Ananta

@Faceless said- "Well with all do respect, until that movement of attatchment ends I would say that is still an unanswered question for you. Its only in the ending of that attachment that one could conclude upon that question. " Then, "When one is only interested in “how to remove attachment” one is not interested in understanding the problem. One is only influenced by fear to end it." ---------------- Is it just me? Or have contradicted yourself and talked in a complete circle?

No offense, but it seems you have no advice of how to remove the root of attachment. So, guess I'll stick with Vedanta and do Nididhyasana. If I've misunderstood, then certainly set me straight.

If what requires effort? Attachment? No, none...it happens habitually, as I said. One has to scrub the mind clean of it to remove it...that's what takes effort.

What are we talking about? Lol What question?

How to remove attachment then, without effort. I'm talking about the deep, ground in attachment. Like a mother and child, husband and wife, etc. Not the easy surface stuff.

If you have even an ounce of attachment left and so there is some ioda of a doer there, then yes, it requires effort to remove. However, no one is twisting anyone's arm. No one has to be fully assimilated. If they are happy with the amount of attachment they have left and aren't suffering because of it, then so be it.

I don't word it like that, but, yeah, I've not fully assimilated, although I know for certain I am the Self (awareness), but the mind is a rascal and has habitual tendencies that are hard to get rid of.

The full assimilation of self-knowledge requires further effort. This is when nididhyasana kicks in. "Nididhyasana is defined as meditation on the teachings and the truth they reveal. In terms of nididhyasana, meditation does not refer to formal seated meditation. Though formal seated meditation can play a role in nididhyasana, the meditation that characterizes nididhyasana is the constant contemplation of the teachings and the application of one’s non-dual understanding to the experiences/objects/encounters one has within the context of the dualistic apparent reality." ~T. Schmidt

Yes, because who is trying to kill the ego...IS the ego! In Vedanta this is called nididhyasana the process you under go once you have Self-realized, but still need to fully assimilate and remove every ounce of ignorance that says you are a doer/enjoyer/experiencer! This is because of the mind's habitual tendencies to identify with thought, even when it knows it's unreality. Even when it knows it is awareness (The Self). That's why there is nididhyasana.

This is often the case here also, except if there was attachment for some reason, then after the fact the entire thing is seen for what it is...only "apparently" real.

Nice! Yes, seeing from another perspective! You got it. Obviously, I don't go that dramatic, your going to kill yourself route. So, I can't really comment more then I already have, except to say. Perhaps he means seeing the unreality of you, as the apparent person, could be shocking, and it is, but it wasn't scary, to me...it was freeing actually.

I don't think the ego can die or be killed at all. I just know it doesn't arise (for me) when my mind is silent or in samadhi. That's what I was trying to say. Those that speak of ego death, what do they mean, exactly? I don't know, but it doesn't seem possible to kill a thought. How would one function in the world if thought no longer arose, ever? The i-thought is the first thought and other thoughts, come and after it, even the most practical of thoughts. (Ie, I'm hungry, im thirsty, im hot, im cold, etc). Of course, "I" is not always in the thought sentence. It's just an example. Right, in my experience, its knowing/realizing it's not real..boom! So, what's the need to kill it (even if you could, which you cant) if you know/understand it not real. For me, even though I know it's not real...I still get involved with the "story" a bit more then I should sometimes, but that just means some more assimilation needs to happen. It's ok, it takes years typically to "fully" assimilate.

Ty, I see you've added to your post! Atman can be said to be the soul, by some people, but its more accurate to say that the soul or inner body, is the "subtle body" in Vedanta. (There are 3 universal bodies- subtle, gross and causal). Anyway, Atman is "exactly" the same as Brahman (both are pure awareness) and attributeless. Its just that Atman is said to be that "portion" of Brahman, that's within/permeates/illumines the individual person, at any given time. Remember Brahman/Atman is pure awareness and the "apparent" person, you appear to be (including the subtle body), is "reflected" awareness. What you seem to be referring to in your post has attributes (ie, expresses itself- in heart/head/spine), therefore can not be Atman, more likely the Subtle body, which does have attributes. Nameste ♡

Again, there is no ego death, unless someone is calling a "silent mind", the death of the ego, however the mind doesn't stay silent forever. So, when the I-thought arises again, which it always does, was it killed? No. Yes, the mind realizes that it is not the "I-thought", never was, so identification with ego starts to waver and once assimilation of that fact is complete, there is left just "association" with the person, not identification. You identify with your true nature, which is awareness. Although you continue on playing your part in the apparent world. A silent mind is extremely pleasant, calm and peaceful. Nothing to fear at all. Ego (I- thought) wants you to think there is something to fear, but that's a lie.

Yes, it is. I typically just use Brahman or awareness. Most don't understand Atman anyway, so why complicate.

The reason you have fear is because you are believing that the ego, which is just the "I-thought", can die. It can not. How can one kill a thought? You see its apparent existence as illusion and in that regard, you discriminate between you, awareness, from what appears within you, thought. So, during meditation or Self inquiry, when the mind is completely silent, you, awareness, are still there...."aware" OF the silence.

According to Vedanta- Your true nature is awareness, also called Brahman. Isvara/God is an "appearance" within awareness (Brahman), do to the power of Maya, the veil that covers our true nature. The "apparent" person, you appear to be , is an "aspect" (or part) of Isvara/God, which is the field of phenomenal existence. So, the person is a part of God, God is an appearance in awareness and awareness is your "true nature". This is an extremely simplified version.

It's the cosmic game of hide and seek. Occasionally, after much seeking, one is able to find!

Lol.

I don't know, I'm a gemini, not a psychic. Lol.

Yeah, I'm part of the human race, not interested in levels/stages. For fun, only, I'm also a gemini. Lol.

To say the "bad" reaction he got had anything to do with other peoples levels/stages not being "considered" and not everything to do with his "repulsive egotistical narcissistic" behavior is laughable, at best. I'm part of the human race, forget levels/stages.

Im not interested in it, at all. I had never heard of it until lately, because of this forum. I half-ass looked it up. I have no desire to learn it anymore then I did. I think it's a finger pointing ego classification system (ie, your green, they're blue, I'm turquoise- look at me).

Ok, this may piss off the masses, but Sadhguru is full of shit. At least what's on the back of that book you posted. He obviously believes in stories, sad thing is he's spreading wrong info.