|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
elderberry
USA
49 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 03 2024 : 6:10:44 PM
|
AYP writes that the use of "I Am" as a mantra is meant to carry no meaning. In fact, one could think of the mantra as "AYAM" in order to separate any potential meaning from the phrase. This makes sense to me. The goal of meditation is not to ponder the specific meaning of a mantra, thereby keeping the mind in the land of thought and intellect. The mantra is instead used to draw the mind away from thought, and into inner silence.
However, if you continue to read the AYP lessons, you will come to find that "I Am" does indeed have a ton of meaning. As we delve into the AYP teachings around self-inquiry, the concept of "I Am That" becomes prevalent.
Inside the traditions of advaita vedanta, the concept of "I Am That" or sometimes simply just "I Am" is a central concept to the teachings. As we branch out from yoga into other eastern spiritual teachings, the concept of "I Am" appears central. Even within western/christian teachings, the concept of I Am is central, if you read closely enough. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." -John 14:6
It seems that no matter where I look, whether it be in eastern traditions or western traditions, the concept of "I Am" appears to be a critical concept, a thread which ties everything together. True spiritual knowledge tends to escape the grasp of human language. However, to the degree that we may attempt to express deep spiritual knowledge within the confines of language, "I Am" feels like one of the greatest spiritual teachings there is, with an incredible amount of meaning wrapped inside just two simple words.
This is all to say, in my interpretation, "I Am" carries an immense amount of meaning. However, it is taught in the early AYP lessons on meditation that "I Am" is not meant to carry any meaning. How do we reconcile these two ideas?
My best guess at an explanation would be something along the lines of:
"I Am" does carry an immense amount of meaning. However for the 20 minutes we use it during meditation, we use it as a tool, devoid of meaning. For those 20 minutes, we release any conceived meaning of the phrase, and use it simply as a sound to draw us into inner silence.
|
Edited by - elderberry on Jun 03 2024 6:12:00 PM |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4527 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2024 : 12:07:57 PM
|
Hi Elderberry,
That is correct. For the duration of the meditation practice we simply use the sound vibration of AYAM and not any meaning we may attach to it. That is also why we do not translate it into different languages, but always keep it as AYAM.
The same is true for the full AYP mantra SHREE OM SHREE OM AYAM AYAM NAMAH NAMAH.
If any thought of meaning arises during practice, then we simply favour the sound vibration of the mantra over that thought.
|
 |
|
|
TensorTympani
Sweden
101 Posts |
Posted - Jun 04 2024 : 12:26:40 PM
|
Hi elderberry,
I also can't help having a mild suspicion that Yogani had some purpose beyond the "vibratory quality" of the sound of the "I Am". Already in the first lesson introducing deep meditation (https://www.aypsite.org/13.html ) he referred to the deeper meaning of "I Am" in the bible. When I started with deep meditation I felt a bit weird about it. Pointing out the deeper meaning but then also instructing to disregard it had to me the vibe of "don't think of a pink elephant".
In many meditation traditions teachers deliberately confuse students to trigger some effect. I'm not sure if that's the case here or not...
So far, from my own experience of using the mantra (and also mantra enhancements which are clearly meaningless as English words) I can say that the meaning really does not seem to matter. So I think it's good advice to disregard any potential meaning of a mantra during deep meditation.
In Samyama we can use the self-inquire sutra "I-thought - Who am I?" where the meaning of "I", "am" and "?" are all released into stillness. https://www.aypsite.org/351.html
So I guess this gets to the core of the meaning of "I am" independent of whether "I am" is used as mantra, or whether Yogani had some "secret agenda" with the meaning of the "I am" mantra.
Just because you mentioned the "I Am That", I'm still pondering and mystified by the following statement appearing in the introduction of Nisargadatta's "I Am That":
quote:
In spite of its primevality, however, the sense of "I am" is not the Highest. It is not the Absolute. The sense, or taste of "I am-ness" is not absolutely beyond time. Being the essence of the five elements, it, in a way, depends upon the world. It arises from the body, which, in its turn, is built by food, consisting of the elements. It disappears when the body dies, like the spark extinguishes when the incense stick burns out. When pure awareness is attained, no need exists any more, not even for "I am", which is but a useful pointer, a direction-indicator towards the Absolute. The awareness "I am" then easily ceases. What prevails is that which cannot be described, that which is beyond words. It is this "state" which is most real, a state of pure potentiality, which is prior to everything. The "I am" and the universe are mere reflections of it. It is this reality which a jnani has realised.
I hope some day I will know what that means  |
Edited by - TensorTympani on Jun 04 2024 12:45:34 PM |
|
|
|
SeySorciere
Seychelles
1575 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2024 : 06:51:40 AM
|
I am here and here is "me"
I am now and now is "me"
I am both presence and absence
Sey |
|
|
|
TensorTympani
Sweden
101 Posts |
Posted - Oct 27 2024 : 10:52:37 PM
|
Looking through Patanjali's yoga sutras again, I noticed two sutras that relate directly to the meaning of "I am" and how it can be used in Samyama. Those are III.35+39.
My understanding of these two sutras (see below for two translations) is that one can perform Samyama on the distinction between the source of the "I am"-sense (buddhi) and Unbounded Awareness(=purusha).
In the self-inquiry sutra (https://www.aypsite.org/351.html) that Yogani provided we touch and release the "I am"-sense (followed by the question "Who am I?"). In Cosmic Samyama we touch and release "Unbounded Awareness" (https://www.aypsite.org/299.html). So it seems to me that AYP does not include in the list of sutras (core samyama, cosmic samyama and the extended list of sutras for "research") a version that would match III.35 or 39.
A simple idea would be to try out the following as a new sutra (outside of the twice daily sitting practices):
"Relation between I-sense and Unbounded Awareness".
Any thoughts? (Besides that trying this wouldn't be AYP and my own unpredictable experiment  )
######### Sutra III.35
[Taimni]: (36):
Experience is the result of inability to distinguish between the Purusa and the Sattva though they are absolutely distinct. Knowledge of the Parusa results from Samyama on the Self-interest (of the Purusa) apart from another's interest.
[Egenes]: (35):
Outer enjoyment makes no distinction in the experience of buddhi and purusa-which are absolutely unmixed, because buddhi is purposeful to another and purusa is purposeful to itself. Through samyama on the distinction between buddhi and purusa, comes knowledge of purusa.
######### Sutra III.49
[Taimni]: (50):
Only from awareness of the distinction between Sattva and Parusa arise supremacy over all states and forms of existence (omnipotence) and knowledge of everything (omniscience).
[Egenes]: (49):
Solely from perception of the distinction between buddhi and purusa comes all-knowingness and supremacy over all that exists. |
Edited by - TensorTympani on Oct 28 2024 04:29:17 AM |
|
|
|
SeySorciere
Seychelles
1575 Posts |
Posted - Oct 28 2024 : 04:47:55 AM
|
Dear Tensor,
For some reason, when doing Cosmic Samyama I naturally do the two together - First "Who am I?", then "Unbounded Awareness."
Sey  |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4527 Posts |
Posted - Oct 28 2024 : 2:18:28 PM
|
Hi Tensor
quote:
"Relation between I-sense and Unbounded Awareness".
Any thoughts? (Besides that trying this wouldn't be AYP and my own unpredictable experiment )
You could certainly add this to your Samyama practice outside of your regular sitting practice sessions.
The "I-sense" is always an idea in the mind and heart, which is known by pure awareness. Only pure awareness can actually know anything. So, there is a fundamental difference between the I-sense and the knower/ seer/ drishta/ purusha. No word can describe the purusha, as words are always two steps away from reality.
So, by performing Samyama on the relationship between the I-sense and pure unbound awareness, we come to know our higher Self. |
|
|
|
Mithuna
France
16 Posts |
Posted - Oct 28 2024 : 5:40:15 PM
|
Hi,
A great merit of Yogani is to have formalized in a simple, progressive and accessible way the practice of what Yogas Sutras expose. Now the second sutra "Yoga Chitta Vritti Nirodha" (YS 1.2) is explicit and corresponds to what serves as the basis of the practice expounded by Yogani in deep meditation. Unambiguously the state of Yoga consists in the absorption of all the contents of consciousness, whatever they may be, their nature being described in sutras 1.6 and following.
Therefore, when we practice DM, there can be no question of meditating on the deeper meaning of the Mantra. In my practice of Dm, I often compare the Mantra to a metronome whose rhythm in the background is superimposed on the hubbub of the contents of consciousness that appear to let them dissolve, like clouds that are done and undone by the breath of the wind.
This does not mean that a meditation on the meaning of I Am is negative or to be discarded, but simply that it has nothing to do with what constitutes the foundation of Ashtang yoga: it is another practice.
In Samyama, which intervenes much later in chapter 3 of the YS, it is fundamentally different, although based on a similar work. Yogani emphasizes that we always begin with a verbalization that activates in depth the latent knowledge of the concept evoked. Then imperceptibly we absorb all its attributes, whether they are images, emotions, words to touch the spiritual root of this concept, stripped of all phenomenal aspect.
In particular, Yogani, in lesson 325, explains very clearly how a premature mental fixation on a non-dualistic reality, "We are that" or the question "Who am I", risks ultimately leading to a sterile duality by paradoxically crystallizing a concept that isolates us in a non-relational approach. On the other hand, he exposes how the use of such a formulation, this time in the form of a question entrusted to the inner silence in Samyama, generates a particularly efficient spiritual dynamic in a relational relationship with the Self, the Drastr.
|
|
|
|
Dogboy
USA
2299 Posts |
Posted - Oct 29 2024 : 01:29:36 AM
|
| For me it is the powerful simplicity of AYAM that goes deep every time |
|
|
|
TensorTympani
Sweden
101 Posts |
Posted - Oct 31 2024 : 3:43:10 PM
|
Thanks for all your comments!
Thanks Christi for the assessment of my experiment. I will report back if it notice anything (good or bad) coming from doing 5 minutes of extra (=outside of regular sitting practice) Samyama on the "relationship between the I-sense and pure unbounded awareness".
Sey, I remember Christi mentioning during a retreat that it is quite natural for the self-inquiry sutra to change over time. But to me "Who am I? Unbounded Awareness" would feel like imposing the answer to the question (even if the answer might be correct in the end).
Mithuna, thanks for the reminder that DM is the most important practice. Yogani wrote in the lesson addition https://www.aypsite.com/plus/24.html#24.6
quote:
Simple daily Deep Meditation alone will provide the necessary abiding inner silence to support all aspects of our life, including reducing suffering in trying times. This is all you need. Trying to do everything at once in AYP (energy practices, etc.) can actually reduce the effects of Deep Meditation.
Regarding premature (=non-relational) self-inquiry, I feel that this is less of a risk if done during Samyama (or an extra Samyama session) rather than during everyday living. When I sit down for Samyama I can make sure that my inner silence is temporarily "boosted" right before Samyama (through a little bit of DM if needed) and (compared to everyday living) I can during Samyama more easily sense/intuit if there is enough inner silence for self-inquiry to be relational. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4527 Posts |
Posted - Oct 31 2024 : 4:47:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
paccamondi
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - Dec 13 2024 : 5:29:47 PM
|
| On the mantra subject, I have often wondered why Yogani did not choose "OM" instead of "I AM". Does anyone have any thoughts or wisdom on this matter? And the second question would be, is there an problem with using "OM" instead of "I AM"? |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4527 Posts |
Posted - Dec 13 2024 : 7:16:25 PM
|
Hi Paccamondi,
Welcome to the AYP forums! 
OM is a part of the full AYP mantra, but it is not included in the beginning because it is too powerful, and also because it works in a different part of the subtle nervous system, one which is best activated after some preparation.
This is from lesson 188:
"OM lives up to its reputation of being the "mother of all mantras." It is the deeply ecstatic primordial sound of what we are, manifesting from pure bliss consciousness. As explained in the lesson on the second enhancement, we have to prepare for it before using it in deep meditation. Otherwise, it can wreak havoc. Under the best of circumstances, OM is "devastating ecstasy" in deep meditation, especially once ecstatic conductivity is coming up. It will be too much for anyone who goes to the second enhancement prematurely, so don't rush into it. You will know when you are ready. For deciding when to "shift gears," use the guidelines given in the lesson." [Yogani]
That lesson (188) goes into quite a lot of detail about why certain syllables are added at different times, and in the order they are added in, when building up to the full AYP mantra.
You may also find this lesson useful on an alternative approach to building up to the full AYP mantra over time and why it is offered. In this alternative progression, OM is actually left out until later, so that more initial preparation can be done first. |
|
|
|
SeySorciere
Seychelles
1575 Posts |
Posted - Dec 16 2024 : 06:15:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TensorTympani
Just because you mentioned the "I Am That", I'm still pondering and mystified by the following statement appearing in the introduction of Nisargadatta's "I Am That":
quote:
In spite of its primevality, however, the sense of "I am" is not the Highest. It is not the Absolute. The sense, or taste of "I am-ness" is not absolutely beyond time. Being the essence of the five elements, it, in a way, depends upon the world. It arises from the body, which, in its turn, is built by food, consisting of the elements. It disappears when the body dies, like the spark extinguishes when the incense stick burns out. When pure awareness is attained, no need exists any more, not even for "I am", which is but a useful pointer, a direction-indicator towards the Absolute. The awareness "I am" then easily ceases. What prevails is that which cannot be described, that which is beyond words. It is this "state" which is most real, a state of pure potentiality, which is prior to everything. The "I am" and the universe are mere reflections of it. It is this reality which a jnani has realised.
I hope some day I will know what that means
Going back to this quote, I find it misleading (or I am misunderstanding) - we cannot acknowledge a state where the sense of Awareness (I am) is gone. Yes, we can go beyond contracted awareness to expanded Awareness and the ego-self is dissolved. But Awareness needs something to be aware of, even if only Awareness itself. Anything beyond is a gap which we cannot say anything about at all. So we cannot even speak of a state of pure potentiality, right?
Sey
|
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5250 Posts |
Posted - Dec 16 2024 : 5:41:50 PM
|
Hi Sey,
Oddly enough, pure awareness can speak of itself, but not within itself. But coming from within itself, yes. This is what we mean by stillness in action, or the common phrase, "In the world but not of the world."
It is not something the intellect can grasp, nor should it. No need for mind games. The experience is where it is at. And that is why we practice meditation, developing the ability to release and dissolve the inquiry in abiding inner silence, and move on in ordinary life in an awakened state.
In response to Nisargadatta's absolutist position on this, of course one can be established in the Absolute and be active in the world, which is a reflection of the Absolute. Neither aspect of the Absolute takes anything away from the other, only ego identification with one or the other does. The joining (yoga) brings freedom in this life, and the end of suffering.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells warrior Arjuna on the battlefield, "Established in Being, perform action!"
It can also be said, "Becoming established in Being, act as a flow of outpouring divine love in the world!"
So the phrase, "I am That" is relative in its validity, a nuance Nisargadatta does not mention above. Is it spoken by the mind, or by That? Non-relational, or relational in stillness? Only the practitioner can know.
The guru is in you.
PS: As a reminder, in deep meditation it is the sound of I AM (AYAM), not the meaning, that we use as mantra. So the discussion on the meaning of AYAM is not relevant to the practice of deep meditation. And it is barely relevant in a discussion on self-inquiry and non-duality. Why? Because the seed of meaning becomes dissolved in stillness (witness), resulting in something much greater - Freedom!
|
|
|
|
SeySorciere
Seychelles
1575 Posts |
Posted - Dec 17 2024 : 06:30:42 AM
|
Sey  |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
On the Meaning of I Am
