Previously, I used to meditate by incorporating both earthly and heavenly energies. However, recently, especially after the activation of the Anahata energy of creation, destruction, and preservation, I have stopped meditating to incorporate earthly and heavenly energies.

Sometimes I try it like I used to, but it doesn't seem to work very well, so I quickly stop thinking it's unnecessary.

Instead, I meditate by simply focusing my consciousness and aura on the Ajna chakra between my eyebrows and gradually raising my consciousness to the Sahasrara chakra above my eyebrows, leading to a state of Samadhi, which is a state of pure consciousness.

Originally, meditation in yoga often involves focusing on the space between the eyebrows, and there are no specific instructions about incorporating earthly or heavenly energies. Perhaps yoga meditation was teaching about such a state of Samadhi.

If that's the case, it might take a long time to reach that state of Samadhi even when focusing on the space between the eyebrows.

In reality, focusing on the space between the eyebrows might be about achieving a state of Samadhi, and before that, it might be better to focus on areas where your aura is blocked rather than just focusing on the space between the eyebrows.

I haven't been particularly focused on the space between the eyebrows, but some people may faithfully follow the teachings and continue to focus on the space between the eyebrows. Even then, there might be some effect, but personally, I feel that focusing on blocked areas leads to faster growth.

For example, if there is a blockage between the Manipura and Anahata chakras, I would focus on that area, or if there is a blockage in the throat area, I would focus on that area.

When there is a blockage, I usually circulate the aura by moving it up and down, which helps to circulate the aura.

However, recently, with the energy of creation, destruction, and preservation flowing throughout the body, centered on the Anahata chakra, this process of circulating the aura has become unnecessary. Even when I do it, it doesn't seem to have much effect. It does have a slight effect, but it feels like the energy of creation, destruction, and preservation in the Anahata chakra is too strong, and that circulating the Anahata energy is sufficient.

Therefore, even though it has a slight effect, in this state, doing it can sometimes make the aura slightly unstable, so I only do it occasionally to see how it goes, and I don't do it often. It has a slight effect and is effective in some areas, but other areas may become unstable, so I observe and try it a little bit.

For example, if I try rotating heavenly energy above my head and then letting it flow down through my head and into my body, it has some effect on the space between my eyebrows and the Sahasrara chakra, but it makes the Manipura area slightly unstable. Even though it's said to be unstable, it's not unpleasant, and there is an effect around the space between the eyebrows, so I think it's okay to try it a little bit, but it's much more effective to simply focus on the space between the eyebrows and raise the energy of creation, destruction, and preservation to the Sahasrara chakra, so I have stopped trying to incorporate heavenly energy.

This is not to deny the incorporation of heavenly or earthly energies, as it was very effective in the past and had a tremendous effect on stabilizing my aura and mental state.

However, now that the energy of creation, destruction, and preservation is dominant, the need for that has almost disappeared.

A little while ago, I was doing a meditation to raise energy in the Ajna chakra by focusing on the Muladhara chakra. By doing so, I was mixing the yin and yang energies of the Sahasrara and Muladhara chakras.

However, after a while, I stopped feeling any energy changes when focusing on the Muladhara chakra. Furthermore, recently, when I focus on the Muladhara chakra, I feel a strange discomfort, especially in the Manipura area of my lower body, so I have stopped doing that meditation.

This was done without anyone specifically telling me to do so, and it was simply what I felt was optimal at the time.

I feel that it is important to choose the best method for yourself at each time, rather than strictly following the methods of a particular school of thought.

If you feel discomfort, it means it is not a good fit for you, and continuing with a fixed method just because it is the way of a particular school of thought may cause discomfort.

Many schools of thought have instructions to stop meditating immediately if discomfort arises, but there are also schools of thought that do not have such instructions. Some only provide guidance such as "it should be fine." However, following such fixed methods in meditation can sometimes lead to undesirable results. Moreover, there are various ways to meditate, and what is suitable for each person may vary, and even for the same person, the appropriate meditation may change depending on the stage of growth.

Therefore, I don't think it's a good idea to be too fixated on the methods of a particular school of thought. For example, even if it is a meditation to connect the energy of heaven and earth, it is not necessary for me now, but I used to do meditations that mixed yin and yang energies, and I also used to try to grasp the energy of heaven and incorporate it into my body.

However, since the awareness of creation, destruction, and maintenance emerged, I have stopped mixing the yin and yang energies of heaven and earth. Instead, I have shifted to a meditation where I feel the awareness of creation, destruction, and maintenance spreading throughout my body, centered on the Anahata chakra, and extending it to the Ajna and Sahasrara chakras, or rather, filling them with that energy.

Previously, it was effective in meditation to stop distracting thoughts or chant mantras to focus the mind in a certain direction.

Now, even if distracting thoughts arise, they have less of an impact on meditation, so I tend to just let them be.

The way to handle these distracting thoughts varies depending on the school of thought. Some schools try to eliminate distracting thoughts, while others try to negate them, or focus on mantras, or on bodily sensations. Some schools even advocate for simply letting distracting thoughts be.

Sometimes, these schools of thought have conflicting opinions. However, these conflicts can sometimes be due to beginners simply not understanding the other side and believing that their own school is the best. On the other hand, what appears to be a conflict from the outside may simply be that each side wants to understand the other's approach.

These are just some of the various ways to deal with distracting thoughts. Personally, I think it's best to approach them in stages.

1. When distracting thoughts have a negative impact. The approach is to forcibly stop them. This can be done by forcefully stopping the distracting thoughts, or by focusing on an activity, such as work or crafting. Being diligent in your work can also be effective.
2. When you can focus on one point. Even if distracting thoughts arise and try to capture your attention, you can break through them and maintain focus. This is a stage where the negative impact of distracting thoughts has decreased.
3. When the negative impact of distracting thoughts has decreased. This is a time to gradually expand your awareness from a single point to a wider range, and to move towards observation. In work, this means expanding your perspective from a single point. The negative impact of distracting thoughts is still present, but it has decreased compared to the beginning.
4. When the state of observation becomes relatively stable, but distracting thoughts still exist. You haven't yet reached a state where you are completely unaffected by distracting thoughts, but the negative impact of distracting thoughts has significantly decreased.
5. When the state of observation becomes established, and distracting thoughts have almost no impact on meditation. This is a state where you can accept distracting thoughts as they are. You understand that distracting thoughts are simply a manifestation of energy, that they arise from nothing and return to nothing. When distracting thoughts arise, you simply let them go, and you observe them from the outside, accepting them as they are, without being caught up in them. Your awareness remains separate from the distracting thoughts, and you are simply observing them.

Therefore, it's important to choose an approach that is appropriate for your own stage, rather than deciding how to deal with distracting thoughts from the beginning.

This may or may not be possible depending on whether you are part of a particular school of thought, as you may be required to follow the practices of that school. However, I believe that the way of meditation should be flexible and adaptable to the individual. This depends on the individual's way of thinking, so if you think that the practices of a particular school are good, you should feel free to follow them. That is also a matter of personal choice.

Even if you are taught by a school of thought that "distracting thoughts will disappear if you let them be," you will likely not experience that from the beginning. In fact, if you let distracting thoughts be, you may become trapped by them, which can reinforce them and cause them to grow. Therefore, I think it's best to start with "concentration" from the beginning, especially when you are just starting out.

Furthermore, there is no need to be particularly strict about sitting meditation from the beginning. It can also be effective to engage in activities that allow you to concentrate, such as working as a craftsman, programming computers, or creating art. I believe that these activities can also help to develop a sense of meditation.

It is important to have a basic attitude that you cannot fully understand the other person, and that you will never know the ultimate truth about them.

Even if you develop a spiritual sense, you may be able to see certain aspects of the other person, but even in those cases, you cannot see the ultimate, fundamental truth. Even if you understand 80% or 90%, the remaining 10% or so is very important, and even if you understand 90%, it is only the surface level. The remaining 10% is actually connected to a deeper level of collective consciousness, group unconsciousness, group soul, or higher self. Therefore, even if you understand 90% or 95%, you still cannot understand the remaining part.

Understanding others spiritually means that even if you develop a spiritual sense and understand 90% or 95% of the earthly, physical, emotional, or logical aspects of a person, and even if you communicate that understanding to the other person and they confirm that it is correct, the remaining 10% or 5% is very important, because it is actually the fundamental truth. Therefore, even if you understand 90% or 95%, you cannot say that you have truly understood the other person.

It is very important to understand that you will never reach 100%, and that the soul of a human living on this earth will never fully understand the fundamental nature of another soul. Because of this lack of understanding, even if you develop spiritually, you may make the mistake of thinking that you have understood a significant part of the other person, but that it is the whole of them.

Of course, even without going that far, it is common to interpret someone based only on their surface appearance, such as in a job interview.

In any case, even if you think you understand someone, it is better to assume that it is only the surface level.

This is also true even if you can astral project and observe the milestones of another person's life. Even if you actually go back in time and understand the key points of another person's life, the person who has actually experienced that life is the one who has spent the time and lived it. You can carefully observe and understand their emotions, but that only reaches the level of empathy, and even if you deepen your understanding to 80% or 90%, it does not mean that you have understood the fundamental 100%.

In order to truly understand someone, you would have to actually become that person and even merge with their soul, which is impossible for a human soul. It may be possible to understand this if you reach a more advanced spiritual level, but this is not really relevant to people who are born with a physical body on this earth. Such consciousness is closer to collective consciousness, and I think people with such consciousness would not be interested in individual problems or understanding.

As long as there is a sense of individuality in this world, it is impossible to fully understand another person. Even if you think you understand 90%, it is better to assume that it is only the surface level.

Some people may feel sad when they hear this because it evokes a sense of separation, but that is the opposite. You can understand others because you are connected to your own fundamental nature. By connecting with your own fundamental nature, you realize that it is the same as the other person, and that is how you reach understanding. And even when this so-called sense of oneness is used to understand others, it reaches 80% or 90%, but it does not reach 100%, as I have said.

In this lifetime, I haven't been able to have clairvoyance, but I only have intuition. However, as often said, clairvoyance is done through the ajna chakra.

But, even when looking at the memories of my soul group or parallel worlds, it seems that I mostly only see things when it's necessary, rather than having clear clairvoyance.

There were times when I could see anything and everything, but when I look back at those memories, it seems that it only happened when I couldn't control my abilities or when my own vibrations were not good.

On the other hand, when I recall memories from a long time ago, there were times when I could see everything without being affected. So, I think that's the direction I should aim for.

There's a common saying that the spiritual growth level and abilities like clairvoyance are not related. Well, there are aspects to that, but there are also aspects where that's not the case.

For truly immature souls, they simply cannot use clairvoyance. It's impossible for a soul that hasn't grown at all to have clairvoyance.

After a certain level of growth, and once the basic framework for clairvoyance is established, there are stories that say the level and abilities are not related. However, most of those stories seem to be about souls that have grown to the point of having abilities, but then their consciousness has declined, and their level has dropped.

Some people say that abilities are acquired through spiritual techniques or spiritual tools. Indeed, there are aspects to that. Spiritual tools, for example, are tools for clairvoyance, or tools for predicting the future. Although I say "tools," sometimes they are spiritual animals specifically for that purpose, or things that can be used like tools.

So, there are aspects of tools and techniques, but it's not just that. For example, in clairvoyance, a spiritual crystal must form in the area behind the third eye, near the back of the head. So, there are aspects of tools and techniques, but I think that's also part of the spiritual level.

Sometimes, the crystal is temporarily removed, and people study this earthly world without clairvoyance. I am one of those types. In such cases, I was born with the ability to have clairvoyance, but temporarily had that ability turned off.

Therefore, there are abilities that my soul has acquired through repeated reincarnations. And, basically, those abilities use the ajna chakra.

To put it simply, the basic growth of humans, spiritual growth, begins with the adjustment of the lower chakras and then the adjustment of the upper chakras. At that point, it's not yet at the stage where the chakras open as commonly said. Instead, it first goes from the bottom to the top, adjusts the overall aura, and then gradually opens the anahata, vishuddha, and ajna chakras.

It feels like it's a little behind the ajna chakra, near the back of the head, just behind the eyebrows.

In my case, the adjustment of the lower chakras, the adjustment of the upper chakras, and the activation of the anahata chakra are complete. So, I think the next one might be the vishuddha chakra, but I also think that my vishuddha chakra might have been open from the beginning. So, I'm not sure if the next one is the vishuddha chakra or the ajna chakra, and I'm in a state of observing.

Some books say that it takes a long time to activate the anahata chakra and reach the vishuddha chakra, and sometimes it requires several lifetimes. So, I'm not too worried about it and I'm looking at it from a long-term perspective. On the other hand, those books also say that once you reach the vishuddha chakra, you can transition to the next stage relatively quickly, such as every few years. So, I'm looking forward to that.

It seems that there have been changes not only with the famous Kundalini energy, but also with multiple energies.

First, there is the energy called "prana" in yoga. This is energy that can be taken in through breathing, and it fills the space.

Next, there is Kundalini. This is energy that sleeps below the coccyx, and when it awakens, the energy first fills the entire body, and then, as it settles down, the energy in the lower abdomen, manipura, becomes dominant, then anahata becomes dominant, and then ajna becomes dominant, or something like that.

The next thing that comes is what is called "Atman." In yoga, this is described as something equivalent to the soul, or as a fundamental energy that expresses individuality. On the other hand, in Vedanta, Atman is described as an eternal and unknowable existence, so it does not have an energetic aspect. However, in Japanese yoga, Atman is understood as something equivalent to the soul, so I have tentatively called it Atman. Personally, I have experienced it as a consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation.

I think there are these three types of energy. They are all different things. Prana is the fundamental energy that supports the physical activity of the human body, and it is subtle, but it is relatively close to the body. Kundalini is also subtle, but it is coarser than prana, and it is a more spiritual energy that is further away from the body.

And Atman is even more subtle, and it is closer to the fundamental energy.

It is said in Vedanta that Atman is unknowable and eternal, and that it does not change. However, in my experience, it certainly seems eternal and unknowable, and it seems that it does not change, but it is not as unknowable as it seems, and it is not as eternal as it seems, and it is not as unchanging as it seems. Indeed, it seems that these qualities are inherent, but it does not seem to be completely so at the stage of Atman.

In Vedanta, Atman is described as the individual, and Brahman is described as the whole. Perhaps when you reach Brahman, those qualities are fully realized.

In yoga, practices such as pranayama are performed to take in prana energy. When I first started yoga, pranayama simply felt like taking in prana. However, after Kundalini awakening, pranayama has become a process of taking in prana while also raising the energy of Kundalini and passing it upwards in the body. And since the energy of Atman (consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation) has emerged, pranayama has become a more complex process of taking in prana, raising Kundalini, and filling the body with the energy of Atman. Although the physical movements are the same, there are such internal changes.

The quality of the energy is also different. When I first took in prana energy, I simply felt energetic, and that was a pleasant feeling. However, after Kundalini awakening, I felt full of energy and energetic, and after Atman appeared, the energy became even higher. It is like a long jump, where you start running with prana, then take a step with Kundalini, and finally make a big jump with Atman.

In yoga, it is said that Kundalini is the final awakening. However, there is a stage called Atman, and perhaps there is also a stage called Brahman next.

When I sit and focus on my eyebrows in meditation, without any particular intention, my consciousness becomes clear, and I experience a meditation where it feels like I'm wearing a round hat on my head.

The sequence is as follows: first, as the aura fills up to my head, I feel like I'm wearing a net, a round hat, or a knitted hat that fits snugly on my head. When I reach that state, my consciousness becomes clear and I experience a state of silent awareness.

If the aura doesn't reach the top of my head, my consciousness feels somewhat stagnant. However, during meditation, the aura almost simultaneously fills up to the top of my head, and my consciousness becomes clear.

I believe that the extent of the aura and consciousness are closely related.

Recently, perhaps due to the COVID-19 pandemic or something else, both the energy from the heavens and the energy from the earth have been somewhat stagnant. Even when connecting with the heavens, I feel a strange, jagged sensation, and even when connecting with the earth, it feels like a reddish-brown aura, like a child's sandbox. In these days when both are subtle, if I can connect with the consciousness of Atman, which is the essence of my own being, the creation, destruction, and maintenance of Atman, I can remain in a state of stillness.

This may mean that if I had reached this state a little later, it might have been dangerous, because before that, I was relying on the energy from the heavens and the energy from the earth. In the current situation, where both are stagnant due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it might have been difficult to transform my consciousness while living in this city.

Alternatively, it could be the opposite: perhaps it was because I was forced into a situation where I couldn't rely on the heavens or the earth that I awakened to the consciousness of Atman. It's a situation where it's hard to say which came first, and my consciousness may have been pushed forward in a mixed state.

When I meditate in a state of stillness where the aura has filled up to my head, I see something like a diamond, or a cube with eight faces, or something more complex like a Merkaba, within my heart. (It may look like a pentagram when viewed on a plane, but it is actually a three-dimensional object, so it is not a pentagram-like plane.)

And from there, you can see that light is being emitted.

Furthermore, an aura vortex appears around the Ajna, and initially, two of them rotate around each other, then three appear, and eventually, they form a simple circle and rotate. It feels more like a pitch-black blackness is rotating rather than light.

It feels like light is coming from the heart, and then it becomes pitch-black at the Ajna... but I think I'll observe this area further in the future.

By the way, this is something that naturally appeared, and it wasn't something I imagined. However, there's a possibility that a deep image came to mind, but I haven't done meditations that specifically focus on imagining such things, so it's unlikely that an imagined image was suppressed. There are meditations that involve imagining images, but this time, it naturally came up without me imagining anything.

Some schools of thought teach that focusing the mind on a single point is incorrect.

This is something I understand well, and it makes logical sense. It's correct in principle, and if one has reached a level close to samadhi, it's likely correct. Or, perhaps, it's possible if one has a certain aptitude or lives in a less chaotic society.

It's important to know that trying to focus the mind on a single point, in order to prevent thoughts from wandering and to remain in a state of tranquility or bliss, is also a mistake. This "concentration" itself is just another thought. Instead, one should relax the mind, awaken to one's true state without being distracted or forgetting, and avoid being dominated by any particular thought. When truly relaxed, the mind is in a natural state. "Rainbow and Crystal" by Namkai Norbu.

This is consistent and, in essence, I think it's correct.

However, even though it's correct in principle, I think it's difficult to put into practice, especially at the beginning, and the author acknowledges the same.

When one is just starting to practice, it's difficult to maintain a state of non-distraction while allowing thoughts to arise and pass for a long time. (Omitted) One should simply remain in one's own state of mind, allowing the movements of thoughts and the state of tranquility to arise, and savor each moment. There is no other practice. One should know one's true self and remain in one's own state of rigpa. There is no need to seek any particular wonderful experience or radiance. "Rainbow and Crystal" by Namkai Norbu.

This is correct, and I would simply accept it if a teacher (or lama) said it, but it seems to me that it's talking about things at a relatively high level.

The state of rigpa is a level where one can achieve samadhi in a short period of time. Therefore, for those who find it difficult to remain in the state of rigpa, this principle is correct. However, for those who have not yet experienced rigpa, it is difficult. When I say this, I hear voices saying that rigpa is something that everyone has, so everyone can do it. But that's true, but the rigpa of ordinary people is very weak and lasts only for a moment.

Perhaps it's possible in an environment where one lives with a teacher (spiritual guide) and interacts with them closely. It is often said that spiritual practice requires a teacher. In such an environment, it seems that this is correct.

Especially for beginners, it is extremely difficult to maintain this awakened awareness constantly. It is so difficult that one can easily give up. This is especially true in environments where there is no teacher nearby.

On the other hand, there is also the possibility of misinterpreting these explanations, whether or not there is a teacher. When it is described as "observation," there is a possibility of misunderstanding that the rigpa state being described is not beyond the five senses, but rather that observing the five senses, especially the sensation of the skin, is the rigpa state, simply by reading the explanation.

Observing the skin, or observing the breath around the nose, or concentrating on the space between the eyebrows, are all observations of the senses or observations of the mind, and are all forms of concentration using the senses. However, when one is observing the skin, one may mistakenly believe that one is in a state of samadhi, such as the rigpa state. This is especially true in environments where there is no teacher.

Therefore, I think that the above explanation is very correct, but it is something that can easily be misunderstood simply by listening to the explanation, so it requires special attention.

I think that "concentration meditation," which is less likely to be misunderstood and easier to practice, is a better entry point as a meditation technique.

It may seem like I am saying something contradictory, but in a sense, this concentration meditation is not necessary in the final state of samadhi, so it can be said that "concentration meditation is wrong," as mentioned above. However, as mentioned above, this is something that is very prone to misunderstanding, and, moreover, it is extremely difficult for ordinary people to practice samadhi using rigpa.

Therefore, it is better to start with concentration meditation and reach a state of "tranquility" before eventually experiencing rigpa and then transitioning to samadhi. However, all that is needed is to understand that concentration meditation is not the goal.

When one hears all these explanations, one may interpret concentration meditation as something bad. However, in reality, concentration meditation is widely used as a beginner's meditation in many schools, and even in places that talk about "observational meditation," the content often turns out to be simply concentration meditation, especially at the beginning. They deny concentration meditation in order to make the explanation consistent, but in reality, they are simply denying concentration meditation in order to fit the explanation.

This may also be a problem due to the lack of understanding among the disciples, but initially, it is perfectly fine with focused meditation. The explanation, which essentially denies focused meditation by describing entering samadhi without reaching the samadhi level, makes it seem as if focused meditation is unnecessary from the beginning, and I think that even those who are called meditation teachers often lack understanding of these things.

Since meditation is something done in the mind, one can become a meditation teacher by simply taking a course without understanding these things, but when one actually reaches samadhi, these things become clear. However, if one does not reach that level, a misunderstanding may arise that denies focused meditation.

That being said, from my current perspective, focused meditation is not important, and I am recently only interested in maintaining the samadhi of Rikpa in daily life, so it is true that the explanation I quoted earlier resonates more with me.

However, when I recall the past, there were times when focused meditation was also useful, so I am talking based on those memories. Indeed, for example, if someone is born with a certain level of attainment, it may be unavoidable to completely deny focused meditation as mentioned in the explanation I quoted earlier. There are many great gurus who are like that.

However, ordinary people do not have that level, so I think they should start with focused meditation.

I can say these things because I do things quite freely, but if you belong to a particular school, focused meditation or observation meditation may be absolute, and there may be rigid aspects. Personally, I think it is better to listen to the methods of each school and do them based on your own understanding, but that is up to each individual.

In fact, in Zokchen, the source of the above quote, there are also practices for entering samadhi, so it is not always the case that disciples are subjected to harsh realities as mentioned above. This probably depends on the school or guru (lama), and there are gurus who think as mentioned above.

Therefore, it is important not to jump to the conclusion "So, focused meditation is wrong" after reading the above.

As I have said repeatedly, I now feel a sense of discomfort and even unpleasantness with focused meditation. Forcing the mind to stop or concentrating on a single point to make it difficult for extraneous thoughts to arise feels unnatural to me now. However, even when there are many extraneous thoughts and one is swayed by them, focused meditation, which temporarily stops the mind, was also effective. The extreme of that is "emptiness" meditation, but if that is considered a temporary rest, it can be effective.

When I read books on Vipassana meditation, they say things like, "Let's broadcast the sensations of the skin and the thoughts of the mind." But if you can broadcast it, you're already awakened.

So, I have a personal feeling that it's a bit of a stretch to say that... I won't mention which book it is, but it's my personal opinion.

Broadcasting is when the mind clearly reacts to the senses or the movements of the mind. It's an action (output) in response to an input of the senses or the movements of the mind, which is different from the "observation" that is the true intention of Samadhi or Vipassana meditation.

If you observe in the sense of Samadhi, you simply observe, and whether or not there is a "reaction," you observe everything. Broadcasting the movements of the mind is just a training in concentration.

Moreover, the movements of the skin and the mind are incredibly fast, appearing and disappearing every few seconds or even faster. So, if you try to broadcast it, you absolutely have to be quite awakened to keep up.

If you can verbalize and broadcast the moment the first sensation of the skin appears, and then the next sensation appears immediately, and then you can broadcast the moment a random thought quickly appears... then you are already awakened.

I have a personal feeling that it's quite a difficult thing to be told... I think it's impossible, but.

If you pick out just one of the many sensory inputs or one of the many random thoughts and broadcast only that, and then, when the broadcast is over, you notice the next sensory input or the next random thought and broadcast it... then I can understand. Maybe that's what it is. Or maybe it's just a challenge.

However, when you try to broadcast, the intention to "stop" the thoughts arises, so it's hard to see things as they are.

The teaching says, "There is no need to stop thinking," but in reality, if you can broadcast without stopping your thoughts, you are already quite awakened.

If you can do that without being awakened, you wouldn't have any trouble. I think it's quite a difficult request.

Even if you are taught something that is impossible, it will cause confusion. Moreover, the mind is something that appears and disappears, so it seems incompatible with broadcasting.

In Samadhi, the observation of the senses and the mind is that something arises from emptiness (a state of nothingness), and then returns to emptiness. So, emptiness is also an object of observation in Samadhi, and the senses, random thoughts, and thoughts are also objects of observation. If you only pick out the "color" and then broadcast the "color" of thoughts, it's just training concentration, and it's hard to reach the point of observing both emptiness and color as they are, which is the essence of Samadhi.

I wonder how many people can achieve enlightenment with that method... It seems like a very harsh meditation method, like being thrown into a valley of despair. It might be good for people who are already quite awakened, but I think that even if you try it, you often end up getting tired of observing the senses and the mind and giving up. What do you think?

If you are simply expecting the effect of preventing random thoughts by repeatedly broadcasting or performing certain actions, then that's fine. However, I think that's on a completely different level from Samadhi.

It is only when this happens that one can truly say that focused meditation is unnecessary.

Until one reaches that state, concentration is necessary. Even if one manages to "swallow both the clear and the muddy," if one's consciousness becomes clouded and one deviates from the state of equanimity, it is necessary to re-engage in focused meditation to reach the state of stillness, and then gradually transition to the state of "swallowing both the clear and the muddy."

The state of stillness itself embodies the true nature of the mind, which is emptiness. In that state, thoughts, ideas, and distractions arise as forms. The state of stillness is maintained by the foundation of emptiness, where fluctuations such as thoughts are kept to a minimum. Initially, this may seem like enlightenment, but in reality, it is about understanding and observing the entire process in which distractions arise from the foundation of emptiness, lose their form, and disappear into stillness. Accepting this process as it is, without judgment, is samadhi, vipassana, and the state of equanimity.

Therefore, the state of stillness itself is a foundation of emptiness and should not be rejected; it is part of samadhi. Observing both the calm state of stillness and the chaotic state of arising forms, and accepting them as they are, is samadhi and vipassana (observation).

Therefore, sometimes, explanations of samadhi may include statements that seem to negate the state of stillness. Some people, even meditation teachers, may interpret and teach this based on such explanations, and even some well-known places may teach this. However, this is a misunderstanding. In reality, the state of stillness is one of the states of the mind, and it is necessary to accept it as it is.

In reality, when meditation is not yet advanced, the state of stillness may only appear a few months or a few years, and people basically live in a thick cloud of distractions.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to practice regaining the state of stillness, which is one of the states of the mind. That is why focused meditation is necessary. However, when one reads such explanations of samadhi, one may mistakenly believe that a series of practices such as focused meditation to seek the state of stillness is unnecessary.

In reality, the state of stillness is the foundation of samadhi, so it is absolutely necessary. Without it, one will only be observing distractions, and the state of emptiness, which is the foundation of the mind, will remain invisible. In that state, it is difficult to observe the continuous and successive emergence of thoughts and distractions as forms of consciousness from the foundation of emptiness.

In terms of explanation, it is quite similar whether or not the state of stillness exists. The emergence of thoughts and distractions from the foundation of emptiness continues in both cases. However, the absence of the state of stillness means the absence of a flat state of consciousness as emptiness, so only thoughts and distractions appearing as forms are visible. In that state, one cannot know what the mind is like, and even if one understands and talks about the state of stillness being unnecessary or samadhi, it is not very useful.

This is sometimes said in some schools of thought, "Understanding is important." However, in reality, understanding alone is not enough; it is necessary to experience it. Some schools of thought say that understanding is sufficient, but that is just a matter of words. Actually, when one can know it by being in that state, it means that one's state has changed, whether it is called an experience or a change in state or understanding, it is just a difference in expression, and in any case, it is a story that cannot be understood without changing oneself.

Therefore, initially, the state of stillness is important. However, eventually, one's consciousness will step back and be able to observe the state of stillness itself, and further, one will be able to observe even the forms of thoughts and distractions. Therefore, if the state of stillness is the "clear" part, then the forms of thoughts and distractions are the "muddy" part. Initially, one may think that only the "clear" part of the state of stillness is important, but eventually, one will be able to accept both the "clear" and the "muddy" parts as the essence of the mind without any essential difference. At that time, one can say that one has achieved "swallowing both the clear and the muddy."

Here, "swallowing both the clear and the muddy" is a metaphorical expression referring to the state of emptiness as the consciousness of stillness and the appearance of forms as consciousness, not the meaning of good and evil.

If one receives proper guidance, it might not be the case, but I believe that reading books or learning only a little bit can make Vipassana meditation potentially tear the mind apart and create instability.

Therefore, it is necessary to receive regular guidance from a teacher. However, even without a teacher, many books are readily available these days, and this can sometimes lead to unfortunate results in meditation.

Some schools of thought claim that there is no danger, but there are various schools of Vipassana meditation, and misunderstandings can occur.

In one particular school of Vipassana meditation, the practice involves observing the body and providing a real-time commentary on bodily sensations. However, instead of simply focusing, the instruction uses the word "observation," which can leave the mind unsure of where to go, potentially tearing it apart.

This is a common issue in schools that "negate concentration meditation." While simply being told "observe" is one thing, some schools surprisingly harbor a dislike for concentration meditation, claiming that "concentration is bad."

In such schools, the negation of "concentration" can lead to a situation where, when trying to observe the body or provide a commentary on bodily sensations, the mind unconsciously brakes itself, creating a conflict between the force that drives the mind towards the object of observation and the force that prevents it from doing so. This results in an unhealthy state where the mind struggles to focus.

Some may disagree and say, "That's not the case!" However, when I visited a center for this particular school of Vipassana meditation or listened to others, I consistently felt that the minds of the practitioners there seemed "divided."

This is a subjective observation, so its accuracy is questionable. However, the mind has a natural tendency to move directly towards an object. For example, in martial arts, the body and mind must be directed correctly towards the goal for the form to be executed properly.

However, in this type of Vipassana meditation, the mind brakes itself while trying to move towards the object, making it difficult to concentrate and perform the form correctly. This "divided mind" is a tendency particularly found in schools that tend to negate concentration meditation.

Even in schools that do not explicitly negate concentration meditation, some adopt a lukewarm attitude, claiming that "concentration is necessary to some extent." This ambiguous understanding stems from a lack of proper understanding of how the mind should move directly towards an object.

In reality, the state of Samadhi is irrelevant to the state of the mind. The state of observation in Samadhi is when the true nature of the mind, or "Rupa," emerges. At that time, it doesn't matter whether the mind is concentrated or not.

Therefore, whether the mind is concentrated or not is irrelevant. Both concentrated and unconcentrated states involve the true nature of the mind, Rupa, which is being observed. This is fundamentally different from the "observation" emphasized by some schools of Vipassana meditation.

The mind's only function is to observe an object by directing itself towards it. Directing the mind towards the object is concentration, and reaching the object is observation. Both are necessary. The mind should move quickly towards the object, and the observation should be thorough. There is no need to negate or downplay the importance of quickly and accurately focusing on the goal. In fact, both are very important. People who are good at their jobs quickly act towards their goals, carefully observe the object, and are therefore able to see things as they are and make appropriate judgments.

I'm not sure why this happens, but some schools of Vipassana meditation tend to downplay concentration, and some even dislike it. This leads to a negation of the ability to concentrate quickly towards a goal. When trying to direct the mind towards a goal, the mind unconsciously or consciously brakes itself, tearing it apart.

As mentioned earlier, the actual state of observation in meditation is not about the movements of the mind, but about the observation of the true nature of the mind, Rupa. The mind has a natural tendency to move directly towards an object, and that is all. There may be confusion here, but there are two distinct aspects: the mind as a mental faculty and Rupa, which observes those mental faculties.

There are aspects of concentration and observation in the mind, which involves focusing on the object being observed. Therefore, it is important to note that this does not necessarily negate the general concepts of concentration and observation applied to the mind. It is not denying the general observation of the mind, but rather, when sensory inputs or mental movements and thoughts arise, there is a concentration that directs the mind towards them, and there is an observation that clearly verifies the content of those movements.

Separately, there is a deeper aspect, the true nature of the mind (rikpa), which observes the entirety of these mental movements.

In reality, initially, rikpa is often obscured by a deep cloud and is difficult to reveal, and there is a practice called "training" to bring forth rikpa.

However, sometimes, even when rikpa has not yet emerged, one may imitate samadhi, and this can lead to a misunderstanding that negates concentration.

In the true state of samadhi, all mental movements are observed, so it does not negate concentration, nor does it negate observation. It is a different level of activity.

Before samadhi, it may be more beneficial for spiritual growth to focus intently on one's work rather than engaging in meditation. If one can practice meditation correctly, it is beneficial, but it is still better to focus intently on one's work than to engage in meditation with a misunderstanding that tears the mind apart.

I don't hear much about "Kongō Jō," but based on its content, I interpreted it as a state of meditation that reaches emptiness.

"In a place of perfect purity, it is truly pure." (Kongō Jō, excerpt) This state of meditation is achieved by transitioning from the state of "extinction" to "wonderful awakening," completely becoming emptiness and purity (from "Shinji to Zazen" by Yūichi Abana).

According to the explanation, in the state of Kongō Jō, one becomes completely empty, and has not yet reached the stage of experiencing both emptiness and form.

This is a difficult concept to explain, but emptiness is the foundation of the mind, and form is the manifestation of that foundation. Forms constantly appear and disappear, and the state of samadhi involves accepting and observing both the emptiness as the foundation and the form as the manifestation, accepting them as they are. While Kongō Jō can be considered a type of samadhi, it may be somewhat lacking as a complete samadhi, as it focuses only on the aspect of emptiness.

Because the state of "clearness and muddiness" is not achieved, one tends to focus on emptiness. (excerpt from "Shinji to Zazen" by Yūichi Abana) This is a "void illness" arising from emptiness.

This means that "clearness and muddiness" correspond to emptiness and form, respectively. While one can accept emptiness, the "muddiness," which is the form, or the thoughts and distractions, are not yet perceived as the fundamental, divine, or sacred, and that is why one remains at this stage.

In Zen Buddhism, focusing only on emptiness is sometimes called "void illness."

However, although it is called an illness, it is a necessary stage of normal growth, and perhaps it is not even an illness. It is simply one stage, and if one can enjoy it, one will naturally progress to the next stage.

These things are also mentioned in the same book.

This affliction arises because the focus on emptiness is not yet complete. However, if one's understanding of emptiness further evolves and transforms into the wonderful power of "form is emptiness," then the wonderful mechanism of "affliction is enlightenment" will be attained (excerpt from "Shinji to Zazen" by Yūichi Abana).

The next state to be reached is the state of "form is emptiness" as mentioned in the Heart Sutra.

In Western spirituality, it is common to recite affirmations, declarations, poems, or prayers. However, I have rarely felt the need to do so.

Recently, I have started to feel that such declarations are necessary.

I often see phrases like "I intend to be ◯◯. I will become ◯◯. I will live a life of ◯◯." But they haven't resonated with me.

It seems that the reason they haven't resonated is because they are declarations of someone else's life.

These declarations or prayers are meant to be created by oneself.

And I think they are not meant to be shared with others. It might be okay to show them as examples.

Furthermore, it is natural that reciting someone else's declarations or prayers will not resonate with you. It might be helpful as a reference.

The question of what I want to do with my life was something I had decided when I was a child, after experiencing an out-of-body experience where my spirit left my body and saw the past and future. I was basing my decisions on those memories.

However, recently, I have started to feel the need to make declarations or prayers for my own life.

This is because, only when my own spirit is working across time and space, can my spirit and my will be combined to create my life.

No matter how much the spirit intends, if my conscious self does not intend and declare or pray for my life, things will not manifest and become reality in the three-dimensional world.

I realized this clearly when I traced the memories of my spirit, which I saw in a parallel world. I discovered that in other parallel worlds, there is a version of myself who is much more enlightened than I am now. I wondered why, and why there is such a difference. I realized that it might be because I am lacking in these declarations or prayers.

It is not necessarily that the other timeline has stronger declarations or prayers. In that other timeline, perhaps there was better guidance from a guru, leading to more advanced awakening, or perhaps the spirit simply decided to awaken me more. However, in my current timeline, it seems that I am lacking in declarations or prayers to awaken myself more.

When people talk about timelines or parallel worlds, they often think of them as different dimensions. However, there is actually an order to timelines and parallel worlds. In terms of time, there are many timelines with the same date, but there is an order to them. We experience one timeline, then go back in time and experience another. We try out various patterns to deepen our understanding.

In my case, while other timelines may have been more advanced in terms of awakening, I skipped some of the learning experiences that come with being in a less awakened state. That is why I seem to be choosing a relatively slow awakening. It's not really a choice, but rather, after experiencing a quickly awakened timeline with the help of a guru, I felt a little regret and am now going back in time to re-experience a slower awakening timeline.

Therefore, the speed of awakening itself is not good or bad. The reason I am re-experiencing a slower timeline is because I have come to understand that I may not have had enough declarations or prayers in my previous timelines.

Specifically, I lacked the setting of "targets" as my contribution to the world, and the declaration or prayer that sets the intention of "what I want to do" for those targets.

"I will use the power I gain through my awakening for the benefit of the world. (Setting the target)
I intend for all people to live in peace. (Setting the intention)"

This is different for everyone, and it is natural. There is no need to tell others about it. It is enough to make declarations or prayers to oneself during meditation. However, I think it is important to create them yourself and declare or pray them yourself. There is no good or bad, and you can do whatever you want, but I think the important thing is to create them yourself.

There are schools of thought that claim you can attain enlightenment by studying scriptures, but I personally don't quite understand that. While that might be true in some cases, I believe that experience is necessary, in addition to study. Furthermore, even if understanding can be a trigger for enlightenment, I think enlightenment often comes first, followed by understanding. Or, understanding might simply be a rationalization used to confirm one's own state.

To confirm whether one's state is enlightenment, it's necessary to study scriptures. However, that doesn't mean that studying scriptures will lead to enlightenment. Rather, experiential enlightenment comes first, and then understanding, either to confirm that it is enlightenment or as an explanation for the explanation of the scriptures.

In a broader sense, enlightenment itself can bring about understanding, so it's certainly possible to say that enlightenment is understanding.

However, in this context, understanding refers not to the understanding of scriptures, but to understanding that comes with experience. This is different from what some schools of thought claim: "If you study the scriptures diligently and understand them correctly, you can attain enlightenment."

It's not wrong to say that the quality of enlightenment itself is made up of understanding. Therefore, understanding is indeed the essence of enlightenment. However, that doesn't mean that simply understanding what is written in the scriptures and interpreting it correctly leads to enlightenment.

The quality of enlightenment is made up of understanding, but that doesn't mean that understanding leads to enlightenment.

In Sanskrit, understanding is called "jnana." The idea that "jnana is enlightenment" is certainly correct if one is in a state of enlightenment.

However, just as there are various opinions within Buddhist schools, there is also a school of thought that says, "Since the essence of a person is inherently enlightened, there is no need to do anything." On the other hand, there is a school of thought that says that while the essence of a person is enlightened, it is hidden, and that practice is necessary to reveal what is hidden. The truth is closer to the latter. Similarly, the claim that "understanding" is sufficient because the essence of a person is inherently enlightened and full of understanding can be contrasted with the idea that practice is necessary because understanding is hidden.

The fact that the essence of a person is made up of knowledge (jnana) does not mean that one is enlightened, and that the essence of a person is knowledge (jnana) as a result of enlightenment is something that can be understood. This means that jnana (understanding) is a result, and the means to achieve it are different.

It may be possible to accumulate small pieces of jnana to reach the jnana of enlightenment, and there may be such a path. However, I don't think it's necessary to impose any restrictions on the method of practice.

When I see people who claim that knowledge leads to enlightenment or that knowledge alone is sufficient, I notice that they spend a long time chanting, meditating, or performing pujas (prayer rituals). This seems like a form of practice, but they claim that it is not practice, but rather a ritual or a study to acquire knowledge. To me, it's just a matter of what you call it. It's the same as saying it's prayer, and in other schools of thought, it might be considered practice or a preliminary practice called "kaigen." Therefore, it's just a matter of wording, and I think they are doing similar things.

Therefore, I personally think that the wording is not that important, but some people in certain schools of thought consider the wording to be important. I respect their claims, so I don't particularly deny them, but I personally interpret it in this way.

In any case, when one attains enlightenment, there is knowledge (jnana) there, and it "comes" rather than simply "being" there. It may feel like it's coming at first, but it's actually a kind of integration with knowledge. Some schools of thought may not talk about energy, but simply emphasize the importance of knowledge. However, I think it's just a matter of wording. In any case, people who are full of knowledge are energetic, and I don't think anyone would deny someone who is full of energy.

It's difficult to distinguish whether knowledge comes before enlightenment or enlightenment comes before knowledge, especially after the fact. People who have studied a lot may feel that knowledge led them to enlightenment, but in reality, enlightenment is made up of knowledge (jnana). It's like experiencing enlightenment and gaining knowledge (jnana), or becoming one with jnana. Enlightenment is initially an experience, but it eventually becomes a part of everyday life. Then, one becomes constantly integrated with jnana, and it becomes a state of being enveloped in jnana, rather than a state where "knowledge comes as a result of enlightenment." In that state, it's true that only jnana exists, but that doesn't mean it was always like that, and it's also different from the idea that studying and gaining knowledge leads to enlightenment. There are steps involved.

I am not saying that studying is bad. Studying is necessary, and I think there are people who achieve enlightenment through studying. However, what I want to say is that there is a difference between understanding something intellectually and actually becoming one with "Nyana." Even if you become one with "Nyana," that is a state of understanding, but that doesn't necessarily mean that studying and acquiring knowledge to deepen understanding will automatically lead to enlightenment.

Personally, I think it is better to start with focused meditation and then gradually progress to meditation in the realm of silence. However, that is something that each individual should decide for themselves.

Both exist, and preferences differ at each stage.

Especially in the beginning, one tends to become introverted, creating a sense of separation from others and reaching a state of tranquility. Afterwards, connecting with the inner universe, what is often called the Atman, leads to becoming more extroverted.

Therefore, in spirituality, especially in the initial stages, it is important to live in solitude and separate oneself from others. At this stage, one may not yet be able to endure solitude, but gradually, one should cultivate a self that can live comfortably in solitude.

At this stage, one tends to become disconnected from others. While some in the spiritual community emphasize being together and achieving oneness, this is often due to different stages of development. Initially, a state of separation is necessary to connect deeply with oneself. Only then can one truly connect with others in the essential meaning of spirituality.

Before this, connections with others are often based on calculations, emotions, or sentiments. However, connecting with others based on a fundamental love, encompassing both the good and the bad in this world, is only possible after thoroughly exploring the introverted aspects and reaching a state of tranquility.

This is often a difficult concept to understand in spirituality. However, to connect with others, one must first experience separation and solitude to connect with one's own essence.

When people in the spiritual community hear the word "separation," they often perceive it as a negative thing. However, that is not the case. Living as an individual, reducing dependence on others, and entering a state of solitude allows one to reach a state of tranquility and connect with the Atman. This connection then leads to connecting with others, and that is when one becomes truly extroverted in a spiritual sense.

Before this, extroverted behavior is often just social niceties, cultural norms, politeness, or sometimes, calculations, emotions, or sentiments.

Even after connecting with the Atman and becoming extroverted in a spiritual sense, one may still engage in social niceties, cultural practices, politeness, or interactions based on calculations, emotions, or sentiments. However, one will no longer be bound by them. Even when engaging with others for these reasons, one continues to connect with one's own essence, and therefore, one can continue to interact with others in the same way as before, while also embracing the spiritual and extroverted aspects.

In reality, people who become spiritual do not necessarily change drastically on the surface. While those who observe them may notice the difference, it may not be obvious to others. Therefore, it is possible for enlightened individuals to live normal lives without being recognized by others. There are actually many enlightened individuals living among us, but many people lack the awareness to recognize them. Enlightened individuals may simply appear to be "good people," but they may actually be enlightened.

In reality, enlightenment that is easily recognized by others may be a superficial form of enlightenment. Individuals who seamlessly integrate into daily life, diligently performing their work while maintaining a deep connection with their inner selves, may simply appear to be skilled professionals. However, they may actually be enlightened. Such individuals are surprisingly common, but they often go unnoticed. Individuals who exhibit obvious signs of enlightenment may have been born with a specific purpose, and their actions may be intended to draw attention. However, if that is not the case, they generally do not intentionally seek attention.

Such enlightenment is often integrated into everyday society. When one reaches this state, one may not even consider it to be enlightenment. It may simply be seen as what happens when someone who is not enlightened puts in a lot of effort.

Therefore, if one is enlightened, extroverted qualities may emerge. However, if one is not enlightened, and if one desires to become enlightened, it may be necessary to become introverted for a certain period of time in order to delve deeply into one's inner self.

From the perspective of absolute truth, there is no action, only truth. Some schools of thought refer to this as "knowledge." Truth is knowledge, and there is no action involved. Even if one does nothing, they are actually enlightened and are essentially knowledge itself. However, the veil of illusion prevents them from seeing it. Therefore, by removing this illusion of ignorance, knowledge ("jnana") arises.

There is a difference of opinion among different schools of thought regarding whether any action is necessary for this. However, from my perspective, it seems that each school is simply using different wording to express similar ideas. In reality, each school believes that its own approach is correct, but from an outside perspective, they may not seem that different. Some people may perceive differences, but it may appear different at first glance.

The Vedanta school believes that enlightenment ("moksha") is achieved through the means of acquiring knowledge ("jnana"). They argue that knowledge, rather than action, is the means to enlightenment. They state that the norms related to action are determined by "dharma," which is a duty, not a means to achieve enlightenment.

On the other hand, the Yoga school aims to reach a state of "samadhi" through meditation, which is considered a state of enlightenment. It is said that there are four paths in Yoga, and that any path leads to the same goal.

Zen aims for enlightenment through techniques such as "zazen" (seated meditation), and some Zen schools use "koans" (paradoxical riddles) to achieve enlightenment.

At first glance, these may seem different, but in reality, the difference seems to be only whether one is looking at the truth from the absolute perspective or from the human perspective.

The methods of expressing truth are diverse. From the absolute perspective, there is no action, only knowledge ("jnana"). No practice is necessary, as one is already enlightened.

If ignorance is what hinders this state of enlightenment, then all schools of thought seem to agree that an action is needed to remove it.

However, the term used to describe this action of removing ignorance varies among different schools of thought.

The Vedanta school states that all "actions," including practices to remove ignorance, are unnecessary, and that enlightenment can be achieved solely through the means of "knowing." Therefore, the Vedanta school argues that practice is not a means to achieve enlightenment. This explanation seems consistent, but people from other schools may feel a sense of incongruity regarding the point that action and practice are not necessary.

In Yoga, ignorance is removed through actions specific to each of the four paths of Yoga. Karma Yoga involves selfless service, Raja Yoga involves meditation, Bhakti Yoga involves devotion, love, and prayer, and Jnana Yoga involves acquiring knowledge. These are considered forms of practice.

In Zen, ignorance is removed through zazen and koans.

At first glance, these may seem different, but from my perspective, they are all very similar. The difference is only in terms of suitability for different people.

If I were to say, theoretically, the explanation in Vedanta makes more sense, so I think it might be better if the ideas of Vedanta were more widely understood and became common sense.

However, if people simply hear the teachings of Vedanta without understanding them properly, they may misunderstand it as a heretical teaching that says "people are enlightened even if they do nothing, so they don't need to do anything," just like in the past when figures like Dogen were active in Japan. So, it is important to be careful about that.

From my perspective, even if people in the Vedanta school say that practice is not necessary, they are actually engaging in activities that resemble practice. They simply do not consider these activities to be "practice" based on the logical framework of their teachings.

In reality, even in Yoga, while there are methods to remove ignorance, the state of meditation itself is described as "something that naturally arises." It is also said that "meditation arises by removing ignorance and the dull nature." Therefore, it is actually a natural occurrence, not an action. So, while the four paths of Yoga describe actions, fundamentally, it is not an action, but rather an action that is necessary for it to occur naturally. Therefore, Yoga can also be said to be "not an action" depending on how you look at it. However, Yoga does not use such language and instead expresses it as "practice" or "action." This is where the difference in expression lies.

Zen, for many, is perceived as a practice where sitting in zazen is akin to a form of training. However, I believe that zazen, in its essence, is about simply sitting without performing any action. Therefore, I suspect that the original form of zazen was not conceived as an activity or a practice. If we define "action" as any form of behavior or work, then zazen is essentially "doing nothing." It seems that over time, a certain form of zazen emerged, leading to a misunderstanding where it is perceived as a "practice" or an "activity." Originally, it was likely just about relaxing and sitting. When reading Dogen's writings, I interpret his emphasis on "just sitting" as an actionless state.

Similarly, in both Zen and yoga, while seated meditation and zazen have a certain form, which might appear as an activity, the core principle lies in simply sitting and doing nothing.

Although "doing nothing" implies a certain level of awareness in meditation, it doesn't mean literally doing absolutely nothing. By focusing on the necessary aspects, the essence lies in sitting without any specific action.

Initially, it starts with simply sitting. Eventually, the meditative state extends beyond the seated meditation, and this awareness permeates all aspects of daily life. When that happens, daily life becomes a form of "practice," blurring the lines between action and practice. It becomes difficult to distinguish between what is considered an action and what is considered a practice. While Dogen is primarily known for zazen, he also advocated for meditation while engaging in activities.

From an external perspective, it might seem like a continuous practice or a sustained meditative state. However, it is also a state connected to "jnana" (knowledge). This jnana itself is not an action; it is the manifestation of knowledge in the absence of ignorance.

Therefore, when one reaches that state, as Vedanta suggests, actions are no longer necessary; it is simply about removing ignorance and revealing knowledge. However, before reaching that state, actions may still be required.

Vedanta describes jnana as knowledge related to the scriptures, which is a knowledge that humans cannot attain. It is knowledge from the absolute perspective, and in that sense, it is true. However, from the human perspective, there is a different aspect to consider.

While it is true from the absolute perspective that actions are not necessary, from the human perspective, certain actions may still be required.

Some Vedanta schools emphasize that liberation (moksha) is achieved solely through jnana. While this may be true from the absolute perspective, it creates a deep chasm between the absolute and the human, making it difficult to bridge. It seems like a perspective held by those who are already enlightened and stand on the side of the absolute, creating the impression that there is a vast gap for humans to overcome in order to attain enlightenment. While some individuals may be able to overcome this gap, or those who already possess a certain level of enlightenment, it may be difficult for others to attain enlightenment simply by acquiring jnana.

A great aspect of yoga is that it offers a path for humans to transcend and approach the absolute. This is a discussion about how humans can attain enlightenment, and it is not entirely the same as the absolute perspective of Vedanta. However, it provides concrete methods for humans to approach that state.

This is not to negate the methods of Vedanta, as both have their own strengths and weaknesses, and are suitable for individuals with certain inclinations. Some may find Vedanta's approach suitable, while others may benefit from acquiring jnana. However, there is a deep chasm between humans and the absolute, and methods tailored for humans are needed to bridge that gap.

Even within Vedanta schools, while some emphasize jnana, others are deeply involved in chanting, which is not considered a practice within some Vedanta schools, but is considered a part of practice in other schools. Despite the different terminologies, I believe that the essence is not so different across various schools.

People sometimes get tired. Even if you reach a certain state through meditation, there are days when you feel good and days when you don't.

However, my essence is always a pure and karma-free existence.

In Yoga and Vedanta, this is described as the Atman (true self), and it is described as absolute bliss and something eternal.

Basically, it is something that is unknowable and is hidden and dormant within the depths of human beings.

What is called practice is essentially revealing and manifesting this Atman, but even if the Atman that appears is absolute bliss or eternal, in a different layer, the tamasic and ignorant nature arises in the level of human consciousness.

This tamasic and ignorant nature has a property that covers and hides my essence, the Atman, and sometimes it clouds consciousness, but my essence, the Atman, is always pure, and by removing the tamasic and ignorant nature at the level of the body, which is called purification, we can maintain a pure state.

This is not about making the Atman clean, because the Atman is originally pure and eternal, but it is about removing the tamasic things that are attached to it, which is said to be ignorance, and returning to the Atman's original pure state.

It is not that the Atman is pure, so you don't need to do anything, but in order to remove the ignorant and tamasic nature that is covering it, action is necessary.

This action is called practice by some schools, or dharma by other schools, but I think it is the same thing.

Recently, in terms of aura, I am mostly surrounded by a strong aura up to the area between my eyebrows. It feels like I am meditating on whether or not to fill the Sahasrara chakra with aura. If the Sahasrara chakra is filled with aura, it leads to a state of stillness, and sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn't, but basically, I am surrounded by aura up to the Ajna chakra between my eyebrows.

In terms of aura, that is the case, but recently, I have been experiencing a slight itching sensation in my throat, like the feeling of pressure when a balloon is inflating.

This could possibly be related to recent events, but it is clearly different from when I have a cold and my throat feels bad. I think it is probably a spiritual aura.

The itching sensation is very slight, but as I continue meditating, I gradually feel that the itching sensation is decreasing, and especially, I feel that the itching sensation is gradually disappearing by focusing my awareness on the throat chakra, Vishuddha. However, it is not completely resolved yet.

As a sensation of aura, I don't have this kind of itching sensation in other areas, so it is only in the throat chakra, Vishuddha. I have felt this itching sensation from time to time in the past, but recently I have been feeling it quite often, and it may be a sign that the Vishuddha chakra is not yet open.

I remember reading something similar in a book by Honzan Hirasawa, a yoga practitioner.

For several months, I continued to focus my mind on my throat, but at first, my throat became scratchy, I coughed, and it became difficult to breathe. "Mikkyo Yoga (by Honzan Hirasawa)"

Therefore, I think that focusing on the throat as I am doing now is effective. I will continue for a while.

In my case, I have always felt that the Vishuddha chakra was closed, and I sometimes had difficulty speaking, but recently it has been relatively normal. However, it doesn't feel like it is open, so I still need to focus my mind.

This kind of feeling of pressure and slight itching in the throat seems to be stronger when meditating and the aura has reached the Ajna chakra, but the Sahasrara chakra is not yet filled. On the other hand, when the aura is filled in the Sahasrara chakra, it is as if some of the aura near the Ajna chakra flows to the Sahasrara chakra, and the pressure on the throat chakra, Vishuddha, seems to weaken slightly.

Therefore, the order is as follows: when I start meditating, I focus on the Ajna chakra, and as the aura increases, the pressure on the Ajna chakra and the pressure on the Vishuddha chakra increase. Then, when the aura fills the Sahasrara chakra, some of the aura flows from the Ajna chakra to the Sahasrara chakra, and the pressure on the Ajna chakra and the Vishuddha chakra decreases slightly, leading to a relaxed state.

If the aura reaches Sahasrara, one can achieve a state of perfect stillness and relaxation. However, by intentionally returning to a state just before that and strengthening Vishuddha, it feels like having defeated the main boss in a game and then tackling some of the side quests.

Perhaps, when the aura reaches Sahasrara, the main game is essentially cleared, but the completion rate is not 100%, maybe around 30% or 40%.

Even in this state, there were people in the past who might have said "enlightened" or "awakened." However, enlightenment and awakening are subjective concepts.

Even if one achieves 100% awakening, there can be further awakenings, such as 120% or 200%, so there is no upper limit. If we consider the awakening of all chakras as 100%, then perhaps my current state is around 30% or 40%.

This is like having defeated the main boss by reaching Sahasrara, but not having completely cleared the game yet, not having seen the true ending, but having seen a preliminary ending. It seems that I have not yet met the conditions to see the true ending.

Well, that's the situation. Recently, I have been focusing on meditating on Vishuddha, intentionally returning to a state before reaching the state of perfect stillness.

When one reaches a state of perfect stillness, the aura reaches Sahasrara, which weakens the influence of Vishuddha. Therefore, I am intentionally creating a slightly "tamasic" or tired state to reduce the aura towards Sahasrara, thereby increasing the pressure on Ajna and Vishuddha.

If I don't do this, the energy might be drawn to Sahasrara, and I might remain in that comfortable state, preventing the awakening of Vishuddha. It's like going back and redoing lessons that were left unfinished.

I have now seen the path to Sahasrara, so I am returning to do the unfinished homework.

Although my consciousness has moved away from the state of perfect stillness and relaxation, it feels like a step back. However, this is a necessary step to complete the unfinished tasks.

From the outside, I might seem a little more tired than before, so it might appear as stagnation or a step back. However, this is a necessary step back, so there is no need to worry about it.

Currently, the energy is not constantly accumulating in Sahasrara, but rather, in a normal state, the energy is only at the level of Ajna. When pressure is applied, either pressure is applied to Vishuddha and Ajna, or the energy is released to Sahasrara, resulting in a state of perfect stillness. After the latter, I spend a little time in daily life, which then leads to the former state. By repeating meditation with intervals, I am continuously sending energy to Vishuddha.

In yoga, breathing techniques are called pranayama, but deep breathing is not exactly a technique in the same sense, but rather something like "complete breathing" in yoga. However, even with that level of deep breathing, it is possible to fill the aura around the Sahasrara chakra and reach a state of stillness.

However, this is only possible if the aura has already been somewhat activated. If not, the necessary conditions may not be met.

When you breathe in, the breath goes out, and the aura goes down to the lower body. When you breathe in, the breath goes in, and the aura rises to the Sahasrara chakra.

By repeatedly practicing deep breathing, the aura gradually fills the Sahasrara chakra, leading to a state of stillness.

Initially, when you exhale, the aura goes down to the lower body, but once it reaches the Sahasrara chakra, the aura gradually stops descending. Then, the aura begins to fill the Sahasrara chakra more and more. When you exhale, some of the aura goes down, but some of it remains in the Sahasrara chakra, and eventually, the proportion of aura remaining in the Sahasrara chakra increases, and with each exhalation, the aura in the Sahasrara chakra becomes stronger.

In yoga, there are complex pranayama (breathing techniques), and I haven't practiced many of them, but I only know the basics, and those are effective in their own way. However, even a simple deep breath, which is even more basic, can cause the aura to gather in the Sahasrara chakra and lead to a state of stillness.

In yoga, what is called aura is often referred to as "prana." Prana usually refers to a life energy that is closer to the physical body. However, I believe that the energy that fills the Sahasrara chakra and brings about a state of stillness is not only prana but also includes kundalini energy and the energy of the Atman, which corresponds to the soul.

Kundalini energy is a primal force that sleeps in the Muladhara chakra. Even if this energy fills the Sahasrara chakra, it does not necessarily lead to a state of stillness. In addition to this, the primal energy that connects to the Anahata chakra, which is often referred to as Atman or simply the heart, must also rise together to the Sahasrara chakra in order to achieve a state of stillness.

If I were to explain it in detail, it would be like that. But simply put, it is a combination of aura, but not just prana, not just kundalini, not just the Earth's energy, and not just the energy of the heavens. It is the combination of these three energies that leads to a state of stillness.

The sequence begins with a dull, stagnant state of *tamas*, eventually leading to a state of stillness.

This state of stillness is generally referred to as "emptiness" (*shunyata*), which is a pure and tranquil state. It is often perceived as enlightenment. However, beyond emptiness lies a state of "middle" (*chū*), which encompasses both purity and impurity.

While this concept may be difficult to grasp in the spiritual realm, where emptiness is often considered the ultimate state, the progression involves the following stages:

1. A state of *tamas*. The initial goal is to achieve "nothingness." In this state, thoughts cease, and one experiences "relaxation." While remaining in this state of nothingness can hinder growth, it serves as a temporary respite.
2. A state of purification, characterized by *rajas*.
3. A stage of increasing stability, transitioning to a pure and tranquil state of *sattva*.
4. A state of stillness. Whether this is referred to as *sattva* is debatable, depending on the school of thought. However, it can be considered a form of *sattva*. It is more accurate to call this state "emptiness," but it can also be considered *sattva*.
5. A state of embracing both purity and impurity. This is the state of "middle," where *tamas* and *sattva* coexist.

Although these are the stages, maintaining the final state of "middle" is challenging. One may lose awareness and revert to a state of *rajas* or *tamas*.

Therefore, it is necessary to resume meditation, return to the state of stillness, and then re-enter the state of "middle."

This may give the impression that the individual's condition is deteriorating or that their progress is regressing. However, for the individual, repeatedly transitioning between the state of stillness and the state of "middle" strengthens their awareness and allows them to embrace both purity and impurity.

The initial state of "middle" is characterized by a certain "glow" or "illumination," a state that is slightly closer to "emptiness." This "glow" brings about awareness and enables observation, allowing for a state of continuous mindfulness (vipassanā), which is known as *samādhi*. By establishing this "emptiness" as a foundation and transitioning to the state of "middle," one can maintain a state of *samādhi* even without being in a state of stillness.

The state of "middle" is not merely a state of continuous stillness in daily life; it is also a state where the awareness of *samādhi* persists even without being in a state of stillness.

In other words, it is a state of increasing awareness.

When we say "embracing both purity and impurity," it does not mean condoning bad behavior. Rather, it means developing resistance to *tamas* and maintaining awareness even in a state of *tamas*.

However, after a period of time, one may be consumed by *tamas* and need to return to the state of stillness, followed by re-entering the state of "middle" to continue the practice of mindfulness meditation (*samādhi*) in daily life.

As a result, from an external perspective, it may appear that the individual is simply in a state of stillness. However, internally, significant changes are occurring. While a state of stillness may appear radiant and give the impression of a saintly person, the state of "middle" may appear more ordinary. Nevertheless, significant changes are taking place.

In Advaita Vedanta, the world is a manifestation of Ishvara, the individual soul is Atman, and all beings are Atman. The ultimate reality, Brahman, is the same as Atman. However, Atman and Brahman are not limited to *sattva* or emptiness; they encompass everything. Therefore, *tamas* and *sattva* are irrelevant.

As one enters the state of "middle," one gradually realizes these truths. One begins to accept everything as it is, including both *tamas* and *sattva*.

In Buddhism, the concept of the "Middle Way" is often discussed, emphasizing the importance of avoiding extremes. However, this "Middle Way" refers to the state of the mind, where one remains balanced regardless of the choices made. It is not about choosing the middle option between two alternatives.

In Japan, people who talk about the "middle way" often say things like "avoid extreme choices," and it seems to me that this leads to "avoiding decisions" in Japan. However, I believe that each school of thought has its own way of thinking, and that is fine. From my perspective, this "middle way" indicates a way of being, and it simply means that no matter what choice you make, you should act while maintaining awareness within yourself.

This "middle" state is different from Tamas, but in the process of growth, there are often times when one falls into Tamas. In such cases, the aura may be drawn away from the Sahasrara chakra, making it difficult for the aura to rise to the Sahasrara. Therefore, one must continue meditating to bring the aura back to the Sahasrara and return to the state of "emptiness" in the realm of silence. This involves maintaining the aura in the Sahasrara while acting, and that "emptiness" is a strengthened state of "emptiness." I call this "middle." Initially, the aura quickly escapes from the Sahasrara, causing one to fall out of the "middle" and "emptiness" state. However, as the aura becomes stronger, the aura will stay in the Sahasrara for a considerable amount of time. This stage is repeated many times to strengthen Samadhi.

Once one reaches a state of stillness, they may only seek that state and reject all other states.

This is what is known as "emptiness sickness," and it's the same phenomenon seen in spirituality, where people judge others based on their aura colors and only pursue what they consider pure, rejecting everything else. There are a certain number of such people in spiritual and religious circles, and it's quite common for people to think that pure things are good. However, in reality, this is a kind of illness.

If you ask whether a "pure" emptiness is bad, the answer is no. The problem is not the emptiness itself, but the feeling of rejecting anything other than that pure state. It's necessary to realize that the essence remains the same regardless of whether it's pure or not. Some traditions call this understanding. Since states are constantly changing, a constantly pure state is not absolute. It's necessary to understand that both pure and impure states are manifestations of the greater creation, God, Brahman, or the great Ishvara.

This is not about rejecting pure emptiness, but understanding it is necessary to understand these concepts. It's necessary to understand that all states, including pure emptiness, are constantly changing, and that these changes are not absolute but relative. Therefore, one cannot rely on them completely. The key is to avoid pursuing this constantly changing state of emptiness. However, it is necessary to know emptiness, so it is necessary to understand that it is a constantly changing state, that colors (phenomena) arise from emptiness, and eventually return to emptiness. By understanding this, one can enjoy the emotions and phenomena that arise in each moment without seeking the stillness of emptiness.

"Emptiness sickness" occurs when one rejects the "fluctuations" of phenomena and seeks a state of stillness. This creates stress and a desire to return to the state of emptiness when phenomena appear. If this "emptiness sickness" manifests in oneself or others, it can lead to behaviors such as avoiding or rejecting others who seem tired or stressed.

"Emptiness sickness" is somewhat inevitable in those with limited experience of emptiness, or those who are not yet proficient in it. It may be necessary to maintain a state of emptiness, and I don't think it's necessary to call it a "disease," but traditionally it is called "emptiness sickness."

This kind of consciousness can easily lead to attitudes that create a hierarchy based on aura colors in spirituality. For example, "That person's aura is like that, so they are at that level, while I am at this level." This is a superficial form of spirituality. However, even if someone says such things, there is a high probability that they will realize it was a mistake if they have reached a state of stillness. However, many people who have not yet reached that level of stillness easily judge others and create a hierarchy based on aura colors.

In reality, once one reaches a state of stillness and then reaches a state of "middle ground" that embraces both good and bad, such misunderstandings disappear. However, it is difficult to reach that level, and sadly, spirituality can become a tool for creating hierarchies. Such spirituality is not desirable. The true intention of spirituality is to overcome hierarchies by having a "middle ground" consciousness.

Each person has their own learning path, and some may need a red aura, while others may need a purple, green, or blue aura. There is a correlation between a person's spiritual level and the essence of their soul, but there are times when people live with different colors for years or decades. Therefore, it is important not to judge based on a glimpse of someone else's aura. Moreover, the essence lies in the "middle ground," so aura colors are irrelevant. It's simply a matter of what the aura looks like.

Since other people's lives are their own, it's generally best to leave them alone. However, if you are concerned about someone else's life, it may indicate a problem within yourself. Once you reach a "middle ground" consciousness, you will see others as they are, and you will not create hierarchies based on that. There may be times when it is necessary to create a hierarchy for the sake of order, but that is done with a clear choice. Basically, once you reach a "middle ground" consciousness, you accept others as they are, and that's the end of it.

By the time you reach that level of awareness, I think you will have overcome the illness.

When I say this, some people might misunderstand it as, "It's okay to be dirty." But that's not what I mean. "Ku" (emptiness) is necessary, and a pure consciousness is also necessary, but it's not about denying anything else. There are times when my own awareness becomes clouded in daily life, and that's when the awareness of "within" becomes important. Even when awareness is clouded, instead of pursuing "ku," simply accept it as it is. Then, regularly engage in meditation, for example, to strengthen the state of "ku."