Posts
A reader’s question (paraphrased)
A reader writes to share a recurring experience during self-inquiry. They recall a retreat where a teacher confirmed that the “I am” sense could be located as a “subtle sensation” within. The reader has been wrestling with this instruction for a long time; as they investigate, the experience deepens into “a sensation and something else that isn't something,” but they often feel a stab of fear and reflexively pull back into distraction just as they seem close to penetrating it.
Seeking clarity, the reader consulted an AI chatbot (Grok) about this “subtle sensation” that arises when asking “Who am I?”. The AI identified it as “knowingness,” “bare awareness,” or “mind’s luminosity” (citing Buddhist terms like rigpa or citta-pabhā), but described it as the final subtle object or “veil” of ignorance before non-dual recognition. The reader found this explanation helpful in understanding their fear, assuming this sensation is the final barrier. The reader asks for my view on this “subtle sensation” and the AI’s interpretation that it is the mind’s luminous quality appearing as an object.
Soh's Reply:
I am an AI enthusiast, but sad to say, LLMs are misleading for your question. I tried asking your question to ChatGPT and Gemini, both gave very disappointing responses. So it's not only Grok that is disappointing, although I think Grok's answer seems worse than the other two.
The first sense of self you initially identify (the "first impression is of a very subtle sensation"), that is not the I AM or Witness or Luminous Mind realization. It is almost always.. a coarse sense of self (or what Ramana calls the I-thought), and when you investigate that, it seems to appear somewhere either in the head, or the chest, etc, a subtle reference point that you identify as yourself somewhere inside your body (and you may not even have a very clear idea of 'where' initially until you examine further).
That is not who you truly are and is not the Self that is realized through self-enquiry. So you have to push the inquiry further, because that sense of self located somewhere is still an object of awareness which comes and goes, and is not who you are (so it is negated in self-enquiry as neti neti -- not this, not that), so who are you? Who or what is aware of that?
Do watch this video by Dr. Greg Goode, it will clarify things:
And also my article on self-enquiry should clarify things as well:
You have to be patient, it took me 2 years of inquiry to reach self-realization with many glimpses prior that.
1. The True 'I AM' Realization
The true I AM realization is not referring to that vague sense of an individualized being somewhere in the body, but rather refers to a non-dual realization of all-pervasive Presence. But this I AM realization (Thusness Stages 1 and 2:
Sim Pern Chong, who went through similar insights, wrote a few years ago:
"Just my opinion... For my case, the first time i experienced a definitive I AM presence, there was zero thought. just a borderless, all pervading presence. In fact, there was no thinking or looking out for whether this is I AM or not. There was no conceptual activity. It was interpreted as 'I AM' only after that experience. To me, I AM experience is actually a glimpse of the way reality is.. but it is quickly re-interpreted. The attribute of 'borderlessness' is experienced. but other 'attributes such as 'no subject-object', 'transparent luminosity, emptiness are not understood yet. My take, is that when 'I AM' is experienced, you will be doubtless that it is the experience."
John Tan also said:
"John Tan: We call it the presence or we call it, um, we call it the presence. (Speaker: is it the I AM?) I AM is actually different. It's also presence. It's also presence. I AM, depending on... You see the definition of I AM also not. So, uh. Not really the same for some people, like Geovani? He actually wrote to me saying that his I AM is like localized one in the head. So it's very individual. But that is not the I AM that we are talking about. The I AM is actually a very uh, like for example, I think, uh. Long Chen (Sim Pern Chong) actually went through. It's actually all encompassing. It's actually what we call a non-dual experience. It's actually a very, um. There's no thoughts. It's just a pure sense of existence. And it can be a very powerful. It is indeed a very powerful experience. So when, let's say when you are. When you're very young. Especially when you are ...my age. When you first experience I AM, it is very different. It's a very different experience. We never experienced that before. So, um, I don't know whether it can be even considered as an experience. Um, because there is no thoughts. It's just Presence. But this presence is very quickly. It's very quickly. yeah. It's really quickly. Um. Misinterpreted due to our karmic tendency to of understanding something in a dualistic and in a in a very concrete manner. So very when we experience the we have the experience, the interpretation is very different. And that the, the, the wrong way of interpretation actually create a very dualistic experience." - Excerpt from AtR (Awakening to Reality) Meeting, March 2021
It is this very all-pervasive Presence that is then mistaken as the ultimate background, the ground of being for all phenomena to pop in and out while itself being unchanged and unaffected. Elaborated in:
2. The Direct Path: Don't Downplay the 'I'
It is important not to mistaken this 'neti neti' process that is part and parcel of self-enquiry with the Buddhist Anatman teaching. They are two different things. In Neti Neti and Self-Enquiry, the purpose is directed to realizing what Presence-Awareness is, what your Self is, what the Source is. You cannot downplay the Self. You can put aside Buddhist No-Self or contemplation on impermanence or no-self aside until later on, if inquiry and direct path is yo
As John Tan said (Posts by Thusness/PasserBy in 2009 DhO 1.0):
“Hi Gary,
It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.
My take is that
you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the dire ct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’. On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.
Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.
Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'”
3. The Meaning of Anatman (No-Self) vs. Presence
Once the "I AM" is realized, one may eventually breakthrough to Anatman (No-Self). It is crucial to understand that Anatman does not mean the denial or non-existence of Awareness or Luminosity. Insight into anatman removes the "view of inherentness", and the "dualistic view" of a background "subject" separate from the "object.", so that one realizes the true face of awareness as this seamless activity that fills the entire universe, vivid and empty.
I will not elaborate on this part as you can read up the deta
