I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[purerogue]

2 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@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.

Reminds me of this song

 

[FoxFoxFox]

@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]

1 hour ago, Bauer1977 said:

Man, you are a gem! I have been working on this today, and for the first time I now notice a discernible difference between the Ego ideas and beliefs of Ron that sneak into the field of awareness when I am focused on Self-Inquiry, and the reality of I. Only I has control.... I knew this, but I didn't truly understand all the things that could happen while in that state I guess. I had found the peacefulness of I, although holding it for long periods of time has been difficult. But still, I thought it was all systems go. Somehow I missed this. It seems every time I tell you about these things you right the ship immediately. Amazing!! If only I had found you 4 or 5 years ago, the pain and suffering you may have spared me................. But it clearly wasn't God's will. 

Quote

Question: When the monks and guru's meditate for hours or even days at a time, what are they focused on? Is it just holding that state of peacefulness of the "I"?

Yes, one way or the other, that's what they're all doing. They come to it via different roads and conceptualize what they're doing differently. Zen monks, for example, are "just sitting" (zazen), but someone like Ramana sitting in a cave would be relaxing in that peaceful I.

So the concepts around the practice are different, but the object is the same (I think; some may disagree). It is precisely, however, the point of practice that you don't need to be sitting for hours to do it... you can do it anywhere. Ramana simply enjoyed doing that.

1 hour ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@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.

Yes, any self which reincarnates is just some version of the mind. It cannot be the absolute Self. Reincarnation is inherently a relative/illusory concept.

I've heard of various ideas of this kind of reincarnation theory for "enlightened" people before... it's some version of the bodhisattva vow, where the bodhisattva could step into nirvana or "come back" to help people.

I don't love PON (though I don't hate it). My thoughts on it are here.

1 hour ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@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? 

If one's true nature is "awareness" itself -- didn't you just say "one's"? That is, "one is." That "one" which is, is the "I."

Quote

There is no experience outside of the sense of the body being alive that would be associated with "I".

It is not an experience in the dualistic sense, but it is that it is, and that is-ness is not unaware. It is by its very nature self-radiant. It knows itself by itself, without an object, and thus it cannot be considered an 'experience' in the normal sense.'

That self-radiance is the I-I.  If you don't see the connection between the false, mere-concept "I" and this "I-I," my temptation is to suggest inquiring into who is wondering... for there very much is a connection.

Edited December 18, 2018 by winterknight

[FoxFoxFox]

@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]

54 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@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? 

Yes. But there's a reason it's called the Self... That's a clue as to why it's called the "I-I."

But the truth is it doesn't matter what you call it.

[FoxFoxFox]

@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]

2 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@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? 

It's called the "I-I" because the body-mind has been superimposed on the non-dual, self-radiant "I am" -- the Self -- making it seem as if the body-mind is the I. That confusion is the ego.

Follow the I feeling and it is eventually recognized that the body-mind is not the I, and that the I is not a limited separate entity. The usual character of the I feeling is thereby stripped of these characteristics.

But the "I am" is not destroyed in this way. What is destroyed is the wrong belief that it is a separate entity experienced as an object.

But it is actually revealed to be the self-luminous non-dual.

So following the "I," the false I disappears, but an underlying true I is recognized, an I-that-is-not-an-I-in-the-way-I-is-usually-understood. But there is a link: the certainty that "I am" has carried one through from false to true. 

So this true I, which both keeps and transforms the "I" feeling, is the I-I.

Talking about this not going to get the point across, though, unless you see that link for yourself.

[SOUL]

Realizing the abiding genuine aware being presence and to transcend the yearning for self enquiry is the cessation of asking who.....

It is what it is... no questions asked.

[FoxFoxFox]

@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]

7 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@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. 

a) as I said above, the truth is that it doesn't really matter. If you are at peace, that's all that matters 

b) if you really want to know -- who is asking these questions? An illusion? Who is saying that the ego is an illusion? "I," right? That "I" feeling when followed is not entirely illusory.

It is connected to something not illusory. But this something cannot be described, and is not a thing. It is not a mere absence of conception. It is not merely nonsensical, and it is not a thought or a feeling.

It is, quite simply, the direct knowledge of "is-ness" by itself. It is consciousness without an object. It is the Self being aware of itself without being a subject who knows an object.

It is the most profound Silence, but it is not dead or inert.

Again, it's simply not going to make any sense unless you find this for yourself... my words are not going to be enough. And again, if you're at total peace, perhaps it doesn't matter.

Edited December 19, 2018 by winterknight

[Outer]

How much do you think?

[winterknight]

3 hours ago, Outer said:

How much do you think?

These kinds of questions about "my" experiences are always misleading, so I'd prefer not to answer...

Even thought is non-thought for the enlightened one.

[Outer]

What does it say of enlightenment if its easier to attain if you read Hindu texts?

[winterknight]

7 minutes ago, Outer said:

What does it say of enlightenment if its easier to attain if you read Hindu texts?

I'm not sure these kinds of random questions without context are all that helpful. Do you have questions about your own path?

[FoxFoxFox]

@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]

11 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@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?

Yes, surrender is giving up desire & thought -- allowing whatever to happen, internally and externally, without resistance. Surrender puts the mind into a state of profound quiet -- that quietness is nothing other than the Self.

One cannot completely surrender as a voluntary act. The surrenderer himself must be surrendered, and that happens indeed as an act of grace. One surrenders as much as possible, and then complete surrender happens as that act of grace.

Complete surrender under grace is simply another name for the recognition that one is not the doer and the decision-maker, that one is the vast Nameless Silence beyond all opposites. So where is the need or the chance to resist? Thus: relaxation or surrender is our very nature.

Self-inquiry leads to complete surrender in the end. Or one can, as their practice, as an alternative to inquiry, attempt to surrender as much as one possibly can. Usually though these are complementary practices. One alternates between them. They're two sides of a coin.

Edited December 19, 2018 by winterknight

[zambize]

23 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Yes, surrender is giving up desire & thought -- allowing whatever to happen, internally and externally, without resistance. Surrender puts the mind into a state of profound quiet -- that quietness is nothing other than the Self.

One cannot completely surrender as a voluntary act. The surrenderer himself must be surrendered, and that happens indeed as an act of grace. One surrenders as much as possible, and then complete surrender happens as that act of grace.

Complete surrender under grace is simply another name for the recognition that one is not the doer and the decision-maker, that one is the vast Nameless Silence beyond all opposites. So where is the need or the chance to resist? Thus: relaxation or surrender is our very nature.

Self-inquiry leads to complete surrender in the end. Or one can, as their practice, as an alternative to inquiry, attempt to surrender as much as one possibly can. Usually though these are complementary practices. One alternates between them. They're two sides of a coin.

I noticed today that I got my best results from posing questions "What am I?"  "Who is aware?" Followed by as deep of surrender as I can, every once in a while i can feel myself dissolve into bliss a bit stronger than before, so I'm pretty excited and really vouche for this 

[Outer]

3 hours ago, winterknight said:

I'm not sure these kinds of random questions without context are all that helpful. Do you have questions about your own path?

I do self-inquiry but nothing much is happening.

[winterknight]

18 minutes ago, Outer said:

I do self-inquiry but nothing much is happening.

What precisely is expected to happen, and who is it that expects it?

[SriBhagwanYogi]

As i told you there was some glimpses of self Realization few days ago and i am doing same questions , self inquiry trying to find that I , who is aware etc.

Then i saw a video where Rupert Spira talks about i think he said second step to self inquiry , Self abidance 

Do you think that is correct practice to go directly,knowingly stay as that pure I -awarness of person(thoughts,sensations etc) Or i have to do same contemplation even if i know where it will lead me .

Hope that makes sense