A
Yeah — this is a classic Advaita move, and it’s pointing at something very real:
Anything that can be “taken as I” and later dropped cannot be the real I.
That’s the whole punchline behind “the ‘I’ shifts.”
But your question underneath all this is even more important:
How do I know the insight is truth and not just another illusion?
Let’s unpack it cleanly (without making it mystical).
1) The key distinction: experience vs. commentary
What Ekta is saying with the dark room example is:
You perceive darkness in the dark
You describe it later in the light
Same with deep sleep.
You don’t have a thought in deep sleep saying:
“Ah yes, nothingness.”
But after waking, you can report:
“I slept and knew nothing.”
That report is not deep sleep itself — it’s the waking mind’s translation.
And Advaita says:
the translation can be mistaken
but the fact that you were not aware of objects in deep sleep is not mistaken
2) “The world is born to me” — why that feels true and then fades
Those glimpses you described are legit and common in inquiry.
They happen when you notice:
the world appears in awareness
the world disappears (deep sleep, fainting, anesthesia)
therefore the world is not “absolute” in your direct evidence
But then doubt returns because the mind says:
“Wait… what if this is just another mental state?”
And honestly, that doubt is healthy at first. It prevents spiritual fantasy.
3) The real Advaita filter for truth vs illusion
Advaita doesn’t say:
“Believe whatever feels profound.”
It uses a very specific filter:
Truth = that which does not change
Illusion/appearance = that which changes
So Ekta’s line:
“The ‘I’ shifts. How can that which shifts be anything but illusory?”
means:
Sometimes “I” feels like the body.
Sometimes “I” feels like the mind.
Sometimes “I” feels like the witness.
Sometimes “I” feels like nothingness.
If the ‘I’ is moving between positions, none of those positions can be the final truth.
The “I” you’re trying to locate is itself part of the shifting show.
4) The part that people miss: even the “witness” can become an object
This is subtle but important.
At first, inquiry goes:
“I am not the body. I am the witness.”
Good.
But later you may notice:
even “witnessing” feels like a state
it can be strong in meditation
it can fade in stress or activity
So the witness-position can also be a refined identity.
Advaita’s deeper move is:
The witness is not a role you occupy.
It is what remains when all roles are seen.
5) So what’s actually reliable?
This is the cleanest way to put it:
You cannot “know the Self” the way you know an object.
Because the Self is what knowing happens in.
So instead of asking:
“Is this insight true?”
Advaita asks:
“What is it that knows the insight?”
That “knowingness” is not an insight.
It’s not a thought.
It’s not a mood.
It’s the one constant factor.
6) Practical way to work with the doubt
When doubt comes like:
“Maybe this is illusion too.”
Don’t fight it. Use it.
Ask:
“To whom is this doubt appearing?”
Then:
“What is aware of the doubt?”
Don’t answer verbally.
Just look.
If you stay with that long enough, something becomes obvious:
the doubt changes
the mind changes
but awareness of it doesn’t need effort
That’s the “SEE” she’s pointing to.
7) One grounded caution
Some people read stuff like this and start trying to “live without an I” or force dissociation.
That’s not Advaita — that’s just psychological bypassing.
Real inquiry makes you:
calmer
clearer
less reactive
more ordinary (in a good way)
Not spaced out.
If you want, I can turn this into a super simple daily practice (like a 2-minute inquiry you can do during normal life) that keeps you from getting lost in mental philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment