Shanmugam

This is true: "You must always recognize what you are looking at, otherwise you are not there. The moment you translate, the 'you' is there. You look at something and recognize that it is a bag, a red bag. Thought interferes with the sensation by translating. Why does thought interfere? And can you do anything about it? The moment you look at a thing, what comes inside of you is the word 'bag', if not bag', then 'bench' or 'bannister', 'step', "that man sitting there, he has white hair." It goes on and on -- you are repeating to yourself all the time. If you don't do that, you are preoccupied with something else: "I'm getting late for the office." You are either thinking about something which is totally unrelated to the way the senses are functioning at this moment, or else you are looking and saying to yourself "That's a bag, that's a red bag," and so on and so on -- that is all that is there. The word 'bag' separates you from what you are looking at, thereby creating the 'you'; otherwise there is no space between the two. Every time a thought is born, you are born. When the thought is gone, you are gone. But the 'you' does not let the thought go, and what gives continuity to this 'you' is the thinking. Actually there is no permanent entity in you, no totality of all your thoughts and experiences. You think that there is 'somebody' who is thinking your thoughts, 'somebody' who is feeling your feelings --- that's the illusion. I can say it is an illusion; but it is not an illusion to you." "This labeling is necessary when you must communicate with someone else or with yourself. But you communicate with yourself all the time. Why do you do this? The only difference between you and the person who talks aloud to himself is that you don't talk aloud. The moment you do begin to talk aloud, along comes the psychiatrist. That chap, of course, is doing the same thing that you are doing, communicating to himself all the time -- 'bag', 'red bag', 'obsessive', 'compulsive', 'Oedipus complex,' 'greedy', 'bench', 'banister', 'martini'. Then he says something is wrong with you and puts you on the couch and wants to change you, to help you. Why can't you leave the sensations alone? Why do you translate? You do this because if you do not communicate to yourself, you are not there. The prospect of that is frightening to the 'you'."

As I read this book, I am beginning to think that everybody's enlightenment is so unique and they way they express it, what they choose to do after that, the symptoms (sometimes a lot of them are physical for some people, like U.G and Ramakrishna.. If someone puts a coin under Ramakrishna's bed, he used to feel extreme pain, which is very strange), the words they used to describe it are completely different for everybody. The only thing that seems to be common for these people is to be free of the sense of a separate self (and of course the relief and peace that comes with it) When you read this book, you may be able to relate with some of them and you may feel some of them to be fiction. Whether you consider it as a testimony of enlightened person or a fictitious novel, it is still interesting.

Another quote that I found to be insightful : "What is keeping you from being in your natural state? You are constantly moving way from yourself. You want to be happy, either permanently or at least for this moment. You are dissatisfied with your everyday experiences, and so you want some new ones. You want to perfect yourself, to change yourself. You are reaching out, trying to be something other than what you are. It is this that is taking you away from yourself. Society has put before you the ideal of a 'perfect man'. No matter in which culture you were born, you have scriptural doctrines and traditions handed down to you to tell you how to behave. You are told that through due practice you can even eventually come into the state attained by the sages, saints and saviors of mankind. And so you try to control your behavior, to control your thoughts, to be something unnatural. We are all living in a 'thought sphere'. Your thoughts are not your own; they belong to everybody. There are only thoughts, but you create a counter-thought, the thinker, with which you read every thought. Your effort to control life has created a secondary movement of thought within you, which you call the 'I'. This movement of thought within you is parallel to the movement of life, but isolated from it; it can never touch life. You are a living creature, yet you lead your entire life within the realm of this isolated, parallel movement of thought. You cut yourself off from life -- that is something very unnatural. The natural state is not a 'thoughtless state' -- that is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated for thousands of years on poor, helpless Hindus. You will never be without thought until the body is a corpse, a very dead corpse. Being able to think is necessary to survive. But in this state thought stops choking you; it falls into its natural rhythm. There is no longer a 'you' who reads the thoughts and thinks that they are 'his'. "

A quote from the book, the last line really made me laugh : "The personality does not change when you come into this state. You are, after all, a computer machine, which reacts as it has been programmed. It is in fact your present effort to change yourself that is taking you away from yourself and keeping you from functioning in the natural way. The personality will remain the same. Don't expect such a man to become free from anger or idiosyncrasies. Don't expect some kind of spiritual humility. Such a man may be the most arrogant person you have ever met, because he is touching life at a unique place where no man has touched before. It is for this reason that each person who comes into this state expresses it in a unique way, in terms relevant to his time. It is also for this reason that if two or more people are living in this state at the same time, they will never get together. They won't dance in the streets hand in hand: "We are all self-realized men! We belong!"

Thats good man.. I have a different list for me and I wish I could do that (Just for a month or two) No internet No phone No books No talking to people No TV or any other entertainment.. Just being in the nature, taking bath in river, eating fruits, smoking weed, taking walks in parks, sometimes in busy places, travelling in bus and train etc...

It has a mystical meaning... Shutting up means inner stillness. Getting lost means losing the feeling of a separate identity. So, I wish everyone to shut up and get lost

@Joseph Maynor This is the result of trying to philosophizing too much... You are awareness but you are not the concept of awareness.. Anything that you think about awareness is a concept, and that concept is not you. And if you notice anything that seems like anything, it is not you either. Don't try to twist your head to look at your own eyes, you will end up mistaking something that you see for your eyes.. Anything that you see with your eyes cannot be your eyes. Any word to define who you really are is not the right word.. People have chosen the words awareness or nothingness because they are close in pointing out what it is..

One of my favorite excerpts from Osho, it is a pearl of Wisdom. I remember reading this about 12 years before, and It changed my life altogether...He gives a very clear instruction on witnessing, on mindfulness.

@Joseph Maynor You seem to have got the knack and doing it perfectly well.. There is a concept of surrender in Indian tradition but people usually misunderstand it. Surrendering doesn't mean surrendering your will and being a slave to someone. It is surrendering the idea 'i am the doer'.. And when you do mindfulness this way, you surrender the doer. That is why it is liberating. Some people may ask a question: 'If I just watch my thoughts with detachment, how am I supposed to know when to act on a thought?'.. You will know and you will do what needs to be done.. It won't be a problem at all. Just keep doing whatever you are doing.. The more you become aware and mindful, the more peaceful you will feel. That is a valid indication of your progress,

@Joseph Maynor good luck

@Joseph Maynor Definitely distracting... I am noticing some of your threads that you are starting with questions which will be meaningless after enlightenment.. Don't make it too complicated.. With enlightenment, most of your questions will just disappear.

@Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj very funny

@Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj Who is Ham Sarris?

@Ry4n He has already taken all kinds of psychedelics and he knows what is non-duality.

@Loreena contemplation has its own place for it, especially in Vedanta.. Yoga is all about concentrating on an object while rejecting other objects... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manana_(reflection)

@Loreena it is not contemplation at all.. It is again a wrong translation. In English, meditation is synonymous with contemplation but the words dhyana, jhana, samadhi has got nothing to do with contemplation.

@Joseph Maynor The word seed refers to samskaras, which are like tendencies and impressions of the mind. The verses you quoted seem to have been poorly translated and very ambiguous. Let me quote an alternate translation which is a little elaborate and clear: 49. The knowledge that is gained from testimony and inference is about common objects. That from the Samadhi just mentioned is of a much higher order, being able to penetrate where inference and testimony cannot go. 50. The resulting impression from this Samadhi obstructs all other impressions. Here is the commentary of Vivekananda about the above verse: "We have seen in the foregoing aphorism that the only way of attaining to that super-consciousness is by concentration, and we have also seen that what hinder the mind from concentration are the past Samskaras, impressions. All of you have observed that when you are trying to concentrate your mind, your thoughts wander. When you are trying to think of God, that is the very time which all these Samskaras take to appear. At other times they are not so active, but when you want them not to be they are sure to be there, trying their best to crowd inside your mind. Why should that be so? Why should they be much more potent at the time of concentration? It is because you are repressing them and they react with all their force. At other times they do not react. How countless these old past impressions must be, all lodge somewhere in the Chitta, ready, waiting like tigers to jump up. These have to be suppressed that the one idea which we like may arise, to the exclusion of the others. Instead, they are all struggling to come up at the same time. These are the various powers of the Samskaras in hindering concentration of the mind, so this Samadhi which has just been given is the best to be practised, on account of its power of suppressing the Samskaras. The Samskara which will be raised by this sort of concentration will be so powerful that it will hinder the action of the others, and hold them in check" 51. By the restraint of even this (impression, which obstructs all other impressions), all being restrained, comes the “seedless” Samadhi. Commentary of the above verse: "You remember that our goal is to perceive the Soul iself. We cannot perceive the Soul because it has got mingled up with nature, with the mind, with the body. The most ignorant man thinks his body is the Soul. The more learned man thinks his mind is the Soul, but both of these are mistaken. What makes the Soul get mingled up with all this, these different waves in the Chitta rise and cover the Soul, and we only are a little reflection of the Soul through these waves, so, if the wave be one of anger, we see the Soul as angry: “I am angry,” we say. If the wave is a wave of love we see ourselves reflected in that wave, and say we are loving. If that wave is one of weakness, and the Soul is reflected in it, we think we are weak. These various ideas come from these impressions, these Samskaras covering the Soul. The real nature of the Soul is not perceived until all the waves have subsided; so, first, Patanjali teaches us the meaning of these waves; secondly, the best way to repress them; and thirdly, how to make one wave so strong as to suppress all other waves, fire eating fire as it were. When only one remains, it will be easy to suppress that also, and when that is gone, this Samadhi of concentration is called seedless; it leaves nothing, and the Soul is manifested just as It is, in Its own glory. Then alone we know that the Soul is not a compound, It is the only eternal simple in the universe, and,as such, It cannot be born, It cannot die, It is immortal, indestructible, the Ever-living Essence of intelligence." Check out this commentary by Vivekanananda: http://hinduonline.co/DigitalLibrary/SmallBooks/PatanjaliYogaSutraSwamiVivekanandaSanEng.pdf It talks about getting rid of the habitual patterns of the mind by concentration (samadhi), which is similar to Jhana meditations.

@Prabhaker That is interesting.. I will keep that in mind.. I have heard of cold reading and hot reading, but this example doesn't seem to indicate that he was doing any of that..

@Gerhard When people asked Ramana Maharishi about Guru, he always insisted the Guru is inside you and the outer Guru is just an appearance.. You are the truth; so really, truth itself can guide you. This is what Buddha said when he said 'follow your own light'... There is really no proper successive lineage from adiyogi and present day yogis except two... The only two yogic traditions which even talks about the first yogi are adinatha and nandinatha traditions. They have a lineage starting from Nandhinatha (not from Lord Shiva) and they insist on having a Guru. According to their view, a person cannot be enlightened without a physical guru. But that is not true always. Don't worry about kundalini awakenings... It doesn't happen the same way for everyone. It is better to forget about the concept of kundalini and not to worry about it. Initiation is not a requisite as well. It is a practice in yoga and tantra, where a teacher initiates a student into practice. If you have already started seeking and have seen progress, you have been already initiated. There is a convention in India to regard Dakshinamoorthy (a form of Shiva) as your guru, if you don't have a physical guru. Yes, you can consider a person who you have never met as your guru. For me, I accepted Osho as my guru. I got all the guidance initially from his books alone. His books covers a wide range of questions asked by many seekers during many stages of progress in many situations. I literally felt like he was with me guiding me everyday. But at the end of the day, Guru is only pointing the way. You are the one who has to walk the path. And finally, you will have to give up the attachment you have for the guru as well. This is what is meant by the saying "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". We have 7 billion people in the world. Not everyone can get access to a physical Guru. If you don't have any idea where to start, then simply choose a teacher and read their book. Eventually you will find your way. Because, when you hear what is true, you will recognize it. But always remember, don't believe in anything that is said. Beliefs are not required in finding the truth. You don't have to believe in anything..

@electroBeam Advaita and Zen helped me a lot in my overall progress.. My whole spiritual sadhana was the theory of advaita, practice of zen and self-inquiry. Concepts like surrendering the sense of doer, accepting the reality as it is without resistance, seeing myself as a witness but not as the contents of consciousness etc helped me a lot. Shikantaza is the zen version of mindfulness, though I practiced it not mainly as sitting meditations but in everyday life while doing any activity. In addition to that, Oshos' book 'Empty boat' about Taoism helped me initially when I started out as a seeker. I didn't learn much Taoism though. I went through inner engineering program by Isha which teaches a Yoga practice but I didn't do much of it. I didn't have the discipline required for Yoga. I came to know about christian mysticism and sufism; they helped me to see how those traditions also have the same concepts and lead to realization. But they go together with their religions; so they can be helpful for people who were brought up in Christianity and Islam respectively. (recommended only for those who can't seem to accept any teaching except their own religion). Also, these two traditions are path of love, similar to Bhakthi yoga in India. An intense longing for union and willingness to surrender oneself is a prerequisite. It seems that nobody can teach Bhakti yoga, it has to present as an inbuilt trait for people. Recently, I studied Buddhist concepts deeply and was amazed by the wisdom in Buddhism, especially Theraveda. That gave me an idea how a lot of Buddhist concepts can be taught along with Advaita to make the teachings suitable for all kinds of people. Both of them can be combined without any conflict. In addition to that, teaching people some psychological concepts like defense mechanisms and cognitive biases using a simplified version can help.

@jimrich I think these defense mechanisms are useful to know about for seekers as well, because they can help them to notice a lot of their unconscious reactions and how ego uses these defense mechanisms to rationalize things or defend the self image. But it has to be simplified and made easy for everyone to understand. It can be made as a part of the teaching itself. When I read Osho, his talks helped me to notice just this; what ego does to protect and enhance the sense of separate self. I learnt basics of psychology using authentic text books last year, and I saw that a lot of those themes are present in psychology as well. I think two topics that can be simplified and included in spiritual teachings are some of the important defense mechanisms and cognitive biases. What do you think?

@Joseph Maynor Ok got it... So what exactly is the reason for suggesting me to read epistemology? Just curious, because as I said, I couldn't understand your entire message (not that you were not clear, I am not familiar with some of those phrases)

@Loreena Ego has defense mechanisms... Psychologically we can define what is normal and what is not in terms of defense mechanisms. Let me quote from wikipedia to explain: In psychoanalytic theory, defense mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses and to maintain one's self-schema. The psychiatrist George Eman Vaillant introduced a four-level classification of defence mechanisms:[21] Level I – pathological defences (psychotic denial, delusional projection) Level II – immature defences (fantasy, projection, passive aggression, acting out) Level III – neurotic defences (intellectualization, reaction formation, dissociation, displacement, repression) Level IV – mature defenses (humour, sublimation, suppression, altruism, anticipation)... So a healthy ego can be said as something that has level 4 defense mechanisms.. If you go to that wiki article, you can see that each one of those defense mechanisms have individual articles. But, remember.. You are in a forum that deals with spiritual enlightenment. It involves transcending the identification with the egoistic self altogether. Even if someone takes a therapy for resolving unhealthy issues in ego, many therapists will suggest mindfulness as one of the treatments. The same practice when done for extensive period of time eventually leads to awakening and defense mechanisms begin to loose strength. Check out this link: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iboTrtb3QIAC&lpg=PA80&ots=5GuWmsPlGB&dq=observer self cbt&pg=PA79#v=onepage&q=observer self cbt&f=false

@electroBeam This reminds me of the post you made in the other thread which is about how to get enlightened.. I think since Eckhart Tolle went through an awakening after depression, he thinks that everyone who gets depressed about failures have good chances of getting enlightened.. May it is true for some people.. They get depressed because of failed relationships and think 'why the hell no one wants to live with me, what kind of person am I? who the hell am I", and then they end up doing a self-inquiry. Or they may say "No wonder why no one wants to live with me, even I don't want to live with me anymore... wait a minute, am I one or two?" Just a joke..

@Prabhaker sure, take your time..