Certainty of Being

• An Eternal Now

  19 Jun 10, 15:59

  --------------------------------------------------
  From: J
  Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:47 AM
  To: AEN
  Subject: help
  
  > AEN,

  .....

  
  > Speaking frankly, I don't know how to avoid turning slef-inquiry into
  > intellectual pursue. When I have time, I just practice rest as
  > awareness as taught by Adyashanti.
  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIX_zk5NN6g
  > I haven't seen any effect on me so far. This method I think is better
  > than Awareness Watching Awareness method. AWA method may make a person
  > fall into the trap of watcher.
  >
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > J
  >

   

  Hi,
  
  Will do.
  
  Btw, I just recently read a book by Adyashanti called 'True Meditation'.
  Recommended.
  
  In it he describes two methods which he says cannot be done without, cannot
  take out either elements for true successful and insightful meditation.
  
  One is a practice of surrendering and letting go of doership, the other is
  spiritual self inquiry (Who am I?). Basically Adyashanti is a teacher of
  self inquiry as well. Also, spiritual self inquiry is what led to
  Adyashanti's awakening. Quite a good book and contains detailed instructions
  for both parts of the meditation.
  
  As for AWA, it is a pretty good method that leads to the I AM experience. It
  is also a good method for those who have experienced the I AM to build up
  meditative strength and samadhi/absorption in the Self. However, as I said
  earlier, many methods lead to experiences and glimpses of recognition of the
  I AM/Eternal Witness, but they do not lead to the realization. For
  realization, you should practice self-inquiry.
  
  Last year I asked Thusness:
  
  (10:39 PM) Me: btw is it possible to experience I AMness without self
  inquiry? for example the person who wrote "awareness watching awareness"
  just focus on awareness alone then experienced I AMness. he didnt ask "who
  am i". but i tink "who am i" is v useful
  (10:43 PM) Thusness: it is possible but the sort it is a more gradual
  approach.  It will not have that sort of 'Eureka' factor.
   (10:45 PM) Thusness: the next step (into non-dual) is to bring this into
  the foreground by practicing bare attention of our body sensations.
  
  
  The Eureka factor is very important part for Realization. Self Inquiry is
  the Direct (not gradual) method to Self-Realization. The difference between
  experience and realization is written in
  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html
  
  - when I had had glimpses and recognitions since 2007 or 2008 of the I AM,
  those were not considered Realizations, not the realization of 'You' I
  articulated in the Who am I document.
  
  
  If you have a recognition of the Observer sort of experience, that is simply
  recognition, but not the Zen sort of Satori which comes in a form of
  realization - that is the I AM. An experience/recognition by itself does not
  mean realization.
  
  Regards
  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  19 Jun 10, 16:00

  
  --------------------------------------------------
  From:
  Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:04 PM
  To: AEN
  Subject: self-inquiry
  
  > AEN
  >
  >
  > Read your self-inquiry instruction again and have a question here.
  >
  > But right now, your body is alive and functioning well, so you next
  > time when you are walking or jogging on the street you can inquire on
  > 'Who is dragging this corpse along?' Certainly the corpse cannot walk
  > or move by itself without the power of the Source/Consciousness/Life.
  > What is this core/source of aliveness? Who is it?
  >
  > So you can do self inquiry in all kinds of situations: hearing a bird
  > chirping (or experiencing anything else), walking on the street, or
  > simply sitting meditation (just ask Before birth, Who am I?)
  >
  > How can you tell who, the ego or the Self, is doing and observing? I
  > believe all I know now is my ego. Everything is perceived, processed
  > and done by my ego. The ego knows the ego. The ego sees the things.
  > The ego does the things....
  >
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > J
  >

   

  Hi,
  
  What is the ego? Ego is defined as the false identification with mind and
  body and objects.
  
  I like what Daniel M. Ingram said about this:
  
  "ego is a process
  of identification, not a thing in and of itself. It is like a bad habit, but
  it
  doesn't exist as something that can be found. This is important, as this
  bad habit can quickly co-opt the language of egolessness and come up
  with phrases as absurd as: "I will destroy my ego!" But, not being a
  thing, it cannot be destroyed, but by understanding our bare experience,
  our minds, the process of identification can stop. Any thoughts with "I,"
  "me," "my" and "mine" in them should be understood to be just
  thoughts which come and go. This is not something you can talk
  yourself out of. You have to perceive things as they are to stop this
  process."
  
  
  So, ego is not a thing! But, it is a process, a process of mentally
  identifying perceived objects as 'me' or 'mine'. It is a conceptual
  fabrication of the mind. It is not natural. It is constructed. It is an
  illusion.
  
  However, what is the True Self?
  
  True Self is something that is unconstructed and natural, that is why
  Adyashanti talked about letting go of doership and surrendering. If you are
  still 'doing' something to your experience, trying to change it or whatever,
  it will never lead to realization. What leads to realization is to inquire
  and look into What am I?
  
  In the gap between two thoughts, when you ask 'Who am I?' There is a
  natural, unfabricated, lucid clarity and aliveness that is 'there' by
  default, doesn't move, is completely still, and is simply what You are.
  There will be no doubts if you experience/realize this, so doubts will not
  arise as to 'is this ego?' at that point at all. You just see it, it is
  utterly real, and there is no beliefs at that point: it is a non-conceptual
  knowing.
  
  This is different from the ego because the ego means a form of mental
  identification, or mentally constructed state of identification, but
  Awareness or True Self is what is naturally there - unconstructed - in the
  absence or presence of thoughts.
  
  Now, regarding "> How can you tell who, the ego or the Self, is doing and
  observing? I
  > believe all I know now is my ego. Everything is perceived, processed
  > and done by my ego. The ego knows the ego. The ego sees the things.
  > The ego does the things....
  >"
  
  This is just an assumption, and as you rightly say, 'a belief'. In truth however, it is just the opposite. Don't believe in your thoughts, question them.
  Investigate.
  
  Everything is perceived, processed, and done by and through
  Consciousness/Awareness. Awareness knows ego. Awareness sees things. Things
  are spontaneously arising through Awareness.
  
  There is no separate person that is a doer or perceiver of things. This is
  an illusory construct. You ARE Awareness, and through Awareness, everything
  is spontaneously perceived/accomplished.
  
  When you see an apple, does your awareness or eye say 'I see apple?' No, the
  'I see apple' is an after-thought. Does the thought 'I see apple' have the
  power of seeing the apple? No, Presence-Awareness is what is Seeing. 'I see
  apple' is merely an after-thought that separates an imaginary 'I' and an
  imaginary separate object 'apple'. The actual seeing precedes subject-object
  division, the actuality of it does not have a separate 'I' involved.
  
  Similarly, does thoughts or actions arise spontaneously or are you the
  doer/thinker of thoughts/actions? Can you know what your next moment of
  thought will be? No, you can't. Thoughts simply arise spontaneously on its
  own accord. Ditto to actions. All the causes and conditions come together
  and something pops up, but no separate doer/thinker/controller can be found.
  There is only conditioned and spontaneous arisings.
  
  The ego is simply false mental identification that will dissolve upon a bit
  of investigation where you see the illusori-ness of such mental clinging and
  constructs.
  
  The ego is not real and has no real power to 'do' or 'perceive' things at
  all. The 'ego' is simply an after-thought/after-identification of an actual
  act or perception. It is the identification of something done/perceived as
  'me' or 'mine' or perceived/done through a 'perceiver'/'doer' which is
  false.
  
  
  Regards
  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  20 Jun 10, 02:12

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIaY0l5qV0c&feature=player_embedded

  Jim Carrey's awakening

• An Eternal Now

  20 Jun 10, 02:34

  --------------------------------------------------
  From: J
  Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 2:07 AM
  To: AEN
  Subject: Re: self-inquiry
  
  > When you talk to an ordinary unenlightened person who has no knowledge
  > of spiritual literature, if he says it is me who is doing and seeing,
  > you probably would tell him "that me" is not the Self. I am just
  > another ordinary unenlightened person except I have some exposure to
  > spiritual literature so I labeled "that me" as the ego.
  >

  Right. Certainly, the "me" that people usually think of would be their mind,
  their body, their personality. In fact they don't know of anything beyond
  that in their lives.
  
  So they think that they (as personalities) are in control of their lives or
  are experiencers of their life.
  
  That is of course... until they do serious spiritual inquiry and discover
  who they really are.
  
  That ego is certainly not true, it cannot be found. Just investigate in your
  own experience and you see that whatever you labeled as 'me' is in fact, not
  you at all. They are simply more transient thoughts and feelings arising in
  the field of awareness, they come and go. What we perceive as an individual
  person, or a personality, at the center of lives... simply is more patterns
  of thoughts, actions, feelings, behavior arising in the field of awareness.
  There isn't a 'me' actually. 'That me' that sentient beings identify with is
  actually not a 'me' at all. It is only impersonal thoughts, feelings,
  sensations arising and subsiding momentarily in the field of awareness without any
  substantiality or separate doer, they are only effortless/spontaneous
  expression of One Life. You clearly see that we are not separate selves
  living our lives, but we are all being lived as an effortless expression of
  One Life.
  
  Seeing this, what you labeled as 'me' is seen to not have any existence in
  the first place. There is no separate 'me' in control of their lives, there
  is no separate 'me' experiencing their life. This 'separate me' is a figment
  of imagination, it is a made-up entity that cannot be found or located, and
  has no power to perceive, act, or control anything.
  
  But does that mean you do not exist? Your Being, your sense of Existence, is
  undoubtedly present, and Aware. You will not be able to doubt it, I.e. your
  existence. If you do self-inquiry, 'Who am I?' sooner or later you will
  eventually see/realize what this is all about, you will find what you truly
  are.
  
  Don't see your self as an unenlightened person (and likewise even if you
  realize your Self, don't see yourself as an enlightened person), because
  both images are illusory images of ego (false self identification). In other
  words, if you even start to say that you are a 'person', you have believed
  in a lie fabricated by the mind. You are not a person (whether enlightened
  or unenlightened). You are Awareness only (and even this is not true on a
  mental level - that is, if the mind believes in this statement and make it into a
  mental/egoic identification). This can only be known intuitively through
  direct investigation.
  
  Regards
  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  20 Jun 10, 10:25

  
  --------------------------------------------------
  From: J
  Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 2:47 AM
  To: AEN
  Subject: Re: self-inquiry
  
  > Actually, I have kept telling myself about the illusion you just
  > described all the time. I know all of this, but just can't break
  > through the illusion and see the truth directly.
  
  &
  
  If I tell you that I have read what you just said and have said many
  many times in the books I read or from internet, what should I do
  next?
  
  &
  
  Please feel free to post my questions and answers in your forum. Yes,
  please remove my identity.
  
  As you know, I didn't really start doing some practice until recently.
  I understand that waking up is a personal work according to most of
  the spiritual teachers and writers I read. Just ask and see if you and
  Thusness might have some different view or shortcut. :)  For me,
  spending 15 years reading and searching the truth was quite grueling
  experience. It is like the dog chasing its own tail: finding no way
  out and can't stop doing so. I went to several spiritual retreats in
  America before because the followers said their teachers are able to
  awaken a student. But I didn't wake up and found their students'
  experiences are quite shallow after talking to them.
  
  I have some email exchanges with Anadi:
  http://www.anaditeaching.com/teachingintro5.htm
  
  He said:
  
  You must awaken and find who you are.  Go and learn, experiment,
  meditate.  If a teacher cannot awaken you in his first meeting with
  you, this means that either he is not a real teacher, or that you
  yourself are spiritually immature.
  
  
  He is kind of my last hope so far, but I haven't been able to attend
  his retreat due to time conflict.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  J

  ------------------

  Hi,
  
  You will have to do self inquiry... it is the direct path to Seeing. By the
  way I can see from your posts that you really 'yearn' for enlightenment, and
  this is also in my experience for quite some time in the past - seeking
  after some sort of 'event' or 'experience' (well even now these concepts may
  pop up due to habit but aren't taken so seriously anymore because it is seen
  that the truth of Being lies not in a future/past experience but is an
  experiential *fact* shining in plain view). This is a good sign and is an
  indication that you are now yearning to know and get to the bottom of
  knowing Who You Are. However, try not to rush through the process of
  self-inquiry in hopes of/expectations of gaining enlightenment quickly or
  gaining anything at all. Don't hold on to any expectations, because any
  holding is going to distract you from the truth of your Being, not to
  mention very painful as well. Do it slowly and patiently. It's actually good
  (even important and necessary) to have a yearning to know the truth, but
  direct that yearning/attention to Being Itself. What you want is to know and
  get intimate with (not that you ever left it) the truth of your Being, not
  'gaining a state of enlightenment' which leads to chasing after illusory
  future events and causes you to overlook your immediate ever-present
  timeless Truth. After all this is only about the already-present naked
  Truth of your Being, and nothing else.
  
  Anything else is mind-made illusions, it is not the Truth. What you want is
  the Truth. 'Enlightenment' is simply the ever-present truth of your Being,
  it is not a future (or past) event happening to someone (which is an
  illusion). This is the problem with people giving you expectations, and why
  I am hesitant and reluctant to even mention things like 'enlightenment
  should happen to you in xx months or years if you do this' because it sets
  up false hopes and expectations and illusions to dwell in. All these
  statements presume the reality of time and separate persons and are merely
  appearances or 'relative truths', but can be easily and mistakenly grasped
  as 'ultimate truth'. However, I did mention that to let you know that
  self-realization is definitely possible and is not a distant thing, so there
  is no reason to be disheartened because you have spent the last 15 years
  intellectualizing over these and not found the answer (because you are
  looking at your conceptualizing mind and not the Self)... now you have the
  key, simply apply it and investigate your own direct experience to find out
  who/what you truly are, and the truth will be 'revealed' (as it always has,
  so self-evidently and clearly present right now, aware and perceiving these
  words) in no time.
  
  I really like a certain quotation from a (very old and
  authoritative) Dzogchen text/tantra that I feel is relevant here,
  
  "The desire for happiness is the disease of attachment; one can be happy
  only when free of desires. Realization is not achieved by striving for it;
  it arises spontaneously when one abides in the natural state without seeking
  anything. So remain in the natural state without seeking, without concepts!
  Even though the name "enlightenment" is used for the real nature, this does
  not mean that "enlightenment" concretely exists. If someone believes the
  opposite, [let them go ahead and try to find] enlightenment: apart from the
  dimension of fundamental reality, they will find nothing at all. So, instead
  of aiming for enlightenment, one has to understand the nature of one's mind
  beyond action. On examining one's mind, one finds nothing, yet at the same
  time there is clarity that is ever present. It does not manifest concretely,
  yet its essence is all pervading: this is the way its nature presents
  itself."
  
  ~ The Supreme Source
  
  Try to have a habit of meditating 20 to 45 minutes per day. Consistency is
  key.
  
  By the way regarding the 'short cuts' email, I will still check with
  Thusness on his opinion on the matter... but as far as I know, there is no
  short
  cut in spirituality. But at the same time Thusness has told me years ago,
  self inquiry is a short cut to realization. Both are true. Self Inquiry is
  in fact the short cut (Thusness calls it 'direct path' in contrast to
  'gradual path') to self-realization, it leads to realizing your luminous
  essence very quickly. However the first realization of I
  AM does not mean it is the end of the path - there is a gradual deepening of
  insight through integrating non-duality and anatta and emptiness just as
  described in the Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment.
  In other words there is a process of refining insights and view. So in this
  way, there is no 'short cut' - everyone will have to go through a process
  that often takes several years and decades... even though it is true that
  Self Inquiry can lead to a sudden awakening of our true self very quickly.
  
  Even that however, usually takes months or up to a few years of sincere
  practice. It isn't so much of the amount of time - nobody can tell you how
  long it will take. However I notice that a very strong desire to know and
  penetrate the truth of your being, as well as knowing the right way to
  practice (not intellectualizing things but a Direct looking/exploration of
  the nature of your Being), is going to make self inquiry successful.
  
  However, I will relay your message to him and see what he replies you.
  
  p.s. "If a teacher cannot awaken you in his first meeting with
  you, this means that either he is not a real teacher, or that you
  yourself are spiritually immature." by Anadi
  
  Is very true, however, most of us are 'spiritually immature' because
  'maturity' means many factors like investigation, past insights and
  experience, deep interest in truth, possibly/probably conditions and factors
  from past lives... all coming together and makes a student 'ripe for
  picking' by the master. Seldom do you hear of people who are spontaneously
  woken up by a teacher upon their first meeting (though it happens), however
  I have heard of many people who woke up after years of practicing... then,
  when they are ripe, all the master has to do is to point them out, sometimes
  just hitting them with their shoes, sometimes hitting them on their head, or
  just a short pointer, and everything falls into picture. Sometimes if the
  person is ripe no teacher is even necessary (but he/she would probably have
  trained for years under a teacher previously) - all it takes is a sound or a
  sight, pebbles hitting each other, something fell down, bell sounded, a cup
  broke, or just seeing something... that is how many Zen masters of the past got enlightened. Much like how Thusness got enlightened after hearing the 'Tonggg'. They were ready, and so a Master, or a sound, a sight, is all it takes to wake them
  up. But what is often not mentioned is that they often have a history of
  spiritual inquiry and practice and that is why they are 'ripe' at that
  particular moment.
  
  Sometimes they are already ripe... but what is lacking is a true teacher to
  point them out. Often however, we start as beginners, 'unripe'. For
  example... Someone in my forum by the name of JonLS realized non-duality
  simply by reading a phrase written by Thusness, 'Manifestation is Source'.
  Thusness wrote to him because he knew that JonLS is 'ripe', his conditions
  were there for certain insights to arise, just needed some pointers. All it
  took was a few posts, a few days of conversation in the forum since they
  ever knew each other, and it 'happened'. My Taiwanese teacher woke up 4 days
  after meeting my Master (he was already ripe then - and my Master knew he
  was coming even before he arrived, and said upon his first meeting 'you have
  finally come!' as if he knew him before - which is true, because they had
  Master-Student relationship even from past lives and both were abbots and
  Zen masters of a Zen monastery in Kyoto, Japan in their past lives). For me
  however, it has been years
  since I knew Thusness and my dharma teachers and Master but I am only only beginning to scratch the surface.
  That is the difference.
  
  BTW, it is often the case that a teacher may be able to lead even beginner
  students to a spontaneous recognition of their true nature simply by
  pointing out instructions. However, a deep and lasting realization will not
  usually come so fast. But the 'recognitions' eventually leads to the
  'realization'. Again, 'recognition' and 'realization' are different
  as I discussed earlier. As discussed here, even Ramana Maharshi's first experience at age 16 is a form of 'recognition' arising after a process of inference, but that is still not the direct experience/realization of the Self. That arose afterwards, so we can say that his initial recognition led on to the realization.
  
  FYI. Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment was written originally for JonLS,
  after JonLS requested Thusness to share his experiences. I posted it later
  into my blog as I felt (and some others as well) that it was quite important
  and better to be well documented.
  
  Regards
  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  20 Jun 10, 10:58

  
  --------------------------------------------------
  From: J
  Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 9:25 AM
  To: AEN
  Subject: Re: (updated) Re: self-inquiry
  
  > AEN
  >
  >
  > I think my problem is I didn't do enough practice. I should practice
  > as earnest as I did for intellectual pursue. Treat it is like pursing
  > a career or chasing a woman. I guess. :)
  >
  > Since you mentioned True Meditation, Actually Adya's Meditative
  > Self-Inquiry is a little bit different from your self-inquiry if I
  > read it correctly. His SI is the same as Jed McKenna's Spiritual
  > Autolysis. Both uses the discriminative power to eliminate false
  > beliefs so that in the end the truth will shine itself. If this is
  > true, I have another question here: is discriminative power part of
  > Awareness and not some illusory existence?
  >
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > J
  
  &
  
  I meant I should be earnest in practice but setting no goal or not
  expecting any end result according to you and other teachers.

  ------------------

  Hi,
  
  Both Adya and the self-inquiry I'm talking about are essentially exactly the
  same thing.
  
  I am not so sure of Jed McKenna's Spiritual Autolysis, haven't really read it.
  
  But Adyashanti is basically asking 'What am I?'
  
  By dropping everything else, he describes tracing back to Awareness itself,
  or whatever remains after everything else is dropped.
  
  The 'discrimination' is not a mental discrimination, it is simply the
  discrimination between Self and not-Self, in other words by
  rejecting/letting go of whatever is not-Self, what remains is Self which is
  beyond discrimination. But this is not a mental rejection. For example, a
  thought arises, "I am J", then in spiritual self inquiry you
  discriminate and know that the thought "I am J" is not your true Self
  and is merely an arising thought and label, so you simply let go of it and
  continue inquiring. This kind of 'discrimination' is important in any
  self-inquiry (whether Adya, or Ramana Maharshi, or Master Hsu Yun, or
  whomever) because otherwise you will continue identifying with whatever you
  identify with as your self and not progressing in your inquiry. But as you
  can see it is not a mental discrimination or labeling 'this is not true
  self', rather, it is simply a spontaneous seeing and letting go. But that doesn't
  mean you forcefully try to get rid of your experiences or your thoughts,
  that is too much contrivance and doesn't help, rather you simply notice that
  whatever you identify as your self is not in fact who you Truly are. That is
  enough. To see the false as false is enough, you will naturally stop believe
  in them - the stories/ego/false identifications. As Nisargadatta puts it -
  "Truth can be expressed only by the denial of the false -in action. For
  this, you must see the false as false (viveka) and reject it (vairagya).
  Renunciation of the false is liberating and energizing. It lays open the
  road to perfection. (314)"
  
  It is also not an intellectual exercise because intellectual exercise gets
  you nowhere. The discrimination part simply aids in the letting go of the
  not-Self so that what is your True Self can manifest. But ultimately what
  you are interested to know is your True Self, the emphasis is to know the
  positive truth of your nature, not the 'neti neti' part which is endless and
  inconclusive and doesn't resolve the issue (but merely is an aid to let go
  of the false - but don't fall into the mistake of endlessly labeling every
  experience as not-self and not looking into the nature of Being which is the
  main point), but knowing your True Self resolves the issue because no doubts
  can arise any more after you experience the Certainty of Being. So don't
  mentally look for things to reject, simply look into what you truly are,
  but if thoughts arise that says 'I am this or that' simply let go of them as
  'neti neti' through the 'discriminative power' you mentioned and continue
  your inquiry. Do note that this is meant to be an 'experiential inquiry', it
  is to look directly in your experience to realize your true Self itself.
  
  Here is what Adyashanti said about his self-inquiry,
  
  "...this "I" is not what the mind thinks it is. Meditative self-inquiry
  allows you to discover for yourself who and what this "I" really is. I call
  it "meditative self-inquiry" because it is very experiential. It is not
  philosophical. It is not intellectual. Here, "meditative" means
  "experiential." Inquiry is only powerful when it is meditative, when we are
  looking in a sustained and focused and quiet way into our own experience."
  
  This is what Ramana Maharshi taught as well, or what Master Hsu Yun and
  others taught as well. It's all the same.
  
  And yes, earnestness to know Truth, while not clinging to expectations...
  this is an important attitude.
  
  Regards
  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  20 Jun 10, 11:32

  
  --------------------------------------------------
  From: J
  Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 10:14 AM
  To: AEN
  Subject: Re: (updated) Re: self-inquiry
  
  > AEN,
  >
  >
  > Both Adya and Jed McKenna propose 2-step model for enlightenment process.
  >
  > Adya: 1st awakening, 2nd awakening/enlightenment
  > Jed: 1st step, done
  >
  > Both stress the 1st step/awakening is very important. After that,
  > reaching the final awakening is just a matter of time and inevitable.
  > It is like after something is very hard to break, but once you crack a
  > hole, the task becomes much easier. That said, 1st step is the most
  > elusive and there is no guarantee that would happen regardless of how
  > much effort is spent. That is why some teachers even say: "Awakening
  > is a gift, the supreme act of grace from the divine."
  >
  > I think what you said about 'recognition'(initial glimpses) and
  > 'realization'  is equivalent to the above model. Correct?
  >
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > J

   

  Hi,
  
  I am not too sure. It could be that Adyashanti was describing two distinct
  realizations. It could also be the recognition/realization issue.
  
  By the way... I don't like to call anything 'final awakening'. Even
  Adyashanti is only beginning to penetrate the depths of Non-Dual (Stage 4 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment),
  IMO, as of the most recent book. Some of his earlier books and expressions
  were rather dualistic. And even now the Anatta and Emptiness part is still
  not clear. Nevertheless, this is no matter because there are valuable things
  to be learnt from no matter what level of insight they have. I still like to
  read Eckhart Tolle sometimes even though it is on the I AM.
  
  Do watch this short video by Vishrant because it is very important:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQMhKJ_nPMk
  
  In this video, Vishrant said, "the teachers that are flying in and out and
  telling people they are awake are actually misleading people. The terrible
  side of that is when somebody is told they are awake, the ego grasps it and
  says, 'I am awake', and then stop seeking, and then these people stop
  looking because they think they've already found. So it cuts off their
  chances for ongoing awakening. It's very sad."
  
  Very important point.
  
  Also, what he said is true about self-inquiry because self-inquiry and
  'turning the light within' only leads to I AM (and in his own words, only
  the 'first day in kindergarten'), but what Vishrant is saying is the way
  that leads to non-dual realization.
  
  However, go through self-inquiry first. Then when your I AM insight matures
  (via the four aspects of I AM in the earlier email), gradually progress to
  non-dual (and further) insights.
  
  But no matter, a progression of insights is inevitable if one is earnest in
  practice, and of course avoiding early conclusions like 'I am awake', etc.
  
  Regards
  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  20 Jun 10, 14:27

  --------------------------------------------------
  From: J
  Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:44 PM
  To: AEN
  Subject: I am the universe
  
  > AEN
  >
  >
  > Thanks for your kind pointers!
  >
  >
  > I saw you post Jim Carrey's video in your post. I first saw his videos
  > in David's blog:
  > http://in2deep.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/i-am-the-stadium/
  >
  > Interesting to see all of the awakened people are saying the same things.
  >
  > Jim Carrey said: I am the Universe.
  >
  > Nisargadatta said:
  >
  > Your world is personal, private, unshareable, intimately your own.
  > Nobody can enter it, see as you see, hear as you hear.. In your world
  > you are truely alone, enclosed in your ever-changing dream, which you
  > take for life.
  >
  > Do you agree what Nisargadatta said?
  >
  >
  > Again on Onesness or I am everything. It seems the Universe or the
  > dream is created by the Self. All awakened people say they are the
  > Self, but at the same time they also say they don't know what would
  > happen in next moment. It sounds like there is still a division out
  > there(part of the Self doing observation and part of the Self doing
  > creation) and does this contract with Oneness? Another paradox?
  > another thing cannot be comprehended by mind?
  >
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  > J
  >

  Hi,
  
  No, what Jim Carrey said and what Nisargadatta said is different.
  
  Jim Carrey's 'I am the Universe' is not 'personal, private, unshareable'.
  
  Nisargadatta is saying that we are locked in our private dream and
  imagination, so we are unable to realise Universal Consciousness which he
  did. In dreams we can dream a thousand different things, each person have
  their own individual dreams and who knows what they are dreaming, but when
  they wake up, 'they' see only One.
  
  Jim Carrey is talking about the I AM, the universal I AMness which he
  experienced.
  
  So, it is spoken on different contexts.
  
  Nobody knows what will happen next, even enlightened sages, because nobody
  is a separate controller of life... as I have discussed earlier, everything
  emerges spontaneously. The mind is an emergence or subset of
  Life/Consciousness, and hence the mind (even of enlightened beings) will not
  be able to comprehend the totality/workings of Life. The Self is universal and infinite, but the mind (the part that doesn't know what will happen) is a finite subset and therefore cannot comprehend Totality, and hence this is not contradictory at all. But what you can feel is the connection with the Will of the Universe, that you are one with the workings of Totality and you are the very expression of the Will of the Universe.

  That Self/Consciousness manifests the universe does
  not mean you are consciously creating the universe through volition, it is
  nothing like that. Rather, it is saying that the universe emerges as it has
  to *regardless* of your intention - sound of bird chirping is spontaneously
  perceived through Awareness, whether you want to or not. Smell of garbage is
  registered in Awareness whether you want to or not, when the conditions
  (like wind, garbage, etc) are there. Both the 'observing' and
  'manifesting/creating' part of Consciousness are happening spontaneously *on
  its own accord*. There is no such thing as an individual observer or an individual creator/controller/doer. There is only Universal Awareness observing and manifesting spontaneously on its own accord, and the so called 'individual' and 'mind' is not an observer or doer: it is merely arising observed perceptions, and an arising perception cannot perceive nor create/control. It is not the case that there is a division between the 'Self doing' and the 'Self observing', since it is equally the Universal Consciousness that is doing (manifesting) and observing and no individual doers or observers can be found.
  
  You are being lived by One Life, you as an apparent individual person is a
  manifestation/emergence of Life, and hence we are not separate selves living
  our life. Everything spontaneously emerges according to various conditions.
  Sure, you can predict how conditions may play out much like weather
  forecasters, but you cannot control it, you are not a separate doer of it.
  But this is not fatalism/determinism. You/Life may very well 'do something' to
  change the conditions, but even the 'actions to change the conditions' is
  the 'being done', not the 'doer'. There are no doers.
  
  Consciousness is manifesting and observing simultaneously. 'It' manifests as
  various experiences (though having the same nature/essence, aka One Taste),
  and its manifestation is its observation. The observer is the observed.
  There is only One.
  
  As Steven Norquist said:
  
  "You see, with enlightenment comes the knowledge that even though there is
  much activity in the world, there are no doers. The universe is in a sense,
  lifeless. There is no one, only happenings and the experience of happenings.
  Enlightenment reveals that the universe emerges spontaneously. It's
  emergence and pattern are perfect in mathematics and symmetry and involve no
  chance. Nothing is random, everything emerges exactly as it has to. There is
  no random chance, or evolution based on chance. The universe is perfect,
  nothing is wrong or could be. There seems to be chance or unpredictability
  from a human perspective but that is only because our time frame reference
  can not see the universe emerge through its whole life span in a matter of
  minutes. If we could see that, then we would clearly see how every event was
  not only perfect and necessary but even predictable.
  
  Now lets summarize so far, the universe is perfect, no one exists, yet the
  experience "universe" persists. How can this be? Consciousness.
  Consciousness is aware. If it were not, then there would be no universe. The
  very nature of existence implies consciousness. One can not exist without
  the other."
  
  - http://www.spiritualteachers.org/norquist_article.htm
  
  Regards
  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  21 Jun 10, 04:56

   

  From: J

  Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 2:37 PM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: I am the universe

   

  AEN,
  
  
  Thanks! You answer is much better/clear than several other people I talked to.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  J

  Hi,

   

  No prob.. interesting questions and I've edited my post a little to refine the explanation. But anyway, all these are explanations.... don’t get too caught up in intellectualizing them. It gets much simpler in direct seeing.
  

   

  http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/390582?page=5#post_9857029

   

  Regards

  AEN
  

   

  
  --------------------------------------------------
  From: J
  Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 2:49 PM
  To: AEN
  Subject: Re: I am the universe
  
  > You may very well 'do something' to change the conditions, but even
  > the 'actions to change the conditions' is the 'being done', not the
  > 'doer'.
  >
  > This is the most confusing part. Do you think an unenlightened person
  > is ever able to understand this?
  >
  >

  Hi,
  
  It can certainly be confusing to the mind but it is much simpler in direct seeing. My advice is to investigate and see through the sense of doership. Then everything will be clear. Actions, intentions, continue to arise in response to conditions as before, nothing changes on that level of appearance... but there is no notion or sense of a
  separate doer.
  
  Regards

  AEN

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 1:59 AM

  To: AEN

  Subject: lazy

  AEN,
  
  
  Sorry to keep bombarding you with questions.
  
  Just read Steve Norquist's article you referred.
  
  He said:
  
  Enlightenment tends to make one quite lazy.
  
  
  I have heard this from several other awakened people too. Do you feel the same way? If not, why is there such discrepancy among awakened people? According to you, Thusness is a successful businessman. He must be still very energetic as opposed to lazy. Maybe "Everything spontaneously emerges according to various conditions." is the explanation.
  
  Any other comments about Steve Norquist's views?
  
  
  Regards,
  
  J

  Thusness answered your questions in his comments on this article 3 years ago - http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/19/topics/241213

  
  

  Anyway don't worry about sending in questions :)
  
• An Eternal Now

  21 Jun 10, 16:13

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:31 AM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: lazy

  Thank a lot!
  
  Your self-inquiry instruction is almost like a hint. It is rather hard for low-intelligent people like to comprehend and follow. :) RM and Adya also gave out instructions like yours. Could you give a couple of examples and describe the detailed steps you do self-inquiry from the beginning to the end?
  
  For example,
  
  Hear a bird chirping
  Who hear that?
  It is me.
  No.
  .......

  
  

  Hi,

   

  Steps are not necessary in self inquiry, because this method is meant to cut through all steps, thought-inference-process, conceptualizations, to directly awaken to your True Self. This is why Koan and Zen is known as the method and school of Sudden or Instantaneous Awakening, not gradual or step-by-step awakening. This is the Direct Path.

   

  For example,

   

  Hear a bird chirping.

  What/who is hearing?

  (silence)

   

  Silence means you aren't trying to answer the question using your mind (because the answer cannot be found there - the more you try to figure out with your mind the more time is wasted because you are looking at the wrong direction), but instead you are directly looking at 'What Hears' and experiencing your True Self, your Hearing-Nature/Pure Awareness. The inner cognizer (I AM) turns within and cognizes itself, it's true nature.
  

  
  

  The pure silence underneath the sound is your true nature, but it is not an inert nothingness, in fact not even silence as such, but more accurately a featureless wide-awake space which perceives all sounds, all sights, all thoughts, etc. It cannot be understood by the mind. You have to trace the hearing, the radiance, the seeing, to its Source.

   

  If you truly and successfully traced all perceptions to its Source, you will realize and experience a Certainty of Being, an undeniability of your very Consciousness which is formless and intangible but at the same time a most solid self-evident fact of your being.

  
  

  However if during the process of self-inquiry a thought arise like "could this be it, what is Awareness, etc", just ignore the thought, don't attempt to answer them using the mind/logic, but continue turning the light around, asking "Who am I" or "Who is aware of the thought?" and so on. Turn away from all doubts to the Doubtless Certainty/Undeniability of Being/Consciousness, and all your doubts and questions are resolved in an instant.

  
  

  As Jason Swason said:

  
  

  By turning the attention to the mind, immediately there are doubts. More thoughts rush in to question the questions, confirm or contradict other thoughts. A maddening cycle...

  
  Notice when thoughts are paused there are no doubts; the certainty of (doubtless)Being is obviously present; the unquestionable FACT of EXISTENCE. Notice that the Being is ALWAYS presently shining, effortlessly and spontaneously. Stay with that undeniable non-conceptual confidence. Your Being has always been present for every single experience. That natural cognition in which all experiences arise is not a person.

  
  Be as you ARE and not what you imagine yourself to be.
  
  

  
  

  And as Ramana Maharshi instructed:

   

  If other thoughts arise, one should, without attempting to complete them, enquire, 'To whom did they occur?' What does it matter if ever so many thoughts arise? At the very moment that each thought rises, if one vigilantly enquires 'To whom did this appear?' it will be known 'To me'. If one then enquires 'Who am I?' the mind will turn back to its source and the thought that had arisen will also subside. By repeatedly practising in this way, the mind will increasingly acquire the power to abide at its source. When the mind, which is subtle, is externalised via the brain and the sense organs, names and forms, which are material, appear. When it abides in the Heart, names and forms disappear. Keeping the mind in the Heart, not allowing it to go out, is called 'facing the Self' or 'facing inwards'. Allowing it to go out from the Heart is termed 'facing outwards' When the mind abides in the Heart in this way, the 'I', the root of all thoughts, [vanishes]. Having vanished, the ever-existing Self alone will shine. The state where not even the slightest trace of the thought 'I' remains is alone swarupa [one's real nature]. This alone is called mauna [silence]. Being still in this way can alone be called jnana drishti [seeing through true knowledge]. Making the mind subside into the Self is 'being still'. On the other hand, knowing the thoughts of others, knowing the three times [past present and future] and knowing events in distant places - these can never be jnana drishti. 

   

   

  Don't try to comprehend the process intellectually. Don't stop at any thought-conclusion, like "to me" (which is simply an inferred thought), but trace all thoughts and perceptions to its source by asking "Who am I?" to discover your True Self. Spending more time trying to figure out how this works in the mind is just going to prevent you from directly realizing and experiencing your True Mind. The purpose is to trace the radiance back to the source, then abide at the Source as Ramana Maharshi said. This is what I warned you earlier (as I know you will have such doubts and questions which I myself did earlier on):

   

  http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/390582?page=4#post_9849278

   

  Nevertheless, the method is indeed important to give rise to realization. Any method that leads to realization must be direct - means it must be a means that makes a practitioner bypass all the mind's conceptualizations and inference processes which are all indirect and secondary (which is not a direct realization and experience of your true essence and hence leaves doubts), so that you can touch directly and with certainty the essence of your Being without intermediary. On hindsight there was a period when I first started practicing self-inquiry where I was still intellectualizing about this, like how should I practice self inquiry, what does asking 'Before birth Who am I' mean and leads to, etc, which are all sidetracks and distractions because it is still using the mind and indirect inference and hence not a 'direct' approach to realize the essence of Being.

  
  

  So do beware of intellectualizing these things, because it will not lead to Self-Realization - only the direct approach to investigate and look (a non-conceptual exploration) into the essence of Self leads to realization.

   

   

  Don't worry about doing it the wrong way, if you keep asking 'Who am I?' and turn the light around to its Source instead of intellectualizing it or following the mind, you are certainly on the right path.

   

  Anyway I don't know if you read this before, you probably did, but anyway here's a good article by Ken Wilber:

   

  There are many things that I can doubt, but I cannot doubt my own consciousness in this moment. My consciousness IS, and even if I tried to doubt it, it would be my consciousness doubting. I can imagine that my senses are being presented with a fake reality – say, a completely virtual reality or digital reality, which looks real but is merely a series of extremely realist images. But even then, I cannot doubt the consciousness that is doing the watching…
  
  The very undeniability of my present awareness, the undeniability of my consciousness, immediately delivers to me a certainty of existence in this moment, a certainty of Being in the now-ness of this moment. I cannot doubt consciousness and Being in this moment, for it is the ground of all knowing, all seeing, all existing…
  
  Who am I? Ask that question over and over again, deeply. Who am I? What is it in me that is conscious of everything?
  
  If you think that you know Spirit, or if you think you don’t, Spirit is actually that which is thinking both of those thoughts. So you can doubt the objects of consciousness, but you can never believably doubt the doubter, never really doubt the Witness of the entire display. Therefore, rest in the Witness, whether it is thinking that it knows God or not, and that witnessing, that undeniable immediacy of now-consciousness, is itself God, Spirit, Buddha-mind. The certainty lies in the pure self-felt Consciousness to which objects appear, not in the objects themselves. You will never, never, never see God, because God is the Seer, not any finite, mortal, bounded object that can be seen…
  
  This pure I AM state is not hard to achieve but impossible to escape, because it is ever present and can never really be doubted. You can never run from Spirit, because Spirit is the Runner. To put it very bluntly, Spirit is not hard to find but impossible to avoid: it is that which is looking at this page right now. Can’t you feel That One? Why on earth do you keep looking for God when God is actually the Looker?
  
  Simply ask, Who am I? Who am I? Who am I?
  
  I am aware of my feelings, so I am not my feelings – Who am I? I am aware of my thoughts, so I am not my thoughts – Who am I? Clouds float by in the sky, thoughts float by in the mind, feelings float by in the body – and I am none of those because I can Witness them all.
  
  Moreover, I can doubt that clouds exist, I can doubt that feelings exist, I can doubt that objects of thought exist – but I cannot doubt that the Witness exists in this moment, because the Witness would still be there to witness the doubt.
  
  I am not objects in nature, not feelings in the body, not thoughts in the mind, for I can Witness them all. I am that Witness – a vast, spacious, empty, clear, pure, transparent Openness that impartially notices all that arises, as a mirror spontaneously reflects all its objects…
  
  You can already feel some of this Great Liberation in that, as you rest in the ease of witnessing this moment, you already feel that you are free from the suffocating constriction of mere objects, mere feelings, mere thoughts – they all come and go, but you are that vast, free, empty, open Witness of them all, untouched by their torments and tortures.
  
  This is actually the profound discovery of… the pure divine Self, the formless Witness, causal nothingness, the vast Emptiness in which the entire world arises, stays a bit, and passes. And you are That. You are not the body, not the ego, not nature, not thoughts, not this, not that – you are a vast Emptiness, Freedom, Release, and Liberation.
  
  With this discovery… you are halfway home. You have disidentified from any and all finite objects; you rest as infinite Consciousness. You are free, open, empty, clear, radiant, released, liberated, exalted, drenched in a blissful emptiness that exists prior to space, prior to time, prior to tears and terror, prior to pain and mortality and suffering and death. You have found the great Unborn, the vast Abyss, the unqualifiable Ground of all that is, and all that was, and all that ever shall be.
  
  But why is that only halfway home? Because as you rest in the infinite ease of consciousness, spontaneously aware of all that is arising, there will soon enough come the great catastrophe of Freedom and Fullness: the Witness itself will disappear entirely, and instead of witnessing the sky, you are the sky; instead of touching the earth, you are the earth; instead of hearing the thunder, you are the thunder. You and the entire Kosmos because One Taste – you can drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp, hold Mt. Everest in the palm of your hand; supernovas swirl in your heart and the solar system replaces your head…
  
  You are One Taste, the empty mirror that is one with any and all objects that arise in its embrace, a mindlessly vast translucent expanse: infinite, eternal, radiant beyond release. And you… are… That…
  
  So the primary Cartesian dualism – which is simply the dualism between… in here and out there, subject and object, the empty Witness and all things witnessed – is finally undone and overcome in nondual One Taste. Once you actually and fully contact the Witness, then – and only then – can it be transcended into radical Nonduality, and halfway home becomes fully home, here in the ever-present wonder of what is…
  
  And so how do you know that you have finally and really overcome the Cartesian dualism? Very simple: if you really overcome the Cartesian dualism, then you no longer feel that you are on this side of your face looking at the world out there. There is only the world, and you are all of that; you actually feel that you are one with everything that is arising moment to moment. You are not merely on this side of your face looking out there. “In here” and “out there” have become One Taste with a shuddering obviousness and certainty so profound it feels like a five-ton rock just dropped on your head. It is, shall we say, a feeling hard to miss.
  
  At that point, which is actually your ever-present condition, there is no exclusive identity with this particular organism, no constriction of consciousness to the head, a constriction that makes it seem that “you” are in the head looking at the rest of the world out there; there is no binding of attention to the personal bodymind: instead, consciousness is one with all that is arising – a vast, open, transparent, radiant, infinitely Free and infinitely Full expanse that embraces the entire Kosmos, so that every single subject and every single object are erotically united in the Great Embrace of One Taste. You disappear from merely being behind your eyes, and you become the All, you directly and actually feel that your basic identity is everything that is arising moment to moment (just as previously you felt that your identity was with this finite, partial, separate, mortal coil of flesh you call a body). Inside and outside have become One Taste. I tell you, it can happen just like that!
  
  (Source: Boomeritis, Sidebar E: “The Genius Descartes Gets a Postmodern Drubbing: Integral Historiography in a Postmodern Age”. More to be found in The Simple Feeling of Being, a collection of Ken Wilber’s inspirational, mystical and instructional passages drawn from his publications, based on his experiences.)

   

   

  Regards

  AEN
• An Eternal Now

  21 Jun 10, 22:11

  
  Previously:

  p.s. "If a teacher cannot awaken you in his first meeting with
  you, this means that either he is not a real teacher, or that you
  yourself are spiritually immature." by Anadi
  
  Is very true, however, most of us are 'spiritually immature' because
  'maturity' means many factors like investigation, past insights and
  experience, deep interest in truth, possibly/probably conditions and factors
  from past lives... all coming together and makes a student 'ripe for
  picking' by the master. Seldom do you hear of people who are spontaneously
  woken up by a teacher upon their first meeting (though it happens), however
  I have heard of many people who woke up after years of practicing... then,
  when they are ripe, all the master has to do is to point them out, sometimes
  just hitting them with their shoes, sometimes hitting them on their head, or
  just a short pointer, and everything falls into picture. Sometimes if the
  person is ripe no teacher is even necessary (but he/she would probably have
  trained for years under a teacher previously) - all it takes is a sound or a
  sight, pebbles hitting each other, something fell down, bell sounded, a cup
  broke, or just seeing something... that is how many Zen masters of the past got enlightened. Much like how Thusness got enlightened after hearing the 'Tonggg'. They were ready, and so a Master, or a sound, a sight, is all it takes to wake them
  up. But what is often not mentioned is that they often have a history of
  spiritual inquiry and practice and that is why they are 'ripe' at that
  particular moment.
  
  Sometimes they are already ripe... but what is lacking is a true teacher to
  point them out. Often however, we start as beginners, 'unripe'. For
  example... Someone in my forum by the name of JonLS realized non-duality
  simply by reading a phrase written by Thusness, 'Manifestation is Source'.
  Thusness wrote to him because he knew that JonLS is 'ripe', his conditions
  were there for certain insights to arise, just needed some pointers. All it
  took was a few posts, a few days of conversation in the forum since they
  ever knew each other, and it 'happened'. My Taiwanese teacher woke up 4 days
  after meeting my Master (he was already ripe then - and my Master knew he
  was coming even before he arrived, and said upon his first meeting 'you have
  finally come!' as if he knew him before - which is true, because they had
  Master-Student relationship even from past lives and both were abbots and
  Zen masters of a Zen monastery in Kyoto, Japan in their past lives). For me
  however, it has been years
  since I knew Thusness and my dharma teachers and Master but I am only only beginning to scratch the surface.
  That is the difference.
  
  BTW, it is often the case that a teacher may be able to lead even beginner
  students to a spontaneous recognition of their true nature simply by
  pointing out instructions. However, a deep and lasting realization will not
  usually come so fast. But the 'recognitions' eventually leads to the
  'realization'. Again, 'recognition' and 'realization' are different
  as I discussed earlier. As discussed here, even Ramana Maharshi's first experience at age 16 is a form of 'recognition' arising after a process of inference, but that is still not the direct experience/realization of the Self. That arose afterwards, so we can say that his initial recognition led on to the realization.
  
  FYI. Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment was written originally for JonLS,
  after JonLS requested Thusness to share his experiences. I posted it later
  into my blog as I felt (and some others as well) that it was quite important
  and better to be well documented.

  Hi,

  Just flipped to a few random pages in 'I Am That' by Nisargadatta, and found something relevant to what I was discussing earlier, so I'm sharing with you.

  ---------------------------

  Q:  Ups and downs in sadhana are inevitable. Yet the earnest seeker plods on in spite of all. What can the gnani do for such a seeker?

  M:  If the seeker is earnest, the light can be given. The light is for all and always there, but the seekers are few, and among those few, those who are ready are very rare. Ripeness of heart and mind is indispensable.

  Q:  Did you get your own realisation through effort or by the grace of your Guru?

  M:  His was the teaching and mine was the trust. My confidence in him made me accept his words as true, go deep into them, live them, and that is how I came to realise what I am. The Guru’s person and words made me trust him and my trust made them fruitful.

  Q:  But can a Guru give realisation without words, without trust, just like this, without any preparation?

  M:  Yes, one can, but where is the taker? You see, I was so attuned to my Guru, so completely trusting him, there was so little of resistance in me, that it all happened easily and quickly. But not everybody is so fortunate. Laziness and restlessness often stand in the way and until they are seen and removed, the progress is slow. All those who have realised on the spot, by mere touch, look or thought have been ripe for it. But such are very few. The majority needs some time for ripening. Sadhana is accelerated ripening.

  Q:  What makes one ripe? What is the ripening factor?

  M:  Earnestness of course, one must be really anxious. After all, the realised man is the most earnest man. Whatever he does, he does it completely, without limitations and reservations. Integrity will take you to reality.

  
  

  .............

  
  

  Q: In the beginning we may have to pray and meditate for some time before we are ready for self-inquiry.

  
  

  M: If you believe so, go on. To me, all delay is a waste of time. You can skip all the preparation and go directly for the ultimate search within. Of all the Yogas it is the simplest and the shortest.

  
  

  .............

  
  

  M: The seeker is he who is in search of himself. 

  
  

  Give up all questions except one: 'Who am I?' After all, the only fact you are sure of is that you are. The 'I am' is certain. The 'I am this' is not. Struggle to find out what you are in reality.

  
  

  To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. 

  
  

  Discover all that you are not - body, feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that - nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. 

  
  

  The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realize that you are the limitless being. 

   
• An Eternal Now

  22 Jun 10, 15:26

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:16 PM

  To: AEN

  Subject: an experience without that experiencer.

  AEN,
  
  
  Have fun reading Steve's article.
  
  Do you have any comments on "an experience without that experiencer"? Does this imply No "the Self"? You said without the Self, the body won't be moved....
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  J

  Hi,

   

  Steve is describing non-dual. But it is still Brahman type of non-dual, Stage 4. Meaning he still treats Consciousness as ontological reality. At Anatta (Stage 5), Consciousness is realized as non-inherent.

   

  Self is another name for Consciousness. Without Consciousness, body won't be moved, so of course this is true - a body by itself is inert, inanimate like a log, like a corpse. What you have to understand is that Consciousness, the Witnessing, isn't denied at the Anatta level. Therefore start with I AM - the direct realization of luminosity is important. Then refine the view in terms of non-dual and non-inherency. See my article Keep the experience, Refine the view

   

  3 days ago:

  
  

  (5:39 PM) Thusness: what have u understood about Witnessing and Buddhism?
  (5:41 PM) AEN: hmm... u mean the relation between witnessing and buddhism?
  (5:41 PM) Thusness: yeah
  (5:42 PM) AEN: i think witnessing is important in buddhism except that buddhism doesnt reify it 
  (5:43 PM) AEN: and factors in non dual and emptiness
  (5:43 PM) Thusness: non-dual is understood from a non-inherent and anatta perspective
  (5:44 PM) Thusness: when non-dual is understood from an inherent but non-dual perspective, it is advaita.
  (5:48 PM) AEN: oic..
  

   

  Regards

  AEN
• An Eternal Now

  22 Jun 10, 16:13

  AEN,
  
  
  Thanks for your elaboration on self-inquiry. Now I fully understand how to do it.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  J
  

  On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:03 AM, AEN wrote:
  

  Hi,

   

  Steps are not necessary in self inquiry, because this method is meant to cut through all steps, thought-inference-process, conceptualizations, to directly awaken to your True Self. This is why Koan and Zen is known as the method and school of Sudden Awakening, not gradual or step-by-step awakening. This is the Direct Path.

  
  

  ...............
  

   

• An Eternal Now

  23 Jun 10, 15:20

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:07 AM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: an experience without that experiencer.

  
  

  What does "realized as non-inherent" mean?
  
  I don't understand what Thusness said:

  non-dual is understood from a non-inherent and anatta perspective

  when non-dual is understood from an inherent but non-dual perspective, it is advaita.

  
  Could you elaborate?

  
  

  Hi,

   

  Read this carefully, I wrote this post based on what Thusness said about 2 months ago.

   

  http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5652

   

  There are two kinds of bond: one is the bond of seeing dualistically, experiencing in terms of subject and object. The other is the bond of seeing inherently, where consciousness and objects of consciousness are treated to have inherent existence/essence. Both bonds must be removed, but they are separate bonds.
  
  Seeing, hearing, smelling, etc... even thoughts, when realised as not divided into an observer and observed, inside and outside, then everything is experienced as the display of consciousness. To see everything is consciousness is non-dual insight, but there must be further insight into anatta and emptiness to realise the empty nature of consciousness. This is the transition from Stage 4 to Stage 5 and 6 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
  
  It is not that manifestation are 'display of THE Consciousness' - there is no 'The Consciousness' as Consciousness is empty, in the same way we cannot accurately say that 'Clouds and Rain are the display of THE Weather', as 'Weather' as such is a convention but utterly without substantiality, essence, and location.
  
  In other words, we may have notions of an all-pervasive Awareness, or Self, and experientially it is non-dual and this is a correct experience. But it is like the word 'Weather' - you can say everywhere you look into the sky, weather is not apart from that, but is there a truly existing 'Weather' apart from thinking about it? Is it located somewhere, or is it only these patterns of weather that dependently originate moment to moment? Similarly 'Awareness', 'Self' is simply a convention but is ultimately 'empty' - it is simply these self-luminous manifestation that dependently originate, it is just the stream of aggregates. That is why the Buddha talks about five skandhas instead of a One Consciousness, however non-duality (no subject and object) is already automatically implied by fully understanding anatta and five aggregates or eighteen dhatus. It is not that all five skandhas are just one awareness - that is just non-dual insight, but the insight into anatta is to see that the 'one awareness' cannot be found in or apart from the skandhas and dhatus, that there is simply the stream of aggregates. The experience is however still non-dual. When we understand that 'Awareness' like 'Weather' isn't something inherent, we also free ourselves from notions like 'things happening in Awareness' - just like you cannot say 'things happen in Weather' - weather isn't a findable essence or container of those phenomena, rather there is just those stream of phenomena which are conventionally called 'weather'.
  
  Next is... can there be Consciousness without conditions? In Buddhism, no. In other religions, Consciousness is treated as a metaphysical essence, Self, substance, an ultimate source of everything that is one with yet transcends all manifestation, God, that has inherent existence. But in Buddhism we do not understand Consciousness in such ways. We have to factor in dependent origination.
  
  So in other words, those in other religions who experience non-duality (subsuming subject and object into undivided One Mind) may claim something like "All There Is Is Consciousness", but they disregard conditions. They treat Consciousness as something inherent. But in Buddhism, we have to factor in causes and conditions. As Thusness commented on my friend Longchen's insight into Emptiness after realisation of non-dual,
  
  I can see the synchronization of emptiness view into your non-dual experiences --. Integrating view, practice and experience. This is the essence of our emptiness nature and right understanding of non-dual experience in Buddhism that is different from Advaita Vedanta teaching. This is also the understanding of why Everything is the One Reality incorporating causes, conditions and luminosity of our Empty nature as One and inseparable. Everything as the One Reality should never be understood from a dualistic/inherent standpoint.
  
  And as Longchen also wrote, "the conditions and factors are also inseparable from the non-dual oneness."
  
  To understand the relationship between Dependent Origination and Consciousness one must study the Buddha's teachings on the 18 dhatus, the relation of conditions to the manifestation of consciousness, emphasis on anatta and emptiness instead of just emphasizing on discovering Brahman, One Consciousness, etc. It is not to deny All is Mind, but it is to understand All is Mind "due to" its empty nature and luminous essence, due to dependent origination and anatta. It is to see Consciousness not as an ultimate source of everything, but as interdependently originated manifestation, as Vajrahridaya puts it: there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.
  
  First of all Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting the world, but rather Awareness is a manifestation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.
  
  One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.
  
  Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma explains, "With the condition of the eye, forms are seen, With the condition of ears, sounds are heard, With the condition of nose, smells are smelled, With the condition of tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or states are all one's Mind."
  
  Also, Nagarjuna explains, "When sound and ear assume their right relation, A consciousness free of thought occurs. These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics, But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually."
  
  When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.

  ---

   

  To summarize:

  
  

  Awareness is just a term, a label, a convention. I don't mean there is an ultimate pure awareness outside of the skandhas.
  
  The term 'pure awareness' is also confusing -- for example as Thusness said, the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. There is no 'THE Pure Awareness'. There is simply the six consciousness that dependently originates along with the six sense objects and faculties. I believe I have been pretty clear on that in my previous post. I use 'pure' in the sense of directness, nakedness, without conceptual layering.
  
  Lastly I shall leave a quote by Traleg Rinpoche which I think is very important. The shentongpas have a point, they are trying to point out that you cannot deny the luminous aware nature to prevent over negation by certain Madhyamika followers. But in that process they reified luminous awareness into something unchanging. However, true Buddhism, as Traleg Rinpoche suggested, does not deny luminous-awareness/Buddha-Nature, but it also understands it's empty nature (empty of inherent existence).
  
  
  Traleg Rinpoche:
  
  Accepting the reality of buddhanature does not mean that one has to accept the Shentong interpretation of emptiness. Shentongpas regard the nature of mind as empty of defilements but not empty of its intrinsic nature. The notion of buddhanature, however, does not in itself imply that mind has any intrinsic nature. Many of the great Kagyü and Nyingma masters, in fact, have interpreted buddhanature to mean that mind is empty of both the defilements and any kind of inherent existence.
• An Eternal Now

  24 Jun 10, 19:00

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:24 PM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: an experience without that experiencer.

  
  

  I do not experience a world out there, so yes. The notion of a world out there is just a thought. In truth, there is only Consciousness. Everything experienced is an appearance of the all-encompassing space-like Consciousness, it does not exist outside.

  
  Really evny people who have such experience. Only theory for me so far!
  
  

  
  

  
  

  Hi,

   

  This is actually 'your' experience too. Can you say that a world exist outside awareness? Isn't that notion a thought only, happening in awareness? Isn't there simply just thoughts, sensations and perceptions happening within awareness?

   

  Actually there is no such thing as 'my experience' or 'your experience' btw, there is only spontaneous, impersonal arisings of awareness. Furthermore there is no such thing as 'my awareness' or 'your awareness' - Awareness is absolutely impersonal, we (the body-mind) are objects arising from space-like impersonal/universal Awareness, in the same way that tables and chairs are appearing out of Awareness but Awareness does not belong to the tables and chairs. And there is absolutely no difference as far as Awareness is concerned (just like there can be no difference as far as space is concerned)... just investigate and you'll see how simple this is. Nothing changes as far as experiences are concerned - so do not treat enlightenment as an experience to be 'had'. Rather, you simply realize your true identity as (always been) Awareness, and that all experiences are arising and subsiding in Awareness, all along...
  

   

  Regards

  AEN
• An Eternal Now

  27 Jun 10, 05:31

  AEN,

  
  If one then enquires 'Who am I?' the mind will turn back to its source
  
  Qn: When I enquires 'Who am I?', basically the mind becomes blank and no answers at all. Does this mean the mind has turned back to it s source?

  
   

  No. What you have done is that you get stuck and identified with a subtle mental state or experience, in this case an experience of blankness. Don't stop here. You are now progressing from total identification with mind and concepts to identification with a state of blankness. So you are progressing beyond the mind, but this is still not 'it', it is still another experience, so do not get stuck. This state of blankness is well known and many masters have warned us against getting stuck in such a state. However, do not seek for a conceptual answer - if the mind becomes blank and no answers come up, know that this is still much better than clinging to a conceptual answer - do not try to make up your 'no answer' with a conceptual answer - if you don't know through direct experience, keeping a 'don't know' attitude is much better as that means you are open to continue exploring your direct experience, rather than clinging to a mental conclusion/speculation that blocks direct realization. Yes, there is an answer to your Koan, but the answer cannot be found in the mind. The answer is found through an immediate, intuitive Realization, it cannot be fabricated.

   

  If you experience the blankness, ask yourself, "Who is aware of that blankness?" What you are looking for is not an experience or state (whether blankness or somethingness), but what you are investigating is 'What is Aware of those states and experiences', whether the states be blank, something, or what not. To have an experience of blankness or somethingness, there must be a Witnessing, an Awareness of that experience. You are that ever-present Awareness. So What is Aware? Don't think - but look, investigate, until you touch your Being so directly that a non-conceptual certainty arises. All certainty and doubtlessness comes from immediate non-conceptual directness (direct experience), all doubts and questions come from conceptual thinking and inference. By doing this inquiry, you are turning the light around even from the experience of blankness, to the Source of the experience of blankness. Underneath the comings and goings of thoughts and blankness, there is a constant shining Presence-Awareness that allows these experiences to arise, and That is what you are.

   

  Looking back, right before the Certainty of Being arose, thoughts gradually died down until only a state of blankness prevailed. But there is still a sense of dullness or unclarity in this state. This is just one step away from realization, because if you are unable to let the thoughts 'die down', it is very difficult to look non-conceptually. But a blank state is still not it. But anyway, at that point, while I was in that blank state, I turned around and look at Who am I? Even in that blank state, I am undeniably Present and Aware, to know/see that blank state. I cannot deny my sense of existence. So What is This? What am I? What is Aware? It all happened very quickly through this inquiry and though by writing this made it sound like a narrative or inferential/conceptual process, the process of inquiry was actually much more direct and intuitive than narrative and inferential... through this direct inquiry/direct looking, a sudden noticing and realization of the undeniable I AMness 'happened' - and the truth was shone so vividly and brilliantly that there can be no doubts to it.

   

  The Grand Master Hsu Yun cautioned; "in our meditation if we lose sight of the hua tou, while dwelling in stillness, there results an indistinct void ness where-in there is nothing. Clinging to this state of stillness is a Chan illness which we should never contract while undergoing our training. This is the unrecordable dead emptiness." On another occasion he said; "awareness without contemplation will lead to confusion and instability, and contemplation without awareness will result in immersion in stagnant water." This unrecordable dead emptiness is a state where there is little activity of mind - no thoughts. It is a state where cognition is lost or diminished and the meditator has entered a trance. It is important that a highly focused state of mind be maintained at all times. This is the mind that dwells on and in the hua tou it is a union with that which is "the unborn, undying."

  
  

  "The gap between two thoughts is essence. But if in that gap there is a lack of presence, it becomes ignorance and we experience only a lack of awareness, almost an unconsciousness. If there is presence in the gap, then we experience the dharmakaya [the ultimate]." ~ Tenzin Wangyal

  "What you are in essence is self-shining, pure intelligence. The very idea of shining implies a movement. Movement is energy. So, I call it 'pure intelligence-energy'. It is shining through your eyes. You cannot say what it is, and you cannot negate it either. It is 'no thing'. It cannot be objectified. It ever expresses as that living, vibrant sense of presence, which translates through the mind as the thought 'I am'. The primary thought 'I am' is not the reality. It is the closest the mind or thought can ever get to reality, for reality to the mind is inconceivable. It is no thing. Without the thought 'I am', is it stillness? Is it silence? Or is there a vibrancy about it, a livingness, a self-shining-ness? All these expressions are mental concepts or pointers towards it, but the bottom line is that you know that you are. You cannot negate that knowing that you are. It is not a dead, empty, silent stillness. It is not about keeping the mind silent, but seeing that what is prior to the mind is the very livingness itself. It is very subtle.

  When you see that that is what you are, then the very subtleness expresses itself. That is the uncaused joy. Nisargadatta puts it beautifully. He puts it in the negative: 'There is nothing wrong any more'. We think that we have to attain something and then stay there. Realize that you have never left it at any time. It is effortless. You don't have to try or strive or grasp or hold. You are That."~ Sailor Bob Adamson

   

  
  Qn: Asya's Rest As Awareness seems to ask mediators to rest the mind in its source. If so, what is the difference between self-inquiry and this method?

  
  

  Self-Inquiry will lead to a Realization, a sudden, intuitive, unshakeable 'Eureka!'-like Realization of You/Who You Are. It is not simply an experience of Awareness, but the Realization of YOU, your true identity, as that Awareness. It is a non-conceptual realization, certainty, of your very Being. I had lots of glimpses, experiences and recognitions of Awareness prior to the Certainty of Being that I wrote, but the experience is different from the Realization. Resting as Awareness is important prior and after the Realization of Awareness (and the Realization will also make you understand the importance of natural resting in the non-conceptual certainty of your Being rather than chasing after thoughts), but the Realization part is very important as well. Otherwise, why would Adyashanti teach self-inquiry apart from 'resting as Awareness'?

   

  What you must understand is this: Resting as Awareness is important, because you need to rest the mind's conceptualizations in order to directly touch the essence of Awareness. However that 'resting of conceptualization' should not prevent you from investigating/self-inquiring in a non-conceptual way. It is actually not contradictory. But if you simply stop defining and conceptualizing and neglect the investigation part, you will never know Who You Are. You have to directly and intuitively experience that non-conceptual certainty of I AM. And this is what I have been trying to tell you.

   

  Again... the topic of experience/realization is being discussed (though I think you have read it) in 3) Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives

   

   

  
  Qn: Some questions about thoughts. When I worked on a difficult math question, I noticed my mind was intensively processing the thoughts: connecting them and referencing them. Were all of this done by the mind? Or Awareness/the source was involved too?
  

   

  All these are conceptual thoughts arising in the mind. There is no problem using the mind to solve practical daily problems. That is what the mind is good at, and it is a necessary tool for us to function intelligently as human beings in the world (though 'intelligence' has a far deeper depth than the conceptual realm which is merely a tiny figment of it). There is no need to reject or deny thoughts in daily lives as they are part of the natural functioning of Intelligence/Awareness/Life. There is no point making ourselves into zombies or animals. Just make sure you don't get so caught up in the mind until you lose direct-intuitive recognition of Reality into the believing/attaching to the fictional stories of the conceptual mind as facts/reality.* By believing in them as reality, you are perpetuating the stories of a fictional self and fictional world/objects. In other words, don't give transient thoughts more solidity/reality than they are: as transient dream-like phenomena arising and dissolving instantly in infinite Awareness, leaving no traces. It is like a ball, if you throw it into space, it has no place to stay/abide/latch on to, and it just falls back as soon as it goes up. The space in this analogy is referring to your space-like Awareness, the ball is referring to your thoughts. In this way, thoughts that do arise don't leave traces, they just come and go naturally according to circumstances but there is no latching on to them. You are like a non-stick pan of Awareness itself.

   

  However if you use the mind in the same way as you use the mind to solve maths at solving 'Who am I', it will never work. Why? Because you are using the wrong tool. The mind is the right tool for practical, daily lives situations, but the wrong tool at solving spiritual inquiries and koans. Yes, sure, even thoughts are manifestation of Awareness, but the problem is that we will never realize that if we are lost in and continue engaging in conceptual thoughts. It can only be understood/realized through non-conceptual Looking. You will never solve the question of your true identity through inference and connections.

   

   

  *on direct-intuitiveness, I wrote in one of my posts:

  Thoughts are never the problem and can never obscure awareness.

  Rather, it is believing in the dualistic concepts and stories and losing direct intuitive awareness that creates the sense of separation, doubts, problems and confusion. If a sense and concept of self and separation arise (out of habit and conditioning), question and investigate that assumption of a 'self' and let those concepts dissolve into the clear light of Awareness.

  Non-conceptual Awareness is different from conceptual thinking as it only knows Itself by Being itself in a clear, direct, and non-dual way without intermediary. It allows no doubts and confusion.

  From direct seeing, thoughts are almost like waves appearing in vast ocean, it is seen as insubstantial arisings in infinite Awareness.

  
  
  Qn: I think for unenlightened people, the problem is their awareness is "too close" to the mind/thoughts so that they can't differentiate them and notice the existence of the awareness. Is this a correct description?

  
  

  No I do not see it this way. Awareness is simply Awareness, there is no question of Awareness being closer or more distant to thoughts. Thoughts come and go in Awareness, but Awareness remains as it is. But as thoughts cannot arise without/apart from Awareness in just the same way that the hearing of sounds cannot arise without/apart from Awareness or the seeing of a mountain cannot arise without/apart from Awareness, and hence they cannot be said to be 'distant' from Awareness as well - rather, thoughts are the very self-manifestation of Awareness. As all thoughts are made of Awareness, they have 0 distance from Awareness as well. In a piece of mirror the images in the mirror appear to have depths and distance, but in actuality they are all equally happening in and as the mirror itself - there is absolutely no 'distance', everywhere you touch in the mirror is the 'flat' mirror itself expressing as those apparent forms and 'distance'.

   

  Awareness is a fact/truth of Reality and the essence of your Being that is always so and is not an object of ownership - it is the same for every person, and the question of 'unenlightened' and 'enlightened' person is moot and irrelevant here. You are not a person, You are Awareness, but Awareness cannot be termed 'unenlightened' or 'enlightened' - it just IS and remains the same for every single Buddha or sentient being. It will remain the same whether you are so called 'enlightened' or not - it will remain the same from 10 years old to 80 years old, the same formless Presence of Awareness that looks through your eyes still remains and feels the same even though your body and mind has undergone many gradual transformations. Awareness is simply a Timeless, Ageless Truth of your Being. And anyway 'Your' Awareness and 'Buddha's' Awareness is not in any way different, and even the conceptual divide into 'yours' and 'buddha's' is simply more conceptual nonsense. There is only Awareness, One without Second, just like Space cannot be divided into 'your space' and 'my space' - there is only One Space from which everything manifests.

   

  What happens however, is that most people are so fixated and caught up in their thoughts and feelings, that they never even notice the Reality, the existence of Awareness. It is like you are so caught up in a cloud that you lose sight of the whole sky. Or in the mirror analogy, you are so engrossed in a particular reflection that you have mistaken to be 'objectively existing' or an object of identity ('me'/'mine') that you lose sight of the fact that the appearance is simply a reflection of an all-encompassing mirror-like Awareness. Actually the sky or mirror is always here - just overlooked. Most people's identities and understandings are entirely limited to their thoughts and feelings. They do not even know anything other than that. Yet all it takes is a bit of looking to realize what they have missed all along, the truth of their own nature which is always shining right here, right now.

   

  Deeply contemplate this verse by Zen Master Huang Po (his stuff are good):

   

  All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measure, names, traces and comparisons. It is that which you see before you – begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error. It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient things, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking they lose it, for that is using the Buddha to seek for the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind. Even though they do their utmost for a full aeon, they will not be able to attain it. They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings. It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being manifest in the Buddhas.

   

  
  
  Regards,
  
  AEN
  
  
• An Eternal Now

  28 Jun 10, 14:47

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 12:32 PM

  To: AEN

  Subject: mind

  
  

  AEN,
  
  
  Does min have awareness? After realization, the Awareness becomes aware of itself. Does the mind become aware of the Awareness afterward too?
  
  
  Thanks,
  
  
  J

   

  
  

  Hi,

   

  It depends what you mean by "Mind", which sometimes means Awareness, or sometimes means thoughts, depending on context. Mind (defined here as thinking) is a reflection of Awareness, just as all phenomena are the reflection/manifestation of Awareness. The mind does not cognize Awareness.  First of all, the mind is an arising perception, a cognition, and being a transient perception that comes and goes from the field of awareness, it cannot possibly be a perceiver. How can a perception perceive it's perceiver? How can the table you see in front of you perceive Awareness? Awareness perceives the table. You are Awareness, the perceiver of mind, not the other way round. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, mind has no power of cognition - I.e. the thought 'I see apple' has no power to be aware of apple. The seeing of apple precedes mind. Awareness precedes mind.

   

  Awareness cognizes the mind. Awareness cognizes ItSelf through and as the body-mind in the miracle we call Life - even the mind is part of the field of awareness. Everything is the manifestation of Awareness. There is no such thing as an unheard sound, unseen sight, uncognized thought, etc. All phenomena are consciousness, cognition, and all cognitions are only Awareness - there is no such thing as an un-awared cognition, or cognition that exists independently of Awareness. So in finality, there is Awareness only, in experience. Whatever you see, hear, smell, is also Awareness only. So my previous statement 'You are Awareness, the perceiver of mind, not the other way round.' is not the final realization, since it implies a perceiver and perceived, but in reality Awareness is non-dual. It is an integrated, undivided reality that is utterly indistinguishable in terms of subject and objects. At this point, there is no question of 'something' being aware of 'something else', since there is only Oneness.
  

   

  Regards

  AEN

   

• An Eternal Now

  29 Jun 10, 03:06

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:35 AM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: mind

  
  

  Could you link what you said here to your explanation about mind as a tool when solving a math problem?

  
  

  Hi,

   

  Seeing depends on awareness/aliveness. Hearing depends on awareness/aliveness. Thinking depends on awareness/aliveness. They are all the manifestation of Awareness. They are all the natural functioning of awareness. The mind is a tool just as the ear or the eyes are a tool to help us function in life. They are all part of the natural functioning.
  

   

  The only problem with thoughts is when we believe and identify with and attach to a story of a separate self, and this causes all other kinds of problems/sufferings. Otherwise thoughts are just like any other kinds of phenomena (like sights and sounds), arising naturally according to circumstances, and then subsiding without leaving traces (attachments).

   

  Know that no thoughts actually make you lose awareness. Thoughts cannot exist outside or apart from awareness. Awareness only becomes apparently obscured when you believe/become hypnotized in dualistic thoughts and lose intuitive awareness, direct experience/recognition of non-dual reality. In actuality it is ever-present as your self-shining nature, never lost (even in the midst of thoughts). Thoughts come and go, but your true nature of Awareness is abiding. Let thoughts come and go of it's own accord, don't grasp, don't reject.

  
  

  "The vast and empty sky does not hinder the clouds from coming and going." Shitou Xiquian

  I'm not sure what question you have in mind so that's all I can say for now.

   

  Regards

  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  29 Jun 10, 13:32

  
  

  From: J/div>

  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:01 AM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: mind

  
  

  I meant you said mind can't do perceiving. But you also said when a person tries to solve a math problem, all the work is done by the mind because the mind is the best/right tool for this. Solving a math problem requires connecting the dots together and figure out the solution. This means the mind needs to connecting the thoughts together. Does this mean the mind is aware of the thoughts?

  
  

  Hi,

   

  You must understand I am using the term 'mind' and 'thoughts' interchangeably (some others may use the terms differently - I.e. Mind is Buddha-Nature). Since mind = thoughts, how can 'mind' be 'aware' of 'thoughts' as if they are two things? Mind is simply a 'label' to the functioning we call 'thinking'. And this functioning depends/manifests through Awareness.

   

  You must also understand that thoughts arise without a thinker. There is no agent behind thoughts. Things arise spontaneously on their own accord, there is no such thing as an entity called 'mind' behind the arising of thoughts. The mind IS the thoughts, the thinking process only. They all happen spontaneously without a doer/thinker.

   

  Regards

  AEN
• An Eternal Now

  29 Jun 10, 14:18

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:35 PM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: mind

  AEN,
  
  
  Yes, it makes sense now.
  
  I understand there is no doer, no thinker.
  Also, the mind is just the collection of the thoughts according to Ramana M. and others.
  
  This is also the best way to describe why Thusness is successful. It just happens spontaneously.
  
  j

  
  

  Hi,

   

  Thusness has put in hard work to make himself successful. But even the hard work is happening spontaneously without a doer.

   

  Regards,

  AEN

   

   

• An Eternal Now

  30 Jun 10, 16:59

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:44 AM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: mind

  AEN,
  
  After realization, can Awareness exert any influence on this spontaneity?

  
  

  Hi,

   

  What kind of influence do you have in mind?

   

  Everything has been happening spontaneously without a doer (whether realized or not realized).

   

  However, this may not be 'understood'. In other words, even though things happen spontaneously without a doer, most people identify with a doer.

   

  For example, an action of standing up and walking is just that - body standing up, and walking.

   

  Then later, a thought comes up 'I walked from there to here', which assumes doership of that action. It is always an after-thought/after-identification of an actual fact.

   

  In actuality, the thought is referencing to a non-existent entity. In actuality, there is no controller or doer of actions, actions happen spontaneously - body acts, mind thinks, but no doer or thinker of them.

   

  The imaginary self-entity, being fictitious and illusionary in nature, does not have a power (since it is non-existent) to be of real influence to actions and experiences. It is simply an after-thought, after-identification.

   

  Look very closely in your experience... investigate... is there such a thing as a separate self at the center controlling or experiencing actions and things? Like, does typing on this keyboard have anything to do with an 'I' or an 'I thought' and where is the 'I' to be located? Or is it simply the fingers typing? Yes, there is a thought/intention to type, followed by the typing, and they have inter-dependent relationship but then again both are two separate manifestations. The intention is also a spontaneous arising, not an agent or self. You will discover that the 'I' cannot be located at all, that all that is happening is universal functioning - non-personal, spontaneous functioning of Awareness.

   

  That is why I said the identification with a separate 'I' or a subject-object division is always an after-thought of an actual act or experience. During that action or experience, it is just non-personal, spontaneous function, but later on the mind identifies with it by referencing to a central 'I' entity that is doing them or experiencing them, I.e. 'I did', 'I see', 'I hear', 'I smell'. But upon closer investigation this central and separate entity simply cannot be found. There is no 'I' that persisted from just now till now. There is simply ownerless actions and experiences arising and subsiding moment to moment until right now, with no consistent self or agent behind their functioning.

   

  If you look at your thought and see that all thoughts of 'me' are referencing to a non-existent entity, much less energy will be invested in the mind stories. You simply see that it is not true. You do not believe in dualistic and separate-self stories.

   

  Suddenly, thoughts become integrated with the field of objects, like anything else - totally impersonal happenings. When you first noticed this, it may seem funny because it is so different from the way we normally perceive our experience and thoughts in a dualistic way. All thoughts and experiences are happening on its own in spite of you, or rather, without a you (as a personal self/doer), and yet not apart from You (as Awareness). There is no sense of thought as 'mine' in contrast with the environment as 'not mine'. Thoughts are part of the environment, so to speak. And being the case, these thoughts no longer serve as a cause of your fears and anxieties and sufferings. You clearly see thought as it is: simply being a thought as an ownerless object, not a 'me/mine' subject or object.

   

  Realizing Awareness is a step towards total non-identification with a personal agent/self. It frees the mind from identification to realize the freedom of spontaneity. That is the 'influence' of realization.

   

  Now you clearly see that actions have no influence from a pseudo subject or agent which is non-existent. A separate controller/doer/thinker/experiencer simply cannot be found. But surely, actions must have their influence. They always have, they can't just appear for no reason. What is the influence? They are influenced by intentions and imprints. This has always been the case whether before or after realization. I believe I told you this in an e-mail very long ago regarding free will and Dharma Dan's reply. But anyway, any influence on the spontaneity that are happening are also part of the spontaneity. There is nothing outside spontaneity. Awareness is spontaneously manifesting... as this sound, this sight, this thought.

   

  But to finally answer your question: you can't say Awareness is an influence: because only phenomena (like events, imprints, intentions, friends [e.g. peer pressure], etc etc) can be an influence to your actions or experiences, but Awareness is not a particular experience or phenomena but simply a non-interfering substance/ground of all phenomena/experience. It is simply the basis for which experience can arise (whether before or after realization): how can phenomena arise without perceiving-awareness? 

   

  Or you can ask, does the mirror (Awareness itself) influence or interfere with its reflections? The answer is no. The Mirror simply reflects all phenomena as it is, without judging it as a good or bad, without altering its contents.

   

  Regards

  AEN

   
• An Eternal Now

  30 Jun 10, 17:19

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:55 AM

  To: AEN

  Subject: world

  AEN,
  
  
  Another odd question.
  
  When a thought arises from nowhere(Awareness) and then disappear to nowhere, Awareness is aware of this process. A thought is like a distinct entity out there and its coming and going can be described. How about the world being seen in my eye? How these images are created?
  
  
  Thanks,
  
  J

  
  

  Hi,

   

  They are not exactly 'created', since 'creation' almost implies as if it has a substantial existence 'out there', made by 'something' or 'someone', over a gradual period of time.

   

  Actually, everything spontaneously emerge (and subsides) momentarily. It is not creation.

   

  As Jean Klein puts it:

  
  

  The world exists only when we think about it; creation stories are for children. In reality the world is created every moment.

  And Nathan Gill puts it:

  
  This manifestation isn't created - it spontaneously appears.

  
  How are these images 'spontaneously appearing'? They aren't created, they spontaneously emerged due to the meeting of causes and conditions.

  I highly recommend reading the article I just posted to my blog which I (and Thusness) think is superb, The Magical Illusion of Self

  Read the analogy on the sound and the drum and the eye consciousness. Then read the whole article... it really clarifies a lot. You'll understand how phenomena including vision, sounds, and thoughts, spontaneously emerge without origin ('out of nowhere' so to speak), but arises in dependence with factors and conditions. You'll see how there is no 'I' or 'me' involved.

  Regards

  AEN

• An Eternal Now

  30 Jun 10, 21:15

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:34 PM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: mind

  
  

  I still quite don't believe Thusness didn't insert any influence into his destiny. So if everything the dream character does just happens spontaneously or as if following from a script, then I am thinking maybe Thusness' Awareness(if I can say this way) insert some influence to change the course of his dream character(working hard to become successful). As you know, happening spontaneously sounds like pre-determinism or you(ego) have no control over the life course whatsoever. Why bother to work hard if this is true?

  
  

  Hi,

   

  There is no control, but this is not the same as determinism. You can do something about it. Nothing is fated or fixed. For example, Thusness did something, I.e. work hard. This changed his life course, as opposed to someone who laze around and gets nothing done in life, for example. So obviously something can be done to change the future. But the action that is arising is done without a doer.

   

  So:

   

  Action arises, just no doer.

  Sound is heard, just no hearer.

  etc etc...

   

  Everything: actions, experiences, etc continue to arise without a personal doer. As I explained earlier, the ego or personal doer does not even exist and hence has no power to influence your life, actions and experiences (like how can santa claus influence your life since it is non-existent). Yet, actions and experiences still arises to get something done.

   

  I don't see any contradictions at all. We always think that to act, to do something (to change the future), implies a controller/doer. This is just an assumption, not a fact. The only fact is that action arose. To reference that action to a doer is simply an after-thought, an assumption.
  

   

  Changing the future is possible, nothing is pre-determined. But contrary to what people think - i.e. 'I, the controller, am going to control and change the future by doing this and this', in actual fact, it is more like, the thought of wanting to change the future happened, then the subsequent actions to 'change the future' followed. None of these thoughts or actions are actually produced by a personal doer or controller. They simply arose spontaneously. Is hard work necessary for success? Absolutely. Is there a doer behind the hard work? No.
  

  
  

  Regards

  AEN

   

• An Eternal Now

  30 Jun 10, 22:07

  
  

  From: J

  Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:49 PM

  To: AEN

  Subject: Re: mind

  
  

  AEN,
  
  
  Sorry to keep pursuing the same question. But I think this is a simple question that a sane person would not avoid it.
  
  "You can do something about it"
  
  Why You here is not Awareness/the Self instead of body-mind? Someone said only Awareness has will to change things.
  
  " Yet, actions and experiences still arises to get something done."
  
  Sound like must be someone behind the scene to orchestra the whole things, to be the "willer". Only possible suspect left so far is Awareness.
  
  

  
  

  Hi,

   

  Qn: Why You here is not Awareness/the Self instead of body-mind? Someone said only Awareness has will to change things.

   

  No, neither body-mind nor Awareness is a controller or doer of actions. Every experience and action arise through/in/as Awareness which is the Source of All That Is, yes, but it doesn't mean Awareness is some kind of controlling agent, like a personal God in the Old Testament. I simply used the term 'You can do' because I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it at that moment. But I edited it later after posting to my forum -  "So obviously something can be done to change the future. But the action that is arising is done without a doer." This is better than saying "You can do something about it to change the future". Something can be done, yet it does not imply that there is a 'you' who is the doer of it.

   

  See my updated reply at http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/390582?page=5#post_9876194

   

  Qn: Sound like must be someone behind the scene to orchestra the whole things, to be the "willer". Only possible suspect left so far is Awareness.

  
  

  The Totality, the Universe, is behind this arising thought, this arising action, this arising experience. So yes, Thy Will be Done. What is Thy Will? As Jacobs say, it is the Sacred Will of the World. (http://www.innerfrontier.org/Practices/JacobsLadder.htm - good article that can be mapped with Thusness's 4 Phases of I AMness)

   

  What does that mean? Deepak Chopra says (http://www.anhglobal.org/en/node/591),  A flower is seen as a flower but is also experienced as rainbows and sunshine and earth and water and wind and air and the infinite void and the whole history of the universe swirling and transiently manifesting as the flower. In other worlds every object is seen as the total universe transiently manifesting as a particular object. And behind the scenes one can feel the presence of the same ever-present witnessing awareness that is now in both subject and object.

   

  See Mahasi Sayadaw's article The Magical Illusion of Self which also explains how the 'entire universe' is transiently manifesting as a particular (distinct, new) experience or action due to the combination of various factors and conditions.

   

  Regards,

  AEN
• Thusness

  30 Jun 10, 22:46

  Hi AEN,

  Not to talk too much about me, just focus on ur experience.

  Also what you said about the no observer can be quite misleading.  It does not mean there is 'no one doing anything' and 'everything is arising spontaneously'. You should understand anatta from below quotations taken from 'The Sun My Heart' by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:

  Sunshine and Green Leaves

  "When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

  "..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

  "In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."