|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 15, 2019 21:59:42 GMT -5
I didn't say the Self was a place to be located, I was talking about awareness, or do you think they are the same thing? Koans involve the mind. Self inquiry is to transcend mind and abide in non-dual awareness. Your conceptualizing of the topic won't help. You said that the Who am I question becomes "redundant" once you realize how to locate awareness. That implies that that kind of awareness is the answer to that question. If you don't consider awareness the Self, then the Who am I question has not been answered or understood when awareness is "located," whatever that means, and it is not redundant. Once you have the skill of abiding in pure awareness then you don't need any practice to find it. The who am I question is a way of orienting the attention to turn inwards, back to the source. That's all the question does. It facilitates that about turn from mind to its source and when one has the familiarity of doing that then it just becomes spontaneous.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 15, 2019 22:04:10 GMT -5
You said that the Who am I question becomes "redundant" once you realize how to locate awareness. That implies that that kind of awareness is the answer to that question. If you don't consider awareness the Self, then the Who am I question has not been answered or understood when awareness is "located," whatever that means, and it is not redundant. Once you have the skill of abiding in pure awareness then you don't need any practice to find it. The who am I question is a way of orienting the attention to turn inwards, back to the source. That's all the question does. It facilitates that about turn from mind to its source and when one has the familiarity of doing that then it just becomes spontaneous. No, there is only abidance in the source -- there has only always ever been that. Self-realization is not about the mind spontaneously doing something -- abiding in the source or otherwise. It is about the destruction of the imaginary (non-existent) idea that there is a person who has ever been doing otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 15, 2019 22:06:30 GMT -5
Once you have the skill of abiding in pure awareness then you don't need any practice to find it. The who am I question is a way of orienting the attention to turn inwards, back to the source. That's all the question does. It facilitates that about turn from mind to its source and when one has the familiarity of doing that then it just becomes spontaneous. No, there is only abidance in the source -- there has only always ever been that. Self-realization is not about the mind spontaneously doing something -- abiding in the source or otherwise. It is about the destruction of the imaginary (non-existent) idea that there is a person who has ever been doing otherwise. Sorry but that's just a concept you're playing with. Clearly there is not always abidence in the source. Just investigate your own experience. Next you'll be telling me we're already enlightened.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 15, 2019 22:09:02 GMT -5
No, there is only abidance in the source -- there has only always ever been that. Self-realization is not about the mind spontaneously doing something -- abiding in the source or otherwise. It is about the destruction of the imaginary (non-existent) idea that there is a person who has ever been doing otherwise. Sorry but that's just a concept you're playing with. Clearly there is not always abidence in the source. Just investigate your own experience. Next you'll be telling me we're already enlightened. Yes, if the recognition I'm talking about hasn't occurred, it seems like it's just a concept. It's not.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 15, 2019 22:11:53 GMT -5
Sorry but that's just a concept you're playing with. Clearly there is not always abidence in the source. Just investigate your own experience. Next you'll be telling me we're already enlightened. Yes, if the recognition I'm talking about hasn't occurred, it seems like it's just a concept. It's not. It's not about destroying ideas that you are a person, because you will just replace it with another idea that you are not a person. This is not the way to go. By abiding in the source and realizing that awareness alone is real then all is revealed. In the meantime happily go about thinking you are a person. It will do you no harm.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Mar 15, 2019 22:14:33 GMT -5
Yes, if the recognition I'm talking about hasn't occurred, it seems like it's just a concept. It's not. It's not about destroying ideas that you are a person, because you will just replace it with another idea that you are not a person. This is not the way to go. By abiding in the source and realizing that awareness alone is real then all is revealed. In the meantime happily go about thinking you are a person. It will do you no harm. When the idea of personhood is seen through, it is not replaced with another idea, but that idea is understood clearly to be non-existent. Anyway, it's clear that we don't have common ground. No use continuing discussion.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 15, 2019 22:15:29 GMT -5
It's not about destroying ideas that you are a person, because you will just replace it with another idea that you are not a person. This is not the way to go. By abiding in the source and realizing that awareness alone is real then all is revealed. In the meantime happily go about thinking you are a person. It will do you no harm. When the idea of personhood is seen through, it is not replaced with another idea, but that idea is understood clearly to be non-existent. Anyway, it's clear that we don't have common ground. No use continuing discussion. Seeing through the idea of personhood is complete nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 15, 2019 22:21:17 GMT -5
Seeing through the idea of personhood requires that you use the instrument of the person who is false to inquire into the person.
You are like a thief who pretends to be a policeman in order to catch the thief. It's delusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 22:45:24 GMT -5
You said that the Who am I question becomes "redundant" once you realize how to locate awareness. That implies that that kind of awareness is the answer to that question. If you don't consider awareness the Self, then the Who am I question has not been answered or understood when awareness is "located," whatever that means, and it is not redundant. Once you have the skill of abiding in pure awareness then you don't need any practice to find it. The who am I question is a way of orienting the attention to turn inwards, back to the source. That's all the question does. It facilitates that about turn from mind to its source and when one has the familiarity of doing that then it just becomes spontaneous. Is 'abiding in pure awareness' actually a 'skill' though? Id' say "once you lose interest in abiding in mind's erroneous nilly-willy excursions, then you don't need a practice to find pure awareness.
I agree with the bolded bit.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 15, 2019 22:51:44 GMT -5
Once you have the skill of abiding in pure awareness then you don't need any practice to find it. The who am I question is a way of orienting the attention to turn inwards, back to the source. That's all the question does. It facilitates that about turn from mind to its source and when one has the familiarity of doing that then it just becomes spontaneous. Is 'abiding in pure awareness' actually a 'skill' though? Id' say "once you lose interest in abiding in mind's erroneous nilly-willy excursions, then you don't need a practice to find pure awareness.
I agree with the bolded bit. It's as good as any other word. Skill is ability, expertise, mastery, competence etc. The skill is in discriminating between awareness and mind. But if there is just awareness then there is no practiser either. The practiser has disappeared.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 23:05:43 GMT -5
Is 'abiding in pure awareness' actually a 'skill' though? Id' say "once you lose interest in abiding in mind's erroneous nilly-willy excursions, then you don't need a practice to find pure awareness.
I agree with the bolded bit. It's as good as any other word. Skill is ability, expertise, mastery, competence etc. The skill is in discriminating between awareness and mind. But if there is just awareness then there is no practiser either. The practiser has disappeared. Yeah, if there is just awareness, then there is no practiser, indeed.
The realization that what I am IS awareness, so long as it abides, means never 'having to' discriminate. If there is groundedness in awareness, it's completely overt and obvious that there is the ground and that which arises within/to it.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 15, 2019 23:08:21 GMT -5
It's as good as any other word. Skill is ability, expertise, mastery, competence etc. The skill is in discriminating between awareness and mind. But if there is just awareness then there is no practiser either. The practiser has disappeared. Yeah, if there is just awareness, then there is no practiser, indeed.
The realization that what I am IS awareness, so long as it abides, means never 'having to' discriminate. If there is groundedness in awareness, it's completely overt and obvious that there is the ground and that which arises within/to it. Yes absolutely!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 16, 2019 3:40:45 GMT -5
When the idea of personhood is seen through, it is not replaced with another idea, but that idea is understood clearly to be non-existent. Anyway, it's clear that we don't have common ground. No use continuing discussion. Seeing through the idea of personhood is complete nonsense. No common ground.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 16, 2019 3:42:51 GMT -5
Ramana Maharshi said in Nan Yar (Who Am I) "When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, but should inquire ‘To whom do they arise?’ It does not matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, one should inquire with diligence, ‘To whom has this thought arisen?’. The answer that would emerge would be ‘To me’. Thereupon if one inquires ‘Who am I?’, the mind will go back to its source; and the thought that arose will become quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind will develop the skill to stay in its source." Unfortunately this is often misunderstood. There are many who think the question "Who am I" should be continually repeated. Of course Ramana never meant it that way. He wasn't suggesting this question should be articulated in the mind as each thought arises and it's not meant to be some kind of riddle or koan that has to be solved. He was trying to convey a way of locating the silence from which thoughts arise. If you actually ask the question, Who am I, there is no immediate answer. You may go on to answer it by saying my name is so and so etc, but immediately after asking the question there is just a space, silence. The question makes the mind momentarily stop thinking as it tries to make sense of this question. Given time it will revert back to the "story" but before it does there exists the opportunity to inquire into that gap precipitated by this unanswerable question. To go back to the souce. Once that sense of locating what is just awareness is established, the question, Who am I, becomes redundant. If you use a map to find a place you won't need the map again when you visit it the next time. You know where it is. Tolle starts "The Power of Now" with the heading "You are not Your Mind", and then advises his readers to "watch the thinker". While I think I can appreciate ZD's point about how shifting attention to direct experience is far different from watching thought, watching thought in the way that Tolle advised wasn't the advice to think about thinking. Rather, it was to subtly invite his readers into what Ramana advised quite directly and frankly. Once the mind reaches a certain natural level of quiescence -- from whatever method -- Ramana's process is almost sort of inevitable, and it doesn't really matter which way the arrow of attention points during the inquiry. "Inward" or "outward". Especially if the inquiry is done continually during waking/walking/talking. A taste of the infinite, is infectious.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 16, 2019 3:57:01 GMT -5
Yes, and I was thinking about that today after posting this. I've heard Zen Masters say that there's no point in pursuing the "Who am I?" inquiry unless one is willing to devote at least ten years to that koan. I assume they mean that one must be extremely serious about the issue in order to tackle it. Zen has dozens of koans that can be resolved fairly quickly and easily with a modest amount of meditation, but "Who am I, Really?" is not one of those. Pursuing ATA-T and AL-T, as you suggest, leads to the same place and the same sorts of realizations as other pathways, but this approach shifts the focus somewhat and can be deeply immersive--in the sense that it immediately attacks the problem of intellectual reflection as a dominant way of life. People can still pursue koans if they wish, but mental silence, alone, is probably the most highly correlated activity with realizations. If nothing else, these activities are very effective at helping people get "out of their heads." Who Am I is not a koan. That's not at all what Ramana Maharshi and others taught. Who am I is to be still by suspending thought. It is the most direct path to awakening. There are many paths to becoming still. In the Zen tradition any existential question is a koan, and any koan can be resolved via contemplation. Koans are not repeated endlessly, and they are not resolved via the mind. Resolving a koan involves a realization that then informs mind. Realizations come from beyond mind. From a practical standpoint there's no real difference between Ramana's suggested usage of "Who am I?" too attain stillness and the approach I wrote about. In both cases attention is shifted away from thoughts which leads to stillness and existential realizations.
|
|