Shanmugam

Yes, because they interpreted Upanishads in different ways... There is a book called Brahmasutras which put together the essence of Upanishads in sutras... Sutras are like formulas, they have to be interpreted in the right way... Each of the sub-school that you mentioned was started by an acharya (teacher) who wrote commentaries on Brahmasutras, interpreting them in different ways, which formed the basis of different sub-schools of Vedanta. Shankara also wrote a commentary, which became Advaita Vedanta. While the interpretations are different, all six schools of India (samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya etc) and all sub-schools of Vedanta (the ones you have mentioned) accept Upanishads as a means of Knowledge. Three important means of knowledge in Indian epistemology (but Vedanta has 6 means of Knowledge) are perception, inference and scriptural testimony.

@Joseph Maynor I saw one of your threads in which you asked about heart, as the seat of self, quoted by Ramana... Here is a verse from Chandogya Upanishad (Part 8, Chapter 3, Verse 3) "That Self abides in the heart. The etymological explanation of heart is this: This one (ayam) is in the heart (hridi); therefore It is called the heart (hridayam). He who knows this goes every day in deep sleep to Heaven (i.e. Brahman, dwelling in the heart)." Also, I remember Ramana saying that there is a knot in the heart which binds the ultimate with the body, and the ego actually arises from the knot. "The idea that one is one’s body is what is called hridaya-granthi (knot of the heart). Of the various knots this knot, which binds together what is conscious with what is insentient, is what causes bondage. - http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2008/04/revisions-to-spiritual-instruction.html" But this knot is not anatomical. Probably, the hard problem of consciousness has got something to do with this knot, as it binds the non-physical with the physical.

"As people who do not know the spot where a treasure of gold has been hidden somewhere in the earth, walk over it again and again without finding it, so all these creatures day after day go into the World of Brahman and yet do not find it, because they are carried away by untruth. - Chandogya Upanishad, Part 8, Chapter 3, Verse 2

@Prabhaker There may be bits and pieces in the ritualistic portion.. Major Upanishads have been included as a part of Vedas, grouped under Jnana Khanda... The ritualistic portion is called Karma Khanda...This Chandogya Upanishad belongs to Sama Veda... So, what you are reading here is indeed a part of Vedas..

It is true that mindfulness improves the tolerance of pain to some extent : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3580050/ There is no miracle in it. Let us see what Buddha says about pain: "When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pains of two arrows; in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental." - Sallatha Sutta

Has anyone read the book 'Mystique of Enlightenment' by U.G Krishnamurti? His story seems to be very different.. He is also a different type of guy than everyone else who claims Enlightenment or a stage in the whole process. You can read the book for free here: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0125/1442/t/2/assets/U.G.-Krishnamurti-The-Mystique-of-Enlightenment.pdf He says "I am not out to liberate anybody. You have to liberate yourself, and you are unable to do that. What I have to say will not do it. I am only interested in describing this state, in clearing away the occultation and mystification in which those people in the 'holy business' have shrouded the whole thing. Maybe I can convince you not to waste a lot of time and energy, looking for a state which does not exist except in your imagination." And he says "Get this straight, this is your state I am describing, your natural state, not my state or the state of a God-realized man or a mutant or any such thing. This is your natural state, but what prevents what is there from expressing itself in its own way is your reaching out for something, trying to be something other than what you are." Note: He is not teaching anything. As he says above, he only describes what happened to him. You may find it interesting to read, just to kill some time.

I am just posting some excerpts that I found to be good, so that people who don't want to read the entire book can just go through these, that I am posting.. Even I myself skipped certain boring passages from the book. Here is the next one: "Q: Sir, what will happen after death? UG: All questions about death are meaningless -- and especially for a young person like you. You have not even lived your life. Why do you ask that silly question? Why are you interested in that? A person who is living has no time to ask such questions. Only a person who is not living asks "What will happen after my death?" You are not living. First live your life, and when the time comes.... Let us leave it like that. I am not interested in that kind of philosophy. Nothing will happen. There is no such thing as death at all. What do you think will die? What? This body disintegrates into its constituent elements, so nothing is lost. If you burn it, the ashes enrich the soil and aid germination. If you bury it, the worms live on it. If you throw it into the river, it becomes food for the fishes. One form of life lives on another form of life, and so gives continuity to life. So life is immortal. But that is not going to help anybody who is caught up in the fear of death. After all, 'death' is fear, the fear of something coming to an end. The 'you' as you know yourself, the 'you' as you experience yourself -- that 'you' does not want to come to an end. But it also knows that this body is going to drop dead as others do -- you experience the deaths of others -- so that is a frightening situation because you are not sure whether that (`you') will continue if this (body) goes. So then it projects (an afterlife). This becomes the most important thing -- to know whether there is an afterlife or not. Fear creates that, so when the fear is gone, the question of death is also gone."

This is true: "You must always recognize what you are looking at, otherwise you are not there. The moment you translate, the 'you' is there. You look at something and recognize that it is a bag, a red bag. Thought interferes with the sensation by translating. Why does thought interfere? And can you do anything about it? The moment you look at a thing, what comes inside of you is the word 'bag', if not bag', then 'bench' or 'bannister', 'step', "that man sitting there, he has white hair." It goes on and on -- you are repeating to yourself all the time. If you don't do that, you are preoccupied with something else: "I'm getting late for the office." You are either thinking about something which is totally unrelated to the way the senses are functioning at this moment, or else you are looking and saying to yourself "That's a bag, that's a red bag," and so on and so on -- that is all that is there. The word 'bag' separates you from what you are looking at, thereby creating the 'you'; otherwise there is no space between the two. Every time a thought is born, you are born. When the thought is gone, you are gone. But the 'you' does not let the thought go, and what gives continuity to this 'you' is the thinking. Actually there is no permanent entity in you, no totality of all your thoughts and experiences. You think that there is 'somebody' who is thinking your thoughts, 'somebody' who is feeling your feelings --- that's the illusion. I can say it is an illusion; but it is not an illusion to you." "This labeling is necessary when you must communicate with someone else or with yourself. But you communicate with yourself all the time. Why do you do this? The only difference between you and the person who talks aloud to himself is that you don't talk aloud. The moment you do begin to talk aloud, along comes the psychiatrist. That chap, of course, is doing the same thing that you are doing, communicating to himself all the time -- 'bag', 'red bag', 'obsessive', 'compulsive', 'Oedipus complex,' 'greedy', 'bench', 'banister', 'martini'. Then he says something is wrong with you and puts you on the couch and wants to change you, to help you. Why can't you leave the sensations alone? Why do you translate? You do this because if you do not communicate to yourself, you are not there. The prospect of that is frightening to the 'you'."

As I read this book, I am beginning to think that everybody's enlightenment is so unique and they way they express it, what they choose to do after that, the symptoms (sometimes a lot of them are physical for some people, like U.G and Ramakrishna.. If someone puts a coin under Ramakrishna's bed, he used to feel extreme pain, which is very strange), the words they used to describe it are completely different for everybody. The only thing that seems to be common for these people is to be free of the sense of a separate self (and of course the relief and peace that comes with it) When you read this book, you may be able to relate with some of them and you may feel some of them to be fiction. Whether you consider it as a testimony of enlightened person or a fictitious novel, it is still interesting.

Another quote that I found to be insightful : "What is keeping you from being in your natural state? You are constantly moving way from yourself. You want to be happy, either permanently or at least for this moment. You are dissatisfied with your everyday experiences, and so you want some new ones. You want to perfect yourself, to change yourself. You are reaching out, trying to be something other than what you are. It is this that is taking you away from yourself. Society has put before you the ideal of a 'perfect man'. No matter in which culture you were born, you have scriptural doctrines and traditions handed down to you to tell you how to behave. You are told that through due practice you can even eventually come into the state attained by the sages, saints and saviors of mankind. And so you try to control your behavior, to control your thoughts, to be something unnatural. We are all living in a 'thought sphere'. Your thoughts are not your own; they belong to everybody. There are only thoughts, but you create a counter-thought, the thinker, with which you read every thought. Your effort to control life has created a secondary movement of thought within you, which you call the 'I'. This movement of thought within you is parallel to the movement of life, but isolated from it; it can never touch life. You are a living creature, yet you lead your entire life within the realm of this isolated, parallel movement of thought. You cut yourself off from life -- that is something very unnatural. The natural state is not a 'thoughtless state' -- that is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated for thousands of years on poor, helpless Hindus. You will never be without thought until the body is a corpse, a very dead corpse. Being able to think is necessary to survive. But in this state thought stops choking you; it falls into its natural rhythm. There is no longer a 'you' who reads the thoughts and thinks that they are 'his'. "

A quote from the book, the last line really made me laugh : "The personality does not change when you come into this state. You are, after all, a computer machine, which reacts as it has been programmed. It is in fact your present effort to change yourself that is taking you away from yourself and keeping you from functioning in the natural way. The personality will remain the same. Don't expect such a man to become free from anger or idiosyncrasies. Don't expect some kind of spiritual humility. Such a man may be the most arrogant person you have ever met, because he is touching life at a unique place where no man has touched before. It is for this reason that each person who comes into this state expresses it in a unique way, in terms relevant to his time. It is also for this reason that if two or more people are living in this state at the same time, they will never get together. They won't dance in the streets hand in hand: "We are all self-realized men! We belong!"

It has a mystical meaning... Shutting up means inner stillness. Getting lost means losing the feeling of a separate identity. So, I wish everyone to shut up and get lost

@Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj very funny

@Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj Who is Ham Sarris?

@Ry4n He has already taken all kinds of psychedelics and he knows what is non-duality.

@Prabhaker That is interesting.. I will keep that in mind.. I have heard of cold reading and hot reading, but this example doesn't seem to indicate that he was doing any of that..

@Gerhard When people asked Ramana Maharishi about Guru, he always insisted the Guru is inside you and the outer Guru is just an appearance.. You are the truth; so really, truth itself can guide you. This is what Buddha said when he said 'follow your own light'... There is really no proper successive lineage from adiyogi and present day yogis except two... The only two yogic traditions which even talks about the first yogi are adinatha and nandinatha traditions. They have a lineage starting from Nandhinatha (not from Lord Shiva) and they insist on having a Guru. According to their view, a person cannot be enlightened without a physical guru. But that is not true always. Don't worry about kundalini awakenings... It doesn't happen the same way for everyone. It is better to forget about the concept of kundalini and not to worry about it. Initiation is not a requisite as well. It is a practice in yoga and tantra, where a teacher initiates a student into practice. If you have already started seeking and have seen progress, you have been already initiated. There is a convention in India to regard Dakshinamoorthy (a form of Shiva) as your guru, if you don't have a physical guru. Yes, you can consider a person who you have never met as your guru. For me, I accepted Osho as my guru. I got all the guidance initially from his books alone. His books covers a wide range of questions asked by many seekers during many stages of progress in many situations. I literally felt like he was with me guiding me everyday. But at the end of the day, Guru is only pointing the way. You are the one who has to walk the path. And finally, you will have to give up the attachment you have for the guru as well. This is what is meant by the saying "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". We have 7 billion people in the world. Not everyone can get access to a physical Guru. If you don't have any idea where to start, then simply choose a teacher and read their book. Eventually you will find your way. Because, when you hear what is true, you will recognize it. But always remember, don't believe in anything that is said. Beliefs are not required in finding the truth. You don't have to believe in anything..

@electroBeam Advaita and Zen helped me a lot in my overall progress.. My whole spiritual sadhana was the theory of advaita, practice of zen and self-inquiry. Concepts like surrendering the sense of doer, accepting the reality as it is without resistance, seeing myself as a witness but not as the contents of consciousness etc helped me a lot. Shikantaza is the zen version of mindfulness, though I practiced it not mainly as sitting meditations but in everyday life while doing any activity. In addition to that, Oshos' book 'Empty boat' about Taoism helped me initially when I started out as a seeker. I didn't learn much Taoism though. I went through inner engineering program by Isha which teaches a Yoga practice but I didn't do much of it. I didn't have the discipline required for Yoga. I came to know about christian mysticism and sufism; they helped me to see how those traditions also have the same concepts and lead to realization. But they go together with their religions; so they can be helpful for people who were brought up in Christianity and Islam respectively. (recommended only for those who can't seem to accept any teaching except their own religion). Also, these two traditions are path of love, similar to Bhakthi yoga in India. An intense longing for union and willingness to surrender oneself is a prerequisite. It seems that nobody can teach Bhakti yoga, it has to present as an inbuilt trait for people. Recently, I studied Buddhist concepts deeply and was amazed by the wisdom in Buddhism, especially Theraveda. That gave me an idea how a lot of Buddhist concepts can be taught along with Advaita to make the teachings suitable for all kinds of people. Both of them can be combined without any conflict. In addition to that, teaching people some psychological concepts like defense mechanisms and cognitive biases using a simplified version can help.

@jimrich I think these defense mechanisms are useful to know about for seekers as well, because they can help them to notice a lot of their unconscious reactions and how ego uses these defense mechanisms to rationalize things or defend the self image. But it has to be simplified and made easy for everyone to understand. It can be made as a part of the teaching itself. When I read Osho, his talks helped me to notice just this; what ego does to protect and enhance the sense of separate self. I learnt basics of psychology using authentic text books last year, and I saw that a lot of those themes are present in psychology as well. I think two topics that can be simplified and included in spiritual teachings are some of the important defense mechanisms and cognitive biases. What do you think?

@Joseph Maynor Ok got it... So what exactly is the reason for suggesting me to read epistemology? Just curious, because as I said, I couldn't understand your entire message (not that you were not clear, I am not familiar with some of those phrases)

@Loreena Ego has defense mechanisms... Psychologically we can define what is normal and what is not in terms of defense mechanisms. Let me quote from wikipedia to explain: In psychoanalytic theory, defense mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses and to maintain one's self-schema. The psychiatrist George Eman Vaillant introduced a four-level classification of defence mechanisms:[21] Level I – pathological defences (psychotic denial, delusional projection) Level II – immature defences (fantasy, projection, passive aggression, acting out) Level III – neurotic defences (intellectualization, reaction formation, dissociation, displacement, repression) Level IV – mature defenses (humour, sublimation, suppression, altruism, anticipation)... So a healthy ego can be said as something that has level 4 defense mechanisms.. If you go to that wiki article, you can see that each one of those defense mechanisms have individual articles. But, remember.. You are in a forum that deals with spiritual enlightenment. It involves transcending the identification with the egoistic self altogether. Even if someone takes a therapy for resolving unhealthy issues in ego, many therapists will suggest mindfulness as one of the treatments. The same practice when done for extensive period of time eventually leads to awakening and defense mechanisms begin to loose strength. Check out this link: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=iboTrtb3QIAC&lpg=PA80&ots=5GuWmsPlGB&dq=observer self cbt&pg=PA79#v=onepage&q=observer self cbt&f=false

@electroBeam This reminds me of the post you made in the other thread which is about how to get enlightened.. I think since Eckhart Tolle went through an awakening after depression, he thinks that everyone who gets depressed about failures have good chances of getting enlightened.. May it is true for some people.. They get depressed because of failed relationships and think 'why the hell no one wants to live with me, what kind of person am I? who the hell am I", and then they end up doing a self-inquiry. Or they may say "No wonder why no one wants to live with me, even I don't want to live with me anymore... wait a minute, am I one or two?" Just a joke..

@Prabhaker sure, take your time..

oh Yes, definitely interested . Please go ahead

@Joseph Maynor In fact, I couldn't understand whether you agree or disagree. . It has not absolutely nothing to do with you, but my poor English comprehension, especially some colloquial or slang phrases.