i always found this confusing , i don't know much about vedanta but who's interpretation of prasthanatrai is correct , what is the true meaning of upanishads and brahma sutras if both the dvaita tradition and advaita tradition are derived form the same books? Is the teaching of the upanisahds non dualistic or dualistic

It really giggles me that folks pay Jim Newman to sit together in a room with him for the gentleman to say...nothing.

What a gig.

This isn't to say he doesn't offer guidance or perspectives or challenge assumptions and all that. Obviously, and that's why people pay him. It's still a joke.

How much is a crutch worth?

For the man with a broken leg, a lot.

Now who convinced the man he has a broken leg? Maybe life experience. Maybe he looks down and goes, well it's not supposed to wiggle like that, and it hurts. So he goes on the search to find some remedy.

I never paid any of these crutches but I've certainly used them. Hours clocked with Mooji, Ram Dass, Alan Watts, and a couple minutes with Adyashanti, Rupert Spira, Ramesh Balsekar, UG Krishnamurti, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Byron Katie...

Then there are the books. The scriptures. The methods.

I've got crutches for my crutches now, all laying against a door frame I've walked out of. I didn't pay for any of it though. The lectures and satsangs were free on youtube and all my documents were stolen.

I Jack Sparrowed my way through this whole thing to be honest. Still am. That's my archetype apparently. No escape.

The crutches offer a promise of escape. The promise disappears when you discover your legs are fine though.

Then you walk right out the door.

It's like that miracle of the man laying dormant by the pool of Bethesda. It's part of the Jesus story. The man was paralyzed in seeking some solution for 38 years. Jesus says, "Do you really want to walk?"

"Well yeah but I don't have anybody to drag me over to the miracle water."

"Get up," Jesus says to him. The man gets up and that's the whole story. He stops waiting for some external authority to not only grant him permission but to drag him to the goal.

I don't know if this post is saying anything. It may be saying as much as Jim. At least it's free though, so there's that.

Hey all. Would any of you say you're living in a mystical, or transcendent, state since "awakening" occurred? Or is it just ordinary, ie not so different than before?

There is no real distinction between a sensation and a thought. The distinction between a sensation and a thought is a thought. Implicit to a sensation is a reference which is a thought. Thought is integral to sensation.

A thought has no independent status. What you think are thoughts are a reference to sound. thoughts are heard. A thought is not an abstract, immaterial entity floating in some mental ether. It is a subtle internal sound, a mental audition. When we "think," we are actually listening to an inner voice (or inner noise) that references something. The semantic content ("I should eat lunch") is carried by, or perhaps identical with, the auditory image of the words. Strip away the heard quality, and nothing thought-like remains. What you thought were thoughts are actually thinks.

There is no silence. silence has no reference. A think of silence is not silence. If thoughts are heard references (auditory phenomena carrying "aboutness"), and if every sensation already carries implicit reference (a minimal directedness), then silence, by definition, has no reference. If reference is what makes any mental event register as experience at all, then silence cannot appear as silence within experience. The moment you notice "silence," you have already referenced it, you have heard the thought "this is silent" or felt the contrast against expected sound. That noticing is itself a subtle inner sound, a reference. Therefore, true silence has no place in the stream of experience. There is no silence.

In direct experience, whenever silence seems to arrive, it is instantly usurped by the thought "ah, silence..." and the auditory trace of that recognition. The purported silence was never truly there; it was a retroactive fiction created by the referencing thought.

The thought red is first a reference to the sound red and then the sound red is re-referenced to the color red. If you listen to a foreign language it sounds like bird chirping. There can be no variation without distinction. If there were truly no distinction whatsoever, variation would have nothing to vary from or against. It would be seamless, boundless, reference-free flux. Infinite invariance admits no boundaries, no contrasts, no detectable change. Variation that cannot be detected or referenced is experientially indistinguishable from no variation. It dissolves.

There is variation in distinction. Sensation carries implicit reference (distinction). Thought is heard sound (distinction). That distinction is never static; it varies. Therefore, there is no silence (no distinction = no variation possible). Foreign speech remains “bird chirping” with rich variation precisely because auditory distinctions are still operating and modulating.

By what means is the distinction made, if not by reference? It cannot be made by any other means. There is no direct, non-referential access to “the color itself.” There is no raw, pre-referential redness waiting to be distinguished. The very act that singles out “this particular red” is the referential act.

The appearance is by reference only. The reference and the referent are the same. there is no red without reference to red. Each reference is autonomous. In and of itself appearing with each appearance having complete autonomy.

Variation can only be made by reference. There is no actual variation. There is no reference to the re-referencing. That is just more re-referencing. Variation is a reference to re-referencing. Existence per se, is a reference to itself.

Continuity appearing through discontinuity. Any attempt to reference the referencing is without referent. Upon waking from a dream, what remains but a reference? The referent 'reality as more than this' is clearly a reference. Nothing further can be meaningfully referenced without becoming yet another example of the same mechanism.

I was looking into advaita vedanta, and they identified Brahman as being "pure awareness", But when I used Google AI (unreliable source), it said that "The One is beyond all awareness", so I became confused on this topic, can anyone clarify please, is the one beyond awareness?, is the one nothingness???, is nothingness awareness?????

One day I had a question in my mind that is my dad really my dad? I don’t have the memories up until maybe like 7 or 8. Then it rxtends to memories like something I regret doing then to thoughts. I started to trying distrust all my thoughts and I find that basically everything is questionable including non duality like is not two is just another thing that can be questioned. Is awakening the truth is also questionable. I would even say I also question the thought that is the earth reallly round. Or things like what if all my memories are just implants into my brain and those memories are not real. I know this sounds stupid,

Too Long, Didn't Read (TLDR) summary

This post introduces a model that conceptualizes the bodymind through two distinct but interconnected "circuits": the self-illusion circuit and the psychoemotional circuit. The self-illusion circuit comprises the structural elements of the illusory "I," and the psychoemotional circuit houses emotional, reactive patterns and trauma. Direct path approaches target the self-illusion circuit to reveal wisdom, while progressive path approaches target the psychoemotional circuit to reveal peace. Because these circuits reinforce each other, removing the illusory "owner" allows emotional patterns to lose their power and erode gradually. Conversely, a calmer emotional state makes it easier to deconstruct the illusory "I." When both circuits are cleared, there is profound insight and emotional imperturbability, that is, both wisdom and peace.

Request for feedback

The model is based on my limited knowledge and experience. Moreover, I'm unsure whether the model's potential benefits of the model outweigh the conceptual baggage it might generate for a seeker. Thus, I'd love your feedback on the model. Specific questions I have include:

• Do you know of evidence or data that confirms or refutes the model?
• What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of the model?
• How could the model be improved?

Thank you for the feedback you provide. 🙏

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A tale of two circuits: apparent patterns of wisdom and peace and their relation to direct and progressive paths

This post introduces a model that explains apparent patterns of wisdom and peace among practitioners and how these relate to the direct and progressive paths. Because it’s a model, it is not ultimately true: it’s just thoughts. Yet, as statistician George Box said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” So, in case the model is useful, I capture it here.

Apparent patterns of wisdom and peace

In reading different texts and interacting with others, I’ve noticed the following apparent patterns of wisdom and peace among practitioners. These are three basic characterizations, and in reality, there are infinite combinations of wisdom and peace.

1. Some experience significant insight into no-self, but still experience substantial emotional reactivity. In this case, wisdom coexists with suffering.
2. Some experience little emotional reactivity, but still experience an illusion of self. Here, peace coexists with delusion.
3. Some experience both significant insight into no-self and little reactivity. In this instance, both delusion and suffering are, for all practical purposes, extinguished. This is wisdom and peace.

I was curious about these apparent patterns and how to explain them. Thus was born a “tale of two circuits.” It’s a model, so it is conceptual. Therefore, it’s not really real.

The two circuits

To account for these patterns, I propose that there are two apparent circuits in the bodymind. Each circuit is a distinct portion of the bodymind’s nervous and musculoskeletal systems.1 The two circuits are:

1. Self-illusion circuit
2. Psychoemotional circuit

The self-illusion circuit includes the facets of the illusion of self, namely, time, space, agency, and subject-object duality. This circuit represents the fundamental, deeply embodied belief that “I am here, in time, perceiving and acting on objects in an external world.” This circuit provides the “I” to which everything is referenced, and it is responsible for the sense that thoughts and sensations are “mine.” The self-illusion circuit is the domain of delusion, and clearing this circuit reveals wisdom.

The psychoemotional circuit consists of emotional, reactive patterns, which are also known as attachments. Attachments originate from evolutionary programming and societal conditioning.2 An attachment generally consists of an “I/me/my” thought imbued with an emotional charge, like fear, grief, or pride. The psychoemotional circuit also includes deeply entrenched trauma patterns that bypass the narrative mind. This circuit is the domain of suffering, and clearing this circuit reveals peace.

Since the two circuits are distinct, the apparent patterns noted above can arise. Yet, the circuits are also interconnected, and they reinforce each other. For example, the “I”-thought of the self-illusion circuit functions as the “owner” of emotional reactivity; without this illusory “owner,” the psychoemotional circuit is orphaned and cannot sustain itself. Conversely, intense psychoemotional activity reinforces the self-illusion circuit by creating a perceived need for a “manager” of experience.

Direct and progressive approaches for clearing the circuits

Generally speaking, there are two paths to liberation: the direct path and the progressive path. The direct path focuses on illuminating the illusion of self, while the progressive path focuses on reducing emotional reactivity. Therefore, each path tends to target a specific circuit: the direct path targets the self-illusion circuit, while the progressive path targets the psychoemotional circuit. Each path uses practices generally intended to clear the circuit it targets.

To clear the self-illusion circuit, the direct path employs approaches like self-inquiry, vipassana, and direct pointing. These approaches question and overturn fundamental assumptions about the nature of the self and the world. In doing so, the facets of the self-illusion are deconstructed, thereby working to clear the circuit. The self-illusion circuit has been significantly cleared when it is recognized beyond doubt that all there is is no-thing apparently happening.

To clear the psychoemotional circuit, the progressive path employs many techniques. Examples include samatha, Byron Katie’s the Work, psychotherapy, somatic techniques, and the Sedona Method. There are many, many more. These practices focus on releasing attachments, which helps to clear the psychoemotional circuit. The psychoemotional circuit has been significantly cleared when there is general imperturbability regardless of circumstances.

The distinction between direct and progressive practices is rough and for convenience only. Because the circuits are interconnected, most practices impact both circuits; however, each practice tends to impact one circuit more than the other.3 For example, I did much self-inquiry, which helped to clear the self-illusion circuit. It also removed some attachments. However, it did not address deep-seated trauma patterns, which are rooted in the psychoemotional circuit.

What happens after clearing a circuit

Since the two circuits are distinct, one circuit can be cleared, while the other circuit remains operative. This can occur if someone primarily uses approaches from one path. For example, I tended to use direct path approaches; so, the self-illusion circuit became significantly cleared, while the psychoemotional circuit still contained much material. Thus, there was wisdom, but limited peace.

Yet, because the circuits are interconnected, clearing one circuit greatly facilitates clearing the other circuit. In my experience, if the self-illusion circuit has been significantly cleared, there is no longer an embodied belief in an “I” that owns psychoemotional activity. Therefore, when an attachment arises, it is not interacted with, and so its energy naturally wanes. Each time it arises, it arises with less energy and persists for a shorter duration. Eventually, it no longer arises.4 So, when the self-illusion circuit no longer reinforces the psychoemotional circuit, attachments effortlessly erode over time, thereby increasing peace.

On the other hand, when the psychoemotional circuit is significantly cleared, there is much mental stillness and less drive to manipulate experience. This enables practitioners to more easily target and disassemble the facets of the self-illusion, thus increasing wisdom. It may be that after clearing the psychoemotional circuit, effort is needed to clear the self-illusion circuit. This is certainly not conclusive, however.

Clearing the psychoemotional circuit is effortless after wisdom emerges, and for the majority of practitioners, the apparent clearing process is probably relatively mild. However, if the circuit contains significant trauma, then the unwinding of attachments can be tumultuous and can, in severe cases, temporarily impair functioning. Now, a bystander witnessing a tumultuous clearing process might conclude that suffering has increased; however, for an apparent organism that no longer believes in a self, there is a deep trust in what’s apparently unfolding and far less concern about outcomes. So, suffering is more muted than what others might assume. Nonetheless, it can be useful to address trauma while the illusory self is still apparently functioning.

Finally, if both circuits are significantly cleared, perhaps through direct or progressive approaches, or a combination thereof, then both wisdom and peace are revealed. ⭕🙏

Footnotes

1

I do not personally experience significant energetic or parapsychological phenomena, so I do not include those in this model. This does not mean they are irrelevant.

2

Some people believe attachments are inherited from previous lives. I have not personally verified this, so I have not included it here.

3

I have difficulty placing some practices in either category, particularly because I have little experience with them. These include metta, devotional practices, and movement-based meditations like Sufi whirling.

4

The likely neural basis for this phenomenon is long-term synaptic depression followed by synaptic pruning.