dwai

The Vedic tradition had two primary modes of practice -- One is that of fire sacrifices and ritualistic meditation. The Vedic fire sacrifices were not just physical things being done -- there were esoteric actions performed too. What was being done externally, also needed to be done internally. That was the way for balance to be maintained in the external world, as well as the internal world. Similarly with Mantras -- the mantra practice tradition was borrowed by Buddhists as well The other mode of practice was the contemplative one -- where the sages would contemplate on the nature of reality, perform self-inquiry. Typically the self-inquiry aspect was done after sufficient disciplined efforts in the ritualistic mode of practice. Also, some would have us believe that the first mode was the older way, and the contemplative/inquiry-based was a later development. So they call the first mode as "purva mimamsa" and the second mode as "uttara mimamsa" or "vedanta". All Vedic knowledge is stored in the Vedas, of which there are four, and three are primary -- Rig Veda, Yajur Veda and Sāma Veda. The fourth, Atharva Veda is considered a later addition. The vedic material is organized in layers. First layer is called the Samhitas -- which basically are a compilation of mantras, the Brahmanas -- these relate to the ritualistic aspect of the practice. These two form what is called the "karma kānda" (or action part) of the Vedas. Then we have the Aranyakas and the Upanishads -- these form the jnana kanda (the Wisdom part) of the Vedas. Vedanta as a system is based on the knowledge that the sages recorded in the Upanishads. Some practitioners opted to deal with the Karma Kanda of the Vedas -- and their path toward liberation was a gradual one -- where the individual soul evolved from human to higher realms, eventually reaching Satya loka, the realm of Light. This is considered the older way. The other was the Jnana way, and in this, Vedanta, especially Advaita Vedanta (Non-dual Vedanta) provides the "Direct Path" -- without the evolutionary process, realize your true nature, and become liberated right here, right now. This is considered the "newer" Vedic way. Now, new and old are relative terms. Internal pointers in the Vedic literature point to a period of 22,000 years into antiquity (though this will be vehemently disputed by Western Historians) for the older mode. The newer mode is more a development from at least 12-14 thousand years back. vis-a-vis The Buddha and the Brahmin priests -- interestingly enough, the Buddha was not a Buddhist He didn't create a religion per se -- by the time of the Buddha, the old Vedic tradition had gone into decline and the popular philosophical traditions were Samkhya (a dualistic system which is somewhat mirrored by the modern perspective of panpsychism) and the sramana tradition (called Jainism today). The Sramanas believed in extreme austerities -- starving, forcefully standing on only one foot for years at a time, and so on. The Samkhyans had a lot of meditative techniques and an elaborate cosmology (which is the basis of modern Hindu cosmology to a large extent). The Buddha studied with both schools -- his first teacher, Kaundinya was probably a Samkhyan. His teacher, Alara Kalama was from the Sramana tradition. So was Uddaka Ramaputta. Even after going beyond his teachers in both skill and depth of understanding, the Buddha didn't feel that what he learnt took him beyond suffering. So he contemplated further, and the rest, as they say, is history.

These are similar to the “Yama-Niyama” guidelines in Patanjali Yoga. What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander Yes. In the old world, one became qualified by living a life in accordance to the Vedic tradition. In the modern world, the factors are not as cut and dry. But can be developed through preparatory meditation (yoga, seated meditation, neigong, etc), selfless service of others (even one’s own family), devotion to a deity (one or all of the steps outlined). Once the mind has been purified and focused, with a strong thirst for liberation and the detachment for worldly things, if one begins a systematic study of Advaita Vedanta, success is guaranteed (imho). Self-realization is Brahmajnana/tattvajnana. Jivanamukti is a specific “state” pertaining to the apparently separate individual who was formerly the seeker, who after the culmination of their practices realizes that they are actually the “knower”.

I don't think there's any harm in describing the yogic process -- so at least people are aware of what it entails. Yogic techniques/teachers are far more widely available than real Neidan/Neigong teachers. Think of it like buying a book on Kundalini yoga etc...enough to let someone know what a legit system entails, so people at least know better than to find themselves in a booty-sculpting yoga studio, i.e., if their primary intention is spiritual and not booty cultivation

I didn’t actually give out details

God didn’t create per se. It only appears that way — In ignorance, God created, God punishes, God loves, God this or that. In wisdom, everything is Pure Being. Do you remember when you fell in love for the first time? How the world seemed?

It’s a bit of a longish discussion. We have deities, and then there is “Ishwara”, closest we can come to a “creator God”. Ishwara is awareness through the filter of pure Satva. We are all awareness through the filter of a mixture of Tamas, Rajas and satva. In fact, the causal body is literally awareness filtered through tamas (which is why we don’t remember the bliss/experience of deep sleep). Now we have to understand what the gunas are — satva, rajas and tamas - which is another long story . To summarize, the world, God and us (apparently separate beings in the world) are nothing but Awareness/Self/Brahman. When veiled by ignorance, we consider the world (normal materialist view). When veiling is dropped, we realize that it is all nothing but awareness/Self/Brahman.

It’s best to stick to the traditional one until you develop the ability to discern. Yes, for that you have to accept the tradition as well. Good — very happy that you didn’t get caught in such a mess. Sounds dodgy as hell TBH the combination of “Indonesian” and “traditional Hindu nonduality” sets off warning signals right away. I’d stay faaaaar away. Interestingly, I had a series of long conversations with someone who I hold in very high regard, is a direct disciple of the previous shankaracharya of the Sringeri Math, a direct disciple of master Sheng-yen (among other credentials) about the phenomenon of these “Gurus” and their cults (such as Osho, Et al). He said that these Gurus are essentially janma Siddhas (they are born with Siddhis due to past life practices) and generate a lot of spiritual power very quickly because of that. However, their movements don’t survive long after they’re gone (die) or usually as they age, because supporting millions of followers takes its toll on them - literally depletes their immense spiritual power. That’s why it’s best to stick with a traditional lineages, so that the power of the lineage will act as the wind in the seeker’s sails once the guru is gone. Lineages have a lot of power — if possible we must find and stick to a lineage. But that is not up to us, as many factors, such as karma play a big role. If one can’t become part of a lineage with enough pedigree, stay away from the “power focused” teachers and stick to zen, Advaita Vedanta or some wisdom tradition as they are relatively lower risk.

what else can you exercise? is there some other kind of awareness? PS: what you cultivate and grow is your attention — work with the mind. One can neither increase or decrease awareness — only veil it or unveil it. When fully veiled, it is deep sleep. When partially unveiled it is dreaming and waking. When fully unveiled, Being. There is only Being. God the ultimate creator is also an appearance in this pure being — awareness.

The best practice of non dual wisdom is done alone. There is no need for ashrams and satsangs. If you have access to a realized teacher to answer questions as they arise, that’s all you need. To repeat a cliche — Truth is mostly a solitary path. One of the most effective ‘’modern” schools of Advaita Vedanta is the Chinmaya Mission - they have hundreds (if not thousands) of centers all over the world. One does develop a sense of community there. They put a lot of emphasis on tradition, service, a wholesome way to live. There is usually a Swami who is an ordained monk, who is the spiritual head of the Center, and one or more Acharyas who are the teachers that have gone through the formal and most rigorous training. They act as friends, guides and so on. Get caught up with ashram hopping, etc, and ymmv.

it’s very serious, very difficult knowledge to acquire — so difficult that it takes thousands of lifetimes to learn. Send me 100 baskets of dark chocolate and I’ll tell you (in secret) 😜 No, but seriously, our Self is already immortal - in the sense that it was never born, it will never die. Realize who you are, and you’ll know too

That’s right — no body is perfect

But you are already immortal 🤷‍♂️

What do you think will enable you to find out? That is a very good question. The only way to find out is....well....to find out by inquiry These are not separate "things" per se. A wave (nirmanakaya) is not separate from the ocean (sambhogakaya), and both are nothing apart from water (dharmakaya). Self-realization does not lead to any "realm" per se. It results in your understanding that you ARE awareness itself, and every "thing" that appears and disappears, are phenomena within you. This realization is very subtle. In fact, it is so subtle that 99% will miss it. Among the 1% who "get it", 99% will reject it as unimportant. The nature of the mind is to land on, and latch onto "things" (objects). So, when we see that who we truly are, can never become an object of knowledge, the natural reaction is to reject it as "nothing", or "not important". If we are to continue with the metaphor, who seeks immortality? The wave? The ocean? Water is already immortal. When you realize you ARE water itself, what immortality would you care for?

Who becomes immortal?

I didn't say it won't take time. I didn't say it was easy either Each of us will operate on, and deal with the karmic influences we have brought with us into this manifestation. If someone needs to work on their physicality, so be it. it is not necessary for liberation (beyond a certain point). P.S. What three bodies? Those that arise in Awareness? They rise and they fall. In reality, the three bodies are nothing apart from awareness itself. What levels? Those that arise in, are made up off and dissolve back into awareness? They are nothing apart from awareness. Who needs to evolve? The bound being, at varying levels of bondage? Those are only appearances in awareness -- actually no one is really bound, and no one becomes free (I'm sure that'll raise a few hackles....)

Yes of course, so it is for all of us as we set upon the (eventually pathless) path.

That meditation vs qigong video popped up on my radar last evening, so I watched it. I enjoyed quite a bit of it. However, he is quite incorrect (imho) in the “cycle” of awakening vs enlightenment vs immortality presented. Awakening/enlightenment is the way out of the cycle of rebirths, though I understand when he says immortality is a graduation ceremony to the higher heavens. What he proposes is what we call “krama mukti” in Hindu traditions — it is a gradual process, sort of like graduation at different levels of education. It is thoroughly rejected as being the only way, by the wisdom schools such as Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta - which is why the non dual systems are called the “Direct Path” — if you know your true nature, you can bypass all the stuff. BTW even if one becomes an immortal in a higher heaven as a deity, they would still need to come back to what is called a “karma bhumi” (realm of action) in order gain liberation.

Why should lack of fear give rise to recklessness? Reckless implies, “consequences be damned, I will do what I want”. The primary assumption is that “fear” here implies “fear of consequences”. But consequences are results of actions. What one sows, so shall they reap. Why would “reckless behavior” not result in appropriate consequences? I would say that fearlessness simply eliminates the psychological barriers that prevent pure/perfect action — the action that arises from innate goodness, perfection that is the Self of everyone.

That’s a precursor imho. Intellectual curiosity is a good first step, but it is the driving thirst for liberation that separates the dilettantes from the serious practitioners.

Good question. If you are sensitive (ie have the ability to discern between different energetic qualities), you can sense what kind of energy an individual is generating. A very good thing would be to be around people who have a lot of “satva”. What is satva? It is spiritual clarity. There is a serenity, and joyfulness that will make you feel that way around them. An example would be Amma or Mata Amritanandamayi. This is opposed to “Rajas”, which is a very active, kinetic kind of energy. Some people have that — one example would be sadhguru jaggi vasudev. That’s not to say that both these teachers don’t have spiritual clarity, but I prefer the satvic kind. Other than that, I look at the people around them. If a majority are acting like mindless, fawning sycophants, I will stay away. I got away from the art of living movement because of that, and it’s predominantly why I stay away from “rockstar” teachers beyond a occasional visit (the teachers such as Amma and Sadhguru are great imho) — it is almost impossible to get into their inner circle, as the people who control access to them will almost never let you get close enough to have a 1x1 conversation with the teachers. I like to have a close and personal relationship with my teacher — and was lucky enough to find two who have helped me over the years. WRT the pre-requisites(and I’ve posted about this here earlier too) — the traditional guidelines on these are as follows — https://sriramanamaharishi.com/my_keywords/sadhana-chatushtaya/ These are “qualifications” one must develop before/during the study of Advaita Vedanta. A good gauge for a seeker, is the intensity of their thirst for liberation (or to know). The stronger the thirst, the more prepared we are. At one point, it seems like “everything else is inconsequential — I have to know, I have to find out, even if it is the last thing I ever do”... As far as whether one can be deluding themselves vs objective signs in terms of Self-realization, here are some more thoughts : Self-realization is self-evident. There is no need for external validation. What is needed is total self-honesty and the courage to self-assess -- this goes hand in hand with the qualifications listed above. What can be validated in the self-inquiry based path is the level of understanding a practitioner has. This is done in one of several ways - Do the realizations/understandings (there will be many mini ones, which arise as "a-ha! that is what x, y or z means" -- zen Buddhism calls this kensho) correspond to what is outlined in the traditional texts? When discussing the understanding/mini-realizations with someone with authority (a recognized expert in the field, need not be famous), do they agree with what you (the practitioner) have to say? There is more-or-less complete cessation of fear (compulsive or otherwise) A deep sense of serenity and acceptance arises There is an expansion in terms of the identity (no longer bound by "me and mine" type mentality) A deep level of generosity arises Deep compassion arises Basically, when we know, we know. There is not an iota of doubt anymore about the nature of reality or Self. The earlier questions/doubts that arise during the process of inquiry are resolved. Advaita Vedanta (and in general the Wisdom paths) tend to be Self-evident and our own mundane lives will be transformed as a result thereof. There are two distinct stages in the switch from seeker to "adept" (though I balk at the word, I can't find a more appropriate one in english here, in sanskrit/indian languages we would use the word 'jñānī') -- Brahmavid -- One who has had a direct and irreversible realization of their True Nature jivanamukta -- One who is liberated while embodied Sometimes, there is no gap between being a brahmavid and jivanamukta. But most often, it is a process of what is called "vasanakshaya" or erosion of the habitual patterns of the mind which arise from karmic influences, specifically the activated karmic fruits which produce the present physical manifestation. Why that happens is dependent on whether the proper preparatory work has been completed or not. For someone who has already completed the preparatory work, there is virtually no gap between brahmajnana/tattvajnana and jivanamukti. -- and they are called "krtopāsaka. For most, especially in the modern world, it is the second category, that of an "akrtopāsaka", who has not yet completed all the preparatory work. Such people might experience what is called "viparita bhāvana" (contrary tendencies), and they won't enjoy the complete fruit of embodied-realization until the point that they do. If they don't, upon the dropping of the physical body, they are liberated (videha mukti). The book that is considered to contain the highest teachings of the Advaita Vedanta tradition -- The Ashtavakra Gita states that "One who knows that they are liberated, are liberated. One who considers that they are in bondage, are in bondage". No extraordinary siddhis are necessary or required for Self-realization. I'm not just saying these things -- it is the traditional view. That being said, many of the realized masters were also great yoga/tantra siddhas, and hence had yogic siddhis (such as omniscience, ability to bi-locate, etc etc). Yogic Siddhis and Self-realization, are un-related. One could have many Yogic siddhis, and yet not have Self-realization. One could be Self-realized, and not have any Yogic Siddhis.

I am inclined to agree.

Mostly people won’t know if someone is “enlightened” or not, irrespective of whether that someone claims so or otherwise. Personally for me, I see how I feel in someone’s presence — for example, when I’m with my teacher, I always feel joy, love and total lack of any pretension from him. He is like a child — a 70+ year old child. I prefer his company over stern monks with their rules and rituals. I also know others who I suspect are enlightened, i.e., have Self-realization and a dropping of most habitual patterns of the mind, and they each have different personalities. Some like to travel, some like to cook, some like to eat, and so on. Being enlightened doesn’t mean the individual is suddenly sterilized of their personality or superficial quirks Some people, when you listen to them speak, speak from the core (true nature) with minimal to no filters of the acquired mind, as opposed to, most others, speaking from the acquired mind and its ways. Such people, will point you back to your true nature, and you might find yourself falling into deep silence and stillness. A couple of “famous” westerners who can do that are Eckhart Tolle and Rupert Spira. So in summary, mostly, enlightened people can’t be recognized if they stood in front of us. But also, if we took the time to really listen, true nature can speak to true nature, depending on how thin the obscuration is in the mind of the listener.

Let us examine the “shame” aspect. What is shame? Is it not a “loss of face”? What does this “face” represent? A story we tell ourselves and project outward — a persona to uphold. Isn’t the fear of loss of that face also a fear of (ego) death (in terms of that narrative)? Ultimately, fear of death operates at various layers depending on how deep one is able to go. For the ego, the ultimate death is the death of the body. But it will fight like crazy to protect all the other identities it affixes upon the self. Let’s take courage for the sake of protecting one’s property. Is that not a result of an identification of said property with the self? A story we tell ourselves. That too is a sort of ego-death. Aversion of, and the desire to cling to (identity, property, ideas, notion) is all rooted in the fear of (ego) death. Drill down deep enough, it is always aversion to death (of the ego) that drives fear and what one would consider ‘courage’ in the transactional sense. But that ‘courage’ is not real courage, because to become fearless, one must first realize one’s true nature. Once true nature is known, fear disappears. There is no need for artificial “courage” any longer. @ilumairen — see above for your answer.

True on the wisdom perspective. Yet it is the more correct and refined perspective imho. (And I duck the brickbats)

It means you missed the entire point of what I’ve been saying — all fear derives from the fear of death. Pain, suffering - the aversion to these is also derived from the fear of death. In fact, I’m willing to state that your analysis is what is at fault here. That people go to war for their nation or family is no indication that they are not afraid of death, but rather that they transcend the fear of death by putting others above themselves (a momentary suspension of the ego).