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