FoxFoxFox

Okay, here's an example. I say that I open my hand. I realize that the concepts of hand, action, subject and object are functions of language and thus illusory. This leaves me with, well, I am, or being (if chosen to call it that). So where to go from here?

@winterknight By that ('one') you are referring to the false I, correct? But isn't the idea that the Self is our real nature? Doesn't that paradoxically conclude that we are in fact the doer and the actor? Admittedly, it is not difficult to see how all thoughts and intentions sprout out of nothingness spontaneously - since a thought does not need to be preceded by another thought to occur, they simply appear out of nowhere. So when you say that one should have this recognition, is there a practical method to demonstrate this quickly?

@winterknight What can you tell us about surrender? Many sages say that ultimately, enlightenment has to come down as an act of divine grace, and the key is complete surrender. How would you go about unpacking this statement - if at all worthwhile to do so?

@winterknight Okay, but the issue is that this "I" is not as palpable as you seem to say it should be. There used to be an egoic "I" that was falsely identified with mind/body, but it's no longer there, or at the very least, it's illusory nature is fully realized. There is no other "I" to be found! There is no Self either. If you point out any, it's merely a function of the English language. In meditation, the conceptions of the world are shown to be just that, conceptions. Like you said, superimposed on "reality". But there is nothing palpable here that would be "I", or "the Self," unless one says that I am self aware. But ultimately, this statement is nonsensical. In saying that I am self-aware, there is no subject who knows an object. This statement is hollow. Is this what you mean by "self-luminous non-dual"? A complete absence of conception? You say that the "I" is not a limited, separate entity. I'm saying that in truth the "I" is non-existent. It can never be anything but a conception. The "I-feeling" does not exist in the first place. It's only a feeling in the chest that is mistakenly labeled "I". So when you say that the "I am" is not destroyed, this is cause for much confusion.

@winterknight Perhaps you can shed some light into the significance of the term then? Why this specific label? Is it to emphasize that god/buddhahood/awareness is our real nature?

@winterknight Consider this. Someone who looks at the world without conception, sees it like you said, as it is - which really is a nonesense phrase. For this someone the ideas of "I" or "other" are maya, that is without reality of their own. So perhaps a better question would be, is "I-I" just another term for the Self, synonymous with God, Buddha etc etc?

@winterknight Additionally, this is a question i've seldom seen asked and was wondering myself. What exactly is the point of self-inquiry? Is the point to show the inquirer the illusory nature of "I"? If so in what sense? If not then? I believe I said this before, but chasing after the I has shown me that the source of it can never be found. Furthermore it reveals that the "I" itself is a conception. There is no truth to it in any sense. If I am correct, then what does Ramana mean by there being a sense of "I-I"? This is a very mysterious term. There is no experience outside of the sense of the body being alive that would be associated with "I". If the point is to show that one's true nature is awareness itself (if we choose to call it by this name) then why the emphasis on the "I-I" regression from "I-am"? There is nothing personal about the Self. Why use this word?

@winterknight Hey I hope you've been doing good. Recently i've been reading The Power of Now for the first time. While i do think it's a good book, i do feel that the author jumbles up a lot of things together and throws them at you without rhyme or reason. Regardless, there is a passage in the book where Tolle references the Tibetan Book of the Dead and says that apparently at the time of death, there is a "portal" into the self in form of a tunnel of light. He claims that at the point the person has a choice: whether to turn back from the portal and be reborn again into another body OR to step into it which results in.... something happening. Now being alive, i don't expect you to tell me what Tolle is talking about from firsthand experience, but have you encountered something like this in other texts which you might have studied? Is Tolle talking about the Self is apparent right now or some future rendition of it where the person is fully annihilated (sense, body and mind) and simple awareness is what remains? Tolle claims that this Self is fully self-aware without the need for a body, or at least this is how i understand it.

@winterknight Thank you. I believe the confusion with the "bliss" aspect was a factor. Some sages have a grand idea of what bliss is and believing that to be lacking ironically is the cause for suffering.

@winterknight Okay, this frictionless undisturbance is there, but i would call it nothingness, rather than bliss. It is not pleasant in any way. Sometimes it is unpleasant, but that aspect usually goes away when inquiry is made into it. But it is never experienced as being actually pleasant, sometimes a gentle joy like i said. Really, it's neutral, like nothingness.

@winterknight By final truth you are referring to the teaching that nothing can be said about the Self, correct? Going back to bliss, I still cannot say that I experience the bliss aspect of the Self. In retrospect I can say that what I experience during the states of "no-mind" or samadhi is complete detachment. There is sometimes uncaused joy, but that is more of a feeling in the body, and not what i would call bliss. What is obstacle here?

Also, what about love? Many sages talk about love as a major factor in their enlightenment. What is the nature of this love in your understanding? Is this in the same vein as bliss of the Self, or more of a feeling related to the physical body?

@winterknight The teachings often tell us that the knowledge of the Self is self-evident in every individual. In your opinion, what is the best way to show this to someone? For example, and individual might believe that there in fact not such thing as "awareness" since that is only a concept. What do we tell this person that would quickly place him in a state that the Self is very palpable? I hope i'm not boring you with the constant questioning. Some of these are coming from other people.

@winterknight I am interested. What are these ways? Another question, if I may. When talking about the causal body, are we referring to the illusion of being the doer?

@winterknight That being the case, have you any experience with karma of your own past lives? Have you had any vivid experiences where you 'knew' you were shedding some attachment that belonged to a previous life? What about siddhis? I realize that the greatest achievement is Self realization, and that almost anything could be considered a siddhi, but have you noticed new capabilities that stand out? For my own part, I seem to recall very clear memories of life as a Catholic priest in Italy. These memories are just there in the mind, without any basis. They are not imaginations either, as far as i know. Of course one cannot be certain.

@winterknight When speaking of 'reincarnation', are the teachings referring to the illusion of 'karma' in this life or actual reincarnation in another biological form? This has never been clearly explained. I am not asking whether reincarnation into another body is a real phenomenon or not, but the intention of the texts. What is your understanding? Additionally, are you familiar with the Tibetan Book of the Dead?

@winterknight Ah very good phrasing. It is actually for teaching someone else. I guess the question in not so much as they are enlightened or not, but whether they are moving towards the right direction.

@tentacion Family. human beings, oneself, god, everything... these are all thoughts. These are the illusion. The sense of being an "I" is the illusion. Once these vanish only the truth remains. At that point, truth just is. In that light, these questions appear to be groundless. Then you'll know.

"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom]." - Jesus Christ

@winterknight What is your understanding of self-referential thoughts? In your own work, you refer to the absolute insight as the final analysis. That is of course not the ground for this question. But on a relative level, do you believe that any thought can be NOT self-referential? Second question, as someone who is teaching these stuff, how would you go about intuiting that some one else is enlightened or not?

@BlackVoid Hehe. Alright.

1. Who is this "I" who wants to do all that? Inquire into that. See if this "I" actually exists first. 2. That someone dies. 3. In the sense that if your psyche is fragile, your mind might develop ailments that impair it from its usual functioning. Also even with enlightenment (in absence of drugs) you might sometimes have the sense that you are possessed. But this is all illusions caused by the mind.

@Tony 845 Nah. Also the idea that you will become more caring of the environment is just that, an idea. You read the Bhagavad Gita, the entire point of that book is for Vishnu to convince Arjuna that he should in fact go and kill his "brethren" who have taken up arms against him.

@winterknight The idea to these stages (god, unity consciousness) is that even when you are self-realized, there is still more attachments to be shed. These no longer involve attachment to the ego or the false I, but to subtler domains of existence. I am not claiming to have personal knowledge in the matter. Simply sharing what i've read/heard from other enlightened beings. The person I am mostly inferring from is Jan Esman. He quiet clearly states that God and unity consciousness are deeper stages of enlightenment for lack of a better turn of phrase. He even has a counter argument against neo-advaitan people who tell him that these stages are dual. Again, this is just interesting stuff I wanted to share.

@winterknight Lastly, have you any interest in pursuing bliss/Kundalini/chakra work? There is also speak of things such god-consciousness, unity-consciousness etc among legitimate contemporary sages. Have you any experience in that regard?