Hello, thank you...getting lost in the objects appearing within myself, the infinite field of awareness, happens...I am only knowingness....thanks for the reminder of how ignorance appears and what I am.
The elegance, beauty and freedom of truth. Respectfully most grateful for your ministry of truth keeping it front and centre for all with perception to know.
@@untangle-your-mind That is a very encouraging reply Nabeel. I appreciate and value your work. I gain a great deal of insight from your words and wisdom . Keep on doing what you do, I am certain many of your viewers feel the same. 🙏🫶🏻
Hi, thank you very much for this simple and lovely explanation on awareness as the Self. I have just subscribed and certainly plan to check the other videos in the channel. I have a question about advaita and I'll be happy if you or anyone else offers an explanation about it. I read N. Maharaj ("I Am That") a lot. And the above video is very compatible with Maharaj's messages. Now, the absolute (self, pure awareness) is said to include (or give potentiality to) all dualites but it's not a part of any duality. How come, then, it's called "pure being" but not "pure non-being"? Self but not Non-Self? Awareness but not non-awareness? Yes, I understand that there's also a kind of non-being in the Absolute; that is, the lack of a 'personal' being, the lack of a 'personal' awareness, the lack of a 'personal' Self. But either personal or not, we talk about an awareness, a self, a being. It's still a "thing" (not in the sense of an "object"), it's a kind of "positivity", a kind of being, a kind of identity, a kind of Self, obviously. But not the opposite! We talk about a Supreme Being but not a Supreme Non-Being. I mean, it seems to me that even the nonduality of pure awareness is not absolute but relative, because awareness and non-awareness (being and non-being) are obviously the two sides of a duality. Can it be that the non-reality, non-being, non-awareness, non-self involved in the "illusion" serve as the balancer of reality, being, awareness of the Absolute? Or maybe there's a fundamental triplicity of (1) Absolute Being/Awareness, (2) Relative Being/Awareness (in the Illusion) and (3) Absolute Non-Being/Non-Awareness?
If I were to ask you, "Is there an Ultimate Reality?" What would you say? You wouldn't be able to say no, maybe there is only unreality. Nor would you be able to say that maybe there are two kinds of ultimate realities. Jnana is first-hand insight into the nature of that Ultimate Reality. Of course, the words used can be somewhat confusing because language has all these opposites. Let's say the fundamental Reality is unawareness. In that unawareness, a stream of consciousness arises. When consciousness arises, it is noticed from that fundamental state of unawareness. But if that state is truly unawareness, how can consciousness ever be known from that starting point? Actually there is no difference between unawareness and awareness. What is found is that Reality is completely nondual in nature, beyond being or non-being, existence or inexistence, consciousness, and unconsciousness. In trying to communicate this, I scrounge for words and capitalise stuff.
@@untangle-your-mind Yes, maybe a significant part of the difficulty of discussing such an issue is about linguistic limitations. Nontheless, I'll try to further explain my enquiry. As for the Maharaj's descriptions about the ultimate reality, sometimes it sounds "neutral" (neither being, nor non-being etc.), but then it more sounds positive (rather than negative) such as the most solid happiness, peace, love (as opposed to unhappiness, disturbance, hatred). Soooo many things of positive nature are said about the ultimate reality. It's almost never associated with any negativite sense. All such descriptions make me think that the ultimate reality is not absolutely 'neutral', otherwise it wouldn't be dominantly associated with positivities. There would be a perfect balance between positivity and negativity, or there would be no positivity and negativity at all. Thus, I perceive a positive bias about the absolute reality. Its neutrality is not absolute but relative to the illusion or to ego only. Nonduality doesn't sound like being in equal distance to positivity (being) and negativity (nonbeing) but sounds more or less positive. Even the obvious intention of the masters of nonduality like Maharaj to help awaken those who are suffering in the 'dream' is so positive, rather than neutral or negative. Compassion, love, peace, which are so closely associated with self-awareness, are not neutral terms, they are obviously positive. Maybe I'm missing some very basic or simple facts when I make this conclusion, I'm not sure. I don't want to tire you by extending this discussion here. I'll try to examine other videos to find possible answers to my enquiry and my current conclusion. Thank you.
Yes, this can be known directly. The Ground State is peace, a quiet and most subtle bliss. I go into this in a few videos, this one on Turiya comes to mind: ua-cam.com/video/muNF4ah0cB0/v-deo.html
@@untangle-your-mind I've just watched it, it's another simple and effective explanation, beautiful. "Ground State" is "turiya" or the "supreme state" (or the two are one and same)? I remember Maharaj describing the supreme as somewhat higher/deeper than turiya. So, does "presence, awareness, peace" refer to turiya, or the supreme, or both?
Yes, they are the same. There can only be one Ground State of Reality. The sages point it out in various ways, highlighting some aspect depending on what is causing the obstruction for a particular mind. The Ground State is your own most natural state. They are one and the same. So, you can know for yourself. I use a common reference point to point this out so that the listener may realise. If you have undergone "cessation" during meditation, or simply noticed the point of waking up from deep sleep, that is the point where it is most evident that you are already present prior to experience, aware and at peace. Only the knowledge of existing; the knowledge that "I am", is not there. And because that knowledge is not there, there is no time, no space and no experience. But even when that knowledge is present, when you turn away from any concept of self, turn away from all gross experience, you notice that the same peace is present. Peace does not exist at a point in time and space. Peace is your natural state.
Thank you again! This line of phrasing confuses me profoundly, and makes me wonder if I have mistaken self-inquiry completely. From what I understand in this video you're saying awareness of consciousness (experience/phenomena/sensory input as well as thought?) as "inferior" to the state of awareness of being aware, direct awareness of the true Self which is the truly liberated state. From what I've understood from your other videos as well as other teachings the liberated state is the resting in silence in which experience flows through (which I could call "just observing the flow of experience (including the stream of thought that is the up to a point seemingly existing ego)). Again, I can't help but interpreting "being aware of being aware" as something other and even more fundamental than this. At the same time, how can a hand grip itself? How can an eye see itself (without a mirror)? How can awareness be aware of itself (in other ways than being aware of the passing of experience/phenomena)? Also, as you and others have stated elsewhere - the Self is not an object or even really a subject (which of course would imply duality) so how does that fit in with "awareness of awareness itself"? If awareness cannot know, but as I understand it rather is *the knowing* (the illumination of the mind) - musn't pure experience (ie raw perception of the senses and thoughts) as the content that fills awareness be the only thing possible to be aware of? Am I missing something or am I getting caught up in terminology? I believe I have had several awakening experiences which have simply been characterized by this resting in silence while observing experience and not getting caught up with thought (or as you so beautifully put it in another video, "listeining to the gaps between thought"), which I have felt has had the hallmarks of what glimpses of nirvana etc. according to most descriptions - except for when I encounter descriptions like the ones in this video... I would hugely appreciate a nudge in the right direction here as this has been my major source of doubt or misguidedness in my practice for a long time. 🙏🏼
Are you aware? Take a moment to see how you answer that question. You don't turn to any particular experience. You don't turn to thought. How do you know that you are aware? You know this simply by being aware. This is Self-knowledge - the awareness of being aware. You are right that this is very fundamental. It doesn't require even a minute of meditation or any other practice. To know this, you do not rely on some specific sensory perception, the fives senses, or thought or memory. Consider the importance of that fact. This is the only unadulterated pure factual knowledge you have of yourself. What does this Self-knowledge tell you? It does not define you as this body or mind or person. The direct knowledge is only that you are aware. To know yourself in this way, without mixing in any thought or belief, is to know yourself as Awareness alone. The path of Jnana is only to be clear on this one basic fact.
@@untangle-your-mind I appreciate you responding so much, thank you :) Sure, although I would argue awareness is always aware which kind of makes it a mute point although true, a truism? I would say, from my experience and understanding that the point of the question, like with a koan, is that it renders the mind silent for a moment - leaving awareness (seemingly) shining brighter and more still and subtracting the seeming small/"false"/illusory self for a while. I wholly agree regarding the direct knowledge is only that you are aware, and to quote Ramana Maharsi (The path of Sri Ramana p. 20): "Existence and the knowledge of existence (existence and awareness, sat and cit) are not two different things." I think what I might be getting stuck on is that for me "direct knowledge that you are aware" seem to refer to a entity/agent *having* that knowledge, which of course would imply duality (or some etheral, shadowy third layer of seeming selves) and therefore take the self-inquiry back to square one (leaving the mind utterly confused :) ). Phew, talking about non-duality really is pretty mind-bending! You must have some patience :)
> I would say, from my experience and understanding that the point of the question, like with a koan, is that it renders the mind silent for a moment - leaving awareness (seemingly) shining brighter and more still and subtracting the seeming small/"false"/illusory self for a while. I suggest that instead of evaluating how the question affects the state of mind, focus on how it is that you answer the question. Notice if you need to turn to any of the five senses or conceptual thought. When you are aware of being aware, it is not the usual kind of perception which the mind can frame in terms of 'subject' and 'object'. You are turning away from the mind, which is simply the experience in that moment, to what is most truly you. You recognise your own true nature. There is no duality in this recognition because it not a subject on one end perceiving an object on the other. > Sure, although I would argue awareness is always aware which kind of makes it a mute point although true, a truism? Awareness is always aware, but not always aware of being aware. This step, turning inwards and recognising Awareness as the Self, is the fruition of the path of Jnana.
@@untangle-your-mind Hmm... For me the question does seem to lead me to the experience/awareness of the five senses that already is and thoughts rendered silent, yes. Not as in me being a subject doing observation but just... "Things happening" or "changes" (mindfulness I guess)... I very much relate to and understand your description as this in your video "From the ego to the self" which seems simpler and less esoteric to me - but I see you state clearly in your comments (as well as in the video after rewatching it) that is not what you are referring to, and that you make a clear distinction between consciousness (what i think I'm referring to, the stream of experience) and awareness! Then I unfortunately can't find or realize what is being pointed to - evereywhere I look there's only consciousness/experience... Any suggestions? 🙏🏼 Edit: I just listened to your podcast episode "I, you, he, she, we" and I can't really get my head around how the following passage (starting at 1:30) is different from what I'm referring to: "When something is seen - the seeing of it is the sentience. Whatever is heard the hearing of it the actual hearing is consciousness itself. Same goes for every all the other sorts of sensing, feeling and knowing. The -ing at the end, the actual happening, is pure awareness taking a transient form. And that pure awareness, consciousness, sentience, is what you are. what every so called person is. Behind every face, every identity what you find is not a sentient thing, not an entity that is conscious. But just this sensing, knowing and feeling. Sentience itself. The very same being." * In this passage you equalize consciousness and awareness, then why make a point of separating them as terms in this video and discussion? Further (soon after 7:10): "If you just stop labeling this as 'my experience' and imagining some other entity owning another experience, and then look at this moment - what is it like? Then, there is just the seeing, the hearing, the sensing and the knowing. And the perceiving of all this, the happening of it is inseparable from pure awareness. Indestingiushable from what you are." * And in this passage you seem to describe almost word for word what I pointed to earlier (as "raw experience" or "raw perception" or something) and label it as pure awareness, that which we are?
@@slowlotion7304 Depending on where the mind is at, if I see another string to pull, I will pull on that thread. Since you have already understood that all that is observed is inseparable from Awareness itself, it is time to turn attention back onto what you are. There can be two questions in Self-inquiry. What am I? And, what is all this? If the answer one arrives at is that I am 'all this', that is great. But it is not the final answer. Because what am I in the absence of 'all this'? Unless this is also perfectly clear, the observed, which is impermanent and interdependent, remains as primary. When life is going well, this is fine. But when what is being observed is a stream of pain and suffering, how does this insight help? And if the objective of the inquiry is to arrive at what is ultimately real, again this does not suffice. You will have come across many teachings that make a distinction between the Self and not-self, the illusory and the Absolute, etc. There is a final insight which is from where you see Ramana Maharshi pointing to Reality as the Self, Nisargadatta speaking of the Absolute, Buddha declaring the world as a flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream. I make these videos to nudge the seeking mind towards this complete and and final truth. So, some of them will resonate strongly and sound most natural. These are to solidify what you have understood. But some of the pointers may raise new questions. These are the last remnants of the mind, soon to be cleared out. I think I'll make a video to address your questions in a few weeks. Until then, these ones might help clarify: ua-cam.com/video/4bjMs4A94lE/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/bK2zNKHaPnY/v-deo.html
Ive wondered why you often put in a hyphen. Aware-ness. I thought it would become clear but it hasn't. Then just now it popped into my head that when i first ever used to go quiet and inward i would hear the word 'timelessness', and it struck me as odd that i didn't just hear 'timeless'. Anyhow, that's perhaps irrelevant to my wondering why you sometimes wow l put the hyphen in.. I think there's another video where you have done that much more often, and it seemed to have a point.. I'm sorry this question isn't on the video that inspired it!
The 'ness' at the end of a word objectifies what is really just a quality. Like you can take being happy, create a concept called happiness, and then go searching for it. But of all the things in the world, none contain happiness. You cannot possess happiness. You can only be happy. Most of humanity does this with happiness. Spiritual seekers do the same with awareness. Eternal search ensues. Aware-ness is the answer to the fundamental question, "What am I?" What I truly means. That's what I am: Just an aware-ness. Saying awareness makes it feel like something that can be possessed. Saying Aware-ness takes the one quality that is fundamental to the Self to describe the Self.
It’s interresting to find that A Course In Miracles offers the same message but with different words.
Love it!
Keep it coming!
🙏
One of the best channels that explains things so simply and such beautiful music too!
Nice Highly obliged
Thanks!
Thank you for your generosity 🙏
Hello, thank you...getting lost in the objects appearing within myself, the infinite field of awareness, happens...I am only knowingness....thanks for the reminder of how ignorance appears and what I am.
Gracias 🙏✨️
Thank you, thankyou thank you!!!
I am everything....everything is I ❣️
Thank you. You’re a great help.
This is ace
Nice one
Grateful
Be well knowingly
🫶🏻☀️❤️🌀❤️☀️🫶🏻
Thank you for sharing!
Much love to everyone 💗
The elegance, beauty and freedom of truth.
Respectfully most grateful for your ministry of truth
keeping it front and centre for all with perception to know.
This is beautiful,, thank you so much for this pointer ❤🙏🙏🙏
Beautiful. 🌻
Poignant and stunning. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing your Clarity ❤what a beautiful video! 🙏🏼deep Gratitude for this Gift.
Simply great❤❤❤
Wow!!!. You pointed it so clearly Nabeel. Also admire your clear pronounciation of the sanskrit term "jnana".
❤🙏❤️
Thank you 😊
Another great gift of clarity shared. I shall keep watching and listening, and I hope some of your colour , colours me. ❤
Oh, you wouldn't be listening so intently if you weren't coloured the same.
@@untangle-your-mind That is a very encouraging reply Nabeel. I appreciate and value your work.
I gain a great deal of insight from your words and wisdom . Keep on doing what you do, I am certain many of your viewers feel the same. 🙏🫶🏻
self Ref pt 9:22
Hi, thank you very much for this simple and lovely explanation on awareness as the Self. I have just subscribed and certainly plan to check the other videos in the channel. I have a question about advaita and I'll be happy if you or anyone else offers an explanation about it. I read N. Maharaj ("I Am That") a lot. And the above video is very compatible with Maharaj's messages. Now, the absolute (self, pure awareness) is said to include (or give potentiality to) all dualites but it's not a part of any duality. How come, then, it's called "pure being" but not "pure non-being"? Self but not Non-Self? Awareness but not non-awareness? Yes, I understand that there's also a kind of non-being in the Absolute; that is, the lack of a 'personal' being, the lack of a 'personal' awareness, the lack of a 'personal' Self. But either personal or not, we talk about an awareness, a self, a being. It's still a "thing" (not in the sense of an "object"), it's a kind of "positivity", a kind of being, a kind of identity, a kind of Self, obviously. But not the opposite! We talk about a Supreme Being but not a Supreme Non-Being. I mean, it seems to me that even the nonduality of pure awareness is not absolute but relative, because awareness and non-awareness (being and non-being) are obviously the two sides of a duality. Can it be that the non-reality, non-being, non-awareness, non-self involved in the "illusion" serve as the balancer of reality, being, awareness of the Absolute? Or maybe there's a fundamental triplicity of (1) Absolute Being/Awareness, (2) Relative Being/Awareness (in the Illusion) and (3) Absolute Non-Being/Non-Awareness?
If I were to ask you, "Is there an Ultimate Reality?" What would you say?
You wouldn't be able to say no, maybe there is only unreality. Nor would you be able to say that maybe there are two kinds of ultimate realities.
Jnana is first-hand insight into the nature of that Ultimate Reality.
Of course, the words used can be somewhat confusing because language has all these opposites.
Let's say the fundamental Reality is unawareness. In that unawareness, a stream of consciousness arises. When consciousness arises, it is noticed from that fundamental state of unawareness. But if that state is truly unawareness, how can consciousness ever be known from that starting point?
Actually there is no difference between unawareness and awareness. What is found is that Reality is completely nondual in nature, beyond being or non-being, existence or inexistence, consciousness, and unconsciousness. In trying to communicate this, I scrounge for words and capitalise stuff.
@@untangle-your-mind Yes, maybe a significant part of the difficulty of discussing such an issue is about linguistic limitations. Nontheless, I'll try to further explain my enquiry. As for the Maharaj's descriptions about the ultimate reality, sometimes it sounds "neutral" (neither being, nor non-being etc.), but then it more sounds positive (rather than negative) such as the most solid happiness, peace, love (as opposed to unhappiness, disturbance, hatred). Soooo many things of positive nature are said about the ultimate reality. It's almost never associated with any negativite sense. All such descriptions make me think that the ultimate reality is not absolutely 'neutral', otherwise it wouldn't be dominantly associated with positivities. There would be a perfect balance between positivity and negativity, or there would be no positivity and negativity at all. Thus, I perceive a positive bias about the absolute reality. Its neutrality is not absolute but relative to the illusion or to ego only. Nonduality doesn't sound like being in equal distance to positivity (being) and negativity (nonbeing) but sounds more or less positive. Even the obvious intention of the masters of nonduality like Maharaj to help awaken those who are suffering in the 'dream' is so positive, rather than neutral or negative. Compassion, love, peace, which are so closely associated with self-awareness, are not neutral terms, they are obviously positive. Maybe I'm missing some very basic or simple facts when I make this conclusion, I'm not sure. I don't want to tire you by extending this discussion here. I'll try to examine other videos to find possible answers to my enquiry and my current conclusion. Thank you.
Yes, this can be known directly. The Ground State is peace, a quiet and most subtle bliss.
I go into this in a few videos, this one on Turiya comes to mind: ua-cam.com/video/muNF4ah0cB0/v-deo.html
@@untangle-your-mind I've just watched it, it's another simple and effective explanation, beautiful. "Ground State" is "turiya" or the "supreme state" (or the two are one and same)? I remember Maharaj describing the supreme as somewhat higher/deeper than turiya. So, does "presence, awareness, peace" refer to turiya, or the supreme, or both?
Yes, they are the same. There can only be one Ground State of Reality. The sages point it out in various ways, highlighting some aspect depending on what is causing the obstruction for a particular mind.
The Ground State is your own most natural state. They are one and the same. So, you can know for yourself.
I use a common reference point to point this out so that the listener may realise. If you have undergone "cessation" during meditation, or simply noticed the point of waking up from deep sleep, that is the point where it is most evident that you are already present prior to experience, aware and at peace.
Only the knowledge of existing; the knowledge that "I am", is not there. And because that knowledge is not there, there is no time, no space and no experience.
But even when that knowledge is present, when you turn away from any concept of self, turn away from all gross experience, you notice that the same peace is present. Peace does not exist at a point in time and space. Peace is your natural state.
Thank you again! This line of phrasing confuses me profoundly, and makes me wonder if I have mistaken self-inquiry completely.
From what I understand in this video you're saying awareness of consciousness (experience/phenomena/sensory input as well as thought?) as "inferior" to the state of awareness of being aware, direct awareness of the true Self which is the truly liberated state.
From what I've understood from your other videos as well as other teachings the liberated state is the resting in silence in which experience flows through (which I could call "just observing the flow of experience (including the stream of thought that is the up to a point seemingly existing ego)).
Again, I can't help but interpreting "being aware of being aware" as something other and even more fundamental than this. At the same time, how can a hand grip itself? How can an eye see itself (without a mirror)? How can awareness be aware of itself (in other ways than being aware of the passing of experience/phenomena)? Also, as you and others have stated elsewhere - the Self is not an object or even really a subject (which of course would imply duality) so how does that fit in with "awareness of awareness itself"? If awareness cannot know, but as I understand it rather is *the knowing* (the illumination of the mind) - musn't pure experience (ie raw perception of the senses and thoughts) as the content that fills awareness be the only thing possible to be aware of?
Am I missing something or am I getting caught up in terminology? I believe I have had several awakening experiences which have simply been characterized by this resting in silence while observing experience and not getting caught up with thought (or as you so beautifully put it in another video, "listeining to the gaps between thought"), which I have felt has had the hallmarks of what glimpses of nirvana etc. according to most descriptions - except for when I encounter descriptions like the ones in this video...
I would hugely appreciate a nudge in the right direction here as this has been my major source of doubt or misguidedness in my practice for a long time. 🙏🏼
Are you aware? Take a moment to see how you answer that question. You don't turn to any particular experience. You don't turn to thought. How do you know that you are aware?
You know this simply by being aware. This is Self-knowledge - the awareness of being aware. You are right that this is very fundamental. It doesn't require even a minute of meditation or any other practice.
To know this, you do not rely on some specific sensory perception, the fives senses, or thought or memory. Consider the importance of that fact. This is the only unadulterated pure factual knowledge you have of yourself.
What does this Self-knowledge tell you? It does not define you as this body or mind or person. The direct knowledge is only that you are aware. To know yourself in this way, without mixing in any thought or belief, is to know yourself as Awareness alone.
The path of Jnana is only to be clear on this one basic fact.
@@untangle-your-mind I appreciate you responding so much, thank you :)
Sure, although I would argue awareness is always aware which kind of makes it a mute point although true, a truism? I would say, from my experience and understanding that the point of the question, like with a koan, is that it renders the mind silent for a moment - leaving awareness (seemingly) shining brighter and more still and subtracting the seeming small/"false"/illusory self for a while.
I wholly agree regarding the direct knowledge is only that you are aware, and to quote Ramana Maharsi (The path of Sri Ramana p. 20): "Existence and the knowledge of existence (existence and awareness, sat and cit) are not two different things."
I think what I might be getting stuck on is that for me "direct knowledge that you are aware" seem to refer to a entity/agent *having* that knowledge, which of course would imply duality (or some etheral, shadowy third layer of seeming selves) and therefore take the self-inquiry back to square one (leaving the mind utterly confused :) ).
Phew, talking about non-duality really is pretty mind-bending! You must have some patience :)
> I would say, from my experience and understanding that the point of the question, like with a koan, is that it renders the mind silent for a moment - leaving awareness (seemingly) shining brighter and more still and subtracting the seeming small/"false"/illusory self for a while.
I suggest that instead of evaluating how the question affects the state of mind, focus on how it is that you answer the question. Notice if you need to turn to any of the five senses or conceptual thought.
When you are aware of being aware, it is not the usual kind of perception which the mind can frame in terms of 'subject' and 'object'. You are turning away from the mind, which is simply the experience in that moment, to what is most truly you. You recognise your own true nature. There is no duality in this recognition because it not a subject on one end perceiving an object on the other.
> Sure, although I would argue awareness is always aware which kind of makes it a mute point although true, a truism?
Awareness is always aware, but not always aware of being aware. This step, turning inwards and recognising Awareness as the Self, is the fruition of the path of Jnana.
@@untangle-your-mind Hmm... For me the question does seem to lead me to the experience/awareness of the five senses that already is and thoughts rendered silent, yes. Not as in me being a subject doing observation but just... "Things happening" or "changes" (mindfulness I guess)... I very much relate to and understand your description as this in your video "From the ego to the self" which seems simpler and less esoteric to me - but I see you state clearly in your comments (as well as in the video after rewatching it) that is not what you are referring to, and that you make a clear distinction between consciousness (what i think I'm referring to, the stream of experience) and awareness!
Then I unfortunately can't find or realize what is being pointed to - evereywhere I look there's only consciousness/experience... Any suggestions? 🙏🏼
Edit: I just listened to your podcast episode "I, you, he, she, we" and I can't really get my head around how the following passage (starting at 1:30) is different from what I'm referring to:
"When something is seen - the seeing of it is the sentience. Whatever is heard the hearing of it the actual hearing is consciousness itself. Same goes for every all the other sorts of sensing, feeling and knowing. The -ing at the end, the actual happening, is pure awareness taking a transient form. And that pure awareness, consciousness, sentience, is what you are. what every so called person is. Behind every face, every identity what you find is not a sentient thing, not an entity that is conscious. But just this sensing, knowing and feeling. Sentience itself. The very same being."
* In this passage you equalize consciousness and awareness, then why make a point of separating them as terms in this video and discussion?
Further (soon after 7:10):
"If you just stop labeling this as 'my experience' and imagining some other entity owning another experience, and then look at this moment - what is it like? Then, there is just the seeing, the hearing, the sensing and the knowing. And the perceiving of all this, the happening of it is inseparable from pure awareness. Indestingiushable from what you are."
* And in this passage you seem to describe almost word for word what I pointed to earlier (as "raw experience" or "raw perception" or something) and label it as pure awareness, that which we are?
@@slowlotion7304 Depending on where the mind is at, if I see another string to pull, I will pull on that thread.
Since you have already understood that all that is observed is inseparable from Awareness itself, it is time to turn attention back onto what you are.
There can be two questions in Self-inquiry. What am I? And, what is all this?
If the answer one arrives at is that I am 'all this', that is great. But it is not the final answer. Because what am I in the absence of 'all this'?
Unless this is also perfectly clear, the observed, which is impermanent and interdependent, remains as primary. When life is going well, this is fine. But when what is being observed is a stream of pain and suffering, how does this insight help? And if the objective of the inquiry is to arrive at what is ultimately real, again this does not suffice.
You will have come across many teachings that make a distinction between the Self and not-self, the illusory and the Absolute, etc. There is a final insight which is from where you see Ramana Maharshi pointing to Reality as the Self, Nisargadatta speaking of the Absolute, Buddha declaring the world as a flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream.
I make these videos to nudge the seeking mind towards this complete and and final truth. So, some of them will resonate strongly and sound most natural. These are to solidify what you have understood. But some of the pointers may raise new questions. These are the last remnants of the mind, soon to be cleared out.
I think I'll make a video to address your questions in a few weeks. Until then, these ones might help clarify: ua-cam.com/video/4bjMs4A94lE/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/bK2zNKHaPnY/v-deo.html
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Ive wondered why you often put in a hyphen. Aware-ness. I thought it would become clear but it hasn't. Then just now it popped into my head that when i first ever used to go quiet and inward i would hear the word 'timelessness', and it struck me as odd that i didn't just hear 'timeless'.
Anyhow, that's perhaps irrelevant to my wondering why you sometimes wow l put the hyphen in.. I think there's another video where you have done that much more often, and it seemed to have a point.. I'm sorry this question isn't on the video that inspired it!
The 'ness' at the end of a word objectifies what is really just a quality. Like you can take being happy, create a concept called happiness, and then go searching for it. But of all the things in the world, none contain happiness. You cannot possess happiness. You can only be happy.
Most of humanity does this with happiness. Spiritual seekers do the same with awareness. Eternal search ensues.
Aware-ness is the answer to the fundamental question, "What am I?" What I truly means. That's what I am: Just an aware-ness.
Saying awareness makes it feel like something that can be possessed. Saying Aware-ness takes the one quality that is fundamental to the Self to describe the Self.
Oh, yes, thank you, thank you xxxx
THANK YOU! 🤌🤌🤌
You are not an appearance