Self inquiry method

[Faceless]

5 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Nothingness/pure consciousness/"God"/"Atman"/all that stuff.

Are you sure? 

Is that an idea “abstraction” you got from someone/somewhere? 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

If I have imposed on you such a burden I am truly sorry. 

You use thought ‘the accumulation of knowledge and experience from memory’ to investigate don’t you? 

@Mikael89

Edited May 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

Just now, Mikael89 said:

But I also meditate, which is using the no thought method.

Are you sure thought isn’t in movement here? 

[Faceless]

Until there is a cessation of the movement of thought talking about nothingness is of thought. 

4 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

But how can I stop thoughts then?

Learn how to identify when thought is in motion. Learn the nature of thought. Its processes and structure. 

What im saying is until thought is understood you will not know when you are deceiving yourself or distorting what is. 

Until you do just assume every moment is a movement of thought. So actually to you thought is all there is. 

Do you understand? 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

Don’t worry about what is possible. That is also of thought.. 

Explore the nature of thought/ego. Start with that. Don’t make it a goal. Just learn about it. 

 

Learn about fear, sorrow, anger, belief, and so on. All the movement of thought that we experience in consciousness and how they interrelate. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

9 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

And exploring the nature of thought/ego is also thought. But I hear you, a start..

 

Until thought ends actually for us we are always bound by it's movement. Every direction thought takes is moving away from what is. 

@Mikael89

The first thing I would start with is...

What is fear in relation to pleasure. This is how I would inquire. 

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

Don't think of "What am I?" as a question with some answer, think of it as an instrument or tool to draw attention inward --- away from thoughts and perceptions and inward toward the mind's source.  Any time a thought or perception arises, the question "To whom does this thought arise?" draws attention/identification away from thought-sense objects. 

When you start to think of it as a tool rather than a question, you'll stop getting confused/frustrated over any potential conceptual or theoretical answer to this "question."

Crude analogy, but when you're about to go somewhere dark and someone hands you a lantern, you don't say "this is for shining light, but so what? I already know it shines light."  The point isn't to conceptually answer what it's for, the point is to simply use it.

Edited May 15, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

11 minutes ago, robdl said:

"To whom does this thought arise?" draws attention/identification away from thought-sense objects. 

 

But if thought is asking that question can thought disguise itself as being other than thought?? 

Is thought saying I am not thought? 

Is thought then exceeding it's very limits? 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

1 minute ago, Faceless said:

But if thought is asking that question can the thought disguise itself as being other than thought?? 

Is thought saying I am not thought? 

Is thought then exceeding it's very limits? 

The mind is indeed extremely mischievous and at every turn, masks itself.   But I like Ramana Maharshi's analogy: "The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry 'Who am I?'. The thought 'Who am I?', destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre."

[Faceless]

@robdl  

 

Is that teaching a movment of thought? 

Did you perceive truth without ever accumulating that teaching? 

[robdl]

12 minutes ago, Faceless said:

@robdl  

 

Is that teaching a movment of thought? 

Did you perceive truth without ever accumulating that teaching? 

"To whom does this thought occur?" is a teaching that's a movement of thought that hasn't been fully actualized - indeed.  Although it has created gaps/silence where that question can no longer even be asked, as the effort/will required to pose it has been seemingly lost  -- just raw effortless attention.  I hope this is taking me in the right direction.

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

"To whom does this thought occur?" is a teaching that's a movement of thought that hasn't been fully actualized - indeed.  Although it has created gaps/silence where that question can no longer even be asked, as the effort/will required to pose it has been seemingly lost  -- just raw effortless attention.  I hope this is taking me in the right direction.

Why can't the question no longer be asked? 

 

[robdl]

2 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Why can't the question no longer be asked? 

 

It's difficult to articulate, but the questioner/seeker/do-er that started the self-inquiry fades into silence at some point in the process.

[Richard Alpert]

On ‎8‎.‎5‎.‎2018 at 8:43 PM, Charlotte said:

((If there has been a previous thread related to this, let me know and I'll hide))

Please share with me your personal favourite self inquiry method and why...

This one is easy. One good teacher used this with me.

Imagine you are brought to a court house. The judge wants you to prove that you are Charlotte. He wants hard evidence (note: piece of paper wont do it). How are you going to prove that you are Charlotte?

[Faceless]

5 minutes ago, robdl said:

It's difficult to articulate, but the questioner/seeker/do-er that started the self-inquiry fades into silence at some point in the process.

Does the questioner/seeker/do-er come to a any type of conclusion? 

Also I noticed this...

18 minutes ago, robdl said:

  I hope this is taking me in the right direction.

Hope is a movement of thought/self which implies motive. 

Could it be that the questioner, seeker, do-er, is the questioned, seeking, doing? 

Do you see the significance of this? 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

5 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Could it be that the questioner, seeker, do-er, is the questioned, seeking, doing? 

Do you see the significance of this? 

Same as the "observer is the observed" right?  I could never fully grock that statement, as I've heard it so  many times it's starting to lose meaning, you know what I mean?  Can you explain? 

Is it that the personal identity of questioner/observer/do-er is nothing more than self-less, impersonal, mechanical thought?

[Faceless]

6 minutes ago, robdl said:

Is it that the personal identity of questioner/observer/do-er is nothing more than self-less, impersonal, mechanical thought?

I wouldn't say selfless, impersonal. The opposite. Self-full, personal, and mechanical/fragmented. 

 

[Richard Alpert]

27 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

DNA, fingerprints, and so on.

wont do it. Has Charlotte always been Charlotte? Is Charlotte same as dna, or fingerprints? Are you youre fingerprints? lol

[robdl]

7 minutes ago, Faceless said:

I wouldn't say selfless, impersonal. The opposite. Self-full, personal, and mechanical/fragmented. 

 

So would it be more accurate to say that the "observer" --- which is the core sense of "I" at the center of all experience, memory, perception --- is merely mechanical thought that has been personal-ized/self-ized?

[Faceless]

11 minutes ago, robdl said:

So would it be more accurate to say that the "observer" --- which is the core sense of "I" at the center of all experience, memory, perception --- is merely mechanical thought that has been personal-ized/self-ized?

What do you think?