Confusion About Self-Inquiry

[Markus]

I have been a bit confused about the "looking" process or the form of Self-Inquiry Leo describes in "How To Become Enlightened", and how it differs from Ramana Maharshi's version.

The method Ramana Maharshi prescribed I understand as follows:
1. A thought arises
2. You inquire "To whom does this thought arise?"
3. The mind gives the answer, how ever subtly, "To me".
4. You inquire "Who am I?"

What "Who am I?" is supposed to do is stop all thought and bring awareness "back into its source", which essentially makes it defocused so all perceptions (including ones of the body and mind) appear as content in awareness rather than "I". Rupert Spira has his version of the process where you simply ask "Am I aware?", which essentially does the same thing as "Who am I?" What both Maharshi and Spira have implied is that by continuously returning awareness back to its source, it gradually starts to stay there, which will give you insight into your true nature not being an object and produce an Enlightenment experience.

The thing I'm having difficulty with understanding is what one is supposed to do after inquirying "Who am I?" or "Who is aware?" in the "looking process" described by Leo. Am I supposed to just let awareness rest while maintaining the sense of openness and wondering? Or am I supposed to actively look around in my awareness and try to find a perception of "I" (which of course by definition I never will)? If that is the case, am I supposed to actually answer the question as well, such as "I'm behind the eyes somewhere" and then inquire "Well who's aware of the one behind the eyes?" When I used to practice the "looking process" I would ask "Who is aware?" and find a perception in the head region (as that is where the sense of self is strongest) and then ask "Who's aware of that perception?", which would lead to another perception etc. 

I'd gladly appreciate if someone helped me clear this up:)

 

[Dunc]

What you describe is like a half way point Markus.

It's easy to get hung up or stranded as the 'witness' position,  after discovering all that your not.

You first retract back to the source,  your true being, but then there is a going back into the world with your new experiential understanding, everyting is yourself shining as objective experience.

[Leo Gura]

You're basically doing it right. You just sit and genuinely wonder, "Who am I if I'm not the body/mind?"

Actually, you don't just wonder, you ask this question directly of your present experience. What does direct experience say about this matter?

Any logical answer to this question is wrong.

The question is not meant to be answered verbally or intellectually. It is meant to get you to a direct conscious "taste" of the True Self.

But in practice, before you ever get that true taste, your mind will have to slog through thousands of false verbal and conceptual answers.

Your mind will come up with all sorts of wrong answers like:

• I am me!
• This is a stupid question
• I am confused
• I'm not doing this right
• I am nothing
• I am everything
• I am God
• I don't exist
• I am the no-self
• I am invisible
• I am awareness
• I am this body
• I am a brain
• I am the perceiver
• I am the one who's aware
• I am behind my eyes
• I am empty space
• I am infinite
• I am unknowable
• I don't know who I am
• I am Markus
• I am a man
• Etc.

All these answers are wrong because they are intellectual. You have to exhaust all of that until your mind finally gives up the search in total frustration. Then what might happen is that the mind finally goes silent, and the answer is revealed to you experientialy in a very shocking and powerful way.

The best place from which to do self-inquiry is a true position of not-knowing. You need to generate massive doubt in your mind about this idea you have that you are a human being sitting there with a human body and a human mind. << This belief is so strong that it prevents any deep self-inquiry from happening. So you have to bust it with whatever means make sense to you.

Are you seriously open to the possibility that you are NOT a human being?

If not, then self-inquiry cannot occur.

[Gerhard]

Hey Markus,

I cannot remember where I heard this first but I reckon it's a great quote for your situation. Imagine your religious and obsessed with heaven, what is heaven, where is heaven, how can I prepare, etc.. so for the religious person to "get enlightened" on heaven, it is not finally realizing what heaven is like, it is realizing that heaven is not there, there no heaven in heaven, or as that quote puts it "there is no there there". I've head Sam Harris say it, not sure if he came up with it.

imho, I would say this is enlightenment, but inseat of heaven, it is "I" or "me" or the ego. The ultimate goal by asking "what am I" is to cross off all your perceptions and conceptions of "I", and leave you realizing: there is no me

"there is no there there" or "there is no me in me" (the last one can be my own quote )

Any thoughts on my idea anyone?

[Ben]

Good question. The best advice I've been given that helped me with this is never, ever, ever, ever believe anything that comes up. Even your "resting in awareness". Is it true?