide in I AM' means dropping out of that thinking into Being. #RogerCastillo
Aurelio Yuga you're doing so well :D
:)
I'm essentially in agreement with the argument about the character of obsessive thinking and how dominant an influence it is, giving rise as it does to unneeded suffering and the notion that one is a "doer" in control. However, the "I AM" is really the sentient experience of the sense of oneself on a deep level and is not really the I AM "thought" as Roger characterizes it nor would one have to have the experience at just the heart level(if by that he's pointing to the physical heart). So, as described by Nisargadatta, it's then the SENSATION one feels and then adheres to as much as one can as the Rx to the obsessive thinking.
As Maharaj said : The I AM is before any thought.
Your expectation of something unique and dramatic, of some wonderful explosion, is merely hindering and delaying your Self Realization. You are not to expect an explosion, for the explosion has already happened - at the moment when you were born, when you realized yourself as Being-Knowing-Feeling. There is only one mistake you are making: you take the inner for the outer and the outer for the inner. What is in you, you take to be outside you and what is outside, you take to be in you. The mind and feelings are external, but you take them to be intimate. You believe the world to be objective, while it is entirely a projection of your psyche. That is the basic confusion and no new explosion will set it right! You have to think yourself out of it. There is no other way. - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
The world is not a projection of my psyche. I would project my rent to be lower, my food to be cheaper.
I find that there is a pain driving the thinking mind in an attempt to control or escape.
Me encanta estos vídeos, y todas las enseñanzas, son muy valiosas. Pero no sé inglés, solo español. Gracias.
Busca Nisargadatta Maharaj en español. Hay muchos videos.
Beautifu and simple.. Thanks
Gracias Aurelio Yuga por compartir este video con subtitulos. Me gusta mucho Roger Castillo,pero no había encontrado ninguno con subtitulos ( en español)
:) You are very welcome!
This reminds me of Eckhart tolle , the book the power of now. Good read.
All spiritual teaching is holding up a mirror, so that you may see the true self, it is much the same.
Echart Tolle stole all his ideas from Indian gurus and made a fortune with them. He is corruption itself.
Great teaching! Thanks for this upload!!
👌👌👌👌👌
Am is extra... That is why Ramana Maharshi speaks of I, I. I is the only bookend necessary. But I guess it's whatever works for the individual.
Great love it
See it's all about what stricks in your mind what the message is.. people will make the message easy just by listening the real guru only .. but not who else explaining it
. Message was clear before some1 else came in between to explain. It.. better we listened the real source .. the clue is the root.. Happ life ever1..
🕉️ 🔱 🙏
Lovely💖
Aurelio Yuga, gracias por compartir éste vídeo con subtítulos de Roger... podrías subir algunos de Lisa Cairns, igual qué éste 😊👌😘
Gracias ♡♡♡
You're very welcome!
6:30: = "What I mean by dropping down into the heart..."
Wow. Thank u so much
😍😍
A serious question: isn't this video and it's commentary simple more thinking? Doesn't anyone who draws something from it simply add to their own thinking? For example, if I say, 'Wow, what a wonderful video - this so explains things!', isn't this just another example of thinking?
thorn to remove a thorn
Follow the words to their source. They simply point you to your own being, which is free from thought. ‘Use the boat to cross the river, but hen you arrive, don’t carry the boat around on your back.’
Without words the video would be just silence. books would be just empty pages. Words are dualistic and imperfect but they are necessary. However, they ar not to be held onto any longer than necessary once they have served their purpose of pointing (thorn to remove a thorn as John K perfectly mentioned above)
If the intuitive apperception appears will be clear that the teaching of Nisargadatta Maharaj is not prescriptive but descriptive. The so-called sensation or thought I AM is a dependent state, a mere expression or modification of the Absolute. Where was the feeling I AM 150 years ago?, Maharaj asked. The thoughts simply appear and there is no volitional or autonomous entity that can do or not do something to stop them. The dwelling in the I Am is not a trick to stop thoughts. This should be clear. What might happen when dwelling in the I Am is that the clarity comes showing that the ultimate reality is not the I AM which Maharaj calls a "temporary disease" but the ineffable Absolute that make all manifestation possible. All the confusion comes when we try to mix the teaching of Ramana Maharshi and others with that of Nisargadatta Maharaj. Finally the teaching of Maharaj is not for the benefit of the person, he warned about it again and again.
What talk is this excerpt from?
Why does my chest burn from I Am?
I thought excessive thinking will make me get what i want.
Mohamed Ladha Me too 😊
When I tried it couple of times today, I found it very effective to keep myself in the present. But I think I am not very clear at some point. Won't it boost ones self-awareness (Ego) ?
Self awareness is not ego
Ego is self awareness plus the body form and name
Its like when you wake up from sleep
The period between it is made of stirring of consciousness..thats what is meant by self awareness
Mahesh Dusane
🐟 10. EGO (THE “I” THOUGHT): The Latin pronoun “EGO” is one of the most misused words in the English language, especially in spiritual circles, where it is used as a noun, although it is a poor translation of the Sanskrit “ahaṃkāra”, which is more accurately a verb. “Ahaṃ” simply means “I/Ego”, and “ahaṃkāra” means “Creating the I/self”, or “Activating the sense of self”, or “Constructing one's identity”. As an aside, some Sanskrit scholars have noticed that the word “ahaṃ” is formed of a+ha+ṃ, a triad of Śiva (a), Śakti (ha) and bindu (ṃ). The whole Sanskrit alphabet is enclosed by those two syllables, just as the Greek tongue begins and ends with “alpha” and “omega”, respectively. “I am the Alpha and the Omega!”, said God in the book of “Revelations”. Incidentally, the palindrome of “ahaṃ” is “mahā”, meaning “GREAT”. False egoity (“ahaṃkāra”) is an errant conception of oneself. In other words, it is the idea that “I am an independent agent, with the volition to freely think, feel and behave as I choose”, instead of simply an unqualified “I AM” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit) or at the very least, “I am all-encompassing existence” (“ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit). The most accurate definition of “Ego/I” is: “the self, which is a conscious PERSON”. A human person is the Stainless Consciousness of Source acting through a particular body-mind complex, which in turn, is an ever-morphing biological organism. Therefore, whenever the word “ego” is heard in practically any spiritual/religious context, it is not to be taken literally (“I”) but in the sense of “ahaṃkāra” (an exaggerated sense of self-importance). So, when the true self (which is Brahman, the TOTALITY of existence) misidentifies itself with the temporal body-mind, it is “false ego” (ahaṃkāra) but when the self/Self identifies with Conscious Awareness (Brahman), acting through the body-mind organism, it is the “real ego” (“ātmana/Paramātmana”, in Sanskrit). Humans usually believe that they are the body-mind organism. Those who have awakened (or at least spiritually aware) consider themselves to NOT be their body-mind. One who is truly enlightened knows for certain that he is both a human being on the relative level, but quintessentially the very ground of being in the Absolute sense. When properly analysed, the phrase “I am Spirit” or “I am All” (“ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit) means “I, the ego (the relative persona) am Nothing/Everything/All/Brahman/Tao/Spirit (the Absolute Ground of Being)”.
Finally, it could be argued, with some degree of merit, that since the English language already has a word for oneself (“I”), that we ought to keep using the ENGLISH dictionary definition of “ego” (as the false sense of oneself). However, because the great majority of advanced religionists and spiritual practitioners outside Bhārata (India) who speak of these concepts, base their language on Sanskrit and/or Pali, it is far more accurate to separate “ego” (ahaṃ) from “false egoity” (ahaṃkāra). The literal translation should be paramount, to avoid ambiguity.
“The first and foremost of all thoughts, the primeval thought in the mind of every man, is the thought ‘I’. It is only after the birth of this thought that any other thoughts can arise at all. It is only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen in the mind that the second personal pronoun, ‘you’, can make its appearance. If you could mentally follow the ‘I’ thread until it led you back to its source you would discover that, just as it is the first thought to appear, so it is the last to disappear. This is a matter which can be experienced.” Venkataraman Iyer, (AKA Śri Ramana Maharshi), South Indian Sage. “If we are not humble, if we arrogantly think we already know everything, and we think we are God (because the ego believes that it is God…) - that has to be humbled in order for us to realize that we really ARE God. But what we are is God who forgot it was God, and then creates an ego that pretends it is God. And so the ego of the false pretence that it’s already God must be ‘popped’, so that the Real God emerges.” Robert “Shunyamurti” Shubow, Sat Yoga Institute, Costa Rica.
Hi , fews days ago i did a translation to this video to spanish but i still not see it as a posibility. Aurelio is this depending of you to allowed it?
What we ARE is without location. So, IT is not in the chest or elsewhere in the body. This is a misunderstanding due to lack of discrimination
The I am is the start of the ego.
Only if you attach thoughts and feelings to if.
And the I AM is the end of it🙏
I stopped listening to this clip after 10seconds.
It is not "obsessive thinking". it is "incessant incoming thoughts" which we can't control. Maharaj said thoughts aren't our own thoughts it is collective.
We have to be ale to think! Think something amazing. Think love. Think bliss. Without active thinking, we can't create, invent, evolve, nor expand.
We are suffering from incoming thoughts associated from the memories(past), or imagining negative future.
I love Nisargadatta Maharaj,. When people talk about what he said, one need to choose the words extremely carefully and correctly, otherwise there will be more distortions and misunderstandings. The idea is, stick with originals. Just my opinion.
Yes, but when we lack awareness, we tend to feed off the thoughts coming at us. If a thought comes into our head and we are not aware, we will usually engage with it and start this Cascade of thoughts.
Nicely said.Peace,love and bliss to all the beings of the world.
Hilen Shyu very true. Are you ok fb ?
Words
you are not able to control thoughts. You are not one that have to think. You can t choose what you wont. You are not suffering. It s not you. But, you are still picking what you are, and you are not that.
to be or not to be
D.open.ess
One thing that is a little unclear is exacerbated by the term 'book end'. I have not heard that term before, but there is usually a book end on each side of the books or just one; that could be at the beginning or the end. 'I am' can be the beginning of a 'doing' thought, 'I am doing happiness' etc. So 'I am' would be before the books in that case. BUT i think what you are saying is that 'I am' has the power to end a thought? This is confusing as it seems to suggest the 'I am' is the correct way of looking at things. Does 'I am' mean, being without an 'I'. OR What is the 'I' in 'I am'?
Please translate in spanish ! 😔🙏
María Jose, puedes activar los subtítulos en español en la ruedita dentada abajo del video...