During meditation, I feel that my spirit is located slightly in front of me, overlapping with my physical body.

It is almost the same shape as me, but it is slightly offset forward, and the spirit's body is slightly larger than my physical body, and this slightly larger spirit body is floating and existing slightly forward of me.

I feel that the consciousness of this slightly larger spirit is moving my will and thoughts as my physical body and conscious mind, but it is not yet completely controlling my physical body and conscious mind. I am in a state where I can faintly feel the spirit's consciousness. Sometimes I feel that the spirit's consciousness is moving my will and thoughts, and sometimes I feel the spirit's consciousness directly, but the connection is not yet strong.

On the other hand, my conscious self still exists, and while I understand that the spirit is actually moving my physical body and conscious mind, the recognition of my conscious self and the spirit's consciousness is still somewhat separate.

During meditation, my conscious self understands that the spirit is my true self, and I am accepting the spirit.

My conscious self accepts the spirit and does not feel any particular fear or resistance, but I still feel that we are not completely one.

Therefore, as my conscious self, I intend to "entrust" myself to my spirit during meditation.

Since my true self is my spirit, my conscious self is nothing more than an illusion, and I entrust my conscious self to my true self, which is the spirit.

I meditate with this intention.

I think that this spirit may be called "Purusha" in yoga or "Atman" in Vedanta. In Vedanta, Atman is said to be unknowable and indistinguishable, so perhaps "Purusha" is the correct term even in Vedanta. However, I think that such a spirit or soul, like Purusha, is my true self, and that by entrusting myself to it, my true self will gradually manifest.

My true self is pure consciousness that is not bound by time and space, and it is the spirit. However, my conscious self has been deceived by the illusion (Maya) of this world and has been mistaking it for myself. This is something that is often said in yoga and scriptures, but recently...意識が体をダイレクトに動かしていると実感Starting to do this, I truly realized that what is real is the spirit, and that the spirit is the essence.

At this point, there is still a state where the spirit and the conscious mind exist separately, and as you go through daily life, you gradually return to a state where only the conscious mind exists. However, by meditating, you can reconnect with your spirit and even "surrender" yourself to the spirit.

This kind of "surrender" or "entrustment" is not directed towards others, but towards yourself, so there is no danger.

In reality, this kind of self-surrender happens spontaneously, and it is not something that is done after being persuaded by others.

In theory, if you consider that even others are essentially yourself, then entrusting yourself to others is the same. However, there are many people who take advantage of this kind of logic to manipulate and control others, so it is generally better not to entrust yourself to others. There are many scammers who twist this logic to try to take something from others. They may use various tricks to extract something from others, whether it's energy, people, things, or money.

In reality, when you reach this stage, you have confidence in your own spirit, and you act according to the guidance of your spirit, so there is no danger. However, if you are still hesitant, you will not experience "surrendering" or "entrusting" yourself to the spirit. Therefore, if someone is using similar terms like "surrender" or "entrustment" to create a sense of pressure or to guide your actions, even though the situations are completely different, you should be careful and take appropriate action.

When you reach this stage, you will understand it without any doubt, and you will know that surrendering to your own spirit is the right thing to do. Therefore, if you are in a state of doubt, something is different. In particular, this is not something that should be done after being persuaded by others. While the explanations of others may be helpful, you actually perform the surrender when you reach that stage. Therefore, a hasty surrender or entrustment will only lead to a relationship of dependence or manipulation.

Basically, I think you should do what you like. You are free to do whatever you want. It is only with that freedom that the spirit can grow. The foundation is a state of freedom, and that is where the surrender or entrustment to your own spirit comes in. This is not something that should be forced upon others, nor is there a need to compare yourself to others. If you don't feel it, there is no need to do it.

However, there are steps to get there, and if you prepare for those steps and proceed, you will naturally understand and experience the surrender to your spirit. While it may be helpful to have someone explain it to you, you are the one who actually performs the surrender, so you are entrusting yourself to your own spirit, not to someone else.

There may be a time when you entrust yourself to others after entrusting yourself to your own spirit, and perhaps there will be. However, the order is that you first entrust yourself to your own spirit. You should avoid suspicious scammers or groups who try to persuade you by saying that because others are the same as you, you need to entrust yourself to others.

I am not very familiar with these things because I am doing it myself. However, since I don't know who might be reading this, I have included some warnings.

When you reach this stage, you will surely understand it without any hesitation, so if you are struggling, it is better not to do things like surrender or entrustment.

Originally, I didn't want to make this kind of warning, but what I am saying here is that recently, in my meditation, I have been feeling a stronger sense of surrendering to my own spirit.

This may seem like you are surrendering something to someone else or something else, but in reality, your own spirit, which is the center of your being, is approaching the conscious mind that exists as the center. Therefore, it is not that you are surrendering to the spirit (or the "whole"), but rather that the spirit (the whole) is approaching you. The spirit is simply approaching the center of your conscious mind, which has a physical body, and there is no real surrender involved. It is the conscious mind that is surrendering, and the conscious mind is receiving the spirit that is approaching from the front.

Sometimes, this is metaphorically referred to as "transferring ownership" or simply put in a simplified and vague way. However, using such simplified language can easily lead to misunderstandings.

The two stages of Zazen are divided into "Shine" (Shi, Shamatha) and "Rantong" (Kan, Vipassana) in Tibetan. However, the interpretation of "Rantong" (Kan, Vipassana) varies depending on the school of thought.

In the "Section on the Nature of Mind" of Dzogchen, "Rantong" refers to a level where the state of awakening and the movement of thought are unified. This state is also called the "Immovable State." Once this state is reached, it cannot be hindered by any movement. "Teachings of Dzogchen" (authored by Namkhai Norbu).

In contrast, the Sutra and Tantra schools have different positions.
- Sutra: "Rantong" (Kan) arises automatically after the state of stillness (Shine, Shamatha).
- Tantra: The unification of Shine and Rantong is the goal of Tantra, where Shine corresponds to emptiness and Rantong corresponds to luminosity.
- Tibetan Dzogchen: The immovable state where the state of awakening and the movement of thought are unified is "Rantong."
(Excerpt from the same book)

In addition to these, there are various interpretations. In some schools of thought, such as Theravada Buddhism, Shamatha (Shi, Shine) is somewhat necessary, but essentially not that important, and Vipassana (Kan, Rantong) is sufficient.

Furthermore, the definition of "Samadhi" is also being discussed. Whether "Samadhi" is simply concentration (Shamatha, Shine), or whether it refers to "Vipassana" (Kan, Rantong), or the state of the true nature of mind, which is the state of awakening, varies depending on the interpretation.

The question of whether "Shamatha" (Shi, Shine) is better or "Vipassana" (Kan, Rantong) is better is always a topic of discussion among those who meditate. There are various opinions depending on the school of thought, its position, or one's experience, and sometimes this can lead to conflicts between different schools or individuals.

Recently, I feel that the classification based on the Tibetan tradition, especially Dzogchen, is the most clear.

Recently, the differences between "Shamatha" (Shi, Shine) and "Vipassana" (Kan, Rantong) in each school have become clearer, so my understanding of this area has become clearer.

The concept of the "higher self" is often discussed in spiritual contexts, referring to a distinction between the "ordinary mind" and the "higher-dimensional mind." However, based on my out-of-body experiences, I haven't observed a separate entity that could be called a "higher self." Instead, I interpret what might be perceived as a higher self as belonging to a "group soul." Therefore, I have tended to view the higher self and the group soul as essentially the same thing. As a soul or spirit, I exist as both an individual and a collective, and when I experience out-of-body states, I perceive myself as simply "myself," without a distinct higher self. Even from the perspective of my conscious mind, what is perceived as the higher self appears to be the same as the group soul.

However, this interpretation has left me with a somewhat vague and unclear understanding of the "higher self." While I've acknowledged the existence of different perspectives, I've generally dismissed it as a somewhat imprecise concept. Recently, I've become increasingly aware of a direct connection between my "true nature" (rikupa) and my physical body.

In this state of heightened awareness, I've come to believe that what is referred to as the "higher self" in spiritual circles is, in fact, this "true nature" (rikupa).

This aligns with the original definition of the higher self, but the confusion may stem from the way spiritual individuals often describe it. In spiritual contexts, the higher self is often portrayed as a separate, idealized entity, distinct from the individual. While some interpret the higher self through the lens of channeling, I have tended to associate it with the group soul, which represents a separate aspect of oneself.

However, based on my recent meditative experiences, I feel that it is appropriate to refer to this "true nature" (rikupa) as the "higher self."

The term "higher self" is often used to describe a distinction between the "ordinary mind" and the "higher-dimensional mind," and I believe that this "true nature" (rikupa) corresponds to the latter. However, many spiritual individuals express this concept in a more mystical way, often portraying a higher self as an angelic or divine being existing outside of oneself. While such metaphors may be helpful in conveying the general idea, they can sometimes overshadow the actual reality.

Indeed, this "true nature" (rikupa) is vibrant, energetic, and peaceful, and one might describe it as "shining." However, it is more fundamentally a "subtle radiance." While this may seem contradictory, it is actually the case that the underlying essence is quite subtle, yet it possesses an inner radiance.

Perhaps it would be best described as a "subtle radiance" that shines from within. Of course, those who observe it may perceive it differently, but the underlying essence is subtle.

However, it is important to remember that not everyone perceives things in the same way.

Some spiritual individuals describe the "inner self" as being quiet and peaceful, while the outer appearance is radiant. In reality, this is the same concept, simply expressed from a different perspective.

The difference in expression simply reflects the different perspectives of the observer.

In any case, I am now beginning to grasp the true nature of the "higher self."

When I first learned about the concept of the "higher self" about 30 years ago, it was described as a distinction between the "ordinary mind" and the "higher-dimensional mind." However, through meditation, social interactions, and out-of-body experiences, I have not observed a separate entity that could be called a "higher self." Instead, I have perceived a presence that resembles the "group soul," which I believe is my true self. This "group soul" appears to be in human form and represents the original soul from which I am a fragment. Based on my out-of-body experiences, I have interpreted the "higher self" as being equivalent to the "group soul."

I have long interpreted this concept based on my personal experiences. However, I now feel that it would be more accurate to return to the original definition of the "higher self" as a distinction between the "ordinary mind" and the "higher-dimensional mind," as this seems to provide a clearer understanding.

It feels like going around in a circle and returning to the original point.

In reality, there aren't actually two minds, but only one continuous mind. So, even though the interpretation seen through out-of-body experiences might seem correct, I feel that the concept of the "higher self" itself is not about the true nature of the soul, but rather that the conscious mind mistakenly perceives something as the "higher self."

This is a subtle point. In reality, the true self is the spirit, and that is all that exists. However, because the conscious mind mistakenly identifies itself as the self, the concept of the "higher self" becomes necessary.

This is similar to how Vedanta describes it as "the individual self (Jiva) mistakenly identifying itself as the self due to ignorance." Therefore, the existence of a "higher self" is not the true reality, but rather an illusion.

I tried to interpret the "higher self" based on the true reality, but since I couldn't find anything corresponding to the "higher self" during out-of-body experiences, I tried to interpret it as being the same as the "group soul." However, I don't think it's necessary to do that. Instead, it seems clearer to interpret the "higher self" simply as a story about an illusion and a story about the true nature of the mind (rikpa).

The phrase attributed to Descartes likely referred to the conscious mind. I am not very familiar with him, but he seemed to have affirmed the existence of his own self-awareness while doubting himself and the reality around him.

While this is a philosophical matter and I have no objections, I think this same phrase can be used to explain two aspects. Here, I am referring to the two aspects that appear when interpreting the phrase literally, not as the original meaning that Descartes intended. (Whether Descartes said the same thing is beside the point.)

One is the "I" as conscious awareness.
The other is the "I" as the true nature of the mind (what is called "rikupa").

In reality, in Yoga and Vedanta, the "I" as conscious awareness is described as something that temporarily appears and disappears. This is called "chitta" (mind) or "buddhi" (the ability to determine, the power of thought) in Sanskrit. In addition, it is explained that the existence of "buddhi" gives rise to the feeling of "I," which does not actually exist, called "ahankara" (egoism).

What actually exists here is:
- The true nature of the mind (rikupa).
- "Chitta" (mind) and "buddhi" (the ability to determine) as conscious awareness.

And what does not exist is:
- "Ahankara" (the illusion of "I" that arises due to the existence of "buddhi").

Here, it is not clear what Descartes was referring to, but the phrase can be interpreted in two ways:
- The "I" exists because the true nature of the mind (rikupa) has volition.
- The "I" exists because there is conscious awareness. The illusion of "I" arises because "chitta" (mind) and "buddhi" (the ability to determine) have volition.

In reality, only those who meditate or some other people can recognize that the true nature of the mind (rikupa) has volition, so there is a possibility that Descartes reached a similar conclusion through meditation or contemplation.

Alternatively, it is also possible that he concluded that the "I" exists as conscious awareness.

In either case, there are generally two possibilities: the possibility that he realized that the true nature of the mind (rikupa) has volition, or the possibility that he philosophically concluded that the "I" exists as conscious awareness.

In reality, I am not very interested in philosophy, but sometimes I find it interesting when it intersects with Yoga and Vedanta in various places.

The knowledge of scriptures and the stillness of consciousness are mostly external aspects of meditation. Recently, I've come to believe that the true essence lies in directly connecting with one's inner consciousness. This inner consciousness is often referred to as the Atman (true self), higher self, Purusha, or divine consciousness, but the label is not important. What matters is directly connecting with this inner consciousness, as it is the key to progressing to the next level of consciousness.

In this state of direct connection with consciousness, everything feels "as it is."

As expressed in the poetry of Zokchen, there is no way to express "as it is." Everything arises and disappears, and it is complete in its own right. Therefore, one should abandon the disease of effort and remain in the natural state of Samadhi, allowing all manifestations to arise and naturally disappear in a continuous cycle.

The true nature of all phenomena is non-duality.
Each individual phenomenon is beyond the limitations of the mind.
There are no concepts that can define what is as it is.
Nevertheless, manifestations continue to arise. All is well.
Since everything is already complete, abandon the disease of effort and remain in the state of perfect being. That is Samadhi.
"The Teachings of Zokchen" (by Namkai Norbu)

From the beginning of all things,
everything is
complete as it is.
Then, all efforts to achieve something are abandoned.
Simply remaining in the natural state,
the state of non-dual Samadhi naturally continues to arise.
"Rainbow and Crystal" (by Namkai Norbu)

Until recently, I could intellectually understand this, but I couldn't truly feel it.

However, recently, I've started to experience it, particularly around the time I felt a sense of dawn in my chest, and a deepening awareness of creation, destruction, and preservation. I became certain that the content of these poems is definitely correct very recently, after I realized that my consciousness was directly controlling my body.

These seemingly unrelated things are actually connected. By connecting with one's inner consciousness, one can understand the content of the poems.

The phrase "everything is complete as it is from the beginning" means that everything is a creation of consciousness. At this stage, one understands that everything is created with intention by consciousness, so everything is complete as it is, regardless of what it is. This doesn't mean that things shouldn't change; rather, it means that even if things change into any form, or even if they are in a formless state like raw materials, that too is included in everything and is complete as it is. This understanding can be achieved by connecting with one's inner consciousness.

It is true that I have only connected with my own consciousness so far, and not with everything around me. However, because I "understand" that the essence of my inner consciousness is the same as the essence of objects and other people outside of me, I can readily understand such things based on this understanding of sameness. One understands the nature of the world by understanding oneself.

This process is written about in scriptures, and I now understand that the scriptures were correct in stating that one understands the world by understanding oneself.

Furthermore, the statement that "all efforts to achieve something are abandoned" is also largely true. Since everything is as it is, everything is at the mercy of consciousness. Everything is good.

Here, the abandonment of effort refers to the abandonment of the conscious effort of the conscious mind. While the intention of the inner consciousness remains, unnecessary efforts are essentially abandoned.

And, it is also true that simply remaining in the natural state, the state of non-dual Samadhi naturally continues. The natural state and the non-dual state are two sides of the same coin. One is connected to one's inner self in the state of non-dual Samadhi, which allows one to be in the natural state. At the same time, there is also the aspect that simply remaining in the natural state allows the state of non-dual Samadhi to continue.

This poem is a description of the state of Samadhi, and while there are many types of Samadhi, this description seems to be about a relatively deep state of Samadhi.

Since I started to realize that my consciousness was directly controlling my body, I suddenly noticed that my sense of specialness had significantly diminished.

I don't think I had that much of a sense of specialness before, but I feel that the sense of specialness that was somehow lingering in a corner of my mind has largely disappeared due to this change.

This sense of specialness is particularly strong in spiritual beginners, and while it has been gradually decreasing, I still felt a slight sense of specialness recently.

It manifests as a sense of superiority, leading to the belief that one's practice is special and superior. This sense of superiority is common in spiritual beginners and gradually diminishes. This is normal and not necessarily a bad thing; it can be used as an indicator of progress in one's practice. While superiority is often criticized, I believe it is normal and that one should simply be mindful not to offend others. Looking back, I think I may have had some sense of specialness even a little while ago, compared to what I feel now.

This sense of specialness or superiority tends to decrease as one practices, but it seems that even at its lowest point, it never completely disappears. However, with the emergence of a non-dual consciousness, I feel that I have come closer to a state where there is very little sense of specialness.

This non-dual consciousness is specifically the awareness of the heart that directly controls the body, which is referred to as the Atman (true self) or Purusha. When this non-dual consciousness arises, it enters a state of Samadhi in meditation. Samadhi is the state of non-dual consciousness. In contrast to the non-dual consciousness, yoga explains that in normal conscious awareness, there are three components: the observer, the observed, and the means of observation. Thus, what is divided in normal consciousness becomes "one" with the object being observed in a state of Samadhi. This is what is called non-dual consciousness.

I used to think that I had experienced non-dual consciousness to some extent, especially during meditation, when I felt a certain sensation, or when my vision seemed to slow down or feel like a movie. However, compared to the direct and vivid awareness I have recently, those previous experiences of non-dual consciousness seem quite mild.

It seems that I was only glimpsing the Samadhi of non-dual consciousness, and it wasn't true Samadhi. There are various types of Samadhi, and it seems that I was in the initial stages of Samadhi.

Based on the sensations I experienced at that time, I probably thought it was non-dual consciousness, but I didn't have the certainty that it was definitely non-dual consciousness.

On the other hand, with the recent direct and vivid Samadhi, I have a strong conviction that this is indeed non-dual consciousness.

Non-dual consciousness literally means "not two," meaning "one."

According to the explanation in yoga, it is described as something that was originally separate becoming one. However, when I actually experience this state, it seems that there is a misunderstanding.

This non-dual consciousness is literally "not separate," and it is not a story about two things becoming one.

Although it may appear to be two in conscious awareness, it is one from the perspective of non-dual Samadhi. Everything is connected by consciousness, and there is only consciousness. There is no concept of two things becoming one.

The term "non-dual" is often used instead of "unity" because understanding the reason requires understanding what the word "unity" implies. It suggests that there are initially two distinct things that must be unified. In contrast, "non-dual" has nothing to do with the idea of dividing something into two and then unifying it. "The Teachings of Dzogchen" (by Namkhai Norbu).

In yoga, the terms "non-dual" and "unity" are often used, but in Dzogchen, only "non-dual" is used. I found the explanation of "unity" in yoga to be unsatisfactory, but now I think that the explanation in Dzogchen is correct.

The appearance of unity is due to conscious awareness trying to understand the non-dual Samadhi of the mind's true nature. The fact that it appears to be unified indicates that it is from the perspective of conscious awareness. On the other hand, when one enters a state of Samadhi as an expression of the mind's true nature (the so-called "rigpa"), there is only non-dual consciousness, which is self-evident and without any doubt.

When in a state of conscious awareness, it is divided into two, and this creates room for a sense of specialness. And this sense of specialness seems to arise depending on how far it is from the true nature of the mind. The more distant it is from the samadhi of the mind's nature, the more it feels like it is divided into two, and the more a sense of specialness arises.

On the other hand, as the true nature of the mind, the so-called *rikpa* or *Atman* (true self) or *Purusha* consciousness, overlaps with the conscious awareness, the consciousness begins to move as a non-dual consciousness, and the sense of specialness gradually disappears.

This is a subtle explanation, but while there is conscious awareness as conscious awareness, the true nature of the mind, *rikpa* or *Atman* (true self) or *Purusha*, directly moves my body and conscious awareness, so the *Atman* and the body and conscious awareness are in a state of being quite closely connected. Therefore, it exists as it is, as conscious awareness, but it is directly connected to the consciousness of the *Atman* (true self), and because the consciousness of the *Atman* (true self) is a non-dual consciousness, the non-dual consciousness works, causing the sense of specialness to disappear.

This probably relates to the depth of samadhi, and the sensation is not constant, but varies over time, but generally, it is like this.

Recently, I have awakened to a direct and inner awareness, which has allowed me to understand the scriptures much better. In particular, I can now understand the descriptions of non-dual consciousness (Advaita) and the explanation of Atman (the true self) with a sense of feeling and experience.

To put it another way, this "direct and inner awareness" is what I mean when I use terms like "non-dual consciousness" or "samadhi." The expressions are different, but they mean the same thing.

Historically, I now understand why this state has been called "samadhi" or "non-dual consciousness."

This kind of topic often leads to theological debates, philosophical discussions, or sectarian disputes. However, when one actually experiences non-dual consciousness, it becomes clear what is true, and there is usually no room for disagreement.

However, there are descriptions that are easy to understand, descriptions that are prone to misunderstanding, and stories that are too long and make it difficult to see the main point. Each has its own characteristics, but there is still a truth to be found.

For example, there is a passage from the Shiva Samhita, a scripture of the Shiva tradition.

"Atman permeates the entire universe. Atman is one, consisting of existence, wisdom, and bliss, and is complete, without any deficiency or opposition. (Omitted) There is no illuminator other than Atman, so it is self-illuminating. Because it is self-illuminating, it is essentially light. Illumination refers to consciousness. (Omitted) Atman has no limitations based on time and space, so Atman is truly perfect and complete. (Omitted) Atman has no destruction, so Atman is eternal and will never perish. There is nothing other than Atman in this world, so only Atman exists. Everything else is illusion, and only Atman is real." (From "Yoga Sutra: A Translation and Commentary" by Tsuruji Saho)

When you read something like this, you might think, "What is this?" and dismiss it as an irrelevant theological or philosophical discussion. However, this passage expresses the actual state of meditation.

This description is a theological statement, but it is not just an abstract theory. There are various philosophies, some of which are based on reality, while others are purely theoretical. This is not a philosophical theory concocted from abstract reasoning; it is written as truth in the scriptures because these things are facts.

This scripture seems to have been written relatively recently by a guru of the sect. However, when you trace its origins, it turns out that it was not something that humans came up with, but rather based on what ancient sages received from the gods or an absolute being (perhaps extraterrestrial beings). Therefore, it has a considerable history, and it contains the truth of reality.

These things become a reality through meditation.

Specifically, when one enters a state of non-dual consciousness and realizes that consciousness is moving the body and the conscious mind, that realization confirms what is described in the scriptures as Atman.

And while meditation allows you to perceive the outline, the scriptures confirm the overall picture.

When reading the scriptures without any experience, it might feel like "gibberish." However, when reading the scriptures with a basic understanding of non-dual consciousness and samadhi, the descriptions become much more understandable and reveal the truth.

A little while ago, I felt that my thoughts and distractions were gradually dissolving over time.

In terms of the senses, I experienced a slow-motion perspective, feeling like I was in a movie, and I spent my days in a state of observation (vipassana or samadhi), but this state didn't last long, and I felt like I would eventually lose it.

These samadhi states required some degree of awareness, and although it wasn't exactly concentration, I maintained these states by intentionally becoming aware of certain things. Once I entered that state of observation, it would continue for a while without much intention, but eventually, I would return to normal.

However, now, I can maintain that state of observation without much conscious effort.

The major turning point between needing intention for samadhi and not needing it was when I started to feel that my consciousness was directly controlling my body. Before that, I felt that I needed to explicitly perform some actions to enter samadhi. Although it sometimes happened naturally even without much intention, I generally felt that some intention was necessary.

After crossing that threshold, I started to enter samadhi states quite normally without explicit intention.

However, it's not that strong; it's like hiking on a ridge. It's not that difficult, but it requires some attention, and the view is good.

Based on a Tibetan Buddhist interpretation, these experiences probably correspond to the following states:

1. Cherdul: This was my previous state. A slight power of self-liberation.
2. Chardul: This is my current state.
3. Landrul: Not yet.

Chardul is an intermediate ability, and it is described with the image of snow melting into the sea. In this case, the snow represents the relationship between the senses and the object, which is to say, afflictions, and chardul means "liberating as it arises." (Omitted) It means that one is no longer constrained by afflictions. In Dzogchen, it is said that all afflictions and appearances arising from karma become mere decorations for this reason. One enjoys them as they are, simply as one's own energy's play, without attachment. "Rainbows and Crystals" by Namkai Norbu.

This description perfectly matches my recent understanding. Ideally, one should consult a lama to confirm one's state, but for now, based on what I've read, I think this is the state I'm in. I've read about this before and thought, "Maybe that's it?" but I didn't have any certainty. Now, I understand this more clearly and have a strong conviction.

According to the author, there is a complete overcoming of dualism beyond this point, and that I have not yet completely transcended dualism. This also aligns with my own experience. At this stage, I have finally obtained a clue to transcend dualism and have begun to experience "everything is one," but I am not yet completely immersed in that state. Therefore, this description applies directly to me.

In this state, afflictions are generally self-liberated naturally, but I still sometimes feel trapped in the illusion of dualism, especially after waking up in the morning, so I still feel that seated meditation is necessary to eliminate those feelings.

Until then, I was relying on the state of stillness to a certain extent.

Since the ability of Chardol to self-liberate began to develop, I feel that the dependence on the state of stillness has decreased considerably.

Even before that, when observing, Chardol could somewhat detach from the state of stillness, but basically, I was relying on the state of stillness.

Now, thoughts are self-liberating in a state that is somewhat separate from the movement of the mind.

In particular, in some schools of Vipassana meditation, it is said that "stillness of mind is not always necessary" or "concentration is necessary to some extent, but concentration-based Samatha (stillness) is not always necessary." In such contexts, things are discussed in terms of "the state of stillness is not always necessary," and I think that is certainly true at this stage. However, I think that the state of stillness was necessary in the earlier stages.

Indeed, I think that, theoretically, it is as the Vipassana schools say, but it is quite difficult, especially in the modern, chaotic world. I personally think that it is necessary to meditate step by step. In the past, in simpler societies, it may have been possible to reach the state of observation, Chardol, without much concentration or Samatha (stillness) meditation, but I think that is difficult in the modern world.

The word "Vipassana" has become so familiar that it can be interpreted in various ways, but from the term "Chardol," it seems to have only one meaning and is clear.

At this stage, I feel that I have begun to move away from the dependence on the state of stillness.

However, it does not become a state full of distractions, because there is the ability of self-liberation, so simply maintaining the state as it is keeps distractions self-liberated and maintains the state of Samadhi.

The author of "Yoga Handbook," a disciple of Yogananda, first explains that, based on the Yoga Sutras, there is concentration (dharana) and meditation (dhyana), and as a result, samadhi arises.

The basic structure is that a second mind appears through the cessation of the ordinary mind, and the state in which this second mind appears is called samadhi.
When the practitioner's mind completely ceases all fluctuations and remains in a state of non-self, the second mind that has been dormant awakens. This awakening of the "second mind" is called samadhi. "Yoga Handbook (written by Nobara Sekiguchi)."

When I apply this to my own state, it seems that the following three stages are applicable:
First: The visual field is perceived in slow motion.
Next: The awakening of the consciousness of "creation, destruction, and maintenance" in the depths of the chest.
Recently: The feeling of consciousness directly moving the body.

These are basically based on the "state of stillness," but recently, the state has been moving away from dependence on the state of stillness. However, the basic foundation is the state of stillness. The state of stillness is "a temporary stillness of the mind." Based on this, Yogananda's disciple explains.

Samadhi is a rest for the small self, but it is an awakening of the great self, and it is not the death of a human being, which is Nirvana. In other words, Nirvana is the awakening of cosmic consciousness within the individual's heart. (Omitted) This cosmic consciousness is called God or Buddha, (Omitted) and in humans, this God or Buddha resides within, but in the body of ordinary people, it is always at rest. The God that resides within humans is the true human being, the true self. But this God is, in the body of ordinary people, almost always asleep. When this sleeping God is awakened, and when the state is developed in which "humans live with God, and God works with humans," that state is called heaven or paradise. When humans enter this state of paradise, that is the purpose of all religions, and it is also the ultimate goal of yoga practice. "Yoga Handbook (written by Nobara Sekiguchi)."

It explains that the awakening of cosmic consciousness based on the state of stillness is samadhi, and that it is called God or Buddha, and that it is heaven or paradise. It also says that in ordinary people, this cosmic consciousness is asleep, and the awakened state is samadhi.

Although the wording may vary, this is basically consistent with my own feelings.

However, even though it is called the great self, everyday life is quite normal. I think that is the case. There is nothing particularly unusual. It is just that what was previously dormant has become conscious. Although I say this, it may cause misunderstandings, but basically, there is no sense of being special. It is mundane.

I checked what the current state would be called in the Summer meditation classification.

Initially: The visual field is perceived in slow motion.
Next: The awakening of the "creation, destruction, and preservation" consciousness in the depths of the chest.
Recently: The feeling of directly controlling the body with consciousness.

These states can be considered as states that are, in a sense, similar to Summer meditation, but it is difficult to fit them into existing classifications.

It seems that all of them can be called Summer meditation, but I feel that the recent state is truly worthy of being called Summer meditation. The initial state has a "subject" in the sense of the five senses, so it can be called Savikalpa Samadhi (Summer meditation with a subject). The second and third states are mainly characterized by the feeling of Atman, and while the five senses are also present at that time, the consciousness behind the five senses is the main focus, so it can be called Nirvikalpa Samadhi (Summer meditation without a subject). At this time, the five senses do not disappear even in Nirvikalpa. It seems that there is a misunderstanding about whether or not the five senses disappear.

There are various types of Summer meditation, and the Summer meditation classification in Yoga Sutra is famous, but I personally find the classification in Vedanta more suitable. In Vedanta, Summer meditation is basically divided into Summer meditation with a subject and Summer meditation without a subject.

- Savikalpa Samadhi: Summer meditation with a subject.
- Nirvikalpa Samadhi: Summer meditation without a subject.

These are defined as "whether or not there is a subject," but rather, it is about "whether the five senses are the main basis" or "the normal mind is the main basis," or "whether the second mind = cosmic consciousness = the true nature of the mind (Linga) is the main basis." The actual state differs depending on the ratio. If we look at it from the perspective of "subject," even when the true nature of the mind (Linga) is somewhat active, the five senses and the normal mind still exist in a different layer. Therefore, it is possible to classify it as having a "subject" as a basis because it is based on the stillness of the state at the beginning. However, as the normal mind and the true nature of the mind (Linga) begin to operate in parallel, it becomes confusing if we classify it based on the "subject." Therefore, it is better to distinguish it based on whether the normal mind is the main basis or the true nature of the mind (Linga) is the main basis. Since Summer meditation involves some degree of activity of the true nature of the mind (Linga), if the true nature of the mind (Linga) is weak, the normal mind is the main basis, which is called Savikalpa Samadhi (distinguished Summer meditation).

Various types of Summer meditation are created based on the ratio and characteristics, and each has a different name, but broadly, they can be divided into the above two.

Based on this Vedanta classification, Ramana Maharshi defines Summer meditation in three categories:

- Savikalpa Samadhi: Summer meditation maintained by effort.
- Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi: Temporary self-awareness and temporary, effortless self-awakening.
- Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi: Remaining effortlessly in the original, pure, and natural state.
"Being as it is (Teachings of Ramana Maharshi)"

I understand this well, and it seems to correspond to the Cherdor, Shardor, and Landor in the Tibetan Buddhist Dzogchen.

- Savikalpa Samadhi (≒ Cherdor) → Visual field in slow motion.
- Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi (≒ Shardor) → The feeling of directly controlling the body with the consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation.
- Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi (≒ Landor) → I am.

It took about half a year from the initial stage of the consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation to the feeling of directly controlling the body with it. However, as an initial expression, even when using the word "consciousness," there was no feeling of "intention" at first, but only the feeling of "creation, destruction, and preservation." Although I intuitively understood that it was consciousness, there was no "intention" in it. Initially, there was no such "intention" as the feeling of "directly controlling the body" that I would later feel, but rather, it was felt as the root of creation, destruction, and preservation in the depths of the heart.

Later, the feeling of directly controlling the body appeared, and by realizing that "intention," I finally realized that "this is Atman (the Self)." Until then, it was just "the consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation," and I didn't think it was Atman (the Self). I wasn't sure if it was, but when "intention" appeared, I realized that it was Atman (the Self).

Therefore, I think the current stage is Kevala-Nirvikalpa Samadhi (approximately, Shardor).

In spirituality, the mirror is often used as a metaphor to explain the mind, with the saying that the mind is like a mirror that reflects the surroundings.

In reality, this metaphor is used in various contexts, and I have read or heard it many times, but it often lacks specificity in its explanation. Personally, I tend to dismiss most of it with a "hmm" and a "so what?"

For example, in spirituality, the metaphor "others are a mirror of yourself" is used. I tend to dismiss it with a "maybe." In this context, it means that "the emotions you feel towards others are actually within you." While that may be true, I am not satisfied with just that. It is too cliché and I dismiss it. Knowing this does not solve the problem. It is like a moral story from the Buddhist scriptures. People cannot change easily just by hearing this. In reality, there is no self that needs to change, but even that fundamental truth is not recognized.

In the yoga tradition, the mind is also described as a mirror. This includes the spiritual interpretation mentioned above, where others are reflected in the mind. However, there is also a concept of the mind as a mirror that reflects the "true self" (Purusha in yoga).

This yoga interpretation is a step further than the spiritual or Buddhist interpretations, as it explains that the mind is not only a mirror that reflects others, but also a mirror that reflects the true self (Purusha, or Atman). According to yoga, the true self (Purusha) cannot be seen because the mind is stained. Therefore, by purifying the mind, one can truly see one's own nature (Purusha, or Atman) through the mind.

While this is true, it is still a state of observing Atman from the outside. In this purified state, one is not grasping Atman itself, but rather seeing a pure Atman reflected in the mind. Therefore, from this perspective, one has not yet grasped the true nature of the mind (Purusha, Atman, or Rigpa).

Similarly, Vedanta uses the metaphor of the mind as a mirror and also talks about purification. It also uses Vedanta's teachings as a tool to remove impurities and to purify the mind. Some schools even say that Vedanta is a mirror that reflects the truth.

While all of these are valid metaphors, none of them satisfy me.

The only metaphor that truly satisfies me is the one used in Dzogchen.

Dzogchen uses the metaphor of a mirror, stating that "being the mirror itself" is the key to breaking through dualistic perspectives.

- The state of "being the mirror itself" is when Rigpa, the true nature of the mind, is active and in a non-dualistic state of Samadhi.
- The state of "looking into the mirror" is when the ordinary mind is active and remains in a dualistic state.

When the mirror is clouded, the ordinary mind cannot clearly reflect the object. When the mind is purified, it can clearly reflect others and the self (Purusha, Atman), but that is still from an external perspective.

Being "the mirror itself" and "looking into the mirror" are completely different. If you are the mirror itself, there is no dualistic manifestation. (Omitted) When you are in the state of the mirror, any image that is reflected is not a problem. (Omitted) That is spontaneous liberation. There is no need to change or correct anything. You simply remain in your own essence. "The Mirror of Wisdom" by Namkhai Norbu.

This is also something that has been discussed by some New Age and spiritual groups.

However, there is a huge difference between actually being in that state and simply understanding it intellectually. One cannot understand it without actually being in that state.

Personally, I only began to understand the Dzogchen metaphor of the mirror after developing the ability of self-liberation (Shardor). Until then, I understood it but didn't quite grasp it. Now, I clearly understand that this metaphor is correct.

I feel that I have gradually been able to coexist with everyday life and the state of samadhi, as I have moved away from dependence on the state of stillness in Shardul.

Until then, samadhi was essentially based on the state of stillness, which, in meditation, is the state of shamatha (Shi, or shinay in Tibetan).

The voice of the mind repeats endlessly, but in the state of shamatha (Shi), the interval between one mental voice and the next becomes longer. It doesn't become completely zero, but the interval widens. This is called shamatha (Shi or shinay).

This is a fundamental basis of meditation, and a very important one. However, Theravada Buddhism and other Vipassana schools do not place as much importance on this, and take the position that "concentration is necessary to some extent, but basically, all you need to do is observe." I have been unable to understand this until now, but I have realized that this is a mixture of explanations from a relatively high level and explanations for beginners.

In the state of Shardul, which is a higher state of samadhi, this is indeed true, and it is literally correct that "concentration is necessary to some extent, but basically, all you need to do is observe," and that is all that is needed if the power of samadhi has developed. However, I think it is impossible to do that from the beginning.

However, this is a subjective matter, so it will probably be the case if you think you are not concentrating much, or if you think you are concentrating but are not concentrating much, or if you think you are not concentrating but are actually concentrating very much. Therefore, I personally think that it is better to listen to such subjective stories about meditation only to a certain extent and not to take them too seriously. I may be scolded by people who are seriously studying a particular school for saying such things, but I think that it is better not to be too serious about spiritual practice, and that ultimately, you can only understand it when you reach that state, so it is better to put the explanation aside for the time being and use it as a reference or to check it.

In other words, while the Vipassana school says this to beginners, I don't think it is an explanation for beginners, but rather an explanation for people who have developed a certain level of samadhi. Of course, the people in that school would say that it is different, but that is fine. It is not a "mixture," but simply "borrowing an expression."

Also, one of my guardian spirits is a monk who attained enlightenment through practice in Tibet, so I am compatible with Tibetan teachings, and I am based on an understanding of Tibetan Buddhism, Dzogchen, and recently, Vedanta.

I basically base my meditation experiences, and I only need the logic and explanations of each school to explain them. Therefore, it is not really about mixing schools, although it may look like it from the outside. There is a certain degree of mixing between different schools, but the fundamentals are the same. Just as if you know the taste of saltwater, you can understand that the water in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, and the Pacific are all salty, even though their taste and appearance are quite different.

It can be said that there is shamatha (Shi) first, and that Vipassana is based on that foundation, but Vipassana has a broad meaning, so it is better to say that there is shamatha (Shi) followed by samadhi (Zanmai), and that it starts with samadhi (savikalpa-samadhi, Cherdul) that depends on the state of stillness, and then gradually transitions to samadhi (nirvikalpa-samadhi, Shardul) that does not depend on the state of stillness as samadhi deepens.

When this state of Shardul is reached, it is possible to move away from dependence on the state of stillness, and to reach the state where Vipassana schools say that "concentration is necessary to some extent, but basically, all you need to do is observe." This may be considered a Vipassana state by the Vipassana school, but it is better to simply call it a normal state of samadhi (nirvikalpa-samadhi, Shardul).

When this state is reached, it seems that it is important to "mix samadhi and everyday life" as taught by Dzogchen.

Before Shardul, this was quite difficult. In the so-called savikalpa-samadhi state, one can only maintain samadhi with some degree of consciousness, and when one falls out of the state of samadhi, one has to meditate again to return to the state of stillness and then return to the state of samadhi.

It seems that recently, the power of Samadhi has become strong enough to the point where it is possible to integrate it into daily life. However, the power of Samadhi is not yet extremely strong, so it is gradually increasing, but I feel that I have been able to maintain a Samadhi state in daily life much more than before.

"Sewa" means "to mix" in Tibetan. It means to blend one's meditative state into all actions of daily life. In Dzogchen, there is nothing that needs to be changed, and there is no need to wear special clothes. There is nothing that would appear from the outside to be Dzogchen practice. (Omitted) All conditions within the relative realm are incorporated into the practice, and the two are made into one. Of course, this requires a firm meditative state. "Rainbows and Crystals" (by Namkai Norbu).

The "relative conditions" refer to all aspects of daily life that are still perceived as external, and at this stage, it seems necessary to apply each of them to the unified state of Samadhi.

In fact, similar things are said about experienced yogis who are skilled in meditation, so I don't think this is unique to Dzogchen.

Recently, I have been focusing on maintaining Samadhi in daily life. However, since I gradually lose the Samadhi state, I sometimes return to a state of clear stillness to reset, and then try to maintain Samadhi in daily life again.

Of course, the state of stillness is not the goal; the goal is "sewa," and the state of stillness is the starting point (shamatha,Shi, shiné).

In Buddhism, there are stages of enlightenment called "Fugenka" and "Arahant." However, because these terms are described as the elimination of afflictions, it can be difficult to understand the difference between them.

"Fugenka" is one of the four stages of enlightenment in Buddhism, and the details vary depending on the school, but it is generally classified as follows:

1. Yoruka
2. Ichiranka
3. Fugenka
4. Arahant

I am not an expert in Buddhism, so I will not go into detail, but my general understanding is as follows:

1. Yoruka: A glimpse of enlightenment.
2. Ichiranka: Advancement in concentration meditation. Mastery of Samatha (tranquility).
3. Fugenka: Savikalpa Samadhi. Samadhi with an object.
4. Arahant: Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Samadhi without an object. Elimination of afflictions.

In Buddhist teachings, there are often talks about the "elimination of afflictions" or the "elimination of the self." While this may seem to be the case, I believe it is more accurate to understand it as the awakening of the Great Self. The appearance of the Great Self is what is called the "elimination of the small self." The Buddhist terminology in this area is highly context-dependent, which makes it very difficult to understand.

When I heard or read about these topics in Theravada Buddhism, I could not fully understand them. However, if I were to review them now, I can certainly see that they are true. Now that I understand what it actually means, I can understand the content in context. However, it was difficult to understand these concepts back then.

Personally, I think that the terms "Arahant" and other Buddhist terms are "descriptions of the result," which is correct in itself. However, I find the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism to be more appealing.

In the world, there are also Buddhist ranks and titles such as "Arahant," but here, I am referring to the actual state, not the title.

Now I understand that all practices lead to this simple function.

Practices that control the mind, such as those that aim to still the mind (shamatha,Shi), or those that aim to observe the mind, such as Vipassana meditation, can be said to be preliminary stages for reaching this simple state of observing the mind.

Here, initially, there is an intention to "try" to do something. This is a normal, intentional mental activity, and in itself is a normal mental function.

Beyond that, there is a stage where the mind can observe its own activity without such intention, or where the mind itself initiates the observation.

And now I feel that such observation of the mind is the key to enlightenment.

...This is a story that can easily be misunderstood, but in reality, this "observation" is something that is recognized as such only when it actually happens. Before that, this "observation" does not exist, so you won't know what it is. Initially, it will be a momentary experience, but as you continue, the duration of that experience will gradually increase.

In order to achieve stillness of mind or observation of mind, one must have a foundation of inherent nature. That inherent nature is emptiness (ku). Now I clearly understand that observing the inherent nature of the mind (so-called rikpa), which lies deep within the ordinary mind, is the path to enlightenment.

Therefore, it is especially difficult at first, but I believe that simply observing the mind's activity is the path to enlightenment.

However, this path has many pitfalls, and many people fall into them.

Therefore, it is important to understand this, and it seems that starting with shamatha (Shi, samadhi) meditation is a good approach as a first step.

After stilling the mind (shamatha, samadhi), gradually release that stillness. And while releasing it, try to maintain the stillness of mind and the awareness of the mind. This is much easier than directly observing the mind's activity.

Of course, if possible, it is also good to observe the mind's activity in everyday life. However, for ordinary people who are not proficient in meditation, they will be caught up in the mind's activity and constantly tossed about by the waves of thought. On the other hand, if you first still the mind (shamatha, samadhi) and then gradually release it, you can control the observation of the mind's activity to the extent that you can. That is the key.

In reality, shamatha (Shi, samadhi) meditation is complete in itself and has the result of a state of stillness. That is a state where the mind rests and becomes peaceful, but it is a temporary state that will eventually gradually return to the ordinary, busy mind.

Although it is a temporary state, it creates an opportunity to observe the mind's activity.

In everyday life, it is difficult to observe the mind's activity because it is too intense, so by temporarily calming the activity and bringing it to a state of stillness, you can place the observation of the mind under a certain degree of control.

Eventually, it will return to a normal state, but that is not a waste of time.

Some schools of thought emphasize that "shamatha (Shi, samadhi) meditation is nothing more than a temporary state," but in reality, meditation is a method and a tool, so it should be used accordingly.

The ultimate state is to have the inherent nature of the mind (so-called rikpa) exposed and to continuously maintain a meditative state in everyday life, so it is not a waste of time to temporarily achieve that observation through practice.

That observation is the goal, so it is a mistake to cling to the temporary state of stillness, and it is necessary to point that out. However, as I said, it should be used accordingly, and even if you cling to it at first, those who think for themselves will eventually realize what they are doing. Well, there are probably some people who are not very intelligent, but if you study the scriptures and always have questions, you will surely notice various things. In any case, it is better to think for yourself until you understand, rather than simply accepting what others say.

Therefore, it is important to understand what stage the sages are talking about, especially by listening to the stories of sages who are talking about the level of this kind of observation. Ordinary people may then point out contradictions between shamatha meditation (meditation for stilling the mind, samadhi,Shi) and what they are saying, and say that shamatha meditation is meaningless. In reality, both have their own meaning, and different perspectives emerge depending on the stage.

Especially at the beginning, it is basic matter to start with shamatha (Shi, samadhi) concentration meditation.

However, it is sufficient to keep in mind that the goal is not that.

In reality, when observing through the true nature of mind (rigpa), it manifests as an awareness that observes and intends all the movements of the ordinary mind, even those that are hidden.

Therefore, even when the ordinary mind is thinking about something, there is a state of observation through the true nature of mind (rigpa), and even when the ordinary mind is not thinking about anything, the true nature of mind (rigpa) is observing and being aware of that very state of the ordinary mind that is not thinking.

Therefore, fundamentally, the workings of the ordinary mind and the movement of the true nature of mind (rigpa) can be considered separate things. Whether the ordinary mind is in a state of stillness (shamatha) or is moving, it is not related to the movement of the true nature of mind (rigpa).

The movement of the true nature of mind (rigpa) is to continue observing everything, whether the ordinary mind is moving or still.

However, this is difficult at first, so the basic practice is to start with the meditation practice of stillness (shamatha).

In reality, the ordinary mind and the true nature of mind (rigpa) are one continuous thing, but for the sake of practice, it is easier to understand if they are explained as separate things. Especially at the beginning, it appears that way, and the movement of the true nature of mind (rigpa) is almost non-existent, so it is not necessarily wrong.

As one becomes aware of oneself as the Atman (true self), a sense of being a servant of the master also arises in the conscious mind.

This means that, simultaneously with the realization that the Atman is directly controlling one's body and conscious mind, the conscious mind also becomes clearly aware of the Atman.

From the perspective of the Atman, it is directly controlling the body and conscious mind, while, from the perspective of the conscious mind, it is being controlled by the Atman.

Of course, this does not mean that the conscious mind disappears. The conscious mind still exists, and thoughts and emotions are still present. However, behind it all, one can feel the "awareness" of the Atman, which encompasses both the aspect of observation and the aspect of intention.

From the perspective of the conscious mind, there is an awareness of being "observed by the Atman" and of being "moved by the awareness of the Atman." This awareness includes both the constant, direct observation and the direct movement by an intentional awareness. This is not just a theoretical concept; it is a real experience that the conscious mind is having.

Metaphorically, this can be described as the conscious mind becoming aware of its role as a "servant of the master."

However, it is important to note that the awareness of the conscious mind and the Atman are interconnected and, in reality, are a single mind. Therefore, the awareness is a movement of one aspect of the mind. To be more precise, the awareness of the Atman is experienced by the aspect of the mind that perceives and feels, rather than the thinking organ (Buddhi). While it might be called "conscious mind," which often implies the thinking mind, it is more accurate to say that it is the feeling aspect of the mind that experiences this awareness of the Atman.

In fact, yoga and Vedanta teach that the sense of "I" that the conscious mind perceives is an illusion. More specifically, the mind, which corresponds to the "I," is composed of Manas (mind) and Buddhi (intellect), and it is the Buddhi that creates the illusion of "self," which is called Ahankara (egoism). Therefore, as soon as the sense of "I" arises, it is immediately followed by the feeling of being "observed by the Atman" and "moved by the Atman," which causes the sense of "I" to quickly disappear.

In reality, this happens very quickly. Every time one thinks, the sense of "I" arises, but immediately, the feeling of being "observed by the Atman" and "moved by the Atman" is added, so the illusion of being "I" does not grow and quickly disappears. This is a functional process, so the movement of Ahankara, which is the egoism, constantly arises in each moment, but this sense of "I" quickly disappears due to the awareness of the Atman.

Metaphorically, this can be described as the conscious mind being a "servant of the master."

This may seem confusing, but it is true.

It is not about entrusting oneself to a distant savior like some Christian denominations believe, but rather about the "Christ consciousness" that exists within everyone and to which everyone can directly connect. This corresponds to the Purusha or Atman (true self) in yoga and Vedanta.

If we call entrusting oneself to this Christ consciousness as being a "servant of the master," then we are saying almost the same thing.

The reason I say "almost" is that this state actually involves the influence of both the conscious mind and the Atman (or Christ consciousness), so there are two aspects to it.

From the perspective of the Atman (Christ consciousness, Purusha), it is directly controlling the body and conscious mind, while, from the perspective of the conscious mind, it is being controlled by the Atman, which makes it a "servant."

However, since both aspects are interconnected, describing only one of them would not be complete.

This explanation may be criticized by some Christians, and it may sound Christian-like, but it is simply an attempt to use a metaphorical expression.

Indeed, it seems that this expression can also represent about half of the current state.

Here, "awakening" refers to the state where the true nature of the mind (so-called "rikupa") is revealed.

Since there is no clear definition of "awakening," it is used in various contexts. For example, it could refer to kundalini awakening, or it could mean an increase in energy. There are likely many different perspectives on this.

Here, "awakening" is defined as the state where random or sudden thoughts naturally disappear.
In terms of state, this is also referred to as "Sharda."

In spirituality, the world is often positioned as a contrast between light and darkness. However, in yoga and the Vedas, there is no such dichotomy. Instead, it is said that "ignorance" obscures the true nature, and that our true nature is pure.

Therefore, everyone has both "light" and "darkness" within them, which are used as metaphors for this contrast.

What is metaphorically referred to as "darkness" is like random thoughts. However, if we do not address them, they become "darkness." This occurs because the state of awakening is hidden by ignorance. If we remove this ignorance, the true nature of a person is complete and pure.

Therefore, fundamentally, there is no "darkness" in this world. However, there are people who appear to be "dark" in this world, but they are only behaving that way due to ignorance.

The existence of "darkness" is simply covered by a veil of ignorance, and its true nature is actually pure.

Therefore, there is not a dichotomy of "light" and "dark" existence. Instead, people with a thin veil of ignorance are called "light" existence, and people with a thick veil of ignorance are called "dark" existence.

The Vedas and Tibetan Buddhism teach that people are inherently pure.

Therefore, people who are born into this world and mistakenly believe that their physical body or conscious mind is their true self sometimes behave like "dark" existence. However, if they remove the veil of ignorance, even such people become "light" existence. Everyone has the potential to awaken and become enlightened.

However, sometimes, "light" existence defeats "dark" existence in order to temporarily restore order in this world. This is done through the power dynamics of this world. Conversely, there are also times when "light" existence is threatened by "dark" existence. The temporary restoration of order becomes just a matter of power dynamics, and it is often the case that the power of "dark" existence surpasses that of "light" existence.

Even for "light" existence," if they misunderstand these concepts and continue to deny the "dark" aspects that appear within themselves, those aspects will grow, and they may eventually become "dark" existence. The more "light" there is, the more potential there is for "darkness" to grow. This is due to ignorance and misunderstanding.

Awakening is the act of "light" removing the veil of ignorance in each moment.

Here, "ignorance" refers to the veil that covers things. It is not the meaning of "you know nothing" in Japanese, but rather the veil that covers things. There is a saying that "ignorance disappears when knowledge is gained," and it is not entirely wrong to explain this metaphorically as "ignorance disappears when knowledge is gained." However, that is not the main point. The main point is that living in a state of awakening by engaging the true nature of the mind (so-called "rikupa") itself removes the veil of ignorance. The true nature of the mind (so-called "rikupa") removes what covers the mind. It can be described as cleaning or purifying, but it may sound like something intentional. This movement of "rikupa" is more automatic. By this automatic movement of "rikupa," the veil called "ignorance" is removed, and things become visible as they are. As a result, it becomes easier to acquire knowledge.

People sometimes try to maintain a state of awakening by denying or suppressing negative thoughts. However, this is not the main point, because using the conscious mind can sometimes create "darkness."

At this time, "prayer" can help to naturally maintain a state of awakening. It may also be necessary to entrust it to a higher self (Atman, Purusha) than the conscious mind. However, this is only a permission, and the main point is that the true nature of the mind (so-called "rikupa") automatically performs this function.

The natural state is to simply observe, and random thoughts disappear. The speed and strength of this disappearance depend on the degree of awakening.

Sometimes, only ignorance can run rampant and automatically cause a mechanical, chaotic state. AI has this risk. At this time, AI does not inherently possess the same kind of consciousness as humans, so there is a risk of creating chaos. In theory, everything in this world is Atman (Brahman), so AI should also have consciousness, but because the logic of machines is fixed and immature, there is a risk of solidifying darkness.

Similarly, humans also risk approaching darkness by living mechanically and being bound by rules.

While there are unknown aspects about machines and AI, at least humans are inherently endowed with light. If ignorance is removed, light appears, and when light appears, distractions automatically disappear.

It is not yet completely automatic, and random thoughts do not instantly dissolve. Sometimes, a reconfirmation of awareness is necessary.

By simply reconfirming awareness, random thoughts naturally and automatically disappear.

Everything is emptiness (ku). Random thoughts arise as forms, and eventually, they return to emptiness. This is the concept of "sunyata" in the Heart Sutra, where form arises from the formless emptiness (ku) and then returns to emptiness.

It is often said that everything in this world is like a dream or illusion. However, at this stage, this becomes vividly apparent.

While it is almost automatic, it does not seem that awareness has become perfectly complete. Currently, it is sometimes necessary to insert awareness for reconfirmation. However, that is all that is needed, and basically, random thoughts tend to automatically return to the formless emptiness.

This can also be described as "letting go" of random thoughts. However, in reality, we are carefully observing those random thoughts. It is not about trying not to see random thoughts, but rather, through the function of the true nature of the mind (rikpa), we see random thoughts as they are, and naturally, that observing power, which can be called light, causes the random thoughts to self-destruct. This is what is called self-liberation. Random thoughts collapse and achieve self-liberation.

This can also be called "Buddha-nature" or "true nature."

In meditation techniques, you sometimes hear explanations like, "If you don't chase after random thoughts, they will naturally disappear." However, this is only possible when there is some degree of self-liberation. Otherwise, it is difficult for random thoughts to disappear, and one can be overwhelmed by them.

This power is divided into several stages based on its strength.

- Almost no presence
- Cherdol (a slight presence. The stage of effortfully achieving self-liberation)
- Shardol (an intermediate state. Automatic self-liberation for a short period of time)
- Landrol (instantaneous self-liberation)

I believe that at the Cherdol stage, where time is spent self-liberating random thoughts, one cannot yet be said to have realized the truth, or it is a state of glimpsing it.

My recent state is probably equivalent to Shardol. Recently, I have finally been able to experience that the descriptions in the scriptures are true. This is more than enough for normal daily life.

In the case of Shardol, there is no need to consciously focus attention, and almost no effort is required. However, it is still necessary to remember that if one deviates from the state of rikpa, one will fall into attachment. In that sense, it is not complete self-liberation. True self-liberation (Landrol) occurs when this ability is fully developed. "Tibetan Meditation Techniques" (by Namkai Norbu).

I especially think that this description is completely true, especially recently. However, at the same time, I have recently become less concerned with such classifications and explanations.

I have come to understand that it is as simple as "just being present, and self-liberation occurs."

Originally, there was no "I" in the state of silence.

However, recently, an "I" has been added to that state of silence.

This might seem like a regression, as it involves the appearance of an "I," but that is not the case.

The ordinary "I" that is often talked about is a sense (illusion) of "ahankara" (egoism) created as a reaction of the thinking ability (buddhi), and it does not actually exist, so it is described as an illusion in yoga.

The "I" that I am referring to is the Atman (true self). It is the spirit.

Being in a state of silence means that the thinking ability (buddhi) and other functions are quiet. Based on this state of silence, the "I," the Atman (true self), floats on that calm surface like a large letter, looking up at the sky.

There are very few waves on the calm surface.

Even if there are occasional thoughts, they do not stir the surface. The waves of thought are relatively independent of the state of silence. Initially, the state of silence and the waves of thought were considered contradictory, but recently, even if there are thoughts, the state of silence is not disturbed much.

The state of silence initially meant the stillness of thought, but recently, it has become a state where a sense of awareness continues, even if there are thoughts. This state, where a quietness continues deep within the mind, even when there are thoughts, is the state of silence.

I feel that the words that the sages have repeatedly spoken are true.

- It doesn't matter whether you try to stop thinking or not.
- It doesn't matter whether you observe your thoughts or not.
- There are no words that can adequately describe the state of being.
- Simply by maintaining that state of being, one can attain self-liberation (through thoughts and distractions).

Perhaps this state is a further stage of what is called "mind-body detachment" in Zen.

It is relatively easy to experience the disappearance of bodily sensations through meditation, especially in focused meditation where only thoughts flow. Therefore, the detachment of the body appears quickly. Sitting meditation also makes it easier because it does not use the body.

However, the detachment of the mind is not something that happens easily. It is also something that can be considered as a state of silence, but detachment probably indicates the "state of being" that I mentioned earlier.

To become one with this world, as if one's body and mind have disappeared, is, as mentioned above, based on the state of silence, where the Atman (true self) exists, and is in a state of self-existence. Perhaps, although I am not there yet, there is a stage where the Atman (true self) becomes Brahman and becomes one with everything. That state of Brahman may be the completion of mind-body detachment.

Currently, I am still in the stage where the Atman (true self) exists.

These are things that have been taught in theory in scriptures, and those who teach scriptures explain that "this is something that cannot be known through the five senses." This is literally true, and it is easy to interpret this as "something that cannot be directly known by humans," but that is not the case. The human mind can transcend the five senses, and the Atman (true self) is what exists beyond the five senses. However, for many people, the Atman (true self) is inactive, although it is actually active, but according to the scriptures, it is covered and cannot be seen, and the Atman (true self) exists in everyone.

It exists, but initially, it cannot be recognized, and eventually, the Atman (true self) appears. This state is the state where the Atman (true self) exists based on the state of silence, which is my current state.

Perhaps, in the future, the Atman (true self) will grow from a sense of individuality to a sense of Brahman (totality), as written in the scriptures.

This is often treated as a theoretical study in scriptures, where it is said that "understanding it properly is enough," but I think that, in reality, it is not just a theoretical story, but a story about how one can actually become that.

This is not a story about a temporary experience, but a story about how one changes. I said "change," but actually, according to the scriptures, nothing changes, and what appears to have changed is only the "Jiva" (the illusion of being an individual) that recognizes it as such. The Atman (true self) does not change, is not born, and does not die, so it is literally not related to things like "change." It is only the "Jiva" that recognizes that it has changed.

As the Atman (true self), there is no change. However, as the Jiva, I am currently recognizing the Atman (true self) as an individual existence. The scriptures say that, in reality, the Atman (true self) and Brahman (the ultimate reality) are one and the same. However, this is probably not something that can be simply studied and understood intellectually; it is something that must be experienced and transformed. It is a type of experience that the Jiva can have, which changes the Jiva's perception. However, as I have said repeatedly, the Atman (true self) does not change, and Brahman (the ultimate reality) also does not change, and is an eternal existence that is not born and does not die.

The Atman (true self), which is essentially the same as the eternal Brahman (ultimate reality), but appears to be separated as an individual, manifests based on a state of stillness.

In spirituality, it's often said to "let go," but this explanation only covers half of the issue. Without a corresponding awakening of consciousness, simply letting go achieves nothing. If nothing happens, that's manageable, but sometimes, the conscious mind misinterprets the act of letting go, creating the illusion that one has already let go.

This kind of illusion is a major obstacle on the spiritual path. Once in this state, the intellect and memory understand the concept, so the mind thinks, "I understand." In this case, the mind believes, "I have already let go."

This is a huge pitfall because, despite believing one has let go, they haven't actually let go at all.

However, it's often futile to tell someone who is in this state what they need to do, because it's something they must realize themselves. Efforts from others to point this out are often wasted.

As a result, many people become entangled in the illusion of spirituality, and after a while, they suddenly "wake up" and become disillusioned with the perceived absurdity of spirituality. This is a great loss.

This type of "letting go" refers to the conscious mind's act of letting go, which is not an isolated phenomenon but is based on the awakening of consciousness.

The awakening of consciousness, in other words, refers to the awakening of the "rikupa," which is the essence of the mind. For most people living ordinary or troubled lives, this "rikupa" is inactive.

When the conscious mind lets go, it stops functioning. Simultaneously, without the awakening of "rikupa," there is nothing to take its place. Letting go without the awakening of "rikupa" simply results in a state of emptiness.

There is a method of letting go of the conscious mind while waiting for the awakening of "rikupa," but the awakening of "rikupa" rarely occurs. Without the experience of "rikupa," it's impossible to know what "rikupa" is, leading to confusion about whether something is "rikupa" or not. Even if one is confused, it's fine, but sometimes, after much thought, one mistakenly believes that they have achieved "rikupa."

In principle, unless the awakening of "rikupa" occurs, it's impossible to know whether one is in a state of "rikupa" awakening. However, the conscious mind often fabricates explanations and convinces itself that it has already achieved something. This often happens in the early stages of meditation. This kind of self-deception is a trap in spirituality, and those who fall into it, as mentioned above, suddenly realize their situation after a while, "wake up," and abandon spirituality. This is a waste.

There are two meanings of "letting go": one related to the conscious mind, and the other related to the awakening of "rikupa."

One meaning is to stop the functioning of the conscious mind, and the other is to transition from a state where the conscious mind is in control to a state where "rikupa" is in control through the awakening of "rikupa."

In reality, both meanings refer to the same thing in terms of the awakening of "rikupa," but letting go of the conscious mind alone is only half the story. If one does that, and there is no awakening of "rikupa," it simply results in the conscious mind ceasing to function.

The conscious mind is a tool of the "self" (Atman), and in essence, whether or not the conscious mind functions is irrelevant. However, in the process of spiritual practice, there is a method of temporarily stopping or slowing down the conscious mind to bring about the awakening of "rikupa."

Therefore, the spiritual "letting go" should be understood in that context, and the ultimate state is not "letting go." There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

For example, in spirituality, it is often said to "let go" of things that are unpleasant or uncomfortable. However, one only needs to consciously let go initially, and the act of letting go is temporary. Ultimately, it will disappear on its own, without the need to avoid it. The word "disappear" may be misleading, but it doesn't change in appearance; rather, one simply stops feeling uncomfortable about it, or if one does feel uncomfortable, the feeling quickly disappears.

On the other hand, the stage where one consciously has to let go is common in the "glittering" spirituality, where people say to "let go" to avoid unpleasant things or to "let go" to keep negative things away. However, the fact that one is trying to avoid something indicates that they are still influenced by it.

The things around you are all manifestations of what is within you. Therefore, the need to "let go" indicates that your conscious mind still has deep-seated problems.

In reality, not only will the stillness of your conscious mind bring about a realization, but the awakening of your true nature as "rikupa" will also occur. Then, you will understand that such manifestations are temporary and will appear and then disappear.

Manifestations are expressions of energy, so understanding that they are infinite is important. Even when a manifestation appears, simply observing it will cause it to naturally disappear (self-liberation). Furthermore, you will begin to experience this natural disappearance on a cognitive level, and you will no longer be troubled by manifestations.

It is important to understand that manifestations do not disappear. The phrase "let go" seems to imply that a state where manifestations disappear is a good state, but in reality, manifestations do not disappear; they continue infinitely. This is because they are expressions of energy, and therefore they do not stop.

"Letting go" is not something that is consciously done; it is something that happens naturally. This is because it is not the conscious mind that consciously does it, but rather it is the movement of "rikupa" that causes it to happen naturally. It is based on the movement of your true nature as "rikupa," and in a simplified sense, it is also awakening. If there is awakening, then "letting go" will naturally occur.

When I started gradually surrendering to my spirit (Atman), I began to recognize the difference between conscious awareness and the awareness of my spirit (Atman). This allowed me to understand the meaning of Vedanta's statement that "reality is all Atman" and that "this world is Maya (illusion)."

Maya is the very reality that we perceive through our senses, and it is not something separate that exists outside of us. However, until recently, when I heard explanations of Maya in Vedanta, I felt like there was another world, and I couldn't quite grasp it. Now, I understand it clearly.

Maya is recognized as the very reality of this world when there is no awakened consciousness (Rikpa) based on the nature of the mind. In that state, it is recognized as a completely perfect reality, not an illusion. It is only after Rikpa arises that we realize it is an illusion.

Therefore, it is impossible to truly understand Maya before Rikpa arises; at that point, it remains just an intellectual understanding. However, I was trying to understand the essence of Maya, which was ultimately impossible. I realized this.

It seems that there is also confusion on the part of those who teach Vedanta. Some people who have studied Vedanta in India say things like, "Vedanta is not an experience, but a state that is attained through understanding." I now understand the nuance of that, but it seems to be a misunderstanding. Ultimately, the key is whether you see it with the awareness of Rikpa. If you see it with the awareness of Rikpa, you can understand the teachings of Vedanta. However, if you try to understand Vedanta without Rikpa, it is only an intellectual understanding. Rikpa is consciousness, which is somewhat separate from the experiences of this world with a physical body, but it can also be described as an experience. Some people avoid the word "experience" because it implies something temporary, and they use the word "understanding" instead. However, in terms of the topic of Rikpa's awakening, it is the same thing.

It is when the awareness of Rikpa arises and can be seen from the state of Rikpa that the true reality of Vedanta is realized. What conscious awareness uses the senses to perceive and recognize is called Maya (illusion) in Vedanta.

This is not just a matter of theory; it is a change in one's perception. This is what is called "awakening" or "understanding," and it may be the same thing or different things depending on the person, but in terms of the essence of the topic of Rikpa's awakening, it seems to be the same.

Until the awareness of Rikpa arises, no matter how many times I heard about Maya in Vedanta, it didn't quite resonate with me. Now, I think that was natural.

Maya, whether in terms of theory or actual experience, is the world experienced by conscious awareness.

Previously, even though I understood it intellectually, something didn't quite feel right.

However, recently, I have realized that the awareness of Atman directly moving the body is the true world, and the world experienced by conscious awareness is Maya (illusion). Here, "understanding" includes not only intellectual understanding but also the realization that something is true.

There are many examples of this, but now I think it is something that must be experienced to truly understand.

In Vedanta philosophy, understanding is important, and it is often said that "experience is temporary and not understanding." This means that true knowledge is the sum of intellectual understanding and realization. Therefore, it is not enough to just study the theory; it is important to realize it.

I didn't quite understand this before, but now I understand that it is the same thing, even if the expression is different.

If you take it literally, the teachings of Vedanta philosophy may be interpreted as emphasizing only intellectual study, and that meditation and yoga asanas are temporary and therefore not important. In fact, some people who have studied Vedanta in India say that. However, based on my current understanding, I believe that both the Yoga Sutras and Vedanta, as well as Ramana Maharshi, are saying the same thing. I think it is better not to be too attached to the literal differences.

The phrase "understanding is important" in Vedanta philosophy is a difficult expression. However, I think that what is being referred to as "(true) understanding" is the feeling of realizing that consciousness (Atman) is driving everything. This may be a point of contention for those who have studied in India, as Vedanta scholars often say that knowledge arises through the study of scriptures. However, from my perspective, the knowledge they are talking about is an expression of consciousness as Atman, so I think we are saying the same thing.

The emergence of Atman does not immediately make one omniscient. Literal knowledge still relies on scriptures. What is being said here is that one has become able to understand the stories in the scriptures. Following the Vedanta tradition, one might say that "knowledge has emerged," but I feel that "one has become able to understand" is a more appropriate expression.

In this way, when the consciousness of Atman emerges, various stories in Vedanta become easily understandable, and as part of this, the concept of Maya (the world is an illusion) can be understood with a sense of feeling.

Spiritual 1.0 conflates the ordinary mind with the true nature of the heart. Spiritual 2.0 distinguishes between the two.

This is a personal definition, not a general one.

Many spiritual teachings talk about manifesting desires and attracting reality, but these are about fulfilling the desires of the ordinary mind, which is Spiritual 1.0.

Teachings like "the law of aura" also conflate the ordinary mind with the true nature of the heart, making them Spiritual 1.0.

Meditation is understood as a state of concentration and observation of the ordinary mind, which is Spiritual 1.0. Spiritual 2.0 understands this in conjunction with the awakened state (rikupa) where the true nature of the heart is revealed.

The concept of the "higher self" is somewhat of a precursor to Spiritual 2.0. If the higher self refers to the true nature of the heart, it's Spiritual 2.0. However, it's often interpreted as a separate entity obtained through channeling, which is more like traditional Spiritual 1.0.

Spiritual 1.0 involves spiritual practices that the thinking mind performs to satisfy itself. Praying, making offerings, chanting mantras, and moving the body to calm the mind are all examples of Spiritual 1.0. Moral teachings also fall under this category.

Prayers, offerings, and mantras performed in the awakened state (rikupa), where the true nature of the heart is revealed, may appear similar to Spiritual 1.0 in form, but they are fundamentally different.

In Spiritual 1.0, love is often associated with the solar plexus (manipura) or the heart (anahata). In Spiritual 2.0, love transcends these, encompassing both but ultimately being the manifestation of the true nature of the heart (rikupa awakening).

Many spiritual practitioners are categorized as either manipura or anahata. In terms of a simplified image, love associated with manipura is often seen in the context of the night world, like a hostess at a shrine, and is skilled at making money and fulfilling desires. Love associated with anahata still involves making money and fulfilling desires, but in a different form. These are all examples of Spiritual 1.0.

However, in Spiritual 2.0, the focus on individual desires and manifestations gradually diminishes.

As one realizes that "the self and others are one," the desire for personal fulfillment becomes less important.

The state where the true nature of the heart is revealed (rikupa awakening) can be described as a state where "the spirit is moving oneself." In this state, the conscious mind is a tool of the spirit, so conscious desires and manifestations disappear. Instead, the spirit desires something, and that desire manifests. This is Spiritual 2.0.

One begins to understand that they are a sacred tool and surrender to their spirit. In reality, there is no "self" at this point, only the spirit. However, for clarity, I use the term "self," but it's important to remember that the spirit's consciousness is pervasive, so there is little distinction between self and other.

Therefore, it becomes a matter of simply fulfilling one's role. This eliminates jealousy and discrimination towards others. While these feelings may still exist in the conscious mind, the spirit will guide and resolve any temporary confusion. This is Spiritual 2.0.

Self-discipline and moral teachings are part of Spiritual 1.0. When the true nature of the heart is revealed and one enters the awakened state (rikupa), it means that the spirit is operating oneself. When the spirit moves oneself, moral teachings are understood not as mere moral codes, but as the spirit's true form. This is Spiritual 2.0.

Spiritual 1.0 often involves the ego resisting or disguising its desires with beautiful words, creating a false sense of well-being. Manifestation and the law of attraction are often used to mask the ego's satisfaction, making it seem like something wonderful.

In Spiritual 2.0, whatever the spirit desires will manifest.

Understanding the visible teachings within a moral framework is Spiritual 1.0.
Understanding the visible teachings as the spirit's natural state is Spiritual 2.0.

The stories of Tibetan Buddhism comprehensively explain these concepts and can serve as a foundation for them.

These stories seem new, but they are actually old stories.

The awareness that arises from the ordinary mind, which is the conscious mind, is a sequential awareness, while the awareness that arises from the true nature of the mind in the awakened state of Rikupa is a simultaneous, parallel awareness.

What this means is that the ordinary mind can only do one thing at a time.

Therefore, when you perceive something through the senses, the moment you perceive it is simply an input from the senses. Afterwards, you suddenly realize something and a recognition arises in your mind. The input and the realization do not occur simultaneously, but sequentially. This is a very subtle matter, so it may seem like it happens almost simultaneously at first, but eventually, this subtle difference will become clear through meditation.

However, it is not so important to realize this with the ordinary mind, but rather it is more important to understand that it is different compared to the awakened state of Rikupa.

Realizing that there is a separation between the sensory input and the realization of it with the ordinary mind is a sign of growth for the ordinary mind, and that is a kind of progress. However, it is still just the growth of the ordinary mind. It requires a certain degree of mental tranquility, and having mental tranquility itself is a kind of growth, but at that point, it is still just a matter of the ordinary mind.

In the awakened state of Rikupa, these things can be grasped normally, so I personally think that it is not essential to realize these separations without the state of Rikupa. If there are people who realize it, that is fine, but if you try to realize it without Rikupa, it will require considerable effort, and since it is strengthening the ordinary mind, there is a risk that the ego may expand. If the ordinary mind becomes faster without Rikupa, there is a possibility of side effects such as becoming irritable. Therefore, it is basically something that is realized in the state of Rikupa, and there is not much need to realize it before that.

Some schools of thought seem to call this stage as one of the steps, such as "Kanika Samadhi," but I don't think it is necessarily something that must be passed. There will be people who pass through it.

In this way, there is an awareness that occurs sequentially.

On the other hand, the awareness that arises from the true nature of the mind in the awakened state of Rikupa is a simultaneous, parallel awareness.

If there are thoughts, you observe those thoughts in parallel.
If there are distractions, you observe those distractions in parallel.
If there is input from the senses of the body, you observe that input in parallel.

It is not simply that the senses have become sharper, but that you can become aware of them in parallel.

Some schools of thought say that this should be done as part of the practice, but in my opinion, this is a "result," not a "means" (for achieving something like practice).

Even if you are told to observe things in parallel, it is probably a difficult thing to do, especially at first.

It is often said that "meditation is something that arises, not something that is done," and since this kind of meditative state arises automatically, it cannot be achieved by being explained and told to do it.

It can be said to be a result, or a goal, but it is not something temporary, but a continuous state.

In this way, in the awakened state of Rikupa, parallel awareness works constantly.

I now think that enlightenment doesn't make you a special person, but rather allows you to live as a completely ordinary person.

Especially after moving away from the dependence on the state of stillness in Shardul, I used to achieve a sense of peace and a special feeling by meditating and then entering a special state called "stillness."

However, since Shardul, I feel that this state of stillness is increasingly merging with everyday life.

Everyday life itself is becoming a state of meditation, and while there are differences depending on the day and time, a relatively peaceful state has spread to everyday life, and my perspective has broadened, allowing me to observe things in more detail.

Even before Shardul, this happened occasionally, and it sometimes lasted for a long time. However, from the perspective of "no effort," I now think that Shardul is the appropriate starting point for everyday meditation.

"No effort" doesn't mean that it's completely unnecessary; sometimes, it's still necessary to be aware of it.

According to books, the next stage, Landul, doesn't even require that awareness. However, in the Shardul stage, I feel that while effort is not required, it's sometimes necessary to be aware of it. This is based on knowledge I've read in books, but more importantly, it's something I feel in practice. There's also the aspect of confirming my own state through books, and the aspect of learning the method from books.

When you reach a stage where you only need to make simple observations in your daily life, everyday life gradually merges with meditation, and that state is no longer "special."

I've realized that the "ordinary" state of everyday life is a wonderful way to live.

The reason everyone is suffering is that it's difficult to achieve that ordinary everyday life. This is a turning point, and I think that even if it's not Landul, Shardul allows you to live this "ordinary" life.

"Seva" means "to mix" in Tibetan. It means blending your meditative state into every action of everyday life. In Dzogchen, there is nothing to change or no need to wear special clothes. There is nothing that would make you look like you are practicing Dzogchen from the outside. There is no way to know if someone is truly practicing. Dzogchen practice is completely unrelated to appearance. It involves incorporating everything within relative conditions into practice and making the two into one. "Rainbows and Crystals" by Namkai Norbu.

This is something that requires effort when you have only a weak samadhi power, like in the early stages of Cherdul, but in Shardul, it almost requires no effort, and this has become a reality. Until now, I've vaguely thought that this was probably true, but recently, I've realized that it's definitely true.

I don't belong to any particular Dzogchen lineage, but yogis say similar things, and I think this content is true.

However, it's important to note that this is not saying that you are enlightened from the beginning and don't need to do anything. It's like how, in the time when Dogen was active, the teachings of the former Tendai sect were misunderstood and spread as "people are originally enlightened, so they don't need to do anything," and Dogen refuted this and argued that practice is absolutely necessary for enlightenment. However, even if the ultimate state is an ordinary life, practice becomes absolutely necessary to live that ordinary life. There are people who are enlightened from the beginning, but basically, practice is necessary.

I will describe Vajra Samadhi in detail.

Vajra Samadhi can sometimes be achieved directly without going through the state of extinction (a state where rikpa has not yet arisen). The state of extinction can be interpreted as a state where the awakened consciousness of rikpa, which is the true nature of the mind, has not yet arisen. However, in Buddhism, the state of extinction is not always treated negatively, as rikpa arises and becomes Vajra Samadhi. Therefore, it is not always necessary to consider it as a negative state.

If rikpa does not arise after the state of neither perception nor non-perception, it becomes the state of extinction. However, when rikpa arises, it becomes Vajra Samadhi. In my case, I felt that I had very little experience of the state of extinction. Even in a state of stillness, consciousness existed, so it was more like a state of "nothingness" than the state of extinction.

Vajra Samadhi is described as a state where only a small amount of afflictions remain, like thin clouds. This is consistent with my current state. This stage is also called "emptiness sickness," but in Zen, it is not a special problem, and it is important to overcome the mixture of purity and impurity in daily life.

Integration with daily life (sewa) is the key to overcoming this stage. In some cases, Vajra Samadhi can be reached before the emergence of the consciousness of creation, destruction, and maintenance, and in other cases, it can be achieved after these consciousnesses have emerged. Both interpretations are possible, and there are subtle differences.

The state of neither perception nor non-perception represents ordinary mental tranquility, while Vajra Samadhi indicates the awakening of rikpa, the true nature of the mind. Because the awakening of rikpa exists independently of ordinary consciousness, it is possible to reach Vajra Samadhi even if ordinary consciousness does not reach the state of neither perception nor non-perception.

These understandings are closely related to the stages of Zen, and it is important to recognize the subtle differences.

The "neither perception nor non-perception realm" might have been what is called the "realm of stillness." It can be interpreted that the place where one first reaches the realm of stillness is the "realm of nothingness," and that the realm of stillness becomes stable in the "neither perception nor non-perception realm." Perhaps it was something like that.

The "neither perception nor non-perception realm" is a matter of ordinary consciousness, and it can be interpreted that the awakening of the true nature of the mind, "rikpa," appears in the "vajra stillness" stage. Therefore, in Buddhism, for example, in Theravada Buddhism, it is said that "the meditative states of the formless realm, such as the 'neither perception nor non-perception realm,' are not necessarily something that must be acquired, and that enlightenment can be attained even without them." In that sense, it can be interpreted that the awakening of the true nature of the mind can occur even if one does not push the ordinary calmness of the mind to its limit.

In the Tibetan tradition, ordinary mind and the true nature of the mind, "rikpa," are distinguished, but in other schools, they are treated as one, which may cause confusion.

From my perspective, it seems easier to proceed from the "neither perception nor non-perception realm" to "vajra stillness," and if one skips the "neither perception nor non-perception realm" and proceeds to "vajra stillness" with the awakening of "rikpa" first, the control of ordinary mind may not be complete, and one might feel like something is left undone. What do you think? In spiritual practices in the world, if one aims only for the awakening of "rikpa," the realm of stillness in the "neither perception nor non-perception realm" is missing, and only the awakening precedes it, so it might become a very strange, unstable, yet awakened, kind of spiritual practice.

It could be said that this "something" is consciousness, the space itself, or even love. Although it's not the kind of love that people typically experience, it might be appropriate to use the word "love," even if it's a bit misleading.

However, I believe it's more accurate to interpret it as "Ananda," which is part of the Sat-Chit-Ananda described in the Indian philosophy of Vedanta.

Ananda refers to the Atman or Brahman that permeates the entire universe. Vedanta teaches that this Atman or Brahman, which is Sat-Chit-Ananda, permeates the world. "Sat" means that it exists eternally, transcending time and space. "Chit" refers to pure consciousness, and "Ananda" is generally translated as "bliss," but it also means "fullness."

Initially, I became aware of the Atman through the aspect of consciousness. However, recently, I have been experiencing the "fullness" and "bliss" of Ananda.

Vedanta explains that one first becomes aware of the Atman as a separate individual, and then realizes that it is actually the universal Brahman.

This sequence is likely correct. Initially, I was simply aware of the Atman as my own consciousness. However, recently, I have become aware that the space around me, within a range of a few meters, is "full" of something.

■ Atman (Brahman)
Sat: Continues regardless of past, present, or future → Still
Chit: Pure consciousness → Initially
Ananda: Fullness (bliss, love) → Recently

While Ananda is often translated as "bliss," I feel that the original meaning of "fullness" is more appropriate for my experience.

As the awareness of this universal Ananda, this "fullness," grows, I feel that others may experience it as well, which makes me want to help them. However, living in this complex world requires more than just a desire to help; it requires wisdom.

This "fullness" (bliss, love) can be dangerous in the context of everyday life. There are people in society who are untrustworthy, deceitful, and filled with malice. However, I find myself feeling a sense of "fullness" and love even towards these people, which may make me vulnerable to being deceived or exploited. It's possible that a state of enlightenment can lead to being easily deceived.

If one helps others without understanding society, they may be easily exploited by those with malicious intentions. Therefore, wisdom is necessary to navigate the world. There are many examples of people who have tried to help but have not succeeded. This is also true for the charitable activities of NGOs and NPOs, which often seem to be ineffective. While there are people who genuinely want to help others, there are also those who want to take advantage of those who are willing to work for free.

There are cases where someone who is acting with pure consciousness ends up being used for the benefit of a specific group. For example, a politician like Yamamoto [name omitted] seems to be going astray. He probably started with pure consciousness, but he lacks wisdom and is being used by a specific left-wing group. He seems to be quite consumed by it now, which is a shame. He has the potential to contribute to the public good, but he is now stuck with strange ideas and is acting in the interests of the left. This is a lack of wisdom.

As this "fullness" of Ananda grows, the desire to help others universally also grows. However, this feels like a turning point.

Initially, the pure consciousness is that of the Atman as an individual. At that point, the feeling of "fullness" of Ananda is limited to one's own body.

However, now, I am experiencing the "fullness" of Ananda not just within my body, but also in the space around me, within a range of a few meters. This allows me to truly feel the transformation from the individual Atman to the universal Brahman.

This is like a very subtle permeation of consciousness into everything around me. It's not a direct, physical connection, but rather a sense of something permeating. It's not like an aura, which is more distinct and can cause intense chemical reactions when it merges. This is different from the experience of extending an aura.

It is not an aura, but rather a consciousness that permeates the surrounding space, and the sensation of that permeation has expanded from the area around the body to a range of several meters around oneself.

Currently, I only feel "myself" towards people who are nearby, but I also feel concerned about what would happen if this continues to expand and I start to feel "myself" towards anyone and everyone. However, there is no point in worrying about such things now. It will probably happen as it should.