You are after enlightenment and liberation because you believe you are in darkness and bondage.
The sole bondage is the very idea that you are in bondage.
Throw away the notions of bondage and enlightenment, and then you are truly liberated.
You are the sole dweller of the void. You are the only thing that exists. There is nothing outside and beside you to bound you and to limit you. That which is infinite is essentially liberated: Infinitude is your essence.
Bondage is when we believe we are mortals in bondage and then seek immortality and liberation. The seeking for liberation becomes itself the bondage.
Where there is no bondage there is no need of liberation.
One whose essence is infinite and pure can never become finite and impure. One whose essence is immortal can never become mortal.
The instant you throw away the idea that you are mortal and in bondage you will be immortal and liberated: You don’t become that; you only remember and realize it.
Truth is not something to be attained: Truth is to be remembered.
No one can remember the truth for you; only you can remember it, for it is only you who is veiling it.
You yourself are the first and the last veil and the one behind the veil.
You are the disciple and the guru; you are the challenge and the one who overcomes the challenge.
You are at once the truth and the one who stands in the way of truth.
You are the seeker, the sought, and the way.
You are already liberated: Just live as such.
NOEMAYA 
I’ve been liking your posts. Perhaps you might be interested in mine. At Constructive Undoing.
LikeLike
I thank you for reading my material. I just started following you and will read your work. I love this genre. Thanks for letting me know. π
LikeLike
simurg
simurg-fenix.blogspot.com/
Π±Π»Π°Π³ΠΎ Π΄Π°Ρ Π² ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ½ ΡΠ²Π΅Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ» ΠΌΠΎΡ Π·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΠΌΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΌΡ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌ Π² ΡΠ²ΠΎΡ Π΄Π°Π»Π΅ΠΊΡΡ Π² ΡΡΡΠΏΠ΅Π½Ρ Π²ΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΈ Π²ΡΡ ΡΠ°Π΄Ρ ΠΠ³ΠΎ Π½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π° ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΉ ΠΠ΄Π°ΠΌΠ°ο»Ώ.
toomajj,
Π΄ΡΡΠ³ ΠΌΠΎΠΉ,
Ρ Π²Π°Ρ Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΡ Π±Π»ΠΎΠ³ ΡΡΠΈΠ»Π΅
Π²ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠΊ – ΡΡΠΎ Π·Π°Π³Π°Π΄ΠΊΠ°
LikeLike
But just by mentally unshakling those fetters of bondage, doesn’t expel one into liberation. It is a science; there is a path, a process and a goal. The very fact that we, as an eternal spiritual spark of the greater Whole, are enveloped in a gross material body, says something about bondage. To be liberated while still in the physical body is another matter, which is not as easy as having the mind as a guru for which we become the disciple. You might find some interesting insights on my blog page on this very complex science of self-realisation and enlightment. Blessed be.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment.
Actually the unshaking, though not mental unshaking, does expel one into liberation and it has done so many times.
On what you said I would disagree with you; I am personally inclined toward the Advaita Vedanta conception of bondage and liberation which as survived for thousands of years as a spiritual path.
The unshaking is not a mental exercise since the mind itself is the bondage; or where you said “the very fact” of our embodiment, you may think about how did this become a fact for you; because in reality, as I see it, there is no body or mind. This taking for granted the idea of embodiment or existence in general is part of bondage according to Vedanta metaphysics; I personally adhere to this manner of seeing since my own experience too confirms such.
I don’t see separated sparks; I see only one and no separation.
Liberation is the easiest thing if you see it as it is but if you make it into something complex then it becomes something complex for you.
I think making this path something complex or requiring a science is a particularly western way of dealing with things while in Hinduism or Sufism toward which I am inclined truth is in the heart and we are already that; one doesn’t need a complex science to be oneself.
One danger of making a complex science out of this path is that it opens up the field for opportunists to come and claim expertise over it, profit from it and then mislead people. So I am very much against any such approach since it is also contrary to my own experience of the path and its awakening.
People should trust tradition and their instincts on this matter.
LikeLike
When I say science, I don’t mean it in terms of the modern approach to science, because there is a place modern science has no influence. But as you are inclined towards Hinduisim, which if I may share, is a relatively recent term that was coined by India’s conquerors. The basis of what yo believe in, which stems from the Vedas, Vedanta or Vedic knowledge, is by definition a combination of Science, Culture, Religion, Arts and Philosophy. No where in Sanskrit of the Vedas is there a word called Hindu or Hinduism. Having lived in India on and off for many years and a practitioner of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, which is non-sectarian, I’ve studied ancient and rare Vedic texts and shastras under the guidance of my late guru. So my approach to many aspects of life is not overshadowed by modern approach. My very way of life is predominantly, Vedic. Blessed be.
LikeLike
Yes I realized that reading your blogs which I find full of wisdom. Regarding the name Hindu I am aware of the origin of the term and how it was made up by others who could not actually pronounce the correct name. I referred to Hinduism by the convention that we mutually understand it to be the tradition based on the authority of the Vedas. It is true that this is a very rich tradition, but I am in my path more attuned to the Jnana Yoga approach of knowledge which sees bondage in our ideas and beliefs and advocates liberation through freedom from such. But this approach and the Advaita Vedanta take the embodiment and existence as essentially unreal; we are not made finite or embodied. It is only for us to realize that we are already infinite and free. My central readings has been Upanishad and Yoga Vasistha and in none of which there is word of complexity of the way; in fact they are posit that whatever idea you entertain about the way that would become the way. I personally adhere to the simple principle of Advaita Vedanta: Brahman is Real; world is illusory; Self is Brahman.” That is all I see and don’t think anything should be added to it.
It is from this point of view that I prefer to approach the truth. I believe the very idea that truth is something hard, reserved for a few, etc. are things that have biased us toward leaving it to the few or to gurus. I don’t see truth this way; I see it as the birth right of every being and I believe every being is equipped to the spiritual instinct for scenting the truth and seeing it for themselves.
I see that the Vedanta metaphysics is a very scientific discipline since it has high rigor in it; but the attainment of truth or liberation is viewed in Advaita Vedanta as something that is gained by a mere change of perspective; truth is in our face; we fail to see it because we either look elsewhere or expect it to look different or very strange. It is the simplest thing.
My guess is that we both are concerned with the truth itself and each see it and spread it in different ways; but deep down we are both one thing and not separate. This separation is an illusion.
Best,
TJ
LikeLike
Yes, I agree with you there on truth. It is the birth-right of every living being, but someone like my brother had once said to me, ‘what is truth for you is not truth for me’ so in this case, the jiva has free will to be a seeker of the truth or not. It is not that it is reserved for a few elite. It is there for everyone who genuinely wants it. Very few people have realised what you have realised. That is no ordinary thing.
Wishing you well on your journey.
LikeLike
We hope that all people can realize this, and what you do in your blog and I do in mine are attempts in that direction and as long as we have the intention for it it will help some people hopefully.
But regarding the truth I think this is one of symptoms of modernism in which everything has become relative. If we believe that there exists an absolute truth underlying everything, then it must be absolute; there can’t be my truth or your truth. what we experience as mine or yours are forms in the relative plane of existence, forms which are manifestation of one absolute truth; the jiva in its final liberation transcends this relative plain and get a direct intuition of the absolute which is the same in all cases; relativity arises in human form, once we transcend this form there is no more my truth or yours but the truth. The relativity of forms is of course a necessary condition as there are human’s with different temperaments, but this relativity doesn’t imply that truth itself is something different in each case. Insofar as we experience it in human form it is relative but in transcendence all see one truth, of course in a new way of seeing.
finitude and relativity are illusions. But if we don’t believe the there exists an absolute truth then that is a different matter. Truth if exists can’t be two. Spiritual experience we have in human form are by necessity relative, but once we partake in the infinite the intuition of truth is absolute. The plane of the relative form and existence is both a veil and a sign toward that which it reflects, the absolute truth. It is the signature of truth that its absoluteness is evident in its sight. Absolute certainty comes with it by necessity; the face of truth melts all relativity and one we see it we know that we have seen the truth. Until then if we have even the slightest doubt whether something is truth or not, then it is not the truth but its reflection in relative form.
Best,
LikeLike
One thing I need to point out is that the experience of enlightenment and liberation was already understood to be something granted by grace or the help of the guru; it was classified as spiritual experience. But this was due to the fact that no one ever understood the mechanism behind this experience and how it happens. By mechanism I don’t mean modern scientific but the way that an individual can make it happen.
But now the precise mechanism of how to activate that mode of consciousness is known and we see that there is no grace or guru behind it; it is not even a particularly spiritual phenomenon but a natural possibility of consciousness which can be activated at will by the individual. It is something that unveils in one instant, with one blow, instead of years of discipleship. Truth, then, doesn’t belong to any tradition or any sect or is not something in possession of a guru or god; it is inside the person and its essence; if you know the way how it is activated, then you see that all else has been mere forms and vessels that are in themselves empty. One can attain liberation and have direct intuition of truth by oneself by knowing how the experience is attained. This is not something known to traditions or they won’t even like it. I am against all elitist treatment of truth and liberation as something to be attained by hardship or else. Truth will blow your mind but the mind is fiction anyways.
Best
LikeLike
I understand where you are coming from. Yet, the soul is described as one ten-thousandth part of the upper portion of the hair point in size. So by definition, we are infinitesimal, if we can accept that, with all humility. We are after all, created beings and not the Creator.
The philosophy of the two inches that one inch is our endeavour and the other is from grace, points to the axiom or fundamental fact, that we are not ultimately the doers. We have influence of a limited sphere and free will only to a certain extent. Our duty therefore is to make endeavour for our ultimate uplift. No one wants to be controlled. But if we are controlled by love, then that is a different matter π Whether we like it or not, we are sadly controlled by so many different designations of society, forced upon us. This whole idea of freedom can only be gained when we truly have been liberated, even while living in the material body and world.
In all humility, I cannot claim that, because from what I’ve gained, it is not so easy to be liberated in the true sense of the term; not just temporary cessation from material distresses, but something and somewhere even beyond liberation, where one is not prone to fall prey to maya again.
Yes, the mind is fiction as you said; material. It is not of spiritual essence, but we need it to spring board us to the next level. Can’t live with it; can’t live without it. lol
LikeLike
That is true; this body is the avatar we need to roam in existence. Regarding creation, however, I don’t see us as created rather than creator, since if you subscribe to Vedanta metaphysics then there is no creation at all. The non-dual vedanta cannot posit creation since creation puts a gulf between the creator and the created. I, as I mentioned earlier, favor the principle of Advaita Vedanta “Brahman real, world illusory, self Brahman.” So on this note we have beliefs that are essentially different; I am a non-dualist while you seem to be a dualist if you believe in creation or the duality of creator-created. This fundamental difference of perspective changed everything including our approach toward truth. I am curious which line of approach was taught by your guru since Vedas though have accounts of creation but emphasize the symbolic character of these accounts. I guess you are into Bhakti yoga not Jnana yoga as the latter doesn’t invoke the idea of creation or duality in any shape or form. From my approach you and I and the cosmos are one unity, never separated and only appearing to be so in virtue of our own ideas and beliefs in separation. The ultimate unity and the illusory character of cosmos and separation is something that can be directly experience once all notions are dropped, including the notion that we are embodied beings, humans, inside an existing world. This is the gist of Advaita Vedanta to which I adhere.
But Bhakti yoga is as genuine a path as Jnana; these differences are only for addressing different temperaments in people. Some think about existence in terms of creation, then that is the path of Bhakti yoga; some like myself like to do away with the notion of creation and posit a non-dual unity which never really changes or creates anything; this is the path of Jnana yoga.
It is interesting how the ideas of Jnana yoga, especially the illusory character of existence, arise in quantum mechanics. I have addressed in my book “non-dual perspectives on quantum physics” how quantum mechanics entails that our cosmos has never really happened to begin with; it cannot possibly have happened since there is no way for its wave function to collapse into reality; in cosmology this is addressed as the holographic universe which is very identical to Advaita Vedanta’s account of how reality is experience while it is not really real π
Best.
LikeLike
It is also very important to note that the Advaita Vedanta metaphysics is not a system based on speculation, as many in the west understand; it is a system based on the direct experience of their mystics. these direct experiences are mentions frequently in all Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, Bhagavad Gita in the orthodox sense, and also in Valmiki’s accounts. It is the experiential character of their truths that gives vedanta its consistency since all its writings points to one and the same truth, the inconsistencies being only a matter of modes of expression. Non-duality and the non-existence of the world and the body is a truth to be directly perceived by the jiva when he has dropped all notions altogether. The sight of this truth is its own proof with highest degree of certainty.
I believe that truth and liberation should not be matters of faith and belief but rather established in direct seeing, for one can hold any belief one desires. The jiva has to see for him/herself otherwise he/she is not truly liberated. For this reason I think we should not ask anyone to accept any belief or conviction until they experience it for themselves. And when they see it they won’t need to believe in it anymore; they just know it. As only a blind man has to believe in color; she who sees doesn’t need to believe in color anymore; faith belongs to the period prior to enlightenment; it is a primitive stage of the path. it is the necessary condition for seeing the truth that the jiva must transcend all notions, ideas, opinions and beliefs, even faith in its own existence and reality. When there is no notion left to distract us we will naturally and by necessity see the truth that has been standing right in front of us all along. Nothing is more distracting and destructive than our own ideas of truth and salvation. Yet as you beautifully mentioned we need these ideas to some extent but it is possible to transcend them and then use them with the understanding that they are only vessels and not the thing itself.
Best
LikeLike
I hear you and have read your reply out of respect. I’ve posted a page called ‘questions and answers’ (if you care to peruse) about Advaita vada/Vedanta, which from the Vedic point of view, culminates into impersonalism, which the Vedas refute. Blessed be.
LikeLike
Thanks thenovelist. I read parts of the questions & answers but they are simply one particular person’s view which you’ve put there because it supports your own view; they’re childish, lack rigor, and aren’t academic or orthodox, only good for a Christian taste & mentality. Your source is just one philosopher even often accused of heterodoxy in his interpretations. You distort the vedas by saying they refute impersonalism. Upanishads are vedic texts and filled with preaching notions of monism and impersonalism. Shankara is an authoritative force in Vedanta literature. You superimpose a Christian mode of thinking on Hinduism! Your version isn’t Hinduism. Living in India and having guru doesn’t impart knowledge by itself. If I really had the time and motivation I would offer you many orthodox sources that refute your Christian interpretation of a religion which is at its root irreconcilable with Christianity or any other dogmatic doctrine.
Now I see where you’re coming from. You’re just a western christian promoting christianity which is a religion not an intellectual system of metaphysics based on intuition. I am a Hindu and I see the depth and breadth of distortions in your blog. I can only wish you someday wake up to the belief system you’ve made up for yourself for the sake of emotional psychological benefits rather than disinterested pursuit of truth for its own sake.
I thank you for your interest in inviting me to read your work but we are talking about two different things here. This discussion is then pointless since you’ve already made up your mind on what you want to hear and reason.
Best,
LikeLike
Indeed, it’s of waste of time, because we are talking about two different things, completely. I can only put so much info on my blog page, which wasn’t initially set up to preach/teach. I myself could share a myriad of philosophy which would make you understand a bit clearer. What I know, I know and what you have learned, you have learned. I practice Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I am not a Christian. We don’t need to use fancy terms or word jugglery. At the end of the day, there is only one reality and that is of the Supreme. Everything else is subsidiary. I wish you well in your endeavours. Hare Krishna.
LikeLike
Lau Tzu?
LikeLike
It is flattering to be mistaken for Lau Tzu, but this I wrote myself; I will definitely write the name if I quote from someone. The source of my inspirations in my esoteric writings is my transcendental experience I had a while ago. Most my posts are attempts at expressing that inexpressible experience. Unfortunately I have never had the change to read much about Taosim. I am also inspired by Upanishads which capture the essence of my transcendental experience as if they have its finger print. I have a post in here that contains my writings during that T-experience if you are interested. It is I believe called “The even of coming to myself.” That would be the source from which I write. I hope you enjoyed them. π
LikeLike
To add an interesting point, before my experience I was a hard headed agnostic, as are most physicists. But that experience was so transformative that changed me upside down. Before that I wasn’t into mysticism or spirituality but then it made a mystic out of me. That is the power of the seeing of the heart which lies inside all of us and can be seen and directly experienced by all. It is my intention to describe the method by which I came to that transcendental experience in my writings and books. Hopefull more people can see it for themselves that we are all part of One unity, our separation being only illusory.
LikeLike
In Lak’ech Ala K’in … It is all good! The way is the way and the path is the path. Yes you have expressed yourself in your way and in your words. In the world within we all have and share the wisdom of many as the many are within. I have been called a Mystic and even embraced the label for a time. I however choose no labels the more I ponder them the more they seem irrelevant. I look forward to exploring your writings and I am sure they will add depth to my awareness in fact they already have. Namaste my friend! π
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. I agree with you very much about labels; in fact they become more of a veil than anything else. Btw, I read some of your posts and enjoyed them very much. For me no amount of positive thinking and attitude is not enough. I can read and enjoy them anytime. Great to know you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s Mayan… It is great to know you as well!
LikeLiked by 1 person