Yes I am also aware of the cittamatra or “mind-only” Buddhists (like Ajahn Mun) so, again, that is why we are endlessly confronted with the never ceasing dog that loves to chase its tail: ego and its never ending interpretations (which is a misery in itself). An eloquent example of this in this forum is now at 704 entries (and counting):
In response to the first two bullet points above, as with the liberation from samsara, realizing the self not only ends suffering but provides the experience of permanent happiness. The misery of worldly existence occurs because of our ignorant experience of identifying with the body (another term for the five sheaths):
A person is a form composed of five sheaths or coverings (pañca-kōśa ), and as Bhagavan teaches us in verse 22 of Upadēśa Undiyār all these five sheaths (including our mind and intellect) are jaḍa (insentient or non-conscious) and asat (non-existent), so they are not ‘I’. Why they seem to be sentient and existent is only because this ego has attached itself to them, experiencing them as itself. But is the ego actually any of these insentient coverings? It seems to be a mixture of awareness (cit ) and these insentient (jaḍa ) adjuncts, but it is not actually either. It is just cit-jaḍa-granthi , a knot that seems to exist only when cit and jaḍa are seemingly entangled.
What is a knot? When two pieces of string are tied together they form a knot, but when they are untied it ceases to exist, because it has no independent existence of its own. It is not either one string or the other, but is a combination of both. Likewise, this ego is neither cit nor jaḍa but seems to be a combination of both.
What is truly sentient is only cit , which is pure awareness uncontaminated by any jaḍa adjunct, but this ego seems to be sentient because it rises as a confused mixture of cit and jaḍa . And because this ego rises by grasping the jaḍa form of a person as itself, that person seems to be sentient, and hence all the other people seen by this ego also seem to be sentient.
So destroying this ego permanently results in severing the root of ignorance, delusion (or call it as you like), notably the vasanas (similar to the Buddhist defilements). The term ego in itself is not at all what we have come to mean by it in contemporary culture. It is synonymous with the ignorant mind, maya, etc., and in fact doesn’t actually exist. But it seems to exist in our every day existence. (To deny that is to fall into another can or worms called neo-advaita with its many charlatans of the spiritual marketplace found everywhere on the web today). That is our delusion and consequentially deep rooted problem. That is why killing or severing ego (there is actually only one ego, by the way, not many egos) results in liberation and happiness.
Pure self-awareness is not nothingness but the only thing that actually exists
A friend recently wrote to me asking, ‘What is the difference between nothingness and complete self-awareness? I understand the destruction of the mind is the ultimate goal of the practice, but does that mean we aim to just be nothing at all?’, but then added, ‘Obviously this question arises from an ego that is afraid to not be, but I am curious’. The following is adapted from my reply to him:
Pure self-awareness is what we actually are, so unless you can deny your own existence it is not nothing, and hence not nothingness either (as I explained in much greater detail in one of my earlier articles: Self-knowledge is not a void (śūnya)).
Pure self-awareness is ‘nothingness’ only in the sense that it is devoid of phenomena, but phenomena are actually nothingness , because they are illusory appearances that seem to exist only in the view of the ego, which is itself not real, so they do not actually exist.
Therefore pure self-awareness is actually devoid of nothingness. It alone exists, so it is the only thing, and hence it is everything, because there is nothing other than it. It is absolute fullness — the fullness of infinite, indivisible, immutable and eternal sat-cit-ānanda: being (sat), awareness (cit) and happiness (ānanda), which are one and the same thing.
This is why Bhagavan concluded verse 12 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu (the meaning of which I discussed in detail in Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 12: other than the real awareness that we actually are, there is nothing to know or make known) by saying that since it shines without any other to know or to cause to be known, what we actually are is real awareness, and it is not nothingness or a void:
அறிவறி யாமையு மற்றதறி வாமே
யறியும துண்மையறி வாகா — தறிதற்
கறிவித்தற் கன்னியமின் றாயவிர்வ தாற்றா
னறிவாகும் பாழன் றறி.aṟivaṟi yāmaiyu maṯṟadaṟi vāmē
yaṟiyuma duṇmaiyaṟi vāhā — daṟitaṟ
kaṟivittaṟ kaṉṉiyamiṉ ḏṟāyavirva dāṯṟā
ṉaṟivāhum pāṙaṉ ṟaṟi.பதச்சேதம்: அறிவு அறியாமையும் அற்றது அறிவு ஆமே. அறியும் அது உண்மை அறிவு ஆகாது. அறிதற்கு அறிவித்தற்கு அன்னியம் இன்றாய் அவிர்வதால், தான் அறிவு ஆகும். பாழ் அன்று. அறி.
Padacchēdam (word-separation): aṟivu aṟiyāmaiyum aṯṟadu aṟivu āmē. aṟiyum adu uṇmai aṟivu āhādu. aṟidaṟku aṟivittaṟku aṉṉiyam iṉḏṟāy avirvadāl, tāṉ aṟivu āhum. pāṙ aṉḏṟu. aṟi.
English translation: What is devoid of knowledge and ignorance [about anything other than itself] is actually aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. That which knows [or is aware of anything other than itself] is not real aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. Since it shines without another for knowing or for causing to know [or causing to be known], oneself is [real] aṟivu [knowledge or awareness]. It is not a void [or nothingness]. Know [or be aware].
The absence of any phenomena seems to be nothingness only in the view of the ego (which is the false awareness that he refers to here as ‘அறியும் அது’ (aṟiyum adu), ‘that which knows’, meaning that which knows or is aware of things other than itself), because we seem to be this ego only when we are aware of phenomena, so awareness of phenomena is the very nature of the ego. It appears and co-exists with the ego in waking and dream, and disappears with it in sleep.Since the ego does not exist in sleep, in its view sleep seems to be a state of nothingness. However, though the ego does not exist then, in sleep we exist and are aware of our existence, and hence after waking we know ‘I slept’.
The ‘I’ that existed and was aware that it existed in sleep is not the ego but what we actually are. However, since we now experience ourself as this phenomena-knowing ego, we seem to be not aware of ourself as we actually are, and hence we do not have a clear impression of what we were actually aware of in sleep, which is nothing other than the pure self-awareness that we actually are.
All this will become clear to us to the extent that we practise being keenly and persistently self-attentive, because the more keenly and persistently self-attentive we are, the more familiar we will become with self-awareness in isolation (or at least relative isolation) from all phenomena.
The self can be known by a three prong practice: hearing (or studying self knowledge), deeply reflecting on the implications of this knowledge and self inquiry. Of the three, the last – self inquiry, self investigation or self attentiveness (all synonymous) – is of the most importance. So yes, self knowledge is important in order to know how to orient oneself, but highly insufficient for the penny (ego) to drop. For that, the practice of self attentiveness is paramount.
If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. [Hence] the ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this [the ego] is alone is giving up everything.
If you wish to understand this more fully, I highly recommend you read the following:
I hope this helps.