The meditation "who am I?" or "what am I?" needs a lot of explaining - why don't teachers explain what they mean when they say meditate on "who am I?"? I guess some do, but not many.

Here's some things I've learned:

-- "I" is consciousness (aka awareness, the thing or the one paying attention, the one reading this, the one that wakes up in the morning, the aliveness).

-- To locate the "I" so that you can ask "who" or "what" of it, look at an object in front of you, then realize that it is the "I" that looks at that object. Now close your eyes and pay attention to the thing doing the watching. Nothing mystical or other-worldly, just consciousness. Easy to miss if your attention is always pointed outwards onto objects or thoughts or feelings.

-- There is something that thinks, there is something that feels. That thing is consciousness.

-- With the eyes closed, consciousness feels like it's inside the head.... initially anyway.

-- Consciousness is separate from thought. Thinking about consciousness isn't consciousness. It's not feeling either, but it's sort of like a feeling or an experience.

-- Trying to work out "what am I?" using the mind will cause massive problems.

-- Paying attention to the consciousness is the equivalent of asking "what am I?"

-- This allows you to drop quite deeply, quite quickly.

-- How can "pay attention to the breath" be of any use? Isn't this a seriously mistaken instruction? The consciousness is not paid attention. Consciousness is looking outward at the breath, not inwards. I can see how it could be used to focus concentration and achieve altered states, but as for insight, how can this possibly work?


Now if someone could explain to me how Descartes cogito ties in with this, that would be great. Since you am I, who are you to deny God's order?!! Answer me!

Means meditate on what you are, which is the pure presence-existence-consciousness prior to concepts. But it is important not to form preconception about it (as I said, it is before concepts). There will come a time when without a single conceptual thought, you have complete conviction of your own existence. This is Self-Realization.

More in my ebook 'Who am I?' http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

There is a whole chapter on self-inquiry in my e-book. Might be helpful.
Different style of practice.

As mentioned in my e-book and the old DhO in April 2009:

(Thusness)

“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 balance 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.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa4WtuR0wbY

Thank you

When I was investigating this technique I found this book useful

http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.aspx

and this method - The Awareness Watching Awareness Practice Instructions


http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/awa_instructions.aspx




investigate this more and you may come to a different conclusion

Yes you've spotted where I learned parts of this. Richard Rose, also Adyashanti and Jed McKenna. I wanted to try to meld it into a single post mainly for my own benefit, but also for anyone who has tried the "I AM" approach.

What does this mean? "investigate this more and you may come to a different conclusion".

As countless meditators in the past two and a half thousand years have gotten deep insight by using the breath (some of those were people who have dedicated their entire life to insight and tranquility practices) - it seems to be a useful instruction, rather than a seriously mistaken one. (the breath can be used for insight and tranquility).

Have you tried paying attention to the breath for a prolonged amount of time, and have observed what happens a result of that endeavor? (by prolonged amount of time I mean an hour, two hours, three hours and more).

Sometimes I will say things in an overly pointy way, just so as to make sure I get a response. Bad habit.

But yes, I have tried it and hated it, made me very sick as I've detailed on a few posts. 1 hour max. You say "countless meditators", but I feel like the success rate is dismally low, if this and other similar forums is anything to go by.

I found the I AM meditation quite good, by comparison, so I thought I'd share. It feels like I can dive in properly. More practice is needed.

Hi C C C

This depends on what you mean by consciousness


investigate DO, the 12 links which explains the self experience you may find

nothing that points to counsciousness and thinking being seperate as in dualistic subject/object
or consciousness as a container where thoughts are projected into such as a self

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."


just seeing
just hearing
etc

Definitely go with what you feel is personally useful to you.

In regards to countless meditators - there is no other meditation technique that I am aware of, which is so popular, powerful and useful to meditators across traditions. Ask any accomplished meditator and you will see.

The thing is, once you try to observe the breath you start running into the 5 hindrances (sensual desire, anger / ill-will, sloth-torpor / boredom, restlessness-worry, doubt) which is expected at the beginning ("I hated it"), once those are overcome.. then the fun starts.

Not trying to convince you to meditate on the breath, but pointing out that it is a powerful technique, and much benefit can be gained by it, so you do not dismiss it for the future when it perhaps becomes more useful to you.

Happy to see you reporting actual practice results, and looking forward to hear more of your experiences.