|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
elderberry
USA
37 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
4428 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
USA
79 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
1553 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 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
On the Meaning of I Am
