This is a well-written text—it clears up many false distinctions and accurately shows that we operate with simplifications rather than reality itself. But it stops exactly at the point where the most important part begins.
You reduce the problem to perception and mental maps, that is, to the quality of representation. But the core issue is not how accurate the map is—it’s that we take the map for reality in the first place. You can have a more precise map and still remain completely dependent on it.
The biggest gap in this framework is the absence of a clearly defined “one who sees.” Reality appears, maps appear, errors appear—but the subject who can recognize all of this and stop operating automatically through these structures is missing. Without that, we are left only with improving narratives, not moving beyond them.
The same applies to “Truth.” Reducing it to the sum of all data about the universe is still thinking in terms of information. That remains at the level of description, just maximally expanded. And yet every piece of information is already an interpretation. What is real does not begin with data—it begins with direct existence, which precedes any model.
You are also right that “illusion” is part of reality. But not because it is a less accurate picture—rather because the very capacity to generate illusion is itself a real process. This is not an optical issue—it is a structural one: a mechanism that overlays what is with what has been learned.
There is also the assumption that “stories” can simply be removed from the mind. In practice, they are not just in the mind—they are embedded in language, relationships, and social structures. That means this is not merely a cognitive operation, but a matter of regaining agency in relation to what shapes us.
In short: this is a strong analysis of how our representations of reality are simplified. But it does not answer the key question—who can see this, and what actually changes when that happens? Without that, we remain at the level of better maps instead of moving beyond the need to rely on them.
And here is the key that resolves these inconsistencies: **the conscious field of existence gives rise to visible manifestations, while visible manifestations do not give rise to the conscious field—they can only affirm it.**
From this perspective, it becomes clear why improving maps is not enough—because maps always belong to the level of manifestations, not to that which makes them possible.
The first step is becoming aware that we are not operating directly with reality, but with mental maps. However, we need these mental maps because reality is too complex and must be simplified; maps are the way we achieve that simplification. The problem is that maps can contain distortions, and those distortions reduce discernment, leading to poor decisions and producing pain. There is also a deeper consequence: once we recognize that maps are just maps and stories are just stories, the meaning we attribute to events—which generates mental suffering—begins to weaken significantly. These are very practical implications, not merely philosophical ones.
I've found Substack has great answers to questions. Go to your dashboard and ask the chat what comes to mind. It will reply and direct you to blog that relates, @Soft Precious
explícitamente los mapas mentales modernos tiene un significado en base a la recopilacion de informacion,considerando que esta data puede ser afirmativa o negativa pero su enfoque en la estructuración del pensamiento, la lógica y el control de las representaciones mentales (phantasiai) se alinea con el uso de herramientas de organización visual para mejorar la claridad mental, gestionar emociones y diferenciar lo que está bajo nuestro control.
This is a lovely piece. Most of the things we could do now are see as spiritual back then because there were no equipment for it. So we have to be ready to learn, unlearn and relearn. 🙌
Opinions, opinions, mental speculation, round and round in circles until after many, many lives of birth, disease and death finally one realises true enlightenment is to surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All this word jugglery doesn't get anyone anywhere. Cessation of material activities and thoughts and suffering, or 'nirvana', is not the end. One must realise their eternal duty. Enlightenment is simple for the simple hearted but for those who are "intelligent" it is complicated. Spiritual progress with word jugglery and mental speculation is painfully slow and completely unnecessary. Actual enlightenment is realising you're an eternal spirit soul and one's duty is to render loving devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The way to realise this is to start actually start desiring to know who He is and then He will reveal that all these other paths of "enlightenment" are dead-ends in this age of Kali. And at the same time, He lets those who are puffed up think that their method is the right one but ultimately it is all subtle forms of sense gratification and the living entity finds themselves engaged under Maya's spell. Get out of the illusions and chant Hare Krsna.
Those who remove all stories may enter the brahmajyotir and exist there as the eternal spirit spark void of individuality, but eventually they must return to this world of samsara because their constitutional position is to love and serve.
Once the stories are removed one must find out their real duty. Removing stories is easy. Realising what must be done after stories are removed is what is required.
This video explores the Garuda Purana, an ancient Hindu text, by interpreting it not merely as a religious manuscript, but as a systematic, technical manual for the soul’s journey after death.
Key concepts covered:
The Metaphysics of Death: The video explains that death is a transition point, not an end. It introduces the Preta—a transitional state of the soul—defined by the rigid laws of Karma (0:51-1:36).
The Subtle Body (Sukshma Sharira): After the "gross" physical body dies, the subtle body (consisting of the mind, intelligence, and ego) persists, carrying the "karmic payload" of the individual's past actions and intentions (2:23-3:23).
Ritual as Technology: The Garuda Purana outlines precise procedures, such as cremation and shraddha rituals, designed to sever attachments and help the soul advance (4:09-4:43).
Psychological Application: Drawing from a 2024 study, the video highlights how these ancient rituals mirror modern grief counseling frameworks (like Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’s five stages of grief). By demanding mandatory action from the bereaved, the rituals provide a sense of agency and communal solidarity, helping the living navigate the chaos of loss (4:59-6:51).
Ultimately, the video frames these ancient protocols as a dual-purpose construct: they provide a roadmap for the soul's liberation while simultaneously offering a practical, psychological survival guide for the living (7:10-7:33).
I am going to rely a bit on intuition here. It is not an easy question. What I am about to describe are simply symptoms; they are not the root cause. There are certainly other symptoms I am not considering, so take what I say with a grain of salt, even if I believe it is fairly accurate.
The first symptom is that you do not feel there is anything else you must know. I want to emphasize the word “must.” You may still be curious or want to understand more about reality, but you do not feel that you must know certain things.
The second symptom is that you do not feel special in any way compared to others. If you feel special, that is spiritual ego. Nobody is below you. Even a drug addict sleeping on the street, a killer, a psychopath, or a pedophile—you do not feel above anyone, and you do not feel that anyone is below you.
The third symptom is that you do not think there is anything wrong with what is. That does not mean you always like it. You may often prefer that things had gone differently, but when they do not, you do not feel that there is anything wrong with that. For example, if you break your leg, you would obviously have preferred not to, but you do not think there is anything wrong with the fact that it happened. There is a subtle difference: you still have preferences, but you do not believe something is wrong when those preferences are not met.
The last symptom I can think of is that you do not believe there is any need for change. You do not feel the need to change yourself or become something else, because you understand that enlightenment is a realization, not a transformation.
Now, can one evaluate oneself based on these symptoms? The main trap is spiritual ego, where you believe you are enlightened, but in reality, you have only inflated your ego—enlightenment becomes just another label for it.
Some of these symptoms are difficult to fake if it is not genuine enlightenment, especially the second one. If it is spiritual ego, you will usually feel special, superior, or better in some way, because your “enlightenment” is serving to inflate your ego.
Other symptoms can be easier to misinterpret. You might convince yourself—consciously or unconsciously—that you do not need to know anything, or that you are fine with everything that happens. You could also believe there is no need for change simply because you think you are already enlightened.
In practice, the most reliable symptom—the one that is hardest to fake in the presence of spiritual ego—is the absence of any sense of superiority.
But i'm also glad you understand it's not answering the question, because all these symptoms are also very easily and clearly part of the spiritual ego.
If you believe you're enlightened, than these symptoms also automatically appear. Especially if it's fake.
I dont know your personal experience, but apparently you encountered a lot of spiritual ego's who believe they are superior?
But the thing is, i for example come from the Netherlands. Our whole culture is all about equality and not being above others. Our national phrase is: "Just act normal, than you're already special enough"
Same goes for Scandinavian countries and i to some extent also Germany i guess.
But especially in spiritual communities what i observe is the fact that "no one is superior" is like the first law of spirituality.
So in my experience not having any sense of superiority is for almost all people a virtue and part of their identity.
Are you interested in trying to explain how one can know that one is enlightened again ? Would be interested to hear how you have determined you're not still lying to yourself? How do you know you're not stuck in a spiritual identity?
The first thing to understand is that these are only symptoms, so it is not really about the symptoms themselves. They can only give an indication of whether something is present or not. For example, a fever is a symptom of being sick, but if you somehow make your forehead hot artificially, it does not mean you are sick—it just means you forced the symptom.
So the first point is that if someone has been trying in any way to force these symptoms, then they become useless as indicators of whether enlightenment is present or not. It is like saying that having money is a sign of success: if you earn money through work, then it may indicate success. But if you simply print fake money to force the symptom, then clearly it has no value as an indicator.
The idea is that these symptoms only have value if there has been no effort whatsoever to directly produce them. If one has tried to push toward the symptoms, then they become completely meaningless. It is like putting your forehead on a heater, measuring the temperature, and concluding that you have a fever—it only shows that you warmed your forehead.
You mentioned the word “virtue” and the idea of believing that one is not superior, but that is not the point. It is irrelevant whether one considers it a virtue or not. It is also not really about belief, since belief is often tied to preference and can easily change. It is more about realization.
The difference between a belief and a realization is that a belief involves some kind of reason or motivation—you choose to believe one thing rather than another. A realization, on the other hand, is not really a choice; it is something inevitable. For example, when you encounter a contradiction or something that no longer makes sense, you are forced to abandon an idea. You stop believing in Santa Claus not because you choose to believe something else, but because you realize it no longer makes sense.
So if you say that you do not believe you are in any way superior to anyone else, can you explain why? Do you truly not feel even slightly superior to, for example, a psychopathic murderer or a drug addict sleeping on the street? Do you genuinely see no fundamental difference between yourself and them? If so, why?
I dont understand. Why are you trying to explain to me the nature of symptoms? Where does the assumption comes from that i dont understand what symptoms are?
Interesting is that you now argue for free will and people apparently choose what they believe :-) And here i was thinking after reading your articles that you believed everything was predetermined by previous states and their was only the best choice to be made, the only choice. (the whole reason why everyone is equal??)
Do people who believe from some motivation standpoint that nobody is superior believe they have a choice to believe otherwise? I dont see that.
Also interesting how you believe that you cant know if this reality is really reality or just a dream. But apparently an expert in knowing when symptoms are real or faked. Or even better come from a place of enlightenment in stead of say culture, personality, beliefs in general etc.
You say: "For example, when you encounter a contradiction or something that no longer makes sense, you are forced to abandon an idea. You stop believing in Santa Claus not because you choose to believe something else, but because you realize it no longer makes sense."
- I'm sorry but this is the biggest nonsense there is haha. In what fairy tale world do you life in where all people are just rational all the time haha. That is in my opinion a really strange belief :-)
People contradict themselves all the time. You do it litterly all the time in our discussions!
Our brain does confirmation bias and can litterly block out information if it is a threat to its believes or identity.
You're just assuming rationality because you believe that that is your personal experience :-)
Have you ever had internet discussion on politics, global warming or anything else before?? hahaha Or even in real life. Such a weird thing to say.
Also i had realizations about a belief or experience. But in the years after i started forgetting this realization and starting to belief the lie again.
Does that mean i had a motivation the belief the lie again? One could probably rational that (-> fear) , but i didn't want it to happen, i didn't choose for it to happen, it just happend.
Then of course not even about knowing if someone is faking or not.
How do you even know that that is a symptom of enlightenment?
What about moral superiority? If you believe your morals are better than that of nazi's or "woke people" or racists. Does that also mean you cant be enlightened?
There are too many questions in a single comment, so I cannot answer all of them. I will pick the one I believe is the most relevant. In the future, if you want to be sure I will answer your question, please ask only one, or at least a very limited number of related questions.
Once you have experienced something, you can usually develop a rough sense or intuition of what the symptoms might be for others. It is not an exact science, but with experience, you can often infer what the symptoms could be.
Regarding morality, if you believe that there is such a thing as absolute morality, then this is a strong indication that you have not reached enlightenment. What is usually called morality is nothing more than a series of stories about how you believe the world should be.
Mr no bs. You are the person hiding beneath spiritual ego. Stop voicing out and stay calm within yourself. If you can't do it, then try your method of explaining and exhausting your tendencies and lack within completely. No more words needed. It's all good. You're already on it. But in near term never assume you got it all.
A good way to detect whether you have fallen into the trap of spiritual ego is to ask yourself whether you believe there is something wrong with you and that you need to change or improve yourself. For example, if you believe it is important to be calm, or to have any other particular quality, then you are treating enlightenment as a process of change, which is the main symptom of spiritual ego.
If you believe it is about removing certain tendencies—which is also a form of change—then it is the same thing. Enlightenment is a process of realization; there is nothing to change. It is like realizing that Santa Claus does not exist: you are not changing or improving yourself, you are simply realizing that Santa Claus does not exist and never existed.
These are the upper worlds, associated with spiritual evolution and higher consciousness:
Satya Loka (Brahma Loka)
Highest realm; abode of Brahma and ultimate truth.
Tapa Loka
Realm of austerity, inhabited by advanced spiritual beings.
Jana Loka
World of divine sages and higher beings.
Mahar Loka
Abode of great rishis and enlightened souls.
Svar Loka (Swarga)
Heaven; realm of Indra, devas, and celestial pleasures.
Bhuvar Loka
Space between earth and heaven; contains subtle beings and energies.
Bhu Loka
Earth plane; where humans live.
These are also referred to as Vyahrtis, often chanted in Vedic mantras like Gayatri Mantra (Bhuh, Bhuvah, Svah, etc.).
The 7 Lower Lokas (Patalas)
These are the nether regions, often associated with materialism, power, and non-divine beings:
Atala
Vitala
Sutala
Talatala
Mahatala
Rasatala
Patala
These realms are described as inhabited by asuras, nagas, and other beings, often rich in material pleasures but lacking spiritual awareness.
So now what happens after death?
Do #PastLife Determine the Form We Are Born In?
What is this ALL about?
So you can actually **Break #MATRIX of LIFE #SUCCESS #FAME #Birth #Death** or take #REBIRTH #bornagain or goto #hell #Heaven or #reBORN as #God #Atom #ANYTHING #Human #NOTHING #Angel #devil & REPEAT or get #LIBERATION **YOU can Choose**
It definitely happened around #Buddha. #Monks were #reborn as women
Let’s say you long to eat continuously and you happen to die at that time.
The next time, you may come back as pig, really well-fed. People think it is a punishment to come back as a pig. This is not a punishment for you. Nature is not thinking in terms of punishment or reward.
Depending upon your tendencies, to fulfill those, what kind of body would assist you best, that is what you get.
What form you take is determined by the type of longing that you.
So maintain that longing which is not for this or that.
Rebirth exists and its true but you can choose to make it your last birth as human for unlimited amount of time. But eventually sometime you will again become a human.
This video investigates the extraordinary case of Titu Singh Toran, who from early childhood claimed detailed memories of a past life as a notorious smuggler in Agra. It describes how, even before he could speak, he insisted he belonged to the city of Agra, remembered the name “Suresh Radio,” and later identified Suresh Verma’s widow and children. The piece outlines how his birthmarks correspond to the wounds Suresh sustained, his uncanny knowledge of Suresh’s life and death, and how researchers debated the possibility of soul replacement or reincarnation. It also recounts how his story gained international attention (via BBC, Reincarnation International) and how today he works as a yoga and naturopathy professor.
Now as for what is this all about like the life, cosmos, creation & God.
Here's the deal.
God, Creation, Life, your problems, universe, ambitions, success, failure, salary, partner, kids, enemies, money, anything & everything is a Energy, Frequency & Vibration.
There is no end or start. It's a journey from one to another & repeat.
Yes, the universe is vibrating energy. Everything in the universe is in constant motion & vibration. Even stationary objects are actually oscillating vibrating at different frequencies.
If you want to understand the Universe think of Energy, Frequency & Vibration - Nikola Tesla.
Point is Creation already has everything.
Man just had to realize that he is highest form of physical energy.
If conscious or spiritual or somehow realised then he need not worry about being born again, or never born again or choose from the other options.
Including inventing you, be it conquest, wealth, economy, love, God, or anything man is seeking the same just with these modes.
Spread the word around.
Its all energy.
Be aware.
Preferably get into highest conscious one can be it through love, career, money, spirituality etc or through anything.
Point is realising the whole thing is a loop.
It never started, never ended.
Just form changes.
There's no need to have this cut throat struggle.
Huge desperation towards job, career, life, entertainment or anything else.
Have it but its like see realise the game atleast.
What if every human knew this whole thing is a loop?
Just saying every human is eventually seeking the same thing.
Just that ways are different.
Only thing what i found is there is no end to you.
There was never any start to the whole existence itself.
So neither is there an end to you or start.
Once you are conscious that you have no start or end, that is the goal.
But you once you realise you are infinite, you are okay to goto hell or get enlightened or even just keep taking rebirth, nothing matters. As now you have realised today human, tomorrow your a soul in hell, next born as an atom, animal, blackhole or even as God.
Point is you want to consciously do it to an extent is under your control. This is enlightenment.
How do you know what others are seeking? How do you know there is no “you”? How do you know there was never a beginning? Why do you think that being conscious of having no beginning or end is the goal? Why does there have to be a goal? How do you know what enlightenment is unless you have reached it? What is control? Control over what?
You will only have more questions or even disagreements from here.
Whatever questions you have, you keep on exploring till you can, dont stop till every ounce of you literally searching or desperate.
Warning ⚠️ The answers below wont help you anyway.
How do you know what others are seeking?
Okay you are "seeking nothing" - meaning what? The person is seeking nothing. In other words he wants to have nothing. Isnt that also a seeking.
How do you know there is no “you”?
As for as you, you tell me who? Are you a name, human, person people know. You exist beyond all this right?
How do you know there was never a beginning?
Everything in universe is energy. Its proven today by Science everything in universe is energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Eventually science can prove when exactly the universe started? No because universe is energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed. Only form changes. Again feel free to disagree.
Why do you think that being conscious of having no beginning or end is the goal? Why does
This video investigates the extraordinary case of Titu Singh Toran, who from early childhood claimed detailed memories of a past life as a notorious smuggler in Agra. It describes how, even before he could speak, he insisted he belonged to the city of Agra, remembered the name “Suresh Radio,” and later identified Suresh Verma’s widow and children. The piece outlines how his birthmarks correspond to the wounds Suresh sustained, his uncanny knowledge of Suresh’s life and death, and how researchers debated the possibility of soul replacement or reincarnation. It also recounts how his story gained international attention (via BBC, Reincarnation International) and how today he works as a yoga and naturopathy professor.
It definitely happened around #Buddha. #Monks were #reborn as women
Let’s say you long to eat continuously and you happen to die at that time.
The next time, you may come back as pig, really well-fed. People think it is a punishment to come back as a pig. This is not a punishment for you. Nature is not thinking in terms of punishment or reward.
Depending upon your tendencies, to fulfill those, what kind of body would assist you best, that is what you get.
What form you take is determined by the type of longing that you.
So be conscious while you do your activities in life else whatever consciousness one has, next form will be based on that.
Why does there have to be a goal?
Where have i said its the goal? You don't want a goal, good. "Not having a goal" - can be someone's goal as well right?
How do you know what enlightenment is unless you have reached it?
Enlightenment is not something reachable. It is realisation.
What is control? Control over what?
Not control in terms literally take charge of something.
I only meant once a person is conscious being as i said a person who is aware or conscious depending upon their tendencies, to fulfill those, what kind of body or form would assist you best, that is what you get.
What form you take is determined by the type of longing that you.
So can anyone be conscious without their will? So you need to exercise the control (i mean make the choice) to be conscious right? you can to a great extent hope to choose else still universe will make a choice for you. Either you take control or steering your tendency or whatever tendency you have life will happen to you that way.
The topics we are discussing is like eating a pizza.
Tell me what is the best way to know pizza?
Simply eating the pizza or i write pages about enlightened, spirituality etc
Spirituality, Enlightenment etc topics are best understood when you have your own experience.
Dont stop till you find your own answers. My answers will only make you disagree more. Its like your fingerprint. Only you can have it.
Enlightenment is not about asking and answering questions. It is not about believing certain things either; it is about having certain realizations. Ideally, people should write about enlightenment only after they have experienced it.
When did i say folks believe what i say? I never claimed anything.
I already said it is about realisation.
As i said that is the whole point, you asked the questions, so i shared answers to the questions you asked.
But crux of the matter atleast now we have agreed that is better to experience about enlightenment, spirituality rather than write or discuss about it.
My whole writing is to ensure you go experience.
You’re right that realization is the core of what people call enlightenment. At the same time, if no one speaks until full realization, then no discussion, guidance, or even traditions would exist in the first place.
Even teachings associated with Gautama Buddha or texts like the Upanishads are attempts to point toward something experiential using words. They are not the experience itself, but they still have value.
What I’m sharing is not a claim that I’ve reached some final state. It’s a way of sharing sense of patterns I see, based on ideas, observation, and till date understanding. I already said that direct experience matters more than discussion, but discussion can still be part of the process.
So I’m not asking anyone to believe this. It’s just a perspective, not a conclusion.
It's funny how you argue that the distinction between illusion and reality is wrong, because any distinction is artificial, but then later in your text do the exact same thing:
"Pain and suffering are not the same thing. In the Buddhist tradition, there is a distinction between first dart (pain) and second dart (suffering). Life doesn’t always go as we prefer (pain), however believing that there is something wrong with what happens to us creates mental stress (suffering). We cannot reduce the pain, but by adjusting our mental maps we can reduce the suffering."
Of course the difference between illusion and truth/reality is artificial. Because anything we talk about is only a concept of truth and therefore artificial. It is impossible to talk about it otherwise. The distinction between illusion and truth may be artificial but it is very practical and useful. It can learn us than the things we feel are not reality. What we are feeling are artificial constructs of the mind who distort the truth. Seeing that our thoughts are just concepts of reality and a misinterpretation is for most people quite easy to understand. But understanding that our feelings are also just an illusion and may feel real and are part of reality, the stories they tell are only an illusion. It differs from other idea's we have, who can be just a concept of the truth, a observation. That's why it useful to make an (artificial) distinction between (concepts of) reality and illusion.
You make an artificial distinction between pain and suffering. But as you describe them they are the same thing. Stories of how reality should be.
Saying life doesn't always go as we prefer can only exist if we believe that was is happening to us is something wrong. There the same thing.
Saying that something that happens to us is wrong is only an opinion and there can never be true. Same goes to the believe that life should go a certain way and if it doesn't go as we want to the pain it creates cannot be reduces.
But that is also only a story. Where would the pain be, if you didn't believe the story that life should have gone as we preferred.
You also say: "In practice, only personal truths exist, understood as simplifications of Reality that we call mental maps."
- This is in my opinion such a terrible way to describe things. You said yourself there is only 1 truth, therefor truth can never be personal. Anything personal is by definition never truthful.
As you know mental maps, are just concepts of reality. Why would you call that personal truth? That is so much worse as calling something an illusion in my opinion.
It's a personal illusion would be a much better description :-)
Pain and suffering are defined as two different things: pain is, for example, breaking your leg and feeling physical discomfort, whereas suffering is thinking that it should not have happened. It is not really a distinction; it is more like two completely different things, like a cat and a dog.
The issue I have with the distinction between illusion and reality is that I define reality as “everything that exists,” so nothing can be outside of it. Therefore, illusion would be part of reality, which by definition would no longer make it an illusion. But that is just a matter of choosing words. For example, one can decide to call illusion an approximation of reality. Words are just tools: they are useful, but only up to a certain point.
Yes i agree. But this was not what you were saying in your article. I would suggest to alter it to better represent that pain is referring to physical pain.
Yes, you will always be stuck in a paradox with your definition. Because you say that our idea's which are only concepts of reality are also part of reality. In that case i conclude that it would be possible to know at least part of reality, which of course we both know isnt possible :-)
I would say that the alternative you present isnt better than the problem you observed and doesnt solve the problem.
Pain is not exclusively physical. For example, losing all your money is painful. But if you then say, “Because I lost all my money, I am a loser,” that is suffering. Suffering is essentially a second layer.
No that's not true. Losing all your money is also suffering. Because you only suffer when you believe the thought "i shouldn't have lost all my money".
If you understand that's only a story you tell yourself and let go of this story, you dont suffer when you loose all your money.
You may see it as an opportunity to start new and fresh again ;-)
Emotional pain on a feeling level is also suffering. (i think that is what you're referring to??) It only exist because you believe the stories/feelings.
For most people, losing all your money is real pain—emotional pain, but still real pain—just like losing a child or a pet. You will probably feel sad, not because you believe it should not have happened (which would be suffering), but simply because it makes you sad.
The easiest way to distinguish between pain and suffering, in my opinion, is that the emotion you feel in relation to pain is more aligned with sadness, whereas the emotion you feel in relation to suffering is more aligned with anger, because you think there is something wrong with the universe—that what has happened should not have happened.
For those looking for serious adult (ie not New Age piffle) directions on how to approach spiritual insight, this is not it. Unrelenting hard work is required, starting with intellectual homework on a grand scale. Basic research (a few clicks, a few searches) will point you in the right direction. (Apologies for this intervention Mr NoBs; won’t post here again, unless requested to.)
Enlightenment is not about work, because there is no “goal” to achieve. However, it does require effort—not in the sense of doing something, but rather in the sense of constantly observing one’s thoughts, intentions, and motivations without judgment, and using these as a starting point for introspection to understand why we believe what we believe and what lies behind our intentions and motivations.
Clarity of purpose (impossible at first) is far more important than what one thinks (to begin with) because the goal is ultimate, unquestionable & decisive & insight into the totality of existence itself, NOT aspects of the experience of it, ie introspection, authenticity, mindfulness, whatever. ‘Mindfulness’ is a waste of time without the ability to exercise ruthless judgement in knowing when to discard trivial thoughts & trivial observations; the goal is final insight, not further & deeper knowledge of the infinite possibilities of the human self & its unlimited imaginings. Introspection without a very clear sense of purpose is futile & cannot possibly result in ‘enlightenment’. Why? Because if you pursue the ultimate goal persistently & unremittingly, you leave anything & everything to do with the human experiential self (& its introspective capacities) far behind. Try & see for yourself; nothing is hidden.
Enlightenment is not about acquiring some “insight.” Approaching enlightenment from this perspective will only lead to what is called spiritual ego—an inflation of the ego that makes the person believe they are going to gain some insight or are getting closer to it, and that makes them feel special.
The universe and our lives have inherently no purpose. What do you believe your purpose is or needs to be in this "quest"?
Because any purpose you make up for yourself inherently has preconceived concepts of what enlightment is. Any concept of enlightment you have will paradoxale keep you away from it. the author is right that you're only developing a spiritual ego. I made the same mistake.
As long as you believe enlightment is a ultimate goal that can be achieved, it will always be something that can only exist in the future, which can only exist in your mind.
It's a trick from to ego to give itself a purpose so it can hold onto itself. (motivated by fear of (its) death).
It tricks you that it can get rid of anything unwanted while your core (now spiritual) identity/ego can stay intact. It believes it can just exchange the old bad ego, with a new spiritual ego which has no bad parts anymore and is enlightend. (-> the spiritual ego)
An interesting exercise could be to try to remove words related to concepts from sentences. Imagine removing the words “believe” and “purpose” from the previous paragraphs. What is left?
There has to be something deep within which tells you that the kind of New Agery (everything is easy; you're already Enlightened) you'll find here has got to be superficial & wrong. If such motivation is not within you - well done, you're one of the very many 'lucky' ones. But for those who know there's got to be more than adolescent 'nothing to do' spirituality, hard work & hard thinking is required - nothing whatsoever to do with ego or self-delusion - how can ruthless endless reflection be ego-driven? Key sages of the past - Buddha, Meister Eckhart, Bassui, Lao Tse - have stressed that Enlightenment is so hard it's impossible. Try that with an ego-obsession. Study what the big boys have said & forget the 'everything's easy' jokers.
You need motivation in order to have the realizations commonly called enlightenment, but the cause of this motivation does not matter, as long as you do not fall into the trap of spiritual ego. Enlightenment is for everyone; it is not reserved for a few—this is a huge misconception, probably propagated by people who have fallen into the trap of spiritual ego.
You do not need any “big names,” as you called them. There are no rankings in enlightenment: you either had the realizations or you did not. Enlightenment has nothing to do with fame or apparent wisdom. An illiterate person can very well reach enlightenment. Having the right methodology helps, but it is a path you have to walk on your own. The name of the person providing the methodology is irrelevant; either the methodology is helpful or it is not.
I am trying to provide an easy-to-understand methodology. I am not a spiritual guru, and I am certainly not a sage, but if I could do it, then most likely anyone can do it—especially with the right instructions. Information should be evaluated only by how helpful it is to you; it is completely irrelevant who wrote it or how famous or respected they were.
Enlightenment is so rare as to be non-existent. Trying to domesticate it - ie 'anyone can do it' - is shameful nonsense, if understandable, given that people think anything & everything can be hacked if only you find the right vid on SM. Odd how so many of the so-called 'Enlightened' peddle the same form of New Age mindfulness - yes you're right - even illiterate people can grasp mindfulness in an instant & quickly go on to promote themselves as teachers of a 'nothingness'. How can anyone become 'enlightened' without - for a start - having a clear idea of what it is they are trying to do? Could one stumble across it by accident? Perhaps; but weird how no one anywhere has managed it so far. Congratulating oneself on mindful self-validation is as distant from Enlightenment as a toddler is from SpaceX.
What i also agree with is that i stumble over his last line in this article. For me that's a red flag:
"Enlightenment is not something mystical but is rather about noticing when your “internal” “stories” do not match reality – and having the willingness to abandon the “story”/belief."
Because abandoning your stories is not that hard. Most people can do and understand that. Most people can understand that their stories dont match reality, because a lot of people already know this for say 50% of their thoughts. (and then believe the other half is the truth haha)
Because yes. Enlightment is so much harder and more than that. The real challange is on the feeling level and not thoughts.
It's our feelings which give weight to our thoughts. It's feeling the fears we have to go trough which is the most difficult.
I agree, most new age, it's simple approach, are just creating a spiritual ego where there trying to make themselves feel good. But that is also for the "it's really hard and you need to attain something first" crowd.
But at the same time i also do really like this post he made, think that's quite insightful.
Abandoning stories is neither hard nor easy; it requires a specific catalyst. The catalyst is realizing that they are unfounded, which is usually the result of either an internal contradiction within the story or a contradiction with reality. The abandonment of a story is not a deliberate decision; that is why it is neither hard nor easy.
You stop believing in Santa Claus once you realize that it makes no sense. How can he enter houses if there are no chimneys, and the doors and windows are closed? How do the labels always match the country where the children live, rather than being written in some language from the North Pole? Why do rich children receive nice toys while poor children receive cheap ones? Is it not strange that Santa Claus would discriminate based on wealth? Once you realize that the foundations of your belief make no sense, the belief crumbles.
A story is just another word for a belief. I think you are confusing pretending to abandon stories with actually abandoning them. This has nothing to do with feelings: no matter how much you love Santa Claus, once you realize that it makes no sense, the story is dropped. Of course, someone might have such a strong attachment to a particular story that even in the face of obvious evidence they still cling to it. But the key point is that the abandonment of a story is not a deliberate decision, but rather the realization that its foundations make no sense.
Well i do agree, that enlightment is the hardest thing a person can do on this earth. You do need an internal deep passion for truth and willingness in trying to find it at all costs. Almost becoming an obsession.
It also takes a certain kind of bravery which i indeed observe in very few people. (almost none :-) So yes.
But the whole path is being stuck in paradoxes. So at the same time, holding on to this believe it's hard will get in your way.
Because in the end it's also easy. Once you understand the basics you can always return to these basics, when your lost in making it difficult for yourself again.
Ruthless endless reflection is actually most of the time ego driven. The ego plays a trick on us. It divides itself in 2 and says; This is the real me and this is the ego, let's ruthless reflect on it in trying to dismantle it. At the same time keeping the "self" intact.
When your stuck in that illusion, enlightment is impossible. And this trap gets like most people. So indeed almost impossible to get out of it. But at the same time real easy when you get it.
The ego/self convinces you constantly that you need to attain something in order to be enlightend. Say wisdom, thinking, insights, self-love, compassion. A goal to attain. That's the trap.
But i do think this whole discussion can be about semantics and if we would have met in real life a short discussion would make us understand and agree with eachother :-)
I would not necessarily say that enlightenment is hard. At the end of the day, we tend to label as “hard” the things we do not know how to do, and as “easy” the things we do. If you cannot speak Japanese, you say that Japanese is hard, but if you speak it, you say it is easy.
I think the issue with enlightenment is that there are many wrong approaches that will lead you nowhere, whereas for most things in life—such as learning a language or a skill—you do not really have this problem. There is usually some kind of linear progression, and there are not many wrong ways to do it. To put it simply, there are not many wrong ways to learn English, but there are many wrong ways to try to achieve enlightenment. This is the main difficulty: there are just so many possible ways to get it wrong. It is not that it is difficult per se, but rather that there are many dead ends, and it could take a very long time to go through them one by one.
One of the traps is believing that the ego is a thing—reifying it. I define the ego as what we believe we are; it is essentially a collection of stories we tell ourselves about ourselves. It is very important to understand that the ego is not some kind of tangible thing that you have to fight; it is just a collection of stories about what you believe you are, nothing more.
Then there is the spiritual ego trap, which is basically the belief that enlightenment is about achieving, improving, becoming, or being something, whereas in reality it is simply about having certain realizations.
The temptation to inflate the ego through spiritual nonsense is strong, because it feels good to feel special. There is nothing special about being enlightened, and being enlightened does not make you special in any way; it is, in part, the realization that you are not special.
This is a well-written text—it clears up many false distinctions and accurately shows that we operate with simplifications rather than reality itself. But it stops exactly at the point where the most important part begins.
You reduce the problem to perception and mental maps, that is, to the quality of representation. But the core issue is not how accurate the map is—it’s that we take the map for reality in the first place. You can have a more precise map and still remain completely dependent on it.
The biggest gap in this framework is the absence of a clearly defined “one who sees.” Reality appears, maps appear, errors appear—but the subject who can recognize all of this and stop operating automatically through these structures is missing. Without that, we are left only with improving narratives, not moving beyond them.
The same applies to “Truth.” Reducing it to the sum of all data about the universe is still thinking in terms of information. That remains at the level of description, just maximally expanded. And yet every piece of information is already an interpretation. What is real does not begin with data—it begins with direct existence, which precedes any model.
You are also right that “illusion” is part of reality. But not because it is a less accurate picture—rather because the very capacity to generate illusion is itself a real process. This is not an optical issue—it is a structural one: a mechanism that overlays what is with what has been learned.
There is also the assumption that “stories” can simply be removed from the mind. In practice, they are not just in the mind—they are embedded in language, relationships, and social structures. That means this is not merely a cognitive operation, but a matter of regaining agency in relation to what shapes us.
In short: this is a strong analysis of how our representations of reality are simplified. But it does not answer the key question—who can see this, and what actually changes when that happens? Without that, we remain at the level of better maps instead of moving beyond the need to rely on them.
And here is the key that resolves these inconsistencies: **the conscious field of existence gives rise to visible manifestations, while visible manifestations do not give rise to the conscious field—they can only affirm it.**
From this perspective, it becomes clear why improving maps is not enough—because maps always belong to the level of manifestations, not to that which makes them possible.
The first step is becoming aware that we are not operating directly with reality, but with mental maps. However, we need these mental maps because reality is too complex and must be simplified; maps are the way we achieve that simplification. The problem is that maps can contain distortions, and those distortions reduce discernment, leading to poor decisions and producing pain. There is also a deeper consequence: once we recognize that maps are just maps and stories are just stories, the meaning we attribute to events—which generates mental suffering—begins to weaken significantly. These are very practical implications, not merely philosophical ones.
How can I start this Johnny
You can start by reading all the material on this website
I've found Substack has great answers to questions. Go to your dashboard and ask the chat what comes to mind. It will reply and direct you to blog that relates, @Soft Precious
explícitamente los mapas mentales modernos tiene un significado en base a la recopilacion de informacion,considerando que esta data puede ser afirmativa o negativa pero su enfoque en la estructuración del pensamiento, la lógica y el control de las representaciones mentales (phantasiai) se alinea con el uso de herramientas de organización visual para mejorar la claridad mental, gestionar emociones y diferenciar lo que está bajo nuestro control.
This is a lovely piece. Most of the things we could do now are see as spiritual back then because there were no equipment for it. So we have to be ready to learn, unlearn and relearn. 🙌
Opinions, opinions, mental speculation, round and round in circles until after many, many lives of birth, disease and death finally one realises true enlightenment is to surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All this word jugglery doesn't get anyone anywhere. Cessation of material activities and thoughts and suffering, or 'nirvana', is not the end. One must realise their eternal duty. Enlightenment is simple for the simple hearted but for those who are "intelligent" it is complicated. Spiritual progress with word jugglery and mental speculation is painfully slow and completely unnecessary. Actual enlightenment is realising you're an eternal spirit soul and one's duty is to render loving devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The way to realise this is to start actually start desiring to know who He is and then He will reveal that all these other paths of "enlightenment" are dead-ends in this age of Kali. And at the same time, He lets those who are puffed up think that their method is the right one but ultimately it is all subtle forms of sense gratification and the living entity finds themselves engaged under Maya's spell. Get out of the illusions and chant Hare Krsna.
Those are nice stories, but enlightenment is about removing stories not adding new ones
Those who remove all stories may enter the brahmajyotir and exist there as the eternal spirit spark void of individuality, but eventually they must return to this world of samsara because their constitutional position is to love and serve.
Try for yourself to remove the stories and see what happens :-)
Once the stories are removed one must find out their real duty. Removing stories is easy. Realising what must be done after stories are removed is what is required.
My recommendation would then be to start with what's easy and then find out the rest for yourself
Hope this helps🙏🏼
https://youtu.be/s9xKJzQnl8E?si=-TJRSI-oEIgQW9Hu
This video explores the Garuda Purana, an ancient Hindu text, by interpreting it not merely as a religious manuscript, but as a systematic, technical manual for the soul’s journey after death.
Key concepts covered:
The Metaphysics of Death: The video explains that death is a transition point, not an end. It introduces the Preta—a transitional state of the soul—defined by the rigid laws of Karma (0:51-1:36).
The Subtle Body (Sukshma Sharira): After the "gross" physical body dies, the subtle body (consisting of the mind, intelligence, and ego) persists, carrying the "karmic payload" of the individual's past actions and intentions (2:23-3:23).
Ritual as Technology: The Garuda Purana outlines precise procedures, such as cremation and shraddha rituals, designed to sever attachments and help the soul advance (4:09-4:43).
Psychological Application: Drawing from a 2024 study, the video highlights how these ancient rituals mirror modern grief counseling frameworks (like Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’s five stages of grief). By demanding mandatory action from the bereaved, the rituals provide a sense of agency and communal solidarity, helping the living navigate the chaos of loss (4:59-6:51).
Ultimately, the video frames these ancient protocols as a dual-purpose construct: they provide a roadmap for the soul's liberation while simultaneously offering a practical, psychological survival guide for the living (7:10-7:33).
"Ideally, people should write about enlightenment only after they have experienced it."
- I agree. How does one know they experienced enlightenment?
I am going to rely a bit on intuition here. It is not an easy question. What I am about to describe are simply symptoms; they are not the root cause. There are certainly other symptoms I am not considering, so take what I say with a grain of salt, even if I believe it is fairly accurate.
The first symptom is that you do not feel there is anything else you must know. I want to emphasize the word “must.” You may still be curious or want to understand more about reality, but you do not feel that you must know certain things.
The second symptom is that you do not feel special in any way compared to others. If you feel special, that is spiritual ego. Nobody is below you. Even a drug addict sleeping on the street, a killer, a psychopath, or a pedophile—you do not feel above anyone, and you do not feel that anyone is below you.
The third symptom is that you do not think there is anything wrong with what is. That does not mean you always like it. You may often prefer that things had gone differently, but when they do not, you do not feel that there is anything wrong with that. For example, if you break your leg, you would obviously have preferred not to, but you do not think there is anything wrong with the fact that it happened. There is a subtle difference: you still have preferences, but you do not believe something is wrong when those preferences are not met.
The last symptom I can think of is that you do not believe there is any need for change. You do not feel the need to change yourself or become something else, because you understand that enlightenment is a realization, not a transformation.
Now, can one evaluate oneself based on these symptoms? The main trap is spiritual ego, where you believe you are enlightened, but in reality, you have only inflated your ego—enlightenment becomes just another label for it.
Some of these symptoms are difficult to fake if it is not genuine enlightenment, especially the second one. If it is spiritual ego, you will usually feel special, superior, or better in some way, because your “enlightenment” is serving to inflate your ego.
Other symptoms can be easier to misinterpret. You might convince yourself—consciously or unconsciously—that you do not need to know anything, or that you are fine with everything that happens. You could also believe there is no need for change simply because you think you are already enlightened.
In practice, the most reliable symptom—the one that is hardest to fake in the presence of spiritual ego—is the absence of any sense of superiority.
Thanks for trying to answer the question :-)
But i'm also glad you understand it's not answering the question, because all these symptoms are also very easily and clearly part of the spiritual ego.
If you believe you're enlightened, than these symptoms also automatically appear. Especially if it's fake.
I dont know your personal experience, but apparently you encountered a lot of spiritual ego's who believe they are superior?
But the thing is, i for example come from the Netherlands. Our whole culture is all about equality and not being above others. Our national phrase is: "Just act normal, than you're already special enough"
Same goes for Scandinavian countries and i to some extent also Germany i guess.
But especially in spiritual communities what i observe is the fact that "no one is superior" is like the first law of spirituality.
So in my experience not having any sense of superiority is for almost all people a virtue and part of their identity.
Are you interested in trying to explain how one can know that one is enlightened again ? Would be interested to hear how you have determined you're not still lying to yourself? How do you know you're not stuck in a spiritual identity?
The first thing to understand is that these are only symptoms, so it is not really about the symptoms themselves. They can only give an indication of whether something is present or not. For example, a fever is a symptom of being sick, but if you somehow make your forehead hot artificially, it does not mean you are sick—it just means you forced the symptom.
So the first point is that if someone has been trying in any way to force these symptoms, then they become useless as indicators of whether enlightenment is present or not. It is like saying that having money is a sign of success: if you earn money through work, then it may indicate success. But if you simply print fake money to force the symptom, then clearly it has no value as an indicator.
The idea is that these symptoms only have value if there has been no effort whatsoever to directly produce them. If one has tried to push toward the symptoms, then they become completely meaningless. It is like putting your forehead on a heater, measuring the temperature, and concluding that you have a fever—it only shows that you warmed your forehead.
You mentioned the word “virtue” and the idea of believing that one is not superior, but that is not the point. It is irrelevant whether one considers it a virtue or not. It is also not really about belief, since belief is often tied to preference and can easily change. It is more about realization.
The difference between a belief and a realization is that a belief involves some kind of reason or motivation—you choose to believe one thing rather than another. A realization, on the other hand, is not really a choice; it is something inevitable. For example, when you encounter a contradiction or something that no longer makes sense, you are forced to abandon an idea. You stop believing in Santa Claus not because you choose to believe something else, but because you realize it no longer makes sense.
So if you say that you do not believe you are in any way superior to anyone else, can you explain why? Do you truly not feel even slightly superior to, for example, a psychopathic murderer or a drug addict sleeping on the street? Do you genuinely see no fundamental difference between yourself and them? If so, why?
I dont understand. Why are you trying to explain to me the nature of symptoms? Where does the assumption comes from that i dont understand what symptoms are?
Interesting is that you now argue for free will and people apparently choose what they believe :-) And here i was thinking after reading your articles that you believed everything was predetermined by previous states and their was only the best choice to be made, the only choice. (the whole reason why everyone is equal??)
Do people who believe from some motivation standpoint that nobody is superior believe they have a choice to believe otherwise? I dont see that.
Also interesting how you believe that you cant know if this reality is really reality or just a dream. But apparently an expert in knowing when symptoms are real or faked. Or even better come from a place of enlightenment in stead of say culture, personality, beliefs in general etc.
You say: "For example, when you encounter a contradiction or something that no longer makes sense, you are forced to abandon an idea. You stop believing in Santa Claus not because you choose to believe something else, but because you realize it no longer makes sense."
- I'm sorry but this is the biggest nonsense there is haha. In what fairy tale world do you life in where all people are just rational all the time haha. That is in my opinion a really strange belief :-)
People contradict themselves all the time. You do it litterly all the time in our discussions!
Our brain does confirmation bias and can litterly block out information if it is a threat to its believes or identity.
You're just assuming rationality because you believe that that is your personal experience :-)
Have you ever had internet discussion on politics, global warming or anything else before?? hahaha Or even in real life. Such a weird thing to say.
Also i had realizations about a belief or experience. But in the years after i started forgetting this realization and starting to belief the lie again.
Does that mean i had a motivation the belief the lie again? One could probably rational that (-> fear) , but i didn't want it to happen, i didn't choose for it to happen, it just happend.
Then of course not even about knowing if someone is faking or not.
How do you even know that that is a symptom of enlightenment?
What about moral superiority? If you believe your morals are better than that of nazi's or "woke people" or racists. Does that also mean you cant be enlightened?
There are too many questions in a single comment, so I cannot answer all of them. I will pick the one I believe is the most relevant. In the future, if you want to be sure I will answer your question, please ask only one, or at least a very limited number of related questions.
Once you have experienced something, you can usually develop a rough sense or intuition of what the symptoms might be for others. It is not an exact science, but with experience, you can often infer what the symptoms could be.
Regarding morality, if you believe that there is such a thing as absolute morality, then this is a strong indication that you have not reached enlightenment. What is usually called morality is nothing more than a series of stories about how you believe the world should be.
Mr no bs. You are the person hiding beneath spiritual ego. Stop voicing out and stay calm within yourself. If you can't do it, then try your method of explaining and exhausting your tendencies and lack within completely. No more words needed. It's all good. You're already on it. But in near term never assume you got it all.
A good way to detect whether you have fallen into the trap of spiritual ego is to ask yourself whether you believe there is something wrong with you and that you need to change or improve yourself. For example, if you believe it is important to be calm, or to have any other particular quality, then you are treating enlightenment as a process of change, which is the main symptom of spiritual ego.
If you believe it is about removing certain tendencies—which is also a form of change—then it is the same thing. Enlightenment is a process of realization; there is nothing to change. It is like realizing that Santa Claus does not exist: you are not changing or improving yourself, you are simply realizing that Santa Claus does not exist and never existed.
Here's what i found about life.
There is no end or start.
We will always exist if not as a human or some other form in next life either another living or even non living form.
There is no YOU.
But the experience is felt because YOU.
Here's what i found. These are multiple context. Just see all the CONTEXT.
Then put them all together it makes sense.
We are always existing, existed and will exist in future.
So there are 14 worlds but these are non physical or physical as well.
In the sense there are 7 heavens. In that 7 heavens each heaven has many universes. In that universe there are many planets.
Here is a picture of all the other universes.
https://youtube.com/shorts/3NY0bD7AtSQ?si=0xuTXEZoZmhQp3Bq
Some are universes in material or physical. While there are universes which are in non-physical form with non-physical beings.
Explore these 14 worlds. And each of these 14 worlds have many universes among them.
https://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/articles/14-lokas-vyahrtis-and-patalas
The 7 Higher Lokas (Vyahrtis)
These are the upper worlds, associated with spiritual evolution and higher consciousness:
Satya Loka (Brahma Loka)
Highest realm; abode of Brahma and ultimate truth.
Tapa Loka
Realm of austerity, inhabited by advanced spiritual beings.
Jana Loka
World of divine sages and higher beings.
Mahar Loka
Abode of great rishis and enlightened souls.
Svar Loka (Swarga)
Heaven; realm of Indra, devas, and celestial pleasures.
Bhuvar Loka
Space between earth and heaven; contains subtle beings and energies.
Bhu Loka
Earth plane; where humans live.
These are also referred to as Vyahrtis, often chanted in Vedic mantras like Gayatri Mantra (Bhuh, Bhuvah, Svah, etc.).
The 7 Lower Lokas (Patalas)
These are the nether regions, often associated with materialism, power, and non-divine beings:
Atala
Vitala
Sutala
Talatala
Mahatala
Rasatala
Patala
These realms are described as inhabited by asuras, nagas, and other beings, often rich in material pleasures but lacking spiritual awareness.
So now what happens after death?
Do #PastLife Determine the Form We Are Born In?
What is this ALL about?
So you can actually **Break #MATRIX of LIFE #SUCCESS #FAME #Birth #Death** or take #REBIRTH #bornagain or goto #hell #Heaven or #reBORN as #God #Atom #ANYTHING #Human #NOTHING #Angel #devil & REPEAT or get #LIBERATION **YOU can Choose**
It definitely happened around #Buddha. #Monks were #reborn as women
Let’s say you long to eat continuously and you happen to die at that time.
The next time, you may come back as pig, really well-fed. People think it is a punishment to come back as a pig. This is not a punishment for you. Nature is not thinking in terms of punishment or reward.
Depending upon your tendencies, to fulfill those, what kind of body would assist you best, that is what you get.
What form you take is determined by the type of longing that you.
So maintain that longing which is not for this or that.
Credits: https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/article/past-lives
Rebirth exists and its true but you can choose to make it your last birth as human for unlimited amount of time. But eventually sometime you will again become a human.
https://youtu.be/1wtuVdZNujk
This video investigates the extraordinary case of Titu Singh Toran, who from early childhood claimed detailed memories of a past life as a notorious smuggler in Agra. It describes how, even before he could speak, he insisted he belonged to the city of Agra, remembered the name “Suresh Radio,” and later identified Suresh Verma’s widow and children. The piece outlines how his birthmarks correspond to the wounds Suresh sustained, his uncanny knowledge of Suresh’s life and death, and how researchers debated the possibility of soul replacement or reincarnation. It also recounts how his story gained international attention (via BBC, Reincarnation International) and how today he works as a yoga and naturopathy professor.
Now as for what is this all about like the life, cosmos, creation & God.
Here's the deal.
God, Creation, Life, your problems, universe, ambitions, success, failure, salary, partner, kids, enemies, money, anything & everything is a Energy, Frequency & Vibration.
There is no end or start. It's a journey from one to another & repeat.
Yes, the universe is vibrating energy. Everything in the universe is in constant motion & vibration. Even stationary objects are actually oscillating vibrating at different frequencies.
If you want to understand the Universe think of Energy, Frequency & Vibration - Nikola Tesla.
Point is Creation already has everything.
Man just had to realize that he is highest form of physical energy.
If conscious or spiritual or somehow realised then he need not worry about being born again, or never born again or choose from the other options.
Including inventing you, be it conquest, wealth, economy, love, God, or anything man is seeking the same just with these modes.
Spread the word around.
Its all energy.
Be aware.
Preferably get into highest conscious one can be it through love, career, money, spirituality etc or through anything.
Point is realising the whole thing is a loop.
It never started, never ended.
Just form changes.
There's no need to have this cut throat struggle.
Huge desperation towards job, career, life, entertainment or anything else.
Have it but its like see realise the game atleast.
What if every human knew this whole thing is a loop?
Would current world still run the same way.
What do you mean by found? This just seems a long the list of beliefs
https://youtu.be/WWvKc3IjKng?si=n9RgJPFFkLsj_CJe
Just saying every human is eventually seeking the same thing.
Just that ways are different.
Only thing what i found is there is no end to you.
There was never any start to the whole existence itself.
So neither is there an end to you or start.
Once you are conscious that you have no start or end, that is the goal.
But you once you realise you are infinite, you are okay to goto hell or get enlightened or even just keep taking rebirth, nothing matters. As now you have realised today human, tomorrow your a soul in hell, next born as an atom, animal, blackhole or even as God.
Point is you want to consciously do it to an extent is under your control. This is enlightenment.
How do you know what others are seeking? How do you know there is no “you”? How do you know there was never a beginning? Why do you think that being conscious of having no beginning or end is the goal? Why does there have to be a goal? How do you know what enlightenment is unless you have reached it? What is control? Control over what?
You will only have more questions or even disagreements from here.
Whatever questions you have, you keep on exploring till you can, dont stop till every ounce of you literally searching or desperate.
Warning ⚠️ The answers below wont help you anyway.
How do you know what others are seeking?
Okay you are "seeking nothing" - meaning what? The person is seeking nothing. In other words he wants to have nothing. Isnt that also a seeking.
How do you know there is no “you”?
As for as you, you tell me who? Are you a name, human, person people know. You exist beyond all this right?
How do you know there was never a beginning?
Everything in universe is energy. Its proven today by Science everything in universe is energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Eventually science can prove when exactly the universe started? No because universe is energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed. Only form changes. Again feel free to disagree.
Why do you think that being conscious of having no beginning or end is the goal? Why does
Rebirth exists. See this video.
https://youtu.be/1wtuVdZNujk
This video investigates the extraordinary case of Titu Singh Toran, who from early childhood claimed detailed memories of a past life as a notorious smuggler in Agra. It describes how, even before he could speak, he insisted he belonged to the city of Agra, remembered the name “Suresh Radio,” and later identified Suresh Verma’s widow and children. The piece outlines how his birthmarks correspond to the wounds Suresh sustained, his uncanny knowledge of Suresh’s life and death, and how researchers debated the possibility of soul replacement or reincarnation. It also recounts how his story gained international attention (via BBC, Reincarnation International) and how today he works as a yoga and naturopathy professor.
It definitely happened around #Buddha. #Monks were #reborn as women
Let’s say you long to eat continuously and you happen to die at that time.
The next time, you may come back as pig, really well-fed. People think it is a punishment to come back as a pig. This is not a punishment for you. Nature is not thinking in terms of punishment or reward.
Depending upon your tendencies, to fulfill those, what kind of body would assist you best, that is what you get.
What form you take is determined by the type of longing that you.
So be conscious while you do your activities in life else whatever consciousness one has, next form will be based on that.
Why does there have to be a goal?
Where have i said its the goal? You don't want a goal, good. "Not having a goal" - can be someone's goal as well right?
How do you know what enlightenment is unless you have reached it?
Enlightenment is not something reachable. It is realisation.
What is control? Control over what?
Not control in terms literally take charge of something.
I only meant once a person is conscious being as i said a person who is aware or conscious depending upon their tendencies, to fulfill those, what kind of body or form would assist you best, that is what you get.
What form you take is determined by the type of longing that you.
So can anyone be conscious without their will? So you need to exercise the control (i mean make the choice) to be conscious right? you can to a great extent hope to choose else still universe will make a choice for you. Either you take control or steering your tendency or whatever tendency you have life will happen to you that way.
The topics we are discussing is like eating a pizza.
Tell me what is the best way to know pizza?
Simply eating the pizza or i write pages about enlightened, spirituality etc
Spirituality, Enlightenment etc topics are best understood when you have your own experience.
Dont stop till you find your own answers. My answers will only make you disagree more. Its like your fingerprint. Only you can have it.
Enlightenment is not about asking and answering questions. It is not about believing certain things either; it is about having certain realizations. Ideally, people should write about enlightenment only after they have experienced it.
Who asked questions?
When did i say folks believe what i say? I never claimed anything.
I already said it is about realisation.
As i said that is the whole point, you asked the questions, so i shared answers to the questions you asked.
But crux of the matter atleast now we have agreed that is better to experience about enlightenment, spirituality rather than write or discuss about it.
My whole writing is to ensure you go experience.
You’re right that realization is the core of what people call enlightenment. At the same time, if no one speaks until full realization, then no discussion, guidance, or even traditions would exist in the first place.
Even teachings associated with Gautama Buddha or texts like the Upanishads are attempts to point toward something experiential using words. They are not the experience itself, but they still have value.
What I’m sharing is not a claim that I’ve reached some final state. It’s a way of sharing sense of patterns I see, based on ideas, observation, and till date understanding. I already said that direct experience matters more than discussion, but discussion can still be part of the process.
So I’m not asking anyone to believe this. It’s just a perspective, not a conclusion.
It's funny how you argue that the distinction between illusion and reality is wrong, because any distinction is artificial, but then later in your text do the exact same thing:
"Pain and suffering are not the same thing. In the Buddhist tradition, there is a distinction between first dart (pain) and second dart (suffering). Life doesn’t always go as we prefer (pain), however believing that there is something wrong with what happens to us creates mental stress (suffering). We cannot reduce the pain, but by adjusting our mental maps we can reduce the suffering."
Of course the difference between illusion and truth/reality is artificial. Because anything we talk about is only a concept of truth and therefore artificial. It is impossible to talk about it otherwise. The distinction between illusion and truth may be artificial but it is very practical and useful. It can learn us than the things we feel are not reality. What we are feeling are artificial constructs of the mind who distort the truth. Seeing that our thoughts are just concepts of reality and a misinterpretation is for most people quite easy to understand. But understanding that our feelings are also just an illusion and may feel real and are part of reality, the stories they tell are only an illusion. It differs from other idea's we have, who can be just a concept of the truth, a observation. That's why it useful to make an (artificial) distinction between (concepts of) reality and illusion.
You make an artificial distinction between pain and suffering. But as you describe them they are the same thing. Stories of how reality should be.
Saying life doesn't always go as we prefer can only exist if we believe that was is happening to us is something wrong. There the same thing.
Saying that something that happens to us is wrong is only an opinion and there can never be true. Same goes to the believe that life should go a certain way and if it doesn't go as we want to the pain it creates cannot be reduces.
But that is also only a story. Where would the pain be, if you didn't believe the story that life should have gone as we preferred.
You also say: "In practice, only personal truths exist, understood as simplifications of Reality that we call mental maps."
- This is in my opinion such a terrible way to describe things. You said yourself there is only 1 truth, therefor truth can never be personal. Anything personal is by definition never truthful.
As you know mental maps, are just concepts of reality. Why would you call that personal truth? That is so much worse as calling something an illusion in my opinion.
It's a personal illusion would be a much better description :-)
Pain and suffering are defined as two different things: pain is, for example, breaking your leg and feeling physical discomfort, whereas suffering is thinking that it should not have happened. It is not really a distinction; it is more like two completely different things, like a cat and a dog.
The issue I have with the distinction between illusion and reality is that I define reality as “everything that exists,” so nothing can be outside of it. Therefore, illusion would be part of reality, which by definition would no longer make it an illusion. But that is just a matter of choosing words. For example, one can decide to call illusion an approximation of reality. Words are just tools: they are useful, but only up to a certain point.
Yes i agree. But this was not what you were saying in your article. I would suggest to alter it to better represent that pain is referring to physical pain.
Yes, you will always be stuck in a paradox with your definition. Because you say that our idea's which are only concepts of reality are also part of reality. In that case i conclude that it would be possible to know at least part of reality, which of course we both know isnt possible :-)
I would say that the alternative you present isnt better than the problem you observed and doesnt solve the problem.
Pain is not exclusively physical. For example, losing all your money is painful. But if you then say, “Because I lost all my money, I am a loser,” that is suffering. Suffering is essentially a second layer.
No that's not true. Losing all your money is also suffering. Because you only suffer when you believe the thought "i shouldn't have lost all my money".
If you understand that's only a story you tell yourself and let go of this story, you dont suffer when you loose all your money.
You may see it as an opportunity to start new and fresh again ;-)
Emotional pain on a feeling level is also suffering. (i think that is what you're referring to??) It only exist because you believe the stories/feelings.
For most people, losing all your money is real pain—emotional pain, but still real pain—just like losing a child or a pet. You will probably feel sad, not because you believe it should not have happened (which would be suffering), but simply because it makes you sad.
The easiest way to distinguish between pain and suffering, in my opinion, is that the emotion you feel in relation to pain is more aligned with sadness, whereas the emotion you feel in relation to suffering is more aligned with anger, because you think there is something wrong with the universe—that what has happened should not have happened.
For those looking for serious adult (ie not New Age piffle) directions on how to approach spiritual insight, this is not it. Unrelenting hard work is required, starting with intellectual homework on a grand scale. Basic research (a few clicks, a few searches) will point you in the right direction. (Apologies for this intervention Mr NoBs; won’t post here again, unless requested to.)
Enlightenment is not about work, because there is no “goal” to achieve. However, it does require effort—not in the sense of doing something, but rather in the sense of constantly observing one’s thoughts, intentions, and motivations without judgment, and using these as a starting point for introspection to understand why we believe what we believe and what lies behind our intentions and motivations.
Clarity of purpose (impossible at first) is far more important than what one thinks (to begin with) because the goal is ultimate, unquestionable & decisive & insight into the totality of existence itself, NOT aspects of the experience of it, ie introspection, authenticity, mindfulness, whatever. ‘Mindfulness’ is a waste of time without the ability to exercise ruthless judgement in knowing when to discard trivial thoughts & trivial observations; the goal is final insight, not further & deeper knowledge of the infinite possibilities of the human self & its unlimited imaginings. Introspection without a very clear sense of purpose is futile & cannot possibly result in ‘enlightenment’. Why? Because if you pursue the ultimate goal persistently & unremittingly, you leave anything & everything to do with the human experiential self (& its introspective capacities) far behind. Try & see for yourself; nothing is hidden.
Enlightenment is not about acquiring some “insight.” Approaching enlightenment from this perspective will only lead to what is called spiritual ego—an inflation of the ego that makes the person believe they are going to gain some insight or are getting closer to it, and that makes them feel special.
Try for yourself and fail, again..
Again and again ^^
Yes but if you're obsessed with the idea of 'what's it all for?' then you get used to setbacks & will keep going whatever happens.
The universe and our lives have inherently no purpose. What do you believe your purpose is or needs to be in this "quest"?
Because any purpose you make up for yourself inherently has preconceived concepts of what enlightment is. Any concept of enlightment you have will paradoxale keep you away from it. the author is right that you're only developing a spiritual ego. I made the same mistake.
As long as you believe enlightment is a ultimate goal that can be achieved, it will always be something that can only exist in the future, which can only exist in your mind.
It's a trick from to ego to give itself a purpose so it can hold onto itself. (motivated by fear of (its) death).
It tricks you that it can get rid of anything unwanted while your core (now spiritual) identity/ego can stay intact. It believes it can just exchange the old bad ego, with a new spiritual ego which has no bad parts anymore and is enlightend. (-> the spiritual ego)
An interesting exercise could be to try to remove words related to concepts from sentences. Imagine removing the words “believe” and “purpose” from the previous paragraphs. What is left?
There has to be something deep within which tells you that the kind of New Agery (everything is easy; you're already Enlightened) you'll find here has got to be superficial & wrong. If such motivation is not within you - well done, you're one of the very many 'lucky' ones. But for those who know there's got to be more than adolescent 'nothing to do' spirituality, hard work & hard thinking is required - nothing whatsoever to do with ego or self-delusion - how can ruthless endless reflection be ego-driven? Key sages of the past - Buddha, Meister Eckhart, Bassui, Lao Tse - have stressed that Enlightenment is so hard it's impossible. Try that with an ego-obsession. Study what the big boys have said & forget the 'everything's easy' jokers.
You need motivation in order to have the realizations commonly called enlightenment, but the cause of this motivation does not matter, as long as you do not fall into the trap of spiritual ego. Enlightenment is for everyone; it is not reserved for a few—this is a huge misconception, probably propagated by people who have fallen into the trap of spiritual ego.
You do not need any “big names,” as you called them. There are no rankings in enlightenment: you either had the realizations or you did not. Enlightenment has nothing to do with fame or apparent wisdom. An illiterate person can very well reach enlightenment. Having the right methodology helps, but it is a path you have to walk on your own. The name of the person providing the methodology is irrelevant; either the methodology is helpful or it is not.
I am trying to provide an easy-to-understand methodology. I am not a spiritual guru, and I am certainly not a sage, but if I could do it, then most likely anyone can do it—especially with the right instructions. Information should be evaluated only by how helpful it is to you; it is completely irrelevant who wrote it or how famous or respected they were.
Enlightenment is so rare as to be non-existent. Trying to domesticate it - ie 'anyone can do it' - is shameful nonsense, if understandable, given that people think anything & everything can be hacked if only you find the right vid on SM. Odd how so many of the so-called 'Enlightened' peddle the same form of New Age mindfulness - yes you're right - even illiterate people can grasp mindfulness in an instant & quickly go on to promote themselves as teachers of a 'nothingness'. How can anyone become 'enlightened' without - for a start - having a clear idea of what it is they are trying to do? Could one stumble across it by accident? Perhaps; but weird how no one anywhere has managed it so far. Congratulating oneself on mindful self-validation is as distant from Enlightenment as a toddler is from SpaceX.
What i also agree with is that i stumble over his last line in this article. For me that's a red flag:
"Enlightenment is not something mystical but is rather about noticing when your “internal” “stories” do not match reality – and having the willingness to abandon the “story”/belief."
Because abandoning your stories is not that hard. Most people can do and understand that. Most people can understand that their stories dont match reality, because a lot of people already know this for say 50% of their thoughts. (and then believe the other half is the truth haha)
Because yes. Enlightment is so much harder and more than that. The real challange is on the feeling level and not thoughts.
It's our feelings which give weight to our thoughts. It's feeling the fears we have to go trough which is the most difficult.
I agree, most new age, it's simple approach, are just creating a spiritual ego where there trying to make themselves feel good. But that is also for the "it's really hard and you need to attain something first" crowd.
But at the same time i also do really like this post he made, think that's quite insightful.
https://giottodf.substack.com/p/what-enlightenment-is-not
Abandoning stories is neither hard nor easy; it requires a specific catalyst. The catalyst is realizing that they are unfounded, which is usually the result of either an internal contradiction within the story or a contradiction with reality. The abandonment of a story is not a deliberate decision; that is why it is neither hard nor easy.
You stop believing in Santa Claus once you realize that it makes no sense. How can he enter houses if there are no chimneys, and the doors and windows are closed? How do the labels always match the country where the children live, rather than being written in some language from the North Pole? Why do rich children receive nice toys while poor children receive cheap ones? Is it not strange that Santa Claus would discriminate based on wealth? Once you realize that the foundations of your belief make no sense, the belief crumbles.
A story is just another word for a belief. I think you are confusing pretending to abandon stories with actually abandoning them. This has nothing to do with feelings: no matter how much you love Santa Claus, once you realize that it makes no sense, the story is dropped. Of course, someone might have such a strong attachment to a particular story that even in the face of obvious evidence they still cling to it. But the key point is that the abandonment of a story is not a deliberate decision, but rather the realization that its foundations make no sense.
Well i do agree, that enlightment is the hardest thing a person can do on this earth. You do need an internal deep passion for truth and willingness in trying to find it at all costs. Almost becoming an obsession.
It also takes a certain kind of bravery which i indeed observe in very few people. (almost none :-) So yes.
But the whole path is being stuck in paradoxes. So at the same time, holding on to this believe it's hard will get in your way.
Because in the end it's also easy. Once you understand the basics you can always return to these basics, when your lost in making it difficult for yourself again.
Ruthless endless reflection is actually most of the time ego driven. The ego plays a trick on us. It divides itself in 2 and says; This is the real me and this is the ego, let's ruthless reflect on it in trying to dismantle it. At the same time keeping the "self" intact.
When your stuck in that illusion, enlightment is impossible. And this trap gets like most people. So indeed almost impossible to get out of it. But at the same time real easy when you get it.
The ego/self convinces you constantly that you need to attain something in order to be enlightend. Say wisdom, thinking, insights, self-love, compassion. A goal to attain. That's the trap.
But i do think this whole discussion can be about semantics and if we would have met in real life a short discussion would make us understand and agree with eachother :-)
I would not necessarily say that enlightenment is hard. At the end of the day, we tend to label as “hard” the things we do not know how to do, and as “easy” the things we do. If you cannot speak Japanese, you say that Japanese is hard, but if you speak it, you say it is easy.
I think the issue with enlightenment is that there are many wrong approaches that will lead you nowhere, whereas for most things in life—such as learning a language or a skill—you do not really have this problem. There is usually some kind of linear progression, and there are not many wrong ways to do it. To put it simply, there are not many wrong ways to learn English, but there are many wrong ways to try to achieve enlightenment. This is the main difficulty: there are just so many possible ways to get it wrong. It is not that it is difficult per se, but rather that there are many dead ends, and it could take a very long time to go through them one by one.
One of the traps is believing that the ego is a thing—reifying it. I define the ego as what we believe we are; it is essentially a collection of stories we tell ourselves about ourselves. It is very important to understand that the ego is not some kind of tangible thing that you have to fight; it is just a collection of stories about what you believe you are, nothing more.
Then there is the spiritual ego trap, which is basically the belief that enlightenment is about achieving, improving, becoming, or being something, whereas in reality it is simply about having certain realizations.
The temptation to inflate the ego through spiritual nonsense is strong, because it feels good to feel special. There is nothing special about being enlightened, and being enlightened does not make you special in any way; it is, in part, the realization that you are not special.
thank u 🙏🏼