winterknight

First, enlightenment has nothing to do with supernatural powers like that. Second, materialism being false doesn't mean that there aren't apparent laws and constraints. It's simply that they're not controlled ultimately by the laws of matter but by God.

One of my favorite lines in the Yoga Vasistha is one which says something like "Even if you are already enlightened, if you read this, you will become even more enlightened!" Correct. Enlightenment is the fact that you are not affected by varying brain states. Someone with brain damage might appear to "outsiders" to have lost touch with the spiritual, but if that seemed to be the case, it would not really be true. Enlightenment is the realization that there is no ego from which to disidentify. I don't like the term ego death. It's a form of concentration, or in Hindu parlance, a kind of samadhi.

Good question.

So that God which is just awareness aware of itself, and which is not a "who," is what is wondering whether it has arrived?

Hrm... so when you asked earlier "I feel I have arrived, what do you think?" Who is the "I" in that sentence who feels they have arrived? God/awareness? The illusion of being Ron? Or what?

And how is life now?

So God is aware of God, or awareness is aware of awareness, with no who. And this same awareness is what has "been doing nothing for several months now" (so it was doing something before?) and "finally comprehends the concept that Ron as the experiencer will do whatever it is that Ron feels he must do," (again, so God didn't comprehend this before?) and so on?

And who is aware of that fact?

What is God?

I would rather say that upon enlightenment this question would no longer make any sense. There is what is beyond doubt. Not the absence of doubt: beyond doubt. States come and go; enlightenment is forever. Not just forever from now -- forever as in always was the case. Enlightenment and awakening are similar terms -- what they exactly mean vis-à-vis each other depends on who uses them and in what context.

Who is this "I" who comprehends all this stuff now?

That, unfortunately, can only be understood by undergoing it yourself. There's no external means of explaining that knowledge.

Really, though, I've found the Talks to be very consistent and powerful, indeed, the single most transformative text by Maharshi, and the best overall reference as to his views. There is nothing in it I've found troubling or problematic, and I've read it several times.

It can be helpful, but just as one channel of information. You still have to combine it with your own knowledge of yourself, your own situation, your psychology as you know it, your common sense, your reading, what you understand from qualified spiritual teachers, etc.

Well, from what I understand the transcriptions of the dialogues were examined and approved by Maharshi. From the intro: "The completed notes were often shown to the questioners for verification, but the whole had the seal of approval of Sri Bhagavan himself, as the records were always shown to him for his approval or the necessary alteration after they had been entered in the notebook." The power of the Talks is that they literally reprogram your mind. It is not about any particular set of answers, but about the whole: Maharshi's way of approaching things, his general spirit and atmosphere, are captured better in the Talks than in anything else, even Maharshi's other works. Reading them orients the mind, even without it understanding quite why, towards Self.

Let me know if they cannot and I will see what else I can do.

Haven't bought it, sorry.

Because it's a fundamentally relational thing. Azerbaijan, right? I'd send a message to the Azerbaijan Center for Psychoanalysis and ask.

Gotcha, good to know about it, thanks.

I'd never heard of it. What's its approach? Are you a fan?

Because I think it's a very underrated and powerful mode of psychological exploration and healing. I found it invaluable in addressing certain unconscious mental issues that were blocking my search. And people don't know about it or have huge misconceptions about it.

I'd say start with the Sargeant.

No, it is not. It is no-thing, but it is not dry and could not be described as 'blank' or 'empty' -- at least not in the sense I think you're trying to use it. It is really indescribable, but if you had to describe it would best be described as satchitananda (being-awareness-bliss... though none of these words are used in exactly the same way in a dualistic sense as in a nondual sense), as you well know... or 'suchness' or, and I love this description -- it is "brahma rasa" -- it is the taste of "brahma," meaning that it is the line of aesthetic or artistic bliss at all times, that is, a bliss that is compatible with all experiences, that runs through them, that is them. Shunya means different things. For example, it refers to the emptiness of all phenomena. But in its deepest sense, yes, shunya is the same thing -- because shunya is really not absolute nothing -- it is the Ground or Buddha nature. It is said to have three qualities. In Dzogchen (I'm not an expert on Buddhism or Dzogchen), the Ground is said to have the following qualities -ngo bo, "essence", oneness or emptiness -rang bzhin, "nature", luminosity, lucidity or clarity -thugs rje, "power", universal compassionate energy It's almost an exact match for sat-chit-ananda.

Bumping this

Not all desires do -- only ones based on greed, lust, and anger. An audio clip on the point.