Hello,
I've been using the question "Who am I?" for a few months now and have found it to be very useful. My experience with it is that when I ask the question it feels like a space opens up, this is subtle but definite. Just an open silence in which thoughts, sounds, smells, sights, tastes, and feelings pop in and out of existence. Their really is no "I" that appears. This has allowed me to see, without a doubt, that "I" am just the mass of these 6 senses, and nothing separate from them. During my day I also ask "Who is angry, happy, cold...etc., which allows the sensation to be seen as not me or mine, just a temporary experience. On a few occasions the feeling of "I" has completely dropped away and there is only the sensations present, no one to experience. them

I'm not entirely sure where to go with this practice, does the technique remain the same indefinitely? What exactly is the endpoint of this practice? And how do I know when I've reached it?
I've been using An Eternal Now's book and pointers from his blog(thank you) and he discusses experience vs. realization. I assume the "I" dropping away is the "experience" aspect of this practice that he talks about. Would the "realization" part just be the same but continuous?
Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance!

Metta,

Brian.

Hi, the self-inquiry that I did was not for the purpose of leading to no-self.

Instead it leads to the total certainty of Existence, Presence, and Beingness. It is a self-felt, self-known (its Being Knows Itself) certainty of Being. It is called Self-Realization. It is the realization of the Self.

But this Self is not a concept, it is simply the pure existence/beingness that remains doubtlessly after all thoughts disappear.

It pertains to Stage 1 (and 2) of this map: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

And that is the realization being spoken of.

I never did the tecnique, but I always understood it as some form of vipassana, since it gives insight into the 3C.

So, if I'm right, cycling should happen, even if probably they are not experienced in a very strong way.

Interested in hearing someone else on this one...

The Self-Inquiry that I spoke of is not the same as vipassana.

Perhaps this might be relevant:

(Posts by Thusness/PasserBy in 2009 DhO 1.0)

“Hi Gary,

It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.

My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’.

On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.

Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.

Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'”

and

“Hi Gozen,

I fully agree with what you said. It is just a casual sharing with Gary as he seems to be experiencing some aspects of the direct path.

To me both gradual and direct path will eventually lead us to the same destination. It is rather the degree of understanding we have on a particular teaching. If we practice wholeheartedly, whatever traditions will lead us to the same goal.

Frankly without re-looking at the basic teachings of Buddhism about the dharma seals and dependent origination, I will be leaving traces in the Absolute. In vipassana, there is the ‘bare attention’ and there is the mindful reminding of impermanence, no self and suffering of the transience. It is a very balanced and safe approach.

Like in Zen tradition, different koans were meant for different purposes. The experience derived from the koan “before birth who are you?” is not the same as the Hakuin’s koan of “what is the sound of one hand clapping?” The five categories of koan in Zen ranges from hosshin that give practitioner the first glimpse of ultimate reality to five-ranks that aims to awaken practitioner the spontaneous unity of relative and absolute are meant to prevent leaving traces. (You should be more familiar than me ) My point is when we simply see the Absolute and neglect the relative, that ‘Absolute’ becomes dead and very quickly another ‘dead Absolute construct’ is being created. In whatever case, we can only have a sincere mind, practice diligently and let the mind figure the rest out.

The mind does not know how to liberate itself.
By going beyond its own limits it experiences unwinding.
From deep confusion it drops knowing.
From intense suffering comes releasing.
From complete exhaustion comes resting.
All these go in cycle perpetually repeating,
Till one realizes everything is indeed already liberated,
As spontaneous happening from before beginning.”

I too have been reading AEN's ebook (I'm about 85% through now) which does a great job with this subject. With regard to the inquiry technique, can it still be employed to realize the Self by someone who already has the view of no self, but with this view of no self being totally an intellectual concept and not in anyway a realization?

Eric

Sure, I had intellectual view of no-self for plenty of years (maybe since 2005 or 2006 after conversing with Thusness).

I realized Self 2 years ago, and then in the following months/year+ realized (directly) non-dual, anatta and emptiness.

AEN,
Thanks for the response.

" it is simply the pure existence/beingness that remains doubtlessly after all thoughts disappear."
This, to me, seems like something I experience during meditation. The sense of open space I have after asking "who am I?" also sounds very similar, though I'm possibly totally mistaken. I'm not attempting to direct the results of the question, just reporting what I've experienced as a result. Perhaps I've had this realization(of Self), or I'm just confused.
Good results so far, so I'll continue and see wher it all leads.

Metta,

Brian.

Edit:
How do I tell if I've had this Self realization and should move on to another practice?

It will be impossible to miss the realization, it is discovering something very profound with complete certainty.

What you described (open space) is what I call 'experience'. It is as Thusness said in the article to me in 2009 - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html -

1. On Experience and Realization

One of the direct and immediate response I get after reading the articles by Rob Burbea and Rupert is that they missed one very and most important point when talking about the Eternal Witness Experience -- The Realization. They focus too much on the experience but overlook the realization. Honestly I do not like to make this distinction as I see realization also as a form of experience. However in this particular case, it seems appropriate as it could better illustrate what I am trying to convey. It also relates to the few occasions where you described to me your space-like experiences of Awareness and asked whether they correspond to the phase one insight of Eternal Witness. While your experiences are there, I told you ‘not exactly’ even though you told me you clearly experienced a pure sense of presence.

So what is lacking? You do not lack the experience, you lack the realization. You may have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; you may experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; you may experience the mirror like clarity but all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. It is the direct and unshakable insight of ‘You’. This is the realization that a practitioner must have in order to realize the Zen satori. You will understand clearly why it is so difficult for those practitioners to forgo this ‘I AMness’ and accept the doctrine of anatta. Actually there is no forgoing of this ‘Witness’, it is rather a deepening of insight to include the non-dual, groundlessness and interconnectedness of our luminous nature. Like what Rob said, "keep the experience but refine the views".

Lastly this realization is not an end by itself, it is the beginning. If we are truthful and not over exaggerate and get carried away by this initial glimpse, we will realize that we do not gain liberation from this realization; contrary we suffer more after this realization. However it is a powerful condition that motivates a practitioner to embark on a spiritual journey in search of true freedom.


As for your This has allowed me to see, without a doubt, that "I" am just the mass of these 6 senses, and nothing separate from them. During my day I also ask "Who is angry, happy, cold...etc., which allows the sensation to be seen as not me or mine, just a temporary experience. On a few occasions the feeling of "I" has completely dropped away and there is only the sensations present, no one to experience. them


It sounds like non-dual experience for me. Your nondual experience came more quickly (usually Who am I will not easily lead to non-dual) which is likely the result of your having the right view of no-self from the beginning. At this moment they are intermittent, but if the clear realization of anatta arises it can also become effortless.

I had a very intense non-dual experience in 2008. Thusness said then (which might also be relevant to you):

Yes AEN, you are beginning to experience what that is known in the Advaita Vedanta as ‘Atman’ except that the experiences you had did not lead to you to the wrong conclusion. This is because the doctrine of anatta has sunk sufficiently deep in your inmost consciousness. Although the 'teaching of anatta' helps to prevent you from landing into wrong views, the downside is it also denies you from experiencing that deep and utimate conviction, that certainty beyond doubt of your very own existence -- "I AM'. This is a very important factor for Advaita practitioners.

The next important factor is the duration of this non-dual experience must be prolonged; long enough for you to enter into a sort of absorption that the experience becomes 'oceanic'.

http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/310956

"It will be impossible to miss the realization, it is discovering something very profound with complete certainty."


Good! That's exactly the amount of obviousness I require. I can, apparently, miss some pretty obvious things on occasion(stream entry). It's good to know I can expect it to slap me across the face.
Thanks again for the reply and giving me some idea of how to proceed. I think part of my confusion comes from not trusting my own perceptions when it comes to reading descriptions of how this stuff is experienced. Very early in my practice I was convinced I was much further along the progress of insight then I was, so now I doubt myself. That and some of these things are very subtle, and can be further obscured through language.

Metta,

Brian.