Self-inquiry, Perfection, the meaning of Awareness, extreme pain and Acceptance

From the outside there appears to be a face, a body, an individual thing. But firsthand, in direct experience, it's not like that. In reality there's just the seeing, sensing, feeling, knowing. There is living, but no living thing.

Sentience, but no sentient entity. Do you see? In direct experience, there is really nothing that can be called a living thing. Sentience does not come in discrete units.

And yet the belief in individuality is not easy to dispel. All the wars being fought in the world right now, all the cycles of violence and grief, every mental misstep that leads to further misery is driven by this idea that splits the world into 'me', 'mine', and 'others'. On the other hand, all the good that is ever done, at its core, is driven by love and inspiration, which are simply the creative forces of nature. No one can claim to own the source of love and inspiration.

All good comes from moments of selflessness; when you are unconcerned with any image or idea of yourself. The Nonduality we discuss here is not a nihilistic and heartless doctrine. It is looking at Reality as it is, and realizing the essence of peace, love, and true beauty. Keeping this in mind, let's clear up some remaining doubts today.

I'll be addressing some of the questions asked on the channel over the last two months or so. The first is an email from John, who has throughout the years read Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi and many others. And his question is, "I have read self inquiry can be dangerous to your mental health. This leaves me cautious as to making it a way of life.

I am older now and I have had anxiety issues in the past. As a rule I feel great after meditation but I would appreciate your input to hopefully put my 'mind' at ease." So, John may not have realized this, but he had been practicing Self-inquiry for many years. Self-inquiry is just being interested in the question, 'What am I?' or 'What is real?'

It's not really a practice. In any life where this question comes up, takes a hold of the mind, Self-inquiry begins. I think many do not realize how odd you have to be, to be able to read Nisargadatta or Ramana Maharshi. The inquiry just takes place naturally.

Of course, your interest and how often you come back to this question; focus your mind on it, makes a difference. If there's interest, the inquiry does take place quite naturally and there's nothing to fear. For what will be lost is just an idea, a belief, that is mistaken. Which you've already begun questioning long ago.

Self-inquiry is dangerous only for the self-image that has been built over the years. For someone with an inflated sense of self, they're not even interested in such questions. And for such a mind, being forced down this path could be traumatic. But still, the Realization at the end would still be worthwhile.

Because the loss is immaterial. Only when the dream is preferred over reality, when the mind conceives of this character as you, is there the sense of fear. But ultimately the fear has to be faced, whether while alive or at the moment of death. It is better to do it now.

Inquire. Put your interest into Self-inquiry and see what it reveals. That peace you feel in your meditations or after them, where does it come from? What does it describe about you and your place in Reality?

So, in Self-inquiry there's only one particular belief that is being wiped out. And the loss of a belief is no real loss, especially if it's wrong. All that happens is that the meaning of 'I' becomes clear. This mental pointer of 'I' shifts from the outside, the imaginary view, to the actual direct experience.

From the face, the name, the individual living thing, to how it is. To Sentience itself. This next message from Dean contains a nice analogy for what the mind goes through. This is how he describes the process of Realization.

"The space inside the pot believes, knows, and feels it is the pot, only later it realises it is not the pot, it is the life force. Now it looks at the other pots and containers and knows they are life forces too, separate individual life forces everywhere all around. Only later it realises it is not an individual separate life force, it is the same continuous with the all, it is the All." Now Dean's question is, "I realise this strongly but I can't feel this."

See, from here the difference is very subtle. What should we expect to feel upon this Realization? There's no one single feeling because whatever is being felt is still in reference to the pot. This one pot.

Now, once you see that the pot does not contain the life force, this analogy is over. So, I gave my own analogy in reply. So consider that the pot cannot contain the ocean. In the Ocean of Awareness, which is the All, there are countless fish.

The fish are not conscious. It is the Ocean that is aware of the fish. Each and every fish. So, whatever is experienced is in reference to what is going on in that little fish.

Each fish is being experienced as per its abilities; as per what's going on in its body; what it's doing in the Ocean. If the brain in the fish computes an idea of the immensity of the Ocean, it might produce feelings of awe and so on, which are then noticed by the Ocean. But all these feelings pass. Because the fish must swim on.

And whatever is experienced, is still the experience of a particular fish. The main thing that we arrive at is that this pointer in the mind; the pointer called 'I', should not refer to the fish anymore. It should refer to the Ocean. And as this becomes natural, all of the fishy activities continue, but there's a certain quietude, a certain ease.

The natural state of the Ocean, which is just a peaceful, loving awareness. The fish is not aware. Since you are aware, you are not the fish. You are the Ocean. Just know this and everything sorts itself out.

Right, we're getting a bit of a theme with the questions here. So, the next one is, "Is there any importance on working with your shadow side and integrating these fragmented aspects, or is this a distraction?" The shadow is not even yours! The mind is the shadow of the activity going on in the brain.

It has to do with the fish, and you are not the fish. Can you decide which way the fish go go next? Can you? If I could control this fish I would change a lot of things, but now I'm satisfied with letting it be.

And then, as you back off from all that struggle, as you just focus on what you are, the mind is cleared of all its issues; the anxiety, the depression, and all that, whatever your problem is, because it was based in that wrong identification with being the fish. So, the essence of Self-inquiry is to inquire only on what the Self is. And as You know Yourself, everything works itself out. Because the mind is cleared. Freed of discord.

Untangled. Unknotted. There is a harmony. And life is led by interest, creativity, love, and inspiration, which is natural and good.

So, going back to the question, wherever there are shadows there must be light. The shadows are made possible because of the light. Just investigate the light. It's nature, its source.

What is your relation to that light? So, the next question is along a similar line. "In various traditions they speak about the state of perfection. What is the difference between being established in the Absolute reality - realizing non-duality, and being perfected?

Does our individual being continue evolving even after realizing the non-dual nature of reality, or am I misunderstanding? But if that is the case then there's still a process of refinement going on, right? Is perfection a state where one is completely cleansed of all impressions, leaving only a crystal-clear lens of pure awareness? I often hear speakers today claiming 'all is Brahman' and equating themselves with Ramana Maharshi, but something about that doesn't resonate with me.

Could you clarify this distinction?" So, firstly, the process of refinement is a naturally occurring process. That is how the universe functions; how the stars and the planets form, and all the organisms on the planet. And each organism in its lifetime does continue this process of refinement.

But, again, that all has to do with the fish and not the Ocean. Perfection is not a state of the mind. When a mind enters some state, that state is only in reference to the one fish and its related stream of consciousness. It is not different to one dream in an infinity of dreams.

Perfection is not an individual, or mental, or personal state. It is not a state of the mind. Perfection is the Natural State in which the mind appears. In which when the fish hatches, starts to wriggle about, it is known from that Perfect State.

Awareness is in itself perfect. And what comes out of Perfection can only be perfect and cannot be perfected any further. All the ideas of imperfection are based on the belief in being an individual sentient entity. A living thing in charge of its own affairs.

Someone with the agency to do better, to improve. Someone to blame and punish. Someone to attain perfection. But this struggle is endless, unless Reality is seen as it is.

The difference you see in Ramana Maharshi is not wrong. But the difference is not in terms of some state he attained. It is in how completely and unwaveringly he knew the nature of Self. And how completely his belief in individual selves was gone.

When you see everything as the spontaneous natural flow of the fundamental forces there's no one left to blame or hate. When you know that every life is being experienced by the Ocean-that-is-the-Self, then love is natural, and Perfection is realized. And the realization of such Perfection also touches the life of the little fish. Because the fish is the instrument through which this Realization is arrived upon.

But there's no need to try to perfect the fish. This next comment from Eduardo helps us continue this theme. Because he talks about how the mind tries to struggle with all this understanding. But there's still the idea that there's a state, something being missed, and so on.

So, remember that what is being pointed out is your current state. The state of being aware. And every time the mind brings up this idea of some perfect state, some exclusive state available only to the most amazing sages, then that would be a state that would have to be attained. If only one in a billion, or one in seven billion, attained such a state, what would be the point of trying to get to it?

Because with arrival of cancer, or dementia or Alzheimer’s, and death, that 'perfect state' would be reduced to nothing and would not be perfect. To the Sages, any state that is conditional and transient is ultimately worthless. The only state worth anything is the Natural State of being aware. Which is most natural and ever present. And universal.

The differences can only be in terms of what is being experienced, what is being perceived from some particular point in space and time, in some particular universe with some particular instrument. You were hoping I wouldn't mention fish, weren't you? Instrument. On to the next question from Mark.

He says, "In your teaching you discuss the way that I alone am. But there are obviously a lot of other people on earth. Presumably, each of these people also alone are." He goes on to say, "I could use some help understanding more clearly how each of us is everything, but yet there are so many of us." So this is where the mind is still confused by what 'I' means. It flip-flops because 'I' is really a pointer.

The same mind can point clearly and then go back into a bit of confusion. When it is pointed out that, 'You alone are' the You does not refer to the person. The person is an entirely mental construct that was built over time. Because the personality changes slowly and is familiar to You, the mind can get confused and consider it as being you.

Consider how as a child you slowly started to develop this persona; this personality. The memories, the likes and dislikes, the patterns and behaviors, the relationships, they all slowly accrete around the seed of Consciousness. Which really is universal. It is the wordless sense that 'I Am.'

The persona is the false self; false only in the sense that it is not really You. From the non-dual standpoint, there are only personas, which are part of the mind, but there are no people in the world. Even the fish I've been talking about, they're just an analogy to help understand what is going on. The Self is not a thing in the world.

The world appears in the Self. As do all worlds. The Self is simply Sentience / Aware-ness / Pure Consciousness. That is the You that alone is.

There are not many of those. What at attribute would you use to differentiate sentience from Sentience, awareness from Awareness, consciousness from Consciousness. There's an infinite variety of experiences, streams of experiences, rivers, but looking deeper you only find a Unity. The Ocean itself.

The next question is from Aaron. "What is it that causes awareness or sentience to redirect attention and identification away from the 'I' thoughts and instead to simply being and experiencing? Does awareness or sentience have volition and choose to withdraw from identification with 'the dust' as described in the stanzas of this video." That's with reference to the video on Master Huineng.

Now, again, it's important to make a distinction between the function of this body and mind, and the function of awareness, if we can call it a function. The me and mine thoughts are a process taking place in the mind. One part of the process. It is the mind's function to name, associate, and conceptualize; to make sense of the world. This is what has allowed human civilization to flourish, for us to be sitting here asking these questions.

The Sage's pointers are designed to take over this mental process. Whereas the mind's function is turned outwards, the wisdom teachings turn back this process, turn it inwards. They start to destroy all the concepts and take you back to the source. In this whole process, Sentience or Awareness is not doing anything.

Other than making the whole process possible. By making the mind possible. As the mind turns inward, looks to its source, it struggles and struggles, but eventually as it surrenders and gives up it struggles, then the essence of the mind is clear and obvious. Sentience or Awareness are the same as Stillness or Silence.

The Silence is aware. The Stillness is sentient. This is the Essence, and the movements are the mind. The functioning that takes place in this Essence is the mind.

So, the next few questions are on what Awareness or Sentience actually means. This is from Hannah, and it's in reference to the subtitles or transcripts I put in my videos. "I 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'. So, the way in English you add 'ness' to a word changes what it means in the mind. 'ness' can be used to objectify something which is really not an object, just a quality. Like you can take 'happy' and create a concept called 'Happiness' and then go searching for it.

But nothing in the world contains 'happiness'. You cannot possess it; you can only be happy. But the other way 'ness' can be used... sometimes it's used in the mind when something is understood at a deeper level, becomes more intimate. Like the 'timelessness' that Hannah described.

Not just timeless as being a quality of something, but a timeless-ness that is understood, felt deep in the bones. The hyphen I put in Aware-ness is intentional. It's to put a gap in that objectification of what is really the Self. The fundamental question we are answering here is, 'What am I?'

What does 'I' truly mean? Awareness is what I am. That's what I am: Just an Aware-ness. Saying 'awareness' casually makes it feel like something that can be possessed.

A quality of some other thing. But, at least in this mind, saying Aware-ness takes that one quality that is fundamental to the Self to describe the Self. That's what you are right now. In this moment you're not any of these perceivables.

What you are is just this Aware-ness. I's taking the one quality that you most clearly have to define what you are. To say I am the body, or I am the mind, or the person, or a soul, all relies on concepts. But when when I say you are this Aware-ness, it points out a fact.

Most immediate and intimate. Sakina asked a very similar question, the same question really. "Nabeel, why do you speak of Awareness as Aware-ness. Is it to give emphasis on what it is nothing more?"

This reminded me of a quote from Sri Ramana Maharshi. He said, "You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you." So, when I'm breaking this word down a bit, I want it to express how Aware-ness is not other than the Self. It is a synonym for 'I'.

A lot of the struggle during the search is that you have realized that Awareness is the Absolute, but you do not feel that you are the Awareness. You know you are aware, but you feel you are something that is aware. Awareness is conceived of the mind as some field, a spacious field. Vast, open, immense, and so on.

And you will see many non-duality meditations talking about sinking into spacious Awareness and things like that. Stepping back and whatever, abiding in Awareness. It's all wrong! That's not what Awareness is!

You are the Awareness. You are the Aware-ness. You are aware. Hence, you are the aware-ness. It's not that awareness is a field or a quality possessed by something.

Even in the analogy of the Ocean it gives this wrong impression. Awareness has no size, no dimensions, no location. You are aware. Hence, in direct experience, firsthand, what you are, can be called Aware-ness.

The next question is from OneOm. I just had to do that. Om! So, the question is, "I would love to have your clear understanding of to the meaning you give to Sentience." They pointed out that the word 'sentience' just like the word 'awareness' doesn't exist in French.

I didn't know this. "Beyond the conventional sense given by philosophers or scientists, what would be a mystic point of view of the word." So, maybe first I should describe why I prefer to use the word 'Sentience' or 'Aware-ness' rather than 'Consciousness'. Because consciousness is generally associated with this state of being conscious, where there's some flow of experience passing by.

But, even when there is no experience, there's the capacity to perceive; the capacity to sense, to know; for some experience to emerge. We all know that this capacity is already present in the absence of experience. That is what allows that transition from deep sleep to waking. Or the point where a new life begins; what is called 'birth'.

That is what I refer to as Sentience or Aware-ness. If we bring our attention to that point where consciousness emerges; where experience begins, or life begins, simply put, then what must be present for that experience to start, to be noticed, to be perceived? That is what is Sentience or Awareness. And why it is the same as what is meant by 'I'.

And exactly what is meant by the Ultimate Reality that transcends space and time. But the mind will always struggle with the meaning of all this. Because the mind is not sentient. The mind is the phenomena being perceived in Sentience.

You are the Sentince. You are the Aware-ness. And so these pointers only work in the gaps where the mind stops struggling, stops trying to conceptualize, to understand the meaning, to conceive of you, and just leaves you be. To know what you are, just through the fact of being aware.

Through the fact of being sentient. Right, so the next few questions are from Daniel, and this is where my pointers can go a bit awry. And he says, "I just listened to the lecture on form and emptiness. Now my mind is more tangled than ever." And then he followed up with another comment quickly on another video.

"So, we are basically nothing? Makes it all seem pointless to me." Now, I know the channel name is 'Untangle Your Mind' and it's supposed to do that, but the problem with knots is, when you discover them you get this feeling of confusion. They look impossible at first. This channel will bring up questions you might not have asked yet.

In all the Nonduality teachings I listened to while I was reading and so on, hardly any ever directly addressed the duality of life and death, something and nothing. At best they just said that these are not dualities. So, when you first come across the question, it is of course confronting. But there is a concept in the mind - the concept of 'nothing'.

That is what I'm bringing into question. Isn't it just a concept? As we question the duality of 'something' and 'nothing', this concept falls apart. There's no such thing as nothing.

Just as there are no separate somethings. The ideas of something and nothing converge into a clear understanding of what is real. That's the point of all this. When that is understood it's not pointlessness, is the very meaning of life.

And I come to this often; life and death, something and nothing, existence and inexistence, consciousness and unconsciousness. Because, other than the belief in self and others, this is the major hindrance to realizing what the Sages are on about. Most of them didn't bother to explain this because it's so obvious, after a certain point, and so hard to explain. The next question from James has to do with inexistence.

And he asks, "When we return to our natural state at the end of this experience will we have a sense of independent existence. It is a concept that confuses me deeply as to lose all form of identity. The way I understand it is how can I know that I exist? Can you shed light on this question?"

In the Original State there is no sense of existence. The sense of existence comes later with consciousness. With the first movement in that Stillness. And movement is always time-bound.

This becomes clear as you investigate and question the transition from waking to sleeping to dreaming to waking. The transition between consciousness and unconsciousness is the same as the transition from nothing to something. Everything that appears, everything that is known, is known in the state of consciousness; in the state where there is some movement. But consciousness itself is known.

The core of consciousness is the sense that 'I am'. I am here. Right here. Right now. It's not the words 'I am' but the sense I am.

That is there even in the stream of experience associated with an insect. The Self is that which notices the appearance of consciousness and then the stream that follows. So, when a particular stream ends, nothing has changed. The Natural State is changeless and timeless.

You do not go in and out of it. You can realize it right now. In fact, you can only realize the Natural State while consciousness is present. Because once consciousness goes, there's just perfect Stillness.

Silence. The Peace where you forget that you even exist. But this is all with reference to time. The Self lives all lives simultaneously, in parallel.

So, the Natural State transcends these ideas of being and nonbeing, and existence and inexistence, and all that. So, the final few questions I'll address here are from one of my most controversial videos. The one where we have this thought experiment of you being burnt at the stake as a witch. And this thought experiment is meant to bring into question what you would consider as the self.

So, Neil says, "Of all your videos, this one I find slips, through my grasp. I sort of understand, but not entirely? Having experienced extreme physical pain, my experience is of being overwhelmed by pain. I wish I could focus on something else.

Or have I really missed the point of what you're saying here? Perhaps I'm taking your words too literally?" So, first of all, yes, let's acknowledge that there are states of mind where the mind is only filled with pain and anguish, and there's no room for logical Self-inquiry. The theme of of this pointer was about resistance and surrender.

When a monk spends decades trying to perfect the mind, perhaps to undergo such an extreme level of pain and somehow remain at peace, there is a misconception there that I wanted to reveal through this thought experiment. There is the idea that the Sage is all-accepting, perfectly selfless, compassionate, and all that. But if you put any mind in an extreme enough situation the facts of the matter become quite clear. It is not the mind that can be perfected or be all accepting.

The mind is conditioned. The brain has been built over millions of years of evolution. Pain is pain. Pleasure is pleasure. There's a point where they intersect, but still pain is pain.

But at the same time, the true Self, which is Aware-ness, is all accepting. There's no limit to the pain that Awareness will render. It is the mind that gets overwhelmed. The body might break down and shut down.

But you know that Awareness has no limit. Awareness is all accepting, perfectly calm, perfectly serene, rendering every experience based on the functioning of what is actually happening. The thing that can be perfected, can have a higher threshold to pain maybe, is not the subject, is not the thing that is conscious, but is itself an object in a subjective world. The experiencer is itself a part of the dream.

There was another comment from Sarah a few months ago, which had the same concern. She said, "When a person is dying a horrific and painful death, there's not even a fraction of the awareness that can take in anything else except the terror and the pain that overtakes. It's basically all consuming at that point. Anyone who has experienced any kind of excruciating pain will know that there isn't a way to override this evolutionary component and the design of our physical make-up."

So, yes, pain can be all consuming. But what it consumes is the mind. And when it consumes the mind, at that point, what is the self? The Self is the Awareness which accepts that pain.

Not accepts in the human sense; accepts in the sense that it allows for that pain to be conceived of and be perceived. And if you want to scream, you scream. The point is the additional suffering of feeling like the one being harmed; the meek subject on which the pain is being inflicted, that subject itself is an object in consciousness. And just how a nightmare becomes very different once you realize it is a dream, the same applies to life.

When you as a dream character are undergoing a nightmare, you're having a terrible experience. But at the same time, what is truly You is the Awareness, which is undisturbed as ever, rendering that nightmare in exquisite detail. The suffering is experienced and is horrible. But somehow what is truly You remains unaffected.

Rendering even the nightmare without complaint and without fail. So, there is no need to cultivate a perfect mind that does not get scared; that does not scream. What is important is to realize where You truly stand. What the Self is.

And then Perfection is realized. What is all-accepting is already all-accepting and needs no practice to be made as such. The source of love need not be taught how to love. What is perfect is already perfect and cannot be perfected any further.

I'd like to end with a thank you| message to all of you who share where the videos have made a difference, had an impact on you. It is quite heartening to read all that and to continue doing this. I also want to thank for all of you who support the channel through the Super Thanks on YouTube, and on the Ko-fi page by buying me a coffee. It's amazing that you're willing to contribute without even being asked.

So, thank you very much. And I wish you all the best and hope to continue this conversation. Thank you.