critique of "i am that" by maharaj
intro: "I Am That" is a compilation of philosophy by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu? spiritual teacher. The English translation was from the original "Marathi recordings" and was published in 1973.
__
lesson 1.
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.
see link for source later
_
i reply: FIRST notice the words "anything must all". this must start the lesson because it does not reply to the question "where" which i did not bring. therefore we must ignore the unrelated question which maharaj ignored and did not discuss anyway. instead what did maharaj teach?
the word "anything" is risky, and the claim "must be somebody" is obviously false. for example... even one example destroys the claim "anything"... if we accept that our planet's sun is "older" than the life on earth [life needs the sun] then the star called sun "came into being" meaning its gas started emitting heat and light [both of those are electromagnetic waves] "before" any life on earth "to whom it came." something such as a star can start existing as a star with fusion but no condition "must" have somebody. in fact those gasses that started fusion preexist the sun and "came into being" before the sun and further away from the start of life on earth so "somebody to whom it comes" is not "must before" the star and its gasses. in fact the life could only start after the sun provided heat so the microbes would not be frozen.
even one example refutes the word "anything" so making this "statement' with the extremes "anything and must" is easy to refute. now what idiot would talk in a manner that is easy to refute?
similarly any ancient star came into existence without any necessity of "somebody to whom it comes"
this guy is just playing word games but we will give him a chance to CLARIFY his paragraph.
he then adds appearance. well that does not mean "come into being".
maybe he referd to appearance and meant to say "before you see anything you must exist to see it" but that is so obvious to be asinine. like saying "i am a great teacher so i will teach that the sun rises in the morning". wow.
so we move to the next sentence: "all" again he makes a risky generalization with the word "all" appearance is "change against changeless backround."
this is not only false but again due to his "all" easy to refute.
when a star for example the star called sun APPEARED meaning even before fusion even "started emitting light" it was a change called a new star from non-star gasses. well that includes by necesity a change in background because those gasses changed. not only a dark background added light but he claimed an "unchanging background" yet a star could appear even if the other stars in background began or ended. the gas in the background is the matter that changed into a star so that is not "changeless" we see that this fool should not have published his recordings or should have "re-recorded" whatever idea he was trying to say.
well maybe he was only speaking in symbolism... that is still a waste of time to analyze something unclear... but wait: check the following paragraph out about clarity!
"The book was revised and reedited in July 1981."
so they had a chance to fix this ugly section but there it is published. how do others respond to this book? "The book is considered "the author's masterpiece and a spiritual classic" by authors and teachers like Eckhart Tolle, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra. Adyashanti, called the book "the clearest expression I've ever found."
__i reply: ady' claims it is clear? but i read and saw it is not clear. if maharaj did not mean "the words he chose to say in the recording" that is far from clear. and if he did, then many words and phrases are too vague. the few clear sentences are stupid or wrong and can only be defended by saying "he meant something else but then not "clear".
if this is his "masterpiece" we can understand the poorer quality of his other stuff... but maybe mixed in, someone found a detail worth emphasizing?
the website sankaracharya dot org chose the following selection to emphasize so we analyze one section that i divided into bite size chunks. 4 quotes in one paragraph together:
maharaj: "The seeker is he who is in search of himself."
i reply: that equation, unless you add a word, is plainly false. if he is defining a seeker, then anybody can seek anything. if he reversed the order, then we could more easily notice the stupidity "he who is in search of himself is a seeker" and similarly in his order. that phrase is not "brilliant" nor "classic" it is false. also the word "search" is not relevant here. maybe he shoulda used the term "learning about you", but one who searches for himself knows "where" he is meaning the location of both body and whatever he believes rides in his body... in the body.
if he meant a "spiritual seeker" then the flaws are more blatant: before learning about "himself the spirit" one must ask "if" because a person does not know if he has a spirit or only his body?
also even in the topic of spirit, one must ask "if a creator exists then what does he want" because "avoid angering the creator" is urgent whether God or magical fairies for avoiding violating whatever "purpose." only if no creator can one go to less important topics such as "learning self" and other issues.
also even if no creator being still IF a strong being exists that demands something/anything, ergo we dont want to anger the strong being who can hurt us that is urgent and far more urgent than any philosophy or theory.
__quote 2
maharaj: "Give up all questions except one: "Who am I?" After all, the only fact you are sure of is that you are."
i reply: that is bad advice. if the reasoning is "the fact you are sure of" then in the topic of spirit, coming from a "spiritual" teacher, that same reasoning doubts any spirit. i dont know if i have a spirit.... even if i have, still i am "not certain." so that would mean "not seeking the spirit". what remains? if he means the body then the body is easy to describe: a simple answer to "who am i" is "i am whatever my body is." people with different color hair or skin can each identify themselves. if you say he means spirit then that has already been refuted by his own reasoning.
the fact is: this limitation is both lazy and also against nature. i and most healthy people have WIDE curiousity. when we study for a job, students do ask to understand whatever subjects we chose to study. isolating one question is harmful advice and lazy.
if my child asks "why is thunder so loud and scary" i could but should not answer "your question is less important that the big question "who are you."
can you see how lazy that is? like dont ask any question except one. this quote from maharaj is as flawed as lesson one and therefore he shoulda used his mind for a different topic where he might have been smart.
even in the field of spirit a person should start learning whichever spiritual topic the "learner" finds interesting. let YOUR heart guide your search, but not because maharaj said "only ask who are you".
still if you dont ask about purpose, then urgency demands to check to avoid violating whatever purpose you or the world have and avoid angering whatever creator or strong being as above.
we dont know yet but if the world was created for a purpose can we risk angering the creator? if i know as maharaj insists "that you are" i need to urgently ask why? if i have a purpose then i must avoid angering the creator who caused my existence. if i risk "not asking about purpose" then i risk angering a spirit. so first i must know if i have a purpose. maybe i dont have a purpose and then i can "learn" about myself.
in summary "the question who am i" is not more important than the "purpose of the world" unless we assume the world does not have a purpose?
quote 3
maharaj: The "I am" is certain. The "I am this" is not. Struggle to find out what you are in reality.
i reply: that is so bleep wrong anybody can be certain "they are this" for example a person can simply say with certainty and confidence "i am my body." that is certainly real "in reality." you can be certain because you can test. you choose where those hands attached to you move to. you control which side your eyes face and if you shut them then "you" i emphasize YOU stop seeing what you saw before, because that is "really" who you are.
to add "search for something spiritual" has already been refuted in quote 2 because you are not certain IF you have a spirit. obviously my body is the one observing. i do not know if anything beyond a physical body exists. and he said "do not ask" unless it is about a "fact of which you are certain" of.
in contrast to his question, the question of purpose, although "the spiritual seeker" does not know IF he or the world have a purpose, that is more urgent because if it does, then we must avoid violating that purpose. only after we know there is no purpose can we be certain we are not angering the gods. so that doubt is more urgent.
although we have seen enough to judge this author is only PRETENDING to be smart and clever with fancy philosophy we give maharaj one more chance to CLARIFY his absurd and even bizarre claims:
quote 4:
maharaj: "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." Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj.
i reply: anybody who notices that they can control their eyelids and can close the eyelids resulting in stopping seeing can easily refute most of this paragraph.
sentence by sentence: the word "must" is false. we can compare to ANY study. when i chose which shirt to buy lets replace that word shirt in his equation "To know what [a shirt is] you are, you "must first investigate" and know what [a shirt is] you are not." this is blatantly false.
learning what anything is must study the item. i touch the fabric i see the colors etc. the fact a shirt "is not" pants or a million other things is an infinite waste of time. which shows the foolishness of the word "all" in his phrase 'discover "all" that you are not' that is INFINITELY wasting time. i do not need to measure the space BETWEEN the edge of the shirt and the walls to know the size of the shirt.
the next claim is "you are not your body" yet "you" like me can control where you move those hands that are attached to you and if you want you could close your eyelids and stop reading/seeing because "those body parts" IS you. the only doubt is if you are MORE than your "body and feelings and thoughts". but claiming you are "not those" is false.
you can "percieve" you because you can see your hands and if you "cross your eyes" you can see your nose. if you use a mirror you can see your eyes and all those things that you move are certainly you. the only doubt is if you are more?
the last sentence is flawed logic, "very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive" why not? i can see my eyes despite that my eyes see and i can be certain that the purpose of eyes is seeing if i close and open them.
if he wanted to teach a budhist idea he shoulda said clearly "the observer or perceiver" is more than whatever he sees. but he tried to exclude "whatever you percieve" for no good reason.
the very act of perceiving only shows that the OBSERVER exists beyond whatever he can see. and if that was his point he coulda first claimed "when you see anything you are an observer and therefore that defines "you" as an observer the one thinking."
then the "devils advocate would say "that does not define deaf or blind that exist without seeing or hearing" and we return to thinking. whoever is thinking or hearing or seeing etc. is the "you'. and if so the question is not "who are you" as he wrote but "how to describe" the one thinking and what is the essence of the one thinking. so the whole paragraph even after knowing budhism is wrong line by line. if he was smart he would tel his students not to publish his stuff unless he records new. so i need to tell you we have given him a chance and studied two sections and the guy is wasting your time.
now that we see who this charlatain is, we can warn not read nor publish nor buy his book.
in stead of his answer in section "the sense of i am" lets answer the "Questioner: It is a matter of daily experience that on waking up the world suddenly appears. Where does it come from?"
answer: the same location it was before waking up. or did you mean where did the items that APPEAR in your room come from? well somebody brought them into your room from shops.
oh you asked about the world? before asking where we must ask "if" meaning is it true that the "world came from" anywhere or anything?
we see the world exists apparently it always existed. and if you say life cannot live infinitely and trees die still rocks do not die. a rock could exist infinte time. from infinite time. even life can be born from a mother from its mother infinitely. so ask another question.
hmm, lesson 2 lacks a question and lesson 3 they reverse roles the questioner said a "statement" instead of being a seeker while the teacher changed to a questioner and if so who is he asking?
"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?"
here the "questioner" has certainty. the teacher "presumes" that "others know" well what oif the others have a "wrong answer".
when he suggest "maybe prevents" he should take his own advice and "give up all questions" and dont ask matbe's so we see that this source is bad and we spent too much time on this "holy spiritual philosopher" and we should stop.
source
http://sankaracharya.org/i_am_that_3.php
intro: "I Am That" is a compilation of philosophy by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu? spiritual teacher. The English translation was from the original "Marathi recordings" and was published in 1973.
__
lesson 1.
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.
see link for source later
_
i reply: FIRST notice the words "anything must all". this must start the lesson because it does not reply to the question "where" which i did not bring. therefore we must ignore the unrelated question which maharaj ignored and did not discuss anyway. instead what did maharaj teach?
the word "anything" is risky, and the claim "must be somebody" is obviously false. for example... even one example destroys the claim "anything"... if we accept that our planet's sun is "older" than the life on earth [life needs the sun] then the star called sun "came into being" meaning its gas started emitting heat and light [both of those are electromagnetic waves] "before" any life on earth "to whom it came." something such as a star can start existing as a star with fusion but no condition "must" have somebody. in fact those gasses that started fusion preexist the sun and "came into being" before the sun and further away from the start of life on earth so "somebody to whom it comes" is not "must before" the star and its gasses. in fact the life could only start after the sun provided heat so the microbes would not be frozen.
even one example refutes the word "anything" so making this "statement' with the extremes "anything and must" is easy to refute. now what idiot would talk in a manner that is easy to refute?
similarly any ancient star came into existence without any necessity of "somebody to whom it comes"
this guy is just playing word games but we will give him a chance to CLARIFY his paragraph.
he then adds appearance. well that does not mean "come into being".
maybe he referd to appearance and meant to say "before you see anything you must exist to see it" but that is so obvious to be asinine. like saying "i am a great teacher so i will teach that the sun rises in the morning". wow.
so we move to the next sentence: "all" again he makes a risky generalization with the word "all" appearance is "change against changeless backround."
this is not only false but again due to his "all" easy to refute.
when a star for example the star called sun APPEARED meaning even before fusion even "started emitting light" it was a change called a new star from non-star gasses. well that includes by necesity a change in background because those gasses changed. not only a dark background added light but he claimed an "unchanging background" yet a star could appear even if the other stars in background began or ended. the gas in the background is the matter that changed into a star so that is not "changeless" we see that this fool should not have published his recordings or should have "re-recorded" whatever idea he was trying to say.
well maybe he was only speaking in symbolism... that is still a waste of time to analyze something unclear... but wait: check the following paragraph out about clarity!
"The book was revised and reedited in July 1981."
so they had a chance to fix this ugly section but there it is published. how do others respond to this book? "The book is considered "the author's masterpiece and a spiritual classic" by authors and teachers like Eckhart Tolle, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra. Adyashanti, called the book "the clearest expression I've ever found."
__i reply: ady' claims it is clear? but i read and saw it is not clear. if maharaj did not mean "the words he chose to say in the recording" that is far from clear. and if he did, then many words and phrases are too vague. the few clear sentences are stupid or wrong and can only be defended by saying "he meant something else but then not "clear".
if this is his "masterpiece" we can understand the poorer quality of his other stuff... but maybe mixed in, someone found a detail worth emphasizing?
the website sankaracharya dot org chose the following selection to emphasize so we analyze one section that i divided into bite size chunks. 4 quotes in one paragraph together:
maharaj: "The seeker is he who is in search of himself."
i reply: that equation, unless you add a word, is plainly false. if he is defining a seeker, then anybody can seek anything. if he reversed the order, then we could more easily notice the stupidity "he who is in search of himself is a seeker" and similarly in his order. that phrase is not "brilliant" nor "classic" it is false. also the word "search" is not relevant here. maybe he shoulda used the term "learning about you", but one who searches for himself knows "where" he is meaning the location of both body and whatever he believes rides in his body... in the body.
if he meant a "spiritual seeker" then the flaws are more blatant: before learning about "himself the spirit" one must ask "if" because a person does not know if he has a spirit or only his body?
also even in the topic of spirit, one must ask "if a creator exists then what does he want" because "avoid angering the creator" is urgent whether God or magical fairies for avoiding violating whatever "purpose." only if no creator can one go to less important topics such as "learning self" and other issues.
also even if no creator being still IF a strong being exists that demands something/anything, ergo we dont want to anger the strong being who can hurt us that is urgent and far more urgent than any philosophy or theory.
__quote 2
maharaj: "Give up all questions except one: "Who am I?" After all, the only fact you are sure of is that you are."
i reply: that is bad advice. if the reasoning is "the fact you are sure of" then in the topic of spirit, coming from a "spiritual" teacher, that same reasoning doubts any spirit. i dont know if i have a spirit.... even if i have, still i am "not certain." so that would mean "not seeking the spirit". what remains? if he means the body then the body is easy to describe: a simple answer to "who am i" is "i am whatever my body is." people with different color hair or skin can each identify themselves. if you say he means spirit then that has already been refuted by his own reasoning.
the fact is: this limitation is both lazy and also against nature. i and most healthy people have WIDE curiousity. when we study for a job, students do ask to understand whatever subjects we chose to study. isolating one question is harmful advice and lazy.
if my child asks "why is thunder so loud and scary" i could but should not answer "your question is less important that the big question "who are you."
can you see how lazy that is? like dont ask any question except one. this quote from maharaj is as flawed as lesson one and therefore he shoulda used his mind for a different topic where he might have been smart.
even in the field of spirit a person should start learning whichever spiritual topic the "learner" finds interesting. let YOUR heart guide your search, but not because maharaj said "only ask who are you".
still if you dont ask about purpose, then urgency demands to check to avoid violating whatever purpose you or the world have and avoid angering whatever creator or strong being as above.
we dont know yet but if the world was created for a purpose can we risk angering the creator? if i know as maharaj insists "that you are" i need to urgently ask why? if i have a purpose then i must avoid angering the creator who caused my existence. if i risk "not asking about purpose" then i risk angering a spirit. so first i must know if i have a purpose. maybe i dont have a purpose and then i can "learn" about myself.
in summary "the question who am i" is not more important than the "purpose of the world" unless we assume the world does not have a purpose?
quote 3
maharaj: The "I am" is certain. The "I am this" is not. Struggle to find out what you are in reality.
i reply: that is so bleep wrong anybody can be certain "they are this" for example a person can simply say with certainty and confidence "i am my body." that is certainly real "in reality." you can be certain because you can test. you choose where those hands attached to you move to. you control which side your eyes face and if you shut them then "you" i emphasize YOU stop seeing what you saw before, because that is "really" who you are.
to add "search for something spiritual" has already been refuted in quote 2 because you are not certain IF you have a spirit. obviously my body is the one observing. i do not know if anything beyond a physical body exists. and he said "do not ask" unless it is about a "fact of which you are certain" of.
in contrast to his question, the question of purpose, although "the spiritual seeker" does not know IF he or the world have a purpose, that is more urgent because if it does, then we must avoid violating that purpose. only after we know there is no purpose can we be certain we are not angering the gods. so that doubt is more urgent.
although we have seen enough to judge this author is only PRETENDING to be smart and clever with fancy philosophy we give maharaj one more chance to CLARIFY his absurd and even bizarre claims:
quote 4:
maharaj: "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." Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj.
i reply: anybody who notices that they can control their eyelids and can close the eyelids resulting in stopping seeing can easily refute most of this paragraph.
sentence by sentence: the word "must" is false. we can compare to ANY study. when i chose which shirt to buy lets replace that word shirt in his equation "To know what [a shirt is] you are, you "must first investigate" and know what [a shirt is] you are not." this is blatantly false.
learning what anything is must study the item. i touch the fabric i see the colors etc. the fact a shirt "is not" pants or a million other things is an infinite waste of time. which shows the foolishness of the word "all" in his phrase 'discover "all" that you are not' that is INFINITELY wasting time. i do not need to measure the space BETWEEN the edge of the shirt and the walls to know the size of the shirt.
the next claim is "you are not your body" yet "you" like me can control where you move those hands that are attached to you and if you want you could close your eyelids and stop reading/seeing because "those body parts" IS you. the only doubt is if you are MORE than your "body and feelings and thoughts". but claiming you are "not those" is false.
you can "percieve" you because you can see your hands and if you "cross your eyes" you can see your nose. if you use a mirror you can see your eyes and all those things that you move are certainly you. the only doubt is if you are more?
the last sentence is flawed logic, "very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive" why not? i can see my eyes despite that my eyes see and i can be certain that the purpose of eyes is seeing if i close and open them.
if he wanted to teach a budhist idea he shoulda said clearly "the observer or perceiver" is more than whatever he sees. but he tried to exclude "whatever you percieve" for no good reason.
the very act of perceiving only shows that the OBSERVER exists beyond whatever he can see. and if that was his point he coulda first claimed "when you see anything you are an observer and therefore that defines "you" as an observer the one thinking."
then the "devils advocate would say "that does not define deaf or blind that exist without seeing or hearing" and we return to thinking. whoever is thinking or hearing or seeing etc. is the "you'. and if so the question is not "who are you" as he wrote but "how to describe" the one thinking and what is the essence of the one thinking. so the whole paragraph even after knowing budhism is wrong line by line. if he was smart he would tel his students not to publish his stuff unless he records new. so i need to tell you we have given him a chance and studied two sections and the guy is wasting your time.
now that we see who this charlatain is, we can warn not read nor publish nor buy his book.
in stead of his answer in section "the sense of i am" lets answer the "Questioner: It is a matter of daily experience that on waking up the world suddenly appears. Where does it come from?"
answer: the same location it was before waking up. or did you mean where did the items that APPEAR in your room come from? well somebody brought them into your room from shops.
oh you asked about the world? before asking where we must ask "if" meaning is it true that the "world came from" anywhere or anything?
we see the world exists apparently it always existed. and if you say life cannot live infinitely and trees die still rocks do not die. a rock could exist infinte time. from infinite time. even life can be born from a mother from its mother infinitely. so ask another question.
hmm, lesson 2 lacks a question and lesson 3 they reverse roles the questioner said a "statement" instead of being a seeker while the teacher changed to a questioner and if so who is he asking?
"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?"
here the "questioner" has certainty. the teacher "presumes" that "others know" well what oif the others have a "wrong answer".
when he suggest "maybe prevents" he should take his own advice and "give up all questions" and dont ask matbe's so we see that this source is bad and we spent too much time on this "holy spiritual philosopher" and we should stop.
source
http://sankaracharya.org/i_am_that_3.php
No comments:
Post a Comment