“LOVE SAYS, ‘I AM EVERYTHING.’ WISDOM SAYS , ‘I AM NOTHING.’ BETWEEN THE TWO MY LIFE FLOWS. SINCE AT ANY POINT OF TIME AND SPACE AND THE OBJECT OF EXPERIENCE, I EXPRESS IT BY SAYING THAT I AM BOTH, AND NEITHER, AND BEYOND BOTH.” ~Nisargadatta Maharaj, from his book “I Am That I Am” What did Nisargadatta Maharaj mean when he said, “Love says "I am everything". Wisdom says "I am nothing". Between the two, my life flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both, and neither, and beyond both."? Published in 1973, Nisargadatta Maharaj’s book *I am That* became an instant modern spiritual classic. While there are a myriad of insights in this text, one of the most potent passages is when he explains to the aspirant, “*I find that somehow, by shifting the focus of attention, I become the very thing I look at, and experience the kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing. I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness, love; you may give it any name you like. Love says "I am everything". Wisdom says "I am nothing". Between the two, my life flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both, and neither, and beyond both*.” While “Love says ‘I am everything.’ Wisdom says ‘I am nothing’. Between the two, my life flows” might make for a great spiritual bumper sticker, what is Maharaj trying to convey in this passage? In his typically uncompromising and pithy style, Nisargadatta has simultaneously lovingly railed home a powerful pointer and also attempted to articulate his experience of Self-Realization. So let’s begin to unpack that phrase. From the perspective of the mind, there are three stages of spiritual development. In the final analysis, there are no phases or stages of spiritual development, however for pedagogical purposes it is helpful to make a compassionate concession to the mind to illustrate the struggles and insights in order to guide the aspirant toward deeper understandings of the substance of experience. # 1. Shifting from “I-the body/mind to ‘the witness’ Our culture socializes us to believe that “I” am an individual person (subject) with a body and a mind; I stand separately and objectively a part from a universe filled with things (objects). Therefore, the popular understanding is duality (I am a subject; objects other than me exist). In order to disrupt the subject/object binary, it is important to draw the attention to the mind (thoughts), sensations (bodily), and perceptions (vision, tasting, touching, smelling, and hearing). Like a forensic scientist, carefully and thoroughly analyze the way in which the mind and sensations appear ***to you.*** Notice how you have never missed a thought nor have you every missed a sensation. You have been present and aware for every thought and every sensation. In other words, ***how can the body/mind be the subject*** **if they are appearing as the objects of experience?** Something is aware of the body/mind and world. This something is what we refer to as “I” or “I am” (use whatever resonates with you). What are the characteristics of this something? If this something had any characteristics it would be immediately perceivable by the mind, therefore it would be known or experienced. Anything conceivable or perceivable would be an appearance and could not be the subject; what we are trying to describe is the *experiencer.* While we cannot describe this “something” as anything in particular, we can say with the utmost certainty, is this “something” is aware and present. ***So, what “I am” is no-thing***, but I am undeniably present and aware. Taking this stand is taking the stand of “the witness”. When the realization of “the witness” sinks in, it is our experiential understanding and *feels like* we are a dimensionless camera witnessing a high-resolution movie or video game, wherein the character we assumed ourselves to be is now an appearing in “the screen”. This picture illustrates this point \[[link](https://imgur.com/a/1SMlpLZ)\] As “the witness” of experience, it becomes clear and obvious that “something” is present and aware of all experience and stand a apart from whatever happens. This is a helpful first step in the spiritual search **but it is dualistic**. Taking the stand as “the witness” is a milestone in the spiritual search (so to speak) because while it is a more accurate description of the substance of experience there is still a subject standing apart from “other things” (a world). \*\*\*An aside\*\*\* The internet has brought us remarkably wise sages with only a few pushes of the button. However, the internet has also brought a proliferation of well-intentioned teachers with an underdeveloped nondual understanding. Some well-intentioned teachers seem to be communicating that taking the stand as “the witness” is all that needs to be done and this is false. More on this later. Since “the witness” and “the world” is still duality, we must begin to explore much more deeply the subject of experience. What is this “I”? What is this “I am”? “Who am I?” “Am I aware?” use whatever phrase or question most closely resonates with you. Most people have their attention pointed outwards. Asking this question immediately draws the attention *inwards*. By *inwards* I don’t mean toward the body, *inwards* means toward the source of thought. This is the practice Ramana Maharshi, Atmananda Krishna Menon, and Nisargadatta Maharaj and others refer to as Self-inquiry. In the current nondual circles this term has been appropriated and misinterpreted. A more precise term could be Self-Abidance. What I mean by Self-Abidance is when the attention is pulled inwards, thoughts lose their fascinating quality, slow down, and begin to “dissolve” or “sink” back into the source. It takes a little bit of trial and error to notice this, but as you recognize the sinking and dissolving, “relax” or “fall into” the sensation. This is what Jaluadduin Rumi meant when he urged aspirants to “flow down, and down, and down, into every widening rings of Being”. As thoughts have less “inertia” to rise, the mind rests in its source. When the mind rests in its source, there is Self-abidance. Rupert Spira uses the metaphor of the dirty sock to describe the importance of Self-abidance. While reading blogs or podcasts may scrape away the chunks of dirt on the socks we wore when we were gardening in the backyard, simply running the socks through the wash machine are not enough. We need to soak the socks in warm water to dislodge the deeply embedded gunk. Not to go overboard on the metaphor, but Self-abidance works similarly because the amnesia of forgetting your true nature is so profound, it is important to devote as much energy as possible to sit and re-familiarize yourself with the Self. When the mind rests in its source, carefully notice that the “I”, that is present and aware, does not seem to be constricted by space or time, nor does it seem to be limited or owned by anyone. Put differently, this “I” is omnipresent (eternally present), omniscient (eternally knowing), and omnipotent (unaffected by experience). Naturally, the most rational question that arises is: **But how can “I” be aware of that “I”? What is aware of that “I”?** Something is present and aware of that “I”. If something is present and aware of that which is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipresent, that must also be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Therefore, that which is ***aware*** *and* ***present KNOWS ITSELF*** to be **aware** and **present.** **Awareness knows itself.** Awareness knows itself by simply Being itself. By Being itself Awareness knows itself. When Awareness knowingly knows itself this can be called an “awakening”. \*\*\*As an aside\*\*\* In many nondual circles, the term “enlightenment” is tossed around. It may be beneficial to avoid the entertaining the term because there are at least three or four layers of assumptions embedded within how the term is usually conveyed. It is at best disingenuous or at worst, flat out false, to pedal the term “enlightenment” given the assumptions and associations to potential aspirants. Using the term awakening is a much more precise description. While the awakening may trigger a release of energy and sensations of euphoria and lightness, “these too shall pass”. This is a popular “Red Herring” in the spiritual search. While this milestone may, on the face of it, seem like “the final understanding” there is still quite a bit of work left to do. Always remember the ultimate litmus test that Atmananda Krishna Menon put forth, ***“Self-Realization occurs when thoughts, feelings, and perceptions no longer take you away.”*** Put differently, if there is even the slightest bit of resistance to any thoughts, feelings, and perceptions (EVER, even 99% of the time), then there is more investigating to be done. After the recognition of Awareness knowingly knowing itself, where do we turn? # 2. Recognizing “The Field of Experience” In the previous phase, it became our experiential understanding that thoughts and sensations were objects to the subject of experience. However, for the purposes of this phase it might be helpful to quickly revisit some of the assumptions that are further embedded within how we are experiencing the inside/outside me/world dynamics. Let us conduct a quick experiment. Let any thought or series of thoughts appear. Take a deep look at that thought and notice that is appearing “within you”. By this, I do not mean within a head, but simply listen closely to the sounds of these thoughts. Then subtly shift your attention to a prominent sound (the sound of traffic, for example). Relax your attention to the sound, as if you if it were white noise while performing chores around the house. Do not put much emphasis on the distinct patterns of the sound. Simply notice how that sound is also appearing “within you”. From there, switch your attention back and forth between the thought(s) and the sound of traffic. When you shifted your attention between your thoughts and the sounds did you cross a border? Where was the distinct boundary between “I am hearing a thought” and “I am hearing traffic”? Where is the border between “the inside world” of my head and the “outside world”? Now direct your attention to the tingling sensation in your feet. Again, relax your attention and notice where this sensation is appearing? Does the tingling of the feet sensation appear “in the world” or “within me”? Go back and forth between these thoughts, sensations, and perceptions until it is absolutely clear and you *feel* that there are no borders between them. Notice that whatever thought, sensation, or perception is appearing within the same field of Awareness. Whatever you are aware of, appears within that field. So let us direct our attention to the nature of this field. When we say “the nature of” something, we mean what is this field “made of” or what is the **substance** or “the stuff?” of that something. As we look more closely at the field we see that the field does not seem to have any edges to it. While everything (every single thought, feeling, and sensation) seems to appear within this field, since we cannot find a border there can be no other fields. Moreover, as we look more closely at the substance of the field, not only do we not find any boundaries in the field, but we do not seem to find any boundaries between the field and the objects we are experiencing. For example, when we listen to “the sound of traffic” (as one example) we might ask the question, “How far away is the sound of traffic?” If we drop the label, “the sound of traffic” and look directly at the dance of the sound, we cannot seem to find a particular location where the sound is registering. If we are open and honest, the most precise answer we can give is “Here”. In fact any sound is registering right here. Then it dawns on you that any perception: viewing the moon, the taste of ice cream, the feeling of the couch, the smell of coffee, and the roar of traffic is all happening “Here”. Even calling it 0 centimeters away isn’t quite accurate. The experience of Life becomes much warmer and intimate. When this realization sinks in, we conceive ourselves to be oceanic, a vast limitless space of experience. At this milestone, our experiential understanding is: what “I Am” is That *to which* everything appears and *in which* everything appears.  This is an important step in the journey and a critical precursor for the next phase, but we **are still in dualism.** As long as we truly believe there are objects (things that have their own independent existence), there will be resistance and thus psychological suffering. # 3. Moving from “The Field of Experience” to “I am Everything” The most fundamental and guiding questions of this phase are: a) Do objects exist a part from perception? b) What is the substance or “the stuff” perceptions (vision, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching) are made of? To understand the nature of experience it is imperative to answer these questions. Once again, we turn again to our direct experience; we turn to thoughts, sensations, and perceptions to see if we can better understand what they are made of. For example, take the previous example of the “sound of traffic”. If we drop the label, “the sound of traffic”, and we relax the focus of attention, we can see clearly that there is raw data appearing in the field of awareness happening “here”. An undulation of the field of awareness vibrating to the Self, and this vibration of energy is known through the activity of hearing. We conclude, “the activity of hearing is happening”.  However, we must take an even closer look at the activity of hearing. Drop the label “the activity of hearing” and relax the attention again. Look very closely look a forensic scientist AND with childlike innocence, what is the hearing made of? Dwell on the question: Can we separate the “knowing of” from the perception of hearing? When we carefully look at the activity of hearing (or any of the other senses) it “made of” our own Self (i.e. Knowing or Awareness). Repeat this process for each of the senses, if need be. You may consider trying vision last because it is the most difficult. It dawns on us that no matter what we are experiencing, whether it be a sunset or a symphony, the laughter of a child or the crying of a stranger, is the knowing of the perception and knowing is another name of the Self – what I am. At this juncture, we begin to understand what Krishna said in 6:30 of the Bhagavad Gita: “For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me.” This comment bares a close resemblance to what Rupert Spira says, “\[the Self\] sees its own face. It sees itself in all things and all things in itself’. From this perspective, all things are appearing in the Self and are “made of” the Self. Now our perspective is what “I am” is That *to which* everything appears, *in which* appears, and *made of* everything that appears. However, **this is still duality.** While this is nearly as accurate as words can describe Self-realization, there are still several layers of unchallenged assumptions that need to be worked through. With this understanding and these descriptions, we are legitimizing the reality of objects and not standing firmly as Awareness (or the Self) as our starting point. “All things within myself” is giving objects far too much credit. As the wise have pointed out time and time again, the primacy of the Self is vital for Self-Realization. So if we stand firm as the Self, and the Self is only and ever our starting point, and look even more closely at our experience, our nondual understanding begins to “falls into place” because the Self is THAT which is taking the shape of all apparent objects. Thinking, sensing, and perceiving is ‘made of” the Self. The Self is simply taking the shape of thoughts, sensations and perceptions, just like water takes the shape of snow, dew, and fog but never becoming anything other than water. And when we say, “The Self knows itSelf”, that means that the Self can only and ever come in contact with itSelf. Knowing knows itself isn’t quite right, so we can just say Knowing is all there is or as the Sufis (and other mystics) have said for centuries, God is all there is. When the Self knowingly knows that the Self is all there is, we  call this Self-Realization. **Applying this Understanding to Nisargadatta Maharaj's Quote** For quick reference, here is the quote again, “*I find that somehow, by shifting the focus of attention, I become the very thing I look at, and experience the kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing. I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness, love; you may give it any name you like. Love says "I am everything". Wisdom says "I am nothing". Between the two, my life flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both, and neither, and beyond both”* When he says he can shift his focus of attention he is not referring to a mystical trick reserved for only sages. For example, imagine you are watching a movie at the theater. You can put your attention squarely on the protagonist of the movie and then shift your attention to the screen in which the protagonist is appearing on. This is the same kind of shift he is referring to in his quotation. In other words, it is possible to shift the attention to the experiential understanding of the witness; as such we become the detached observer, which is what Nisargadatta means when he says, “I am nothing”. Nothing in this case means nothing perceivable or conceivable (but obviously present and aware). However, it is also possible to shift the attention to the experiential understanding that “I am everything” which is synonymous with pure equanimity, completely and fully embracing your own Self, which we can call Love. But as he points out in the last sentence describing either one of those aspects as definite explanations on the nature of reality isn’t quite accurate. We cannot accurately describe “the final analysis” because language collapses. Saying that “Knowing Is” or “the Self is” is quite close but if we are even more precise we could simply use the words “Am” or “Is” while implying “Being-Knowing”. Even this description is still inadequate so we reach the limits of language and remain peacefully quiet. That’s what the Maharaj means when he says he is both, neither, and beyond both. ——————————————————