I AM THAT

[Tony]

I stumbled upon this forum recently and would like to help if I can. Your aims are noble, although I have reservations about the process of making tickbox decisions on whether someone is "awake" based on a few written exchanges on a forum. But nevertheless your intentions are good and worthwhile.

Anyway, it is a pleasure to be here. it looks like fun.

I am the knower who knows itself. I am established in the unmanifest, unbounded silent awareness that is my true nature.

[Eloratea]

Hi Tony,

could you say a bit more how do you came to know "your" true nature? To help us make a right decision on whether you are really "awake". :)

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

could you say a bit more how do you came to know "your" true nature? To help us make a right decision on whether you are really "awake". :)

Hello Eloratea

Nice to meet you. How do I know that you are awake to make such a decision?. And even if you are, could you make such a decision based on an exchange of language and terminology that attempts to describe the indescribable. But let's leave that aside for one moment.

I practised meditation for about 30 years and "experienced" the quiet one pointedness of mind that came from time to time, that point at which the mind transcends thought and there is just awareness, the space between two thoughts. Along with that I had an intellectual understanding based on various classical texts that many will be aware of. What happened to me happened in an instant during meditation about three years ago when I just became "awareness". A certain amount of processing took place in the week after which included the dissolution of ego and the certain knowledge that there was no real me that could be identified as anything solid. There was no attachment to action as there was before, but a deep and intense feeling of peace and bliss that has not left me for one second since.

[Eloratea]

Nice to meet you too.

How do I know that you are awake to make such a decision?

You don't. We might not even have the same meaning behind that word. It might have many nuances.
But the fact is that you came here. The exchange is happening and decision will be made :)
You will find it relevant or not, stay around or not; All based on resonance principle.

And even if you are, could you make such a decision based on an exchange of language and terminology that attempts to describe the indescribable.

My decision already happened, however unreliable it might be.
Will see what rest of the awakened jury say.
:)

[Tony]

We might not even have the same meaning behind that word. It might have many nuances.

Nuances are just impressions in the mind. It is important to scrutinize such a statement. The word suggests an experience as in "many nuances" which suggests choice as in this nuance or that nuance An experience requires a subject and object. The mind connects with an object, a thought or object of the senses and an experience is created which then becomes a memory. To be fully present can never never be an experience because there is no subject or object, but we say things like, "I had a wonderful spiritual experience". if the mind is totally absorbed in awareness there is no external world and therefore no experience, but the process of the "I" thought re-asserting itself brings a reflection of the non dual state into the duality of the conscious mind where it is appreciated as bliss. The second option is that the "wonderful spiritual experience" was always just an experience.

[Eloratea]

Agree on that.

Have you read some threads here? does it resonate? Would you like to join in guiding?

Would you mind than to answer some of typical confirmation questions:

What is illusion of separate self, "I"? How it works? How would you describe it to someone not awakened, yet interested in awakening?

[neeeel]

I am the knower who knows itself. I am established in the unmanifest, unbounded silent awareness that is my true nature.

No you arent. You dont exist

[Tony]

What is illusion of separate self, "I"? How it works?

The "I" or "I am" thought is the first thought that arises in the mind. The "I am" is certain. The "I am this" is not. The illusion of a personal self is when the "I" attaches to an object as in "I am happy', I am hungry, I am going shopping" etc. These constantly changing thoughts and perceptions of objects in the world of duality have no substantial reality. Only that which is constant and unchanging can be considered real. Call it Self or Atma if you are a Vedantin, (not the personal illusory self in the sense you use it), emptyness or annata if you are Buddhist or let's just say the Kingdom of Heaven within you if you are a Christian, call it what you will.

Now here's the thing. It is not difficult for someone to appreciate on a purely intellectual level the idea of the illusion of personal self, in the sense that experience is ever changing, proving impossible to ever identify the real "me" because there is no such solid centre. Furthermore, everyone would agree that they possess self awareness. But an intellectual understanding is not the same as being awake. To be awake is to directly recognise that silence which is, and be it. So why can it be difficult to see what is already there if an intellectual understanding is in place. The answer is that until the mind is made quiet, new thoughts will keep appearing and will continue to reinforce the false self of subject object relationship. The intellectual understanding doesn't necessarily help because it is just another concept, another thought.

The approach of this forum, a kind of "satsang in cyberspace" is to attempt to make the seeker look directly at what is. It is not easy to open someone's eyes. It is the approach of the jnana (knowledge). But, if we look at some contemporary jnanis, they all advocated doing real work to see through the illusion. Yogananda taught Kria Yoga. Ramana Maharshi recommended self enquiry. Nisargadatta Maharaj followed the instruction from his guru to think of nothing else but "I am" every spare moment, which he did for more than three years before realization. Papaji held his well known satsangs and made a point of saying he didn't teach any techniques, but he himself practiced meditation for twenty years. So I"m with the classical tradition here in the practice of turning the attention inwards to the source. The Yoga of Silence. It is this practice that is often missing from the modern day advaita satsang circuit. But as I said before, what you do is admirable.

How would you describe it to someone not awakened, yet interested in awakening?

I would not. The desire for the truth on the part of the seeker is enough. It is the description from the seeker that is important and tells the guide what he or she needs to know in order to guide. Descriptions introduce yet more preconceptions and plant the erroneous idea of a path or goal. Be still and look for the source is all that is required.

[Tony]

I am the knower who knows itself. I am established in the unmanifest, unbounded silent awareness that is my true nature.

No you arent. You dont exist

The thought that appeared in your mind to make the statement, "No you arent. You dont exist". Where did it come from and who is the "you" to whom you refer? Your statement is just a mental construct as it appears and its meaning depends on who says it and to whom it is directed. If the "you" you refer to (me) does not exist , then neither does the "you" who sent the message. Therefore the statement would not exist. Therefore we would not be discussing it. If your statement on the other hand is some kind of authenticity test for me, that's perfectly OK.

So if I may change your statement to a question. Do you exist? And please note what you mean by the "you" in the question, then this is my answer.

Neither do I exist or not exist.

[Eloratea]

The "I am" is certain.

Problem with this for many is that they confuse this „I“ with label for personal, imagined, little „I“. And don't do much if begin with this. It becomes automatically - I am this or that.
So the approach of pure am-ness might work better in dis-identification. And seems to work especially good in this kind of on-line, mind to mind approach.

So I"m with the classical tradition here in the practice of turning the attention inwards to the source.

I know its effectiveness from own experience, but that might not be appropriate for everyone and for some might be the next step, after having some insight in no inherent existence of separate self.

Neither do I exist or not exist.

Yes, paradox is more close to the truth.
Statements like – there is no self, or there is no you - are used as pointers for triggering insight in illusion of separate self. Not meant to be statements of absolute truth. No such statements.

[Tony]

Hello Eloratea
The system won't allow me to respond to your PM.

[Eloratea]

Got it and sent reply.
See you.