Shanmugam

haha! These books cover the essence...

@Ether I am posting what I wrote in another thread: Ego is a tricky word and it has been used to convey about 3-4 different things... And there has been a confusion because of translations... 1. There is a word called 'Ahamkar'. This word has been used in Yoga, Vedanta and Samkhya. And this 'ahamkar' actually disappears completely after enlightenment. But this word is usually translated as ego in English. Let us look at the actual meaning of the word Ahamkar. Its a compound word consisting of 'Aham' which means 'I' and 'kara' which means 'to do'. The compound word indicates the idea 'I am the doer'.. This idea can only exist in separation or duality. After enlightenment, you can't even find a slight scent of Ahamkara, because duality completely disappears. 2. There is also something called 'Aham vritti'... This is also translated as ego in English. But 'Aham vritti' is actually the self-concept, which too is destroyed completely after enlightenment. It is the story of 'you' that you carry in your head. This story completely loses its focus, importance, significance and power after enlightenment. You only access the self-concept that you have in memory. But there is no active, consistent, solid self-concept which spans from past to future. 3. There is a function in the mind which helps you with social interactions. Its is also referred to as ego. I use the word 'ego' to refer to this. This function is totally necessary for social interactions. It is this function which strives to protect and enhance the self-concept. So by its very nature, ego is defensive. But after enlightenment, self-concept disappears while ego as a function persists. This is why you can notice some kind of defensiveness even in enlightened people. But they defend the truth, instead of defending a self-concept. 4. Freud used the word 'ego' in a totally different way. If you look up his theory about ego, super-ego and id, you will understand what he is saying in his theory. Note: This is very important. If you find one teacher saying something about ego which another teacher seem to contradict, then always remember that they are probably using the word 'ego' to mean different things. The above is the quick checklist that you can refer. I have an entire chapter in my book called 'Problem with words' where I discuss certain confusions that tend to happen because of using one word to mean multiple things or using multiple words to mean a single thing. Makes sense? So, when you listen to a spiritual teacher, it is very important to inquire what meaning he is actually giving to a particular word by checking the context.

Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words - Arthur Osborne I Am That - by Nisargadatta Maharaj Freedom from the Known - Jiddu Krishnamurti The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment - Eckhart Tolle For Kriya Yoga I recommend 'Kriya Yoga Exposed' by Santata Gamana

Thats your projection buddy! .. The biggest projection of all is projecting duality into non-duality... I was actually thinking about opening a thread regarding this... I am a very intelligent guy - Do you think I am boasting? I am simply telling you the truth. I suck at outdoor sports - do you think I lack self-confidence? Confidence is a non-existent thing in nondual reality and it is not needed. I am simply telling you the truth. This doesn't mean I don't have ego, I have.. But it is only used for practical purposes in social interactions..

Thank you.. :) Since I have a blog, people find about my book in my blog. Currently, my blog gets about 250 page views a day and on average, 5 people a day visit the Amazon page for my book. About 15 people in a month buy my book, based on the results in Dec, Jan, and Feb...

Regarding psychology? There is a book 'Act made simple' which is specific to ACT... For Psychology in general, I studied 'Psychology 2nd edition' by Robert A Baron and Girishwar Mishra

Whenever a topic that I have discussed in my book comes up in this forum, I just mention that.

I studied psychology as a hobby two years before.. But ACT was not mentioned there.. Since I had a background in basic psychology, I was researching online about many things regarding psychology and how it is connected to non-duality. Learning psychology certainly helps to understand the workings of mind even better. Only after studying psychology, I got the idea that science and spirituality can be bridged. That is also the main theme of my book. I have made sure that the book is culturally neutral and appeals to anyone who is scientifically inclined.. I have also written about a few psychological concepts in my book like how beliefs work, cognitive biases, defense mechanisms etc..

Yes... Non-dual teachings and acceptance and commitment therapy(ACT) are not really that different. In ACT, they call the witness as the observer self and the rest as the conceptual self. ACT is a very powerful therapy. There is another one which is mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy, I think.. But ACT is closer to non-dual teachings..

@MarkusSweden Destructive normality pretty much means that our own psychological processes which we consider as normal are actually destructive...

Here is my Facebook profile: https://www.facebook.com/shanmugam83 Lots of pics there... Posting more and more pics is going to get this thread locked.. I am already very good in deviating from the main topic of the thread and so are you.. The partnership between you and me is the worst!

Yes...

@Ether cool man.. Will listen to it shortly..

@MarkusSweden Actually, Buddha talks about how people are prone to suffering. You can google the term 'destructive normality' which is a term used in acceptance and commitment therapy. This 'destructive normality' is pretty much the same as what Buddha means when he says 'life is suffering'... The first chapter of my book talks about the four noble truths in Buddhism in detail. You will find that very convincing.

Yes... It will sound very paradoxical... Because, enlightenment itself is a merger of the subject and object, making all the distinctions disappear. So, at the absolute level, there are no levels... The absolute, relative (and there is one more, which is the dream or imagined reality) are only used as teaching devices and communication devices... So, the distinction of absolute and relative only applies to the relative...

@Saumaya thank you

@Saumaya @Saumayaok.. Go ahead please

Can we see the actual pic of yours, if you don't mind posting it? Just curious..

@Leo Gura If two people make the same mistake, can it be a coincidence? Probably.. But if there are too many such mistakes, can it be a coincidence? There is an Upanishad called Chandogya upanishad, one of the oldest upanishad which is famous for the greatest statement in spirituality: Tat tvam Asi – You are that. It was an instruction given to Svethakethu by his father. Svethakethu is also mentioned in Brihadaranyaka upanishad and Kausitaki upanishad. Hi father asked Svethakethu the following question when he comes back from Gurukula after learning Vedas: “have you, my dear, ever asked for that instruction by which one hears what cannot be heard, by which one perceives what cannot be perceived, by which one knows what cannot be known? Then he begins to give him a long discourse which you can read here: Oldest Teaching Of Advaita – Excerpt from Chandogya Upanishad There is also a different guy called Sathyakama mentioned in the same Upanishad. His name is not mentioned in any other Upanishads. He is sent by his Guru Gauthama to tend four hundred cows, and come back when they multiply into a thousand. As you see, these are two different stories of two different people. But Osho, when talking about Svethakethu, mixed these two stories as one and told as the story of Svethakethu: http://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-supreme-svetaketu-taught-78d59dde-9b0?p=867d5652b07d80469abc69481a91e28f Osho often mixed names like this. But he has said many times that he may not be factually correct. He just quotes those stories to make his point. I never found that as a problem. Because I only focused on the essence anyway. But Sadhguru, when narrating the story of Svethakethu in a podcast, narrated it exactly the same way as Osho and also made the same mistake. He also merged Sathyakama and Svethakethu’s stories into one. Do you think this is a coincidence? He also named the podcast as ‘Svethakethu and cows’ while it was Sathyakama who actually went to tend the cows. You can listen to it here: Svetaketu and the Cows Sadhguru said that he never read any spiritual books and all he knew about spirituality came to him as a mystical transmission when his guru touched him with his walking stick. If it was true, he should have got the right story from Chandogya Upanishad. Instead, how did he get the Osho’s version?

The scientific explanation he gave for that was very funny. He said that blood contains iron and the magnetic force of north pole makes influence on the blood because of that. But he has already made two blunders here.. Blood doesn't contain pure iron which a magnet can attract. And the effect of the magnetic force of north pole is very very low and it doesn't have such a power to make an influence. You may come to know about him one day... He is a very dangerous man. Even after enlightenment, I used to defend him. Only after some deep research I was able to see many things very clearly...

@Leo Gura You are talking about open-mindedness; but do you see you are being close minded here. You had no idea about my connection with him and his ashram.

I am pretty sure he has read Osho's books. I know that the blind men story is a classic story from India. But I also know very well that he has read Osho. His own followers know this and agree with this, but Sadhguru would never talk about Osho. If you really need evidence and willing to read an entire post I wrote, then please read this: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/sadhguru-on-osho-the-two-diamonds-to-discover-your-inner-self/ I know it is very difficult to convince people who admire Sadhguru on many things; because I was one of those admirers too.

I have. But not based on the interviews of other people, because their views could be extremely biased. There are two people Satya Bharti Franklin and Hugh Milne who has written books criticizing Osho. But just by reading few pages of Hugh Milne's book, I can tell that he has misunderstood Osho's teachings and his tone itself conveys that he could have made up many things. But Osho did have biases, imperfections etc and he never said he is infallible. Also, I suspect he got actually addicted to nitrous oxide when he was in the US..

He is very distracting to the extent that his followers really don't understand about spiritual path clearly. There is a difference between 1 year of listening to him and 15 years of listening to him, going to his Ashram and satsangs and reading books. He talks about things like what is the best direction to sleep, etc etc way more than what he talks about non-duality.

Let me quote a part of that Quora answer here: Let us come to Sadhguru vs Osho. Now, please note that I don’t care much about plagiarism or copyright. Those are trivial things. My emphasis is on two things in general: 1.Sadhguru stated that he never read any scriptures. He even stated the same thing in Mahashivarathri 2018. That is how he began the discourse, insisting that he in fact never read anything about spirituality. But there are obvious examples which I have written about, that shows that a lot of his content comes from Osho. So, if he has read Osho’s books, he must have read other books too. This explains why he is stating stories from Shiva Purana and even Periya puranam (A Tamil book). Because, he has read them all. This signals a pretense. What is the need to deliberately hide these things? 2. Anyone can talk such things by reading books. If you read 20 - 30 Osho books and get some intellectual clarity, you will sound enlightened, even if you are living like everyone else. You will talk wise things but your mind will be with the same kind of conditioning. Because of this, you will also end up saying things that comes from your own conditioning, beliefs and likes and dislikes. At the end of the day, you will end up misleading people instead of guiding them towards enlightenment. Osho warned about this many times, saying that this will be similar to a blind man leading another blind man. .................................................................................................................. You probably watched some best videos of Sadhguru. He is insightful sometimes, but not always... He talks about many things which are distractions. I myself was distracted after listening to him but I couldn't realize this when I was a seeker; he certainly made an influence on me,..