Ananta

More to the point is that experience comes and goes, therefore can not be you, pure awareness. Except, that experience is created out of, the substanceless-substance that you are. The "apparent" person can have a zillion epiphanies and not be enlightened. "Self realization" is an experience and that is different from enlightenment. During Self-realization you recognize your true nature, but it's often fleeting and little Self knowledge is gained or is not complete. Except, for a few rare cases, but still takes time to "assimilate" this Self knowedge. Enlightenment (Moksha- liberation/freedom) obtains when Self ignorance (ignorance of one's true nature) is "removed" by Self knowledge and this knowledge is abiding. It is abiding when there is no longer a doubt that you ARE awareness vs being the apparent person you appear to be (which is actually within awareness) and when you've let go of the notion that you are the doer. Self ignorance is hard wired, therefore stubborn to remove and takes as long as it takes. The the removal of Self ignorance causes a "shift in perspective", which ends suffering. Although pains and pleasure persist in the apparent manifest world, do to pure awareness "association" with the "apparent" person.

Oh, if memory serves me right he has been banned from the forum.

Is that a question or a statement.

No offense, but if you have no ego who is writing your post? It can't be pure awareness as it has no mind. It is what gives sentiency to the mind, therefore the ego. You are the witness.

I understood that. I just don't believe him.

47

OP, it sounds very "spiritual", but sounds like total rubbish to me. What would leave the body would be what's called the subtle body. If it were to leave in Samadhi a piece of metal wouldn't prevent it. As well as the gross body wouldn't age 20+ yrs because of the subtle body being ejected. Essentially, that's the same as an out of body experience or a NDE.

Recognition and identification with your true nature doesn't make you brain dead. You will still have preferences, likes/dislikes, opinions, ect. It's all a part of the "play". I will not respond again, as I don't want to further derail this thread, more then I have already.

@Prabhaker Do what you want... I do not wish to derail another thread/topic or continue to derail this one. My apologies to the OP. Too many college English classes on citing sources! Lol.

@Nichols Harvey I just saw your post. Yes, you are right I'm sorry.

Yes, it's not you saying it. Yes, it's not your experience. People should know that... Otherwise, you are just inflating your ego, by getting compliments, ect on writings that had nothing to do with you. If you consider Osho your teacher you can use concepts/words similiar to what he has taught you, in your own writings without it being plagiarizism, but when you copy/paste word for word, you have to cite the source.

You know damn well that most on here are westerners. Therefore, what happens in India doesn't apply. Just cite your source, why are you acting like it's rocket science?. .like you are incapable? I'm beginning to think you want to "be" Osho, therefore you have a much bigger ego problem then most westeners do! Very sad indeed. The fact that you keep replying with ridiculous arguments as to why "you" shouldn't have to cite your source like normal folk, leads me to believe you have something wrong with you. If that's the case, I take pity. Continue to pretend you are Osho.....

Again, it's not hard, if you are copy/pasting, then you need to cite the source.

Good, I will.

Please I took enough college English classes to know what you are doing is damn wrong. If you aren't knowledgeable about citing sources, that's your own issue and mistake.

I'm going to call you out, everytime I catch it, so get use to it.

What you're doing is fine...but cite your damn source! It's not hard, really it's not, write Osho at the bottom. See simple.

Ok, it's like if I were to respond to someone with quotes by Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta, but passing them off as my own. It's bullshit! It's plagiarizing and it's disrespectfull to the orginal author. Think about it.

Wow dude, seriously?

I think there is a need. As you are trying to take credit for something you didn't write. Cite your source!

This is an Osho piece. Cite your source.

Since the apparent reality is dualistic in nature.....yes.

God (Isvara- In Vedanta) is a personification of the impersonal "dharma field" (the manifest universe). Isvara is the creator-sustainer-destroyer of all of manifestation, which governs the physical, psychological, moral/ethical laws, as well as dishing out cause and effect relating to karma (action). Isvara came into being by a power within pure awareness itself called Maya, which created the illusion or appearance of the phenomenal world.

The video is very good. You can certainly discover your true nature (Self realization) using this video. However, enlightenment (Moksha- liberation) requires the removal of Self ignorance, through Self knowledge. Point being, you will still go back to ego identification after Self realization if Self knowledge isn't "assimilated" (whereby you identify as yourself-awareness, first and the apparent person you appear to be, second) which takes as long as it takes, but one has to have a proper teaching using a methodology, usually, to obtain this knowledge. Unless, Self knowledge is extrapolated from the experience of "Self realization" sufficiently to remove one's ignorance (identification with the little "me). Which was the case for Ramana Maharshi.

@wingsofwax I'm going to copy/paste an answer a Vedanta teacher gave to a seeker. I'm not going to put the question as it doesn't relate, however the answer seems to apply to your question . It is long (very sorry), but read it carefully and see if you can "assimilate" what he's saying. Btw, his name is Ted Schmidt. His site is Nevernotpresent.com "You don’t have to identity with awareness, because awareness is not something other than you. Presently, avidya, ignorance, is causing you to identify with the mind-body-sense complex and, thus, you take yourself to be the apparent individual you seem to be. But actually the person you think you are, complete with all his associated subtle phenomena (i.e. sensations, emotions, and cognitions) is nothing more than an object appearing within the scope of your being just like any other object. Moreover, the truth is that you are already experiencing yourself all the time, for the nature of reality is non-dual and, thus, there is nothing other than yourself to experience. You, awareness, are not only the “field” in which all objects appear, but also the “substanceless substance” of which all objects are made. The closest analogy is a hologram, which is both composed of light and appears within a “field” of light. That said, you cannot experience yourself because you, pure awareness, have no attributes and, thus, have no boundaries or edges by which you can be distinguished from anything else. In terms of our analogy of a hologram, where does the light end? Though the holographic image as which the light appears can be identified, is there any actual difference between the light of the image and the light “surrounding” it? Or, in terms of another analogy, where does the wave end and the water begin? It is in this sense that you cannot experience yourself. Though the holographic image is light, light is not defined in terms of that particular hologram; though the wave is water, water is not defined in terms of the wave. In other words, light does not always appear as a particular holographic image and water does not always appear as a wave. So, though the hologram is dependent on the light and the wave on the water, light is not dependent on any particular hologram and water does not depend on its appearance as a wave. Just so, though all objects are nothing other than you, awareness, you, awareness, are not definable in terms of any one object—or, for that matter, even the collective of all objects. Whether objects appear or do not appear, you, awareness, always are. In this regard, perhaps the most fitting analogy for you, awareness, is light. Just as the light illumining a room allows all the objects situated and activities transpiring within that room to be known, so you, awareness, “illumine” all the objects appearing within the mind associated with the apparent individual referred to as Upton. However, just as the light illumining a room does not know the objects in the room, so you, awareness, do not know the objects appearing in the mind. Awareness is often referred to as chaitanya-atma or “witnessing awareness,” but actually attributeless awareness is not knower of objects, for pure awareness itself is not a personal entity endowed with a mind. Awareness is referred to as the “witness” because it is the intelligence or consciousness that informs or illumines the mind and, thereby, enables the mind to know objects. The mind (i.e., subtle body) is actually nothing more than a mechanism designed to perform the functions of perceiving, integrating, doubting, conceiving, discriminating, deciding, and emoting. In other words, it is what we might call an “experience processor.” As such, the mind has no independent self-nature; its functioning is entirely dependent on awareness. Just as even the most advanced computer does not operate on its own but requires some form of energy that enables it to carry out its complex functions, so the mind only thinks when enlivened by awareness. The ramification of this circumstance is rather profound. You, awareness, are not the thinker-knower because you yourself have no mind, and the mind is not the thinker-knower because it is not actually anything more than insentient subtle matter. Strangely enough, however, when the mind is illumined by awareness, thinking and knowing take place. Thus, you, awareness, are simply the “light” in the “field” of whose illumination all objects appear and by means of which the mind performs the function of “knowing” them. In this sense, awareness is not watching anything. When illumined by awareness, the mind will always be aware or conscious of something; will always be a subject in relation to an object; will always be the relative witness, watcher, or knower of whatever is witnessed, watched, or known. When the mind, thus, functions according to its design, we refer to it as the relative “knower” or “witness.” You, pure awareness, the “light” that illumines and, thus, enlivens the mind and enables it to operate is “who” we refer to as the “supreme subject-knower” or “witnessing awareness.” What’s more, the mind is “one” for whom enlightenment occurs. It is the mind that is clouded by avidya, ignorance, and thus can’t “see” its own true nature. Once the mind’s agitating desires and extroverting tendencies (i.e., the “clouds” cast by ignorance) have been sufficiently subdued, however, and it is still enough to accurately reflect the unmodified nature of pure awareness, it catches a “glimpse” of the limitlessness that is its fundamental reality. This “glimpse” comes in the form of a subtle thought called the akhandakara-vritti, the “thought of limitlessness,” by means of which the apparent individual realizes that he is both whole and the whole. This is a very subtle understanding that can be cultivated by carefully scrutinizing your own immediate experience. While the mind-body-sense complex that constitutes the apparent individual you take yourself to be is in a continual state of flux and that person has had innumerable experiences in his life, there is never a moment when you are not present. There has never been a day when you said, “You know, Upton, I’m tired today. You go do whatever you please, but I’m staying in bed.” No matter what Upton decided to do, no matter how potentially pleasurable or painful it may have been, there was never a moment when you bailed. You are always present. Even in dreamless sleep, when the mind shuts down completely, you remain present. Though Upton might think you, awareness, was not there, you, awareness, had to have been. Had you ceased to exist, Upton would not have woken up, for something (i.e., objects, such as the mind-body-sense complex) cannot come out of nothing. Hence, despite the fact that you are attributeless and non-objectifiable, if the instrument of the mind, when illumined by awareness, really pays close attention and contemplate Upton’s experience, it can know not only that it is, but also what it is (i.e. it’s limitless nature). While pure awareness is not and never will be an object or experience itself, its non-negatable, immutable, and all-pervasive presence will be known when you understand that everything that ever has been, is now, and will be is a phantasmagoria of objective phenomena appearing within the scope of the limitless conscious existence that is your very nature. In a nutshell, you will realize that the conscious reality that informs the apparent individual is the same real conscious reality that informs the entire universe. Though the objects, including the apparent individual you take yourself to be, appearing within its scope are many, there is only one awareness. And you are that." Ted Schmidt