Pick only one : Self inquiry / Meditation. Why?

[Flammable]

@now is forever  I do not 

[peanutspathtotruth]

Both terms can mean something very different to different persons and where they are and how deep their understanding is. I certainly struggled a loooong long time with self inquiry because I didn't understand the process. Until I found out it's the cessation of the process. But the mind looks for "how to do it". It's not possible this way. Same thing with meditation - for me personally the only meditation that really deepens my understanding day by day is the dropping of everything. EVERYTHING. Every belief, every desire to do anything to your experience at all. Of course that's tricky because dropping in this case is not something you do. It's the stopping of doing anything. And even this stopping is no step you take. It's only through understanding how the mind works that it happens "by itself" so to speak. 

In this way, meditation and self inquiry merge together and are basically a dance of the same thing. When inquiring in the middle of this process, there just arises a non-conceptual curiosity. Then, without trying to do anything to this curiosity, it unfolds itself. 

That's only my current perspective, but the switch in what exactly I think those processes are and what I expect of them has changed everything for me. 

[ground]

2 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

The only mediation that could result in positive changes when talking about realizing the Self is the third one.

Self inquiry is not analytical meditation. It will appear to be so if it is misunderstood and mispracticed. The purpose of self inquiry is to get rid of the non-Self so the Self can shine through clearly. The purpose is not to psychoanalyze oneself. In the words of the great sage Ramana, when asked to take out the trash, one takes out the trash. One does not sift through the bag looking at each piece.

The funny thing is that we're applying different conceptual frameworks when talking about it. But if - and only if - we agree that reality is beyond linguistic expession then the different linguistic expressions we are using is only caused by different kinds of conceptual teachings we're following/applying. E.g. consider the dualism "non-Self vs Self" that you are expressing. I do not think that you want to assert that this represents reality.

Edited November 22, 2018 by ground

[FoxFoxFox]

34 minutes ago, ground said:

The funny thing is that we're applying different conceptual frameworks when talking about it. But if - and only if - we agree that reality is beyond linguistic expression then the different linguistic expressions we are using is only caused by different kinds of conceptual teachings we're following/applying. E.g. consider the dualism "non-Self vs Self" that you are expressing. I do not think that you want to assert that this represents reality.

True but you have to factor in practically. You are teaching someone something that is for the most part outside of their direct knowledge and they are only receptive to dual language so you have no choice but to use words. .

Additionally, to throw you off a bit, you inferring duality from anything has more to do with the hold your concepts have over you than anything else. Hehe

[ground]

23 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

True but you have to factor in practically. You are teaching someone something that is for the most part outside of their direct knowledge and they are only receptive to dual language so you have no choice but to use words. .

Additionally, to throw you off a bit, you inferring duality from anything has more to do with the hold your concepts have over you than anything else. Hehe

By definition the negation of a word like "Self" through application of the prefix "non-" as in "non-Self" creates a dualism linguistically. There is nothing to be inferred because the words and characters can be seen.

The same holds true for "duality" and "non-duality". So continuously speaking about "non-duality" which is a linguistic negation like it is done here in this forum may actually cultivate a dualism, "may" not necessarily "does".

The funny thing I was referring to is that your use of words seem to express accepting "Self" but rejecting "non-Self" whereas coming from a buddhist background it would be exactly the opposite, i.e. the realization to be attained in buddhism is called "non-Self" and "Self" is held to be an illusion. Now considering reality beyond linguistic expression it is completely irrelevant whether "non-Self" or "Self" is accepted or rejected. Considering this it would be more straightforward to teach "neither acceptance nor rejection of anything whatsoever".

Edited November 22, 2018 by ground

[Elysian]

8 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@Gligorije Self-inquiry. It is the only direct method for knowing the Self. Meditation requires admitting the existence of objects which is duality. 

This is simply wrong. You don't just pick up self inquiry and there is nothing but Self. In the same way when one picks up meditation there is not just Self.

Meditations lead to Self just as the form of meditation called self inquiry does. 

If you sit and remain aware of the breath, eventually breath/object disappears, and you enter into Samadhi.

They are both direct methods even if one doesn't resonate with you.

[FoxFoxFox]

6 minutes ago, ground said:

By definition the negation of a word like "Self" through application of the prefix "non-" as in "non-Self" creates a dualism linguistically. There is nothing to be inferred because the words and characters can be seen.

The same holds true for "duality" and "non-duality". So continuously speaking about "non-duality" which is a linguistic negation like it is done here in this forum may actually cultivate a dualism, "may" not necessarily "does".

The funny thing I was referring to is that your use of words seem to express accepting "Self" but rejecting "non-Self" whereas coming from a buddhist background it would be exactly the opposite, i.e. the realization to be attained in buddhism is called "non-Self" and "Self" is held to be an illusion. Now considering reality beyond linguistic expression it is completely irrelevant whether "non-Self" or "Self" is accepted or rejected. Considering this it would be more straightforward to teach "neither acceptance nor rejection of anything whatsoever".

I maintain the position that use of words is often necessary for helping others. Regardless I do understand your point. As for definitions, the Self (denoted like that with a capital S) is synonymous to God, reality, truth, pure-being etc. in the context i was using. 

[Timotheus]

3 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Timotheus You, are The One. 

Thanks for the friendly reminder, I'm gonna get such a nice bike soon, anyway

[FoxFoxFox]

@Elysian Good to know. Never managed to do it with breath-work. Regardless, if as you say one can let go of enough to "just be" then only that will suffice. 

Edited November 22, 2018 by FoxFoxFox

[Tony 845]

Both, I meditate in the morning & inquire at night.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Tony 845

[Shin]

If you're just starting, meditation.

If it's already been some years, then both, otherwise the chance of making real progress is very low.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Shin

[now is forever]

@Flammable then do understand without the „i“ involved. if that’s the stumbling rope.

[Aaron p]

Self enquiry is bomb af. The way I see it...trying to use breath meditation to get enlightened is like trying to slowly dissolve the whole fabric by using a stable, consistent, weaker acid....

Where self enquiry is like stabbing small holes the fabric with a fucking pencil. I prefer self enquiry's more "active" approach.

[outlandish]

Meditation. Fundamentally meditation is a non-intellectual process of "self-inquiry" into the greatest sense of the idea of self. 

[Joseph Maynor]

Wow.  This is a hard question.  I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now.  I would probably give a slight nod to Self-Inquiry.  And my rationale is you can meditate all day long but that's not gonna make you Enlightened without further training.  Self-inquiry is an investigation into the question "Who/what am I?".  That's a very important project for Enlightenment.  It's not enough just to meditate, you can meditate all you want.  Meditation has to be coupled with Contemplation and Self-Inquiry for Enlightenment.  That being said, Meditation is more important as a daily routine than Self-Inquiry is once you past a certain point in your Enlightenment Work.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Ananta]

Meditation helps to get a calm/still mind, but Self-inquiry is essentially a matter of applying the general principle that you cannot be what you “see” (i.e., anything you perceive, conceive, or experience in any way whatsoever, subtle or gross, within or around you). Then, what's left, that's the question? 

Oh, pick one?  Self inquiry any day of the week! (If you already can get your mind calm/still in another way other then meditation, like watching a spiritual video or listening to soothing music)

Edited November 23, 2018 by Anna1

[lmfao]

I can't help but feel that this question is like asking "tits or ass" and the answer to the question is always "both" 

Edited November 23, 2018 by lmfao

[Jack River]

In self enquiry can we say that it is “the past” that is asking the question of who am I? 

Therefore that is why there is a constant process of identification with the perceived ,conceived, or experienced? @Anna1

[Ananta]

@Jack River That's a different conversation. I didn't say anything about "who am i"?

I was referring to neti-neti (not this, not that), which is "now" (present moment), not past. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Anna1

[Jack River]

Just now, Anna1 said:

@Jack River That's a differerent conversation. I didn't say anything about "who am i"?

I was referring to neti-neti (not this, not that), which is "now" (present moment), not past. 

Oh I’m sorry ? . My bad ?