Spiritual Thoughts

I'm finding "For whom is this?" working better for me for becoming non-objective, then just who am I? For whom is this, seems to call attention to the non-objective, formless nature of consciousness. Because when people say abide as the Self, or hold onto the I. It doesn't seem to me that they mean something specific that is somewhere, but the I is formless consciousness. When I'm starting to get dull, searching out the question what is eternal in my experience seems to help. And then, when agitated, where is the source of happiness? within. These three lines of questioning seem to lead to existence-consciousness-bliss. Who am I? Consciousness that is formless. Where is bliss? within as my nature. what is eternal in my experience? Existence itself. But alot of times I don't supply answers but call attention to the formless, blissful, uninterrupted existence. These have come from my attempts to understand my correspondence with this seemingly realized sage, and of course the quintessential writings in Collected Works. Because many of these things don't at first seem obvious as to what they mean. And it seems good to admit ignorance of what they mean. Nome's responses do not hit on a level that my mind can comprehend or grasp what it wants to grasp. Often it seems the opposite, his answers seem elusive and ungraspable, to hit from an angle I didn't expect, and not to give me the clear sense of direction I want. I want to go "now I understand", if I just do this from now on, I'll be alright. And that isn't really it seems how inquiry works. It's more contemplations, I don't even know what it is. I don't even know what the goal is. Another pitfall that it seems maybe some have, those who believe they are realized but not, is intellectually thinking they grasp what Maharshi was pointing at. I did initially to a large extent. I get deeper the more ignorant I feel. And maybe in a sense that is when grace kicks in. When my ego is starting to realize it's powerlessness. I've talked to two people who have said things that don't ring true to me. One person said that there is no final state of Realization, everyone is an aspirant. There was a sort of neo-advaitin in America that said you practice inquiry but the realization is that the ego will never die and you can't get rid of it. Not only are those contrary to Maharshi's teachings, they don not ring true to me experientially. On the first one, because suffering mentally, psychologically at the very least seems un-natural. And I've glimpsed a state beyond it. Also my psychological distress, existential loneliness, "poverty in the heart" to quote Papaji is evidentially not circumstance dependent. Around people, or by myself I can feel existential despair. Praised or hated. And the same with happiness. I find myself happy, and I may have said I'm happy because of... But it's also not circumstance dependent. Even pain, it's severity is so effected by how much I notice it and think about it. For all these reasons it is not hard for me to imagine a final state where suffering has been transcended.