dwai

🙏🏾🙇🏻

It’s a good article albeit I find his statement about Yoga in India being “western Yoga” a bit silly. Real Yoga and Tantra is not what you get in typical Yoga shalas in India. It’s important to know the right people to get the right connections.

When you awaken you will realize that your appearance, status, wealth, relationship status, none of that matters. Also there are people here who can help you in your path. The question to you is — do you WANT to wake up? It’s not in our control but wanting to do it helps minimize the side effects

One day I was doing some spiritual work with a friend of mine and in the process entered the astral plane. In that plane, I found a tall skinny man with mustache and a funny hat (Karakul). He was standing at the bottom of a rocky mountain. He started climbing the mountain side and I went with him. At the peak was a temple like structure with a fire burning in the center. It was an ancient fire, that had never been extinguished since it was lit up thousands of years ago. I asked him..."Who are you?". He said "I am Zarathustra!" I asked him..."What can you show me?" He said "Enter this fire with me..." He stepped into the fire and so did I. The fire felt cool (instead of burning hot). At first the flames swirled and danced; and then a spiral arose and Zarathustra and I were one with it. It spun faster and faster and then exploded. In that instant, I was everywhere, I was everything and everyone. I was the Sun, I was sunlight, I was all things it shone upon and illuminated. I was also all things it did not illuminate. It was known in a flash...in that very moment I was everything and everything was me. Thought I'd write this down for posterity

You are picking up the transmission of the Universe at this time when it is strongest. It is called the Brahmamuhurta. Try sitting down and meditating at this time and see what you feel

I thought I'd write a bit about Non-duality, based on statements like -- Non-duality claims there is only One and not two, and that it is possible to know there is underlying non-separateness without being a single "thing". That there are still individuals but they are not separate. Somehow the notion that Non-duality implies "a One Thing", has taken hold. What does Non-duality really mean? Some statements towards that end -- The Non-dual cannot be described in words The mind cannot reach Non-duality Non-dual means no duality - in other words, no subject-object distinction Subject-object duality is our primary day to day experience. Everything we experience is predicated on the subject-object duality. I, the subject, experience objects that are separate from me. In experiencing these objects, I come to know them. Our reality is what we know, and we know objects. Even my body is an object to me, the "I". My mind, is an object to me, the "I". Mind I define as a stream of objects rising and falling in consciousness. That begs the question -- who is this "I"? An exercise that I found very useful, (I borrowed from Papaji, the Advaita master from India (Ramana Maharshi's student)) is to have someone inquire thus -- "In a fraction of a second, tell me who you are". The usual response is "I am XYZ". Then response becomes "that took more than a fraction of a second..it took maybe 1 or 2 seconds even to respond to". In a fraction of a second, tell me who you are. Depending on the individual, the eventually are stumped as they don't get an answer. They cannot articulate anything about their identity. So, then the follow-on question is - "What do you know about who you are in a fraction of a second?" After some more attempts, it becomes clear "I know I am". In essence, this is who "I" is. Existence and awareness. We can't even say whether "I am aware because I exist...or I exist because I'm aware". They are one and the same. So then, this begs the question - what about all these objects that we know? Do they exist separately from "I" (or the I AM)? Isn't our experience predicated on our being and being aware? So how can the objects exist independent of the "I"? Counter-arguments ensue..."but they existed before...your parents saw you...your children will see after you". But what are your parents and your children? Are they too not objects to your "I"? We make assumptions about our model of reality on the basis of the experiences we have. Most are oblivious to the "being and being aware" or the "I AM". The reality is a construct of objects. We identify with these objects. We might go from the "I am XYZ...of ABC nationality, Male or Female, etc etc" model to "I am not separate from others but there is no inherent "oneness"" model. Still, these are models based on subject-object duality. "I" the subject am still experiencing "objects". These objects are "things". Non-duality, says there is no subject-object separation at all. There is no One, there is No Two. There are No "Things". "One" and "Two" are in the domain of things. When we operate from the perspective of "I" and "things", it is duality. Whether we see separateness or non-separateness. Whether we see unity or diversity. If there is an "I" and an "Other", it is duality. Things appear and disappear. What is the only constant in this dualistic model? The "I". What are the characteristics of "I"? Presence, now! There is no past, there is no future. Only naked awareness, right here, right now. How can one then say, that the "I" in me, is separate and distinct from the "I" in you? Where is the possibility of "me and you" in "right here, right now"? All there is, is presence. What happens when we stay abiding with "I"? Even the "I" disappears. When "I" and "things" both are gone, then there is non-duality.

The sanskrit verse that describes a Mantra goes such -- It means - "By contemplation on which one is protected". What is one protected from? It could be many things. It could be from the cycle of birth and death itself.

Thank you too for sharing such a powerful and direct exposition of the Way here. _/|\_

This is also true. Either method can follow the other. I followed this first but by mechanically inquiring “who am I” until it “clicked”! It’s not advanced at all but very simple. I’d left the part you suggested out as I suspect that would automatically follow.

There is a 12 Chakra model too iinm...in certain tantric traditions.

Also Eight directions. Left Right, Up Down, Back Front, Inside Outside.

That is a great question. The "Inquiry" process is meant to lead the seeker back to the "I" via this type of intellectual process. Something caused me to become angry/upset/sad...etc. Inquire - "Who is it that is feeling Angry/Upset/Sad...?" Answer comes "I am". Inquire - "Who am I?" Leads back to the "Who am I in a fraction of a second". The seeker will have found that there is "no thing" there to describe...only the feeling of "being". So the intellectual inquiry always leads to not finding an "object" for the mind to rest in. Abiding is built up slowly, like this process. It is very boring for the mind..but there has to be genuine desire to follow through with this process.

This is a great link to start the discussion too -- http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras.htm Let's start with Samadhi Pada.

Swami Rama is legit...haven't see his videos on this subject yet, but good resource I'm sure. Thanks for sharing

You are entitled to your opinions of course. But imho, you think that way because because you are looking at it intellectually. There is nothing intellectual about abiding the the "I". It is a very non-intellectual process in fact. It is as easy as holding on to the feeling that you get when you try to describe yourself in a fraction of a second. Try it.

Unfortunately you are conflating Yoga (in the Patanjali/Samkhya tradition - on which I find your analysis incorrect) with Jnana Yoga, which is what "Abiding in the I" is pat of. Like I said, you can intellectualize this all you want but you won't get anywhere with it. The only way to know is to dive in. However, since you said Dzogchen works for you, please stick to it. I think it is a bit premature for you to claim that "Abiding in the I" doesn't work when you've not tried it. I see it in action with several people, and the effect it has on cutting through layers of ignorance. The most important thing in their case was that they were willing practice this. That said, not everyone is ready for this type of inquiry easily. When I started down this path first around 20 years ago, I didn't have the single-pointedness of attention, or the clarity to understand what was needed. So I had to approach this in a different way. One was with the meditation on a mantra I was given in a dream by an unknown benefactor. With constant practice on that Mantra, unbeknownst to me, a clarity started to develop. Also, along with that my Taijiquan and Daogong practices helped with developing single-pointed attention of the mind. I had what is called a "shakti-pat" from my Master, who cleared away stuff that was blocking my clarity even further. After that, is when I was able to do this type of inquiry. However, my personal experiences are TL;DR and will probably bore everyone. So, to make a long story short let me share what I feel gets lost in the intellectual analyses we indulge in so gleefully. In order to pursue the Jnana-yoga style Self-Inquiry (such as abiding in the I and so on), clarity is required. In order for clarity to develop, a single-pointedness of the mind is required. In order to develop single-pointedness of the mind, some people require other preparatory processes (such as Raja yoga, Pranayama, Mantra meditation, Taijiquan, other mindfulness practices etc etc). Jnana yoga is called the "Direct Path", but not everyone is ready for it easily. It takes what is called "antahakaranashuddhi" (or purification of the "consciousness-ego-mind-intellect" complex) before it can be undertaken. It is amazing how deep and how subtle the layers ignorance are. And they keep building back up even after clearing away if we don't stay vigilant (till the conditions are right).

You mean the "Abiding in the I"? The "I" being referred to here is the basis of manifestation itself. It is not the same as the "Ego" (which is the personality). Think of this as the only thing you know for a fact as a sentient human being about yourself. Everything else is conceptual...layers acquired over time. When we abide in this "I" for sufficient length of time (no one can say how much is enough..it varies from personality to personality), it, the "I" disappears. This is something one has to practice. It cannot be understood intellectually.

Glad we cleared that bit...

Beautifully explained — thanks

@Wells I see the point you are making and appreciate that. Thank you

That One is all there is, everywhere and also nowhere.

This is "trolling" imho. This shows you did not read the OP and/or did not understand it. Therefore you are making the same straw-man argument that the OP was pointing at. No where in the OP is mentioned that the "Ego" is involved. Okay I don't think there is any opposition to that. You are of course assuming that "mind" means the same thing to you and Vedanta. Can you share what you mean by "mind"? This is wonderful

I guess the shoe fit?

@Moderator team i suspect a trolling effort is starting off and I'd like to inform you to keep an eye on this thread. Intention of OP wasn't to compare Buddhism and Hinduism etc but a discussion on Non-duality. I'd very much prefer to keep it that way. Anyone who wants to delve deeper (outside of some of the constructive feedback we saw on this thread from Steve, CT, et al) into that rabbit hole (Buddhism vs Hindu understanding of Non-duality) can do so outside the Hindu sub-forum.

Now you might accuse me of flogging an already dead horse, but I'd like to suggest that "this" is not the same as the "horse" that is considered already dead. The Vedantic Atman is not the same as that which is considered "self" in the general sense of the word. Atman and Nairatman (Anatta) is a massive "bone of contention" between Advaita Vedanta and Bauddha dharma, but it is rooted in half-understood concepts of what specifically Atman means from the point of view of Advaita Vedanta. In Vedanta there is the concept of Jiva (a generic concept found in other systems of Hindu Dharma as well). Jiva literally means "living being". The key features of Jiva are as follows -- Jiva is born and therefore must die (has a beginning and an end) Jiva the personality that transmigrates from one lifetime to another (or in other words, re-incarnates) Jiva comprises of the five sheaths or panchakoshas -- the annamaya kosha or the sheath of food (anna means rice, literally), or the physical body The pranamaya kosha or the sheath of prana (life force), or the energy body the manomaya kosha or the sheath of the mind, or the mental body the vijnanamaya kosha or the sheath of the intellect the anandamaya kosha or the sheath of bliss As one goes from outward focus (of the mind) to inward focus (towards finding the source of the mind), one encounters each of these sheaths or layers in meditation. Just as one clearly experiences and operates with their physical body and the thinking mind, one also experiences their energy body, their intellect (which is different from the mind in the indic tradition) or even the blissful nature at a higher level of experience. The jiva predicates Ishwara, or God as the source of creation. With the help of the mind, body and intellect, jiva lives it's limited life, with one of several (or combinations thereof) of positions - There is no ishwara and all of this (material world) is a result of happen-chance interaction of matter. There is an Ishwara who is the creator, maintainer and destroyer and one's actions in their lifetime predicates whether they go to heaven (eternal joy and pleasure) or hell (eternal suffering and pain). This type follow specific doctrinal guidelines which are purported to be resultant in their being able to go to heaven or hell, depending on how faithfully they have followed said doctrines. There is an Ishwara who does create, maintain and destroy the universe, but the Jiva has the ability to unite with this Ishwara through devotion, right action, yoga, etc etc. They still hold a separation between themselves and Ishwara, and their union with Ishwara is that of a benevolent Lord and devotee (or a parent and child). Atman points to something else completely. Unlike the limited nature of the jiva who lives in a body, and depending on one's belief -- transmigrates across lifetimes or goes to heaven or hell for eternity or starts as matter and ends as matter, the Atman -- is pure subject predicate, without which no manifestion can happen. At least that much is verifiable intellectually, from an "individual" perspective. It is neither a soul nor a personality. It is pure consciousness. It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time. However, both space and time appear in it. It is not something that can be experienced using the normal faculties and apparatuses (like the mind and the inner and outer senses). It can be directly known - Aparoksha Anubhuti. What Emptiness means in this case, is that it is empty of "thing"ness. It cannot be captured with any of the sensory apparatuses. It cannot be described by the mind. If the mind tries to find it, it fails and finds only stillness and silence instead. The question that many people ask is "if that is the case, why call it Atman or Self?". The answer is because there is nothing more intimate than this. It is the root and the basis of everything we know. Knowing (with the mind and intellect) cannot be without it. What else can something so intimate be called? That which is called "nairatman or Anatta" is the jiva itself. It is the non-self. Atman is the selfless Self. It is the lightless light. However, it must be pointed out that ultimately, the Jiva is not different or separate from the Atman, because then, that would clearly be dualistic in nature. Jiva is a phenomenon that occurs as a result of mistaken identification with one of the five koshas, and primarily the lower 3 koshas. More questions follow after this -- Why does that happens? It doesn't really happen. It only appears to happen... How can you explain the fact that you (and others) wrote so many pages and commentaries on this topic. If it doesn't really happen, who and what is writing, and who and what is reading this? The appearance of separate beingness (jiva) is reading this. The jiva who appears to have been awakened, is writing this. So the Self is reading what the Self has written. Or no one is reading nothing, ultimately. It doesn't really matter In my humble opinion and experience, irrespective of what one sees or experiences, the root of one's consciousness in the manifest state, is the "I-ness" (aka I AM or I-I). This exists as witness to all things rising and falling, and staying with it, all things appear as part of it itself. The road, the landscapes, sky, people, animals, trees etc all are it's very own Self. This I have experienced before starting with the mind expansions and also after the mind expanded. This root does not change -- it remains empty and ever-present.