waheed

You are right, I actually wrote about Leo but then removed from my post, since considering the good work that he has done we can give him some levy on this. This could very well be a marketing thing, how else an enlightened person who wants to have a competitive edge will promote himself? It's a rough world out there. And at a deeper level he may convince himself that he is doing good (which he is), But Ironically it's quite similar logic to what suicide bombers use i.e. In the end it's for greater good, the logic of allowing for the necessary evil or necessary violence. But on serious note, I simply don't know his reasons, It could be just a statement of truth for him, irrespective of it's use for me. But I do get it that it's a hinderance of experiencing the truth in my case.

I won't read too much into the comments of "mid-tier" enlightenment, those just block you from something very useful and offer nothing as an alternative too, I would love to find out content on raising consciousness that is better than what Ralston has produced. Is there any other book that takes you from 0 to as high as possible like the "Book of Not Knowing". I haven't seen any. Additionally, to be honest this levels of enlightenment thing that is discussed quite a lot doesn't make sense. It feels like the same status game played in enlightenment domain. "I'm more enlightened then you. I'm high status ". Since I'm not enlightened so these are just concepts for me nothing more.

I'm aiming for not knowing too.

That's interesting, in my experience it's a skill that you hone by trusting it more. Start with less consequential things. I don't know when it started but at some point, I started believing in intuitive Ideas more. And the more I started trusting it the more it got better. Some days I play around with it by keep predicting inconsequential things, like many times I feel like I will get a call from this person right now out of blue. And I get it. I don't think our mind knows much about how we work. However it's very easy to fall prey to "self fulfilling prophecies", or getting overly involved with the outcomes. It's like trusting the intuition but having a set of open eyes to see beyond it.

I had this book lying around for around 7 years now, but somehow couldn't really benefit from it. Suddenly one day I started reading it around 6 months ago and It felt like it was exactly what I needed to read, It makes so much sense that I wonder why I didn't spent more time on it for all these years. It's often said that ultimate truth cannot be expressed which is true, but I didn't seen a book that gradually builds up and tries to express it as clearly as possible. I wonder what kind of state of mind Mr. Peter Ralston is to produce such a work. I mean most of enlightened people from Eastern traditions except Osho didn't took the trouble to go to such lengths. Another figure that comes to mind is J.Krishnamurti, i listen to him alot somehow at many occasions reading Ralston was like decoding the cryptic one liners form J.Krishnamurti. I wonder why men like him are so unknown and under rated. I'm well read and been reading stuff for over two decades (been through most of university level recommended readings in social sciences) but didn't encounter something so profound and ground breaking yet so unknown at the same time. The purpose of writing this post is curiosity, what's your experience have been with this book or his work in general? I hope most of you won't allow his mannerisms or laughing to be a blocking condition, that would be childish if I may say so. Sometimes people's personality can be a hurdle in truly interacting with them, however we should be interacting with actually what they have to say rather then what appears at surface level of emotions.

He is not saying it's conditional.

That's exactly how I feel at times, coming face to face with mystery like a splash of cold water on my face. What is this all about. Even more mysterious is the fact that it may suddenly disappear in thin air.

It's been a while since I last posted online. I frequently skim through this forum and often find interesting stuff. Here are my two bits on the topic, the question in itself sounds fundamental at it's face value, however it's not as fundamental, since it's deriving it's meaning from alot of societal norms and concepts, that require conceptual ground. Usually such questions cannot even be raised if those norms and concepts doesn't exist or not applied in certain way. Thoughts and concepts are secondary to reality, Whatever is there, is already there, now whatever commentary we have to make sense of it is an after thought and we cannot force such after thoughts on reality. So i don't think the question of "Right to exist" can seriously be raised. Personally i employ humility in my conclusions, i don't feel that i know what this all is about. it's really a mystery, nothing is more mysterious then this conscious being appearing out of thin air and living this life. At times things operate in a certain way even our own explanations about our own actions are after thoughts, The "person" is not really running the show.

Is there Only experience? One can only start from where he is, So Yes as of now only experience exists. Non-experience is just a concept, a thought. Why does experience depend on “apparent separation “? It might be "apparent separation" for someone else, but if in your experience it is "actual separation", then it is not apparent separation for you. And in that case "apparent separation" is just a concept a suggestion from someone else, based on their understanding and all you can do is inquire into the "experiencer" causing the "apparent separation" until it is a reality for you too, or something unexpected may happen. If THIS needs apparent separation to EVER have experience that seems very limiting doesn’t it? Yes, it is very limiting, and we need to stay with this limiting reality rather than answering it through thought. Which is the same limiting thing we are refering to. As J. Krishnamurti used to say, that thought is response of the memory, and memory is time, and time is past. So past is living this life, that's why there is no space for anything new and that's why it's so limiting.

1. Ego is an activity that mind does in most of waking hours, it's the activity of viewing, interpreting reality from the perspective of a separate person. 2. "Separate person" is a mental construct that gets created and modified as mind operates described in point 1. 3. So ego is nothing but an activity, it can be noticed in operation at any moment, if focus is put on "Me". "Me" can be felt in the body in form of sensations and also in thoughts in the form "beliefs" i.e. thoughts about "Me". 4. In that sense Ego is the past, trying to live "now" through the past. That's why Ego likes security, it's very fragile and needs constant activity to survive from one thought to another and one belief and feeling to another. 5. All our daily activity is to ensure the survival of this Ghost in the body. 6. It's important to understand that Ego is not an entity but an activity, for it's vanishing nothing is needed to be done.

It seems that you totally missed the point, and wasted 7 years in hard research, whatever that may be. You can't see that religion is just an extension of your ego, that's why you are complaining about people criticizing it. It's for the satisfaction of your ego that's all. Your ego feels safe and secure being attached to a religion and with the belief that it's ultimate truth. To understand anything you'll have to start with your actual experience at this moment. There is something Devine and Sacred in actuality but it's not in ideologies or concepts or religions. At best religions can point to it. But it can be realized only through direct experience in this moment. No point getting worked up over who is criticizing what, these are all thoughts and concepts, i.e. in the mind and of the mind.

@Pav I'm sure if Sadhguru himself was overseeing all his online marketing, he won't be the person that he is. It relates to integrity. I see alot of wisdom in what he says and does, At times he points at ultimate reality in a very appealing way. But there are times when he doesn't inspire and feels like just another person angry with people attacking his life's work, though he handles those situations very well too.

Hi, I did 10 day course this year. I can't do daily practice, in most week though I end up doing 3-4 sessions. And I code for a living, would be nice working on something related to vipassana.