Preetom

So coral=full Enlightenment? Abiding non dual awareness?

@Devil And many woo woo gurus make their own cosmology and spiritual evolution claims out of that. I remember seeing videos in the past, where a guru claims things like this, '' by August 13th, 2015 two third of human population will tap into 5d consciousness, merging with *some aliens* from *fancy dimension*"

Everyone is so...devil

Enlightenment is said to be the ultimate Truth, irreducible, self-evident and nothing can be more obvious. That means if Enlightenment somehow falls on someone's lap who never had an idea such a thing existed, it should be crystal clear what is happening and where he is at. But the Enlightenment stories of people like Eckhart Tolle, Ramana Maharshi, Jed Mckenna (just to name a few) kind of say otherwise. These people were generally ignorant about the whole non dual thing. When they got Enlightened either by accident or by the natural introversion of their mind, their initial response was probably not ''YES! I've known the ultimate nature of Reality, there is nothing else to know'' ; but more like '' wtf has happened to me?''. They would later spend years looking for answers to what actually happened to them in various philosophies and when they come across non dual philosophy, then they would confirm that these scriptures are verifying their present experience. So does it mean that this whole Enlightenment business has to be done like Advaita proposes? Namely putting up the hypothesis of Ultimate Truth, followed by honest philosophical inquiry, followed by the direct realization of the hypothesis? It makes me wonder about the very first few people who got Enlightened. Navigating after Awakening must've been so alien to them. I know trying to talk about post-enlightenment is barely possible and waste of time in most cases yet I'd appreciate it if some light is put on this matter from one's own experience. PS: By Enlightenment, I do not mean a glimpse that came and went as if nothing happened but a permanent shift after which there is no going back. I mean the point where the 'victim's' whole life turned upside down in some sense. @Leo Gura @Shanmugam @Saumaya @Azrael @cetus56 and every other Enlightened fella here I forgot to tag

Am I aware? yes. Let's explore this simple knowing of my own being, this presence, this sense of I Am. Do I need to do any particular activity to know that I Am? No. Activities come and go but the I Am remains. Do I need a special, esoteric knowledge or read a book to that I Am? No. This I Am is prior to any objective knowledge. Do I need to fulfill a certain condition or formulate a particular circumstance to know I AM? No. There seems to be line of thinking that says that I cease to exist in deep sleep. It says that I can only exist in relation to an objective experience. But is there any objective experience that has been unchanged, absolute and ever present? No. There is memory of deep sleep because there no objective experience to remember. Memory can only store objective knowledge. So does a loss in memory prove non-existence? No. After all, to know that I Am right now, do I need to rely on any particular memory? Also, I can't remember point by point what happened yesterday or just few hours or minutes ago. Does that mean, I ceased to exist at those points? No. Do I need other people or some other thing to know I AM? No. This knowledge of I am is direct and it does not need reflection from some other entity. Do I need time to know I Am? Is this knowledge I Am a progressing or devolving thing into time? No. This simple knowing of being is always the same. How many hours of meditation do I need to know I Am? none. Can any activity or thought truly veil this knowledge I Am? No. There is any activity in the first place, because I am. So this is the direct path, where we start at the finish and stay there.

Thanks guys! Some great insights here @Mikael89 You seem to be struggling for quite a while. I think the best course of action for you would be to quit this place for few weeks, get bunch of note pads and keep writing old school style. All your thoughts, judgments, arguments, counter arguments about anything and everything that come up. Get all that shit out of your system. Staying here and reading random stranger's random post and trying to glue it all together to your own worldview is only making you more confused everyday. Hope this message finds you in a good and receptive way

Am I aware? yes. This knowledge or knowing that I exist or I am, let's explore this. Exactly what is the nature of this experience of I am? It certainly cannot be framed conventionally with language, like the statement ''I am looking at the monitor'' which splits a whole, seamless, homogeneous experience into subject, object and a process of perception. Right now, am I aware? yes. What exactly is this knowledge I AM made out of? Is it a conventional sight or depended on a particular sight? No. Is it a conventional sound or depended on a particular sound? No. Is it a subtle mental image? Does a mental image need to occur continuously to know I Am? No. Is it a subtle mental story or thought or narrative? Does a particular mental sound need to continue constantly to know I AM? No. Is it a bodily gross sensation or dependent on such a sensation? No. Is it a very subtle feeling or depended on a particular subtle feeling happening constantly? No. Actually all subtle feelings and their changes are known. But the knowing cannot be located as an object. What is this presence that knows every single thing but itself not located or has the characteristic of a thing? It undoubtedly exists and moreover there is really nothing called a 'thing' if it is not known. This knowingness, this I Am seems to be a footprint of the Absolute in existence; a portal to the absolute. Rest as this I Am and eliminate everything that does not go with it, says the teaching.

Am I aware? yes. Right now, in this very moment, do I honestly know that I exist? yes. I want to explore this knowledge I am today. What is the fundamental difference between the experience I am and a conventional outside experience, let's say me looking at the monitor screen? This experience of me seeing the monitor screen, what are the metaphysical foundations behind this experience? Certainly the way language frames it is this: A subject called I is somehow connecting with an object called monitor by an act or process of seeing. This quality or ability of seeing, whose fundamental quality is it? Obviously it's the quality of the subject I. So this this model presupposes that the object and the subject are independent two things, connected by a process of seeing. It takes a narrative or language to frame this experience into this three part manner. I am looking at the monitor. What does this statement really mean? Not just as a verbal understanding but as an actual understanding. If I look for this subject called I, where is this subject really located? If I keep tracking it back, do I find such center? A subject that itself is not an object. The seeking attention can go back and back indefinitely without finding such a subject. So 'I' in the statement I am looking at the monitor collapses. I is no longer an objective phenomena anymore. So how does that statement get framed now? The monitor is being seen. So here is basically two fundamental parts. An object called the monitor is seeming under a process called seeing. Now what is this seeing and the monitor? In my direct experience, are there two distinct thing that is being known? Namely an objective thing called monitor that remains independent no matter how it is looked at, and secondly the seeing of that monitor which is completely dependent on how it is looked at. If I get close, the monitor gets bigger. If I get a little far, the monitor gets smaller. Am I aware of 2 things here? 1) An objective monitor that stays the same no matter how I look at it 2) the seeing of the monitor which is constantly changing depending on angle, range etc. In my direct experience, have I ever came across such a monitor like the number 1 statement describes? No I only have always known this 'fluctuating' monitor. So there is no independent monitor but only the ever changing seeing of the monitor. Then if I take the word monitor, it is obvious that it is an arbitrary word and could easily have been replaced by some other word. But more interestingly, this 'fluctuating' monitor I'm seeing,does it then have a distinct location, center of gravity, size, shape and other objective quality? So one hand this 'fluctuating' monitor is the only thing I've even known and now it has lost all of distinct,fixed objective qualities. So this notion of an object called a monitor is also gone. I'll have to sit for another session to dig deeper into the implications of this inquiry but for now one thing is for sure. if a mundane statement like ''I am looking at the monitor'' turns out to be completely groundless, based on ideas that I have never came across my life even for a single time; what does that imply about language and my life? Is what I call my life is only an accumulation of such groundless statements?

You see that's the myopia of Science. It can't see or does not want to admit that it is only it's own line of thinking and not some objective Truth Because the moment it is aware of it, the whole paradigm dissolves. There is hardly anything 'scientific' about how science is done. Maybe some pun is intended

Thanks for those words. I wonder if I would be able to withstand that fierce gaze without melting on the floor

@who chit It should be clear that Nisargadatta Maharaj never identified himself with the I AM. He clearly states that this I AM arises 'spontaneously' on the Absolute. So he, as the Absolute, does not control or exert volition on whether this I AM should arise or not. He remains absolutely unconcerned because he knows perfectly well that this I AM is an illusion and can never taint him a bit. And also nothing can be said about Para-brahman 'state'. It is beyond bliss, union etc whatever you try to impose on it. Nagarjuna's 8 negations of Absolute come here. It is called a state because the lack of a better term. Maybe the only thing you can say about Para-Brahman is that it is! It is the only real thing that is. Even that statement falls short to describe it. It's really futile to philosophize about it.

I can't express how much of it resonates with me as well. I'm really not a big believer of karma or past lives but whenever I explored teachings of Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi, I rarely found myself arguing against their message. Everything they said feels so familiar as if I'm just remembering things which I've always known all along. I don't know if I'm speaking woo woo now but this feeling is undeniable.. It sure does!

It just came across that story few days ago through this video

Thanks for illuminating this. The Moolmaya concept says the same thing. Everything known by Consciouss is illusion because Consciousness itself is illusion. there is certainly some truth in your statement. You are the Para-brahman! But the moment you try to know or grasp or interpret it, you're back in Consciousness. This reminds me of something I read in ''Prior to Consciousness'' book. It was nearly the end of Maharaj's life, when he was experiencing the terrible pain of throat cancer. But he was still giving satsangs whenever he could. He said something like this. ''I am the Absolute. In that state, there is neither Consciousness nor the knowing of the pain. I was in that state before you came. Now I'm talking with you and all of it is happening in Consciousness. That's why the pain is back again.'' So considering all this, is it valid to say that the Absolute manifested this knowing element called Consciousness to know itself? Because the Absolute is said to be beyond knowing and unknowing, beyond being or non being. So in this sense, it only is! It cannot 'know' itself. That's why the Absolute makes this Knowing element to know itself as a reflection?

This guy named Pradeep Apte has really clarified most of Maharaj's teachings. This is what I just found from his Facebook. YOUR DESTINY IS NOT DEATH BUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ‘I AM’ This is a dialogue I recently had with a seeker, I find it worth sharing: Q: Could you tell me the teaching of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj in a nutshell? A: Yes, you know that you are, don’t you? Q: Yes, I do know that I am. A: You know it as the wordless feeling ‘I am’ because you don’t have to make sure of it or prove it to anyone, do you? Q: Yes, that’ true. A: Then just stay there, in that wordless feeling ‘I am’. Q: That’s it? A: That’s it! Q: But there are so many books, dialogues, your gita… A: Forget them all! I have given it to you in a nutshell as you had asked for so why elaborate and waste time? Q: Will I realize ‘I am Unborn’? A: Certainly Q: Have you? A: Of course Q: How can you say that with so much certainty? A: Why should I lie? And what do I stand to gain out of it? Q: Nothing A: Exactly!

Yes!

Whatever that 'something' is, it certainly not something perceivable or conceivable. Because Maharaj clearly declares, ''Whatever is perceived or conceived is not You.'' A saying from Advaita actually verifies this. It says that there is actually no knower of Brahman. There is only Brahman. This is the end of knowledge, end of seeking, end of everything

@cetus56 And if you want to frame Consciousness and Absolute in terms of Fourth and Fifth state, I think it can be seen like this. Consciousness is the Turiya or fourth state which is the knower of the three states of Waking, dreaming and sleeping. Absolute or Brahman is the fifth state. Prior to Consciousness. On the Absolute, this Consciousness spontaneously arises. According to Maharaj, this Consciousness is itself An illusion. He calls it Moolmaya or the Mother of Illusion. So whatever is known by this Consciousness, that mean EVERYTHING in 3 states are also False and Not the Absolute. That's why his primary teaching was being with Consciousness alone to realize the folly of it.

@cetus56 I've read both 'I am that' and 'Prior to Consciousness' more than once. The way I understand is this.. The basic concept: before anything is, I AM. That means I AM or Consciousness has be present first before any perception or conception can happen. The teaching says, stay with the I AM and keep eliminating everything that is not essential to I AM. By staying with the I AM, you see the unreality or folly of this personal Consciousness or Beingness. Some Maharaj Quotes to support this, ''When fluids come together (in brain), I AM arises.'' ''All these cock and bull stories are provided so that the devotee can demolish all falsehood and ultimately see the folly of those stories as well'' This I AM or Consciousness is a 'Portal' to Absolute or Parabrahman. Nagarjuna proposed the 8 negations about Absolute showing that whatever is said about it, is not the Absolute. 1.No cessation 2.No arising 3.No annihilation 4.No permanence 5.Not one 6.Not many 7.No coming 8.No going When The Absolute is Directly 'Known' (You can't know it. you are it!), there is no sense of I AM or Consciousness anymore. Upon seeing the folly of I AM, it disappears and you are revealed as you've always been. The Absolute. Maharaj quotes to support this.. ''Liberation is freedom from Consciousness'' (He uses I AM and Consciousness synonymously) ''With your birth came this Consciousness and with death it will go away. Why don't you use it to go beyond it and be the Absolute while it lasts'' And you're so right. Maharaj always spoke from direct experience aka from the Absolute. So things like beingness, consciousness that modern teachers speak about more, gets all confusing when you try to build a link with what Maharaj said. PS: Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding something here. Further Study materials: 1) Everything that needs to be known about the I AM https://youtu.be/gPlnNvuypiw 2) Using Consciousness as a Portal to Absolute. Explained by Stephen Wolinsky (A direct disciple of Maharaj) https://youtu.be/87DmQkTvj0Y Quoting from this video, Maharaj once told one of his long time devotee privately to forget Maharaj, his teaching and just rest be with the I AM or Consciousness. That itself will take the disciple to the Absolute. EDIT: The core of his teaching. ''Anything you can perceive or conceive is not you'' That means even the slightest sense of being or presence cannot be the Absolute me. What can you really talk about that state?

This whole thing hit me in a flash while eating dinner. Those who will be reading it please bear with me. I would also like to know if the inquiry is heading to the right direction. First there is the Absolute beyond being and non being, arising and subsiding, everything and nothing etc. Whatever is said about it, is not it. Then comes brains and human perception. Out of infinite bytes let's say the brain renders only 2000 bytes per second and creates this dualistic perception of a solid, physical world. That is why the brains of a dog, an ant, a human produce completely different perception of the same Absolute because the rendering is different. That's why modification in Brain results in modification in perception. BUT at no point, the Absolute is directly known as it is. So all brain produced perception is only a 'way' of seeing the Absolute that it itself is not! So what is Enlightenment? "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. There is only one substance, not two." The substance of absolute infinity and the substance of the 2000 bytes that your brain is processing, is one and the same. So if you know the only substance of this 2000 bytes, you know the only substance of infinity. It is the ignorant ego mind that makes a distinct, independent, objective reality with unique substances like matter, energy etc. out of that 2000 bytes. That is the level of ignorance, myopia of the limited rational mind. Brain does NOT produce pure Consciousness. Brain is INSIDE pure Consciousness and only a way to look at that Consciousness . After some time a metaphor came to my mind to explain all of this beautifully. Take a video game with the size of 10GB data. Let's say it is the 5MB Application that runs the game. That App is NOT producing the 10GB data. That App is only one way to represent that 10GB data. That 10GB pure data is there independent of it being rendered or not. it doesn't give a fuck about how it is represented. There is nothing inherent called ''a video game'' in that 10 GB pure data. It's the 5MB App that represents that 10GB data as a video game, as a beautiful illusion aka a FALSE appearance, something that 10GB pure data is inherently NOT! In fact that 5MB App is INSIDE 10GB data. There is no independent App outside the data. So I think you can already guess that the 10GB data is the Absolute and the 5MB app is the brain. Can you unsee it once you see it?

Yes exactly. There is only one substance not two. All metaphors are concessions that try to explain a part but cannot directly know the Totality ever. 100% agreed. But some stories are needed to demolish the countless other bullshit stories. In turn, those stories themselves will be destroyed. It's the dream waking up from dream so a special category of dream stories is necessary and doesn't hurt

That's another beautiful metaphor. Thank you! You can mingle with it more to understand the apparent relationship between one substance and the many appearances. If you know the only substance of the current page you're reading, which is paper, then basically you know the substance of the entire book. In fact there is nothing called 'a book', 'a story' inherent in paper. That is how paper 'appears' to you. You could use the same paper as a 'fuel' to light a fire to warm yourself in a cold night. A rat could see 'food' in the paper and nibble on it. But you see, things like book, story, fuel, food etc are NOT inherent in paper. They are only representations or appearances of paper. Metaphorically speaking, in no case you're knowing the paper aka the Absolute directly. You're only knowing it's false appearances based on how you look. This is exactly what I tried to convey with the video game metaphor.

Am I aware? Yes. Is this awareness happening inside the body? In my direct experience, is there a location within the body that seems to be the source of awareness? The thing that is called body is itself an experience no matter which direction it is gone. So the notion that the body or brain creates consciousness, is that notion based on direct experience or just another dogma? Is there a brain, chemicals etc without a perceiver of them? There cannot be any. Is that another idea? But whatever it is, this fundamental knowing element of experience cannot be denied. To deny this knowingness of experience is like trying to study an ocean while refuting the element called water. What is there to an ocean except water? Similarly what is there to an experience except the knowing of it? What happens to a sound if the awareness of the sound is removed? It is not a sound anymore. But the presence of awareness remains as it is? So which one is more fundamental here? The sound or the awareness of sound? Was there ever a distinct thing called sound anyway?

Thats the limitation of language. It always rests upon some groundless assumption. Ultimately there is no man, no karma, no enlightenment, no nothing. But as long as one thinks himself as a man, wisdom is given as a concession through language. And that instruction is actually helpful for the 'man'.

You're right. Actually there is no such thing as JUST doing. You have to BE first before you DO. Being, witnessing, being aware of being aware, these are different names for the same thing basically. It is happening uninterruptedly whether there is any action or not. The question is if a person is aware of this basic fact of experience or not. That's why this direct path is called effortless. No one is creating something called Being. It's just a matter of being aware of something that is already always going on in its full glory