Deep Inquiry into Yourself

[SoonHei]

Posting as well as self indexing this for myself.

 

As you know or have heard of the idea that you are not your body, mind/thoughts, senses but are the perceiver of them and thus free from the association/suffering with them.

Then, if you'd like to discover yourself, here's how.

As this question: Who Am I?

Then wait, and allow whatever *answer* arises in your awareness.

Now, whatever that *answer* was CANNOT BE and IS NOT *YOU*.

The *ONE* who "saw" / "became aware" of the *answer* is who *YOU* are.

Notice how "what *YOU* are" cannot be grabbed or grasped in any way... Just slips out instantly from whatever tries to grab.

You are the only weighing scale in existence... Able to weigh everything but Yourself.

Only *YOU* can know yourself... not in a conventional sense where there are TWO things. For example, an object which is known and a knower of that object.

You can be known only via a deep knowing sense and that is self-awareness.

That knowing sense is very directly accessible.

When you ask the question: Am I aware? Whatever feeling/knowing your attention goes to after which there is the response *YES, I am aware* is what YOU are - self-aware.

Simply that. That blank empty space of nothingness is what YOU are. In that space all vibrations of energy arise. Those vibrations are interpreted as sounds, images, tastes, senses, feelings, sensations which all combine into ONE experience.

Notice how that sense of knowing isn't like anything else in your experience which only can include sights, sounds, sensations, thoughts, feeling, taste and smell.

It's because That knowing sense is not an experience... That knowing sense is *YOU*.

Edited January 7, 2019 by SoonHei
edits

[SoonHei]

YOU never DO anything. Silent and Still YOU remain.

You simply are aware and will continue to become aware forever.

You are eternally aware.

Just that.

[purerogue]

There is still difference from what you are aware of  and what consciousness as whole holds and you can be aware of.

Edited January 7, 2019 by purerogue

[SoonHei]

@purerogue yes. YOU are not separate from that WHOLE. there are no divisions. There CANNOT BE any divisions. 

[SriBhagwanYogi]

Nice keep watching Rupert Spira ?

[cetus]

@SoonHei "Catch hold of the knower of the mind". 

 Do you ever listen to Nisargadatta? Good stuff.

 

[SoonHei]

@cetus56 I will be listening to this one you posted on my drive back to home today  <3 

 

I have read his content though before. Deep Dude

[cetus]

@SoonHei I was reading your post then afterwards I was listening to this and thought his words and what you were expressing here were so similar. I think you may resonate with him very well. I know I do.

[cetus]

47 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

I have read his content though before. Deep Dude

@SoonHei

 Without the world where are you? 

 Who are you?

That is deep!

[SoonHei]

@cetus56 in NM's great words.

I just AM

I AM That

 

Gonna check it him out more. Thanks @cetus56

Edited January 7, 2019 by SoonHei

[Antonius]

Direct path is the best. 

In my experience it's not hard at all to find the I AM, since I always AM. The easiest way to "find" it is to find that ONE thing that never changed in your experience. The thing that felt the same when you were 7 years old and right now.

The problem is that AMness is always left in the background as we focus solely on objects in experience. The bulk of the work is getting that formless presence in front of the experience and letting it completely recontextualize it. 

Good stuff @SoonHei just keep being YOU, nothing else to do 

[SoonHei]

13 minutes ago, Antonius said:

The problem is that AMness is always left in the background as we focus solely on objects in experience. The bulk of the work is getting that formless presence in front of the experience and letting it completely recontextualize it. 

yes. very nice indeed

 

one way i thought about this using the mind was this..

 

with eyes closed, ask WHO AM I?

with beginners - especially not knowing the pointing, there will be an answer in words/thoughts/feeling even...

but I AM that which "awaits" the answer. The one who remains after the question WHO AM I is asked... that remains when it's answered... and remains after that too - eternally there as the background/container of ALL experience. 

The answer to WHO AM I is NOT me... I AM also not the answer-er, for there is no answer-er... there is only stream of thought. flowing IN ME.

 

with this deepening in place, as you said @Antonius , just gotta bring that background to the foreground to be merged as ONE

 bless

Edited January 7, 2019 by SoonHei

[lmfao]

@SoonHei good post. 

 A confusing aspect about words when trying to find out who you really are is that any set of words you use are inadequate. For example to put across what I mean, if I say that I am the mind, I then start defining the mind. After that, I then construct a sentence defining every word I used in the sentence to define the mind. After that, I then construct a sentence defining every word I used in the sentence which defined every word I used to define the mind. The process just goes on forever, words never get you anywhere. 

[cetus]

6 minutes ago, lmfao said:

I then start defining the mind.

@lmfao What difference is there between the I that is doing the defining and the mind?

[SoonHei]

2 minutes ago, lmfao said:

The process just goes on forever, words never get you anywhere. 

indeed. any such infinite never ending loop of logic ultimately must collapse and it does, and when that's the case. YOU stand revealed.

 

but very true. words alone always needs further expansion and it goes on forever

metaphors / ideas come close but only the actual seeing hits the final nail in the coffin

 

what ends the seeking is the realization... not a finding of an object in the normal sense.

not sure where i read this example but it was kind of like this

the light rays coming out of the flashlight is searching for it's source... but it's searching outwards.

in the end, it cannot bend/flip back and point to itself to see/find itself. it cannot know itself like it knows phenomena.

it knows itself by being itself. the rays of light just realize they are the source themselves.

 

that's out dealio here  

except we are NOTHINGNESS

 

 

[purerogue]

I would suggest to droop all logic, sense when going in to explore, because there is huge difference from relative world and how things actually get to be as they are, logic will not bring you answers, or sense. 

There is very good reason why you must go in without knowing, because knowing already holds concepts, as logic already is concept that does not let you see further then possibility of this concept, it is carved block.

Edited January 7, 2019 by purerogue

[SoonHei]

[Anton Rogachevski]

@SoonHei Very insightful. I can see you are excited about it, and it's pretty awesome! Keep posting your valuable insights.

Cheers

[lmfao]

@SoonHei

12 hours ago, SoonHei said:

indeed. any such infinite never ending loop of logic ultimately must collapse and it does, and when that's the case. YOU stand revealed.

 

but very true. words alone always needs further expansion and it goes on forever

metaphors / ideas come close but only the actual seeing hits the final nail in the coffin

 

what ends the seeking is the realization... not a finding of an object in the normal sense.

not sure where i read this example but it was kind of like this

the light rays coming out of the flashlight is searching for it's source... but it's searching outwards.

in the end, it cannot bend/flip back and point to itself to see/find itself. it cannot know itself like it knows phenomena.

it knows itself by being itself. the rays of light just realize they are the source themselves.

 

that's out dealio here  

except we are NOTHINGNESS

This whole inquiry process is so weird. I try to come up with an articulate way of describing how I feel, but I end up deleting it because it feels inadequate. 

One way I see it, reality is always in a situation you never created. Your thoughts, awareness, sensations of pressure, everything which composes your consciousness, is uncreated by you. Existence always has and always will be effortless. 

 

And then I also feel the paradox of how can any perception of experience exist in the absence of time. Supposing all we have is now, and time doesn't exist, then how is it that any perceptions exist? 

Let's look at language and thought. Whenever one thinks of a word, e.g. "cat" and has it in their mind, I have the perception that I have this word totally grasped in my mind. However, it takes a time which is not equal to zero seconds for this word to pass through my mind. If everything is now, how does perception exist? Without time, how can sensations and perceptions exist and change? 

You don't have to look at language and thought, you can look at any perceived happening in consciousness. 

 

A random theoretical thought I have had. Just a thought experiment entertaining the existence of time. Consider an interval of time, e.g. 10s. Between 0 and 10 are an infinite(ie endless) number of numbers, and so there are an infinite number of snapshots of time. Essentially what is going on is that this 10 second interval is composed of an infinite number of points. It perhaps then be said that this 10 second interval is mathematically equal to an infinite sum of points. Within the 10 second interval, you can see all sorts of events and happening transpire. But if we are to define this interval of time as being equal to the sum of an infinite number of points, let's look at one of these points. Maybe one of these points is what we'd call "the present moment". So let's look at the present moment. Everything is frozen. Nothing is going on at an individual point (and something is happening in this 10 second interval) , yet theoretically it is impossible for this 10 second interval to not be defined as the sum of all these points. 

Points are zeroth dimensional objects, and graphically speaking lines of all possible sizes are composed of an infinite number of points. 

To get even more theoretical about infinity as it is described in maths. Between any two numbers we say that there are an "infinite" number of numbers. The way I see it, infinity can mean "more can be generated" in some situations. Suppose I'm looking at all the possible numbers between 1 and 2. Consider the number 1.01 . I can put a "1" after the last digit to generate a number, 1.011, and from that new number I can put another "1" after the last digit to generate another number, 1.0111. This process of adding numbers after the last digit goes on forever. So from a certain perspective, "infinity" is just a consequence of how the mathematical language is defined. As the mathematical language is defined, I'm allowed to generate as many numbers as I want between 1 and 2. So from a certain perspective, in this particular situation there's perhaps a certain arbitrariness to "infinity" in this context since the word "infinity" is just pointing towards an "exploit" /"glitch" in the language that we ourselves have created. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by lmfao

[lmfao]

12 hours ago, cetus56 said:

@lmfao What difference is there between the I that is doing the defining and the mind?

"There is neither creation nor destruction,neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement.
This is the final truth." - Ramana Maharshi