[QUOTE=ray_killeen;82188]If ones were to use a process of elimination method such as self-inquiry “WHO AM I” the inquest might progress as such:
a.) Am I this body?
b.) Am I this mind?
c.) Am I this consciousness?
You seem to be indicating; “I think therefore I AM” whereas my experience is; “I AM therefore I think” wherein this sensation of “being-ness” (I-AM-NESS) becomes the self-evident source as to what sparks consciousness into play. The Yoga’s become extremely useful in moving about and evaluating all the various levels of consciousness (Waking, Dreaming, Sleeping) but as we go deeper into consciousness this mind/language communication becomes less effective, hence the terminology “finger to the moon” we simply point to that to which only you alone can confirm, in that sense I’m not accurately using Webster’s Dictionary definition for awareness. One may begin to realize that the mind/body is needed to sustain consciousness but consider whether consciousness belongs to mind/body or is it this animating consciousness that gives sentience to the psychosomatic apparatus.
d.) From where does consciousness arise?
Consider Consciousness a reflection of, what I refer to as, Pure Awareness against the surface of matter that which brings about your sense of being-ness and illusion in separation. This Pure Awareness is an Absolute state without beginning or end, timeless, space-less in no need of support of any kind, it can only become conscious (aware of itself) when it has an object to reflect against. Consciousness is the link to the Absolute and yet there is a gap in which mind cannot cross, a common analogy; the sun (being Pure Awareness) compared to sun reflected in dewdrops (awareness reflected as consciousness) i.e. the appearance of sun in the dew drops is not the sun. To sit in Samadhi (state of absolute perfection) consciousness comes to a complete stillness, movement ceases, not even the sense of I-AM-NESS exist, this is the state of Awareness I point to, only after the thought I AM arises does consciousness with its illusion of separation stir into play.
e.) Am I this Pure Absolute Awareness (consciousness at rest); that which was never born and shall never die, timeless, space-less, infinite, everything/nothing, this, that, neti neti…[/QUOTE]
Seeking: No I am not indicating “I think therefore I am” that is Ren? Descartes mistaken belief not mine. I say the whole I am construct is mind itself.
Since you have quoted Descartes I shall quote a far wiser being, and raise you a not this and a nor that 
Here are some things from Ramana Mahrishi he says it better than either one of us. This also confirms what I have been saying in other threads about the need for ego as a tool to communicate try communicating without mind and see how much you get across on an internet forum.
I guess we could all go around pointing at stuff and using the word “one” instead of “I” rearranging our grammar in an attempt to appear lofty & spiritually correct or spit out Koanish answers but that leaves even more open for misinterpretation and ultimately only further fools the ego doing this, confounds meaningful communication and generally is a nuisance to read.
In any event pointing at the moon still requires a mind and the boogy man ego. It is just hiding better when one does that and less likely to create waves in a temporary placidity. Catch that pointer by surprise and hear him yelp. :eek:
Language and writing is the ultimate outward form of mind expression and ego play. Still important to education none the less.
Question : What is the nature of the mind?
Ramana Maharshi : The mind is nothing other than the `I’-thought. The mind and the ego are one and the same. The other mental faculties such as the intellect and the memory are only this. Mind [manas], intellect [buddhi], the storehouse of mental tendencies [chittam], and ego [ahamkara]; all these are only the one mind itself. This is like different names being given to a man according to his different functions. The individual soul [jiva] is nothing but this soul or ego.
Question : How shall we discover the nature of the mind, that is, its ultimate cause, or the noumenon of which it is a manifestation?
Ramana Maharshi: Arranging thoughts in the order of value, the `I’-thought is the all-important thought. Personality-idea or thought is also the root or the stem of all other thoughts, since each idea or thought arises only as someone’s thought and is not known to exist independently of the ego.
The ego therefore exhibits thought activity. The second and the third persons [he, you, that, etc.] do not appear except to the first person [I]. Therefore they arise only after the first person appears, so all the three persons seem to rise and sink together. Trace, then, the ultimate cause of I' or personality. From where does thisI’ arise? Seek for it within; it then vanishes.
This is the pursuit of wisdom. When the mind unceasingly investigates its own nature, it transpires that there is no such thing as mind.
This is the direct path for all. The mind is merely thoughts.
Of all thoughts the thought I' is the root. Therefore the mind is only the thoughtI’. The birth of the `I’-thought is one’s own birth, its death is the person’s death.
After the `I’-thought has arisen, the wrong identity with the body arises.
Get rid of the I'-thought. So long asI’ is alive there is grief. When `I’ ceases to exist there is no grief.
Question : Yes, but when I take to the `I’-thought, other thoughts arise and disturb me.
Ramana Maharshi: See whose thoughts they are. They will vanish.
They have their root in the single `I’-thought. Hold it and they will disappear.
Question : How can any enquiry initiated by the ego reveal its own unreality?
Ramana Maharshi: The ego’s phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive into the source from where the `I’-thought rises.
Question : While making japa for an hour or more I fall into a state like sleep.
On waking up I recollect that my japa has been interrupted. So I try again.
[COLOR=“blue”]Ramana Maharshi:[/COLOR] `Like sleep’, that is right. It is the natural state.[/COLOR] Because you are now associated with the ego, you consider that the natural state is something which interrupts your work. So you must have the experience repeated until you realize that it is your natural state. You will then find that japa is extraneous but still it will go on automatically. Your present doubt is due to that false identity, namely of identifying yourself with the mind that does the japa. Japa means clinging to one thought to the exclusion of all other thoughts. That is its purpose. It leads to dhyana which ends in Self-realization or jnana.
Seeking: This is what I have been trying to indicate. The differences that leads this I away from I is done via Kriya Pranyama not self inquiry. It works quite well to arrive at what is so correctly described above by the Maharishi himself.
Now as far as Samadhi states go I can not sustain them for long periods of time they are often quite brief or so it seems often after Kriya practice I look at the clock and even though it seems as if no time has passed quite a bit has.
In any event there is a kind of bleed over into daily and nightly life. It is kind of like dipping a wooden spoon into a pot of boiling water with Tumeric little by little the spoon becomes more and more yellow with each removal of the spoon.
Maybe dipping a spoon into a pot of acid is a better analogy minus the connotation with pain. Dipping the spoon into the pot of acid time after time less and less of the spoon remains.
Kriya does not produce Samadhi. Kriya just sets the stage when performed with sincerity. Samadhi happens as it will or won’t. Practicing Kriya is like dipping the spoon.
What is it you do Ray? It seems that Yoga has not been it for you from your comments. Zazen perhaps?
