Manjushri

Pick only one : Self inquiry / Meditation. Why?

92 posts in this topic

@now is forever  I do not :)


You see, the reason you want to be better, is the reason why you aren’t. Shall I put it like that?

We aren't better, because we want to be.

                                                                                                                                                 ~ Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ground

Please do not pay attention to my empty words if you are following Leo's teaching !!
Sometimes my empty words may appear too negative, too rational, too irrational, egoistical or even like trolling because my path is a non-path and is nothing but deviation and incompatible with all teachings known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ground

Please do not pay attention to my empty words if you are following Leo's teaching !!
Sometimes my empty words may appear too negative, too rational, too irrational, egoistical or even like trolling because my path is a non-path and is nothing but deviation and incompatible with all teachings known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ;)


Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all of the barriers within yourself that you have built against it 

- A Course in Miracles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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 by FoxFoxFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Tony 845

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Shin

God is love

Whoever lives in love lives in God

And God in them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


How to get to infinity? Divide by zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Joseph Maynor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Anna1

“You don’t have problems; you are the problem.”

– Swami Chinmayananda

Namaste ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by lmfao

Hark ye yet again — the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event — in the living act, the undoubted deed — there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there's naught beyond. But 'tis enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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 by Anna1

“You don’t have problems; you are the problem.”

– Swami Chinmayananda

Namaste ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now