Shanmugam
Member-
Content count
1,358 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Shanmugam
-
-
1 hour ago, brovakhiin said:Enlightenment has many faces
Realizing no-self vs self = binary
that doesn't mean there isn't more truths to become conscious of
so in a way I see it as multiple sets of binaries, making the whole package non-binary
You must be a member of the Leo cult...
Do you understand what is really being discussed here? Did you read all the posts carefully? Do you think you can come to a conclusion about enlightenment based on your opinions and speculations? Have you ever tried to learn what non-duality is all about, outside of actualized.org?
First of all, let us not confuse between two things here:
From the absolute standpoint, there are no 'enlightened' people; there are no multiple people and there are no divisions like 'binary'.. But this is not a valid objection here. What we are discussing here is actually from relative standpoint.
There is an old analogy. It talks about mistaking a rope for a snake and compares enlightenment to realizing that there was no snake in the first place. So in this scenario, either you see a snake or see a rope! You cannot see the snake and the rope at the same time. This is a simple analogy that has been repeated over and over again for centuries by many people who have really seen the truth.And this is a simple example of what I am trying to say.
Many people intellectually understand non-duality and do mental masturbation forever based on that. That is happening a lot in this forum.
If you feel that there are going to be multiple realizations or deeper experiences, it is actually an indication that you are walking on the spiritual path and still seeking; But you would be doing a blunder if you conclude that this is how it is going to be for your entire life, even after enlightenment.
Let me put it in a different way.. You will go through multiple awakening experiences which will seem to take you nearer to the truth. It feels like peeling the layers of an onion one by one.. But the problem here is, many people here including Leo Gura has come to a premature conclusion that this process of peeling the layers of onion never ends... That is where you are all going wrong. It may seem to be never ending but it certainly ends. Then there is a whole new beginning, which is absolutely indescribable. Then you don't care about another awakening experience anymore, because something that kept that search going is totally out of the equation now.
For your information, what is being communicated in actualized.org is totally different from how enlightened people actually see the reality and how they have talked about it. I have already given a few example to state that how Leo totally contradicts with every genuine enlightened person that the world knows of . If you still think that Osho, Nisargadatta, Ramana, Buddha and Shankara are wrong but Leo Gura (who admits that he is not enlightened) is right, then it is up to you.. I just felt like give you guys a warning... Because, you are actually talking to a person who died and reborn after about 25 years of seeking, including 12 years of walking a well trodden spiritual path.
-
I always get a lot of coincidences when it comes to Osho. There are many instances in the last one year connected with Osho. When I say something, I sometimes get to see an Osho's quote randomly which almost backs the statement up. I don't know how this is happening but I don't add anything to it with my imagination to fill this up. (This is happening ever since my son was born; he was born on Dec 11th, which is Osho's birthday. It seems to be creepy
).
And this is what I found today when I was scrolling my Facebook page a little while ago:
-
@Hsinav Yes... As I have said from the beginning, the deepening happens automatically.. But it is not about going to a 'higher stage'... To be clear, it is none of what many people here are talking about. My own reality is deepening every day and it is not in my control. As I said, you first have to be enlightened to really understand what is deepening is about. Can you mentally conceive a life that happens in the absence of psychological time? Only when the psychological time is there, there is an anticipation for a higher or a deeper state.
Read the following verses from Ashtavakra Gita, especially the ones which are in bold. This is not a teaching; this is pretty much a good attempt to describe the enlightened 'state':
1.8 The thought: “I am the doer” is the bite of a poisonous snake. To know: “I do nothing” is the wisdom of faith. Be happy.
1.13 Meditate on this: “I am Awareness alone–Unity itself.” Give up the idea that you are separate, a person, that there is within and without.
1.19 Just as a mirror exists both within and without the image reflected, the Supreme Self exists both within and without the body.
1.20 Just as the same space exists both within and without a jar, the timeless, all-pervasive One exists as Totality.
2.5 Look closely at cloth, you see only threads. Look closely at creation, you see only Self.
3.10 A great soul witnesses his body’s actions as if they were another’s. How can praise or blame disturb him?
15.6 Realize Self in All and All in Self. Be free of personal identity and the sense of “mine.” Be happy
15.11 Let the waves of the universe rise and fall as they will. You have nothing to gain or lose. You are the ocean.
16.1 You can recite and discuss scripture all you want, but until you drop everything you will never know Truth.
16.8 Indulgence creates attachment. Aversion creates abstinence. Like a child, the sage is free of both and thus lives on as a child.
16.9 One who is attached to the world thinks renouncing it will relieve his misery. One who is attached to nothing is free and does not feel miserable even in the world.
16.10 He who claims liberation as his own, as an attainment of a person, is neither enlightened nor a seeker. He suffers his own misery.
17.4 Rare in the world is one who does not relish past enjoyments, nor yearn for enjoyments to come.
17.5 Those who desire pleasure and those who desire liberation are both common in the world. Rare is the great soul who desires neither enjoyment nor liberation.
17.17 The liberated one neither avoids experience nor craves it. He enjoys what comes and what does not.
18.9 Knowing for certain that all is Self, the sage has no trace of thoughts such as “I am this” or “I am not that.”
18.37 Because he desires to know God, the ignorant man can never become That. The wise man is God because he is free of desire and knows nothing.
18.40 For he who thinks knowledge is things and ideas how can there be Self-knowledge? The wise do not see separate things– only the timeless Self.
18.42 Some believe in existence; others believe nothing exists. Rare is the one who believes nothing and is never confused.
18.43 Weak intellectuals may believe the Self is One without other. But being mired in illusion they do not actually know Self, so live out their lives in misery.
18.49 The sage does whatever appears to be done without thinking of good or bad. His actions are those of a child.
18.55 Though his servants, sons, wives, daughters, grandchildren and all his relatives ridicule and despise him, the yogi is undismayed.
18.56 Though pleased he is not pleasured; though pained he does not suffer. This wonderful state is understood only by those like him.
18.58 Even doing nothing the dull one is anxious and distracted. Even amidst great action the wise one remains still.
-
1 minute ago, Nahm said:@Shanmugam More discriminate than seeing authorities as right or wrong. This is the duality game...there are 6 more who say the opposite! More fundamental than assumptions one knows how ‘others’ think, more deep-seated than a feeling of need to quote ‘others’, more intrinsic of direct experience than what teachers can say with words. More perceptive than ‘has to work on reaching’ - as a reactive dualistic perspective on what is a a completely open ended expansion of consciousness. More all encompassing than being outside of psychological time in the awareness, actualized being outside of physical time; times to go to work, times to eat lunch, times to leave work, etc. Deeper than the duality of these things implying any ‘craving’ - more clarity on projections in interpretation & perspective. Without freed consciousness, ‘another’ ‘must’ have cravings, ‘another’ ‘must’ have seeking, no. Expansion does not need duality, it only holds it back, keeps status quo. And then there is access through consciousness such as out of body, paranormal, inconsistent ‘reality’, premonition, interaction with Aline’s, etc, etc. There is nothing “done” about infinity. You are all that is, the bar is were you place it, if you place it. Or not of course.
After I have clearly seen the nature of non-duality in my experience, I get to verify the authority. As I said in my previous post, I don't go by authority; I verify if they are saying the truth based on my own experience. I quote people only when I know that they are saying the truth. But this can only happen when the dream is completely transcended. The dream still continues but you are really out of it.. And it is clear you don't have any idea of what I am talking about. So, I can only give you a warning; Don't fool yourself... That is all I can say... All nonsense about interactions with aliens and paranormal stuff is within the dream. There is really no difference between walking on a road and flying in the sky. Both of them happens within the dream of duality.
What you have written is exactly how the mind interprets non-duality without transcending duality. For me, most of the posts that you have made shows evidently and clearly that your whole understanding of enlightenment and spiritual path is wrong. Ask any truly enlightened person, his response will be the same as mine.
I am seeing a dangerous trend in this forum. It is walking straight on the road to become a delusional cult. Now, Ramana Maharshi can be wrong, Osho can be wrong, Nisargadatta can be wrong, Buddha can be wrong and every genuine guru that I have verified is wrong; But a 6 delusional people (whoever taught you this nonsense) is right! Good luck with that.
Again, don't bring the authority bias in. I will be the first person to speak against authority bias; my authority is what I have seen as truth without a single iota of doubt; It is the truth that I have seen after about 25 years of seeking (starting from age 10, in reality) with tremendous suffering, extensive reading, tears, pains, suicide attempts, depression, mental masturbation, yoga etc, you name it! I still haven't seen one person in my life who has gone through whatever I have gone through. I have spent hundreds of sleepless nights when I was 15, staring at the stars, wondering about the existence and trying to make sense of it.
I also know that you will interpret what I have said just now from your state of mind... But I have said all I can say. Your thought process clearly reflects that you are still a seeker. So don't fool yourself and wipe out the layer of arrogance that has formed in your mind..
And stop trying to figure out enlightenment by thinking and mental masturbation! That is never going to happen, even after having tons of spiritual experiences.. Because, as soon as the experience is over, you are back in duality, interpreting a memory through the filters of duality.
-
If the psychological time becomes absent and if a person simply snaps out of time-bound existence, where is the question of craving any 'state' of consciousness? This is what not understood by many people here.
-
16 minutes ago, Nahm said:If there are not deeper consciousness states, then why do some enlightened people refer to / post the words of teachers, and ancient masters in their responses? I mean, why wouldn’t they just say what comes to mind, since they are equally enlightened? They could simply reference their own previous experiences.
It is just to back up what they say; Because, they understand how people think. Quoting other enlightened people is required to make people open up...
And still now, a question remains unanswered here. Osho, Sadhguru, Eckhart Tolle, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj etc say that enlightenment is binary. So, to whoever that says that an enlightened person has to work on reaching another deeper level of consciousness, here is the question: Are you guys saying that Osho, Sadhguru, Eckhart Tolle, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj etc are wrong?
(of course, there is a life long deepening after enlightenment, but it isn't about reaching a different or higher level! Whatever deepening that happens, occurs without having to do anything. It simply goes on deepening. But that is something inconceivable for someone who is not enlightened yet)
-
2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:I know you guys love to split hairs about this stuff.
Like I said, the things which I said are so extremely subtle that no conversation about them is possible. What I am pointing to is beyond the understanding of most human beings, including so called enlightened ones.
Tread carefully. No appeals to authority will work at this level. Only direct experience.
So to be clear, you are essentially saying that Osho, Ramana Maharshi and Eckhart Tolle doesn't understand it but you understand it.. Is that correct?
(By the way, whatever I said is not based on just authority; but also based on my experience.)
-
8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:No, I was saying, how would know you've reached the highest stage of awakening?
The whole problem is, you can't know.
You might think you're at the highest, but you could be wrong.
I've experienced so many degrees of awakening at this point that I'm having to stop saying "This is it!" because as soon as I say that, the next week or month I find something deeper.
This is a very tricky issue because every awakening feels like it's the deepest and nothing could be deeper.
If you think you've reached the end, you're probably kidding yourself. There exist superhuman levels of consciousness which cannot even be conceived of by most ordinary meditators or enlightened teachers. There seem to be states of consciousness so great that they may not even be reachable through natural biological means. States so great that they could not be spoken of at all.
This is why spirituality becomes so contentious. It's very hard to compare the states of various people. Especially if you've never achieved those states yourself. The point is, you cannot make these comparisons while keyboard jockeying on this forum. The only way to really know is to become a fully enlightened master and see how far you are able to get. Otherwise, you've got no chance of figuring out what is "the end".
Everyone will of course tend to disagree about what "the end" is, because no one is going to admit, "I haven't reached the end." Consciousness also breeds arrogance.
This topic is beyond the scope of what most people here can fathom. It requires decades of careful study and hardcore practice. This is way beyond the realm of Neo-Advaita teachings or YT videos or experiencing no-self.
In another thread, you were talking about how when you look at Osho, Sadhguru or Echkart Tolle you realize that they are not fooling around. And in this post, you are actually saying that all these people are wrong! Because, not only these three, people like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Shankara and every else also say the same thing.. There are no levels in enlightenment..
Logically what you are saying may seem to be true to you. But the problem is, in enlightenment, one variable is completely out of the equation. And your way of thinking assumes that that variable is still going to be there after enlightenment.
It is not really about how deeply you felt in a certain experience or what kind of altered state of consciousness that you experienced. When we talk about enlightenment, we are talking about a totally unaltered state of consciousness! Any kind of higher or lower state is nothing but an alteration in consciousness.
QuoteYou might think you're at the highest, but you could be wrong.
Yes.. If someone 'thinks' they are in the highest, they are wrong... But there is no need to think you are in the highest... Non-duality is not about reaching a 'highest' state; reaching a 'highest state' is a part of the regular rat race. So when someone thinks he has reached the highest state, he is definitely wrong. A highest state implies a journey between A and B... But sahaja or enlightenment is when you realize that A and B are the same, that there is no journey at all!
QuoteI've experienced so many degrees of awakening at this point that I'm having to stop saying "This is it!" because as soon as I say that, the next week or month I find something deeper.
This will actually happen probably a thousand times or more... But you are making a conclusion about the whole thing at this stage. At enlightenment, you don't even have to say or conclude 'this is it'! You know that this is it. And you will understand 'why' only after enlightenment. Because, no matter how intelligent you are, no matter what 'level' of consciousness that you reach, until you are really enlightened your thinking will assume that the variable (which will be out of the equation after enlightenment) is still going to exist in sahaja..
So, even the question 'is there a higher level of awakening or consciousness' will not make sense to you when you are in sahaja. And this is true! Here, you need to also realize that you are going completely against all these people who taught about enlightenment to you in the first place!
-
On 3/19/2018 at 8:59 AM, onacloudynight said:Wait is there a higher state then Sahaja? Or is that the highest.
What do you mean by 'higher' here? Obviously, it is not about a measure of vertical distance... The ideas such as something is 'higher', 'superior' etc is something that is tied to self-concept; It is exactly what people are trying to get rid of by walking on the spiritual path in the first place. When we talk about nirvikalpa (devoid of distinctions), sahaja (fully functioning in the world with nirvikalpa), we are talking about something indescribable.
People who are saying that there is something higher than sahaja are not only deluded, but they are also leading other people straight to the delusion. Because, you know you are in sahaja when you can't really think of something that is higher. You know you are in sahaja when you stop asking for 'what is more?' because it is completely out of the question.
Enlightenment is the end of craving for 'more' or craving for 'higher'. Onlookers may still compare one enlightened person to another, and discuss who is higher or superior. But the person who is living in sahaja doesn't see the world the same way.
Sahaja is where such psychological measurement of 'height' breaks.. To be more precise, you come to realize that such a thing doesn't exist at all. Then life is a permanent vacation; it becomes a joyful game.
It is really funny how ego plays games and distorts each and everything to its own advantage.
-
21 hours ago, robdl said:re: removal of blockages/purification of body-mind as preparing the ground for realization
I'd be curious to get your opinion on this: wouldn't direct path teachers posit the question "To whom do these impressions/blockages/vasanas belong?"--- intimating that these mental/bodily impressions just form content in consciousness -- ultimately illusory -- and that treating them as real just reinforces the dualistic idea of a purifier? (Begging the question, why work to purify them if reality can be realized directly)
The direct path/self-inquiry says to draw attention away from sense and thought objects and inwardly toward the subject, such that you become the subject, without objective experience. "Doing" practices like kriya yoga seem to say to put your attention on these sense/thought objects --- but how can that take you to the source if you develop the practice of turning the mind outward?
1The direct approach will not work just like that for anybody.. Because, , the mind is accustomed to going outward.. Even Ramana Maharshi have talked about other practices like Yoga for the beginners. But don't compare Ramana Maharshi with many neo-advaita teachers who spend their entire life by asking one question 'who is asking this question' for any question that is put to them..
What I explained is essential in all major traditions like Yoga, Vedanta, and Buddhism for thousands of years. Buddha taught Shamatha for the same reason.
Quote"Doing" practices like kriya yoga seem to say to put your attention on these sense/thought objects --- but how can that take you to the source if you develop the practice of turning the mind outward?
Actually, when you do Astanga Yoga, you are rejecting all the thoughts by holding on to one thought. This is how the mind is initially trained. This is completely different from the monkey mind which goes from one thought to another.
It is the direct approach that takes one to self-realization. But the question is, are people able to do it right away? If they can do it right away and get instantly awakened, that would be great. But for many people, this is not a reality. They do a lot of practices to develop discrimination and non-attachment. Only after getting some maturity, they are really able to do self-inquiry.
-
@hundreth It is actually very simple.. When there is no self, what is left is true self... But don't try to understand 'true self'.. You only know the illusory self. True self is not an object of knowledge. What you are doing is fine.. Neither Buddhism nor Vedanta is an ideology or philosophy. They are just different teaching devices. But they point to the same truth.
By the way, the sutta that I gave you was the direct original Pali sutta that talks about Anatta. No matter which monk you talk to, he is giving the interpretation from that same verse. (Unless Buddha talked to him in his dreams
).
-
@hundreth By the way, the word Atman does not mean 'soul' or 'spirit'.. It is a poor translation. I know basic Sanskrit. The word atman simply means 'I' but used in certain contexts such as 'myself'.
For example. in Gita, Krishna says "whenever there is a decline in righteousness in the world, I create myself".. Here, the word 'atmanam srujami aham' is used to mean 'I create myself'. 'Atmanam' is just a declension of the word 'atman' in the accusative case.
So Buddha said that there is no I' in anything that is observed. Anything that is observed is impermanent (aniccha), doesn't have an 'I' (anatta) and clinging to them causes suffering (dukkha). This is the three marks of existence in Buddhism.
And Advaita directly teaches that the observer (or awareness) is the true self or the true 'I'. Upanishads are poems. So, they expressed things poetically whereas Buddha expressed things in an empirical way..
To sum up, Buddha said that there is no 'I' in the observed. But he didn't explicitly state that the true 'I' is the observer or the awareness. Advaita not only said that there is no 'I' in the observed, but it also explicitly stated that the awareness is the true Self.
Finally, when you are enlightened, there is a realization in the experience that the observer is also the observed. This is because, when the false notion of the 'I' is completely removed, the observer and the observed collapse and merge together. In fact, they were never separate. This is what we call as non-duality.
In a verse attributed to Shankara, you can find the following three statements:
1) Brahman is real (awareness is unchanging)
2) World is unreal (the contents of the awareness are ever-changing)
3) Brahman is the world (both awareness and the contents of the awareness are one and the same)
The statement 3 can be only realized in experience.
-
@hundreth Don't check Wikipedia to know what Buddha taught... If you want to know what Buddha taught, directly refer to the source, the Pali Canon. All the suttas from Pali canon are here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org
Buddha actually explained how our feelings, thoughts, perceptions are not self. There is a difference between 'no self' and 'not self'.. The source of anatta doctrine from Buddhism is actually from Anatta Lakkhana Sutta, which is the second discourse he gave, according to Pali canon.
Here is how it goes:
Quote"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
5Not that when Buddha says 'consciousness is not self', he uses it in a totally different meaning. When I look at a tree, there is a form and there is consciousness of that form. And there is no self in it.
This is exactly similar to neti-neti approach in Advaita. It is the same negation of anatta lakhana sutta which is also used in neti-neti.
But Buddha's message has been widely misinterpreted all over the world.. Instead of the words like 'Brahman', 'Atman', Buddha used the words 'unborn', 'dhammakaya' etc... When we are discussing all this in English, you need to keep in mind that they are loose translations of Pali and Sanskrit words.
There is a reason for this difference in the usage of words in Buddhism and Vedanta. History has the answer. Buddha existed at the same time when the first Upanishad was composed. We are talking about the age where there was no internet or technology or any kind of convenience. So, Buddha naturally used a different set of words than what was used in the first Upanishad which was 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad'... The Upanishads also said the same thing in a different way.
-
@Anna1 Wow... some really funny jokes today. Now, I regret that there is no reputation button
-
2 hours ago, Anna1 said:Oops
that was very funny..
-
1 minute ago, Anna1 said:@Shanmugam lol, thats funny! That's right, it was reputation points, forgot that. A simple "like" button would be nice though, like on facebook, but oh well.
I spent a lot of my time posting mindless funny memes on FB. Once you know who you are, theres nothing better then having a good laugh!
4Thats good... Share those funny memes here whenever you can:
-
6 minutes ago, Anna1 said:Good thanks, you? I had taken a nice long break from forums.
What happened to the "like" button or what ever it was called?
I am fine..
The reputation button and the status were ditched as they were distracting everyone..
We were joking about it the day it changed;
Like this:
-
15 minutes ago, Faceless said:I have pretty much no knowledge of history lol
This thread has become a hot thread just by ROFLs and LOLs
Reading spiritual history, psychology and doing research on it etc is my hobby..
In my book, I had explained about a hypothetical proto-tradition from which all the traditions like Samkhya, Buddhism, Yoga and Vedanta evolved.. I realized in the last couple of days that I might have just found the name of that proto-tradition with convincing evidence. But I will still take it with a pinch of salt and explore more about it. I will be writing a detailed post in English soon. Because, a lot of information about this tradition is only available in Tamil.
-
Just now, Faceless said:This movement seems more intelligent
yes
...
-
3 minutes ago, Faceless said:What does rotfl mean??
Rolling On The Floor Laughing... like this:
-
One Zen student said, "My teacher is the best. He can go days without eating."
The second said, "My teacher has so much self-control, he can go days without sleep."
The third said, "My teacher is so wise that he eats when he's hungry and sleeps when he's tired."
-
2 minutes ago, Anna1 said:@Nahm ROTFL!
Hello Anna, How are you?
.. I missed your presence in this forum.
-
No one else is interested to watch the videos and discuss?
-
1 minute ago, Nahm said:@Shanmugam Yo!
Interesting. Thanks! I’ll watch em as I can and get back to you. Early human history, if Jesus and Buddha ever existed, enlightenment, etc...brings Quantum Erasure to mind (I’m admittedly juiced up on QM’s today). Have you looked into QE by chance? Will probably be in Leo’s part 2.
Thank you.. I am not an expert in Quantum mechanics. I am aware of the double-slit experiment. But when it comes to enlightenment and consciousness, I really don't need them to confirm anything; I know the nature of my reality through experience.
. I saw you guys discussing it in another thread.
As far as I am concerned, I will never get into things that I am not an expert of. And I don't need any external evidence for the fact that everything that I see and experience happens in the conscious experience..
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted
My response was mainly related to what exactly we are discussing on this thread... If you have really reached the end of seeking, then the following statement will certainly not make sense to you :
'After you have reached the end of seeking, there is much to seek'
Does it make sense at all?
And Leo and many others, while still seeking, insist that the seeking is really going to be forever. This is exactly what he is saying even though he is using different words... And with this understanding, he is attempting to guide hundreds of people in this forum. Even though he himself says that 'I can be wrong, I am not promoting any cult', the human nature is always to follow the herd and follow the person that they think as some authority. Only after having witnessed this enough in this forum, I am saying that this forum is slowly turning into a cult.
I am still not sure if you have actually gone through the whole discussion in this thread. Because, my reply was written in the context of the whole discussion.
You said you have been listening to Adyashanthi. Adyashanthi once said 'I have been fortunate enough to not to have any psychic powers'... He said something very significant. Because, the real teachers know that psychic powers are just distraction. But in this same thread, there is a post which insists the 'greatness' of psychic powers, paranormal, talking to aliens etc. And the reply was given to mean 'even though seeking has ended, there is still a lot to seek, like psychic powers, paranormal etc'.... This is a sign of delusion, because he thinks that he is enlightened...