Shanmugam

@Samuel There is nothing wrong in the way of life your friend is living.. In General, If path of enlightenment is advertised to someone, the person might pursue it just for the appeal to ego.. Because ego likes the idea of becoming enlightened.. Also, pursuit of enlightenment can never be forced on anybody as well. The need for getting rid of suffering will automatically come to anyone, when he discovers that nothing in the objective world will give him lasting fulfillment. There is no hurry.. Dreaming or living in the illusion is not bad, it has its own thrill and its own appeal. If he gets fed up with it one day, he will naturally stumble upon a spiritual path some way.

Not sure what exactly you mean by that... But, meditation and the results of meditation can be observed in the brain... Not only that, certain changes can be observed in the brain of someone who is liberated (enlightened).. You may find this article interesting : https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/is-there-a-scientific-evidence-for-spiritual-enlightenment/

'My subsequent response to you in this thread, was in regards to your post above. Where I simply said "pleasure and pain persist after Moksha".' Here you sounded certain, my subsequent replies were about questioning the nature of this certainty...And you admitted it in one of the posts that you are not 100% certain.. Thats what I wanted to hear... I was talking about the 'ego's intention of finding faults... that's all.... My response was not to find faults with yours.. just compare your response and my response in the text quoted by you in your previous post.. The posts of you and me are not contradicting with each other. They are complimentary. You said 'emotions come and ago', I talked about the nature of those emotions which come and go... Where did I find fault in what you said? It was to clearly point out the distinction between the quality of a normal person's emotions vs the quality of emotions felt by some one who has lost the sense of a separate identity... And also, I never said sensations of pain and pleasure do not persist in such a person. After seeing your response on that, I clarified with annotations. But does it mean that pain and pleasure persist after moksha? As long as we accept that the definition of moksha is just losing the sense of duality, the sense of a separate identity, I would say that it is not necessary for the pain and pleasure to disappear after moksha...It didn't disappear in me after losing the sense of duality... But it is really possible to get rid of pain and pleasure completely? Some people claim that they actually got rid of it and they claim that getting rid of pain and pleasure completely is what moksha is... Now, when dealing with this, we need to forget about the word 'moksha', because arguing what 'moksha' is, is only a linguistic argument.. It depends on what a person means by the word 'moksha'.. Instead, the question that needs to be asked is 'it is really possible to get rid of pain and pleasure completely?'.. And this is a question which you and I cannot answer with certainty, unless it actually happens to you and me... So, here it is best to live with uncertainty and say 'we don't know about that'... It may be true or may not be true... That was the whole point of my subsequent posts... Is it clear?

@Anna1 Look at the sentence in my previous reply, which is bold. English is not my native language. But to my knowledge, when someone says 'Let us say', it implies imagining a situation, am I wrong?

yes.. thats because you said I was contradicting and you didn't understand why.. I just gave an explanation in detail.. when I sounded certain, I was as certain as you... When I said I don't know, I was saying I am not 100% certain. I didn't make a big deal out of it... I just gave a long explanation, thats it...I don't mind giving a long explanation, that doesn't mean I think there is a problem.. Let me give you another example... 1) Someone tells you that there is fire behind a mountain.. This is verbal testimony. You still don't know if there is fire behind the mountain because the person might by lying or deluded 2) You see smoke behind the mountain... Now you can infer that there is fire, because there is smoke.. But you still really don't know if there is fire behind it, because the smoke may be due to a cement factory behind the mountain. 3) You actually go behind the mountain and see that there is a fire. Now, you know there is fire because you have seen it with your own eyes... When you/I are not 100% certain, that means you/I actually don't know yet... that is the absolute truth.. You started it by finding a fault in my post.. And you are still trying to find faults... Stop finding faults in others posts, thats just ego. I see that trend in most of your posts... (the ego is saying 'I know, these people don't know yet')..Once you stop finding faults, it will save a lot of time for you..

The following Zen story is very significant: "Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era, received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!” Like this cup, Nan-in said, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?" When people are already full of ideas, beliefs and concepts, it is very difficult for them to be open minded. These people already have answers overflowing in their heads because of all they have learnt so far. But all those answers were just fed to their system and keep them in an illusory feeling of having known the truth. So, if anything new is fed to their heads, they can't accepts it without coloring it with the opinions that they already have. They also can't accept it if it contradicts with what is already in their heads. When I recollect one of the first lessons that I received from Osho, I can remember his own explanation of this story. And I think it is very important for everyone to read this, especially for beginners.. Oshos' commentary: You have come to an even more dangerous person than Nan-in, because an empty cup won't do; the cup has to be broken completely. Even empty, if you are there, then you are full. Even emptiness fills you. If you feel that you are empty you are not empty at all, you are there. Only the name has changed: now you call yourself emptiness. The cup won't do at all; it has to be broken completely. Only when you are not can the tea be poured into you, only when you are not is there no need really to pour the tea into you. When you are not the whole existence begins pouring, the whole existence becomes a shower from every dimension, from every direction. When you are not, the divine is. The story is beautiful. It was bound to happen to a professor of philosophy. The story says a professor of philosophy came to Nan-in. He must have come for the wrong reasons because a professor of philosophy, as such, is always wrong. Philosophy means intellect, reasoning, thinking, argumentativeness. And this is the way to be wrong, because you cannot be in love with existence if you are argumentative. Argument is the barrier. If you argue, you are closed; the whole existence closes to you. Then you are not open and existence is not open to you. When you argue, you assert. Assertion is violence, aggression, and the truth cannot be known by an aggressive mind, the truth cannot be discovered by violence. You can come to know the truth only when you are in love. But love never argues. There is no argument in love, because there is no aggression. And remember, not only was that man a professor of philosophy, you are also the same. Every man carries his own philosophy, and every man in his own way is a professor, because you profess your ideas, you believe in them. You have opinions, concepts, and because of opinions and concepts your eyes are dull, they cannot see; your mind is stupid, it cannot know. Ideas create stupidity, because the more the ideas are there the more the mind is burdened. And how can a burdened mind know? The more ideas there are the more it is just like dust which has gathered on a mirror. How can the mirror mirror? How can the mirror reflect? Your intelligence is just covered by opinions -- the dust -- and everyone who is opinionated is bound to be stupid and dull. That's why professors of philosophy are almost always stupid. They know too much to know at all. They are burdened too much. They cannot fly in the sky, they can't have wings. And they are so much in the mind, they can't have roots in the earth. They are not grounded in the earth and they are not free to fly into the sky. And remember, you are all the same. There may be differences of quantity, but every mind is qualitatively the same, because mind thinks, argues, collects and gathers knowledge and becomes dull. Only children are intelligent. And if you can retain your childhood, if you continuously reclaim your childhood, you will remain innocent and intelligent. If you gather dust, childhood is lost, innocence is no more; the mind has become dull and stupid. Now you can have philosophies. The more philosophies you have, the more you are far away from the divine. - A Bird on the Wing, Chapter 1

Oh my God!!! You never got what I was trying to say... I didn't want to know if you are enlightened.. I asked to imagine a situation, as an example... Anyway, I am speechless... I stared at my monitor for 2 minutes to find the right words and I give up... Probably, I am not explaining it clearly..

Check out this book, it is free: http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/Volumes/PDF/english/017/index.pdf This book is published by Adhyatma Prakasha, started by Satchidanandendra Saraswati. He was a vedantin and sanskrit scholar who dedicated all his life for the Vedanta sadhana and attained Brahma-jnana. He was known as a Jivanmukta sage. Swamiji authored some 200 works, and he dedicated his life to teaching about the pristine pure Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Shankara. He did a lot of scriptural research to bring out the true method taught by Shankara. The above book is not directly written by Swamiji. His works are advanced. All of his books are available for free here: http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/english_books.php

Here are my favorite lines from Tao Te Ching: Tao (The Way) that can be spoken of is not the Constant Tao’, The name that can be named is not a Constant Name. Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth; Tao is so profound and yet in invisible, It exists in everywhere and anywhere. I do not know whose Son It is, It existed before heaven and earth. Can one unite the body and the spirit as one and embrace the “Oneness” without departing from the great Tao? Can one achieve harmony with such gentleness by holding on to the true spirit within as if the innocence of an infant? Can one free oneself from worldly knowledge and cleanse one’s mind, so that no faults shall be made? Thirty spokes unite around one hub to make a wheel. It is the presence of the empty space that gives the function of a vehicle. Clay is molded into a vessel. It is the empty space that gives the function of a vessel. Doors and windows are chisel out to make a room. It is the empty space in the room that gives its function. Therefore, something substantial can be beneficial. While the emptiness of void is what can be utilized. This “Oneness” is not much brighter in the sky, as It is not much dimmer on earth. It is not more glorious in a saint as It is not more fainter in an ordinary person. It is everlasting and cannot be named. It is the original void of “non-being.” This “Oneness” is the Tao which is invisible, and formless. It may be regarded as vague and intangible. All things and beings will eventually return to the original source. This is called “peace.” “Peace” means returning to one’s original nature. This original nature is the eternal law. To know the nature’s law is to be enlightened. When Tao is manifested, names were given for the purpose of distinction. But one must know how to attain the original pureness in order to avoid danger and disaster. One who knows other people is wise. One who knows himself is enlightened. To overcome others is strong. To overcome oneself is the will of power. He who is enlightened with the original nature, Although dies physically, is eternally united with the everlasting Tao. A man of superior virtue is not conscious of being virtuous, hence is truly virtuous. A man of inferior virtue performs for the purpose of virtue, hence he is not virtuous. A man of superior virtue acts without action, and performs with his true nature. A man of inferior virtue acts with intentional effort. When a superior man heard of Tao, He cultivates himself diligently. When an average man heard of Tao, He is doubtful, vague and would give up halfway. When an inferior man heard of Tao, He laughs and thinks of It as foolish. If Tao is not being laughed at, It is not the Great Tao. All beings bear the negative physical form which is represented by Ying, and embrace the positive true nature which is represented by Yang. With the union of these two, they arrive at a state of harmony. One who knows what people do not know, Is a person of enlightenment. One who pretends to know what he is ignorant of, is at fault. He who is aware of what he does not know, shall not be at fault. Therefore, a saint is flawless for he is aware of what he truly knows and what he knows not, hence he is flawless.

@Anna1 Anyway, My only problem here is in trying to convey what I have in my mind in words... But let me try... The reason why you see many contradictions in my replies is because of certain issues we have in determining if one is really enlightened or not...Each of my reply presents various perspectives... And everyone has the same problem. Let us say you get enlightened... And you are absolutely sure that this is it.. And if someone asks you if an enlightened person feels pain and pleasure, your response will be solely based on whether you experience pain and pleasure or not? right? Also, how would you conclude that you were enlightened in the first place? Based on any one definition out of thousands of definition that exists, right? Somebody says that a thoughtless mind is an indication for enlightenment; another one says that just the disappearance of the sense of separate identity as an indication etc... I sounded certain in my first reply, based on one widely accepted definition for enlightenment; 'disappearance of the sense of separate identity'.. And it is true that I replied based on my own state of mind and how I perceive emotions...(there is no other way to answer).. And according to this definition, I am enlightened already. Since you objected to that, I explained to you that I actually said that based on my own experience (and as I said, that is the only way to answer)... My third reply was actually based on a curiosity, to see if you will ever say 'I don't know'...Since there are various definitions for enlightenment and enlightenment is just a word, I said I know nothing about enlightenment, with little sarcasm... That is just to show you that I am really not pretending to be all knowing about what enlightenment is, considering all the other definitions that exist for the word. Because, after all, whatever I say can be based only on my experience alone... Testimony of others and inference are not as reliable as what one can witness in his own consciousness. Do you get my point? It is only because of this problem, I am writing in my blog about bridging science and spirituality. I have already collected information about some studies and put it in an article. Also, a Vedanta teacher himself has published a paper on this here: http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nondualitymagazine.4/nonduality_magazine.4.jivanmuktarevised_27_apr_2011.htm

@Anna1 When I said I don't know, that is the absolute truth... All I can do is inference or say something based on what a teacher has said...How the hell do you think I will know for sure? When I said I don't know, I said that because I don't have any mystical vision to peak into their consciousness. If you say you are certain, than how do you know? Please answer that question.. The whole point of my post was not to let your ego to rejoice in finding faults with me.. It was to ask you that question so that you can answer...I was really curious what you were going to say. Of course, your statements also sound certain, but they are either based on what you have heard or just inference, wouldn't you agree?. (or if you had a mystical access to an enlightened person mind, please let me know) ..So, you also actually don't know for sure... When I said I don't know, thats what I meant..

Th entire Tao Te Ching is available here: http://www.with.org/tao_te_ching_en.pdf But these are the ones that I found to be very good; These are also similar to advaita.

@Mert First of all, what practice did you actually do, to become more conscious? I suspect you engaged in a lot of thinking... But here are my suggestions... Smoke some weed if possible and think about your first crush or first love. Your mind should overflow with love. I think that may put you back on track.. Look at some old photo albums in which you were together with your close friends or loved ones.. Listen to some songs that provoke feelings.. Here is a love poem I wrote.. Try to feel it when you read each line: The day when I first set my eyes on you, Each of your eyes looked like a drop of dew. Showing a fear in those dark round pupils And a look as sharp as tall church steeples! You began to speak but it was so rare; Sometimes all that came from your mouth is air Even if you spoke it was soft and mild, With voice that sounded like a little child! I had always wished if there was a clue To find out what locked your lips with a glue And I always wanted to ask you why you were so calm, gentle, reserved and shy! Slowly you gathered the courage to smile; But still you were far like a lonely isle; Shortly you began to laugh and giggle; Not once did you shout, argue or niggle! Like a wide, calm sea with turquoise waters Or a big lake with fishes and yachters, Your glance was enticing, mystic and deep Beyond which loads of secrets were asleep! Sometimes I wonder why lilies don't speak And marvel at the daisies near a creek, Inquiring why they don't utter a phrase; Like you, they just remain silent and gaze!

@Joseph Maynor 'This is good to keep in mind. You can believe, but hold your beliefs loosely. ' Yeah, i would agree.. It is actually different or may be a better way of putting it... It was Osho who actually taught me how to stay neutral instead of believing or disbelieving... When I was about 18 years old, I completely lost interest in living. I started questioning everything in my life.. What is the purpose of this life after all? Why should I continue to live? Everything seemed to be meaningless. My rational mind started to question the existence of God. When I dug deeper into my mind, it seemed as if nothing had any purpose. There seemed to be no way to fulfill the expectations of mind. I thought I would rather die instead of having to suffer with my immature, neurotic and unpredictable personality. Then I thought, ‘If I have decided to end this life now, then I have a freedom of doing anything I like… I can die at any minute when it seems to be impossible to live any longer.’… The idea that death is an open choice all the time gave me a sudden sense of freedom and peace. ‘Let me let this life going and see what happens’ I thought. Thats when I discovered books of Osho... And it totally changed my outlook on life.. I suddenly saw another possibility, a way to end suffering without having to die.. But it is sad to see some stupid people criticizing him without knowing any damn thing about what he taught... He used many devices to guide people and he was very careful in not letting people to form any concepts or philosophy in their mind... His way was cunning, clever and absolutely productive..

Yes, you are right, I was taking a piece out of conversation... I will go through the whole thread now.. By the way, who is Dodoster?

ok... then try posting without using the word 'I' for the next ten days, if you can. Language itself is dualistic, so you cannot really speak anything without implying some duality...

@Prabhaker Osho is a genius!!! @Joseph Maynor Are you aware of any Taoist master who is alive? I am interested to see how they interpret and explain Taoism according to the modern world.

Ashtavakra Gita is one of the ancient texts regarding spirituality. Here are some selected quotes from it: 1.8 The thought: “I am the doer” is the bite of a poisonous snake. To know: “I do nothing” is the wisdom of faith. Be happy. 1.13 Meditate on this: “I am Awareness alone--Unity itself.” Give up the idea that you are separate, a person, that there is within and without. 1.19 Just as a mirror exists both within and without the image reflected, the Supreme Self exists both within and without the body. 1.20 Just as the same space exists both within and without a jar, the timeless, all-pervasive One exists as Totality. 2.5 Look closely at cloth, you see only threads. Look closely at creation, you see only Self. 3.10 A great soul witnesses his body’s actions as if they were another’s. How can praise or blame disturb him? 15.6 Realize Self in All and All in Self. Be free of personal identity and the sense of “mine.” Be happy 15.11 Let the waves of the universe rise and fall as they will. You have nothing to gain or lose. You are the ocean. 16.1 You can recite and discuss scripture all you want, but until you drop everything you will never know Truth. 16.8 Indulgence creates attachment. Aversion creates abstinence. Like a child, the sage is free of both and thus lives on as a child. 16.9 One who is attached to the world thinks renouncing it will relieve his misery. One who is attached to nothing is free and does not feel miserable even in the world. 16.10 He who claims liberation as his own, as an attainment of a person, is neither enlightened nor a seeker. He suffers his own misery. 17.4 Rare in the world is one who does not relish past enjoyments, nor yearn for enjoyments to come. 17.5 Those who desire pleasure and those who desire liberation are both common in the world. Rare is the great soul who desires neither enjoyment nor liberation. 17.17 The liberated one neither avoids experience nor craves it. He enjoys what comes and what does not. 18.9 Knowing for certain that all is Self, the sage has no trace of thoughts such as “I am this” or “I am not that.” 18.37 Because he desires to know God, the ignorant man can never become That. The wise man is God because he is free of desire and knows nothing. 18.40 For he who thinks knowledge is things and ideas how can there be Self-knowledge? The wise do not see separate things-- only the timeless Self. 18.42 Some believe in existence; others believe nothing exists. Rare is the one who believes nothing and is never confused. 18.43 Weak intellectuals may believe the Self is One without other. But being mired in illusion they do not actually know Self, so live out their lives in misery. 18.49 The sage does whatever appears to be done without thinking of good or bad. His actions are those of a child. 18.55 Though his servants, sons, wives, daughters, grandchildren and all his relatives ridicule and despise him, the yogi is undismayed. 18.56 Though pleased he is not pleasured; though pained he does not suffer. This wonderful state is understood only by those like him. 18.58 Even doing nothing the dull one is anxious and distracted. Even amidst great action the wise one remains still.

Don't know much about Taoism.. Which verses do you find to be close to Taoism?

@Anna1 Not really apathy, just the exact opposite.. Whatever I do, I am able to do with full enthusiasm.. I get completely absorbed and become one with the task.. But I agree I lack many things: the ability to regret, ability to complain about what happens in life, ability to feel anxious about future, ability to feel the emotions the same way I did (weird, huh? ) etc... And I am not suffering from it, I am enjoying the freedom that comes with it.. If I suddenly come to know that all this has nothing to do with enlightenment that is talked about by gurus but it is seriously a mental disorder, that will make no difference to the peace... This reminds me of a popular quote: "I'm not suffering from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it" Let me be very honest with you.. I really know absolutely nothing about how an enlightened person's mind looks like. I don't know whether he experiences pain or pleasure etc.. All I know is about my own mind and the freedom and peace that came from my own practices... And I wouldn't know what happens in the future because no one can tell. But I have heard different things said by different people about how an enlightened person thinks and experiences life. There is a guru in India with millions of followers who claim that this guru has changed their lives. They are totally impressed by him! And the guru claims that he is in ecstatic bliss all the time, he doesn't have any thoughts at all except when he has to move around, if he wants he can simply close his eyes and just die by his will etc... And there are other people who claim that after enlightenment there is still suffering, still craving, still anger, etc. Finally there are people who claim that there is no suffering (the suffering which causes an individual to feel miserable , lost or diminished) but there is still pain and pleasure. This version actually is quite similar to the type of whatever disorder that I have. .. But this weird disorder also made me incapable of worrying about anything at all. But ultimately, enlightenment is just a word with many definitions that people have associated with some kind of liberation that happened for them, which can be verified only by them. After all, I can only know what happens in my own conscious field.. When others tell me about their field of consciousness, I don't really have any way to verify this. I just have their testimony poured into my ears... So, Let me repeat... I don't know anything about what happens after Moksha, what persists after moksha etc. But since you are certain about it and seem to know everything that happens after moksha, let me ask you this question: You say that pleasure and pain persist after moksha... may be.. I don't know.. I have only heard people saying so... But how do you know that for sure? Can you be absolutely certain and 100% sure about this? If yes, how? (I am not starting another debate with you.. I am only going to ask you questions.. In the further discussions about this topic with you, I am going to maintain that I don't know)

@Anna1 You probably misunderstood what I said... Let me add some annotations and formatting They don't really feel those emotions like others do...(they feel them quite differently) .. It only appears such for the people who are watching them.. All the liberated person feels is ups and downs in energy, and a little bit of subtle sensations.(which may be painful or pleasing).. In other words, their emotions are not really like the emotions of people who are unconscious. Emotions of people who are unconscious are very solid, opaque and they get powered by thoughts and emotions back and forth for a while.. Emotions of liberated ones are like tiny (painful or pleasant) bits of distant clouds which disappear without any effort. I would feel hesitant to even call them as emotions..

@Anna1 I didn't say pain and pleasure doesn't persist... Read my post again

No problem... But let me ask you onething... Unless you yourself are enlightened, how would you know how enlightened ones perceive emotions in a particular way? You may ask me the same question.. I don't really know how exactly the enlightened ones perceive the emotions, but what I stated was actually how I perceive those emotions... So, you can replace the word 'they' with 'I'... But I don't claim to be enlightened. All I know is I am free of the sense of separate identity....Since they should also be free of the sense of separate identity, I just infer that they should either perceive emotions the same way I do or not perceive them at all...But not perceiving any emotions at all seems to be something that is not in my understanding. So, I just said what is more likely based on my own experience. However, I know perfectly well and 100% sure that what I described in my previous post is possible. Because that is how I experience life. Does it make sense?

They don't really feel those emotions like others do... It only appears such for the people who are watching them.. All the liberated person feels is ups and downs in energy, and a little bit of subtle sensations... In other words, their emotions are not really like the emotions of people who are unconscious. Emotions of people who are unconscious are very solid, opaque and they get powered by thoughts and emotions back and forth for a while.. Emotions of liberated ones are like tiny bits of distant clouds which disappear without any effort. I would feel hesitant to even call them as emotions..

Swami Satchidanandendra saraswathi explains what is nididhyasana and also quotes verses from Shankara, Gaudapa Karika and Gita which give instructions on how to practice nididhyasana.. And this differs from what is being taught by other teachers. By Nididhyasana, he means actual meditation (similar to yogic and jhana meditations). But this is usually mentioned as a purification method by other Vedanta teachers (as a means of achieving the four fold qualifications). Here is Swami's explanation: "The aim of the one practicing sustained meditation (nididhyasana) is different. He tries to attain direct vision of reality (here in this very world) by turning his mind away from all else. And there is the difference — as against upasana — that after the rise of knowledge nothing further remains to be done. It is this sustained meditation that is referred to at Katha Upanishad I.ii.13 by the name 'Adhyatma Yoga'. In the Gita it is sometimes called 'Dhyana Yoga' (e.g. XVIII. 52). In the Mandukya Karikas it is called 'restraint of the mind' (G.K.III.41, etc.). Its nature is described there in that latter work. Everywhere its result is described in the same way as right metaphysical knowledge, and from this comes immediate liberation. And here are the citations provided 1. The wise man comes to know God through mastering Adhyatma Yoga, and gives up joy and sorrow. (Katha I.ii.12) Sankara's Commentary: Mastering Adhyatma Yoga: Adhyatma Yoga means withdrawing the mind from objects and concentrating it on the Self. Having meditated on the deity, the Self, through attainment of Adhyatma Yoga, the wise man gives up joy and sorrow because there are no gradations of value in the Self. 2. 'He is seen by those of subtle vision through their subtle minds' says the Veda (Katha I.iii.12), pointing out that the highest state of Vi§nu is difficult to attain. Then the same text goes on to teach yoga as the means to attain it, in the words 'The wise man should dissolve the senses into the mind and should dissolve the mind into the intellect. He should dissolve the soul into the great self and he should dissolve that into the Self that is pure peace' (Katha I.iii. 13). That is, he should first give up the use of speech and the other organs of action and perception and should remain iden tified with the lower aspect of the mind alone. He should then note that the lower aspect of the mind, too, has defects such as an inclination towards the sense objects and unsteadiness in its decisions, and he should dissolve it into that higher aspect of mind (buddhi) which has fixed determination for its nature and is sometimes known by the technical term 'intellect' (vijnana). He should refine the intellect and resolve it into 'the great self, the experiencer or apex of the intellect. The 'great self, however, must be dissolved in the 'Self that is pure peace', the supreme Spirit that is the subject of the section, the summit of human experience. - Shankara (Brahma Sutra Bhasya I.iv.l (the whole second point above is Shankara's commentary on Brahma sutras) 3. Resorting to dispassion, always intent on the Yoga of Meditation (Dhyana Yoga). (Bh.G. XVIII. 52) Sankara's Commentary: Meditation means dwelling on the true nature of the Self. Yoga means one-pointed concentration on the Self. He who is intent on 'Dhyana' and 'Yoga' thus defined is the one 'intent on the Yoga of Meditation'. The use of the word 'always' is to show that he has no other duties, such as daily repetition of the Vedic verses. 4. That yoga should certainly be practiced with resolute mind. Giving up without exception all desires that come from individual will, restraining the sense-organs on every side through the mind, one should gradually withdraw from all activity, with will and intellect firmly controlled; keeping the mind fixed on the Self, one should not think of anything. Wherever the fickle mind wanders , one should bring it back and fix it on the Self alone, under firm control. Supreme joy comes to such a yogi, whose mind is at perfect peace, whose lusts have subsided, who is sinless and who has become the Ab solute. Such a yogi, free from all sin, always controlling his mind in this way, easily attains the supreme joy of con tact with the Absolute. With his mind controlled through yoga, he sees himself in all beings and all beings in his own Self, seeing the same everywhere. (Bh.G. VI. 23-9) Sankara' s Commentary: ' Seeing the same everywhere' is said of one who has the same undifferentiated vision or knowledge of unity and identity with the Absolute and the Self in regard to all things of different grades, from Brahma to the beings of the vegetable and mineral realms. (Bh.G.Bh.VI.29) 5. The mind must be restrained tirelessly, as if one were emptying the sea with the tip of a blade of grass. One must resort to special means to restrain the mind when it is dispersed amid desires and enjoyments. The mind must also be awakened and held in restraint even when it is perfectly calm in the dissolution of dreamless sleep. Mere dissolution in dreamless sleep is no better than desire (since it is also the seed of future worldly experience). One restrains the mind from desires and enjoyments by remembering 'All is pain'. When one remembers 'All is the Unborn (the Absolute)', one does not even see what is born. When the mind is drowsy in its practice of yoga one should arouse it, and when it is distracted one should again calm it down. One should know that the mind is soiled with latent impressions, and should not allow it to move when it has attained the state of equilibrium, free from the tendency either to dissolution or distraction. Even there, one should not savour the joy. One should acquire non-attachment through the discriminative wisdom that sees all joy as born of Ignorance. When the mind, although at first motionless, moves out once more, one should again carefully bring it back to unity. When the mind no longer either undergoes dissolution in dreamless sleep or distraction amidst desires and enjoyments, and it is motionless and without manifestation, then it has reached its state of perfection. It (has reached the state of 'no-mind', G.K.III. 32, and) is the Absolute. (G.K.III. 1-6) (G.K means Gaudapada karika.. It was written by Gaudapada, who was Shankara's guru's guru)