I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[FoxFoxFox]

1 minute ago, winterknight said:

Ok, so you admit a "knowing of existence." Who is aware of this knowing? If you say "I am," who is aware of that?

There is no one outside of "I" that is aware. In other words, I am self-aware. I know myself.

[Preetom]

@winterknight

Are you basically saying that the search must exhaust itself completely?

[winterknight]

13 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

There is no one outside of "I" that is aware. In other words, I am self-aware. I know myself.

The rule of the self-inquiry game is that what is observed cannot be the observer. That's why it starts when people say "I is a feeling coming from my head," and we say -- "well, but that feeling in your head, you're aware of it, right? So that means you cannot be it. Look into who is aware of that feeling in the head."

In exactly the same way, I would say: who is aware that you are aware? You are aware of the self-awareness, and thus, by the rules of the self-inquiry game, the "I" cannot be that.

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by winterknight

[winterknight]

9 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@winterknight

Are you basically saying that the search must exhaust itself completely?

Well, yes, but then the question would come: how is it known when it is exhausted. And the answer is: when there is no more dissatisfaction or doubt.

[FoxFoxFox]

If I say, I am aware of my own self-awareness, that is not saying that I identify with self-awareness. 

I believe this:

Quote

The rule of the self-inquiry game is that what is observed cannot be the observer.

is synonymous with saying

Quote

Perceive without there being a perceiver or a perceived. 

In absence of conception - a mind that grasps at things and labels - this is the experience one has. 

But how is this liberation? How is this peace? How is this bliss? 

Additionally, 

The question, what is the nature of this "I" who is aware is so far left unanswered. It is as if we are inquiring into something that is forever ethereal.

Then how can we define its nature? There is no conceptual framework that i know of that can produce satisfying answers. Moreover, i never strive to find an answer in terms of words. 

The confusion could perhaps be stated like this:

What is the authority behind this rule of self-inquiry? Why can't what is perceived be simultaneously the source of awareness? 

Edited December 20, 2018 by FoxFoxFox

[Outer]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

So that's the problem. These expectations from these texts. Can you drop these expectations?

So what was the point of the text in the first place?

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

If I say, I am aware of my own self-awareness, that is not saying that I identify with self-awareness. 

Well then what do you identify with? Because that's what self-inquiry is getting to... what is aware of the self-awareness? If the "I" is not self-awareness, then what is it? Something is aware of the self-awareness... what is that that is aware of being aware? I don't mean follow it in words. I mean trace the experience of that "I" who is aware of self-awareness.

Quote

 

I believe this:

is synonymous with saying

In absence of conception - a mind that grasps at things and labels - this is the experience one has. 

But how is this liberation? How is this peace? How is this bliss? 

 

Who asks this question? It is the mind asking this question. It is continued identification with the mind that is causing the problem.

Quote

 

The question, what is the nature of this "I" who is aware is so far left unanswered. It is as if we are inquiring into something that is forever ethereal.

 

It is not forever ethereal. It is in fact the obvious.

Quote

 

Then how can we define its nature? There is no conceptual framework that i know of that can produce satisfying answers. Moreover, i never strive to find an answer in terms of words. 

 

Well that's correct. The answer is not in words.

The confusion could perhaps be stated like this:

Quote

What is the authority behind this rule of self-inquiry? Why can't what is perceived be simultaneously the source of awareness? 

Well, it's not a rule in some philosophical sense: it's a rule of experience. When there is something perceived, there is something in our experience which perceives it. Without a sense of separation, the object could not be known at all.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight I am constant. I don't think I am the body, or the mind, or the sense of the body and its feeling. But I can't find myself either. I just know that I am. Self-inquiry at this point does not reveal something new to me. Perhaps because I don't do it correctly, or because I'm missing the point entirely. 

What I can say is this: that the entire continuum of "experience", that is not me. That comes and goes, I am the only thing that remains.

[FoxFoxFox]

Quote

When there is something perceived, there is something in our experience which perceives it. Without a sense of separation, the object could not be known at all.

Is there really such a rule? I should not think so. Are you perhaps suggesting that for an enlightened person such as yourself, the world is unmanifest at all times? I do not think you mean this. I do not confuse the world with the names i associate with them. So, why then would you say that the world cannot be perceived without there being a perceiver? There is perception. The perceiver and the perception are arbitrary. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by FoxFoxFox

[winterknight]

9 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight I am constant. I don't think I am the body, or the mind, or the sense of the body and its feeling. But I can't find myself either. I just know that I am. Self-inquiry at this point does not reveal something new to me. Perhaps because I don't do it correctly, or because I'm missing the point entirely. 

What I can say is this: that the entire continuum of "experience", that is not me. That comes and goes, I am the only thing that remains.

So hold to this “I am” with continuity, returning to it over and over if your mind is distracted with any other thought or desire. Clarity will come eventually. 

Or if you are at peace as you are, stay that way.

5 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

Is there really such a rule? I should not think so. Are you perhaps suggesting that for an enlightened person such as yourself, the world is unmanifest at all times? I do not think you mean this. I do not confuse the world with the names i associate with them. So, why then would you say that the world cannot be perceived without there being a perceiver? There is perception. The perceiver and the perception are arbitrary. 

The rule applies to the one who plays the game of self-inquiry and wants to find the truth of Self...

as far as the world, if the perceived falls, the world cannot be said to exist... for who is there to say it?

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

Well you say that but I have been holding on to this sense of I for a while. This clarity hasn't come yet. Whatever "enlightened" experiences I've had had not come from self-inquiry or any other spiritual practices. They've come of themselves. I am not at peace either. The mind is frantic, and although i don't suffer for it, there is a deep sense of existential loss. Not loss felt for ego, but that I cannot seem to step over to the other side or what have you. That I can't 'get' it.

I believe this experience is called 'the dark night of the mind'. If only it was just a night.

Edited December 20, 2018 by FoxFoxFox

[Preetom]

49 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight I am constant. I don't think I am the body, or the mind, or the sense of the body and its feeling. But I can't find myself either. I just know that I am. Self-inquiry at this point does not reveal something new to me. Perhaps because I don't do it correctly, or because I'm missing the point entirely. 

What I can say is this: that the entire continuum of "experience", that is not me. That comes and goes, I am the only thing that remains.

@FoxFoxFox I first heard it from Rupert Spira. See if it resonates with you or not.

Atma-Vichara or Self-inquiry really has 2 faces which complement one another.

1) the 1st part is actually the philosophical and experiential inquiry and seeing what you are not (neti neti). In this step, you see that everything you are aware of cannot be you. Thus you come to the conclusion that you wrote where you don't identify with anything but yet still 'I AM' is undoubtedly present. This is what Rupert calls establishing the Presence of dis-identified, formless Awareness. We all have glimpses of it through self-inquiry. In the modern advaita scene, this is what is regarded as Enlightenment but actual Advaita Vedanta doesn't acknowledge that. There is another step to go.

2) the 2nd step is where your understanding permeates completely with the 'Nature' of this Awareness. At this step Atma-vichara becomes self-abidance, not repeated questioning and dis-identifying as you've already done that. Now you can just go to that dis-identified Awareness in less than a second. This step involves just this:

33 minutes ago, winterknight said:

So hold to this “I am” with continuity, returning to it over and over if your mind is distracted with any other thought or desire. Clarity will come eventually. 

Or if you are at peace as you are, stay that way.

As this abidance deepens continuously, the inherent nature of Awareness like unlocatedness, undisturbed, having no lack, fulfilled in itself, utterly one with experience aka love etc. are recognized and these qualities permeate the entirety of your experience, leaving no possibility of doubts whatsoever. This right here, the exploration and abidance in the nature of Awareness is regarded as Enlightenment according to the scriptures. You are not intellectually brainwashing yourself or trying to find the promised bliss. It all results spontaneously from being with this dis-identified 'I AM' knowledge.

So as you can see, anyone can question openmindedly and have a glimpse of the 1st step. But that's not Enlightenment yet. It's the abidance and marinating on this knowing that results in Enlightenment. And that usually takes time (1-3 years depending on how serious and how constantly you're doing it without re-identifying with new objects)

Edited December 20, 2018 by Preetom

[FoxFoxFox]

@Preetom Thanks it does to some extent, but 

Quote

the inherent nature of Awareness like unlocatedness, undisturbed, having no lack, fulfilled in itself, utterly one with experience aka love etc. are recognized and these qualities permeate the entirety of your experience, leaving no possibility of doubts whatsoever.

None of these have been realized yet which in itself causes a lot of anxiety and spiritual desperation in the body. 

Also i don't subscribe to neo-advaitan beliefs. I know in my bones that what they call enlightenment is not it. Can't explain how i know, i just know. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by FoxFoxFox

[Preetom]

34 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@Preetom Thanks it does to some extent, but 

None of these have been realized yet which in itself causes a lot of anxiety and spiritual desperation in the body. 

These are actually big signs of progress. That more you can non-judgmentally 'watch' these body-mind reactions without identifying with them, the more your wisdom-discernment grows and your body-mind keeps getting purified from all the tensions and contractions resulted from the belief in a separate self for decades. 

These are samskaras or latent mental tendencies (desires and fears) that must come up into your Awareness to be purified. In this sense, self-inquiry is also a super cleansing technique for the sub-conscious mind.

You'll notice that the more you dis-identify and lower your defenses and completely open up and surrender to your present experience, all these uncomfortable feelings that were trapped for ages due to egoic defense mechanism come up to get released. 

If you can keep your cool and stay as that 'I AM' while body-mind rearranges itself, this is tremendous spiritual progress and leads you more and more towards a quiet mind and a relaxed body which do not house an ego anymore. Such abidance will inevitably result in irreversible self-realization. That's why this is a very crucial and culminating phase where you need to relinquish all your attachments to your thoughts, doubts, emotions and simply rest as the knowledge 'I AM' which is untouched, unaffected, immovable, present, without any objective quality...

Make sure not to make a sad story out of this process. Just rest as you are in that formless 'I AM' and let all thoughts, doubts and contradicting emotions work and exhaust themselves out naturally.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Preetom

[Preetom]

35 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

None of these have been realized yet which in itself causes a lot of anxiety and spiritual desperation in the body. 

You can also try another alternative line of inquiry where you question about the limitations you possess on Awareness. Here are few examples:

1) Unlocatedness: Have you been successful at locating yourself(awareness)? No! You can locate any thought or sensation but you yourself don't have any particular location. So pose a question like ''why do I believe that awareness can be located like an object?'' to yourself.

2) Undisturbed: Have you ever found Awareness being disturbed? No! A thought, the body get disturbed; but 'you' Awareness remain present knowing that disturbance. So why you believe that Awareness is vulnerable to disturbance?

3) Immovable: Have you seen Awareness moving from place to place? No! Same line of questioning..

4) Ever-Present: Have you actually found Awareness making an entrance and then leaving after some time in your own experience? Ever? why do you believe that You Awareness is intermittent that comes and goes? There is not one justification to believe in these limitations.

5) Devoid of lack and thus fulfilled completely in itself: Have you ever found Awareness lacking anything? It is thought and body that craves and lacks stuff. But don't You Awareness know such conditions of body-mind? Why do you believe Awareness might lack something?

6) Love and being the ground of reality: Is there any experience however good or bad, that is not 'known'? No! All experience are intimately pervaded with Awareness. In fact, all there is to an experience IS the knowing of it.

So the bottomline is, you have to dismantle any such limiting belief that the mind superimposes on Awareness. See that you are NOT brainwashing yourself or Trying to make Awareness this perfect thing. Awareness is already what it is, we just gotta breakdown the limitations we put on Awareness by oversight.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Preetom

[9]

Are you vegetarian / vegan? Do you think it has anything to do with spiritual development / awakening process?

[winterknight]

2 hours ago, Outer said:

So what was the point of the text in the first place?

To motivate seekers, not to create false expectations. All expectations have to be dropped if you want the truth. 

[FoxFoxFox]

I need to clarify something that has occurred to me. This 'I-am' that we are focusing on in self-inquiry, that we are to trying to localize... Doesn't it itself need to surrender? I mean, doesn't the constant search for it, and the constant revelation that it cannot be found tell us that it simply doesn't exist? At every turn it shows itself to be insubstantial. Is there really a need for it? Existence doesn't necessitate there being an "I". Why not just be? The 'knowing' of existing doesn't require the I or the I-am. It just is. 

[winterknight]

1 hour ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

Well you say that but I have been holding on to this sense of I for a while. This clarity hasn't come yet. Whatever "enlightened" experiences I've had had not come from self-inquiry or any other spiritual practices. They've come of themselves. I am not at peace either. The mind is frantic, and although i don't suffer for it, there is a deep sense of existential loss. Not loss felt for ego, but that I cannot seem to step over to the other side or what have you. That I can't 'get' it.

I believe this experience is called 'the dark night of the mind'. If only it was just a night.

The problem is that you are stuck in a subtle mental concept of the “I” that you can’t seem to peel away from. That’s why you’re still suffering. There is an identification that you can’t see (which is always the case with identifications).

There are, as always, only two solutions. Either you tenaciously try to locate the “I am” day and night... even if it seems a nonsensical question  

Or you simply totally surrender. Give up all thinking and all desire. Give up all ideas of getting to some other side. Give up all trying to change whatever mental suffering is going on. Give up thinking about that suffering. Just let go, let go, let go, let go, continuously. And if you fail at letting go for a moment, let that go too. That’s the other way.

 

 

[winterknight]

Just now, FoxFoxFox said:

I need to clarify something that has occurred to me. This 'I-am' that we are focusing on in self-inquiry, that we are to trying to localize... Doesn't it itself need to surrender? I mean, doesn't the constant search for it, and the constant revelation that it cannot be found tell us that it simply doesn't exist? At every turn it shows itself to be insubstantial. Is there really a need for it? Existence doesn't necessitate there being an "I". Why not just be? The 'knowing' of existing doesn't require the I or the I-am. It just is. 

Yes, just be. That’s the path of surrender I outlined in the post I made a couple of seconds ago. But total surrender will seem an effort until it doesn’t. Or rather you can only partially surrender as a voluntary act. When you do what you can, grace will come and lead you the rest of the way.