AWE

 A

Here are the key points distilled clearly from the passage:

---

1. Core idea: “Awe has been diluted”

• Modern culture has replaced deep awe with “safe, curated experiences”

• Examples:

  • Apps, wellness content, aesthetic nature posts

• Claim: these are “awe-lite” versions of something deeper and more disruptive

---

2. What true awe (Ehrfurcht) means

• Uses German concept Ehrfurcht

• Defined as:

  • Reverence + fear + overwhelming presence

• Not comfort, but psychological destabilization + meaning

---

3. Mystical framing of awe

• Traditional mysticism links awe with:

  • Encountering the sacred

  • Fear of the divine

  • Ego disruption

• Examples cited:

  • Biblical awe (Moses)

  • Bhagavad Gita vision of cosmic form

  • Western philosophy (Schelling)

---

4. Core psychological claim

• Real transformation comes from:

  • Fearful + overwhelming experiences

  • Moments that break identity structure

• Examples:

  • Loss

  • Falling in love

  • Existential encounters

  • Vast nature experiences

---

5. Main critique of modern life

• Modern systems try to:

  • “manage” emotions

  • smooth discomfort

  • avoid existential intensity

• Result:

  • Reduced depth of experience

  • Substitution of real awe with entertainment

---

6. “Mystical journey inward” argument

• The real “scary cave” is:

  • The mind itself

  • Unprocessed fear, shame, identity conflict

• Claim:

  • True spiritual work = confronting internal darkness

---

7. Symbolic example used

• Film example (Close Encounters of the Third Kind):

  • Character is transformed by terrifying encounter

  • He becomes obsessed, changed, destabilized

• Symbol: transformation requires disruption, not comfort

---

8. Central thesis

• Humans are driven by a hunger for:

  • Meaning

  • Depth

  • Transcendence

• But often settle for:

  • Safe substitutes instead of real existential intensity

---

9. Final claim

• Fear is not an obstacle but a signal

• When fear + awe are integrated:

  • perception deepens

  • life feels more “real”

  • identity loosens

---

One-line essence

True awe is not comfort or beauty — it is the destabilizing encounter with something larger than the self that simultaneously frightens and transforms you.

---

If you want, I can also compare this idea of “awe-as-fear” with Ramana Maharshi’s non-dual view, where the “trembling self” is also investigated—but not through emotional intensity.

SRM

 A

Your question is actually pointing at the core tension in most non-dual teachings: if enlightenment is “already here,” why does it not appear as an experience?

I’ll appraise your answer in three layers: clarity, strength, and the hidden assumption that still remains.

---

1. What is strong in your answer

✔ You correctly identify a key insight:

You notice that:

• “Here and now” cannot mean physical location or clock time

• It cannot be tied to changing mental content

• Thoughts are transient and cannot capture “presence”

This is philosophically solid and consistent with:
Ramana Maharshi’s teaching of self-inquiry.

---

✔ You also correctly see a structural problem:

You write:

“How can enlightenment be experienced by ‘I’, which is a thought?”

This is very close to the classical Advaita critique:

• the “seeker-I” is itself part of what is being examined

• therefore it cannot reliably “capture” what it is looking for

This is a strong conceptual insight.

---

2. Where your reasoning quietly shifts (important subtle point)

You make this move:

“Only pure consciousness without thoughts is the real ‘Here and Now’”

This is the key philosophical jump.

It sounds like non-duality, but it introduces a subtle assumption:

⚠️ Assumption:

That there is a state called:

• “pure consciousness without thought”

• which is something you can locate or stabilize

This creates a hidden problem:

You turn “enlightenment” into a special experience-state

But the teaching you’re referencing is actually trying to avoid exactly that.

---

3. The central paradox in your framing

You are still treating enlightenment as:

• something that should be noticed

• something that should become obvious to experience

• something that should replace ordinary perception

But Advaita’s claim is more radical:

It is not a different experience inside awareness
It is the awareness in which all experience appears

So the mismatch is here:

Your model	Non-dual claim
Enlightenment = special state (thoughtless awareness)	Enlightenment = ever-present knowing of all states
“I should feel it”	The “feeling-I” is what is being questioned
Presence is an object	Presence is not objectifiable

---

4. Appraisal of Ramana’s reply you quoted

Ramana’s answer is consistent internally:

• The “I that feels unawakened” is itself the obstruction

• Therefore seeking enlightenment as an object reinforces the error

• The “I-thought” is what must be investigated

What is important is this line:

“The feeling that I have not realised is the obstruction”

This is psychologically precise:

• the sense of lack becomes part of the loop

• the seeker is re-created every time enlightenment is postponed

---

5. So why don’t you “experience enlightenment”?

From the perspective of this teaching, there are only a few coherent answers:

1. Because enlightenment is not an experience

It is not something that appears inside experience.

2. Because you are expecting recognition through thought

But thought cannot verify what it is made of.

3. Because the “seeker identity” is still active

Not as a failure—but as an ongoing cognitive structure:

• “I am not there yet”

• “I need to perceive it”

That structure is what is being investigated.

---

6. A grounded critique (important balance)

Even if we take Ramana seriously, a rational appraisal adds this:

• The model is not empirically testable in ordinary terms

• It depends heavily on a redefinition of “experience” itself

• It risks becoming circular:

  • “You don’t see it because you are the one who doesn’t see it”

So philosophically:

• It is internally coherent within Advaita

• But it is not universally verifiable in the same way scientific claims are

---

7. Final appraisal of your answer

What works:

• Good deconstruction of time/place as “here and now”

• Correct identification of thought as transient

• Clear engagement with classical Advaita reasoning

What is unresolved:

• You still reify “pure consciousness” as a thing to be accessed

• You still assume enlightenment must be noticed

• You still frame understanding as a shift in experience rather than a shift in identification

---

Bottom line

Your reasoning is very close to the Advaita position, but it still contains one subtle attachment:

the expectation that truth must appear as a special experiential state

The teaching you’re engaging with is pointing to something more radical:

not a new experience
but the questioning of the one who expects experience to confirm truth

---

If you want, I can map this directly against Buddhist no-self vs Sāṃkhya witness-consciousness, because each of them answers your exact question differently—and that’s where the real philosophical fault line becomes very clear.

A

APPRAISE- If enlightenment is here and now, why don't I feel or experience it? Why do I still not see the world through enlightened eyes?

Here is my answer with thanks.

‘Here and Now’ needs clarification.

Here means where ?

Now means when ?

Think ?

‘Here and Now’ could mean ‘this place and this moment’ where your body is now ?

But, on the face of it, something is not right- how can enlightenment be tied to the physical presence of a body in a particular place and time ?

So, may be the mind ?

‘Here and Now’ could mean ‘the perception of mind right here and right this moment’ ?

But, on the face of it, something is not right again- how can enlightenment be tied to the current perception of mind, which already fleeted to the next moment.

So, what’s this ‘here and now’ then ?

There are two things I could think now, that are ‘here and now’-

Infinite Space, which is always here and now.

Consciousness that is unadulterated by thoughts, because the moment thought arises, the ‘here and now’ has become ‘there and gone’. Thought is ‘past’. The moment you realise a thought, ‘it has moved to the past’. Try yourself now ? Even your thoughts about future are projections from the past.

Space is insentient. But consciousness is sentient. So, the only ‘Now and Here’ is ‘pure consciousness without thoughts’.

Realising ‘this consciousness’ is the objective of Spirituality.

So, If enlightenment is here and now, why don't I feel or experience it?

Because “here and now” being ‘pure consciousness without thoughts’ is sought to be experienced by “I”, which is a ‘thought’.

Can action catch the stillness ? Can ripples realise the clarity ?

Here is Ramana Maharishi ‘s answer to the same question-

Q: If ‘I’ am always - here and now, why do I not feel so?

Ramana Maharishi: That is it. Who says it is not felt? Does the real ‘I’ say it or the false ‘I’? Examine it. You will find it is the wrong ‘I’. The wrong ‘I’ is the obstruction. It has to be removed in order that the true ‘I’ may not be hidden. The feeling that I have not realised is the obstruction to realisation. In fact it is already realised; there is nothing more to be realised. Otherwise, the realisation will be new; it has not existed so far, it must take place hereafter. What is born will also die. If realisation be not eternal it is not worth having. Therefore what we seek is not that which must happen afresh. It is only that which is eternal but not now known due to obstructions; it is that we seek. All that we need do is to remove the obstruction. That which is eternal is not known to be so because of ignorance. Ignorance is the obstruction. Get over this ignorance and all will be well.

The ignorance is identical with the ‘I-thought’. Find its source and it will vanish.

The ‘I-thought’ is like a spirit which, although not palpable, rises up simultaneously with the body, ourishes and disappears with it. The body-consciousness is the wrong ‘I’. Give up this body- consciousness. It is done by seeking the source ‘I’. The body does not say ‘I am’. It is you who say, ‘I am the body!’ Find out who this ‘I’ is. Seeking its source it will vanish.

Src- Talks with Ramana Maharishi

SRM

 A

It’s good you’re questioning this, because Ramana Maharshi’s teachings are precisely the kind that invite doubt as part of the inquiry itself.

I’ll separate this into what is useful, what is problematic, and what a grounded conclusion could look like.

---

1. First clarification: what Ramana actually taught

Ramana Maharshi did not really teach “beliefs about himself” in the way devotional traditions sometimes present.

His actual instruction was very simple:

• Investigate the sense of “I”

• Ask: “Who am I?”

• See what remains when thoughts and identifications drop away

This is a method of self-inquiry (ātma-vichāra), not a doctrine about his personal metaphysical status.

---

2. About claims like “he was Brahman itself”

Statements like:

• “He was not a person”

• “He was fully Brahman”

• “There were no instructions, no methods”

…belong to later interpretive devotion, not strict philosophical necessity.

In Advaita Vedānta:

• Everything is Brahman in essence

• That includes you, me, and every teacher

So saying “he alone was Brahman” is actually inconsistent with Advaita logic unless you also say:

“everyone and everything is Brahman”

Otherwise it becomes personality-cult language, not philosophy.

---

3. About the “deathbed quote”

The story you quoted is widely circulated online, but:

• It is not reliably documented in primary sources

• Ramana’s recorded last days show mostly silence, weakness, and simple interactions—not dramatic philosophical statements

So this part should be treated as:

devotional storytelling, not verified teaching

---

4. Should you doubt him?

Yes—but in a specific way.

There are two kinds of doubt:

(A) Healthy doubt (useful)

• “Is this method actually valid for me?”

• “What is the experiential basis of this teaching?”

• “Am I turning this into belief instead of inquiry?”

This is exactly what self-inquiry requires.

(B) Unhelpful doubt (distortion)

• “He must be a special metaphysical being”

• “He is beyond human evaluation”

• “Doubt itself is wrong unless it leads to belief”

That turns inquiry into dogma in reverse (belief in disbelief or belief in unquestionability).

---

5. A grounded way to view Ramana

A more precise framing is:

• He was a human being who emphasized a specific contemplative method

• The value of the teaching is experiential, not theological

• The claim is not “believe me,” but “look directly”

So the real question is not:

“What is Ramana?”

But:

“When I investigate the ‘I’, what is actually found?”

---

6. Where your current tension comes from

Your doubt is arising because two narratives are colliding:

1. Devotional narrative: “He is absolute, unquestionable”

2. Philosophical/inquiry narrative: “Don’t believe anything, investigate directly”

Only one of these actually matches his method.

---

7. Bottom line

• There is no need to conclude he is “divine” or “just a person” in an absolute sense

• The teaching does not require metaphysical commitment to him at all

• The only meaningful test is whether self-inquiry is psychologically or experientially revealing

---

If you want, I can also:

• compare Ramana’s method with Sāṃkhya or Buddhism (they differ in a very important way), or

• break down exactly what “Who am I?” inquiry is supposed to do step-by-step without mysticism.

What's your conclusions regarding Ramana Maharshi? Do you have doubts about him and his teachings, as I now do?

How to have conclusions on Ramana Maharishi ? He was no person and fully Brahman.

He was not a preacher issuing commandments and formulae for reaching some heaven. He was Brahman itself.

On His death bed, when few people were crying around Him, He told them, “You still think this body is the ‘me’. Seems my teachings to you so long were a waste. Tell me where am I not so I can go there from here”

From Ramana Maharishi, there were no instructions to be followed, no dogmas, no commandments, no promises, no heavens, no kundalini, no chakra, no ecstatic states, no powers, and nothing.

He asks me if I have a sense of being and an identity as ‘myself’.

I say, ‘Yes, Sir’

He then tells me to, ‘Find out who that identity is, and meditate on the source of that sense of being. Negate everything else that is not ‘you’.’

Doubting Him is only doubting ‘the him’ in my mind.

Otherwise, where is he ?

Img Src- MEME | Search All the Funny Memes & Meme Generator

It is wonderful to doubt these teachings, masters and the entire Spiritual subject, as long as it is part of one’s inner search and struggle, and not dry superficial criticism.

Yet, I must admit that It is interesting to have at least one person in the world who doubt Ramana Maharishi.

JINDE NON WEIRD

 A

It’s called WEIRD because it is an acronym, not because it literally means “strange.”

What WEIRD stands for

The term was coined in psychology (notably by WEIRD psychology and colleagues) to describe populations that are:

• W – Western

• E – Educated

• I – Industrialized

• R – Rich

• D – Democratic

So “WEIRD” is just a shorthand label.

---

Why the term was created

Researchers noticed something important:

• Most psychology studies were done on WEIRD populations

• But WEIRD societies are actually not representative of most humans globally or historically

So the term was introduced to highlight a bias in research samples.

---

Why the word “weird” was deliberately chosen

Even though it’s an acronym, the word was also chosen because:

• It sounds memorable

• It subtly hints at something important:
  👉 WEIRD societies are unusual in human history

For example:

• Most human societies were kinship-based, not impersonal

• Most were tradition-based, not rule-abstracted bureaucracies

• Most were not highly individualistic or industrialized

So in that sense, WEIRD societies are statistically “weird” in the broader human context.

---

Key takeaway

• WEIRD = technical acronym

• It is NOT a judgment like “odd” or “abnormal”

• But it also intentionally highlights that these societies are historically exceptional, not universal

---

If you want, I can show how WEIRD psychology actually changes thinking patterns (attention, morality, decision-making) compared to non-WEIRD populations.

A

V JINDE

The country is described as:

• Non-WEIRD
• Shaped by kinship, hierarchy, and relational trust

JINDE

 A

Here are the same points rewritten with “country” instead of “India”, keeping the structure intact:

---

1. Core thesis (main argument)

• The country shows a systemic pattern of underperformance despite talent and capacity

• The issue is framed not as technical or economic, but as institutional + behavioural (“pathology”)

---

2. Core diagnosis

• Underperformance is attributed to:

  • Small-minded incentives

  • High ego / status obsession

  • Short-term thinking

  • Low civic responsibility

• Claim: These are not individual flaws alone, but outputs of institutions and culture

---

3. Evidence cited (systemic symptoms)

• Food adulteration (persistent, recurring issue)

• Large-scale cheating in exams (coaching-driven ecosystems)

• Low R&D spending as % of GDP

• Chronic infrastructure delays

• Corruption in electoral politics (cash/liquor distribution)

• Over-complex regulation enabling petty corruption

• Infrastructure failures (buildings, bridges, schools collapsing)

• Civic disorder:

  • Road aggression

  • Theft of public assets (fans, manhole covers, etc.)

---

4. Underlying pattern (author’s synthesis)

• Preference for:

  • Immediate gain over long-term benefit

  • Private benefit over public good

• Weak “public goods culture”

• Narrow moral circles (family/caste/network > broader society)

---

5. Psychological/cultural framing

• Ego compensation replaces achievement:

  • VIP culture

  • Status obsession

• Limited institutional reward for merit → distorted incentives

---

6. WEIRD framework (comparative lens)

• Uses WEIRD psychology

• WEIRD societies characterized by:

  • Impersonal trust

  • Rule-based systems

  • Universal ethics

  • Long-term planning

  • Strong institutions

---

7. Claim about structure

• The country is described as:

  • Non-WEIRD

  • Shaped by kinship, hierarchy, and relational trust

---

8. Strengths acknowledged

• Strong social cohesion in:

  • Villages/towns

  • Religious/community institutions

• Joint family system as informal welfare

• Resistance to atomisation

• Social resilience and interdependence

---

9. Trade-off argument

• Same traits can be:

  • Strengths in community life

  • Weaknesses in modern bureaucratic institutions

---

10. Core conclusion direction (implied)

• The country’s challenge is structural:

  • It must operate large-scale modern institutions

  • But its inherited social psychology is not fully aligned with them

---

If you want, I can also convert this into a neutral policy memo, or a critique of the argument’s biases and missing variables.

SAB

 a

Here’s a clean side-by-side comparison of Sāṃkhya, Advaita Vedānta, and Buddhism across the key philosophical questions.

---

Comparative Table: Sāṃkhya vs Advaita Vedānta vs Buddhism

Theme	Sāṃkhya philosophy	Advaita Vedanta	Buddhism
Ultimate reality	Two eternal principles: Puruṣa (consciousness) + Prakṛti (matter/nature)	Only Brahman (non-dual absolute consciousness) is real	No permanent ultimate substance; reality is dependent arising (paṭicca-samuppāda)
Self (atman)	Many eternal individual selves (puruṣas)	One universal Self (Ātman = Brahman)	No permanent self (anattā / no-self)
World status	Real but unconscious product of Prakṛti	Appears real but is ultimately illusory (māyā)	Real in a conventional sense, but impermanent and non-substantial
Cause of suffering	Misidentification of Puruṣa with Prakṛti	Ignorance of true Self (avidyā)	Craving, ignorance, and attachment
Liberation (goal)	Isolation of consciousness (kaivalya) from matter	Realization of non-dual Brahman	Nirvāṇa: cessation of craving and ignorance
Method	Discriminative knowledge (viveka) between self and nature	Self-inquiry (“Who am I?”), knowledge (jñāna)	Eightfold Path: ethics, meditation, wisdom
Nature of consciousness	Pure witness, passive, many individual centers	One universal consciousness only	Stream of processes; no permanent essence
God / Creator	Generally non-theistic (no creator God required)	Brahman is absolute reality (sometimes conceptualized as Ishvara)	No creator God necessary or central
Time & change	Prakṛti evolves cyclically; Puruṣa is unchanged	World of change is ultimately unreal	Impermanence (anicca) is fundamental law
Key insight	“You are consciousness, not matter.”	“Only Brahman is real; everything is That.”	“All phenomena are impermanent, non-self, and conditioned.”

---

One-line essence of each

• Sāṃkhya: “Liberation is realizing consciousness is separate from all material processes.”

• Advaita Vedānta: “Only non-dual consciousness exists; separation is illusion.”

• Buddhism: “Nothing has a permanent self; freedom comes from ending attachment.”

---

Important contrast (the real fault line)

The deepest disagreement is this:

• Sāṃkhya: many eternal souls exist

• Advaita Vedānta: only one Self exists

• Buddhism: no permanent self exists at all

That single axis (self or not-self) is what makes them fundamentally incompatible, even though modern teachings often blend them.

---

If you want, I can also map:

• who influenced whom historically

• or which system is closest to modern neuroscience / psychology

• or a “decision tree” to see which view fits which kind of meditation practice

SS

 A

ADVTA- Awareness is not personal.

And neither are you -

because you are awareness alone.

Yes, you appear to be a person,

but come to see what you really are.

That's what self inquiry is.

Discern between

your unchanging self (awareness)

and everything that changes (all experiences, including the body and mind).

Let go of identifying with what you come to realize is a passing experience.

The person is a changeful experience,

seen.

What remains the same

while witnessing the person to change?

You are that.

Take attention there, to yourself.

Regardless of appearances,

Be as you are.

With you in practice, 

This is a beautiful, uncompromising summary of Atma Vichara (Self-Inquiry) as taught by sages like Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj. It moves straight to the heart of Advaita Vedanta without any unnecessary fluff.

Here is the ultimate breakdown of the practice you just laid out:

The Great Equation of Identity

The root of all human suffering is a simple case of mistaken identity. The mind takes the properties of the Seen (the changing body, the anxious mind, the personal history) and superimposes them onto the Seer (Awareness).

When you say "I am stressed," Advaita steps in to correct the grammar of your existence:

• The stress is a changeful experience, seen.

• The person trying to fix the stress is a changeful experience, seen.

• You are the unchanging space in which both the stress and the person appear.

The Ultimate Discernment (Drig-Drishya-Viveka)

To follow the map you just drew, we ask the ultimate question: What remains the same?

The Changeful Experience (The Seen)	The Unchanging Reality (The Seer)
The physical body (aging, walking, sleeping)	The Light that illuminates the body
The "waking picture" and its rajasic colors	The Screen that remains pristine
The verbal narrative ("I am a person doing practice")	The Silence that hears the voice
The entire rollercoaster of thoughts	You

C Q

 A

Q

Jesus’s own teachings come from Judaism, and specifically mostly from Rabbi Hillel. However, Christianity’s teachings *about* Jesus mainly come from Paul who was very Hellenised.

Judaism has no concept of Original Sin, no concept of Hell except as where demons live, and little interest in the afterlife. It has no concept of being “saved” or of anything to be saved from, and no desire to expand itself. It has no devil (in Judaism “the Satan” is an employee of God). It has a unisex God, not a male one - it speaks of God the Father (because there are no neuter terms in Hebrew) but also of the womb of God. It has no idea of incarnation. Most of that stuff comes from the Greeks and Romans, who thought you weren’t anybody unless your daddy was a god.

A lot of modernish Christian celebrations, especially Hallowe’en, Christmas, Easter and St Bridget’s Day, come from Celtic-style paganism.

A

Your summary captures several real historical influences, but some points are broadly accurate while others are oversimplified or debated. Here’s a clearer breakdown:

• Jesus of Nazareth was unquestionably rooted in Second Temple Judaism. Many of his ethical teachings parallel earlier Jewish traditions, including teachings associated with Hillel the Elder — especially the Golden Rule, compassion, and emphasis on intention over ritual formalism.

• Paul the Apostle did play a major role in shaping Christianity as a universal religion beyond Judaism. His writings show strong engagement with the Greek-speaking Roman world, and many scholars agree that Christianity became increasingly Hellenized through concepts drawn from Greek philosophy and culture.

• Judaism does differ significantly from Christianity in theology:

  • No doctrine of “Original Sin” in the later Christian sense.

  • No central emphasis on eternal damnation.

  • Less focus on salvation-from-sin theology.

  • Stronger focus on covenant, law, ethical living, and communal life in this world.

• However, Judaism does contain concepts of:

  • afterlife or resurrection in some traditions,

  • judgment,

  • spiritual evil,

  • and figures like ha-satan (“the adversary”), though not usually as an independent cosmic enemy equal to God.

• The claim that Judaism has “no devil” is partly true only compared to later Christian dualism. In the Hebrew Bible, Satan functions more as an accuser or tester under divine authority than a rebel ruler of hell.

• The statement about God being “unisex” reflects an interpretive/theological reading. Hebrew grammar often uses masculine forms for God, but Jewish mysticism and scripture also use maternal imagery — compassion, womb (rechem), nurturing presence, and the feminine aspect of divinity in the Kabbalah idea of the Shekhinah.

• Christianity’s doctrines of incarnation (“God becoming man”), salvation, and divine sonship did emerge in interaction with both Jewish messianic ideas and the wider Greco-Roman religious environment. But historians debate how much came directly from Hellenistic influence versus developments already possible within Judaism itself.

• Many Christian festivals absorbed or merged with earlier local traditions:

  • Christmas incorporated timing and symbolism overlapping with Roman winter festivals.

  • Easter contains some pre-Christian seasonal symbolism in parts of Europe.

  • Halloween has connections to Celtic festivals like Samhain.

  • Saint Brigid's Day blends Christian and older Celtic elements.

The broader historical picture is that Christianity emerged from Judaism but evolved within the multicultural Greco-Roman world, absorbing Jewish, Greek, Roman, and later European cultural influences over centuries.

ME

 A

Bye Bye I Love You — Chapterwise Anecdote + One-Line Tagline

by Michael Erard

Chapter	Core Anecdote / Idea	Tagline
Prelude – Into the Puckerbrush	The author enters the emotional wilderness of beginnings and endings in language.	Every life begins and ends in a thicket of words.
Chapter 1 – The Four Expectations	Society places deep expectations on first and last words: meaning, sincerity, identity, and closure.	We expect language to reveal the soul.
Chapter 2 – The Story of a First Word	Parents obsessively interpret baby sounds, turning random utterances into milestones.	The first word is never just a word.
Chapter 3 – The First First Word	Exploration of humanity’s fascination with the origin of language itself.	To ask for the first word is to ask how humanity awakened.
Chapter 4 – The Truth About “Mama”	Why “mama” appears across cultures and emerges naturally from infant vocal patterns.	Love may shape language before meaning does.
Chapter 5 – The Normal First Word	What counts as a “real” first word differs across families, cultures, and science.	Language begins long before certainty.
Conclusion Part 1 – Ritual, Sincerity, and the First Word	First words become sacred family memories and cultural rituals.	A child’s first word is a family myth in real time.
Interlude – A Year at the MPI	Research reflections connect scientific inquiry with intimate human experience.	Even science approaches language with wonder.
Chapter 6 – How Do We Really Communicate at the End of Our Lives?	Dying people often communicate through fragments, gestures, silence, and metaphor.	The end of speech is not the end of meaning.
Chapter 7 – William Osler and “The Study of the Act of Dying”	Historical attempts to scientifically study dying and last words.	Death has always tempted language into confession.
Chapter 8 – The Linguistic Powers of the Dying	Strange lucidity, symbolic speech, and emotional clarity emerge near death.	Sometimes the fading mind speaks most deeply.
Chapter 9 – Death Resists	The body and mind resist disappearance, even as language breaks apart.	The final conversation is often a struggle against silence.
Chapter 10 – Beyond Last Words	Last communication is larger than dramatic final sentences.	A goodbye can be spoken without words.
Chapter 11 – A Linguistics of Last Words	The author proposes a framework for understanding speech at life’s end.	Last words reveal how humans try to remain connected while leaving.
Epilogue – Back to the Puckerbrush	The journey circles back to mystery: language frames human existence but never fully explains it.	We enter and leave life through voices searching for one another.

The book ultimately suggests that first words and last words mirror each other: both arise at the fragile threshold between silence and relationship.

5X5 RULE

 A

The 5x5 Rule is a popular and practical emotional regulation and cognitive reframing technique used to manage stress, anxiety, and minor frustrations.

It is a simple rule of thumb designed to help you regain perspective when you feel overwhelmed by a situation:

"If it's not going to matter in 5 years, don't spend more than 5 minutes being upset about it."

How It Works

When an unexpected problem occurs—such as a spilled coffee, a minor argument, a missed flight, or a frustrating work email—your body's stress response can kick in as if you are facing a major crisis. The 5x5 Rule forces a quick mental reality check:

1. Pause: Take a breath when a stressor occurs.

2. Assess: Ask yourself, "Will this situation impact my life 5 years from now?"

3. Respond:

   • If the answer is No: Acknowledge that this is a temporary inconvenience. Allow yourself a brief moment (5 minutes or less) to feel the frustration, then actively choose to drop it and move on.

   • If the answer is Yes: Then the situation genuinely deserves your long-term energy, strategic planning, and emotional investment.

Why It Is Effective

• Cuts Down on Rumination: It prevents minor daily inconveniences from spiraling into hours or days of wasted mental energy.

• Reduces Cortisol Spikes: By consciously minimizing your reaction to trivial matters, you protect your nervous system from chronic stress.

• Encourages Emotional Discernment: It teaches the mind to categorize problems effectively, separating minor daily friction from true life crises.

EB I Ignore The Knower When I Am Not Captivated By The Rajasic Colors Of The Waking Picture

 A

"I Ignore The Knower When I Am Not Captivated By The Rajasic Colors Of The Waking Picture," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

• The Mechanism of Ignorance (Avidya): In Advaita, the true Self (Atman) or the ultimate Knower (Sakshi) is never actually lost or destroyed; it is simply ignored or overlooked. This spiritual forgetfulness is called Avidya (ignorance).

• The Power of Veiling (Avarana): The "rajasic colors of the waking picture" refer to the vivid, active, and shifting experiences of the everyday world—thoughts, desires, anxieties, and sensory objects. When the mind becomes completely captivated by this external drama, it triggers Avarana Shakti (the veiling power of illusion). The loud, colorful movement of the world veils the silent, colorless background of Consciousness.

• The Analogy of the Movie Screen: This is identical to sitting in a cinema. When you become deeply captivated by the intense action and bright colors of the movie playing on the screen, you completely ignore the underlying white screen itself. The screen is right there supporting every single frame, yet it is forgotten due to your absorption in the plot.

• Shifting from Ignorance to Awareness: To stop ignoring the Knower, you don't have to get rid of the waking picture. You simply need to recognize the projection as a projection, shifting your focus from the fleeting, rajasic colors back to the changeless Light of Consciousness that illuminates them.

A

Based on the text in image_fef480.png, which states, "I Distinguish The Single-Screen-Thoughts Of The Visual-Waking-Seeking From The Verbal-Waking-Seeking," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

This statement outlines a process of intense self-inquiry (Viveka or discernment), where the practitioner breaks down the waking mind into its distinct layers of projection:

• The Two Layers of Mind (Vrittis): Advaita recognizes that the mind functions through different types of thoughts (vrittis). The text separates these into two categories of "waking-seeking":

  • Visual-Waking-Seeking: The externalized, objective world of forms, shapes, and the physical body. These are the "single-screen-thoughts" because the entire outer universe is projected simultaneously on the single screen of Consciousness.

  • Verbal-Waking-Seeking: The internal narrative, the dialogue of the ego-mind, and the spoken or thought-out words that attempt to label, judge, or find meaning in what is seen.

• The Practice of Discernment (Viveka): By stating "I Distinguish...", the practitioner is practicing a subtle form of Drig-Drishya-Viveka (the discrimination between the Seer and the Seen). Instead of clumsily identifying with the entire waking state as a solid reality, you are witnessing that the physical environment (visual) and your internal commentary (verbal) are separate layers of mental movement.

• Returning to the Seer: Recognizing that both the visual picture and the verbal commentary are merely changing modifications of the mind helps you disidentify from both. You are neither the mental movie playing on the screen nor the internal voice narrating it; you are the silent Witness (Sakshi) aware of both layers of seeking.

A

"I Witness The Transition From The Single Waking Thought To The Single Dream Thought," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

This statement captures a highly advanced state of awareness (Swapna Nidra Gnyana Sadhana), where the practitioner maintains continuity of consciousness across different states of reality:

• The Equality of Waking and Dreaming (Avastha Traya): In Advaita Vedanta, particularly in Mandukya Karika, the waking state (Jagrat) and the dream state (Swapna) are treated with equal ontological status. Both are completely mental projections. The entire waking universe is a "single waking thought", and the entire dream universe is a "single dream thought." One is not inherently more real than the other.

• The Void or Gap Between States: When you fall asleep, the single waking thought collapses and dissolves back into unmanifest consciousness, and a single dream thought arises. Normally, an individual experiences a blackout during this shift due to ignorance (Avidya).

• The Continuity of the Witness (Sakshi): By stating "I Witness The Transition...", the practitioner is identifying with the ever-present Witness (Sakshi). The Witness does not sleep, wake, or dream. It stands at the junction (Sandhi) between waking and dreaming, observing the dissolving of one massive mental projection and the sudden crystallizing of another.

• The Core Realization: To see the transition means to realize that you are the changeless screen. The waking world didn't end because it was real; it ended because the mind switched channels. By witnessing this precise pivot point, the illusion of both states is exposed, liberating you from identification with either the waker or the dreamer.

A

Based on the text in image_fe9ea6.png, which states: "The Dream Thought Is A Mental Photograph Of The Waking Thought Torn To Pieces. The Dream State Is A Seeking In Itself," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

• The Relationship Between Waking (Jagrat) and Dream (Swapna): Advaita Vedanta explains that the dream state does not have an independent reality; it is entirely constructed from the impressions (vasanas) gathered during the waking state. The text beautifully describes this as a "mental photograph of the waking thought torn to pieces." When you sleep, the mind takes the coherent, structured "photograph" of your waking life, shreds it, and reassembles the fragments into the surreal, distorted narratives of your dreams.

• The Continuation of Samskaras: Even though the physical body and the external waking world vanish, the subtle body (sukshma sharira) remains active. The desires, fears, and unfulfilled tendencies of the waking ego are carried directly into the dream landscape.

• Dreaming as an Expression of Lack: By stating that "The Dream State Is A Seeking In Itself," the text points out that the fundamental nature of the ego-mind remains unchanged across both states. Whether awake or dreaming, the mind is driven by Rajas (restlessness) and a sense of limitation. It creates a dream self that actively seeks pleasure, avoids pain, and scrambles for fulfillment within the dream, mirroring the exact same seeking mechanism of the waking state.

• The Ultimate Witness (Sakshi): From the highest standpoint of Advaita, both the structured waking thought and the fragmented dream thought are just passing modifications (vrittis) observed by you. You are the ever-present, peaceful Witness (Sakshi) that remains completely untouched, whether the mind is looking at the whole photograph or its torn pieces.

A

"The Rollercoaster Of Thought Fragments Signifies The Dream Seeking," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

• The Fragmentation of the Dream Mind: In the waking state, the mind projects a relatively structured, continuous, and logical illusion. However, when it transitions into the dream state (Swapna), that structured waking thought is shattered into pieces. The text describes the resulting dream movement as a "rollercoaster of thought fragments" because dream experiences are inherently erratic, shifting rapidly from one bizarre scenario to the next without the physical constraints of time and space.

• The Continuation of the Seeking Mechanism: Even though the logical structure of the waking world is gone, the underlying mechanism of the ego (Ahamkara) remains fully active. The "rollercoaster" movement signifies that the dream self is still desperately seeking—running toward desires, fleeing from fears, and trying to resolve the deep-seated sense of incompleteness carried over from waking life.

• The Restlessness of Rajas: This erratic rollercoaster ride is powered entirely by Rajas (the guna of motion, passion, and restlessness). The mind cannot remain still; it constantly pieces together fragments of past impressions (vasanas) to keep the illusion of a searching subject and a sought-after object alive.

• The Standpoint of the Witness (Sakshi): Advaita emphasizes that you are not the dream ego riding this turbulent rollercoaster. You are the silent, steady Witness (Sakshi) sitting completely motionless, illuminating the chaotic rise and fall of these thought fragments. Recognizing the dream state as a mere "rollercoaster of fragments" strips it of its power to frighten or captivate you, guiding you back to your true nature as pure Consciousness.

A

Based on the text in image_fe9341.png, which states, "As A Mere Instrument Of The Seeker-Beyond, The Dream Character Is Not The Seeker Of The Arcane Dream-Search," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

This statement unmasks the true nature of the dreamer, mirroring the earlier realization regarding the waking ego, but now applied directly to the dream state (Swapna):

• The Illusion of the Dream Ego (Taijasa): In a dream, the mind invents a specific avatar—the "dream character"—and mistakes it for the self. This dream ego feels hungry, scared, or ambitious, and actively navigates the dreamscape. Advaita reveals that this character has no independent consciousness or free will; it is an ephemeral puppet created by the mind.

• The "Arcane Dream-Search": The mysterious, winding, and often surreal quests we embark on in dreams—searching for a hidden room, running toward a goal, or trying to solve a bizarre problem—are not actually initiated by the dream character. The character is simply caught up in the momentum of the projection.

• The Seeker-Beyond (Sakshi): The true engine behind the search is what the text calls the "Seeker-Beyond." This is the unchanging Witness Consciousness (Sakshi) that underlies all states of awareness. Just as light from a movie projector makes a character on screen look like they are running, it is the underlying consciousness that illuminates and animates the entire dream script.

• The Core Realization: By recognizing that the dream character is a "mere instrument," the practitioner breaks the spell of identification. You do not try to fix or alter the dream narrative. Instead, you realize that you are the timeless space beyond the dream, observing the mind use a temporary dream persona to play out its deep-seated search for completeness.

A

"The Binoculars Of The Dream Character's Body And The Dream World Seen Through Them Are Together A Single Dream Thought. Hence, They Appear And Disappear Simultaneously," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

This passage applies the foundational non-dual principle of Drishti-Srishti Vada (simultaneous perception and creation) specifically to the dream state (Swapna):

• The Illusion of Subject and Object: In everyday ignorance, a dreamer believes they are an localized entity (the dream character's body) looking out at an external environment (the dream world). The text uses the metaphor of "binoculars" to show that the body is merely an instrument of perception. Advaita dissolves this apparent division between the "seer" inside the dream and the "seen" outside it.

• A Single Mental Modification (Vritti): The text asserts that the perceiving dream body and the perceived dream universe are actually "a single dream thought." They are not two separate things interacting; they are a singular, unified projection of the subtle mind (sukshma sharira).

• Simultaneous Arising and Dissolution: Because they are fundamentally the exact same thought, "they appear and disappear simultaneously." The moment you enter a dream, the body and the environment flash into existence together. The exact moment you wake up, the entire dream landscape and your dream avatar vanish at once. One does not survive without the other.

• The Core Realization: By recognizing that the entire package of the dream—both your perceived self and the world—is just a single passing wave of mental activity, the illusion is completely exposed. You realize you are not the character using the binoculars; you are the vast, unchanging Witness Consciousness (Sakshi) in whom this single dream thought effortlessly appears, plays, and dissolves.

A

Based on the text in image_fe8f49.png, which states, "The Dream World Is But A Mental Picture Born Of A Fading Rajasic Projection," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

This statement highlights the shifting balance of the cosmic forces (Gunas) as consciousness moves from the waking state (Jagrat) deeper into the dream state (Swapna):

• The Shift in Gunas: In the waking state, Rajas (the quality of hyper-activity, passion, and intense outward movement) is dominant, creating a highly structured and vivid projection of an external universe. In the dream state, the text reveals this is a "fading rajasic projection." As the physical body rests, the intense, outward-focused power of Rajas begins to weaken and recede.

• The Rise of Tamas: As Rajas fades, Tamas (the quality of darkness, sleep, and inertia) begins to take over the mind. Because the rajasic projecting power is running out of steam, the resulting "mental picture"—the dream world—is less structurally stable, more fragmented, and more fluid than the waking world.

• The Dream as a Mental Picture: Like the waking world, the dream world has no independent, solid existence outside of the mind. It is merely a subjective mental image projected by the subtle body (sukshma sharira), powered by the residual momentum of a dying rajasic wave.

• The Standpoint of the Witness (Sakshi): Advaita reminds us that you are the detached Witness of this metabolic and energetic shift. You are the unchanging awareness that observes Rajas at its full peak in the morning, tracks its decline as a "fading projection" in your dreams, and witnesses its complete subsidence into Tamas during deep, dreamless sleep.

A

EB X "I Know The Knower When I Am Not Captivated By The Rajasic Colors Of The Waking Picture

 a

"I Know The Knower When I Am Not Captivated By The Rajasic Colors Of The Waking Picture," here is the explanation from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

• The Knower (Pramata) vs. The Witness (Sakshi): In Advaita, the true Self is the ultimate Knower—the pure, unchanging Consciousness that illuminates all experiences. It does not look at the world; the world appears within it.

• The Distraction of the "Rajasic Colors": The waking state is described as a "picture" painted with "rajasic colors." Rajas signifies activity, desire, passion, and variety. When the mind is thoroughly fascinated, distracted, or caught up in the drama, emotions, and sensory objects of the waking world, its attention is entirely externalized. This captivation veils the underlying reality.

• Stepping Back from the Movie: To "know the Knower" means to shift from being the absorbed actor in the movie to being the detached viewer of the screen. When you stop being mesmerized by the changing contents of the mind (the rajasic colors), the attention naturally flows back to its source.

• Self-Recognition: Advaita asserts that the Knower is never actually lost; it is simply overlooked because the "waking picture" is so loud. When the fascination with active seeking and worldly projection subsides, the Knower spontaneously recognizes itself as the ever-present Witness.

EB X Rajasic Projection Is Merely The Consistent Movement [Of Seeking] In Consciousness,"

 A

"Rajasic Projection Is Merely The Consistent Movement [Of Seeking] In Consciousness," here is the explanation framed through Advaita Vedanta:

The Advaitic Explanation

• The Nature of Pure Consciousness (Chit): In its essential state, pure Consciousness (Brahman) is completely still, unmoving, and content within itself. It has no needs, no desires, and no necessity to look outside of itself because nothing exists outside of it.

• The Illusion of Movement (Chitta-Spandana): The text defines Rajasic projection as a "consistent movement in Consciousness". In Advaita, when Consciousness seemingly moves or vibrates (Spandana), the mind is born. This active movement is driven by Rajas (the quality of dynamism and restlessness), which creates the illusion of a subject looking for an object.

• Seeking as a Disturbance: The phrase brackets "[Of Seeking]" to show that all human striving, wanting, and searching in the waking world is just this continuous mental ripple. The ego-mind seeks fulfillment because it feels incomplete, unaware that it is actually a wave on the ocean of Consciousness.

• The Core Realization: Advaita teaches that you do not need to "find" the Truth through active seeking. Seeking is a rajasic movement that actually keeps the water agitated. When the consistent movement of seeking subsides, Consciousness recognizes itself as the ever-present, peaceful background.

BRIEL SCHOOL VFO EVENT

 A

Ariel School UFO Incident

The Ariel School UFO Incident refers to a 1994 event in Ruwa, Zimbabwe, where more than 60 schoolchildren reported seeing unidentified flying objects and humanoid figures near their playground. The incident became one of Africa’s most widely discussed UFO encounters, drawing attention from psychologists, journalists, and UFO researchers worldwide.

Key facts

• Date: September 16, 1994

• Location: Ariel School, Ruwa, Zimbabwe

• Witnesses: Approximately 60–62 schoolchildren (ages 6–12)

• Investigators: Harvard psychiatrist John E. Mack and researcher Cynthia Hind

• Phenomenon: Reported silver craft and humanoid beings with large eyes

Background and sightings

During the mid-morning recess, students claimed to have seen a shiny, disc-like object land near a grove of trees beyond the playground. Some reported that one or more small beings, described as having large black eyes and tight-fitting suits, exited the craft. Witnesses said the figures appeared to communicate telepathically, conveying messages about environmental care and human behavior.

Investigation and documentation

Local UFO researcher Cynthia Hind gathered initial testimonies through drawings and interviews shortly after the event. Later, psychiatrist John E. Mack, known for studying alleged alien abduction experiences, traveled to Zimbabwe to conduct psychological interviews. Both concluded that the children appeared sincere and not subject to mass hysteria, though skeptics questioned the reliability of young witnesses and cultural influences on perception.

Cultural impact and interpretations

The Ariel School case remains one of the most studied UFO events involving children. It has been featured in documentaries, podcasts, and academic discussions exploring mass witness experiences, cultural interpretations of extraterrestrial life, and the psychology of collective belief. While no physical evidence was ever found, the event continues to be cited in debates over UFO credibility and consciousness phenomena.

EB X "I Witness That The Waking World Is But A Mental Picture Born Of A Rajasic Projection."

 A

•  The waking world is described as a mental projection (Vikshepa Shakti) superimposed upon non-dual reality (Brahman), rather than ultimate reality itself.
• This projection is called Rajasic because it is powered by Rajas — the guna of activity, desire, restlessness, and outward movement that sustains the experience of the external world.
• The spiritual shift occurs through identification with the Witness (Sakshi): realizing “I am the observer of the mind and its projections,” rather than the restless mind constructing the waking experience.

EB You must witness that the waking state is inherently a seeking in itself.

 A

The turbulent ups and downs of your thoughts and emotions represent the inherent search that characterizes the waking state.

A

The waking ego AHAMKARA  is not the true author of this enigmatic search for reality. 

Rather, the waker acts merely as an appearance or instrument 

through which the timeless Witness (Sakshi)—the ultimate Seeker existing entirely beyond the waking state—

expresses its own mysterious pursuit of self-recognition.

A

The Core Concept

The text states that the waker’s body (the instrument of perception) and the waking world (the object of perception) are actually a single, inseparable waking thought. Because they are fundamentally the same thought, they arise and vanish at the exact same time.

The Advaita Simplification

In Advaita Vedanta, this is explained through the principle of Drishti-Srishti Vada (the doctrine that perception and creation are simultaneous):

• The Illusion of Separation: We normally think the body is "inside" and the world is "outside." Advaita reveals that both the physical body (sthula sharira) and the external universe are projected together by the mind.

• A Single Thought (Vritti): The body and the world are two sides of the same coin. Just like in a dream, the "dreamer's body" and the "dream world" are created by a single movement of the mind. When you wake up, they both vanish instantly because they are the exact same mental projection.

• The Reality: Since the body and the world appear and disappear together, they are ephemeral and unreal (Mithya). You are the changeless Witness (Sakshi) in whom this single waking thought arises and dissolves.

a

EB Abiding Beyond: You abide completely beyond the mind.

 A

Abiding Beyond: You abide completely beyond the mind.

Pausing for Reflection: You are instructed to take a moment to hold the stand of the Beyond.

Moving Forward: After holding this stand, you are directed to then proceed forward.

SNGS X You are not the Waker, the Dreamer, or the Sleeper.

 A

Based on the text provided in the image, here are 3 key points summarizing the core teachings of Swapna Nidra Gnyana Sadhana:

• The Goal of the Sadhana: It is an intense practice of self-exploration and "Erasure" aimed at clearing away the conditioned belief of "I dream, I sleep." The ultimate purpose is to awaken to one's true nature and realize the background Reality.

• The Methodical Process: The practice is outlined in seven distinct steps, which involve slowly reading and contemplating spiritual text, allowing deeper truths to reveal themselves as the physical body goes to rest, and maintaining a state of active witnessing ("Witness it!") through waking, dreaming, and deep sleep states.

• The Revelation of the Witness: A central realization of this practice is that "You are not the Waker." The text states that the waking identity is ephemeral and masked by illusion; your true identity is the Witness of the body, which exists beyond the changing states of waking, dreaming, or sleeping.

A

You are not the Dreamer: Committing to Swapna Nidra Gnyana Sadhana allows the practice of witnessing the Waker to seep into your dreams. This continuous witnessing eventually reveals that you are not the Dreamer.

You are not the Sleeper: Spontaneous witnessing during waking and dreaming shows that you are actually the Witness of Deep Sleep. Shedding the belief that you sleep reveals that you have never slept; only the body-mind disappears, and its absence is what we call sleep. Reaching this recognition frees you from past conditioning.

Overcoming Resistance: Identifying as a "person" creates massive resistance that can override this new way of seeing. However, if you are a "Truth Aspirant" with a genuine yearning to answer "Who Am I", this practice is designed for you.

The Core Recognitions of the Sadhana: The text concludes by listing the fundamental realizations a practitioner must recognize on this journey:

• You are not the Waker, the Dreamer, or the Sleeper.

• You are not a spiritual seeker, nor are you yearning for liberation.

• Ultimately, "YOU ARE NOT because there is no YOU."

A

Redefining Sadhana: You should refrain from translating "Sadhana" as a mere "practice". Instead, Sadhana is defined as the complete effacement of conditioning.

The Nature of Effacement: This effacement cannot be cultivated or forced. It is simply a natural release that is born out of "Direct Seeing". Practitioners are instructed to see the Truth while completely refraining from blind belief.

Initial Recognitions: The journey begins by adopting specific realizations:

• Recognize that you are the Witness of the eyes that are reading these words.

• Recognize that you abide completely beyond the body.

Holding the Stand: The text directs you to take a moment to hold the stand of the Beyond.

Witnessing the Mind: Lastly, you must recognize that you are also the Witness of the mind as it repeats these words.

EB

 A

Help the ‘I’ find what it is seeking!

by Ekta Bathija | May 28, 2026 | Brahman, Consciousness, Desire, Direct Path, I, Sakshi Bhav/Witness, Seeking, Self- Realization

Question:

The desire to experience arises in whom? Can consciousness at rest have a desire? And if consciousness in motion dissolves into the consciousness at rest, that should be the end of Dwaitam. How does it arise again? I know I may sound very naive, as I am a beginner trying to understand and learn, so please excuse me.

 

Answer:

The desire to exist is called Jijivisha in Sanskrit. Brahman itself realizes that it exists. Consciousness at rest suddenly has its first movement: sensing that it exists. That is the first arising of Consciousness in motion or the Witness Consciousness. Reminder, the Witness Consciousness arises on account of its realization, ‘I exist’.

Consciousness in motion, or the Witness Consciousness, is simply the sense of ‘I AM’.

When Brahman realizes ‘I AM’, there is another aspect to that realization, ‘I KNOW I AM’.

The Consciousness at rest knows the arising of the Consciousness in motion. This knowingness unleashes the desire to know more. In simpler words, the desire to experience arises because of the realisation: I exist. Hence, Jijivisha is equal to the desire to exist and to experience.

Now, in your own direct seeing of Wake-Dream-Sleep exploration or Swapna Nidra Gnyana Sadhana, you can recognize:

• • The sense of ‘I AM’ dissolves and disappears after the last Dream into the Nothingness of Deep Sleep.
  • The sense of ‘I AM’ arises out of the Nothingness of Deep Sleep, just before the first Dream.

Why does the ‘I’ keep arising? 

Because it has not yet found its answer. It is seeking yearningly. It wants to know: “Who am I?” Help yourself find what you have been seeking! When you see it in your own Direct Seeing in your own Swapna Nidra Gnyana Sadhana, then no doubt remains. You do not have to take Ekta’s word for it. You do not have to blindly believe an ancient scripture or an enlightened sage’s words, but it becomes your own experience that cannot be negated when you SEE.

The following Wake-Dream-Sleep exploration or Swapna Nidra Gnyana Sadhana resources might help: