robdl

Self-inquiry: Be As you Are - Ramana Maharshi, edited by David Godman. Godman does a great job of breaking down Ramana's teachings in each section of the book, along with Q/A provided of Ramana answering questions on self-inquiry. Being Aware of Being Aware - Rupert Spira The Truth is/Wake up and Roar - two books by Papaji covering his discourses. Self-inquiry heavily discussed.

Is an insight starting to occur that the "I" at the center of all thoughts and perceptions --- previously taken for granted as real, permanent, continuous --- may actually be a phantom? Could be a sign of growth, but the insight must come from direct experience and not from belief or intellectual knowledge.

Dianetics - L. Ron Hubbard The Art of the Deal - Donald Trump .... Actual list (in no particular order) - some of these books I've read a handful of times and continue to reference, others I've read once but got a couple of essential nuggets from: 1) Jiddhu Krishnamurti (non-duality) - any/all of them really, but primarily: - Freedom From the Known - The Awakening of Intelligence 2) Ramana Maharshi (non-duality/self-inquiry) - same thing again, any/all of his books, but primarily: - Talks with Ramana Maharshi - Be as You Are 3) Papaji (non-duality/self inquiry) - The Truth is - Wake up and Roar 4) The Art of Living - S.N. Goenka (vipassana meditation) 5) The Three Pillars of Zen - Philip Kapleau 6) Mindfulness in Plain English - Henepola Gunaratana 7) Alan Watts - any/all of his books: -The Way of Zen -The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are 8) Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - Shunryu Suzuki 9) U.G. Krishnamurti - Mind is a Myth - Thought is Your Enemy - No Way Out - The Mystique of Enlightenment 10) Living Buddhist Masters - Jack Kornfield 11) Be Here Now - Ram Dass 12) The Way of Liberation - Adyashanti 13) Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism - Chogyam Trungpa 14) The Doors of Perception/Perennial Philosophy - Huxley 15) The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna - Henepola Gunaratana

Well said. Adding on to that, even if you avoid tough times and negative experiences throughout the entirety of your life, suffering is kind of unavoidable toward the end of life as you may experience friends/spouses/siblings dying, the possible decay of your mental/physical condition, and an inability to enjoy life to the same extent as you could previously. Physical activities may be limited. The ability to travel may be restricted. Energy levels may dwindle. Social circles may be lost. Independence could be lost. Food that you enjoyed previously may no longer sit well. At that point, "enjoy your life" will become a futile, hollow slogan, and something deeper will be sought. This period might only be 6 months before death, but it might be 10 years. So why not find it now?

Can you unpack that a bit further? I understand that at the level of nonduality, ego mind and absolute consciousness can't be two opposing things. But I'm struggling to understand the implications of that in terms of such desires as the desire for liberation.

Is the want purely from ego mind, or is the want a reflection of the Self in the ego mind?

Describe your perfect salad.

I recall Adyashanti talking about a person he knew who was realized but was serving out a sentence in prison, and yet he was totally content due to his state of presence. The bars and the walls and guards were all still there for him, it just didn't really matter that much.

The key to self-inquiry is to treat everything --- EVERYTHING --- as just objective content, and draw awareness inwardly into the subject by asking the question "Who is aware of this (frustrated) feeling?" When you are frustrated during self-inquiry, the frustration is happening due to subtle identification arising -- identifying with the feeling "frustration", which results in "I am frustrated." The mind is extremely mischievous and seductive, and is pulling awareness into identification with feelings of uncertainty, frustration, doubt, confusion, and desire for progress -- avoid this trap! See that these are all mind objects, and inquire as to who is aware of these various feelings. These mind waves will subsequently subside.

well said about doing the actual work. Have you tried a couple of different practices - self-inquiry, zazen, vipassana, etc. - and found that one resonates more than the other? The practice (and the theory behind the practice) that touches you the most deeply is the key thing, I think. The conceptual framework of a particular tradition can really intellectually resonate, but if the practice employed in the tradition doesn't seem to click at all with you, then it's probably not the tradition for you.

re: removal of blockages/purification of body-mind as preparing the ground for realization I'd be curious to get your opinion on this: wouldn't direct path teachers posit the question "To whom do these impressions/blockages/vasanas belong?"--- intimating that these mental/bodily impressions just form content in consciousness -- ultimately illusory -- and that treating them as real just reinforces the dualistic idea of a purifier? (Begging the question, why work to purify them if reality can be realized directly) The direct path/self-inquiry says to draw attention away from sense and thought objects and inwardly toward the subject, such that you become the subject, without objective experience. "Doing" practices like kriya yoga seem to say to put your attention on these sense/thought objects --- but how can that take you to the source if you develop the practice of turning the mind outward?

It's worth mentioning that Ramana Maharshi described formal seated meditation as for the most "novice" seekers, and advised to integrate self-inquiry into routine daily life --- any point throughout the day where you have idle time and the mind is not required to function - it could be sitting on a bus, in a waiting room, etc. Most people do though require at least an initial stage of formal seated meditation to get a feel for it before the practice is integrated into general daily life, I suspect.

The only pitfall of labelling sensations is if it strengthens/solidifies the subtle identity of "labeller," keeping the mind in a dualistic, sense-object mode of experience.

Hundreth - you will come to find that it was a part of your process: the mind distracting, identifying, gratifying, and perpetuating itself with spiritual conceptual knowledge and questions, which makes way for a realization that the only way to go is inward, beyond mind/thought objects.

Anyone interested in self-inquiry, I strongly recommend you check out David Godman on youtube. I’m watching a series of videos of him answering questions on self-inquiry, as put forward by Ramana Maharshi’s teachings. If you’re not familiar, Godman has chronicled Maharshi, spent the last 40 years around Maharshi’s ashram and his devotees, and written/edited numerous books concerning his teachings. He breaks self-inquiry down in a very clear, simple way. Heres Part 1:

well a dream is 100% seemingly real, with tangible objects, palpable fear, etc., until you wake up out of it, no? I've seen certain mystics describe dreaming in sleep and waking reality as "dream #1 and dream #2" - hah.

Hundreth - I empathize with you. I've also been frustrated/confused/driven mad by the apparent conflicts/differences between different eastern traditions, and being unsure of which one has attained the highest form of truth. But now I appreciate all of the traditions for their own particular perspectives. All different paths up to the same mountain peak. Their terminologies and semantics may be at odds, and approaches/methods different, but the fundamental truth they're pointing at is all the same.

For sure. And similarly, I'd advise against checking out random internet dissertations to get a breakdown of what advaita vedanta teachers teach. It's best to just read Ramana Maharshi/Papaji/Nisargadatta discourses directly, and see that their teachings don't necessarily conflict with buddhism at all.

I checked the link you provided above. The first part of that page reads as follows: "Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are at loggerheads with one another on the metaphysical issue of the self or soul. Whereas the former school of thought is credited with the belief in the existence of the Atmanor the soul as the core reality of the human individual, the latter school is famous for the theory of Anatman or denial of the existence of any self or soul substance." They're sloppy with the terminology and the context of teachings such as Ramana Maharshi. Maharshi used "Self" to describe Absolute/non-dual reality. He never used Self as synonymous with an individual soul, which is what they could be broadly indirectly suggesting.

I don't know what the context of "self" or "permanent entity" is here. It could be meaning the the false 'I'/ego mind which we take for granted as a permanent entity/sense of self.

When the Buddha says "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self," is he saying that ego mind consciousness is not Absolute Self, or is he saying that that Absolute Consciousness is not of the individual self/ego mind? It's hard for me to say that Buddhism is at odds with vedanta when it's a semantic soup going on.

I really don't think they're in conflict. I think it's just semantics, really, and the problem with using language/concepts to convey what lays beyond language and mind.

"Self", like "consciousness," is also a loaded word. Ramana Maharshi, for example, used "Self" not to describe an individual soul or spirit, but Absolute, Nondual Reality.

I think you quoted yourself but it's showing as my quote.

You're kind of nitpicking here. He joined thought and experience with "or" not to suggest they were distinctly different, but to imply they were similar/synonymous.