Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj: The difference between meditating on “I am not the body” and asking oneself “What am I?”

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj has been one of the top-five meditation teachers for me in the last year, so I’ve been asking some A.I. tools about his teachings, generally focusing on two statements he made many times. In short, he said that we should constantly:

• Tell ourselves, “I am not the body,” and
• Ask ourselves, “What am I?”

The rest of this article is from the conversations I’ve had with those A.I. tools here in 2024.

Question: What is the difference between meditating on “I am not the body” and asking oneself “What am I?”

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj says that we should always think “I am not the body”, and also that we should also constantly repeat “What am I?” I believe these are two different types of meditations or mantras, is that correct? Like one is a form of self-questioning or negation, and the other is a form of affirmation.

Answer

Yes, you’re correct. These two practices in Nisargadatta’s teachings serve different but complementary purposes:

“I am not the body” — known as “neti-neti” or “not this, not this” in Vedantic tradition — is indeed an affirmation or contemplation meant to dis-identify from what you are not. It’s a practice of negation that helps break the habitual identification with the body, thoughts, and sensations.

“What am I?” — known as self-inquiry or “atma vichara” — is a form of direct investigation or questioning. It’s similar to Ramana Maharshi’s emphasis on self-inquiry, though there are some subtle differences in how they taught it. This practice is meant to turn attention back to the source of awareness itself.

Nisargadatta often emphasized that starting with the pure sense “I am” — without attributes or identifications — was crucial. He suggested staying with this pure “I am” feeling, and from there either:

• Negating what you are not (“I am not the body”)
• Or investigating its source (“What am I?”)

Both practices aim to help one realize one’s true nature, but they approach it from different angles - one through negation of what’s false, the other through direct investigation of what remains when everything else is stripped away.

Question: What did he mean by “I Am”

Tell me what he meant by “I Am.” I have never understood that well.

Answer

Nisargadatta described the “I Am” as the most basic, primary sense of existence or beingness - prior to any thoughts, memories, or identifications. He often said it’s the first and most fundamental “concept” (though it’s more of a direct experience than a mental concept).

Let me break down how he explained it:

1. Before any thought of “I am this” or “I am that” (like “I am a person,” “I am happy,” “I am the body”), there is just the bare sense that “I exist” or “I am”:

2. He would often give practical examples like:

3. When you first wake up in the morning, there’s a moment before you remember who you are or where you are that pure sense of being is the “I Am”

4. Or if you sit quietly and try to find the simple feeling of being alive or present, before adding any descriptions or qualities to it

5. He emphasized that this “I Am” is:

6. Not a thought but the source of all thoughts

7. Doesn’t need any proof - it’s self-evident

8. Present in deep sleep but not recognized

9. The same in everyone, though we add different personal identities on top of it

He would often say something like: “Hold onto the ‘I Am’ without words, just the feeling of being. Don’t add anything to it. Don’t say ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’. Just stay with the pure sense ‘I Am.’”

A key point he made was that even this “I Am” is not the ultimate truth — it has a beginning (it appeared at birth) and will have an end. But he taught that it’s the “doorway” to realizing what is beyond it.

Question: Tell me more about how I should use “I am not the body” and “What am I?”

Answer

Let me explain how Nisargadatta taught these practices:

“I am not the body”

• He suggested using this when you notice yourself identifying with bodily experiences
• For example, if you’re feeling pain, instead of thinking “I am in pain,” remind yourself “I am not the body experiencing this pain”
• It’s not meant to deny the body’s existence, but to break the automatic habit of identifying with it
• He would say to apply this to all experiences: “I am not these thoughts,” “I am not these emotions,” etc.
• The practice isn’t just mechanical repetition - it’s meant to be combined with the felt sense of being the awareness that perceives the body, not the body itself

“What am I?”

• This should be asked with real intensity and sincerity, not as a mental exercise
• When asking “What am I?”, turn attention back to the one who is asking
• Don’t accept any mental answers that come — keep questioning
• He suggested doing this especially when you’re caught up in problems or suffering
• The question should point back to the pure “I Am” feeling we discussed earlier
• It’s not about finding a verbal answer but about discovering directly

He often suggested using them together:

1. First notice the pure “I Am” sense
2. When identification with body/mind arises, use “I am not the body”
3. Then ask “What am I?” to turn attention back to the source

The key point he emphasized was that these aren’t just intellectual exercises — they should be done with full attention and sincerity, and combined with the direct feeling of being aware.

Question: How does Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj’s “I Am” relate to the saying, “I am that I am”?

Answer:

This is a fascinating question that connects different spiritual and philosophical traditions. Let me explore these concepts thoughtfully:

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj’s teaching of “I Am” refers to the pure sense of being or existence prior to any identification with body, mind, or thoughts. It’s the raw awareness of existing, which he considered the gateway to self-realization. In the book, “I Am That,” he repeatedly directs seekers to stay with this bare sense of “I am” without adding any qualifiers or attributes to it.

“I am that I am” appears in Exodus 3:14 as God’s response when Moses asks for His name. This statement has profound metaphysical implications in both Jewish and Christian theology, suggesting absolute, self-existent being that depends on nothing else for its existence.

The relationship between these concepts is multilayered:

1. Both point to pure existence/being itself, rather than any particular qualities or attributes
2. Both suggest a kind of ultimate or absolute nature of consciousness/being
3. Both strip away all conceptual overlays to point to something fundamental

However, there are important distinctions:

• Nisargadatta’s “I Am” is presented as a meditative method for discovering one’s true nature
• The biblical “I am that I am” is traditionally understood as a divine declaration of absolute being

In Nisargadatta’s teaching, the “I Am” is actually seen as the first illusion or the root of manifestation, while what he calls the “Absolute” lies even prior to the sense of “I Am.” This differs somewhat from the biblical usage, which presents it as the ultimate statement of divine identity.

Is "I am that I am" also used in the Sufi tradition?

Answer

Yes, the concept analogous to “I am that I am” appears in Sufism, particularly in connection with the phrase “Ana al-Haqq” which means “I am the Truth” or “I am the Real.” This declaration is most famously associated with the Persian Sufi mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj, who was executed in 922 CE for speaking it.

In Sufi tradition, this statement is understood in several ways:

1. As an expression of fana (annihilation of the ego) and baqa (subsistence in God), where the individual ego dissolves into divine reality

2. Within Ibn Arabi’s concept of wahdat al-wujud (unity of existence), where such statements reflect the ultimate reality that all existence is one

3. Through the lens of “spiritual poverty” (faqr) where the mystic becomes so empty of self that only divine reality remains

The key difference between Al-Hallaj’s “Ana al-Haqq” and the biblical “I am that I am” is the context and interpretation. While the biblical phrase is understood as God’s self-declaration, the Sufi usage is typically seen as the declaration of someone who has realized their essential non-difference from divine reality.

However, Al-Hallaj’s statement was highly controversial because many interpreted it as a claim of individual divinity rather than an expression of mystical realization. This highlights the delicate nature of expressing such profound spiritual insights in language.

Some Sufis like Ibn Arabi later provided more nuanced interpretations, explaining that such statements come not from the individual ego but from the divine reality speaking through the annihilated self.