Jump to content

A question about self-inquiry


Blessed2

Recommended Posts

So I'm wondering if mind and I is really the same.

 

I remember reading some zen buddhist say "The mind is the buddha."

 

Something about that resonates a lot.

 

Focusing on the feeling of I is a bit hard.

 

However, focusing directly into "mind is the buddha" seems very easy and somehow super enlightening. 

 

Cause there isn't really anything more intimate and directly available than "the mind".

 

So is focusing on "the mind" the same as self-inqiuiry?

 

Is I and mind really the same?

 

Is mind and Actuality really the same?

 

Is it just that for me "the mind" is simply a more familiar and easy pointer to utilize?

I am the playful and ever-present Source, joyfully embracing every thought and emotion as part of my perfect, unfolding co-creative dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I is the Masculine, the Individual.  Mind has both a Masculine and Feminine component: Consciousness = Feminine Mind, and Intellect = Masculine Mind.  This is just a schema, but it's useful.  We is the Feminine, the No Individual Self.  Generally speaking: Mind is Masculine and Body is Feminine, and the Divine is Masculine and the human is Feminine.  So the Feminine might have the I, the Mind and the Divine in her shadow whereas the Masculine might have the We, the body, and the human in his shadow.  There are lots of variation here but this model is excellent imo.  It's a tool for Integration work and recognizing sneaky shadow issues.  The Feminine is the Root Chakra (Earth/embodiment) and the Masculine is the Crown Chakra (Sky/idealism).  You can see why the Feminine is Being (Body) and the Masculine is Understanding/Knowing (Mind) with this model.  I can't believe how powerful this model is for development work, especially shadow work writ large.

Edited by Joseph Maynor

💬 🗯️🤍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Aware Wolf said:

it depends, like a lot of discussions, on how we define: mind, the I....

 

9 hours ago, Phil said:

All depends on how the terms are ‘held’,

 

Yeah. By "mind" I don't really mean the same as I suppose a psychologist would mean by "mind".

 

Not sure what I mean by it really.

 

"I" feels more "inward" and limited for some reason. Might be the underlying separate selvery.

 

"Mind" feels a bit "outward" oriented, and easier, more enjoyable to bring to focus. There is this feeling of sort of melting something that at first seems fixed to surroundings and perception. A feeling of inter-connectedness. Like "is this really my mind?" "Where does 'my mind' begin and 'other stuff' end"? And "where does 'my mind' begin and Actuality / Buddha-nature end?"

 

I am the playful and ever-present Source, joyfully embracing every thought and emotion as part of my perfect, unfolding co-creative dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I can't believe how powerful this model is for development work, especially shadow work writ large.

 

How has this model been "powerful" to you? What do you mean by "powerful"?

 

How has it really been helpful though? I mean for me it seems like it just begets more endless conceptualization. I wouldn't call that powerful or helpful.

 

A bit like I used to think Actualized.org was the greatest thing ever, "I've learned so much and it changed my whole life" etc... But really I just felt more crappy.

Edited by Blessed2

I am the playful and ever-present Source, joyfully embracing every thought and emotion as part of my perfect, unfolding co-creative dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

 

How has this model been "powerful" to you? What do you mean by "powerful"?

 

How has it really been helpful though? I mean for me it seems like it just begets more endless conceptualization. I wouldn't call that powerful or helpful.

 

A bit like I used to think Actualized.org was the greatest thing ever, "I've learned so much and it changed my whole life" etc... But really I just felt more crappy.


It’s allowed me to attain the paradox between integration and freedom.  It’s allowed me to examine the shadow very keenly and realize the limitations of myself and others.  And it’s made me unpopular with almost every teacher because of its scope.  It was a path I went down which is coming to an end.  I’ll post my final video below on the rabbit hole.  The Heart Chakra is where the Masculine and Feminine Marry — I didn’t mention that one.  That’s Marriage — the working with between the Masc and Fem, both human and Divine.  It's easier and better for me to communicate in video format than in writing.

 

 

Edited by Joseph Maynor

💬 🗯️🤍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phil said:

Like ‘the body’ & ‘the room’ is really your own infinite mind?

And a ‘finite mind’ isn’t actually findable?

 

It's really quite impossible to put into words.

 

Like buddha emptiness-light watching, penetrating and filling what I assumed was a limited "my mind".

 

Stuff like "my mind should be purified to enlighten" or "my mind and thoughts are not as pure and good as The Buddha's mind" or "I need to improve my mind and thinking" makes zero sense.

 

"The mind is the buddha" really points to "I am the buddha". It's like a shift trom being "a thinker of thoughts" to the emptiness-light permeating and illuminating the "limited mind" or separate self.

 

Though maybe it's doesn't matter what it is, it just feels good. Like a weight off from the shoulders.

I am the playful and ever-present Source, joyfully embracing every thought and emotion as part of my perfect, unfolding co-creative dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:


It’s allowed me to attain the paradox between integration and freedom.  It’s allowed me to examine the shadow very keenly and realize the limitations of myself and others.  And it’s made me unpopular with almost every teacher because of its scope.  It was a path I went down which is coming to an end.  I’ll post my final video below on the rabbit hole.  The Heart Chakra is where the Masculine and Feminine Marry — I didn’t mention that one.  That’s Marriage — the working with between the Masc and Fem, both human and Divine.  It's easier and better for me to communicate in video format than in writing.

 

 

i don't think it's really helped your communication skills or your ability to relate to people at all.  from what i've been seeing here.  it seems like a sneaky way for you to write people off and not actually listen to them, really.

Edited by Lester Retsel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self Inquiry is fine. But like Phil said I wouldn't dump everything else and just do self inquiry. 

 

On Actualized, there are (were?) Old Leo Gura posts on How to get enlightened. 

 

Basically Leo said do self inquiry for months, hours a day meditating on Who Am I? -- until it pops. However long it takes.

 

I thought this pretty bad practice advice probably leading to frustration. If you can do it at all as most people have obligations. It's limiting and sounds like one is trying to bull one's way to awakening. 

 

Ramana Maharshi recommended self-inquiry. And he's a saint -- but he wasn't a teacher. People would come and sit with him and out of compassion he'd try to answer their questions. Or sit in silence. 

 

While Ramana is an inspirational model, very few teachers came from his lineage. Although people claim to be inspired by him (cool), or have sat with him for brief periods of time -- it's a very rare teacher who was at Tiruvannamalai long enough there's actual records of them being a close devotee. If you ask at the Ramana Ashram who are the legit teachers -- it's a small list. 

 

Self-inquiry may work for some people. It may not work for others. Probably thousands sat with Ramana and did self inquiry to some extent. How many of them do you think got enlightened? People were moved by the presence of Ramana, not so much the method. 

 

Another path might work better for some folk. 

 

 

Edited by Aware Wolf

“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.” ― The Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:


But what do you think?  Do you know Phil personally?

 

Naw. But you do I take it. Good for you. Wanna cookie? 

 

What do I think about what? I wrote what I thought. My post? -- it's alright. Works for me. 

 

@Joseph MaynorI remember you from before I left and had a favorable opinion of you and your posts. 

 

Now it seems you've gotten dogmatic and this whole Divine Feminine / Masculine reads tiresome and a bit pedantic. You've talked of taking a break on here and ya, chill out and go for a walk, meditate, play with the cat. 

 

 

“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.” ― The Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Joseph Maynor Ya. I remember. If someone is triggered by an Internet forum post it can show where they are at on the path. Can they let it go? 

 

You too have excellence. I was sad to read you were thinking of leaving just when i got back on. However, geez Loise, you enter into a some feud with Lester. I wanted to say, dude just block him if he's irritating you. Done. Also my take a break from Internet was meant kindly. Even my "wanna cookie" poke was to show you how you can come across. How is asking me if I know Phil relevant to my referring to something he wrote in a thread?? I think it's nice to refer to other people's posts. It helps community. 

 

 

“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.” ― The Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Joseph Maynor that's a good take away. Let's share that cookie! 

 

But still reading your stuff does seem to read like written by someone who is suffering... 

Edited by Aware Wolf

“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.” ― The Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simpliest way to comprehend "mind" is how people behave as a social group's general consensus. "will of the people".

 

A brain however is the "I am me" set apart from the collective idealism adapting to space as a reproduction living in series parallel evolving here now.

Not anymore difficult than that, until "will of the people" want more from life than evolving sustains in the moment here.

 

Free advice from an instinctive ancestor that knows what adapting to the moment does to self and everything univerally here beyond my moment of truth, I am just another reproduction within my ancestry and species adapting to time mutually ocupying space since conceived to replace my previous 4 generations of DNA donors.

 

Compounding simplicity with no exceptions.  It is that simple, but never easy to stay true to your own time.  So many influences dragging a person in so  many alternate realities and parallel universe possibilities.

 

Then there is rule of law prohibiting anyone to question any society's better tomorrows scenario.   Again, it is free advice worthless to most, priceless to me.

Edited by solereproduction
correct spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.