Guru Fat Bastard

Excellent.?? What was posted above is not meant to try and convince anyone of what they should or should not do, or that no other practices,paths,ways or even no-ways ,etc., are any less credible or legitimate. Such a notion would be ridiculous and no better than the ideological, dogmatic religions/belief systems that claim their "way" and/or "truth" , is the only "way"/ "truth". The very antithesis of the realization, love, freedom, truth one seeks. What was posted above is an expression based on personal experience with the practice and the results. It should not be taken that my experience with the practice is representative of everyone's experience, or, that anyone who may decide to try it will have similar results. If the desire for Truth is strong, then practices, paths,ways etc., are only a means to an end. Once their purpose has been served, they will no longer be needed. Some may wish to continue whatever practice or path they have been doing simply as an act of love and devotion to that Reality/Self/Truth, etc., even after realizing they are not other than that Reality. Unconditional Love/Reality/Self/Truth, has no rules or false boundaries of separation. There is no distance between that which loves, and that which is loved.?️

You can't really make a judgement of the practice until you've done it yourself. The practice is based on not having any assumptions prior to the initiation and practicing of it and this includes his claims. If need be, disregard all claims and be the test subject for yourself. That is the only way to truly know if it is worth doing over time. When I personally did it at a 3 day initiation in Atlanta,GA four years ago, I went in with no assumptions, including Sadhguru's own claims. The only advice I honestly took to heart from him was "just do it, and see for yourself. It, (the practice itself) ,does not need your belief to work. It will do it's work anyway." And yes, the initiation and consecration is quite unique. It's what separates the Shambhavi practice from the"everyday" meditative/mindfulness techniques taken from a book or app. Can these still 'work"? Sure, but the Shambhavi, from my experience ,greatly accelerates the "process". I had been practicing various meditative techniques daily for years, with minor "results" prior to being officially initiated. There is significance to it. Why, I have no idea, but it does. This and this alone, and what the practice produced within me after a few months of daily practice is what makes,imo, Sadhguru the real deal and a rare being of this time and generation. Is he the only one,of course not. He's constantly saying there are many like this alive and well today, people just don't hear about most of them. If anything else, just look at what this being has done for people and the world in such a short time. It's absolutely astonishing in regards to what is taken as your average, everyday regular human being. I can 100% say, that without going through the initiation process,and doing the practice as taught, I would not have had the awakening. Does this practice have the ability to "awaken" to what is your true nature? In my own experience yes. But, as has been said, the nature of the practice adapts to where you (the practitioner) are, and takes you from there. Some, by nature alone, are closer (or "ripe"), for awakening than others. This is something you can't really know. It will happen when it's time, but know that there's no way it won't happen sooner or later. I will say that this practice can expedite the process. Just dont' have any assumptions of what it is "supposed" to do or what is "supposed" to happen. Everyone can have all the ideas they want about what awakening is, but know for sure that it's never, and that only means never, is it what anyone can think or expect it will be. On that note, if Sadhguru and the practice are not your cup of tea, at least find someone legitimate, who can initiate you into something. If they're for real, it can work wonders for the spiritually un-initiated.

If you have an hour, this will destroy concepts. Fair warning..

If impermanence is,or can be known or percieved,what knows or percieves it? Only what is permanent/unchanging,can know or percieve what is impermanent/changing. Impermanence,change,movement can be percieved, as it is moving within what is still/unchanging/unmoving. Motion in stillness,stillness in motion are non-differentiated.

Everything is nothing (no-thing). Only nothing can be everything because every-thing(object) comes out of,and is made of, that which is nothing (not a thing/object.) In reality,objects don't really exist. What you know as objects are only made up of the 5 sense perceptions. What you see(i.e. percieve) is seeing, not objects. What you hear(i.e. percieve) is not sound,but hearing,so on and so forth. You never actually come into contact with what is called an object (i.e., matter). Whenever you touch an object or thing,you don't percieve the object, but the way your hand,foot,body (which is sense perception), responds. We can never know an object,we can only ever know the way the senses or sense-body responds. This is why no one "see's(percieves) a "world" nor in the exact same way. All "objects",and this includes the physical body and subtle body or " inner world", are made only, of sense perception. And sense perception is made only of that subtle body called "mind", and "mind" absorbed into it's original source is pure formless consciousness/awareness ('God"). So,what is called everything ("mind","body",",world","universe","matter") is only pure formless consciousness/awareness ,which is nothing (i.e., not an object/no-thing). "God" is your original,natural,pure,formless, infinite, being. Therefore every-thing that is ,and can be percieved, is within and made of you(not a thing/object),and you alone. No objects exist as they are believed to be. This is the true import of "I",not an identifiied,illusory phantom ego (a non-existent object/thought). "I" is "God"/Pure Awareness. "I AM THAT IAM"..

Infinity refers to 'without end". And what can be without end by necessity has to be without beginning. No beginning and no end,beyond the boundary of time. Infinite potential would be a state of zero,where what can be, or what is possible has no limitations (i.e,limitlless potential to create anything and everything without end). 'God" doesn't do anything yet everything gets done,seemingly paradoxical but a truth of absolute reality (i.e. "God"). "Action, in in-action", "movement within stillness","something within nothing", "creation within the unborn-uncreated" etc.,etc.,

The perception of change can only be percieved by something that is unchanging. What moves can only be percieved by something that is unmoving. The word constant itself means something that never changes,therefore it is constant. So,the word constant and the word change,are directly in conflict in the way they are being used.

If everyone could choose by their own will to be liberated from suffering there would be no suffering in the world. Anyone on the spiritual path realises sooner or later that by "my will alone" liberation will not happen. Grace is what liberates,anyone who says otherwise is still deluded. To say "I have attained the supreme reality" is still an ego laying claim to what it believes it has "accomplished",just as it lays claim that even the desire for liberation itself is it's choice. Eventually,at some point,it dawns on the seeker that the desire for liberation was there long before any choice was made by the the one claiming to have made the choice, and by that insight, the choice to seek liberation was not a choice made by "you". It was decided for this apparent "you", with this apparent "you" having no choice whatsoever in the matter. This same "I" or "you" can say well ""I choose not to seek any longer". Ha,see how that goes over. Would anyone "choose" to suffer if given the choice?

Not to detract from the topic at hand,but there are a couple of quotes from Ramana Maharshi on Self inquiry, not usually known. "If you desire to attain the eternal greatness devoid of the defect of birth and death, the correct sadhana is to meditate upon that time [namely the present]which does not have the least modification of coming and going." "Those who have given up that conception [the conception of time] – having known [by attending to the present as instructed in the previous verse] that time is nothing but Self [just as the apparent snake is nothing but a rope] – are the great ones who attain deathlessness." p.234 Guruvachaka Kovai That atma-sadhana (Self inquiry) can be done not only in the form of attending to the first person "I" [out of the three persons], but also in the form of attending to the present [out of the three times]. In whichever of these two forms one may do the atma sadhana, both the first person and the present time will disappear, being found to be truly non-existent, and the eternal greatness devoid of birth and death will be attained.

If you know something,do you know that you know? If you know nothing,do you know that you do not know? In other words,if you know something, are you aware of knowing it? If you know nothing, are you aware that you do not know it? Therefore what is,is beyond knowing and not knowing.Whether you know or do not know,is there any change in that which is ever present yet beyond knowing and not knowing?

Eckhart is correct. "The witness" as most people try to concieve it,is not a position of playing as a "witness-er", standing back and watching thoughts,feelings emotions etc.,. That position, is the I-thought/identity/ego/ playing the role of not being a thought,watching thoughts. It can seemingly play the two positions of I and You. It can refer to itself as I(singular individual) and can also refer to that same 'I" it was just playing ,as You (i.e., other),as if playing the part of a separate individual/therapist/criticizer to the "I" singular individual. It can treat itself as subject and object. But the 'trick" it's playing is that it's one thought playing different"personal" roles,and being that it is only a thought/idea,it has no existence. Realizing this is realizing there's "no-self". What one thought and identifiied as "I",me,myself" ,was/is , just a made up thought/idea,and thus not a reality. The real and only non- individual/,impersonal,undivided "subject" is the one,eternal,boundless,timeless Existence-Reality alone.

The non-happening,is the only thing "happening".

If you checked,you'll see that time is just an idea and not an absolute fact or truth of fundamental reality. Does it have a relative use? It does in terms of being useful/conveineint for relative matters,but it is not a fact of fundamental reality. Sadly,human beings live and die by this so called "fact" that has nothing to do with basic,fundamental reality.

Time never comes into being. No one has ever directly experienced a concept called time. Check, right now in your direct experience (which means not referring to accepted, yet unchecked/unquestioned "knowledge" gathered from outside), if there is the experiencing of something called time. What is your knowledge of time in the absence of thought or the activity of thought (i.e, the mind).

Desire arises from a sense of lack. If the object of desire is obtained, then a temporary sense of fullfillment,contentment,peace (i.e, happiness) is experienced,only to find out later on that what you thought would finally fulfill you, didn't live up to the imagined idea or expectation you thought it would. So, the search is on again. It's only beacause you think you're somebody and/or something, that the idea that somebody or something will finally bring you happiness. The attainment of the object, and the subsequent contentment/happiness experienced, is not from the object. It is the fullfillment of the imagined idea of the object and the imagined idea of the contentment it would bring. Once obtained, the object eventually just becomes another object,proving that the object of desire was not the reason for your happiness. It was the temporary fulfillment of a grandiose and compulsive idea created in the mind. No object of desire,and this includes relationships, will ever live up to the expectations "you'" (itself a created idea/imagination) created of it. An idea of an idea. Desire itself isn't really the enemy,it's the attachment and expectation you've created around it that is the culprit. If a desire arises and you can honestly say it's ok whether it is obtained or not,then desire is no longer a problem.

"The Laniakea Supercluster. It contains 100,000 galaxies and is 250,000 million lightyears in diameter. The observable universe contains 10 million superclusters. Out of all of them, the red dot is our home, the Milky way."

The Reality. The Reality, has no time,no dimension. 'Here" is a "placeless place" that can't be pointed to. There is "hereness",but that is about as much as can be said. When the"I am the body" (name and form false identification) is fully seen through, there is no longer an illusory sense of boundary separating an 'inside me" from an outside "not- me" . Reality,or Truth or whatever you want to call what is essentially nameless,includes and simultaneously transcends the physical "boundary" of form . This is transcendence,Liberation,true Freedom. If you still experience that you are a simple physical body,then true awakening/transcendence has not happened. It needs to be said that this is not something the ego can hear and believe itself into,which is what it always tries to do. Direct experience transcends belief or faith. That's why it's referred to as Truth.

Truth at it's best here. Particularly this: "Paradoxically, a form of ignorance similar to nihilism , is often found in contemporary Advaita teachings (neo-advaita).It is only normal for an ignorant who believes to be realized to tell his students that they are already realized, for he knows no better. This instant form of enlightenment is trendy in our culture of instant gratification.The teacher has ended his/her quest too early, based on a purely intellectual understanding that “form is emptiness and emptiness is form”(i.e., no self). Since he had no revelation of Transcendence (key word here), his teachings lack the poetry, the love, the supreme intelligence and the sense of awe that we find in Rumi, Buddha, Jesus, Ramana Maharshi, Jean Klein, Krishna Menon and other truly enlightened beings." Anyway.here's the full article: Truth is beyond the mind just as the mirror is beyond the reflected images that appear in it. The reality of the images is the mirror, but the reality of the mirror is not an image. The mirror exists independently from any of the reflected images. In other words, this Presence is both immanent in the perceptions and transcendent in their absence. The belief that it is only immanent is ignorance, the experience that it transcends the mind is enlightenment, and the actual continuous experience of both its transcendence and its immanence is self-realization. The denial of the transcendence of Atman was a major heresy of Buddhism. Also known as nihilism or as the Anatman doctrine, it was a subject of controversy between buddhists and advaitins in Shankara’s days. However this denial is not found in the original teachings of the Buddha or in those of the Chan and Zen masters. Atman is what they refer to as “our Buddha nature”, “our true nature”, “our original face”. This heresy is still fairly common in contemporary Buddhism. It originates from a misunderstanding of the saying “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form”. To understand this saying correctly, let us take the metaphor of a white page with a red apple painted on it. The red apple is the form, the remaining white portion of the page is the emptiness. But we can look at it differently, the white portion of the page being the form, the red portion being the emptiness (= absence of white). It follows that “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form”. The transcendence, the Atman, The Brahman, “our Buddha nature”, “our true nature”, “our original face”, is the piece of paper, the support of the red and of its absence. The saying “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form” is used as a warning about a state of mind reached by practitioners during meditation in which an absence of thoughts, an emptiness is experienced. The disciple is simply reminded that this absence of form is still a form, and that enlightenment has not been experienced at that stage, because the transcendence, our Buddha nature has not been revealed yet. Paradoxically, a form of ignorance similar to nihilism is often found in contemporary Advaita teachings. These paths in both cases lead to a “second class” type of enlightenment which is no enlightenment at all. The teacher has ended his/her quest too early, based on a purely intellectual understanding that “form is emptiness and emptiness is form”. Since he had no revelation of Transcendence, his teachings lack the poetry, the love, the supreme intelligence and the sense of awe that we find in Rumi, Buddha, Jesus, Ramana Maharshi, Jean Klein, Krishna Menon and other truly enlightened beings. Because he is not awakened to his own Presence, his presence doesn’t awake the Presence in the student. The final truth there, seems to be “there is nothing to do, your current condition is already that of a realized being”. It is only normal for an ignorant who believes to be realized to tell his students that they are already realized, for he knows no better. This instant form of enlightenment is trendy in our culture of instant gratification. However it doesn’t correspond to the sudden enlightenment the Chan masters spoke of. To them “sudden” didn’t mean “right away”.The only problem with this “enlightenment on sale” is that it falls short from bringing about the peace and the happiness we seek. In some cases it may create in the student a form of resignation, the belief that there is nothing to find. Most disciples will remain stuck with their pseudo enlightenment; others, disenchanted with the whole “truth business”, will revert for a while to their previous life style; the most eager ones will continue the search and find a true teacher whose silence, words, demeanor and actions will take them to the apperception of their true nature and who will guide them on the path until they are established in unshakable peace. This leads me to a final remark. That which matters is not what is said about the Truth, but where that which is said comes from. If it comes from ignorance, no matter how advaitically correct it seems to be, it will never have the incendiary power of a single line of a Rumi poem. And that which is said is marginal compared to the silent transmission that takes place in the guru’s presence, the highest form of teaching according to Buddha (remember the episode of the flower and of the Buddha’s smile), Ramana Maharshi, Atmananda, Jean Klein, etc… And yet this silent teaching is carefully ignored by many contemporary teachers, both buddhists and advaitins, because they cannot speak of an experience which is not theirs, even so they claim to teach the same non dual realization as these illustrious teachers. Ultimately, the truth has to be heard “from the lips of the guru” according to Atmananda’s formula, for it’s apperception to occur. Mere conversations over the internet won’t get the job done. They can at best convey a “sample” of the causeless joy of our true nature, which will resonate in the heart of those who have “eyes to see and ears to hear” the Truth that cannot be uttered. Love, Francis

This guy is a kriya yogi and knows breathing. His method of breathing to reach deep states of meditation has worked well for me,and I've tried various methods over the years. If you get the chance check out 4th Phase - Tranquil Breath:. It's worth getting. As far as yogic breathing(pranayama) goes, fill the belly first with the breath expanding the diaphram,and then up into the chest. So in one smoothe motion, breathe into the belly until it is expanded then on up into the chest. Breathing out,the chest drops first and then the belly draws in as you continue to exhale to completion. As you'll see in the vids. the exhale should be longer than the inhale, (say a 4 count inhalation, and a 6 or 7 count exhalation), this induces the heartrate resonance variability. In the 4th phase training above it goes into more detail of how and why it works and he adds info on how to do the bandhas(body locks) which really kick in the "bliss" phase of the breathing.

No such thing as "high time" or "low time". In terms of high or low consciousness,the terms are based on action. How conscious are ones actions. Are they helpful,beneficial,unselfish,truthful,unhurtful actions etc., or, destructive,selfish,unhelpful,unbeneficial,dishonest actions etc.,? Consciousness itself bears no qualities as such, but when identified as a conditioned,limited mind or "ego",the actions will reflect the quality of that particular conditioned mind and/or ego. This is the reason for"sadhana or practices, to "purify" the mind so that what's aleady there can reflect itself as it truly is.

It's pretty common with spiritual/meditative work,especially the pranic breathing. Practices such as Kriya,WH,and other pranayama methods have direct physiological effects on the nervous system which in turn cause a "re-tuning", which is what you're hearing. The further along you go with these practices, other subtle,and not so subtle sounds will occur. For some "schools", these experiences are indications of "progress",but like all experiences, don't put too much importance or emphasis on them. Otherwise you'll get diverted into wanting or looking for more experiences instead of finding Truth.

No need to push really. Once this question is genuinely asked (which it seems to be),the process is already in motion. Whether he wants it or not,or knows it or not, he's already on the "journey". He (assumed personal self at this point) may think he's choosing (i.e., personal free will?),whether or not to start the journey,but no,that has already been decided. ?

"Not separate from anything" is Love beyond any personal experience (object to object) love, it is a Divine Impersonal Love. 'I" alone Am, is Ultimate Freedom. Limitless,boundless Freedom not confined to the limitation and deep rooted belief of being just a physical body. The experience of being inside and simultaneously outside the body ( a metaphor would be like the empty space inside the cup, is also the empty space outside the cup). is not something that can really be articulated in words.