Self-inquiry And Meditation - Chasing Two Rabbits?

[Jan Odvarko]

Both self-inquiry and meditation seem to be quite promising means to reaching the enlightenment experience, however each approaches it from a different direction.

It seems to me that practising both of them is like chasing two rabbits, never catching one.

What do you think? Does practising both self-inquiry and meditation generally increase or decrease one's chances? Wouldn't it be better to focus on just a single technique?

Thanks.

[Azrael]

Ahh, I thought about this issue myself a couple of times. When I started out I just did self-inquiry and then when Leo told me about "Do Nothing" and "Strong Determination Sittings" I did that for a while.

Then after some time I did a different meditation every day. Mindfulness (labeling sensations) meditation, self-inquiry, Do Nothing, contemplating death etc. Every day another one.

After playing around with this for some time I just figured out what brings me the best results - meaning what meditation and enlightenment lifestyle seems to constantly bring me new realizations and new phases of the journey.

That is of course highly variable for every person but I found out for myself that I can resonate a lot with Zen and its way of approaching it. I read a lot about it, studied and study everything that Alan Watts put out and designed my own strategy. (Though strategy is really the wrong word here.)

And it consists of "Do Nothing" + "Strong Determination Sittings" for 5 days in a week for 60 minutes per day and on the weekend I will do one clean self-inquiry (as Leo told us) and one self-inquiry with contemplating death + strong determination sitting on both days as well. I'm kinda addicted to that shit as you probably know by now.

I do this because "Do Nothing" is one old Zen way to go about it + I use the self-inquiry to get "new things to the top" and then just let them there for a week and observe them.

In the last few days I listened to a lot of Matt Khan talks. In the first one I really judged that guy for being wu-hu and shit because the way his videos look like. Then I watched just one video and was blown away by what he has to say. So I use that in my day to get to new realizations.

Basically, try out what works for you and then stick to that. You maybe want to add here and there a few new routines or get rid of a few if they don't work, but actually there is no one way. There is no way at all. You can sense over time what leads you in more trouble and then stick to that, because trouble is what you are looking for (your ego won't die w/o struggles - at least mine does not want to).

If I had to only use one technique it would be strong determination sittings. Three sits back in November 2015 changed me lastingly what still is incredible to me. So this really seems to work as Shinzen Young pointed out.

Good question!

[Walter B]

1 hour ago, Jan Odvarko said:

Both self-inquiry and meditation seem to be quite promising means to reaching the enlightenment experience, however each approaches it from a different direction.

It seems to me that practising both of them is like chasing two rabbits, never catching one.

What do you think? Does practising both self-inquiry and meditation generally increase or decrease one's chances? Wouldn't it be better to focus on just a single technique?

Thanks.

Focus on your self-inquiry when you have something to inquire about by meditating.   They go hand in hand. 

Forget about how you meditate.  That is generally just the process of self-inquiry.  However, if you are practicing something like chakra work then you would be exercising rather than meditating.  But, it's all really semantics as to what you call it.

 

[Markus]

What's the big difference, even? Meditation + "What am I?" = self-inquiry. I would in any case consider self-inquiry a meditation technique.

If you seem to lack focus in self-inquiry, practicing a mindfulness technique on the side might be useful.

Self-inquiry is meant to bring about an enlightenment experience by exhausting the preconceptions of the mind and giving an insight into your true nature being awareness. I imagine it would take quite a while to start grasping the fundamental nature of experience through mindfulness. At the same time, once you do, the experience will probably be deeper, easier to re-access. But the last part is just speculation using my logic - I have no idea whether that would actually be the case. I just presume that enlightenment from self-inquiry is faster and more about spontaneous luck whereas enlightenment from mindfulness alone is slower and is about being able to dissect your experience to the point where you see through the illusion of the separate self moment-by-moment.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Markus

[Walter B]

"The world is fundamentally fucked up, because people don't realize it is perfect as it is."
-Markus

I love it.  And so many of them still don't see through the illusions.  And damn, it's political season! 

Maybe some folks should listen to some music from time to time!

 

 

 

 

[Walter B]

Here, for anyone trying to overcome a road block.

 

http://www.headless.org/experiments-video.htm

[bobbyward]

my understanding of self inquiry from doing research is there is an initial investigation stage, were you look and contemplate what you could be, then you come to something thats not a concept, a non conceptual sense of being (i am), and the goal then is to rest attention in the i am as long as possible as often as possible.

 

is this what self inquiry is ??

 

 

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, Jan Odvarko said:

Both self-inquiry and meditation seem to be quite promising means to reaching the enlightenment experience, however each approaches it from a different direction.

It seems to me that practising both of them is like chasing two rabbits, never catching one.

What do you think? Does practising both self-inquiry and meditation generally increase or decrease one's chances? Wouldn't it be better to focus on just a single technique?

Thanks.

I've recently started doing 30 minute strong determination sitting once a day and spiritual autolysis once a day. Spiritual Autolysis is where you attempt to write something that is true and deconstruct it until you know what makes it tick. It helps you scan for assumptions and beliefs. It is the same as self-inquiry if you try to answer the question "Who am I?" "Who is the perceiver?" etc. Only it's a bit more concrete because it's down on paper. It's the difference between doing a math problem in your head versus doing it on paper.

So, the Strong determination is for cultivating acceptance even in the face of pain. The Spiritual Autolysis is for deconstructing and identifying assumptions about reality.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Emerald Wilkins

[Walter B]

On 2/25/2016 at 4:12 PM, bobbyward said:

my understanding of self inquiry from doing research is there is an initial investigation stage, were you look and contemplate what you could be, then you come to something thats not a concept, a non conceptual sense of being (i am), and the goal then is to rest attention in the i am as long as possible as often as possible.

 

is this what self inquiry is ??

 

 

Sure, if you can figure out who you are. Most people are simply who others want them to be. People forming others in their image. Sounds like playing God....

That's what turned me off to so much of today's society. Maybe people will wake the fuck up and realize that individualism is very important to survival. Be who you want to be and quit letting others form what you should be.

Feminism is the prime culprit of this filth. So is socialism. So is group think. So is much of religion. God is the ultimate and unattainable individualism and Jesus was persecuted in his time because he would not conform to man or woman playing God. 

Vote wisely my friends! And keep your ballot private!

[Capethaz]

@Jan Odvarko Both techniques do the same. They increase your baseline of mindfulness that with time brings you the no-self experience.

[Guest]

"Secondly, they are objects in consciousness and therefore not the subject (the ego). And thirdly, they are viewed as "my" thoughts, so that you (the ego) cannot be the thoughts at the same time."

I'm a little confused here...thoughts and the ego are pretty much synonymous aren't they?

[Guest]

If I may play devil's advocate for a moment... (never mind discussions about the real you not being your thoughts)

I get that thoughts are impermanent, but if we had to give thoughts an additional definition it would be: thoughts are also the moment-by-moment engagement of the senses, in addition to any concious apparitions that aren't "in the now". (Im sure we agree on that)

At least, the very foundation of thought is that of the moment to moment engagement of the senses. Upon this foundation, all identity, labelling, desires/fears, memories and plans and so on are built, creating this "something solid" which you talk about. SO I guess it comes down to how far you want to go back, if you want to talk about ego...

It seems to me that the moment to moment engagement of the senses itself is the very separation that drives ego, and therefore unless separation is lost, ego still exists...unless you can out-think separation....

[Guest]

What I wanted to bring up in discussion was the definition of the "ego", as I think that me and you have different definitions. 

"Separation is created by mind-activity. " Agree with you there.

On the assumption that Mind-activity = thought, then thought = separation.

Seeing, hearing,  touching, etc is all thought. Memories, fantasies, abstract stuff is all thought too.  If my awareness is not engaged in the senses or any abstract stuff up in my head, then no thought is happening.

One can't perceive without thought. Or maybe I am wrong?

"if you want to say, that perceiving itself causes separation, I just wouldn't agree. Sensory perceptions are just sensory perceptions. There is no separation between a perceiver and the perceived without the mind telling that there is a separation. "     But the mere act of perceiving is thought, isn't it? When I am asleep, I am not thinking, and thus I am not seeing, hearing, or touching.

Thus my definition of the ego is basically that which causes separation, which is thought, which is perception. I can't see it as anything else.

 

[Hillary Kapan]

@Emerald Wilkins Wow, thanks so much for the reference to Spiritual Autolysis!  I'm going to check it out.  Thanks again.  It sounds similar to something I've done that worked super-well, only a bit different.  It sounds amazing, thanks one more time.  I'm so glad I joined this forum!

[Emerald]

14 hours ago, Hillary Kapan said:

@Emerald Wilkins Wow, thanks so much for the reference to Spiritual Autolysis!  I'm going to check it out.  Thanks again.  It sounds similar to something I've done that worked super-well, only a bit different.  It sounds amazing, thanks one more time.  I'm so glad I joined this forum!

That's funny. The process you described on my thread reminded me of spiritual autolysis, and I mentioned it in my reply.