winterknight

An overrated term, though sometimes it can be valid. Maybe a more specific question with details from your life/path would be more helpful?

sounds like a glimpse of the truth

If a seeker is inclined to God, then devotion to God is a good thing. Devotion to God consists most importantly in self-inquiry and surrender. But prayer is a good thing too if the seeker is so inclined. If the seeker is not so inclined, it's fine not to worship God -- simply self-inquire and surrender. But the seeker must be open to the idea of there being something beyond this merely material universe. Without that faith, they're probably not going to go far.

There is an answer to this, but it's not an answer in words. Saying the "I is an illusion" is just a thought. The fact is that there is someone who is aware of a self, who is aware of itself being aware. How do you know that you are aware, and who knows it? Again, you clearly DO know that you are aware. That is not an illusion. The question is: how do you know it, and who knows it? Where is that knowledge coming from? What did I say above about silence?

It is. Let the answer always be silence -- that's no problem. Through this question, bring the mind back to silence again and again and again, hundreds or even thousands of times. Let not a thought go by without asking to whom it occurs.

Well, you already are Self. So what Maharshi means is to simply stop imagining you are anything other than that. In short, it's an instruction to utterly relax and go slack, to worry about nothing, to want nothing, to try for nothing, to exert no effort, to let your mind go vacant. It's an instruction to stop thinking. It's a surrender instruction -- just give up all effort and any desire for anything. If you "try" it, you'll quickly find that it entails self-inquiry too, because who is hearing this instruction and who is trying it? Nothing wrong with that, of course. But one will discover sooner or later that even the concept of "trying it" is one step too far. When you think "how to do it?" you've already stepped into the ego. You've already stepped into the illusion that you are the one who does things, including "being Self." Ideally the instruction is heard and the mind simply goes quiet. The quiet mind, which does not pay any voluntary, effortful attention to the world, to the body, to desire, to thought, to feeling, to any particular object, goal, means or method... because it wants nothing, because it is nothing... this is Self-attention; this is simply being Self.

Sure, it can be helpful, but it's not necessary. Whether you're in that state or a different state, the question is -- to whom is that state occurring? Sure -- it would probably seem like I was more at peace and less in "need" of anyone or anything. But that's not necessarily true for everyone. Best not to have expectations and just focus on yourself, because the externals can be very misleading.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? Yes and no. It's not really "my" consciousness; never was, indeed. But from the onlookers' perspective, yes, of course -- do I not seem to be on this forum? I wouldn't worry about different aspects and all that, maps of sequences of awakenings and all that. They're just distractions. Knowledge is one. You'll know when you grasp "who you are" -- it will become quite obvious. Then you might "lose it" and then have to go back and attempt it again. So repeat and repeat. You'll know it without a doubt when it is clear -- and until that clarity is achieved, everything else is a sideshow.

Ah, see, this is the problem. You can't really interpret Maharshi's teachings without being a jnani yourself. Otherwise it's just regarding the outer garments of the teaching. Ok, I read it. It's not horrible, but it's not great. A couple of choice quotes: "Whatever turmoil our mind may be in, in the centre of our being there always exists a state of perfect peace and joy, like the calm in the eye of a storm." I already don't like this metaphor. A calm in the eye of the storm suggests that the calm is a small space in the center when rather the calm is everywhere. It is the storm that is small and passing; actually, more than that -- the storm itself is nothing but the calm. "Happiness is thus a state of being – a state in which our mind’s habitual agitation is calmed. The activity of our mind disturbs it from its calm state of just being, and causes it to lose sight of its own innermost happiness. To enjoy happiness, therefore, all our mind need do is to cease all activity, returning calmly to its natural state of inactive being, as it does daily in deep sleep." This is misleading. True happiness is... precisely not a state. It is our constant, unchanged, always-existing nature. It is the case regardless of whatever happens in our mind. Granted that a relative bliss may be more in a calmer mind, and that such a calm mind is indeed a wonderful thing, true happiness is beyond all objects, including a calm mind. True happiness is the removal of ignorance, the ignorance that makes us believe that what is in our mind is what determines our happiness. This quote is dangerous, too, as it implies that if the mind keeps thinking, happiness is inaccessible. This is not so unless thinking if understood in a very specific way. Namely, to the jnani, thinking is not thinking, because the "I" that is identified with the thinker is understood as false. "Therefore to master the art of being happy, we must master the art and science of just being. We must discover what the innermost core of our being is, and we must learn to abide consciously and constantly in that state of pure being, which underlies and supports (but nevertheless remains unaffected by) all the superficial activities of our mind: thinking, feeling and perceiving, remembering and forgetting, and so on." Again, pure being is not a state. It seems like a state to a seeker, but it is constant. This whole thing suggests that it's all about practice, like learning an instrument. It only seems so for a while. In truth it is more like a misconception that is dispelled. It's not a skill, it's not a science, it's not an art, it's not a practice (except temporarily) -- it is about a seeing that dispels an illusion.

See, this right there seems a good reason not to put too much faith in Michael James. I assure you TSRM is the real deal, and reading it over and over is a wonderful sadhana. It can be confusing for beginners, but that is a healthy confusion. It will resolve itself. I just looked again at little pieces of MJ's book and blog... and his writing is ponderous, heavy, and indirect. I do not get the sense of an independent jnani who is giving his own vision. I can't find exactly what I disagreed with before, but I'm not really motivated to wade through his sea of words to find it. But if you have a short piece of his, either in his book or blog, that you think illustrates his greatest clarity and the most useful thing he says -- I would be happy to take a look.

I'm not a fan of Michael James. Can't quite remember why now, but I remember reading some of his interpretations of Maharshi and disliked them.

It's basically just a selection of excerpts from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, which is much more comprehensive. And Godman's interpretations are shaky, I sometimes think.

You're very welcome. It's great that you have read & are reading the scriptures. Will say that I feel that reading the scriptures is not entirely just about inspiration or ideas about practice but also that repeated ingestion of the words can clear away obstacles you didn't even know you had. It's like having satsang with a great sage. Their presence comes through the words.

Yup. Yes, self-inquiry will not necessarily be calm and quiet. (Actually, you are always calm and quiet... to notice that is part of self-inquiry... but it will not necessarily always seem that way because sometimes that will fall out of your attention). And yes, keep repeating. Try to really look -- because in a way it is extremely obvious what the I is, and in a way it's completely mysterious. Words can only go so far. This is a bit of a koan: what are you looking for? No one can answer that but you. You have to open yourself up to it. It will happen automatically when the resistances in your mind are battered through the effort of concentration and inquiry. The mind will calm itself when through this straining to look you have a glimpse of reality -- it may have already happened. It will be like a sudden opening in the clouds. When for a moment you enter a state of effortless flow and the burdens are relaxed -- it will be obvious, undeniable when this happens -- that's a glimpse. Stay there, but if you fall away, then repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Oh, and, as I've been recommending to others, steep yourself in the scriptures. Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, the Concise Yoga Vasistha, the Ashtavakra Gita and the Ribhu Gita are all great. I read TSRM at least twice if not three times (all 700 pages) that last year.

Well for me I simply didn't understand self-inquiry at first. My first understanding of Vedanta was kind of a weird variant of "jnana yoga" -- trying to digest and act on a certain understanding of the Self. My understanding of jnana yoga has evolved dramatically since then. Then when I encountered Maharshi's self-inquiry, like I said, I only half-understood. Then I had to go through all these psychological issues to figure out what was meant, in a way, by all this stuff, and why I was having difficulty applying it in my own life. Years later, I suddenly somehow re-encountered Maharshi in a new context and understood him. You could call this grace, this re-encounter. I had never quite lost sight of him, but he suddenly became luminous in my life for -- some odd reason. Now, I would say, please immediately try self-inquiry and keep with it (I know you already have; I'm speaking to anyone else reading this). There's no issue of waiting to do it if you comprehend it and are drawn to it. If I had understood it properly earlier I would have done it earlier. But as you try it, you may seem to encounter various obstacles that are individual to you. Then, depending on your own temperament and state, you'll deal with them in the way that's appropriate. Ideally, the obstacles will be few, and the way you'll deal with them will simply be to persist with the inquiry. But that or may not be the case.

You need to be practicing eventually at all times, not just sitting down. Like when you are sitting, standing, talking, walking, cooking, working. Again, read more of the scriptures. I feel you would be helped by that big-time.

Yes, it is difficult. You cannot "hold" the I, really. You are inquiring into the I feeling, dismissing what is an object (body, mind, etc.) if you find yourself feeling the I there. So you are chasing that feeling. If you feel like you are holding something, it is an object, not the I. Notice you are holding it and drop it. I would strongly recommend reading more. Read Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi. Read the Yoga Vasistha. These will be helpful. These scriptures would do you good, I think.

Exactly. So the whole thing was a 20-year process. I view it as all connected. I had to learn Vedanta, initially from a guru -- then from books, and then through lots of experimentation. Then I first encountered Ramana Maharshi 15 years ago, years after I had learned about Vedanta and started practicing it, and even though I only half-understood. I knew he was profound, but I did not comprehend him till a decade later. I probably tried it formally at that time but didn't fully comprehend. In the meantime, I had to unravel the puzzle of my own personality -- and this is the most individual aspect of the work. My particular psychological and life problems and the particular way I would have to puzzle them out... this was the most critical phase for me. It took a lot of experimenting, thinking, reading, talking to people, trying things, trying other things, thinking more, etc. etc. etc. It's a long process of struggle to grow into what you are. At least it was for me. In a way, it was all self-inquiry, not just the final year when I was doing the formal thing in the Ramana Maharshi style constantly.

I see now on other threads that you are clearly still searching. Do you see how your self-inquiry could not possibly be over, then? Self-inquiry must proceed until all these doubts are utterly destroyed.

Did it ever come into being in the first place? If you look deeply into it, you will have the answer to your question.

Right, because those who consider themselves unenlightened are not in any position to 'validate' or 'invalidate' another's 'enlightenment status,' and providing information for that purpose would really be feeding rather foolish ideas. What they should do is see whether a particular teacher makes logical sense, can answer questions, and is connected with a sense of peace for them. And if not, they should go find someone else. Well I think you're answering your own question here

If it makes you feel better, there's no particularly enlightened way of buying a car that's any better than any other way of buying a car.

None I don't understand. Can you rephrase this?

I don't really answer questions about my experience cuz it's misleading. Nope, enlightenment has nothing to do with this. It has to do with finding peace and a truth beyond doubt.

Ok, right, well this is why I advise all serious seekers to get psychoanalytic psychotherapy or psychoanalysis (those are specific kinds of psychotherapy, not just any therapy). It helps with the spiritual path. I see you're in Brazil. I'd highly recommend contacting whichever Brazilian psychoanalytic society is in your city and asking to see if you can become a patient. Usually there are low-fee options available if that's an issue. Be prepared to expend substantial time and effort. I've done it and it's worth it. Also, I'd recommend either serious self-inquiry or serious surrender which carries over into every moment of life... here are links to my general advice.