Preetom

You see that's the myopia of Science. It can't see or does not want to admit that it is only it's own line of thinking and not some objective Truth Because the moment it is aware of it, the whole paradigm dissolves. There is hardly anything 'scientific' about how science is done. Maybe some pun is intended

Thanks for those words. I wonder if I would be able to withstand that fierce gaze without melting on the floor

@who chit It should be clear that Nisargadatta Maharaj never identified himself with the I AM. He clearly states that this I AM arises 'spontaneously' on the Absolute. So he, as the Absolute, does not control or exert volition on whether this I AM should arise or not. He remains absolutely unconcerned because he knows perfectly well that this I AM is an illusion and can never taint him a bit. And also nothing can be said about Para-brahman 'state'. It is beyond bliss, union etc whatever you try to impose on it. Nagarjuna's 8 negations of Absolute come here. It is called a state because the lack of a better term. Maybe the only thing you can say about Para-Brahman is that it is! It is the only real thing that is. Even that statement falls short to describe it. It's really futile to philosophize about it.

I can't express how much of it resonates with me as well. I'm really not a big believer of karma or past lives but whenever I explored teachings of Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi, I rarely found myself arguing against their message. Everything they said feels so familiar as if I'm just remembering things which I've always known all along. I don't know if I'm speaking woo woo now but this feeling is undeniable.. It sure does!

It just came across that story few days ago through this video

Thanks for illuminating this. The Moolmaya concept says the same thing. Everything known by Consciouss is illusion because Consciousness itself is illusion. there is certainly some truth in your statement. You are the Para-brahman! But the moment you try to know or grasp or interpret it, you're back in Consciousness. This reminds me of something I read in ''Prior to Consciousness'' book. It was nearly the end of Maharaj's life, when he was experiencing the terrible pain of throat cancer. But he was still giving satsangs whenever he could. He said something like this. ''I am the Absolute. In that state, there is neither Consciousness nor the knowing of the pain. I was in that state before you came. Now I'm talking with you and all of it is happening in Consciousness. That's why the pain is back again.'' So considering all this, is it valid to say that the Absolute manifested this knowing element called Consciousness to know itself? Because the Absolute is said to be beyond knowing and unknowing, beyond being or non being. So in this sense, it only is! It cannot 'know' itself. That's why the Absolute makes this Knowing element to know itself as a reflection?

This guy named Pradeep Apte has really clarified most of Maharaj's teachings. This is what I just found from his Facebook. YOUR DESTINY IS NOT DEATH BUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ‘I AM’ This is a dialogue I recently had with a seeker, I find it worth sharing: Q: Could you tell me the teaching of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj in a nutshell? A: Yes, you know that you are, don’t you? Q: Yes, I do know that I am. A: You know it as the wordless feeling ‘I am’ because you don’t have to make sure of it or prove it to anyone, do you? Q: Yes, that’ true. A: Then just stay there, in that wordless feeling ‘I am’. Q: That’s it? A: That’s it! Q: But there are so many books, dialogues, your gita… A: Forget them all! I have given it to you in a nutshell as you had asked for so why elaborate and waste time? Q: Will I realize ‘I am Unborn’? A: Certainly Q: Have you? A: Of course Q: How can you say that with so much certainty? A: Why should I lie? And what do I stand to gain out of it? Q: Nothing A: Exactly!

Yes!

Whatever that 'something' is, it certainly not something perceivable or conceivable. Because Maharaj clearly declares, ''Whatever is perceived or conceived is not You.'' A saying from Advaita actually verifies this. It says that there is actually no knower of Brahman. There is only Brahman. This is the end of knowledge, end of seeking, end of everything

@cetus56 And if you want to frame Consciousness and Absolute in terms of Fourth and Fifth state, I think it can be seen like this. Consciousness is the Turiya or fourth state which is the knower of the three states of Waking, dreaming and sleeping. Absolute or Brahman is the fifth state. Prior to Consciousness. On the Absolute, this Consciousness spontaneously arises. According to Maharaj, this Consciousness is itself An illusion. He calls it Moolmaya or the Mother of Illusion. So whatever is known by this Consciousness, that mean EVERYTHING in 3 states are also False and Not the Absolute. That's why his primary teaching was being with Consciousness alone to realize the folly of it.

@cetus56 I've read both 'I am that' and 'Prior to Consciousness' more than once. The way I understand is this.. The basic concept: before anything is, I AM. That means I AM or Consciousness has be present first before any perception or conception can happen. The teaching says, stay with the I AM and keep eliminating everything that is not essential to I AM. By staying with the I AM, you see the unreality or folly of this personal Consciousness or Beingness. Some Maharaj Quotes to support this, ''When fluids come together (in brain), I AM arises.'' ''All these cock and bull stories are provided so that the devotee can demolish all falsehood and ultimately see the folly of those stories as well'' This I AM or Consciousness is a 'Portal' to Absolute or Parabrahman. Nagarjuna proposed the 8 negations about Absolute showing that whatever is said about it, is not the Absolute. 1.No cessation 2.No arising 3.No annihilation 4.No permanence 5.Not one 6.Not many 7.No coming 8.No going When The Absolute is Directly 'Known' (You can't know it. you are it!), there is no sense of I AM or Consciousness anymore. Upon seeing the folly of I AM, it disappears and you are revealed as you've always been. The Absolute. Maharaj quotes to support this.. ''Liberation is freedom from Consciousness'' (He uses I AM and Consciousness synonymously) ''With your birth came this Consciousness and with death it will go away. Why don't you use it to go beyond it and be the Absolute while it lasts'' And you're so right. Maharaj always spoke from direct experience aka from the Absolute. So things like beingness, consciousness that modern teachers speak about more, gets all confusing when you try to build a link with what Maharaj said. PS: Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding something here. Further Study materials: 1) Everything that needs to be known about the I AM https://youtu.be/gPlnNvuypiw 2) Using Consciousness as a Portal to Absolute. Explained by Stephen Wolinsky (A direct disciple of Maharaj) https://youtu.be/87DmQkTvj0Y Quoting from this video, Maharaj once told one of his long time devotee privately to forget Maharaj, his teaching and just rest be with the I AM or Consciousness. That itself will take the disciple to the Absolute. EDIT: The core of his teaching. ''Anything you can perceive or conceive is not you'' That means even the slightest sense of being or presence cannot be the Absolute me. What can you really talk about that state?

This whole thing hit me in a flash while eating dinner. Those who will be reading it please bear with me. I would also like to know if the inquiry is heading to the right direction. First there is the Absolute beyond being and non being, arising and subsiding, everything and nothing etc. Whatever is said about it, is not it. Then comes brains and human perception. Out of infinite bytes let's say the brain renders only 2000 bytes per second and creates this dualistic perception of a solid, physical world. That is why the brains of a dog, an ant, a human produce completely different perception of the same Absolute because the rendering is different. That's why modification in Brain results in modification in perception. BUT at no point, the Absolute is directly known as it is. So all brain produced perception is only a 'way' of seeing the Absolute that it itself is not! So what is Enlightenment? "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. There is only one substance, not two." The substance of absolute infinity and the substance of the 2000 bytes that your brain is processing, is one and the same. So if you know the only substance of this 2000 bytes, you know the only substance of infinity. It is the ignorant ego mind that makes a distinct, independent, objective reality with unique substances like matter, energy etc. out of that 2000 bytes. That is the level of ignorance, myopia of the limited rational mind. Brain does NOT produce pure Consciousness. Brain is INSIDE pure Consciousness and only a way to look at that Consciousness . After some time a metaphor came to my mind to explain all of this beautifully. Take a video game with the size of 10GB data. Let's say it is the 5MB Application that runs the game. That App is NOT producing the 10GB data. That App is only one way to represent that 10GB data. That 10GB pure data is there independent of it being rendered or not. it doesn't give a fuck about how it is represented. There is nothing inherent called ''a video game'' in that 10 GB pure data. It's the 5MB App that represents that 10GB data as a video game, as a beautiful illusion aka a FALSE appearance, something that 10GB pure data is inherently NOT! In fact that 5MB App is INSIDE 10GB data. There is no independent App outside the data. So I think you can already guess that the 10GB data is the Absolute and the 5MB app is the brain. Can you unsee it once you see it?

Yes exactly. There is only one substance not two. All metaphors are concessions that try to explain a part but cannot directly know the Totality ever. 100% agreed. But some stories are needed to demolish the countless other bullshit stories. In turn, those stories themselves will be destroyed. It's the dream waking up from dream so a special category of dream stories is necessary and doesn't hurt

That's another beautiful metaphor. Thank you! You can mingle with it more to understand the apparent relationship between one substance and the many appearances. If you know the only substance of the current page you're reading, which is paper, then basically you know the substance of the entire book. In fact there is nothing called 'a book', 'a story' inherent in paper. That is how paper 'appears' to you. You could use the same paper as a 'fuel' to light a fire to warm yourself in a cold night. A rat could see 'food' in the paper and nibble on it. But you see, things like book, story, fuel, food etc are NOT inherent in paper. They are only representations or appearances of paper. Metaphorically speaking, in no case you're knowing the paper aka the Absolute directly. You're only knowing it's false appearances based on how you look. This is exactly what I tried to convey with the video game metaphor.

Am I aware? Yes. Is this awareness happening inside the body? In my direct experience, is there a location within the body that seems to be the source of awareness? The thing that is called body is itself an experience no matter which direction it is gone. So the notion that the body or brain creates consciousness, is that notion based on direct experience or just another dogma? Is there a brain, chemicals etc without a perceiver of them? There cannot be any. Is that another idea? But whatever it is, this fundamental knowing element of experience cannot be denied. To deny this knowingness of experience is like trying to study an ocean while refuting the element called water. What is there to an ocean except water? Similarly what is there to an experience except the knowing of it? What happens to a sound if the awareness of the sound is removed? It is not a sound anymore. But the presence of awareness remains as it is? So which one is more fundamental here? The sound or the awareness of sound? Was there ever a distinct thing called sound anyway?

Thats the limitation of language. It always rests upon some groundless assumption. Ultimately there is no man, no karma, no enlightenment, no nothing. But as long as one thinks himself as a man, wisdom is given as a concession through language. And that instruction is actually helpful for the 'man'.

You're right. Actually there is no such thing as JUST doing. You have to BE first before you DO. Being, witnessing, being aware of being aware, these are different names for the same thing basically. It is happening uninterruptedly whether there is any action or not. The question is if a person is aware of this basic fact of experience or not. That's why this direct path is called effortless. No one is creating something called Being. It's just a matter of being aware of something that is already always going on in its full glory

@Leo-Tzu 1) Enlightenment trilogy by Jed mckenna 2) being aware of being aware by Rupert spira 3) The Compound Effect by Darren Hardy 4) Teaching of Ramana Maharshi in his own words. 5) Prior to Consciousness by Nisargadatta Maharaj

Honestly speaking, If those 'working bees' did not work for 'you', they would get totally mad and run around like complete maniacs. Because most of them can't withstand even a day of inaction, solitude, self reflection and being. Their fictitious identities, their works and the lies they tell themselves to remain busy, are their very 'life'. Do you get this? That's how they keep their sanity and make sense of everything. So in this sense, you're actually doing them a great favor by providing them an opportunity to remain sane and 'themselves'. Paraphrasing Krishna from Bhagabat Gita, the inner tendencies of a man will keep him busy according to his karma. You and I can't do anything about that. No one can.

@K VIL We still don't fathom fully the magnitude of what's being said by Leo. @Leo Gura is basically giving us extremely potent metaphysical weapons to demolish and rebuild our lives from scratch. Its for the greater jihad but these same weapons can be misinterpreted and misused to make an even bigger mess. That's how religions became mankind's one of the biggest folly. The latest episode called intro to spirituality is something that should have been posted years ago before revealing any spiritual technique first. Probably 95% of people doing any spiritual practice have all sorts of bullshit notions about spirituality and that in itself hinders most of the growth. And people are complaining about this episode... We need to be reminded of what is really at stake here. I think one of the major roles of Leo is to kick us over and over again in the nuts so that it becomes kinda impossible to go back to sleep. How else can this thing work when the rest of life is so full of mind numbing complacency, comfort and unquestioned assumptions. I know Leo is fully aware of this because he hints it here and there in some videos. This knowledge has been esoteric and practiced in extreme secrecy over the ages for a reason. So that fucking rats don't abuse it. Leo has opened the Pandora's box by bringing all this in mainstream. And no wonder he will be one of the founding fathers if a widespread revolution really emerges from this new knowledge.

Those who are complaining about the latest episodes, are you fucking kidding me? If watching the videos feels like a chore, making it 2x, skipping parts of it just to skim through the material as if you HAD to get it out of your system somehow, I would propose a re-evaluation of why you're watching Leo in the first place. I'm not singling anyone out but watch out if actualized.org is becoming another layer of your identity to stroke your ego. @Leo Gura as a fan I suggest you to keep a category of videos running in balance just to continue talking about the significance, vision, motivation of this work and attacking the counter arguments of complacency. Honestly speaking, it's the vision based videos that kick-started all the contemplation of my own and I'm glimpsing the things you talk about here and there. The free content that's already available, I doubt if virtually anyone here even mastered only 10% of it yet. We don't need some never heard before, mind blowing theory every week. Instead we need breakthroughs and that can only come from returning to the same, raw, basic principles with recontextualized perspectives over and over again which gets so easily overlooked because of self deceptive mechanisms of the ego. I'm not against new mindblowing contents but that needs to be balanced equally with vision based contents. Or else 10 years down the road, actualized.org will itself become a maze of big fat rats with their tummies filled with exotic knowledge doing rat stuff. Leo, as a teacher is it something that would make you proud?

Am I aware? Yes. What is the thing I can legitimately claim? I am. I am aware. Is this sense of being depended on thoughts? No this sense of being is there irrespective of changing experiences. Can I legitimately refute this I am? No that would prove I am even more. Can there be any perception without I am? Can there be any experience without the knowing of it? No. The contents of experience maybe random and arbitrary, but isn't the knowing of it ever the same? There may or may not be a sense of a decision maker, an actor of actions, a thinker of thoughts; but isn't all of these senses equally known? Is there multiple types of knowing or just this one knowing? Just this knowing. Where is all this inquiry leading towards? It always comes back to this subject, the fundamental I am without which there is no perception or conception. What is this I am made out of? Isn't is known by the same knowingness? Yes. So the subject and the object are both known by the same knowingness. Is there anything in experience other than consciousness? So it all leads to this choice less awareness. A non judgmental, non struggling knowing of the one and only substance of experience; knowing itself. One substance knowing and being itself.

1. yes 2. yes 3. yes

This biological unit appeared and got indoctrinated environmentally and socially. After some time, the majority of the indoctrination was done by the unit on itself. Thus forming the entire network of cues and tendencies that act as signals to keep this machine running. And in no point of this whole process was there any conscious volition or free will from my part in the making of this machine. It gets even worse. It's not like I have free will now to modify this machine. The unit only has the illusion of a free will so that this machine does not recognize the futility of it's existence and self destruct. The only way this machine can stay asleep to this fact is if it is successful at distracting itself incessantly. What is real in this whole thing? Can anything be known for certain? What can be done other than utterly giving up?

@who chit Thanks for this. I sort of came to this same understanding after years of circle jerking