Ananta

Omg, I just lost a post I was writing...ugh

http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nonduality_magazine.1.jamesswartz.htm This is an interview of James Swartz with nonduality magazine. He is who introduced me to Vedanta. He's been teaching Vedanta for 45 years. The 2nd question they ask him applies here. When the questioner says "awakening", it means the same as "Self realization". James changes the terminology half way through answering the question by saying "self realization/awakening". Here's the part- " NDM: What do you see as the distinction between Bodhi/awakening and moska/liberation? Ram: Awakening is an experience that happens to the mind, one that gives the individual some kind of understanding that there is something beyond the visible. It is not enlightenment although it is often thought of as enlightenment. Most modern teachers are simply awakened. The self is ‘the light.’ It never slept. It is not enlightened. Enlightenment is moksa, freedom from experience, including awakening, and the notion that the self is limited. It is the hard and fast knowledge “I am limitless non-dual ordinary actionless awareness…assuming that it renders all vasanas non-binding and cancels the sense of doership. Chapter 2 of my book deals with this topic in depth. There is a sub-heading in the chapter called Stages of Enlightenment. The second stage roughly represents self realization/awakening, where there is still an individual who has ‘realized’ i.e. experienced the self. There is still the sense of duality, a ‘me’ and the ‘self’ which appears as an object. It differs from the third stage, which is not a stage, called ‘enlightenment.’ The word enlightenment is not actually technically suitable because of its experiential connotations." ............. I'll have to get to the other aspects of your reply post in a bit.

Still busy, but ...I don't know of that website, therefore won't comment on what it says. Look up "traditional Vedanta" teachers (for westerners)- James Swartz, Ted Schmidt, Dennis Waite.

@actualized3434 I'm getting off work soon and don't have time for a proper reply, but Self realization and Moksha are different. Many are Self-realized, but few obtain Moksha, unless they have a proper teaching, using a methodology and a qualified teacher. Also, in sanskrit- "The word Aparokshanubhuti is a compound. Paroksha means ‘what is far away.’ When ‘a’ is added it means ‘what is near. In this case it refers to the ‘nearest of the near’, one’s Self. Anubhuti means to realize, to experience. So the word means ‘Self realization.” " However, even teachers who speak English just say, Self realization. No need for the Sankrit word. Moksha is used often, instead of enlightenment, because it means- freedom/liberation.

More to the point is that experience comes and goes, therefore can not be you, pure awareness. Except, that experience is created out of, the substanceless-substance that you are. The "apparent" person can have a zillion epiphanies and not be enlightened. "Self realization" is an experience and that is different from enlightenment. During Self-realization you recognize your true nature, but it's often fleeting and little Self knowledge is gained or is not complete. Except, for a few rare cases, but still takes time to "assimilate" this Self knowedge. Enlightenment (Moksha- liberation/freedom) obtains when Self ignorance (ignorance of one's true nature) is "removed" by Self knowledge and this knowledge is abiding. It is abiding when there is no longer a doubt that you ARE awareness vs being the apparent person you appear to be (which is actually within awareness) and when you've let go of the notion that you are the doer. Self ignorance is hard wired, therefore stubborn to remove and takes as long as it takes. The the removal of Self ignorance causes a "shift in perspective", which ends suffering. Although pains and pleasure persist in the apparent manifest world, do to pure awareness "association" with the "apparent" person.

Oh, if memory serves me right he has been banned from the forum.

Is that a question or a statement.

No offense, but if you have no ego who is writing your post? It can't be pure awareness as it has no mind. It is what gives sentiency to the mind, therefore the ego. You are the witness.

@Nichols Harvey "Can we stay on topic please? It's incredibly rude and actually disrespectful to derail Dan's thread with an unrelated grievance." ............................... Didn't you say this above ^ just yesterday? But, now here you are derailing talking about Emerald. Also, you haven't said a word to @Fidelio about derailing either. So, it's ok to derail as long as you're interested and/or participate? "Do as I say, not as I do"...got it.

I understood that. I just don't believe him.

47

Correct. The aspect of the ego (I-thought) that identified itself with awareness (as an independent, volitional, entity), realizes it is not what it thought it was. This happens when the apprehension of one's true Self (awareness) obtains within the intellect (the discriminating faculty). The ego is an aspect of the intellect (the intellect is an aspect of the total mind). So, there is a "knowing", a recognition, that I am not what I thought I was. Then, once this "knowing" is seen clearly, there is a "shift" in identity. In this way, one could say the ego is trancended. It will still arise, but no longer taken seriously. The I-thought will arise anytime there is experience to be had. For all experience needs a phenomenal subject and object. You, awareness, are the witness (so to speak) of the the experiences. It will also arise pertaining to the body (ie. "I'm" hungry, thrist, tired, happy, sad, ill, healthy, ect, ect). It is a point of reference for the body. Also, without this reference you wouldn't be able to function, use the body. Here's the thing, you are awareness/consciousness, not the body/mind. However, the recognition of this does happen within the intellect and since the ego is an aspect of the intellect, it to gains this Self knowledge. It does take time for it to become abiding, also one needs to "assimilate" this understanding into every aspect of one's life. Prior to this full assimilation one says, "I'm awakening". Meaning there is a back and forth shift, between identification with your "story" and ego vs. Your true identity, awareness. Even when identification shifts to your true Self, "association" with the body/mind continues. Therefore, an "I-sense" remains, it exists, its just not "real".

OP, it sounds very "spiritual", but sounds like total rubbish to me. What would leave the body would be what's called the subtle body. If it were to leave in Samadhi a piece of metal wouldn't prevent it. As well as the gross body wouldn't age 20+ yrs because of the subtle body being ejected. Essentially, that's the same as an out of body experience or a NDE.

Recognition and identification with your true nature doesn't make you brain dead. You will still have preferences, likes/dislikes, opinions, ect. It's all a part of the "play". I will not respond again, as I don't want to further derail this thread, more then I have already.

@Prabhaker Do what you want... I do not wish to derail another thread/topic or continue to derail this one. My apologies to the OP. Too many college English classes on citing sources! Lol.

@Nichols Harvey I just saw your post. Yes, you are right I'm sorry.

Yes, it's not you saying it. Yes, it's not your experience. People should know that... Otherwise, you are just inflating your ego, by getting compliments, ect on writings that had nothing to do with you. If you consider Osho your teacher you can use concepts/words similiar to what he has taught you, in your own writings without it being plagiarizism, but when you copy/paste word for word, you have to cite the source.

You know damn well that most on here are westerners. Therefore, what happens in India doesn't apply. Just cite your source, why are you acting like it's rocket science?. .like you are incapable? I'm beginning to think you want to "be" Osho, therefore you have a much bigger ego problem then most westeners do! Very sad indeed. The fact that you keep replying with ridiculous arguments as to why "you" shouldn't have to cite your source like normal folk, leads me to believe you have something wrong with you. If that's the case, I take pity. Continue to pretend you are Osho.....

Again, it's not hard, if you are copy/pasting, then you need to cite the source.

Good, I will.

Please I took enough college English classes to know what you are doing is damn wrong. If you aren't knowledgeable about citing sources, that's your own issue and mistake.

I'm going to call you out, everytime I catch it, so get use to it.

What you're doing is fine...but cite your damn source! It's not hard, really it's not, write Osho at the bottom. See simple.

Ok, it's like if I were to respond to someone with quotes by Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta, but passing them off as my own. It's bullshit! It's plagiarizing and it's disrespectfull to the orginal author. Think about it.

Wow dude, seriously?