uhapy

Hi! This is a question and a bit of an introduction. The question is stated in the title. 'I' figure that awareness is reality. It can only be experienced when the ego is inactive. So the goal is the undo this 'ignorance' blocking awareness. 'I've' Been reading the words of Ramana Maharshi and the self-enquiry method feels like it is the best, and Ramana says it is the best while all others are less direct. Having done vipassana it is less effective and slower than self-enquiry, at least at getting the mind quiet. Self-enquiry can be done all the time so it seems superior to meditation. This is learned from Ramana, who said he would not lie to an aspirant. Now am just not sure if it's become aware or "subtler". The mind was restless like a monkey and now it's a lot more "silent", lot more focused, and breathing slow and easy. But it is typing now, so it is still active and creating thought, no feeling of 'oneness' with the surroundings ('I' assume that's "awareness".) Am worried that this is deceitful, that my practice is faulty. Like the mind is still subtly very active, only seemingly "quieted" yet remaining outside of "pure awareness". Still seemingly am identified with the mind-body but feel like it has had moments of "mixing" with the surroundings. Is this awareness, more calmness, or active imagination? How does one distinguish between them? Would like to "abandon all knowledge" and begin practicing well for as long as the body lives.

This is not to brag or offend an ego but how come some practices do not yield significant progress for the practitioners after a long time? There were some people I read practiced mindfulness meditation (like vipassana) and say they've been at it for 30-40-50 years and don't have any "amazing spiritual experience" but just gradually more peaceful mind... They might die soon and not realized the goal of their meditation. The problem may not be the practice itself, but the quality of each moment. Most minds would think that Christianity is not as effective as Buddhism for detaching from the ego, but I was practicing Christianity for over a week and got an extravagant 'awareness'-consciousness experience after a prayer, yet the method of 'prayer' is LOUD and egotistical so why did it yield the same desired result as mindfulness eventually would've done? I think it is because prayer is "devotion to an ideal" is easier to make a big change in consciousness than mindfulness meditation. The quality of a moment of fervent prayer is like someone strongly "yanking" at the roots of the ego, while a good moment of vipassana or pranayama is more like a consistent, gentle tug. Again, this is not to brag (who is even here to brag?) but to show that progress (destroying the ego) may be due to the quality of ones moment-to-moment experiences, and even for a Christian the ultimate goal is a state of 'awareness'! Maybe the best practice is one focusing directly on awareness (like self-enquiry) as other kinds like vipassana focus too much on the mind-body so only work like natural sedatives.

Now I understand what I described was the method of "surrender to an ideal" / "devotion". The ideal for me was God, the ideal for others can be another. I posted this thread asking this question months ago and the answer has been found. A proper "surrender" to God was as effective as s-e, both are more effective than meditation. I was surprised to learn this.

This part of your post stood out to me... Thank you. It is nice to hear others think it is tedious and not just me. And treating it like the necessity to breathe is a clever trick to get by this.

This is one reason to say the predetermined This would be an explanation to how some people like Ramana Maharshi and Robert Adams are fully awakened permanently very quickly after not much effort while other people who practice their practices remain identified with the ego for a long time even though they want to stop. Their samskaras are more intact. When I was a kid in childhood I was way more spiritually "advanced" than I was currently in that the majority of my flaws were learned after childhood, such as all the egotistical reactions (like talking back to insults or desire to control others) and even reacting to pain was different in that I didn't react to pain like being hit or burns. The desire to listen to music, play video games, watch TV, dress in 'cool' clothes was not present until age 12 (even though I had these things). But all of these things listed came to me after I began thinking I needed them due to a strong desire for social acceptance as a teenger. If there is reincarnation then it is possible that people who practice a spiritual path in a previous life move it to the next life but then it is lost with age - in fact this is what Ramana Maharshi said about samskaras (mental tendencies), he said they pass down to the next life (which doesn't exist) until the samskaras are destroyed permanently (permanent state of awakening) Determinism is another explanation. Nisaragadatta Maharaj supported some sort of determinism near the end of his life when he denied reincarnation, sort of like the idea that everyone is playing a part in a film and they cannot deviate much from it. This would suggest some people like Ramana were MEANT to be "awakened" like that.

Update: I did meditation and learned this. The stage of awareness I was in when I wrote that original post was not "pure awareness" but a "quieter" mind very close to being "quiet". I was asking for more specific replies. There is a noticeable difference between "quietness" and "awareness". The struggle to make the transition between the two is caused by thoughts that are active subconsciously. These thoughts cannot be stopped without effort but then the effort must stop to be in the state of pure awareness. Since it is so easy to get the mind "calm" but difficult to get it "quiet" (thoughtless even at a subconscious level) - this looks like the only reason people do not achieve the "awareness" state by just calming down, it is just about stop having subconscious thought.

You made a good premise but I didn't mean "loud and egotistical" in a bad way. You are confusing me for one who prays for things outside of oneself. A "poor Christian"; someome who doesn't practice ANYTHING. Meditation is an egotistical practice too. The intensity of a prayer can be way more powerful than good meditation because the "good Christian" is so devoted to being "the quiet and mild spirit that is so precious to God" that they PASSIONATELY pursue it. They cannot "stop" and "be" because they're like babies who would die without their mother. Thus they get the goal faster with fleeting bouts of prayer than one who meditates for years and years - this would explain perfectly why I achieved that uninterrupted state of 'awareness'-consciousness in only a week of being a "good" Christian while it is taking me much more time to feel it for a moment with meditation. Both meditation and prayer are efforts to the same thing. You and other members were reacting to my post in ignorance, not with the wonder that I felt at prayer achieving a prolonged state of 'awareness'. How different are prayer and meditation? Church-goers who ask their God for 'things' the bible tells them is not good for them... Material stuff, pleasures, enjoyments, 'wanting' external things = impure. The point is: stop thinking about the difference between prayer and your practice of meditation, look at the similarites. You can find Jesus in the tao and Laotse in the bible if you are earnest. That is it really, now I have answered myself. "Devotion to an ideal" explained my experience with Christianity. My goal was to be a "good Christian" so it was not something "other" than what your goal is with meditation, but my effort was greater then that is now. I did meditation all day btw. I felt the "awareness" state for a few minutes. It was like the state I got with prayer but it lasted for an entire day then, even through dreaming state. Now I recognize the awareness state and see I felt it as a kid also, perhaps it is predetermined.

Update: I said meditation was inferior but tried vipassana again with the plan to do 30 minutes (before I was doing hours) and forget about time (before I kept thinking of the future and past). Now I can see its good for focusing and maybe when I can do it properly for longer it will be a way to dissolve the mind and get into awareness. But I still don't understand how meditation can get you awareness because you have to focus on breathing. Update: Because I have found the two practices I'll be doing I'm going to leave the forum. It would be nice if my account were deleted. I cannot log out.

If you say so who can disagree? This feeling of ecstasy is not what I experienced. It was awareness and peace that I cannot describe. It was also an altered consciousness state, all 5 senses were disturbed but also beyond clear description. Indeed it didn't last, but it lasted a long time, through sleep and into the next day. Then it disappeared. It felt like an awakening and the lack of ecstasy has me curious if it is so common among Christians.

Meditation may synergistic with self-enquiry too.

Hi C T, are you saying Ramana Maharshi's practice is flawed? I cannot do vipassana easily because I can't focus. ramana did mention that "some people" realize at death, is practicing self-enquiry not enough to have a good death state?

hi