winterknight

But I recommend psychoanalysis precisely because the training is so rigorous and demanding, and analysts have to spend years and years understanding themselves and others under the supervision of senior psychoanalysts. I've got a graduate degree in psychology, but am still far from that level of training. There are different kinds of healing. You can be an expert in one kind of healing while admitting that you are not an expert in the others. You can heal from the spiritual standpoint, while admitting you don't understand the psychological standpoint. There is no doing away with niches. Things are too complicated. Would you expect a spiritual teacher to also treat cancer? If you want to understand the psyche better to inform your work as a spiritual teacher, great, but that's not really the same as being a therapist. You still have to refer out for that kind of work. And if you want to be a therapist who also understands spirituality, fantastic, but undergo the training for that. That means at least a college degree and likely a graduate degree after that too.

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

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.

Tony Robbins is a life coach and definitely does not hold himself out as a therapist. Life coaches can add all sorts of random stuff to their mix. But most will never have the depth of understanding that a properly trained therapist will. I would definitely not recommend this way of going... why look for shortcuts? You're only cheating yourself. There's a metric ton of bullshit in the life coaching and self-help fields. If you really want to go into the depth of people's psyches, you must invest many years of time, effort, and yes -- formal education.

Definitely not, unfortunately.

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.

It's illegal in the US to practice psychotherapy without a license, nor would it be a good idea for you or your patients. That includes psychoanalysis and Jungian psychology. If you want to do that for a living, you would be missing out hugely by not being properly educated. If you want to practice life coaching or spiritual counseling practice, however, there are no licensure requirements.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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." 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.

Yup . You're very welcome

Well, I find psychoanalytic therapy useful for everyone, pretty much . I wouldn't say drilling exactly... that may be what it feels like, but the question is: who is it that feels that it's very hard to sustain? That's what must be investigated deeper and deeper and over and over until it is crystal clear. And you will know it is crystal clear when that peace is no longer felt to be "hard to sustain 24/7."

Yes, that always seems to be the problem. The thing to keep asking is: who is having trouble staying in that space?

Neither. Feel it deeply and fully, and try to listen to its concerns. What is it saying? Be compassionate with yourself; see if you can help this fearful voice with love and attention. Address its concerns by talking to it, or see if you can manage the situation and make it less scary, maybe more gradual. In short: respect the fear.

This is all deep misunderstanding that comes from the belief that it is the body-mind that is enlightened. It is not. It is not the mind that is "in total peace and bliss," but the Self that is peace and bliss, and is so even when the mind seems roiled by feelings of pain, sadness, and so on. Jesus on the cross cried out "My God, my god, why have you forsaken me?" The Buddha felt back pain and reacted to it by stretching his back. In the Hindu scriptures, even the great enlightened divine sages feel depressed and even suicidal from time to time. This is all at the superficial mind level. The enlightened one does not define himself or herself by emotions.

I will say, simply because he is a big name that some people associate with this phrase, that I don't consider Mooji neo-advaita (and he doesn't consider himself that either). I like Mooji.

sounds good. As you said earlier in this thread: "yes, it is a peaceful place. The ultimate with regards to peacefulness." <-- find that that place again, and if you forget, again and again and again...

Bingo.

Don't have ideas or expectations like "the individual experiencing their own energy as the energy of the entire universe." Such expectations are always misleading. If you are looking for "something more" -- which you seem to be -- then you should inquire into who is doing that looking. You are telling me that the I is "out of nothingness," but if that were so there wouldn't be a feeling of a desire for something more, or a question about what to pursue. Any hint of dissatisfaction or any sense that "I've got to figure out what to do next" suggests the presence of old thinking and emotional patterns that are pulling back into identification with the body-mind. Find the clarity and thought-free peace beyond dissatisfaction that you are, and return to it over and over till these patterns are extinguished.

Thanks! And good idea on the therapy video, will definitely consider that.

As long as you consider yourself a seeker, you must practice, and practice with effort. Even knowing theoretically that you are not really a seeker, that there is no thinker of thoughts, there is no real effort, and that thoughts arise "exactly as they do" -- that intellectual knowledge is insufficient until it is directly recognized beyond the intellect. So surrender is one key practice -- it's a choice between it and self-inquiry, which are anyway two sides of a coin -- recommended to those who consider themselves seekers. In the end, the very ideas of surrender and the one who surrenders themselves are surrendered, of course. But the seeker cannot do that voluntarily. It just happens. And when it happens, it will then be clear that there was no such thing as anyone who surrendered or who needed to surrender at any time.

Surrender means giving up all desire for things to be different than the way they are. As a path to peace, it should be the case not just during some formal meditation period, but during every waking moment. Just give up all desire, and therefore give up all thought. Of course, such profound surrender is not entirely possible to do deliberately. So the seeker surrenders as much as they possibly can, and then Grace happens and does the rest.

Well there is really no such thing as "attaining enlightenment" actually, but what "I" "used" is what I mention in my video: an intellectual framework, psychological work, and self-inquiry.

Nope, sorry. But I know enough to say that the point is that you can do all the concentration-on-chakras and energetic work you want; it might be useful to prepare the mind, but in the end, you will have to get beyond that and turn the mind to the Self, which is beyond centers and energies.

Thanks. Don't know a huge amount about kundalini, but from what I've read, it can be useful as a tool to quiet the mind and glimpse the Self, but it is not a substitute for self-inquiry and/or surrender.