Ananta

"I" know I exist and I'm aware, I experience this...don't you? Somewhere along "my" journey I fell into the "I don't exist camp", it's part of the process I guess. I came out of that "idea" and realized, ah, actully I do...it's just not ultimately real. One day this body/mind will be 6 feet under.

@Prabhaker thanks, the story in my view is a tad different then Osho's. Either way, thanks. Btw, sorry for thinking you were someone else a while back. My mistake.

Do you have any other proof of this conversation other then from the mouth of Osho? As he obviously wasn't there to know.

Is this a Buddhism phrase? I'm a Vedantin. Anyways, we would say "seeing action in inaction and inaction in action". Which means Brahman is unchanging/still, while action (the phenomenal world) is changeful (action). So, Brahman is ever present, the background/substratum, attributeless, full, complete, awareness. The phenomenal "apparent" world "appears" within Brahman/pure awareness. So, Brahman is real, the apparent world depends upon Brahman for its "apparent" existence. As it is created out of/from Brahman.

Most mis-understand this, so wasn't going to get that deep, but since you brought it up! The "apparent" phenomenal world can be nothing other then, Brahman, because there is nothing but Brahman. However, it's "created" out of the substance-less substance which is Brahman. But, Brahman is not the world. So, to recap, the world IS Brahman, but Brahman is not the world.

It's the play (Lila), the "apparent" phenomenal universe, afterlife, channeling, NDE's, whatever...it's all included...why wouldn't it be. To throw some Vedanta in...it's Isvara creation, "all" of it. Oh, it absolutely is! Enlightenment is for the mind, intellect to be specific. Once Self knowledge removes ignorance of one's true nature and this knowledge is "firm". You see it was/is just a big joke. Awareness playing hide and seek with itself. Just my 2 cents.

It (the body) is an appearance "within", you, awareness. You (awareness/consciousness) don't move-you are ever present, the body (as well as all objects) moves within you.

Absolutely!

Yes, it's definately a karma yoga situation. Either stay struggling in a dysfunctional mess where one is bound to suffer or let the results of actions take there natural course and be ok with the results. I stopped struggling, stopped trying to change her, stopped asking for her to give...what she's incapable of giving. It's a relief really. I hold no resentment or anger towards her, so it's not like that...I just let her go.

She's an alcoholic also, so, yeah, bad. Anyways, sorry for your ordeal with your family also. Seems you've been able to work something out, so you can have contact, but it doesn't affect you anymore. That's great. I tried that for many years, just wasn't in the cards for her to stay in my life. I'm at peace with it. She knows if she ever stops drinking I'll talk to her again. She said, that will never happen. So, she made her choice.

Yep, this is what I did. It was dysfunctional mommy who created inappropriate guilt. In a vicious circle, kinda like the cycle of abuse, but she was verbally abusive, then honeymoon phase, ect Took years to figure out why I always felt quilty for everything, you'd think it would've been obvious, it wasnt. Finally, I figured it out. There's much more to the "story", but you get the gist. I had therapy many times in my earlier 20"s, a few times in my 30's. I'm 47 now, got over my mommy issues awhile ago. Finally, after many warnings of my boundries, mommy had one of her outbursts "your a stupid bitch, I hate you, fuck you!" on Christmas eve (she loves ruining holidays), a year and half ago. Needless to say, that's the last time I've spoken to her, as I've gone no contact and she's blocked from contacting me. Toxic peeps have no business in my life anymore, no matter there biological relation.

And there you have it, case closed.

@Prabhaker it's still a joke. It's a guy with a jacked up fake microphone and a fake reporter.

Most would consider one's defining characteristic combination as one's ..."personality". To my knowledge, Carl Jung made some kind of reference to Self (capital S), but that's psychology, not spiritually.

It's a switch in "identification", knowing/realizing the truth of who you are and priorities/behaviors can change over time (or not), but otherwise, you still have thoughts, feelings, emotions, issues/challenges, sickness/health, job/career, family, vacations, ect. You know that although that these things exist, as you experience them, they ultimately aren't real. What's real is what never changes, you, pure awareness.

I know this wasnt directed to me, but thought I'd give my take, if you don't mind. The self (lower case) is the false-self, which is the same thing as ego. It's the "I-thought" that arise with reference to the body, to experience (subject-object) and prior to "enlightenment" falsely identifies itself with awareness/consciousness. Which makes it (ego) think its an independent, individual, "person". Where as after enlightenment you know you "are" awareness/consciousness which is the background/foreground, permeates everything and from which everything is created, including the apparent person you think you are. So, that "one" aspect of ego dissolves, because there is a switch in identifying as the "limited person" as self, to identifying with "awareness" as Self. The other 2 aspects of ego (I-thought) continue to arise after knowing/realizing your true nature, as awareness. Now, in the spiritual community, the Self (with a capital S), means Brahman or pure Presence or pure Awareness, or Consciousness. This has been my experience.

It's a joke. See the cardboard pieces, taped around his microphone?

Can anyone sum up, briefly, what a zen devil is suppose to be? No, I don't want to watch an hour long video, I don't care "that" much. I hadnt heard the term, until coming on here. Oh, also, what's shadow work? Identifying aspects of ego your not aware of? That's my guess...

Fair enough! Can't hurt, right? ...

This forum really needs a "lol" button!

Omg, James did already reply to you. Went to your blog and found the last article and here was his reply- "James Swartzsays: June 20, 2017 at 6:17 pm Hi Shanmugan, Intelligent dispassionate blog. I don’t disagree nor do I completely agree with your points of view. The Enlightenment Quiz is just a teaching tool and a joke. Nobody is ‘enlightened’ including me, although I not unenlightened. My only claim is that I am the Self which is in line with the teachings of the Vedanta sampradaya. The criticisms of other so-called teachers is not specifically about the teachers themselves but about the lack of a complete teaching that provisionally accepts duality and bridges a logical bridge to non-duality and self knowledge. I also make the difference between my opinions and the teachings of traditional Vedanta, although I have considerable contempt for so-called teachers, like Osho who I met, who violate dharma and dualists who imagine that they are non-dualists. You must be aware that Vedanta is a critical teaching tradition and attack non-Vedic or hertodox Vedic systems on the basis of an analysis of the sruti, which we accept as a valid means of knowledge for the Self. Evidently the criticisms I level are reasonable because I have been told by thousands of people over the forty five years that I have been teaching that they were what attracted them to Vedanta. The basic problem with the modern spiritual world is anti-intellectualism; most teachers and seekers don’t know how to deal with their thoughts so they try to dismiss them without inquiring into their basis." James

@Nichols Harvey I suspect it was because of me being on here.

@Outer Here is a retreat of his on Youtube- WORKSHOP - PRACTICING VEDANTA - JAMES SWARTZ - WESTERWALD GERMANY - There are 16 parts (watch in a row). My guess is there is more then 20 hours of Vedanta teaching. If you are a serious inquirer, if not, not a problem. Just watching a random video of his won't make much sense, without the basics of the teaching first.

Here is the entire Satsang, so it is not taken out of context- "Buddhism and the Jhanas Ram (James Swartz) 2014-04-09 Source: http://www.shiningworld.com/site/satsang/read/231 Kumar: I trust you are well. James: Better than ever! Nice to hear from you, Kumar. Kumar: I believe that the jhanas are a powerful technique to sharpen your mind so that insight might appear, take root and become integrated with your real life. It is also historically used as a tool to burn the mind of conditioning and residual karma. The insight is through vipassana practice since the jhanas do not lead to liberation by themselves. I am working backwards since I already know who I am but it is an excellent set of techniques to deepen your understanding of how the mind works. James: Well, working backwards is always easier then working forwards because the seeking has stopped. As long as we are here action is required and the jhanas are as good a way as any to spend your time. Kumar: In Hindu tradition doing jhanas would be like doing tapas, very useful for stilling the mind, burning karma and allowing the self to reflect in a pure mind. Enlightened or not, the mind needs to be carefully monitored all the time. James: Yes, indeed. Kumar: In my personal experience, doing tapas or jhanas is essential for maintaining equanimity and a calm, tranquil mind. I also realized the connection between the pranayama exercises taught in raja yoga and connecting to the non-experiencing witness through breath practice. It was a very powerful feeling knowing that breath can help connect the mind to the nonexperiencing witness in a radically different way. Of course, the assumption is that you already know that you are the non-experiencing entity. James: Yes, you can connect with the breath. It happens in the method I teach too but the big issue, as you say, is whether or not you know you are the non-experiencing witness. Seems your self-knowledge is firming up nicely. Kumar: Actually, any meditation practice or scriptural study should suffice but one advantage of doing jhanas is the bliss the mind feels while meditating. It would be the Buddhist equivalent of bhakti yoga. Also, in these deep absorption states, the knowledge that “I am limitless awareness” will stick better and continue to grow. There is some confusion in Buddhism about awareness/self as presented by Vedanta and nonself. When I asked the teacher if jhana arises in the mind or awareness, they had no idea what I was talking about. Nobody ever asked them this question before. Also, I asked who is the recognizer of the jhana state, because to recognize that you are in jhana, there has to be an element of recognition, otherwise you will have no idea what state you are in. Recognition necessarily has to happen in the mind because it is an instrument of the self and the mind is insentient except as illuminated by the awareness. James: I am not surprised that they don’t know the self. That is our issue with Buddhism since time immemorial. I have yet to meet a Buddhist that understands it. There is a video on my website of a Buddhist – the only one I ever came across who seems to know what it is and that he is it – that seems to indicate that self-knowledge is alive somewhere in the Buddhist world, but it is very rare. They are doer-oriented, experience-oriented, particularly the jhana guys. Kumar: Anyway, I found it odd that this obvious fact was lost to them. Maybe the concept of noself is misinterpreted by Buddhists as a non-recognizing entity, I don’t know, but I wish they just said that it was awareness or the mind illuminated by awareness. I had a big discussion with my Zen teacher after the retreat but it seems in Buddhism they dance around the fact. James: They don’t know, Kumar. When Buddhism left its Vedic roots it splintered into a myriad of ideas, most of them – I hesitate to say all – devoid of self-knowledge. They talk about it, they dance around it, but they do not have a valid means of self-knowledge. Kumar: That said, I have no doubt it is a powerful practice, and stilling the mind allows one to see the conditioning of the mind as a whole. I can bet easy money that “choiceless awareness” that Krishnamurti talks about is using the practice of jhana to still the mind so that at some point in time the spark of awareness ignites. James: This is probably true but, again, it just generates experience, and without a way to evaluate it apart from the jiva’s (always uninformed) interpretation it usually develops into another frustration and attachment. What do the Buddhists say is the purpose of the jhanas? We know they are good for getting a sattvic mind but what do they think they are accomplishing? There are a lot of other ways of getting a sattvic mind. Kumar: Maybe if you sit long enough and you are an intelligent person, the insight that you are awareness might arise, but Vedanta is easier. James: That’s right. We give them that. Meditation is called a leading error. It is a mistake but it can put you in the right arena and inquiry may develop and, like Ramana, you might just get that you are awareness. Kumar: Historically Buddha had to differentiate himself from the Vedic culture so it is entirely possible that he articulated the same concepts slightly differently. When I was reading Buddhism I came across their renditions of Sanskrit words, and some of them were right, some were close and some were completely off the mark. The problem with Buddhism is that it can be whatever you want it to be. There are more Buddhisms than stars in the sky. Vedanta is Vedanta. It does not change because the object of knowledge… awareness… does not change. If you haven’t been taught, you will not get it. Kumar: I am pretty sure when Buddha said anatman he meant that there was no permanent experiencing entity, which is correct. James: That is true but concepts are just concepts. Their implied meaning can point to the self and deliver self-knowledge but unless the concepts are used in the proper way – we have a definite method for using concepts – they won’t remove ignorance, they will just supply definitions, more concepts – for objects in the apparent reality and for the self. Their problem is that they don’t know what enlightenment is. You have to know that the problem is ignorance and that getting a concept of who you are is still ignorance. What happened is that, as you say, the Buddha felt he had to differentiate himself from the Vedic culture which means he didn’t understand what it actually was at its heart. He was only looking at it from the religious/cultural level. The Brahmins were corrupt so he assumed that Vedanta was corrupt and he decided he would reform it or provide and alternative. He would never have done this had he been properly taught. And if he was enlightened it was not due to teaching. It was like Ramana’s, experiential, from which he probably extracted the knowledge. But we really don’t know. Nobody knows. Buddhism was cooked up many years after the Buddha and he didn’t write, or if he did it was lost to time. What we have are a few snippets of his words. And who knows exactly what he meant by them, or what those who remembered them did to them as they were handed down? I think you are right about his meaning of the word anatman. But this is not a teaching. It is one small idea that needs to be contexualized within a much broader framework if it is going to make sense. Kumar: I hope your retreat went well. I am enjoying sitting still in silence and watching my breath unfold. The journey continues. James: Good for you. I have been there and done that, as they say. Yes, the retreat was excellent. Take care of yourself, Kumar. ~ Much love, James"

I will admit that prior to Vedanta teachings, I thought every spiritual teacher had their "own" made up teaching from an enlightenment "experience", regardless if they had some sort of teacher and I thought that was how all the teachings were. This was what I honestly believed. I didn't know there were traditions like Vedanta that went back thousands of years. Eckhart Tolle, Mooji, Adyashanti, ect., ect They taught what they wanted, how they want, with no real method, imo. That's why I only got so far with them. Like I said I read Ramana and Nisargadatta, but still the big picture was lacking. I had epiphanies and even realized I was the Self, at one point, but it was fleeting, an experience. It never stuck back then, something was missing and I knew it. Then, I found James Swartz and everything changed. So, my years of flailing about in neo-advaita had its purpose, it prepared my mind. That's how I see it at least.