Preetom

@okulele The best book I've read so far by Osho is ''Meditation the first and last freedom''. It is one of the recommended books by Shanmugam in his blog if I remember correctly. This book has many many meditation techniques, insights and almost no gossip. A very practical book to keep for lifetime and come back to it over and over again

Guys let me know what you think about this. It's about who should really carry the burden of proof. 1) A realized nondualist says that only the Self exists. Self/Consciousness is not produced or limited by the brain. He declares it without shadow of a doubt and even provides the systematic methodology to come to the same conclusion for those who want to verify it. On the other hand, the materialist scientist thinks/assumes that brain produces Consciousness but CANNOT prove it. So whose burden is it to prove? 2) Same thing goes with the material, objective, outside world. The nondualist denies such a thing. The materialist scientist believes in it but cannot prove it. So whose burden is it to prove? So my question is, is it really legitimate to bother a nondualist about proofs and assumed scientific stuff when he denies these things from the get go? Is it legitimate to bring him into an assumed paradigm and argue in order to validate that paradigm when such a paradigm just is not there? Isn't it kind of an odd, fruitless argument?

Right

Not really if I'm honest

Only from the real Non Duality! All distinctions must collapse then and we wouldn't have any conversation

@now is forever I'm not talking about any specific people here. I am mentioning a common trend here. Nonduality is it's own game. It has it's own working system and ultimately verifying that final result. I just don't get why people bring in a 'scientific' paradigm into it and declare that only when Nonduality fits the scientific paradigm, then and only then I'll acknowledge it or take it seriously. If you can't do that, then that means you're spreading some hoax. Basically, if you don't play my game in my playground, then your play is bullshit, no matter what/how you're playing. Can you conflate the knowledge of poetry, history, art etc. into objective scientific paradigm? Can you say that repeat World War I, then and only then I'll acknowledge it. Does this mean, the study of history is a hoax/woo woo? This again boils down to the core of epistemology, how can we really know anything for sure? What is the TRUTH?

Thanks for the input. Another silly analogy came up earlier. It's like I saw a pond in a dream, but I can't swim. Then I wake up and go to you who is a swimming instructor. Just when you take me to the swimming pool to teach me swimming, I scream out, ''No no no no....we have to go to the pond I saw in the dream. Then and ONLY then can you teach me how to swim and I can learn'' Isn't this same thing happening? The materialist scientist urges to start from an objective, external world...something that the Self-realized dismisses altogether from the get go. Just because you don't play inside the scientist's own playground, he denies your game altogether.

Is this ''non-objective experience'' bliss itself? Are you aware of 'it' all your waking hours? This really resonates with me. Everytime I've had lightbulb moments through self-inquiry, it always felt blissful...for absolutely no reason at all. It wasn't an experience, there was really nothing special going on. The first thought that arises is, ''oh crap! this is soo obvious. How come I ever missed it? How can I ever loose this?'' But then again, this 'stateless state' would eventually be forgotten due latent mental tendencies/Vasanas/thoughts. When you never forget that Self no matter what, is that permanent Enlightenment?

@Jack River You don't really need any scripture or teacher for Self-Realization aka Clear seeing. All texts are just instructing you get to this holistic clear seeing. Theoretically, it is possible to just sit and work through every single assumptions and blindspots that is preventing Clear seeing in order to reach there. But it usually is very overwhelming and thus comes all the texts and traditions with a helping hand. But that helping hand can easily turn into a hand of delusion if it not understood properly and abused, which has been happening for thousands of years

haha thanks Thought: Why is this statement true? Thought: Because I say it is! Thought: But...that sounds so hollow..and stupid Thought: Don't worry, I'll just forget that I did it (gulp) Thought: So you're saying I'm not the guilty party here? Thought: Nope. It never happened Thought: Cool! What's next?? ...... ...... ......

More like contemporary advaita people. Swamis almost never take the burden of being 'Enlightened'. But you're right I guess. Many ancient advaitic texts are nothing but declarations of the respective author/sage's own Enlightenment

Using intellectual conversations to find out the misconceptions and limits of intellect. A thorn to remove a thorn. Real inquiry begins after this.

Consider two possibilities. 1) I used a thorn to remove the thorn stuck in my skin and then let go of both of them. Then I wake up and realize that it was a dream and no actual thorn was here at all. 2) You are awake and see that there is no thorn for you. You're seeing clearly. But you also recognize that you could 'dream' about getting stuck with a thorn and thus stay alert not to fall for it. Do you see that both of these cases lead to same conclusion? A holistic clear seeing and not falling for the illusions again

but...but you were like negative 10k just yesterday Looks like those who are leeching your money, LOA is working at full force up their ass

@Serotoninluv yes I see that the distinction between knower and known must collapse as well. Let me frame in a different way. Can the Infinite appear as a finite thing in it's totality? I know this question itself must collapse as well because already it is assuming a distinction between infinte and finite. Anyway, thanks for the healthy reminder about attachment. Actually in Vendanta, it is one of the core principle that the methodology/scripture itself can never produce or reveal the Self. It is only a thorn to remove a thorn(ignorance), thus has to thrown in the end as well. I was listening to a lecture of a swami today and he mentions this through a verse which is, '' After Self-Realization, the Vedas(Knowledge) becomes the Avedas(Ignorance) ''

@winterknight I don't know if it would sound like a legit question but anyway I would appreciate it if you answer. At the moment of Self-Realization, is it kind of an inference? Like we all conventionally agree on a same, shared, external, objective world through inference, even though we have no experiential or objective proof of such a world. Or is it something so direct that it cannot be missed at all? Something which pales all other knowledge and inference..

Where is this world? Has anyone found it? Could anyone find it? So it basically seems that it doesn't really matter whether you're following a Consciousness-only model or Matter-only model. If you are consistent with either of them and take it all the way, you reach to the same conclusion: An Absolute Reality that cannot be objectified and accessed through objective manner, but yet it undoubtedly exists! Without it's existence, there cannot be any World Model existing. The materialists are not totally congruent with their own argument. Brain itself is a World Model. Why do they assume that the 'SAME WORLD' aka Absolute Reality is bound by a World Model called Brain and nervous system?

@Serotoninluv Yes any thing/dimension/activity can happen. That's very definition of absolute potentiality. But whatever that would appear, wouldn't it be 'known'? This 'knowing', without which nothing else could be, is it possible to objectify this pure 'knowing'? Wouldn't that be another phenomena known through this 'knowing'? Can any 'object' stand on it's own without the 'knowing' of it?

This is good. Thank you!

Maybe few years down the line, this present Rilles would be known as a non-existent nut...

Exactly! but how many people really wanna do that? Almost noone. Mostly we always project our own limitations and consider those limitations to be the Truth!

@Rilles I was thinking about this. The argument is either there is or isn't such a thing called an external, objective world. Do you see the magnitude and finality of such a claim? How can we come to the final Truth if our starting point is on an assumption?

That's the issue here! How can you dive into an assumed paradigm and expect to find something Truthful out of it, when you already know that this paradigm is a groundless assumption..

GOLD Now the question is, how long will materialist scientists continue to persist on their folly?

I totally understand what you're saying. I personally am not in a mission to prove or convince anyone anything. I just brought this topic up because I've been seeing this trend everywhere from this forum to any place. It's like I'm urging you constantly about showing me the favorite food of Santa Clause. There is no such thing, let alone it's favorite food How would you deal such a deluded fella?