You are hereAdvaita
Perception is nearly always a matter of unintended deception, especially self-deception . . . which may be either intentional or unintentional depending on whether defense of the ego is happening or self-inquiry is happening?
Observing my thoughts is one way of discovering this perception/deception for myself. Another way is having someone else point it out to me but then I'm reflexively leery of their intentions in telling me . . . for my so-called benefit or their feel-good benefit?
Perception . . . the ability to see, hear, or become aware of "something" through the senses and the mind's interpretation of that "something", for example, is "something" true or false, real or imagined, practical or impractical, helpful or harmful.
Perception . . . a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting "something"; a mental impression; for example, a seeker's perception of nondualism, of what is authentic spirituality and what is inauthentic spirituality, of what is absolutely true and what is relatively true.
And then, of course, there's the matter of personal perception and impersonal perception, of self and no-self. On the one hand choiceless living and on the other, decisions, decisions, decisions.
If after the above commentary you're expecting "me" to tell "you" how to tell the difference between perception and deception, that's not going to happen. Understand . . . I'm not asking you to accept my perception/deception of any of this but to discover for yourself if there (really) is any difference between so-called perception and so-called deception in your personal experience.
Whatever you "do" or how you "are" after that inquiry/discovery is totally what you do and how you are.
I simply remind . . . don't be fearful of critical thinking, just tune into what is aware of all this perception/deception stuff going on in the head and let "that" (awareness) guide you . . . or not?
Man acknowledges the presence of wisdom through language universally.
Call wisdom: sagesse, sapienza, Weisheit, sabiduria, sophia, viisaus, visdom, wijsheid, mudrost; write it in Cyrillic or Devanagari script; write it in Arabic, Chinese or Bengali script – there is wisdom, acknowledged and honoured by man as the highest attribute. From the word wisdom emanates mystery, simplicity, eternity, indestructability. It is incontrovertible, without colour or persuasion, without force or guile, without time or place.
For many centuries, wisdom has been available to man through ancient languages such as Sanskrit or Greek. The understanding of wisdom has been gifted to those proficient in these languages, whilst those who were not proficient in them had to rely on translations, especially the western man.
However, only those who understood these languages and the messages of the enlightened sages totally were able to provide authentic translations. As Sanskrit and Greek languages were replaced by modern languages, the numbers of those with total understanding obviously dwindled. They were replaced by those without total understanding of ancient languages and the messages of the enlightened sages as well. The authors without total understanding who interpreted the enlightened sages became sages, but nevertheless not enlightened. This was the moment when wisdom was replaced by the superficial understanding of the interpreters. Wisdom became knowledge. As the authentic messages of the enlightened sages dwindled for lack of authentic translators, the unreliable messages of the interpreters became popular. This popular knowledge was accepted as wisdom universally. Man was not aware at those times that it was knowledge and not wisdom. The situation is the same even in present times.
This process whereby knowledge is taken to be wisdom has been happening for more than ten centuries and is still going on.
We arrive wherever we are (geographically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually) pursuant to the twists and turns of our daily experience; habitual or surreal as they may be. Thus, we are shaped, literally and metaphorically, by the many influencers (animate and inanimate) encountered on a daily basis.
Following the path of curious mind, I inevitably found my way to books and stories of transcendent awareness, disembodied awareness, lucid dreaming, astral projection, self-hypnosis, and all things deconstructive, neti, neti, neti. The formula in my head at the time was: (1) there is experience (2) there is the natural inquiry into experience (what just happened?) and (3) there is the description of what just happened (a combination of what just happened and world-view [the many or few assumptions and beliefs I had at the time]).
For a significant portion of my 30's through 50's, neti, neti, neti was a meaningful component of my world-view. I have a body but am not the body. I have thoughts but am not the thoughts. I experience emotions but am not these emotions, etc, etc, etc.
But then embodied awareness, as it is wont to do from time to time, reared up and cracked me a few times, quite hard, squarely on top my conceptualizing head! (Remember this is a story!)
I just completed a major overhaul of my website: endless-satsang.com. The look and feel is the same, but there are many improvements to the function and speed of the website, including a new feature that gives the website "responsive design". This means that the website automatically configures itself for different screen sizes, so now the website is easy to read and navigate on a tablet or smartphone. Try it out on your computer by slowly making the window smaller, and watch as the site reconfigures itself to fit. An especially fun new feature is the free ebooks display widgets on this free ebooks page:
Please let me know what you think of the improved site, and especially how the site displays on a smartphone or tablet. And also let me know if you find any broken links or problems. Thanks and enjoy the new site.
From one perspective thinking mind cannot deliver "me" into consciousness per se because thinking mind and its contents are contents in consciousness and not consciousness itself. And consciousness primarily, if not solely, identifying with body and mind generally expresses as familiar rudimentary "me" consciousness?
Viewed from a metaphoric perspective, soup is both liquid and it's contents, is it not? Soup without its meat, fish, vegetable or other culinary ingredients, is just hot water? And from this perspective body and thinking mind are part and parcel of the same consciousness, same appearance.
Of course it's when consciousness is animated with human life that it's most recognizable as "me." Then the body is a potential vessel of awareness awakening to itself . . . if awakening is to happen. When the body is without animating spirit it most resembles a thing; a slab of meat. Query: can there be being without awareness? Mmmmmmm. In this rendition I'll say we are both body and that which animates body. After all, all there is, is Being?
From a certain quantum perspective we are energetic beings, both material and immaterial at the same time. And living and dying means neither flip of the coin is better nor worse than the other because they are essentially one inseparable activity. Really? Does it make a difference to you whether your living or dying at this moment? I'm just asking.
Quick update. Posted 1 year ago. Been looking for non dual enlightenment for 6 years now. Have read online, watched on youtube, done self-inquiry untill I just drop on the ground exhausted, staring at a white wall, desperate....and discarding every thought that passes by. Seeking hurts. I can't understand this with thought. And still experiments go on and on and on. Seeking, desperation, seeking, dropping, seeking, letting go, seeking, wishing nothing. I reached a low point in seeking. There were glimpses of that everything was happening by itself and during the day also see that most of the thought arise by themselves. Attention and intention and little movement. All ok. Same with walking. No effort in walking. BUt then the ego comes back and the non-I thing is lost because my experience is that I can make the body move whenver I want.
All experiments during the last 3 years are like this:
- thought arises that says 'I can raise my hand up in the air whenever I want'
Sometimes the hand doesn't get lift up. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it is seen that intention is happening by itself. Proyecting consciously in the head that the hand is gonna move up is happening by itself. And then the slight second of doubt during the action. After thought says 'I have done ít'. Sometimes there is no after thought when It seems that the hand is moving up without effort.
Philosopher and spiritual teacher; Jnana Yogi;
Author of 'The Simplest Way', 'La via piu' semplice', 'Einssein' and 'Den enkla vägen till inre frihet'.
Founder of 'Yoga of Silence'.
Enlightenment – or the search for it – was not really what was driving Madhukar all around the world in earlier years. Much more it was the desire for a great inner freedom. On his long path he finally found Yoga of Silence, probably the oldest and at the same time the most effective guide to happiness.
Since thousands of years there is a high form of Yoga called “Advaita”, Oneness. This is also the name of the daily postings of master Madhukar on Facebook. In worldwide more than 250 events per year the former TV journalist proves that inner silence as the source bestows lasting contentment, that enlightenment can be experienced.
The way how Madhukar is transforming the sacred knowledge of ancient times to modern life is unique. For people encountering him for the first time it often is a positive surprise to find in Madhukar a spiritual master with a modern lifestyle. In Yoga of Silence truth and joy of life are not mutually exclusive.
Born in Stuttgart in 1957, Madhukar began already in his youth to ask spiritual questions that remained unanswered even during his studies (philosophy and economics).
First order of bubble bursting . . . there is no learning how to awaken or be awakened or live awakened. One always and simply is. And one in form always is a manifestation of oneness. That's just how it is, how you are, how I am . . . already that. Conceptually knowing that is one thing. Non-conceptual understanding another.
By the way, have you noticed how difficult (impossible really) it is to accurately contour language over, under or around non-conceptual perception/understanding? Of course "you" have. But that's part of the music, dance, play of mind highlighted against background consciousness. What emerges - music, dance, play, drama, suffering, joy - is not necessarily a problem or a distortion of what is. It's just a temporary form of what is. But I suppose that what is "temporarily" revealed, experienced, seen, or heard may be construed as an illusion. But just because it's temporary must we call it illusory? Probably not . . . but many do. And is there any harm in that? Probably no more or less harm than when anyone bases their actions on the knowing of labels?
This is not going to be a word game so much as simply another take on what's in front of "my" face all the time, hiding in plain sight, but not really hidden.
Dying doesn't happen down the road tomorrow. And it doesn't happen to someone else. Dying happens now to "me" and "you." "I" am dying now as I write these words as "you" are dying now reading them.
Living and dying happens simultaneously in the body, mine and yours from "birth" of the form to "death" of the form. Normally we say "aging" happens in between but really it's living and dying happening simultaneously.
One of the fundamental implications of Now as the "only time there is" is that clearly living happens now as dying happens now. And it's not that simultaneously I am living here now and somewhere in the world some stranger is dying there now but that "I" am simultaneously living and dying here and now.
Thus living and dying is happening simultaneously in the laughing baby as it is in the 90 year old abed in a hospice, breathing tubes plugged into her nostrils.
I've come to realize that there is an "aliveness" to living as there is an "aliveness" to dying . . . and therein may lie the cause for my prolonged initial confusion . . . the expectation that living and dying should feel qualitatively differently than they do? Conventionally speaking, just because one feels deathly ill doesn't mean one is actually dying? At some fundamental level there is no biological difference between living and dying . . . only in mind.
As everyone in the non-dual playground knows, or not, . . . self identity is an illusion. And in the illusion that is the waking world . . . everyone knows, more or less, that anything can happen . . . and usually does (especially when one's not looking).
So "I", "we", "you" are all manifestations of God, Consciousness, the Divine, Atomic Particles, the Mystery or the Source ("a","b", "c", "d", "e" or "all of the above"?) And in this dream world some know they dream while others believe they are awake.
Some offer dogma and call it light (non-realists?). Others provide light and are called dark (non-believers?).
Some awaken from the dream of separate self. While others awaken from the mind. And others still simply awaken to a new day. Everyone, more or less, acting as if they are somebody while in reality they are nobody.
For some spirituality is a way of life. For others a way of being. And for many others most impractical and so . . . unnecessary.
For some emptiness is no distinctions (you know one) while for others there is awareness of many distinctions (you know two).
For some it matters what you do. For others it doesn't matter what you do. And for some it's always as it is . . . do or don't do.
Some seek satori, bliss, equanimity, happiness, wealth, wisdom and some only a meal, a bed, a roof over the head, the occasional hug and a little love to make the world go round.