Shanmugam

@Joseph Maynor yes...Existence doesn't prescribe anything at all.. For existence, whether we live or die doesn't matter, whether we are good or evil doesn't matter.. These things only matter to us, because we suffer... So we want to get rid of suffering; so we also understand that causing suffering to others is not fair, for the same reason.. So, we have made prescriptions for how to live life. liberation helps us to realize that we are existence itself and not different from existence..

Yes.. It is normal...You remind me of my practice. Whenever there is such a force from ego, I first used to resist it, but then there would be a lot of tension. So, I used to tell myself when such a thing happens "after all, I cannot get enlightened overnight.. If ego comes back with the force, let it come.. Let me loosen the awareness a little bit".. (of course, there is nothing like 'getting enlightenment' because it is not something that you can get, it is just an enlightenment slang ) Then I would stop being conscious of my thoughts for a day or two.. Not completely, but I will let my mind a little loose, without troubling its contents by my awareness all the time. I would pause my seeking. But I always did a resolve to be back on track as soon as possible.. Sometimes the tension may actually arise because of the ego itself wanting to get enlightened. Watch out for this as well. Ego does some work behind the screen and suddenly it starts to think that enlightenment is something that it can feed on. Once you become aware of such things, it will lose its force. Keep watching whatever your mind is doing. Pay attention to the trend of thoughts, kind of thoughts, changes in mood etc. Once you get a mastery over witnessing the mind, you can zoom in further to watch as each thought arises.. Keep sharpening the awareness of your thoughts, being always as a passive witness. When you get confused or seem to be losing the knack of witnessing, remind yourself that whatever that happens in your conscious field is not you; whatever that is observed by you is not you...This discrimination will help you to be more mindful. If you keep going like this, then soon you will completely dissolve the duality.

May I know how you know this? Who exactly told you that this is how an enlightened one lives? And, what is your definition of enlightenment?

@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/

@Joseph Maynor You may be surprised to know how these theories about reality evolved... I will pick Vedanta as example and will give you a history of certain theories.. I am not going to cover things that are well known but certain interesting theories which existed then. First, it is important to understand how people around 1000 BC led their life. Vedic rituals were a part of everyone's life... This was their belief: There are Devas, invisible entities who help people in bringing rain, cattle etc. These devas can be invoked by chanting mantras and sacrificing animals, grains and ghees etc in fire. They also believed that doing such rituals make them to live in heaven. 1) In the time of Upanishads (800-600 BC) , many ideas developed. There were also people who were enjoying the freedom of non-duality. The advice you will find in major upanishads is this: The person, after studying Vedas, should renounce the world, practice austerities, pull his mind from the senses and receive the teaching about the Atman from a teacher. 2) Shankara's interpretation of Upanishads reconciles many contradictions in the Upanishads and he seems to suggest some paths for people (this is during 800 AD, which is about 1600 years after the time of Upanishads) ... a) Studying vedas and practicing vedic rituals are a part of life... The only people who are banned from studying vedas are shudras (lower caste people).. All others should do as prescribed.. Failing to do so, they will reach hell after death, suffer for a while and will attain a birth of animal, plant or shudra. b) Practicing vedic rituals properly will help them to reach the Moon after death, where they enjoy the company of Devas and be happy for certain duration, until they enjoy the fruits of their good actions. Then their soul comes through the rain and reaches the earth. They become a part of the plants; when humans eat it, these souls reach the human body and mixes with semen, to be born again in this world. c) Practicing rituals along with upasana meditations until death help them to reach the Sun first and from Sun they reach a world called Brahmaloka. There they live until the end of the world and become a part of Brahman. d) People who attain liberation by following the teachings that lead to liberation, may attain liberation in this life and they are merged with Brahman right away. After death they neither reach any other worlds nor born again in this earth. Only the 4th one from above survives as Vedanta today, though some religiously oriented teachers speak about others.. But you will find detailed descriptions and insistence on all the above four in Shankara's commentaries.. It is good that the other three are dropped, because they won't make much sense in this century. Once science is bridged with spirituality, we may start seeing purer version of spiritual teachings.

That is a good question... Let me answer it according to my own experience first and according to what I have read... And I will try to put everything in words to my best ability. (The problem is, every word in every language, including the words in this sentence, even though has almost same meaning in the dictionary, has some what different meanings in each person's mind. ) If I look back at my past 4 years ago, the way I perceived the world was like this: I had a distinct feeling that I was an individual. What I called as 'me' ended exactly at the place where my skin met the air. I perceived the whole world as something different from me and full of different people who seem to have a solid reality in my mind.. By this, I mean that, all of the bodies who I perceived with my eyes also had separate distinct realities in my mind as well. Sometime during 2014 (In the month of July when my practices reached a peak point), I started to feel the reality in a different way. The agent, the doer, which I thought I was, who had a feeling of incompleteness and was looking for fulfillment, completely disappeared. With the disappearance of the agent, the distinct feeling which creates an idea of 'me' and the idea of an 'other' also disappeared. There is no sense in calling anything separately as 'me'. In that sense, the whole experience of reality became non-dual. Since there is no particular incomplete entity striving for fulfillment, it also made me to rest in peace. And at one point, I didn't even know what to do next in life. All my actions from then on were only to fulfill the needs of this body and to meet the demands of people who are dependent on me. Slowly, in the next three years, I started to have a direction in my life to proceed with, even though there is no goal to attain anymore and nothing matters. This non-dual reality continues with no feeling of distinctions... So, in that sense, yes, everything is one. Depending on how the same thing that I said above has been described by different people in the past in different ways, I can certainly infer that they talked about the same thing as well. But what everyone in the past did was create some theories based on this and also proceeded to teach others on how they can start perceiving the reality non-dually. And the way they created such theories and teaching methods are always based on their own past experiences and probably by observing/discussing with other people who had the same perception of reality. Some of these people attracted huge followings and a varieties of distinct philosophies must have got created based on this. As time went on, people who had no taste of such a non-dual reality in its purity also started adding things to such theories. And there was no way in the past to verify such theories with empirical research. It would have been even difficult to communicate to another person who was living miles away, but now people from different parts of the world can communicate easily with each other in this forum. If such a convenience existed during the time of people like Buddha, Shankara etc, things would have been different. One such theory was that consciousness is non-local and it is the same for everyone. I think this is where your difficulty is. First of all, this way of perceiving the reality is not an evidence for non-local consciousness. It doesn't tell me anything about the origin of universe and things like that either. However, the way all these theories were created was only based on pure reasoning and experience, and some of them did help people, regardless of these theories being true or not. For example, in Yogic school of thoughts, there are multiple purushas (atman) and one prakriti (maya). Even though they have explained the reality this way, the end result of yoga called samadhi also ends in perceiving the reality in non-dual way, according to their own scriptures. Here, it is important to understand what the word samadhi means, because most of the people only think of it as some kind of experience reached by eyes closed meditation. Samadhi literally means putting everything together. Nirvikalpa samadhi means putting everything together without any distinctions. But I know that these words have various other meanings which can cause disagreements. Even the same vedantic scriptures (Upanishads, Gita, Brahmasutras) have been interpreted differently by different people like Madhva, Ramanuja etc and their view of reality was different. But all these theories are only about the objective world, to explain things like, the other people having their own conscious field and perceiving the reality in a different way . The need of such theories in the first place arises only when they try to teach others. They don't have to be taken so seriously and they are only used as teaching devices. The core of the spiritual practice lies only in discriminating the witness and the things that are witnessed. This doesn't require any belief in such theories. But these theories are helpful for people in having some basis to work with. However, if there is a curiosity to find out what is real in the objective world, most importantly, if consciousness is non-local or not, it can be efficiently carried out only by following scientific method. There are people who have prejudice against science, but however, science is nothing but a method that is used in acquiring knowledge. We use scientific method all the time.. For example, a guy may think about a girl this way : 'She called me the other day and told me she felt like she wanted to talk to me', 'today she said she missed me when I was not present for a week', 'she gifted me a gold ring'.. Now all these above statements are observations. Based on the observation he creates a theory, such as 'I think she is in love with me'.. He also comes up with a hypothesis 'She will soon propose me one day'... What did the guy actually do? He somehow used a scientific method, even though he may not call it the same way. Scientists just use a more refined scientific method, thats it..

I just began to read Osho's talks on Kena Upanishad, and the very first thing that he talks about is the difficulty of expressing the absolute truth in words: "When a lived experience comes into words, it looks dead, pale. A lived experience which is total, in which your whole being dances and celebrates, when it is expressed through the intellect looks just dull, of no significance. Those who do not know, they can talk much because they have nothing with which to compare. They have no original experience; they cannot know what they are doing. Once someone knows, he knows what a problem it is to express it. Many have remained totally silent and many have remained completely unknown because of that – because we can only know about someone who speaks. The moment someone speaks he enters society. When someone stops speaking he leaves society, he is no more part of it. Language is the milieu in which society exists. It is just like blood: blood circulates in you and you exist. Language circulates within society and the society exists. Without language there is no society. So those who have remained silent, they have fallen out of it. We have forgotten them. Really, we have never known them. Somewhere Vivekananda has said – and it is very very true – that the Buddhas, Krishnas and Christs that we have known are not really the representatives. They are not really central, they are on the periphery. The central most happenings have been lost to history. Those who became so silent that they couldn’t communicate with us are not known. They cannot be known: there is no way to know them. In a way Vivekananda is right but those who have become so silent that they have not uttered anything about their experience have not helped us. They have not been really compassionate enough. In a sense they have been totally selfish. It is true that to say anything about truth is difficult, but even then it has to be tried. It MUST be tried because even a diluted truth will be helpful for those who live in total illusion. Even something which carries a very very far echo will help them to change. It is not that Buddha is very happy with what he says. Whatsoever he says, he feels is not true. He feels the same way as Lao Tzu felt. Lao Tzu says, ”That which can be said cannot be true. The moment it is said it is falsified.” But still, those who live in worlds of many many illusions, those who are deeply asleep, fast asleep, for them even a false alarm may be helpful. If they can come out of their sleep, if they can be brought to a new consciousness, to a new being, even a false alarm is good. Of course, when they awaken themselves they will know that it was false – but it will have helped. In a sense, wherever we are and whatsoever we are, we are so false that, really, absolutely pure truth is not needed at all. It cannot penetrate you. It will not have any contact; you will not be able to understand it. Only a very diluted truth, modified – in a sense, falsified – can have any appeal for you, because then you can understand the language; it has been translated for you."

@Joseph Maynor He has tried to make it very precise, but as any definition of non-duality, this will certainly sound vague for a beginner. A beginner would need a lecture to even get a little bit of understanding of what he means by these words, otherwise they will interpret it according to their own spiritual maturity and understanding. "[T]he essential principle of 'non-duality' [is the] principle of inseparable distinction -- understanding pure awareness as neither separate from the world of experience and its differentiated contents of consciousness, nor merged in indistinct unity with them." By saying 'merged in indistinct unity', he is talking about getting identified with everything or getting lost in things. This is caused by superimposition of non-self on self. Basically the idea of a limited identity acts as a veil between awareness and the world, creating a duality. By saying, 'neither separate from the world of experience and its differentiated contents of consciousness', he is talking about the actual non-dual way of experiencing the reality. Once the veil of ignorance (superimposition) is removed, awareness doesn't feel separate from the world...Everything is united in perfect advaita (no duality) and perfect yoga (union).. But this is different from 'being merged in indistinct unity'.

'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.