Nothingness

Seen it, enjoyed it. Thanks

Let me make it more clear then: Nirvana: The Absolute Nothingness from our current point of view, as it surpasses every possible understanding, so one can't say it is "anything", but just "nothing", or perhaps apart from both.

Simplified: Individuality: Who you think you are (a person). Anatta: The reality of who you think you are... which is non-existent. Nonduality: What you consider the opposite of your relative dualistic existence (your definition of Nirvana's nature). Nirvana: The Absolute Reality.

I love OM. I used to practice Kriya Yoga, and used the mantra OM all the time. Probably chanted it millions of times. Now I know OM is external to me. If I perceive it, it just can't be who I am. It can't be Brahman. It might be Brahma (creator), as the OM sound is the primordial light-sound that is said to have created the Universe (big-bang). OM

The Heart language is truly the only language we should be speaking. Sri Ramana's quotes always bring me massive joy into the already present-joy.

Knowledge always follows after the Awareness. How can you know if there is no Awareness? Without awareness, you wouldn't know. What I am saying is that even the knowledge of "the alarm has awoken me up" comes after I have awareness of the world. This means that even "the alarm has awoken me up" is second to awareness, not prior, which means "the alarm has awoken me up" is a 'knowingness' that comes AFTER I give existence to the world by being aware of it. So this 'knowingness' and the world are both not self-existing and self-luminous on their own, ONLY when I am aware of them. Without my awareness of anything, that anything cannot simply exist for me. What exists must always be, not just sometimes. If it exists sometimes, appearing and dissapearing, it can't be the Real Existence, just a temporary existence, or as some like to call it, illusion. I am not equating 'knowledge' with 'exist'. Things exist if I am aware of them. I am equating existence with awareness. If I'm unconscious nothing exists for me. If a flying dolphin exists right now living in Saturn, and I wouldn't know about it, then how can we say it exists? We can only say it exists when we are aware that a flying dolphin living in Saturn exists (ex: I read about it on the NASA Website or saw on TV). I surely exist while I am sleeping, because when I wake in the morning, I know I slept. Or if someone wakes me up in the middle of the night and asks me what I was doing, I say, I'd was sleeping. Although not what I am saying, attributing a fictional cause to that awakening is also very well possible. What is aware of the world is the "conscious" mind, the unconscious mind is something different. Whenever I write "I" here, I am talking about the mind, although I know I am not really it.

You could say mom and dad created this body, but not this personality nor "me". You created me, without responsibility, just a joyful projection!

There is some okay-ish info in this short book, for sure. The contradictions in the teachings of a Sage is because they are addressing different levels of maturity. They have to say XXX to seeker B, but to seeker A they can say ZZZ. This looks like a contradiction, but it is not. They are simply like mirrors that reflect the level of the questioner. Avadhuta Gita is nice, I agree. Cheers

Hello Marblehead. Certainly, I am just a product of your imagination. If so, then I must come from you, from your own projection. If I come from you, then there must be no real difference between us in essence, which would make me, as you, the center of your universe!

Hi wstein, very good question. It is actually very hard to put this answer into words. The world awaking me up is a 'knowledge' of the mind AFTER it has awaken up. It is only after I (mind) wake up and become awareof the world that I can say that it was "the world" (siren, alarm etc) that has awoken me (mind) up. Therefore it is only after I am aware of the world that the 'knowledge' that the world has awoken me, emerges. This means that even this 'knowledge' needs my awareness to exist, so it (and the world) is still non-existing on its own. I'm not sure I managed to convey exactly what I wanted to say, it's easy to understand via direct experience though. What we have to ask ourselves is: Has the mind really risen up in the morning? Let's not assume it has and let's investigate..

I am really interested in knowing which books have you read, preferably short books that have put you into a state of bliss? Like for example, for me it was Ribhu Gita, chapter 26 as suggested by Ramana Maharshi. Thanks

This is spot on. There has to be ignorance for a person to be dreaming right? Now this makes a lot of confusion regarding things like Manonasa, where the absolute dissolution of the mind happens, yet the body mind of that person doesn't die. For whom doesn't it die?

This is a very complex theme. First of all it always depends on the perspective you are talking from. I wish someone would comment on it with such a precise, simple and clear way that gave no margin for assumptions or interpretations. From my own understanding and experience, when you wake up in the morning, the world appears. When you go to sleep at night, the world dissappears. Therefore, the world has no reality on its own apart from you. If it is not self shining and self existing, depending always upon your awareness for it to exist, then it is 100% like a dream. We say dreams are unreal and illusory. So the world must also be considered unreal and illusory based on this assumption.

Thanks for these resources. I have heard great things about Kashmir Shaivism and from what I remember it was very very interesting. They explained all very well and precisely. I will dig a bit more into it now.

There is no reason for manifestation.. It is not understandable for the mind. I have heard many satsang gurus saying it was for the Absolute to experience the relative.. but who knows? Doesn't make much sense to me. Who would know both the relative and absolute? They are both existent from the perspective of the relative only.

Hi. Thanks for this post. I actually don't like this book at all. It seems like the translation wasn't done very well, since Ramana Maharshi supposedly recommend this book, yet the book contradicts a lot of Ramana core teachings.. I prefer Ashtavakra Gita

Gurunath is not a fake guru. He teaches kriya yoga and is genuine, but kriya is not a direct path, like most yogas.

Is this the same Sri M from this thread: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43045-kriya-yoga/ ? No right? This is Sri Madhukarnath while that thread's Sri M is Sri Rangin Mukherjee? Thanks!

Hi everyone, new here, but I've been lurking for quite a while. I've been practicing Kriya Yoga for a while and also been doing some Self-inquiry. I'm also a big fan of Daoism and Chinese Alchemy, although I don't know much about it. I would love to discuss lots of stuff here and share & learn more from all the advanced users here, I know there are many hidden gems here Thanks!

Thanks for the warm welcome everyone