Ananta

@Shanmugam you seem to be on some sort of crusade, I for one am not. So, Vedanta is fine and dandy with me. It's time tested, it makes sense and furthermore, it works. What more could one want? I have no need to integrate teachings. What so one should learn both traditions? Yikes, that will take some time. Then piece meal them together? Ack, no thanks.

That's fine with neo-advaita, but I found what I needed. Thanks.

If not, don't worry the universe will bring something to rock your world. Meaning, if you don't have a complete "seeing" you will find this out.

My teacher is very clear that he is teaching "traditional" Vedanta, not a sub-school, knock off, or modern version, but he is teaching mostly westerners and teaches accordingly.

Actually, I'm not. It doesn't make sense, but we don't have to beat a dead horse. You made your point and I made mine.

What Are You Talking about? I'm quoting "your" statements. They weren't clarified and no reference was given to there origin. So, I'm left to presume they are your thoughts/opinions "now" and didn't portray Vedantin's in a good light.

Vedanta literally means "end of the Vedas", reflecting revealed Self knowledge contained in the Upanishads. The above ^ is ignorance, plain and simple. First, vedantins would say "all" is the Self/Brahman, since reality is "non-dual". Maya appears, because it it a power within Brahman that makes Brahman appear to be something it's not.

Where to even start? If this is your opinion you haven't correctly learned Vedanta by a qualified teacher and haven't applied it. You have a mis-understanding, meaning you would need to go back to the beginning. I suspect your opinion is from a mishmash of piecing together various teaching of Vedanta. Not because you are/were a serious student of Vedanta, applied the teaching and have come to this conclusion.

@Joseph Maynor oh, yes I did. Seems I quoted his post within your post, sorry.

What is non-existing? Isn't that an oximoron? I'm aware that I'm aware and I exist. So, how does one not exist, when you experience existing?

My advice, do what you will, but don't get attached to what you'd like the outcome to be. Think about that for a minute.... it's the attachments we have to our fears and desires that cause emotional pain. Accept what comes after you do an action (karma yoga). Sometimes the universe knows whats best for you. It's thinking too far into the future or ruminating about the past, that usually causes delusion, pain and suffering. Another thing, every situation/experience has an upside and downside. If you have a job, you have money, but not enough time. If your married you have a life partner, but you aren't "free" to do as you choose, ect, ect.

You already are what you are seeking. Its you. If you can "realize" it, then it was there all along. So, what's the issue then? The issue is Self ignorance. We were spoken to as babies/toddlers as though we were objects, given a name-called that name over and over, told your good/your bad, do this/do that, then we started to "believe" we were that object. This (body) must be "me", these thoughts must be "mine", so on and so forth. When the "I-thought" first arose it said "I AM", then over time it learned, I AM this and I AM that. The "identification" became more and more solidified. So much so that we can not see beyond. When you start inquiring into this fallacy and questioning it endlessly. One day the truth is revealed and it was there all along.

Btw, Vedanta is the science of Self knowledge. Therefore, the lingo doesn't need changed and doesnt need to be improved. Why would I change it? Of course, most words have been translated into English but it's thousands of years old and a time tested way to realize your true nature. Certain wordage I've picked up from my teacher(s). They make sense and are used often, so I use them also. However, I'm not a teacher, so may make a mistake while writing a post. So, if you are questioning what I wrote, as in it doesn't make sense to you, then so be it. Doesn't seem like that is the line of questioning you have though. Also...not "every" post is about Vedanta. I have a diverse spiritual background. So, I write what I write. Just so happens the post you are referring to was inspired by Vedanta and my experience.

@jimrich You are asking me the same question in different ways and I've answered it already, after you asked me the first time. Vedanta AND experience.

@2000 The painful aspect is the ego seeing how damn stupid it is..lol. How needy, self rightous, defensive, ect. It's painful to realize this is what you've identified as... But, you must see it, to eventually go beyond it.

Depends on what thoughts you need. Isvara supplies the thoughts. I'm an administrative nurse, have a family, bills, ect. If my thoughts were to slow to a stuper I could not function. My job alone takes analysis and trouble shooting, on a moment to moment basis. However, I can thought stop at will, as long as no one is talking to me. Lol.

Oh, and how many years did he sit in that cave? He trained his mind to be quiet. Most don't have that luxury.

Ramana bless his heart...he had an ashram, no job, no family to care for, no bills to pay, ect, ect, ect. Isvara didn't have to bring many thoughts his way. Plus, he found his true Self at 17! Not many mental tendencies to deal with...get my point?

Ok, so here's the deal. There is no enlightenment or unenlightenment. I would never say I'm enlightened. Once you know you are pure awareness. Pure awareness is neither enlightened or unenlighted. It is beyond both, so the question doesn't apply. But, since I do understand what you mean... Self referential thoughts reduce significantly over time. Like when you turn a fan off, it takes time for the blades of the fan to stop. It's like that, but thoughts continue. They don't come from you, they come from Isvara. Anyways, I acknowledge Moksha, not enlightenment. Moksha means free from experience (not that you don't experience, but you aren't affected like you once were), free from the Jiva/person, whilst simultaneously being associated with the apparent person. It a subtle understanding. My teacher says, you then accept the Jiva warts and all, meaning the person will not become "perfect" or a saint.

Pain=pain, suffering is feeling like your "identity" is in some way diminished.

@jimrich It's traditional Vedanta and my experience. My lingo is consistent with Vedanta, because I find it is clear and straight forward. When the "Self" has a capital "S" it's referring to -Brahman/awareness/consciousness. I don't understand this? Is this a theory or your own experience?

I agree. You don't see it though until....

@jimrich excellent post! Again, love it! So, yeah, the "association" of you, awareness, with the body/mind will continue until the death of the body. So, there is an "I-sense" that stays, because thoughts, sensations, feelings, ect don't end just because you know who/what you are, some people think that ends, that fantasy. You still play your role. No choice in that. So, although the body/mind exists, it "ultimately" not real, therefore the pains will still be painful, but the suffering ends. Also, playing your role means getting engrossed in that role, at times, but knowing always your true idenitty when needed. YES! The pointing at the ego, was to point back at/as the Self! Also, this whole game is the Self playing hide and seek with it Self.

lol, I love this! Ok, so see how this is knowledge, you will forever more know without a doubt Santa is not real. Can you ever forget that Santa isnt real? Meaning, could anyone/anything convince you that Santa is real from here on out? That's why I say enlightenment is Self knowledge (it removes ignorance), in this case, that santa was "real". But, if you weren't "sure" that Santa wasn't real and you had lingering doubts, then that knowledge wouldn't be "firm" and you may sometimes think Santa's real and other times not. This is the fire-fly state.

Are you talking about nirvikalpa samadhi? If you are, you can't stay in that "state of no mind", indefinitely. Even a fly landing on your nose could bring the mind back. In that samadhi there is no "you", therefore, if you stayed in that state you would be a complete vegetable. You need a mind to function in the apparent world. So, are your really saying here that you believe one becomes mind-less (ie. No-mind)? Or am I misunderstanding?