I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight Consider this. Someone who looks at the world without conception, sees it like you said, as it is - which really is a nonesense phrase. For this someone the ideas of "I" or "other" are maya, that is without reality of their own. So perhaps a better question would be, is "I-I" just another term for the Self, synonymous with God, Buddha etc etc? 

[winterknight]

54 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight Consider this. Someone who looks at the world without conception, sees it like you said, as it is - which really is a nonesense phrase. For this someone the ideas of "I" or "other" are maya, that is without reality of their own. So perhaps a better question would be, is "I-I" just another term for the Self, synonymous with God, Buddha etc etc? 

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.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight Perhaps you can shed some light into the significance of the term then? Why this specific label? Is it to emphasize that god/buddhahood/awareness is our real nature? 

[winterknight]

2 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight Perhaps you can shed some light into the significance of the term then? Why this specific label? Is it to emphasize that god/buddhahood/awareness is our real nature? 

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.

[SOUL]

Realizing the abiding genuine aware being presence and to transcend the yearning for self enquiry is the cessation of asking who.....

It is what it is... no questions asked.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight Okay, but the issue is that this "I" is not as palpable as you seem to say it should be. There used to be an egoic "I" that was falsely identified with mind/body, but it's no longer there, or at the very least, it's illusory nature is fully realized. There is no other "I" to be found! There is no Self either. If you point out any, it's merely a function of the English language. 

In meditation, the conceptions of the world are shown to be just that, conceptions. Like you said, superimposed on "reality". But there is nothing palpable here that would be "I", or "the Self," unless one says that I am self aware. But ultimately, this statement is nonsensical. In saying that I am self-aware, there is no subject who knows an object. This statement is hollow. Is this what you mean by "self-luminous non-dual"?

A complete absence of conception?

You say that the "I" is not a limited, separate entity. I'm saying that in truth the "I" is non-existent. It can never be anything but a conception. 

The "I-feeling" does not exist in the first place. It's only a feeling in the chest that is mistakenly labeled "I". 

So when you say that the "I am" is not destroyed, this is cause for much confusion. 

 

[winterknight]

7 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight Okay, but the issue is that this "I" is not as palpable as you seem to say it should be. There used to be an egoic "I" that was falsely identified with mind/body, but it's no longer there, or at the very least, it's illusory nature is fully realized. There is no other "I" to be found! There is no Self either. If you point out any, it's merely a function of the English language. 

In meditation, the conceptions of the world are shown to be just that, conceptions. Like you said, superimposed on "reality". But there is nothing palpable here that would be "I", or "the Self," unless one says that I am self aware. But ultimately, this statement is nonsensical. In saying that I am self-aware, there is no subject who knows an object. This statement is hollow. Is this what you mean by "self-luminous non-dual"?

A complete absence of conception?

You say that the "I" is not a limited, separate entity. I'm saying that in truth the "I" is non-existent. It can never be anything but a conception. 

The "I-feeling" does not exist in the first place. It's only a feeling in the chest that is mistakenly labeled "I". 

So when you say that the "I am" is not destroyed, this is cause for much confusion. 

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.

Edited December 19, 2018 by winterknight

[Outer]

How much do you think?

[winterknight]

3 hours ago, Outer said:

How much do you think?

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.

[Outer]

What does it say of enlightenment if its easier to attain if you read Hindu texts?

[winterknight]

7 minutes ago, Outer said:

What does it say of enlightenment if its easier to attain if you read Hindu texts?

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

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight What can you tell us about surrender? 

Many sages say that ultimately, enlightenment has to come down as an act of divine grace, and the key is complete surrender. How would you go about unpacking this statement - if at all worthwhile to do so?

[winterknight]

11 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight What can you tell us about surrender? 

Many sages say that ultimately, enlightenment has to come down as an act of divine grace, and the key is complete surrender. How would you go about unpacking this statement - if at all worthwhile to do so?

Yes, surrender is giving up desire & thought -- allowing whatever to happen, internally and externally, without resistance. Surrender puts the mind into a state of profound quiet -- that quietness is nothing other than the Self.

One cannot completely surrender as a voluntary act. The surrenderer himself must be surrendered, and that happens indeed as an act of grace. One surrenders as much as possible, and then complete surrender happens as that act of grace.

Complete surrender under grace is simply another name for the recognition that one is not the doer and the decision-maker, that one is the vast Nameless Silence beyond all opposites. So where is the need or the chance to resist? Thus: relaxation or surrender is our very nature.

Self-inquiry leads to complete surrender in the end. Or one can, as their practice, as an alternative to inquiry, attempt to surrender as much as one possibly can. Usually though these are complementary practices. One alternates between them. They're two sides of a coin.

Edited December 19, 2018 by winterknight

[zambize]

23 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Yes, surrender is giving up desire & thought -- allowing whatever to happen, internally and externally, without resistance. Surrender puts the mind into a state of profound quiet -- that quietness is nothing other than the Self.

One cannot completely surrender as a voluntary act. The surrenderer himself must be surrendered, and that happens indeed as an act of grace. One surrenders as much as possible, and then complete surrender happens as that act of grace.

Complete surrender under grace is simply another name for the recognition that one is not the doer and the decision-maker, that one is the vast Nameless Silence beyond all opposites. So where is the need or the chance to resist? Thus: relaxation or surrender is our very nature.

Self-inquiry leads to complete surrender in the end. Or one can, as their practice, as an alternative to inquiry, attempt to surrender as much as one possibly can. Usually though these are complementary practices. One alternates between them. They're two sides of a coin.

I noticed today that I got my best results from posing questions "What am I?"  "Who is aware?" Followed by as deep of surrender as I can, every once in a while i can feel myself dissolve into bliss a bit stronger than before, so I'm pretty excited and really vouche for this 

[Outer]

3 hours ago, winterknight said:

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

I do self-inquiry but nothing much is happening.

[winterknight]

18 minutes ago, Outer said:

I do self-inquiry but nothing much is happening.

What precisely is expected to happen, and who is it that expects it?

[SriBhagwanYogi]

As i told you there was some glimpses of self Realization few days ago and i am doing same questions , self inquiry trying to find that I , who is aware etc.

Then i saw a video where Rupert Spira talks about i think he said second step to self inquiry , Self abidance 

Do you think that is correct practice to go directly,knowingly stay as that pure I -awarness of person(thoughts,sensations etc) Or i have to do same contemplation even if i know where it will lead me .

Hope that makes sense 

 

[winterknight]

18 minutes ago, SriBhagwanYogi said:

Do you think that is correct practice to go directly,knowingly stay as that pure I -awarness of person(thoughts,sensations etc) Or i have to do same contemplation even if i know where it will lead me .

If you can get to that place of waking clarity and peace, get there and stay there. And if you seem to leave it, get back. That is all you need to do. No need to do the inquiry over and over again unless that helps to get back to that place.

Edited December 19, 2018 by winterknight

[SriBhagwanYogi]

Thank you doing same thing again and again is frustrating when you know what are you i will try to add inquiry when identification with something arises 

[here-now]

@winterknight (Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered:)

If there is only ever "the Self", why does there ever seem to be a "little, separate self" that then appears to have to wake up to its true nature, "the Self"?

I mean, why does the illusion of duality ever appear to begin with?