gatito

Spot on!!

OK - but if we're going to discuss this we need to agree our terms. There are (apparently ) many minds. "One Mind" is not advaita and mind is not Knowing/Being or Consciousness.

I've already said that I don't regard Benthino and many other neo-advaitans as authorities on advaita. I find them confused.

Consciousness is not mind. Consciousness is not one because this implies two - instant duality.

It's not realising "nothingness". Consciousness is always awake and always aware.

Either nonduality is seen clearly or it is not. It is direct Knowledge - not "learning" or "belief". Uh,

Actually, it really is that simple. The problem comes when the dualising mind tries to conceptualise what is Real This has nothing to do with algebra. Not-twoness does not equal Oneness.

When "It" is seen clearly, it is seen that there is no separate entity to reincarnate. "There is only Consciousness and even that is saying too much" GG (I might have slightly misquoted from memory but if you doubt that I'll see if I can locate the actual quote. Greg doesn't deconstruct into one mind - there are many apparent minds but there are not many Consciousnesses. It doesn't work to mix and match like that. Greg teaches Direct Path and he teaches Emptiness. They're different approaches.

I don't consider that either Bentinho or Thusness are authorities on advaita and I can't discuss Nisargadatta because I've never studied his writings in any depth. Just to reiterate: either Bentinho was teaching from a position of having seen the Truth of non-duality himself or he was not. Clearly if he changed his mind about it, he was not. It really is that simple.

That's interesting because Bentinho Massaro is one of the rapidly-growing crop of neo-adviatans (like Jeff Foster and the original - Tony Parsons). If he's now changed his tune then that's evidence that he was teaching from ignorance previously and it begs the question - why should anyone believe that he's got it right now?

Consciousness is Knowing/Being. It's that which is reading these words. It's nature is Love/Peace/Happiness. It's usually conceptualised as being personal/individual - but this is just an unexamined belief. If Consciousness was limited and personal, it would have a boundary or edge. Can you actually find the boundary or edge of "your" Consciousness? Is it not strange that you cannot? Remember that this is quite subtle and it can take many years to investigate this question properly and for the previous false belief to fade away.

You might find this helpful: - http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/read/the_experience_of_deep_sleep If that doesn't do it for you, if you go here: - http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/read/#questions and search the page for the term "sleep" (CTRL F in firefox), you'll find a few other questions relating to your hypothesis.

There's no evidence that Consciousness is ever absent, or that It ever ceases Being. It's necessary to investigate one's own experience quite carefully in order to see this clearly. You'll find that particular prakriya in Verse 5 of Atma Darshan (Page 11 of the 1983 edition).

I resonate strongly with what you say here dwai and I recently came across an audio of part of a satsang with Rupert Spira, which I feel could be of great value to many of those here who are looking for a fireworks display etc. because sometimes this does happen and when it does it often gets blown-up out of proportion. The fireworks display can also cause the seeker serious problems afterwards because they misinterpret its significance and go chasing after a repeat performance: - The Separate Self Hiding in the Spiritual Search http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/listen/the-separate-self-hiding-in-the-spiritual-search Although fireworks displays sometimes occur, I've seen that for most people it doesn't happen that way and there also often appears to be a two-stage process, which appears to occur as "enlightenment" (fireworks display) followed by "self-realisation" (which could be seen either as an integration or as a dropping-away of residues). I've also seen people who have had fireworks displays teaching from ignorance, as "neo-advaitans" and, IME, I've found that most people find that absolutist viewpoint unhelpful when they haven't actually seen "It" themselves. Also, it's not for anyone to convince anyone else of the reality of what's seen but for the seeker to investigate their own experience in the present moment thoroughly and thereby to free themselves of all beliefs and uncover the underlying Happiness, Peace and Love that is always present. Usually, the help of a friend is necessary. One final point:- I've heard it said that religions are started by the people who didn't "get it". The one's who "got it" are so busy having fun that they aren't interested in starting religions.

Firstly, I agree with your third sentence. However, the Self is that which is reading these words. It is Knowing/Being. That is Self-evident. It is the Subject of all apparent objects (and on deeper investigation It is seen to be the substance of all apparent objects).

Welcome to the Tao Bums Robert. I hope that you enjoy your time here and that you find it useful.

I don't think that awakening and self-realisation is something which prevents anyone from enjoying the full spectrum of emotions - it's just that the underlying "satchitananda" of Consciousness is seen never to be absent. Not being able to feel some emotions would be a limitation rather than a freedom.

I'd forgotten Mott the Hoople and I really liked that track back in the day. Today is another Dido track for me.

Greg compares and contrasts the Direct and the Progressive Path

Hi TI I'm not sure that I can help you with this much more, as my own direct experience tallies with what Rupert and Francis describe and I don''t experience more than one "I" myself. As I've said before, I can't really comment with any authority on Ramana and Nisargadatta because I haven't studied their writings. I'd also clarify the fact that neither Rupert nor Francis are neo-advaitans. A good working definition of neo-advaita is "Teaching which does not recognize the existence of teacher, seeker, path, etc and which attempts to communicate the nature of reality directly" (see www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/teachers.htm - http://www.advaita.o...rs/teachers.htm ). These teachers (who deny the value or the existence of teachers) are invariably self taught. (One shining exception is Scott Killoby who had the humility and intelligence to become one of Greg Goode's students in order to refine his own understanding and teaching.) You'll find more detail on lineage here:- Direct Path Teachers: - http://www.advaita.o...direct_path.htm Disciples of Atmanada Krishna Menon:- http://www.advaita.o...a_parampara.htm My own background includes both the progressive and the direct path and from this perspective, I'd suggest that you seem to be trying to mix the two together, which doesn't really work and will probably lead to great confusion. Even within the direct path teachings of Krishna Menon alone, there are warnings that one should not mix the various prakriyas and no attempt should be made to reconcile them with each other, as it is confusing, counterproductive and unnecessary. Trying to reconcile different teachers is a recipe for disaster. "Go deep, not wide" Wide can come later - if you can be bothered later. G

Hey TI! That''s not Rupert! This is Rupert :- G

That's a pretty big assumption. It might be useful to examine it properly and find out if that's really your actual experience.

Greg Goode discusses if there is such a thing as Enlightenment, and if so, what is it?