How do I stabilize nothingness to enter pure awareness?

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Aupmanyav

True. After understanding "I am that", one should have all the clues.

I don't have the ability to read anymore. Words always get jumbled in my definitions. I even confused this book with "who am I?" but "I am that" is a huge book. its just another book that promises understanding for me. like infinite out there that claim to have the truth. it makes me tired, because I cannot read anymore. definitions no longer compute in me. There is just endless confusion within me. I don't know what words mean anymore. Words confuse me more than they bring clarity to me. But I downloaded the book anyway. on rare occasions my mind has clarity to read. And from what little I've read of it now, it looks like a good book indeed.

Thanks for sharing. I will definitely read it when I can. when my clarity of mind is there. medicine is taking away from what little clarity I have. my ability to focus and remember things have also degraded. I wish it were different.


Quote from book:
Q: To think oneself as the personal is the sin of the impersonal.
M: Again the personal point of view! Why do you insist on polluting the impersonal with your ideas of sin and virtue? It just does not apply. The impersonal cannot be described in terms of good and bad. It is Being -- Wisdom -- Love -- all absolute. Where is the scope for sin there? And virtue is only the opposite of sin.

Interesting book, very deep. All the questions are very relatable. Especially when the questioner says they have been seeking the self for over 60 years. It gives me hope that maybe I don't have to.

But the impersonal still scares me. It feels like a self that goes to hell and makes no judgement and just goes there and then I end up wondering why I am in hell. And the impersonal self says "why not. its all love." that scares me. It would be much better if the real self were more relatable. This is scary.

But thanks again for sharing this book. it is actually comforting to read. Gives me some sense of hope again.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

But the impersonal still scares me. ... It would be much better if the real self were more relatable. This is scary.

Maybe it is only scary to the personal self which wants to hold on to its identity, which is afraid of being discarded and ceasing to exist.

But there has never been a personal self to begin with. There is just a collection of habitual patterns which form a personality, and we identify with these patterns and think that we are this person. And hence we suffer. The real self, the impersonal self, is free from such suffering.

I return to my favourite analogy of us being actors in a play, identifying with our roles to the extent that we have forgotten that we are actors playing a part. Identifying with the impersonal self is like remembering that we are actors and whatever happens to the characters we play is just part of the drama. But remembering that we are the actor requires that we let go of our identification with the role we are playing.

The idea of impersonality can seem scary to the small personal self. But the price of realisation is the sacrifice of the small personal self. And when we finally make that sacrifice we realise that we have lost nothing except an illusion.

Peace

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by iamthat

The idea of impersonality can seem scary to the small personal self. But the price of realisation is the sacrifice of the small personal self.
And when we finally make that sacrifice we realise that we have lost
nothing except an illusion.

Made my day, my friend. Hmm, after reading another thread...
I wonder if that would fit on my grave stone?
" I have lost nothing except an illusion."

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by iamthat

post ... And when we finally make that sacrifice we realise that we have lost nothing except an illusion.

Peace

I think that the actor / character is a good analogy, but I see its implications a little differently.

I believe that there is only one self, focused into various states, where it has different purposes and abilities. This means that you have to do, in each state, what you are supposed to do in that state, while it is also better to harmoniously correlate those selves.

An actor that thinks about himself while acting is a bad actor.

None of the selves is an illusion, neither the awake-self, nor the dream-self.

Regarding that analogy, one of the best methods of acting is the Stanislavsky Method, widely praised and recognized. It is the opposite of what you seem to suggest: "He encouraged his actors to consider what they would do if they were in the circumstances of the characters they were playing." The actor has to immerse himself in the psychology of the character, identify with it.

So, getting back to good and bad "selves", I believe that we have to strike a balance between the selves, in order to employ them for their intended purposes, which implies that we have to firstly understand what they are, their purposes and abilities.

====
EDIT: I strongly disagree with the use of qualifiers like "illusion", "delusion", when talking about these things.

[Maisy]

I think the true self can experience suffering. It is because we identify with the "body/mind" like some have posted. The "true self" I just see as me. I don't see it as some abstract thing that exists apart from me. I can experience suffering and I can experience "non-duality" or God or enlightenment. I think it's always the same me experiencing. I will leave the body at some point like we all will when it stops working and go experience life away from the body and it's mind. I will be the same me that suffered flying through space and time to some amazing destination. Unless I just go into a dog or insect body right away like the Tibetan Book of the Dead says can happen lol. Then I may be like those ants I see all the time that just wonder around my bathroom floor aimlessly looking at things.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by inavalan

An actor that thinks about himself while acting is a bad actor.

Quotable quote

[Gem]

I'm also about the illusion of self that assumes the position of me. One day you see it and realise, hey, that's not me, and you be like, I can't believe I've been living as that this whole time.

All the angst and reactivity gets wound up in it, so it's a horrible little thing that turns out to be pathetic and impotent with all its thrashing about. The one who sees it doesn't mind and isn't perturbed by it, but it has a lot of tricks that have always worked before to distract you from the truth (for want of a better word), get by you awares, and slip back into the driver's seat. It can be a delicate situation in that way and can take a bit of work to get established as the one who sees it.

[Gem]

Honestly, I saw the below quote and thought it was Ramama, for sure, so blow me down when I got to the end!

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 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 realise that you are the limitless being.

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

[Redchic12]

IamThat: Yes I love your analogy of us being in a play and I have thought that for many years now. It’s particularly helpful when you get caught up in a negative situation because you tend to not take it personal or as serious.

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

"Just this duality and illusion and there is nothing outside of it. All fractaline. Infinite eternal illusion from which there is no escape."

IMHO, even behind a mirage, something exists. It is so in the universe also, it is not all fractals. That is a Buddhist thought. Non-duality accepts existence of one. We can guess some of its properties: It has to be eternal, without any fixed form though capable of assuming any form, and it has to be neutral to worldly affairs (that is what our experience and evidence points to).