I see that one way of holding back from Ground awakening is a lack of trust in our human self.
This human self needs an identification with it to function
Or rather, an attachment to a thought that this human self needs identification with it, it needs a center of gravity in it to function and operate in the world.
Is that true?
Happening on its own
No. When there is a Ground awakening, there is also the realization that this human self – as anything else in the world of form, just happens. It lives its own life. There is no I inherent in any of it. There never was an I inherent in this human self, even while there appeared to be. It was just an illusion from the beginning, created from an overlay from a belief in an idea of I and of agency. And that belief made it seem very real.
This human self, as anything else in the world of form, is more than capable to function with no identification with it, with no overlay of a belief in the idea of I. There was never an I there in the first place.
Absent of a sense of I: freedom from confusion and drama
With an overlay of a sense of I, there is immediate confusion and drama. In the absence of this overlay, it functions more freely, in more clarity, from more unhindered wisdom and compassion.
So in realized selflessness, it all turns upside-down: While there is still a sense of I there, there is the fear that this human self will not function very well without a sense of I. It can’t do it on its own. When there is realized selflessness, there is the clear seeing of this human self functioning far better, even in relative terms, in this new context – absent of confusion and drama.
I notice this daily now as I do the seen/seeing inquiry. I notice the seen coming and going on its own living its own life, just happening. I notice the seeing of it, free from coming and going. And there is the noticing of both seen and seeing as being inherently free from any I.
Then, there is the noticing of the belief that this human self needs an identification with it to function. And some fear coming up around that.
I also notice how the idea of an I becomes like a cardboard cutout that is placed on one thing after another: the seen such as sensations or thoughts, or the seeing of it. It has no substance in itself, and moves around according to what is most plausible and convenient in the situation.
Sometimes, it is even placed on the seeing of absence of I anywhere. There is this cardboard cutout of “I” seeing that seen and seeing is inherently absent of I (!).
And that too is OK. That too is inherently absent of any I.