There are various things said about meditation, but the basic principle is that it involves calming the mind. It's often referred to as "concentration" or "observation," or in Japanese, "vipassana" (observation) or "samatha" (concentration), but it's essentially the same thing.

While different schools of thought may have different interpretations, I believe the underlying principle remains the same. In Japan, the teachings of the Tendai school, particularly the "Shikan" practice, are considered fundamental. In Shikan, "shikyo" (Shi, samatha, concentration) and "kan" (Kan, vipassana, observation) are defined as the two aspects of meditation.

Some schools define meditation as solely "concentration," as is the case in the Vedanta school, where "samadhi" is also described as a state of concentration.

Conversely, Vipassana schools define meditation as "observation," considering concentration as a separate practice.

Even in Tibetan Buddhism, there's a distinction between concentration and observation, but it's often explained in terms of the "ordinary mind" and the "nature of mind" (rikpa).

Although these different perspectives may seem contradictory, they all ultimately point to the same core principle: calming the mind.

Some schools, particularly those in the Vipassana tradition, may not emphasize this aspect as much. However, the fundamental principle of calming the mind is a common thread that runs through most meditation practices.

To understand this better, it might be helpful to consider the Tibetan perspective.

Calming the mind refers to the "ordinary mind" in Tibetan teachings.

On the other hand, the "nature of mind" (rikpa) is a deeper aspect of consciousness that, when activated, can function independently of the distractions of the ordinary mind. However, in most people, the ordinary mind's activity obscures the nature of mind, making it difficult to perceive.

Therefore, the basic sequence of meditation often involves calming the activity of the ordinary mind.

Whether this initial step is called "concentration" or "preliminary practice" varies depending on the school, but the essential element is to quiet the mind.

As the mind becomes calmer, the activity of the nature of mind (rikpa) begins to emerge. This is often referred to as "observation" (vipassana) in different schools of thought.

This can also be described as "objectivity" in a general sense.

While the term "objectivity" may evoke thoughts of logical reasoning, the objectivity in meditation refers to a different kind of awareness that is initially weak or almost non-existent. It's a quality that emerges from the activity of the nature of mind (rikpa).

Some schools may skip the stage of concentration and directly engage with the nature of mind (rikpa).

However, most schools follow a sequential approach. Some Tibetan schools, for example, may focus on activating the nature of mind (rikpa) and then engage in basic practices to supplement it.

Other schools may bypass the basic steps altogether, believing that once a certain level of practice is achieved, it's sufficient to move directly to the nature of mind (rikpa) stage.

These stages are designed to ensure that the practitioner is adequately prepared. Attempting to progress too quickly can lead to confusion or a lack of understanding.

It's important to remember that meditation is not a race. There's no benefit to rushing through the process. The key is to follow the steps that are appropriate for your level of experience and understanding. The fundamentals should be established before moving on to more advanced practices.

People who belong to the school of thought that emphasizes moving forward quickly often try to advance too quickly, only to get stuck and end up having to go back and redo things. Sometimes, they may proceed to the next step without realizing that they haven't actually mastered the previous one.

In some schools of thought, it is said that concentration meditation is a basic practice, and that observation is the most important thing. While they may not completely neglect concentration meditation, they often emphasize observation meditation and engage in activities that resemble it, such as observing the body. However, observing the body is based on the five senses, which is different from the observation meditation described by some schools. Even if they use the word "observation," if it refers to observing the body through the five senses, it is essentially concentration meditation. This can be confusing because some schools may call it observation meditation.

When one engages in activities called "observation meditation," they may experience strange sensations and perceptions. These experiences can sometimes add a touch of flavor to meditation. However, these strange sensations are based on the five senses and are within the realm of concentration meditation. Initially, when the mind is unstable and has not yet reached a state of stillness, these strange sensations can create the impression of something extraordinary. While it is true that these sensations indicate some progress in meditation, they are still at the stage of concentration meditation, not the state of observation, if there is no state of stillness.

The basic principle of meditation is to calm the mind. These strange sensations can even cause the mind to become excited, which is not ideal. While they may be interesting occasionally, it is important to avoid overdoing it. Eventually, even the excitement of the mind will subside, and one will reach a state of stillness.

Once a state of stillness is reached, it initially feels simply quiet, and a sense of joy may arise. However, this joy eventually subsides and transforms into a quiet joy, a state of bliss. As one progresses through these stages, the true nature of the mind (awareness) begins to emerge.

Reaching awareness requires going through these stages. It is not possible to simply engage in observation meditation and expect to achieve something. Therefore, whether it is concentration meditation or observation meditation, there is not much difference, especially in the beginning. The most important thing is to simply sit down and calm the mind.

Meditation is a very simple concept when explained in this way. When it is explained that the basic principle of meditation is concentration, one might think, "Hmm, is that all there is to it?" However, in reality, there are steps required to progress from concentration to a state of stillness.

When we talk about concentration, it often refers to focusing on a single point. However, in the beginning, that is perfectly fine. As one progresses in meditation, one should interpret "concentration" in a slightly different way, as "calming the surface of a turbulent water."

The initial stage of concentration is like the focus of an athlete or someone working. This is also known as "the zone." By concentrating on a single point, the mind becomes focused and is not distracted by various thoughts. This leads to a sense of joy. At this stage, it may take time to reach that state of concentration, or one may only experience it occasionally, perhaps once every few months or years.

Eventually, one will be able to consciously enter that state of concentration, such as being able to enter "the zone" while working.

As one repeats this process, the concentration as a "zone" will gradually subside, and one's awareness will become more sensitive in everyday life. This is the stage of "calming the surface of a turbulent water." At this stage, awareness has not yet fully emerged, but it has begun to appear. However, in terms of meditation, the ordinary mind is still dominant.

As one continues to meditate, one will reach a state of stillness. This is simply a description of the ordinary mind. Whether awareness is present or not is not directly related to the state of stillness itself. However, when the ordinary mind is quiet in a state of stillness, one becomes able to explore the depths of the mind and train themselves to consciously move their true nature of the mind, awareness.

Before this, when one tries to move their awareness, the ordinary mind moves instead. However, by calming the mind and reaching a state of stillness, the ordinary mind almost stops, allowing one to see where the true nature of the mind is located and how to use their will to move awareness. By moving awareness, one enters the state of Vipassana (observation, samadhi). However, initially, this movement is weak, and if one does not keep the ordinary mind calm, the movement of awareness will quickly disappear.

And in this way, meditation progresses. However, even when one enters the Vipassana state or Samadhi, initially, the effect of Vipassana only works under the condition that the mind is calm. Therefore, calming the mind is important, not only in the initial stages but also in the somewhat advanced stages.

Some schools of thought say that "a certain degree of concentration is necessary" without emphasizing calming the mind. However, this state of tranquility, especially in the beginning, requires a special degree of concentration. As meditation progresses, a certain degree of concentration may not be necessary, but when teaching beginners as a step in meditation, I believe that explanations such as "a certain degree of concentration is necessary" can be misleading. If it can be achieved with just that degree of concentration, it may only be effective for people who are already in a certain meditative state. People who have some innate aptitude for meditation may understand when told "a certain degree of concentration is necessary," but I wonder if that would be conveyed to people living in the noisy and chaotic modern society. Perhaps it was acceptable in the past, or perhaps that school of thought has unique practices that compensate for it, so it may depend on the school of thought, but I don't know, and based on what I have heard from several schools of meditation, I have interpreted it in this way.

Especially in the beginning, I have seen and heard many things, but I still think that the basic principle of meditation is to calm the mind.

Originally, I practiced meditation focusing on the space between the eyebrows, but it has evolved into a meditation that focuses on the heart chakra while harmonizing the aura of the entire body.

Although it's called the space between the eyebrows, there were times when I felt more stable in the back of the head, and there were times when I literally focused on the space between the eyebrows. However, recently, I've been transitioning from meditation focusing on the space between the eyebrows to meditation focusing on the heart chakra.

The basic consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation in the heart chakra flows into the space between the eyebrows, and eventually envelops the entire body. For a while, I continued to meditate by focusing on the space between the eyebrows and channeling the aura to the Sahasrara chakra. However, recently, I've become less interested in the Sahasrara chakra, and I've naturally transitioned to a meditation that focuses on the heart chakra and envelops the entire body with the consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation, making sure that the so-called aura doesn't stray too far from the body.

The Sahasrara chakra is connected to a state of silence, which is connected to a higher consciousness. However, that is somewhat different from the physical realm where I currently exist. I believe that my true essence lies in the consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation that resides deep within my heart.

This consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation is what we call the aura. I believe that the quality of the aura has also changed compared to before. In the past, the aura was simply a thin layer of energy. However, since the consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation emerged, the aura has transformed from a mere layer of energy to something that embodies the consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation. This is not just a change in understanding, but a real change in the quality of the aura. I also believe that the amount of energy has increased.

Since the activation of Kundalini began, my body has become warm, and the dominance has shifted from the Manipura chakra to the Anahata chakra. However, the energy I feel in the heart chakra when the consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation is dominant is different from the energy I felt when the Manipura or Anahata chakras were dominant.

When the Manipura or Anahata chakras were dominant, I now recall that there was a feeling of intense energy waves, and it generated heat. This consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation also generates heat, but it's a more refined heat, a cleaner heat. Compared to when the Anahata chakra was dominant, it's a quieter heat.

This quiet consciousness of creation, destruction, and preservation is now spreading from the heart and enveloping the head and the entire body. Recently, I've been focusing on harmonizing the aura of the entire body in meditation.

This doesn't necessarily lead to a state of perfect silence, as that is related to the energy of the space between the eyebrows, especially the Sahasrara chakra. Combining that with the energy flowing to the Sahasrara chakra can lead to a state of silence. However, these are separate things. Simply being aware of the aura of the entire body can bring stability, but that's all it is. However, I feel that it may be the key to unlocking new perceptions.

When talking about clairvoyance or clairaudience, the Ajna chakra, pineal gland, and pituitary gland are often mentioned. The pineal gland is simply an organ that corresponds to the physical body, but in reality, the subtle body functions through the aura of the entire body. The physical body is not directly involved, and if we perceive things through the five senses, it may involve the corresponding organ, the pineal gland. However, before that, it is necessary to be able to control and move the astral body.

The astral body and the Ajna chakra are separate topics.

The Ajna chakra exists in the astral body, and the corresponding physical organ is the pineal gland. However, the pineal gland is used for intuition, inspiration, or clairvoyance in the physical realm, while the story of the astral body moving in the astral world is a different story. The astral body can move on its own, and whether or not we perceive it through the five senses is a separate matter.

Although it is called the five senses, the pineal gland is more like the sixth sense. However, it is still a perception through the physical body. Whether or not the astral body can move is not related to the five senses, so it is not directly related to the Ajna chakra or the pineal gland. The story of the astral body is simply about whether or not the aura of the entire body can move together. I think that using the heart as a starting point to be aware of the aura of the entire body is the activity of the astral body. That is the basis, and the pineal gland may be a bridge to perceive things through the five senses or the sixth sense.

It is often said in spiritual circles that "living according to your intuition leads to a smoother life." However, there are two main types of intuition: one is what is commonly referred to as channeling, and the other is receiving messages from your higher self or a higher-level guardian spirit.

A smoother life is achieved when receiving messages from your higher self or a higher-level entity. While channeling can sometimes lead to positive outcomes, it often simply reflects the opinions of someone else.

This is because, in many cases, what we perceive as intuition is actually the thoughts of another person. Even if you don't consciously engage in channeling, thoughts may arise in your mind that are actually channeled messages. The difference lies in whether or not you recognize them as such, but it seems that most people are receptive to this kind of communication.

Similar to channeling, there is also the phenomenon of aura merging, where the thoughts of others are transmitted. This can also be perceived as intuition, although it is different from channeling in that it originates from the thoughts of another person.

There are essentially three types of intuition:

1. Intuition received from your higher self, a higher-level entity, or a guardian spirit.
2. Receiving the opinions of others through channeling.
3. Receiving the thoughts or opinions of others through aura merging.

It is important to note that people may use different terms to describe these phenomena, and it is crucial to understand the nuances of each.

In the case of aura merging, the thoughts that arise are often unclear and resemble random thoughts rather than true intuition. However, in some cases, these thoughts may seem like intuition if they happen to align with your interests. Most of the time, they are simply random thoughts that have nothing to do with true intuition. Occasionally, when you are close to someone and your auras are unstable, aura merging may occur, and the other person's thoughts may intrude into your mind. This can sometimes be mistaken for intuition. For example, in a social gathering or meeting, aura merging may occur, and you may pick up on the opinions of others. This may explain why people with unstable auras and strong personalities often advance quickly in their careers, as they may be unconsciously absorbing the opinions of others. In most cases, people lack a proper understanding of auras, so the person who speaks first often prevails, and their opinions are taken as the truth. However, it is often the case that these individuals are simply absorbing the thoughts of others without truly understanding them.

Aura merging is not well understood in the spiritual community. It is often used as a justification for practices such as oneness and healing, and counselors may be considered excellent if they claim to understand others through aura merging. This means that even within the realm of intuition, there are different types. When aura merging occurs, there is a slight exchange of karma between the individuals involved, so receiving counseling from an inexperienced counselor can actually be risky. While counselors with a wide aura may seem insightful and knowledgeable, they may be relying on aura merging rather than true understanding. Additionally, if they are connected to a higher level, aura merging may not be necessary. There are also spiritual practices that claim to promote oneness but actually impose one's own karma onto others. While individuals may not be consciously aware of this, there is a risk of being harmed by such practices in spiritual seminars. When counselors attempt to understand clients through aura merging, they may inadvertently take on the client's karma.

When receiving intuition from your higher self or a higher-level entity, it is important to stabilize your aura and avoid contact with the auras of others. If you are receiving channeled messages, it is important to recognize them as such and treat them as if they were simply the opinions of another person. When you receive inspiration from your higher self, it is important to recognize it as such and act accordingly.

The intuition that comes from a higher level is something that you immediately know is correct. If you don't follow that instruction, it's the kind of thing that you'll later regret. It's the kind of intuition that makes you wonder, "Is that really necessary?" or that you immediately forget and ignore.

The characteristic of a higher-level message is that it's like an "echo," a small sound that's difficult to hear if you don't keep your mind relatively quiet.

On the other hand, if it becomes channeling, it clearly comes as a voice in your mind and resonates strongly in your head. This is not intuition, but simply someone else's consciousness speaking to you. There's nothing special about channeling; it's just someone talking to you, and sometimes it can be annoying. It's like a nosy neighbor or something that stubborn parents keep telling you. Even if you follow the instructions, things might not go well, or they might not understand you properly, or something might be off. This is simply someone else's opinion, not intuition. There are various types of channeling, some with a very loud voice, and others with a voice that's a little hard to hear, but they are generally not as small as the "echo" of a higher-level message.

Higher-level intuition can affect the future across time and space. Most of the time, it's something small, but sometimes it can make a big difference.

You can either call it "following your intuition" or "following your inner voice." It's the same thing, just different ways of saying it. However, there is a significant difference between higher-level intuition or inner voice and channeling or telepathy through aura merging.

When I see people pursuing truth, it seems to me that they are seeking enlightenment, even though they already possess it.

It is often said that enlightenment is not far away, but rather close by and simply unseen. However, it is not just that it is close, but that every person, in their very being, embodies truth, whether they are aware of it or not. They are already enlightened and are, in essence, the truth itself.

The only difference is whether they are awake or asleep. Those who are considered enlightened are awake, aware of the truth, and recognize that everything is truth. Those who are asleep are not aware of it.

Regardless, the fact remains that everything is truth, and all beings are enlightened. The only difference is whether they are aware of it.

In this situation, those who seek truth are often looking for something or trying to change themselves. However, since they are already enlightened, they do not need to become anything. They simply need to become aware of the fact that they are already enlightened.

This was a misunderstanding that existed in the early days of Buddhism, before the emergence of Zen. Some schools of Buddhism believed that since one is already enlightened, there is nothing to do. Zen, on the other hand, emphasizes that because one is already enlightened, practice is necessary to consciously manifest that enlightenment. This is the essence of practice and the study of truth.

However, from an outside perspective, it is somewhat comical and heartwarming to see people who are already enlightened seeking enlightenment or studying truth or liberation. It is also a sign of peace that people can afford to spend their time on such things without having to worry too much about basic necessities.

There are many ways to know that one is truth, such as through meditation or study. However, since one is already enlightened, it is somewhat amusing to see people pursuing these things.

Even if someone tells you that you are already enlightened, you may not understand what they mean. This is because enlightenment is not something that can be pointed out or understood through someone else's words. Even enlightened people would typically respond with something like, "What are you talking about?" This is because enlightenment is a matter of self-awareness. If someone tells you that you are enlightened and those words resonate with you, then that person may be enlightened and is trying to awaken you. Alternatively, if you are living consciously and are enlightened, then being told that you are enlightened will not change anything. You will remain in the same state of awareness. Only those who are not enlightened will have a moment of realization when an enlightened person tells them that they are enlightened. This is why, in the world of truth-seeking, even when a respected teacher says the same thing, it may not resonate with everyone. There is a difference in the level of enlightenment.

This kind of self-exploration is the path to enlightenment. However, there are many different ways to express it, such as the path of God, the knowledge of freedom, or the knowledge of oneself. The world of truth is largely a world of self-exploration, so those who think that they can learn everything from being taught are not well-suited for it. One must explore for themselves in order to reach a certain level of understanding. That is why the differences in form and doctrine are not so important. I believe that all religions and spiritual teachings are essentially the same.

Those who are obsessed with form are a different matter. In general, people believe that if the teachings are different, the goals are different. However, the teachings of truth are difficult to express and have been explained based on cultural backgrounds. Therefore, they are simply different expressions of the same fundamental teachings.

Of course, there will be misunderstandings and differences in the purity of those teachings. However, the basic ideas are the same, and the only difference is which aspects of the teachings are being presented to whom. Ultimately, the goal is the same.

And that goal is, in fact, the understanding that all beings are already enlightened, perfect, and wonderful in their own way. In order to understand this truth, people study and practice to awaken the truth that is not yet manifested, not yet understood, and not yet realized.

The concept of "samadhi" in Vedanta and Vipassana traditions is often just a form of concentration meditation and not enlightenment itself. However, some schools equate samadhi with enlightenment. This might seem to suggest that Vedanta or Vipassana are somehow superior, but that's not necessarily the case. The definition of "samadhi" varies between these schools.

The term "samadhi" is enigmatic, and its definition differs depending on the school of thought. Therefore, based on the actual state of experience, even though the words and expressions may differ, I believe that both ultimately lead to enlightenment because they are positioned as a path to enlightenment.

In particular, in the Yoga tradition, samadhi is often considered almost equivalent to enlightenment. In Japan, "sammai" in Zen is equivalent to samadhi. The Japanese katakana for samadhi is "samadhi," so the pronunciation is similar. Samadhi is considered a state of enlightenment.

On the other hand, in Vedanta and Vipassana traditions, samadhi is often defined as simply a form of concentration meditation, and other terms are used to describe the stages that correspond to enlightenment.

Therefore, people belonging to Vedanta or Vipassana schools might say, "Even if you achieve samadhi, it's temporary. If it disappears after the samadhi meditation, it's not enlightenment or moksha (liberation, equivalent to enlightenment) in Vedanta, or Vipassana (observation, equivalent to enlightenment) in the Vipassana tradition." Of course, each school only speaks about its own tradition, but I think that these schools are similar in this regard, even though the definitions of the terms are different.

There can be conflicts between these traditions and the Yoga tradition in India. For example, someone from the Vedanta school might say to a person from the Yoga tradition, "Samadhi is just a temporary thing." The person saying it might not intend to be rude, but they are simply expressing their loyalty to their own tradition. However, the person from the Yoga tradition might feel offended and a fight might break out. Such conflicts reveal the level of understanding of the people involved. Moreover, misunderstandings arise because the definitions of the terms differ between the traditions.

It's not a fight, but I once heard someone who had studied Vedanta in India say, with a smug expression, "Samadhi is just a temporary thing, so it's not moksha (liberation, equivalent to enlightenment)" at a study group in Japan. I think this person probably didn't know any better, and they are simply expressing what they were taught in the Vedanta tradition they studied. However, it might give the impression that they are belittling the Yoga tradition and other schools. I don't know how aware the person was.

Most people only study one tradition, so such misunderstandings arise. At least, I hope people would be aware of the differences between traditions when it comes to important terms. Every tradition would be unhappy if someone were to treat the terms they value lightly.

The definition of samadhi in Vedanta or Vipassana traditions is as described above. However, the Yoga tradition tends to be secretive about how it defines samadhi, and the details are only revealed to those who belong to the tradition and have undergone sufficient training.

However, in this age, we can get a glimpse of this from books.

"When the goal is firmly grasped, not only by the eyes but also by the eyes of the mind, it is called true concentration, and that is the attainment of dhyana (meditation). Simply observing 'the human mind' as a physiological function cannot lead to the state of samadhi. There is a 'mind of the Buddha' that transcends the physiological mind, and the state of samadhi arises only when this Buddha-mind manifests itself." - "Yoga Hogyuchuden" (written by Sekiguchi Bara).

The author of this book practiced in the Yoga tradition of Yogananda, and I believe this description is true. Therefore, samadhi is not just a form of concentration, but a state in which a deep mind, which could be called the true nature of the mind, emerges.

Similarly, "sammai" (samadhi) in Zen is not just a form of concentration. Zen emphasizes incorporating samadhi into all aspects of daily life. Whether you are cleaning, eating, or doing anything else, it is all Zen. Maintaining this state of samadhi continuously is described as one of the signs of enlightenment. This is different from the view that "samadhi is a temporary thing" in Vedanta and Vipassana traditions. Indeed, while samadhi may be temporary in the early stages of practice, it eventually spreads to daily life.

Similar stories about transforming everyday life into samadhi are also found in yoga traditions and Tibetan Dzogchen teachings.

While the Vedanta school defines samadhi as a form of concentration, I believe that what the Vedanta school aims for, "moksha" (liberation), corresponds to the samadhi of other yoga traditions. Therefore, when the Vedanta school speaks of "moksha" (liberation), it can be understood as referring to the samadhi of the yoga tradition, and conversely, when the Vedanta school speaks of samadhi, it can be understood as referring to the dharana (concentration) or dhyana (meditation) of the yoga tradition.

The same applies to the Vipassana tradition. When the Vipassana tradition speaks of "vipassana," it corresponds to the samadhi of the yoga tradition, and the samadhi of the Vipassana tradition corresponds to the dharana (concentration) or dhyana (meditation) of the yoga tradition.

■ Vedanta's "moksha" (liberation) = Vipassana's "vipassana" (observation) = Yoga's "samadhi" (a state that continues into everyday life)
■ Vedanta's "samadhi" = Vipassana's "samadhi" = Yoga's "dharana" (concentration) or "dhyana" (meditation)

If this is the case, the characteristic of these "super-sensory" states of yoga, which extend into everyday life, is common to many traditions, and the difference lies only in the way they are expressed.

However, if the states are the same and a significant number of people have reached similar states, the different traditions should be able to understand each other better, and the fact that they become estranged due to differences in expression suggests that relatively few people have reached such states, I wonder. Saints do not fight, and they can understand each other's states. Therefore, the fact that the Vedanta school and the yoga tradition are particularly at odds in India suggests that there are not many saints. It seems that sometimes a saint appears, a tradition is created, and then the truth is lost, leaving only the scriptures. In the first place, saints do not create sects or religions. Even with Buddha or Christ, it was the people who came later who interpreted and created sects. I think that the state of enlightenment is common and there is no need to fight.

At least in India, some of these traditions are quite hostile, but recently, people who have studied in those traditions have been returning to Japan. I would like them not to bring the karma of the conflicts in India to Japan. In the first place, such conflicts did not exist in Japan, and they would not occur if people who studied in India did not bring them.

At least, I want to be humble until I reach a certain level of enlightenment. It is said that one becomes naturally humble when one reaches a certain level of enlightenment, because one understands that there is no need to fight. Therefore, it is only necessary to pay attention to being humble at the beginning.

The explanations in the Tibetan tradition are the clearest and easiest to understand. In particular, the explanation in Dzogchen is clear.

Samadhi and practice are completely different things, and it is necessary to distinguish them clearly. The awakened original wisdom (rikpa) is outside of and transcends the limited existence and the process within time, and it is beyond that. The original wisdom is beyond the mind. On the other hand, practice is related to the workings of the mind, so it can be said to be limited and a phenomenon within time. ("Tibetan Buddhist Meditation" by Namkai Norbu)

Based on the premise of distinguishing between the mind and something beyond it, it becomes understandable that samadhi transcends the mind.

And it is based on that premise that samadhi is said in many traditions, but in some traditions, samadhi is defined as a matter related to the normal workings of the mind, especially concentration. If you mix these completely different things together, you will not even know what samadhi is.

■ Normal mind movements = Yoga's dharana (concentration) = Yoga's dhyana (meditation) = Vedanta's samadhi = Vipassana's samadhi
■ Awakened mind's true nature (rikpa) = Yoga's samadhi (a state that continues) = Vedanta's moksha (liberation) = Vipassana's vipassana (observation)

If you classify them in this way, it will be clear what you are talking about. Therefore, it becomes clear that when the Vedanta school says "samadhi," it is referring to the normal mind, and when the yoga school says "samadhi," it is referring to the awakened mind's true nature, rikpa.

Strictly speaking, yoga's dhyana (meditation) is a state that serves as a bridge between the normal mind and the awakened mind's true nature (rikpa), so it is about half of each, but even so, since meditation is basically concentration, it is generally not wrong to classify it as above.

The true nature of an awakened mind gradually moves and develops into something solid. However, in education, there are often cases where people teach in a way that says, "It suddenly awakens."

While there may be cases of such a sudden awakening, fundamentally, it is something that grows gradually. Initially, the true nature of the awakened mind (rikupa) only slightly moves during meditation, and gradually, this awakening continues even after meditation ends. Eventually, all aspects of daily life become conscious of the true nature of the awakened mind (rikupa).

These are often misunderstandings due to differences in the definition of words. I personally think that if those who are explaining were more careful about the definition of words, it would be better. However, there is nothing I can do about that, so I can only write things like this.

There are various types of oneness, but the basic oneness is the connection of oneness through the activation of the heart's Anahata chakra.

However, after that, a misunderstood oneness emerged, and the word "oneness" has become unclear.

The basic oneness refers to the fundamental consciousness that is connected in the depths of the heart. In other words, there are various ways to express it, such as Atman, enlightenment, etc., but it refers to the awareness that all beings are connected.

Someone experienced this, and that was good, but when they tried to express that experience, they used the word "oneness," and it seems that the people who heard it interpreted the word "oneness" differently.

The original oneness is the fundamental consciousness, so it doesn't talk about appearances, but it means that everything is connected, especially humans, and that no matter what kind of person they are, they are connected through the fundamental consciousness.

The original oneness does not include appearances, cultures, customs, or ways of thinking. Oneness means the awareness, experience, and realization that transcends all cultures, customs, and religions in the world. There is an experience, and the word "oneness" was used to express that experience.

Even though it is called an experience, the Anahata consciousness is not temporary, and in the sense that the experience of oneness was not felt so much before the Anahata consciousness emerged, it is not eternal, but at least after the Anahata consciousness awakens, it can be continuously felt.

Therefore, depending on how you think about it, you can think that it has existed eternally from the beginning, but it was simply hidden. The Vedanta of India has such a view regarding Atman.

In this way, oneness is originally an eternal consciousness, which may be called Atman, soul, enlightenment, or oneness, but it was used to express the fundamental consciousness in the depths of the heart, and it was not intended to explain the actual state of human beings.

However, later, people who learned about oneness misinterpreted it and brought in a wrong idea that things like ways of thinking, cultures, customs, rituals, and religions are the same as oneness. Well, it is not wrong in the sense that it is their own idea, but if it is a misunderstanding of other people's ideas, then it is a mistake.

In this way, there are a certain number of people who have misunderstood oneness and spread it in the world. This is a rather subtle issue, and it can also lead to a kind of conformity pressure, as if everyone has to do the same thing, and unlike the original oneness, this wrong oneness seems to function as a constraint.

This wrong oneness has been used as a form of "mounting" in some spiritual eras, and there is still some of that trend, and people sometimes point out others' customs, cultures, and ways of thinking in order to "mount" them, using the wrong oneness as a constraint. What a comedy. People who are using the same kind of conformity pressure as "mounting" and mistakenly believe that it is spiritual are using spirituality as a means to manipulate others, which is a blasphemy against spirituality.

For example, conformity pressure of oneness is used for "mounting" such as "it is natural to do this when doing something," or "it is natural to think this way."

People who do not understand these things tend to think that the conformity pressure of oneness is correct, but in reality, oneness is not that kind of thing.

It seems like everyone is enlightened and awakened. On the other hand, I feel like I don't really understand myself, but it seems like everyone around me is already enlightened.

Therefore, among the people who are judging others and saying that this is bad or that is bad, there are also people who are not enlightened but say so. Of course, there are times when I am enlightened and pointing out others, but there are also many times when I feel like the people around me are not enlightened because I am not.

The difference in enlightenment is only in terms of whether it is self-aware or not. In terms of the quality of enlightenment, everyone is already enlightened, and everyone is driven by the impulse of enlightenment and living their lives as they are. There is only a difference in whether they are consciously aware of it in their conscious mind.

In the spiritual world, there is a tendency to feel that people who are studying spirituality or belong to a particular sect are superior, but as mentioned above, everyone is literally enlightened. On the other hand, relatively ordinary people may also be enlightened in terms of self-awareness.

In terms of percentage, the enlightenment rate of people in the spiritual industry is surprisingly not that high. Rather, people who are not enlightened are interested in things like training.

In general society, especially children, and especially women, have the seeds of enlightenment. For example, the ability to appreciate plants and flowers is a form of enlightenment.

There are stories about enlightenment involving supernatural powers, but more importantly, enlightenment exists in the everyday life of enjoying and being satisfied with everyday life, appreciating the beauty of the scenery, feeling wonderful smells, and being emotionally moved.

A woman who likes flowers can be said to be in a state of enlightenment, and whether it is hiking, a walk in the neighborhood, or relaxing at home, there is enlightenment. Of course, there is enlightenment in work, in creating things, in organizing documents, in studying, in all aspects of life.

Enlightenment is something so ordinary that it is difficult to understand, especially when it comes to oneself. Therefore, it is common to hear stories like, "I am enlightened, but I don't know it."

It's like a joke, but there is a story about someone searching for "what is enlightenment," and actually knowing it all along.

There are two patterns for this. One is that you know what enlightenment is, you are satisfied with your everyday life, you have no complaints, you live consciously, but you didn't know the definition of the word "enlightenment." In this case, once you know that your state is enlightenment, that's the end of it.

The other is that everyone has enlightenment, but their consciousness is clouded and they cannot live consciously. This is a pattern that requires some kind of training because they are not consciously aware of the state of enlightenment. This is not a pattern where simply knowing the definition of enlightenment is sufficient.

In any case, enlightenment already exists in everyone from the beginning, and the only difference is whether they are self-aware. For those who are already self-aware, knowing the definition of enlightenment is the end of enlightenment. If you are already living a self-aware life, then enlightenment is a matter of course, but if not, some kind of training is necessary.

However, in many cases, training is necessary. On the other hand, it is also a fact that many ordinary people are living a normal life without being involved in training or spirituality, and awakening to enlightenment and self-awareness.

Japan is a country of emotions, and while there is certainly love, it seems that emotions often take precedence.

Some people possess emotions, while others have love.

Conversely, those who lack either emotions or love cannot comprehend them.

Whether one possesses emotions or love may seem like a simple matter, but there is a hierarchy. It starts with a lack of emotions, progresses to emotions, and then evolves into love. Love can be considered the ultimate stage.

Since emotions are the dominant force in Japan, there are three stages: a state of lacking emotions, emotions, and the sublimation of emotions into love.

1. A state of lacking emotions.
2. Having emotions.
3. (Having emotions that have been sublimated into) love.

Those who are unfamiliar with these concepts may find the first and third stages to be quite similar. Love is sometimes confused with emotions, but love is a love that encompasses all things, and sometimes it can be strict. Love involves doing what is necessary, even if it would be hesitated due to emotions.

However, love can sometimes appear ruthless. In fact, it is "ruthless" in the literal sense, as it has moved beyond emotions. However, it is not cruel, but rather possesses a strictness that comes from a sense of oneness. Love encompasses both good and evil.

On the other hand, those who lack emotions often adopt a materialistic perspective. They cannot understand emotions, and they may adopt a mechanical way of thinking that anything is permissible as long as it does not violate the rules. They are completely unable to comprehend the concept of love. However, in terms of being "ruthless," they sometimes share similar qualities with love.

This is a curious aspect. In terms of being detached from emotions, both those who lack emotions and those who possess love are relatively similar, and both are capable of acting logically.

Therefore, while the underlying principles are different, there are surprising similarities in the methods used by materialistic individuals who think in terms of numbers and those who possess love and think logically. However, when delving deeper, their fundamental ways of thinking are completely different. This leads to an interesting phenomenon where individuals with love can be drawn to those who have not even reached the level of emotions. This is particularly common in projects, where logical individuals who lack emotions and those who possess love often work together successfully. A clear example is the combination of the ruthless Steve Jobs and the love-filled Steve Wozniak. While many people deify Jobs, it is important to compare him to Wozniak, who possessed a heart of gold. Wozniak generously distributed shares to employees when Apple went public, while Jobs refused Wozniak's repeated requests to do the same. Jobs remained focused on maximizing profits and promoting his products, and while he may have sought a simple life to some extent, he ultimately died of illness. While many people deify Jobs, he was not a particularly virtuous person compared to Wozniak. People are free to deify Jobs if they choose, but I personally believe that Jobs had some problematic personality traits.

In this way, what appears to be a clear distinction between the upper and lower levels can sometimes appear the same, and individuals who have not even reached the level of emotions can sometimes seem admirable.

This is also a common trend in social activism, where individuals with love support the activities, while materialistic individuals who lack emotions often drive the movement. It is not uncommon for individuals who lack emotions to become leaders or gain respect. It is a fascinating and intriguing phenomenon.

This is not to say that anyone is good or bad, or that anything is wrong. It is simply an observation of the way the world works.

In the world, there are many people who lack emotions, and those who lack emotions tend to cling to materialistic ways of thinking. They often adopt a value system where money is the ultimate goal, or they may begin to try to control others in order to protect themselves. In Japan, there is a growing number of people who hold materialistic views, and some are starting to think that emotions are unnecessary and that anything is permissible as long as it does not violate the rules. However, this is simply because they are unaware of emotions.

Therefore, compassion is important, and if one has not yet attained compassion, they should first achieve compassion, and then gradually awaken the love of the heart.

This is because the perspective of the viewer is also important. There are many cases where something may appear to be the love of the heart, but in reality, the person does not even know compassion, and of course, does not know the love of the heart. On the other hand, there are also cases where something may appear to be lacking in compassion, but is actually motivated by the love of the heart.

It's about the perspective. If you don't have the right perspective, you can't see anything.

When I concentrate on meditating on the Ajna chakra, sometimes I feel like there is a cork stopper. I feel like a little bit of energy is leaking from that cork stopper, and there seems to be a small pathway for energy, but it feels like 90% is blocked.

This is just a feeling I have during meditation. It's about the sensation I experience when I concentrate my awareness on the space between my eyebrows or the tip of my nose during basic meditation.

Sometimes, when I start meditating, I immediately feel this way. Other times, there is a preliminary stage.

In the preliminary stage, for example, my awareness might be slightly wavering and not in a state of concentration. In that case, if I concentrate on the space between my eyebrows for a while, suddenly my awareness becomes calm and enters a state of concentration. Then, there is a change in the space between my eyebrows, and the haze around the space between my eyebrows disappears, and I can see the state of the Ajna chakra more clearly. At such times, what often happens is that there is something like a sticky, muddy, or decaying substance clogging the area around the space between my eyebrows.

The energy channel of the Ajna chakra runs straight from the area around the back of the head to the space between the eyebrows, and that channel often seems to be quite blocked. At least, that's the case for me.

I think that the channel above the Ajna chakra is not properly open, and that's why energy doesn't flow through it and it tends to become blocked. It's like a river with low water flow, where debris accumulates easily. My current challenge is to open the channel above the Ajna chakra more.

When I focus my awareness on the Ajna chakra in that state, I first notice that there is something like a muddy substance, not quite sludge, clogging the channel leading to the Ajna chakra, and I feel a slight smell, and I feel like I want to pinch my nose.

In the first place, I can't notice these things unless I have reached a certain level of meditative calmness. Only when I reach a state of calmness and quiet can I notice these things.

When I notice that there is a sticky substance clogging the channel, I focus my awareness on it and repeatedly chant "Om" (or your own mantra, if you prefer), and send energy (prana) through the channel in the space between my eyebrows.

As I repeatedly chant "Om," the sticky substance gradually disappears, and the smell disappears at some point. I'm not sure if it disappears or just goes somewhere else, but it usually disappears quite smoothly.

In that state, when I continue meditating on "Om," I feel like the space between my eyebrows is an empty void. It's a void, but energy doesn't move much from there, and if I continue chanting "Om," the energy increases somewhat, but I feel like something is blocking it.

Even though the energy is blocked, it still moves somewhat, and some energy does pass through, but there is something like a cork stopper blocking the space in front of the space between my eyebrows, and it feels like it can't get through. About 10% of the energy passes through, but 90% is blocked by the cork.

I think this probably means that the Ajna chakra is not open.

Normally, I reach a state of stillness by filling the Sahasrara chakra with energy, but recently, I've been focusing on channeling energy into the Ajna chakra rather than filling the Sahasrara chakra. This is because, while the state of stillness is good, I still feel a slight dullness in the area around the Ajna chakra, so I'm focusing on that area more.

Initially, the teachings begin with the accessible teachings of theEsoteric Buddhism (Xiǎnjiào), which encompass morality, ethics, etiquette, manners, customs, and traditions.

A simple example is the advice to remain quiet and eat slowly during meals.

If this is understood as a matter of etiquette, morality, or custom, it is considered Esoteric Buddhism. However, if it is understood as a result of practice, it is considered Tantric Buddhism (Mìnjiào).

While the practice of Tantric Buddhism may be separate, it ultimately leads to the manifestation of manners and customs.

This may seem like a simple custom or habit, but even in these everyday and seemingly obvious aspects, Esoteric Buddhism and Tantric Buddhism are intertwined.

Therefore, if Esoteric Buddhism is merely limited to manners, customs, or moral teachings, it is a superficial teaching. However, if it is supported by the teachings of Tantric Buddhism, it becomes a profound teaching.

Often, Buddhism is described as a moral system, a creator of customs, or a set of etiquette. However, in form, it has remained as manners and customs.

While Buddhist practitioners may study these subjects at Buddhist universities, the underlying principles of Esoteric Buddhism are often so obvious that their deeper meaning is not always understood.

Similarly, even among Buddhist practitioners, some may view these as mere morals and customs, while others understand the underlying teachings of Tantric Buddhism.

Ideally, Esoteric Buddhism and Tantric Buddhism are not separate but are a unified pair, forming the essence of Buddhism. At least, I understand it that way, and its original form may be found in early Buddhism. However, the elements of Tantric Buddhism are now primarily preserved in the Shingon sect, although I believe their prototypes exist in the Vedic traditions of India and the Tibetan Buddhist traditions.

These prototypes exist, and currently, particularly in Japan, Esoteric Buddhism and Tantric Buddhism are often separated. Different sects may focus primarily on Esoteric Buddhism or Tantric Buddhism. However, ideally, they are intrinsically linked. While there may be disagreement on this, I believe this to be the case.

The teachings of Tantric Buddhism can be simply described as the concept of Samadhi (Zanmai).

As one achieves Samadhi, it initially appears as a temporary state during practice. However, as practice progresses, Samadhi expands into everyday life. This is where practice and daily life intersect.

When Samadhi enters daily life, for example, during meals, experiencing the food in its entirety, savoring the ingredients directly with a "raw" or "unfiltered" mind (what is called "rikupa"), is itself a form of Samadhi and meditation. Some sects even consider this a form of practice.

Before achieving Samadhi, the mind is often wandering, lost in thoughts and imagination, making it difficult to observe the present moment. Even if one can momentarily perceive something as it is, the mind quickly wanders, making it difficult to continuously experience and accept the food in its entirety.

However, when Samadhi becomes temporary or continuous in daily life, the mind no longer wanders during meals. One can simply enjoy the meal, not in a joyful way, but by experiencing the food directly with a "raw" mind, without any intervening thoughts or mechanical actions. The "raw" mind directly confronts the food, without any interruption, allowing for a complete and unmediated experience.

This is not merely an intellectual understanding but a real action and experience, something that can actually occur. It is not simply a matter of understanding; it is a matter of experience. While these experiences are sensory, the difference lies only in understanding and recognition. Some sects argue that taken as a whole, this could be considered "understanding" or "knowledge." While there is a cognitive aspect to it, it is more accurate to describe it as a continuous experience.

Therefore, Samadhi is not merely a theoretical concept or something only achievable by enlightened individuals. It is something that everyone can achieve, and often, what people consider ordinary actions are actually forms of Samadhi.

Samadhi is not something that exists in a distant world, but rather something that is connected to everyday life.

It can be said to be something that goes beyond understanding, but the difference lies only in perception, which can be called understanding or knowledge. While it goes beyond the logical, ordinary thinking mind (which is called citta or buddhi in yoga and Vedanta), samadhi is the manifestation of the awareness (citta) of the Atman (true self). In Japanese, the word "kokoro" (mind) has a broad meaning, but a simple way to think about it is that there are two types of minds: the ordinary mind and the higher mind. When the higher mind emerges, one's behavior changes, and this is reflected in the morality, customs, and traditions of modern Japan. Therefore, the people of ancient Japan were awakened and lived their lives with a certain level of awareness.

Furthermore, what the Exoteric teachings teach is something moral, but at the same time, it expresses the way of everyday life as a result of samadhi in the Esoteric teachings.

While it is useful to teach the morality and discipline that are easy to understand as teachings of the Exoteric school, sometimes the Exoteric school teaches as if samadhi can be achieved simply by following those teachings. However, the teachings of the Exoteric school are merely the appearance of everyday life as a result of practice, and the practice itself is separate.

The Esoteric teachings often have an image of sorcery, but in reality, the essence is something simpler than that.

I don't know to what extent those who practice the Exoteric teachings understand it, but while following the teachings of the Exoteric school and living a moral life and following rules and obligations is a foundation, I think it is insufficient as practice. However, there are teachings that vary depending on the school, so I think it is basically up to each individual. Some monks may study diligently, and that may be fine, but originally, Buddhism has a role not only in helping people practice but also in guiding those who seek truth. If such people thought that people would be saved simply by following the teachings of the Exoteric school, they would be mistaken.

People of the Exoteric school talk about morality, reason, and discipline, but sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between those who are truly enlightened and those who are simply behaving politely. If one has studied diligently, they can explain the same arguments as if they were enlightened, and sometimes it is difficult to tell whether someone is truly enlightened or has simply studied diligently. Sometimes, even if someone is enlightened, they may not have the words to express it, and conversely, there are times when someone is not enlightened but is eloquent.

However, in general, the Exoteric teachings seem to be limited to the moral aspects. That is important in itself, but for me, morality alone is not enough.

Suppose you listen to someone from the Exoteric school, and their answer is "the essence lies in ordinary everyday life." Exoteric monks often talk about simple everyday stories to enlighten people. Ordinary people may be satisfied and go home after hearing that, but personally, I think that if it is simply a way to lull people to sleep or a mere imitation, it is like a stale priest or someone who is serious but doesn't really understand. When a truly enlightened person says the same words, they resonate more deeply. The same words have different resonances. Hearing the same words that simply affirm the status quo is not interesting or true; the truth is something that penetrates more deeply.

When I say "resonates," it can sometimes be a rude remark that causes trouble. This is something that people in Buddhism often do, and they may think they are pointing something out, but the person being told is often just troubled and does not resonate at all. For example, a common remark that people in yoga and Buddhism often make is "that is just an imagination and has not actually happened." This is a very ordinary remark, and it is neither interesting nor anything. Of course, there are such stories, but the words do not resonate at all. When a stale priest or someone who doesn't really understand says such things, it becomes a mere attempt to assert superiority. People who try to point out others to feel superior are often overestimating themselves. The teachings of the Exoteric school have this danger. One can end up thinking they understand when they don't. From the outside, they may seem like a great person, but for the person being told, it is often just a mere attempt to assert superiority, which is troublesome.

Sometimes, when I ask monks of the Kenkyō school or people who have studied in India various questions, I am told, "That is because you are not yet ready." While that may be true, the words don't resonate. I feel that if someone says that to me, whether they are a "smelly monk" or someone who simply studied without fully understanding, it's frustrating. Of course, there is a possibility that there are truly enlightened people, but most of them seem to be people who have diligently studied and believe that they have achieved enlightenment. In the Kenkyō school or the Vedanta school of India, there are people who say that if you study and acquire knowledge, that understanding becomes enlightenment or liberation (moksha). However, the difference between true enlightenment and what is simply acquired through study and moral behavior can be subtle and difficult to discern.

One way to distinguish them is that the insights of enlightened people are "calm" and "matter-of-fact." There is a sense of tranquility in their words. On the other hand, the remarks of someone who has simply studied, or someone who is diligent but does not fully understand, often reveal a subtle (perhaps hidden) sense of amusement or a desire to compete with the other person. Even in the case of someone who is sincere and does not intend to hurt the other person, it is difficult to say that they are enlightened simply because they are not intentionally hurtful. When you actually see them, the difference is clear, but when you only see the words, they can be quite similar, and some people may mistakenly believe that they have become someone important by making such remarks. Well, that is a common occurrence, and one might even say it is amusing. The Kenkyō school, being the result of Esoteric Buddhism, can create the illusion that one is enlightened simply by living according to principles, which can lead to a charade of pointing out others' shortcomings based on principles and etiquette. Even if the person does not intend to, they may misunderstand and follow the practices of their lineage.

Personally, I believe that the current Kenkyō and Esoteric Buddhism in Japan have certain aspects that fit this pattern, so I think the essence lies in the original teachings of the Vedas in India or the teachings of Tibet. However, it is also true that the people of these Indian and Tibetan lineages may not always fully understand them. Nevertheless, it seems that more of the original teachings are preserved in those traditions.

When viewed from the perspective of samadhi in the Kenkyō school, it becomes clear that there is a subtle difference between living daily life in a state of samadhi and living daily life quietly according to principles. While they may mean the same thing, if they mean the same thing, it means that daily life is samadhi, so it is generally better to think of them as different things.

The same can be said for the interpretation of "concentration" in meditation. The basic practice of meditation starts with concentration, and eventually, daily life becomes samadhi. However, even if one has not reached a state of samadhi, if their manners and etiquette are refined, they may appear to be in a state of samadhi. This can lead to a misunderstanding that meditation is unnecessary, even though one has not trained in concentration through meditation practice. In Kenkyō and Vedanta schools, there are occasional discussions that "concentration" is not necessary for meditation (or that in schools that define samadhi as concentration, "concentration" as samadhi is not necessary). This misunderstanding often stems from the fact that the manners of the Kenkyō school may appear to be a state of enlightenment or liberation.

This system may also involve a combination of the Kenkyō school or the Vedanta school of India, the caste system of the Brahmin (Brahmin) class, and the idea that enlightenment or liberation can be achieved by anyone. This creates a system where even ordinary people can achieve enlightenment or liberation. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the arguments made as a sophistry to maintain the social class system or the privileged class and the actual methods of achieving enlightenment or liberation. The Brahmins have long enjoyed a privileged class, and although their power has diminished considerably now, the system that has been maintained for a long time still remains. There are also some negative aspects in India, but there are also the original teachings of enlightenment and liberation. As a Japanese person, we can learn only the original teachings without being tainted by the negative aspects of India. The idea that one can achieve enlightenment simply by studying seems like a sophistry to me, and it seems that even people with poor abilities in a lineage can achieve a high status and obtain positions within the lineage by saying that. I suspect that what started as a fairly sophistical argument has been forgotten after generations and has become a formal doctrine. Indeed, since samadhi is a matter of perception, it can be said that "enlightenment or liberation can be achieved through knowledge," but it seems like a stretch. It seems like a stretch to me, but some lineages say it with great sincerity, so I don't want to say it too much, but it seems a little different. When listening to the teachings of Kenkyō and Vedanta schools, it is helpful to focus on the original aspects and avoid the negative aspects. However, even if a person is not truly enlightened, their contribution to passing on the teachings to the next generation through diligent study is significant, so it is not always possible to say that it is a negative aspect.

In Samadhi, constant observation permeates daily life, allowing one to perceive and experience reality as it is. This state, which may seem like "concentration" to some, is actually a relaxed and detailed way of experiencing everyday life. It differs from the basic principle of meditation, which is "concentration." However, Samadhi is the result of pursuing concentration in meditation to its ultimate form, leading to a state of observation in daily life.

Samadhi can range from a state experienced only during meditation to a state where daily life itself becomes Samadhi, blurring the lines between meditation and daily life. While it may seem that Samadhi is unrelated to the "concentration" of meditation, it involves a state of constant, subtle, and sharp awareness. This can be described as either being "focused" or "not focused," both of which are valid descriptions. It's not a focus on a single point, but rather a state of constant and pervasive awareness. It's a type of concentration that is not about focusing on one point, but rather about being constantly aware and attentive. This concentration is not tense, but rather relaxed, and at the same time, the awareness is clear. Therefore, "concentration" in Samadhi encompasses both meanings. While meditation generally involves focusing on a single point, Samadhi involves a broader and more encompassing concentration. Even though it's not a single-point focus, there is still a certain directionality to the awareness. The mind tends to go in the direction it is focused, but in Samadhi, the underlying awareness is activated, which is not about grasping everything, but rather about having a constant awareness. This awareness is a concentration with a certain direction, but not a single-point focus. Therefore, Samadhi can be called "concentration," or it can be called something else, and some schools of thought express it as "observation." However, these are just different ways of expressing the same state. Some schools of thought even refer to this state of relaxed and pervasive concentration as "meditation." While meditation is often associated with a single-point focus, particularly in yoga, there are also schools of thought that consider this relaxed state of Samadhi to be a form of meditation.

Because of this state of Samadhi, in some cases, daily life may appear to be in a state of Samadhi. In reality, it may just be an ordinary person behaving politely, but their demeanor can sometimes give the impression of Samadhi. Conversely, there may be times when someone appears to be living a normal life, but is actually in a state of Samadhi.

It can be difficult to distinguish between these two, but one way to tell is to see if the person is acting with awareness.

In a refined manner, it is easy to mistake someone for being in a state of Samadhi, especially in schools of thought that emphasize behavior. This can lead to the impression that someone is in a state of Samadhi, even when they are not.

In most cases, as manners and etiquette become more refined, one enters a state known as "the zone," which is an extremely focused state that evokes joy or energy. This can lead to a temporary feeling of unity with the object of focus. This state of "the zone" is caused by extreme concentration, and is not yet Samadhi. Once the "zone" ends, one returns to a normal state. Through repeated experiences of "the zone," one can deepen their meditation. Here, "meditation" refers not only to sitting meditation, but also to meditation that can be practiced through actions. This is how one can enter a state of "the zone" through manners and etiquette. In yoga terms, this is the stage of Dharana (concentration).

However, this is not yet Samadhi. Samadhi emerges when entering "the zone" (Dharana, concentration) becomes a constant state, and the joy of "the zone" becomes calmer. Only then does a state of constant concentration become a normal state. Initially, Samadhi begins with short periods, and eventually progresses to a state of Samadhi in daily life. Only then does one truly understand the meaning behind manners and etiquette.

Becoming Samadhi does not mean that one has perfectly mastered etiquette. It is still necessary to learn manners and etiquette. However, Samadhi allows one to perceive the underlying meaning of these practices, and when Samadhi is combined with learned etiquette, it deepens the understanding and practice of etiquette.

In Western terms, Shamatha can also be called a trance. It involves quieting the ordinary thinking mind to reveal the deep nature of the mind (which some schools call "rikpa").

Generally, meditation deepens in the following order:
1. Enlightenment through "understanding" based on study, such as in the Advaita Vedanta school. This is an attempt to understand enlightenment from the ordinary thinking mind of the conscious mind. This is generally unrelated to rikpa, and rikpa is often not active, although there are cases where it is.
2. The state of mental Shamatha (stillness) or trance. This is one of the goals of Yoga Sutra. It is a technique to temporarily activate the true nature of the mind, rikpa, by quieting the ordinary mind. This is sometimes called meditation, and sometimes samadhi, but at this stage, it is only a temporary experience.
3. A state where both the ordinary thinking mind and the true nature of the mind, rikpa, are active and the mind is continuously connected. When transitioning to this state, the experience becomes continuous rather than temporary. The degree of continuity depends on the depth of meditation, but it is possible to continue the meditative state of samadhi in everyday life.

Generally, meditation is often described as concentration or observation, and both of these elements exist from the very first stage of meditation, but both elements take on different forms as meditation deepens.

Sometimes, study is necessary, and sometimes it is not, but in the practice of meditation, it begins with mental Shamatha (stillness) and progresses to samadhi or vipassana (observation).

In the state of samadhi or vipassana, the mind is in a state where the ordinary mind and rikpa are relatively continuous and there is not much separation. They exist as separate functions of the mind, and there are separate functions of thinking and observing, but in the stage of Shamatha, the deep observation of the mind, rikpa, could not easily emerge unless the function of the ordinary thinking mind was stopped. However, in the stage of samadhi, the ordinary thinking mind and rikpa can coexist. Although it is said to coexist, both are movements within the mind, so in reality, it is not coexistence, but rather, it becomes clear that the ordinary mind and rikpa are continuously connected and exist within the mind.

They are not separated, but exist as functions of the mind, or they are on different layers. The ordinary thinking mind is responsible for seeing reality in detail, while rikpa is a higher level of the mind that governs the senses and provides observation and instruction. When rikpa is mentioned, the focus is often on observation, but rikpa also has a relatively broad sense of will, which can be called intuition or sensation. As a function of the mind, rikpa senses vibrations and acts upon them. The direction of thought and the direction of action are determined according to the influence of these vibrations.

In a state where the ordinary mind and rikpa are separated, or where rikpa is not active, such intuition and sensation are dulled, and only the thinking mind functions.

In the stage of Shamatha, the ordinary thinking mind stops, and only the intuition and sensation of rikpa are dominant, so logical thinking weakens.

On the other hand, when the mind is continuous and the ordinary mind and the deep consciousness (rikpa) are connected and operating, both the ordinary thinking mind (thought) and the intuitive sensation are active.

In terms of the order of meditation, it starts with Shamatha to reveal the activity of rikpa, and then, as a continuous mind, samadhi is extended to everyday life.

In meditation, the process from shamatha (calmness) to samadhi is essentially something that is experienced through meditation itself, not just through study. However, the terms "experience" and "knowledge" differ depending on the school of thought. In schools of thought that emphasize study (such as Hinayana or Vedanta), the term "experience" is often denied, and there is an ideology that uses the term "knowledge" instead. However, when you actually look at what they are doing, it often involves chanting in Sanskrit or Buddhist scriptures, so it doesn't seem to be that different in reality.

In some schools of thought, such as Vedanta, the term "experience" is denied, and the term "knowledge" is used instead. The reason for this is that "experience" is something temporary, while the ultimate goal, enlightenment or moksha (liberation), or the true self (Atman) that should be aimed for, is not something temporary. Therefore, it is believed that one can only reach these through "understanding," not through relying on temporary experiences. However, I think that is just a matter of wording and logic. Even if it is called "understanding," it is still a temporary understanding. If the ultimate goal is to reach enlightenment and then remain in a state of enlightenment without going back, then even if the term "understanding" is used, the understanding of ordinary people and the understanding of ultimate enlightenment are different. Therefore, it can be said that even "understanding" is temporary, so I don't think it is necessary to give the term "understanding" a special ideological meaning. However, that is just the way of that school of thought, so they can do whatever they want.

Some schools of thought distinguish between "understanding" and "the occurrence of understanding," which can be very confusing. In this case, simply using the term "understanding" can mean either a temporary understanding or a permanent understanding, depending on the context. On the other hand, "the occurrence of understanding" seems to mean a permanent understanding.

Personally, I think it is easier to understand if different words are used for temporary and permanent things, rather than using the same word repeatedly. However, that is just the way of that school of thought, so there is nothing I can do about it.

Each school of thought has its own unique expressions, but the distinction between temporary and permanent things is quite common. The key is not to be confused by the unique expressions of each school of thought. In reality, they all start with a temporary experience or understanding and then transition to a permanent experience or understanding.

There are times when the interpretation of the context is complex, but in many cases, it is surprisingly simple if you think about which of the two meanings, temporary or permanent, it is referring to.

In yoga-related schools of thought, it involves meditation. In schools of thought that emphasize study, it involves studying, performing rituals, chanting, or studying scriptures. However, in reality, the process is generally the same as described above.

▪️Understanding differs depending on whether one knows "eternity."

It's a bit different from how yoga or Vedanta would put it, but metaphorically speaking, understanding differs depending on whether one knows "eternity."

If one's understanding doesn't involve "eternity," it's only a temporary understanding. There's a difference between understanding with "eternity" and understanding "eternity" itself, and then understanding the temporary and the eternal.

When you study things like the Exoteric teachings or Vedanta, you encounter a lot of talk about "eternity." However, simply studying "eternity" doesn't automatically connect to the metaphorical understanding of "eternity" that I'm talking about here. In other words, it's an experience-based knowledge that allows one to express, or perhaps recognize, what "eternity" is, and understanding that comes from such an experience is different.

Without the cognitive experience of "eternity," no matter how much one talks about "eternity," it's just superficial talk. Even if one talks about profound scriptures, it doesn't necessarily mean they're talking about "eternity" in its essence.

This requires a certain level of preparation from the observer. If the observer isn't prepared, they can't see it.

On the other hand, even if someone thinks they know "eternity," they might just have studied it. This is a subtle area, so it can be difficult to distinguish. While it's possible to speak correctly about "eternity" through proper study, there's a difference between that and understanding that comes from one's own depths. Sometimes, someone who has studied thoroughly might appear more impressive, even though they might not have a genuine understanding. In the case of someone who knows "eternity" without much study, they might seem crude, but in reality, the opposite might be true.

In any case, it's difficult to see the true nature of others. From a learning perspective, it doesn't really matter whether someone is enlightened or not. It's better if they are, but it's not necessarily related to academic knowledge. I think it's better to learn from those around you rather than worrying too much about it. Ultimately, the answers can only be found through one's own exploration, so the journey is probably not that different for everyone.

▪️A vast sky descended towards me.

I was lying down, observing my automatic thoughts in a dazed state before waking up. Several unrelated thoughts came to mind, and I remembered things I had been reading recently, and a story about the expansion of the aura came to mind.

Suddenly, without any particular purpose or object, the words "I ask" popped into my head, directed towards "something" in front of me.

The moment those words appeared in my automatic thoughts, they acted like a spell, and an image of a blue sky suddenly appeared. It was a cloudless sky that stretched far into the distance, and the entire blue sky descended towards me.

Perhaps the ancestors called this "Ku", and it's a very apt expression.

At first glance, this might seem like imagination or an image. However, the initial impression was a vague blue sky, not even that blue, probably just a vague blue. It wasn't an image, but an impression, and the blue sky seemed to be far away at first, but in reality, it wasn't that far away, and it approached me in an instant. It seemed to be far away at first, but in reality, it was close, and there was a space between me and that blue sky, a slightly separated state. After that initial state, when I said "I ask," the entire blue sky descended. It felt more like something that was originally close moved slightly rather than coming from a distance.

I didn't move or approach. The blue sky came towards me.

How can I describe this blue sky that descended?

It could be called "Ku", or perhaps "infinity." It exists, so it's not "nothing." Therefore, it could be "ku" or "infinity."

Alternatively, it could be considered "the whole," or Brahman in yoga or Vedanta.

The Vedanta understanding that Atman, as an individual, is an infinite being, while also being a part of Brahman, the ultimate reality, can perhaps be described as a merging with this infinite void.

It's not a complete dissolution, but rather, the totality of Brahman, or the infinite, descends and connects with me. It's not so much that it spreads out around me, but rather that the infinite Brahman approaches and connects with me, allowing me to feel a connection with the whole. My individual Atman seems to reside primarily in the heart chakra, Anahata, and I feel this connection with a sense of warmth deep within Anahata. There's also a warmth in the Ajna chakra, and throughout my body, I feel this Brahman, or void, or infinity.

This is different from what is commonly referred to as expanding one's aura. Aura expansion is often associated with the more physical etheric plane, while this merging with Brahman is a more subtle experience. The physical body and aura may not change significantly, but rather remain close to the body. However, this experience does activate the aura and slightly expands it, but it's not as if the aura, as an etheric field connected to the body, becomes infinite. Instead, it feels like an eternal or infinite aspect of Brahman, which exists on a different plane, is approaching me.

Even though it's called infinity, initially, I felt it as being in front and above me, so there was a spatial distance. In that sense, it wasn't infinity in the sense of encompassing all space, but rather, "sky" might be a more appropriate term in terms of its spatial expanse. However, once this Brahman descends and merges with me, I realize that it's not limited to a specific space, but rather permeates everything around me, and at the same time, I understand that it is infinite.

Initially, the "sky" within my limited perception expands, but after it descends and merges with my Atman, I realize that it is an unlimited sky, or infinity, or Brahman.

These experiences align with what is described in the scriptures of Yoga and Vedanta, which are often expressed in mystical terms. Some teachers of Yoga and Vedanta might say that these are merely descriptions and that such things don't actually happen. However, through personal experience, it becomes clear that the expressions in the scriptures are not just metaphors, but rather descriptions of actual experiences recorded by practitioners in the past.

Similarly, it is often explained that understanding these concepts is not about intellectual knowledge, but about experience. However, by actually experiencing these things, I realize that the knowledge of Brahman is not simply about studying and understanding it intellectually. It's something that can be experienced and integrated into one's life through meditation and other practices.

I recall a similar experience where the consciousness of creation, preservation, and destruction arose within my heart chakra, Anahata. This, I believe, was an awakening of my individual Atman, or a realization of my existence.

Perhaps it was always there, but I wasn't aware of it. However, before this awakening of Atman, even if I had experienced Kundalini and my aura had become dominant in Anahata, I hadn't experienced this consciousness of Atman in my chest as strongly.

This can be related to the stages of growth in Theosophy, where Kundalini first rises and adjusts the lower and upper chakras, and then descends to awaken Anahata.

The awakening of Anahata itself is an awakening of the individual Atman, which can also be considered the awakening of the lower self in Theosophical terms. On the other hand, this merging with Brahman is not a complete merging, but rather a connection, so if we relate it to the Theosophical stages, it might be described as "transformation, a temporary union of the higher and lower self."

According to Theosophical teachings, this stage corresponds to the activation of the Ajna chakra. While I have noticed some activation in Ajna, there hasn't been any significant change. So, I'll continue to observe Ajna. More importantly, Anahata seems to be more active than before, and I feel a sense of being more integrated with the surrounding space.

This is not an expansion of the aura, but rather a feeling of being integrated with the surrounding space while keeping the aura close to the body.

The feeling is something like that, and I think that in yoga and Vedanta, it might be expressed as the Atman and Brahman becoming one, and then separating again, a temporary fusion.

According to the hierarchy of Theosophy, it seems that with further progress, one can achieve a more continuous integration with the Higher Self (Brahman).

If we were to express this poetically, borrowing words, it would be perfectly fitting to say, "Ask, and it shall be given," as Jesus said. I don't know the original context, but the words themselves feel like that.

Alternatively, a Christian might describe such an experience as "seeking the Lord" or "praying to the Lord, Christ." The expression "the light of Christ descending from heaven and immersing oneself in the grace of the Lord" is also a metaphor, but it feels similar in terms of sensation.

Or, it's somewhat similar to a meditation technique I learned in a particular branch of Kriya Yoga.

In yoga and Vedanta, it is said that originally, the self is both Atman and Brahman, but we simply don't know it, or it is covered up by ignorance and becomes invisible. However, in my experience, it wasn't that my Atman, as a self, was approaching Brahman, but rather that the emptiness of Brahman was approaching me. It wasn't that my Atman disappeared to reveal Brahman, or that Brahman was hidden somewhere, but rather that Brahman is the whole, and therefore always present around my Atman. There was a spatial, or rather, a perceptual gap between the Atman and Brahman. This gap might be called ignorance in a Vedanta sense, but in my feeling, it was simply a gap. And through the "seeking" of the Atman's consciousness, it is temporarily fused with Brahman, and the afterglow remains, so it doesn't feel like a complete separation, but rather a difference in the degree of connection.

It feels more accurate to say, as yoga and Vedanta, or the Ten Ox Herding Pictures, say, that it is a gradual deepening, rather than a temporary fusion.

To put it another way, this is similar to what was written in the Yoga Sutras: "cessation of the modifications [of the mind] leads to knowledge." Such words have often come to me unexpectedly. I tried to find it quickly, but I couldn't find it immediately. However, in terms of meaning, "cessation" might refer to the surrender of the Atman to Brahman, and "knowledge" might be the connection with the whole, Brahman.

However, there hasn't been a sudden increase in understanding, and there still seems to be a kind of barrier in space and time, and I have a feeling that if I can overcome that thin barrier, I will be able to see and hear various things beyond space and time. But for now, there hasn't been much change. However, by deepening the experience of Brahman, even gradually, it may be possible to deepen the "knowledge" (not memorization or memory) of Brahman.

▪️Surrendering to the Whole is Spiritual

Surrendering to the whole, which includes oneself, and merging with the whole, or, in other words, surrendering, is spiritual, whereas surrendering to someone or something separate from oneself, such as another person, organization, object, or ideology, is not spiritual.

Often, in spirituality and religion, there is talk of the fear of surrendering oneself. However, if it is to surrender everything to another being, that is dangerous. In reality, that is not true spirituality, nor is it true religion. It is simply dependence, and spirituality in which one stops thinking for oneself and becomes a tool, obeying the other person, is not true spirituality. There seems to be a great misunderstanding about this.

In reality, many people say such things in words, but the problem is whether one is truly surrendering to the whole. Even if someone says they are, they may be saying so for the benefit of someone else. Therefore, no matter how admirable a person is, one should not surrender to another person. However, if one surrenders to the whole, it is not dependence, because one is also included in that whole, so it is a story with no gain or loss.

However, since there are many dishonest people in this world, I think it's better not to give anything away elsewhere as a matter of practical wisdom.

Here, it is sufficient to have a spiritual attitude and prayer of surrendering to the whole, and if you live with a feeling that your heart melts into the whole, there will be a difference.

It can be said to be "the whole" or "infinity," but prayer is to surrender oneself to such a whole or infinity. Therefore, it is not a surrender to "someone" as some strange organizations claim.

Of course, since it is "the whole," even "someone" is part of "the whole," so in a purely literal sense, it is a surrender of "someone" or "something" as part of the whole, which is not wrong. However, there are many dishonest people in this world who use clever words to demand "surrender" and take something away.

Therefore, caution is needed with this kind of "surrender." If you explicitly surrender of your own free will, it is your responsibility, but it is not the main point to be asked to surrender by someone and then surrender. For example, confession or trust in someone comes from within one's own feelings, but there are strange organizations that demand surrender with clever words or, even if they don't say it directly, use mind control.

Well, at least, there is no danger if you meditate alone and express gratitude to the surroundings during meditation, and surrender to the whole or infinite being.

At that time, the direction is important. It is not a direction from yourself to the other person, but if the whole or infinity comes towards you and contacts you, and you become a part of the whole or infinity, that is the original surrender of oneness.

If the direction is from yourself to the other person, it may also cause your center of gravity to waver, and there is also a risk of creating a dependent relationship if you do it because someone told you to. On the other hand, if the infinite or the whole comes towards you, your center of gravity will remain, and since you are a part of the whole, you will not be able to become dependent. This can also be simply called "surrender," but there is a risk of misunderstanding.

▪️Contemplate the image of God, Ishta-Devata, in your heart and surrender yourself.

We meditate and surrender ourselves in our daily lives, or offer prayers, to the existence or the very consciousness that is the "whole" or "infinity."

At this time, it is not simply that a vast space like a wide sky extending to the horizon approaches you, but if you contemplate the image of God, called Ishta-Devata or simply Ishta-Dev, that appears in your heart, it seems easier to do.

This probably has something in common with the Tibetan or Japanese Buddhist meditation method of visualizing an image in the heart, but this time, I didn't consciously do it, but I naturally reached a state of prayer when I encountered "infinity," and suddenly, the image of God that was in my heart appeared before my eyes.

Perhaps I have had reincarnations in Europe and elsewhere, so I feel that the white version of a typical Christ is more suitable as an Ishta-Devata than the gods of Hinduism, Tibet, or Japan. Although I am not a Christian now, and I haven't studied the Bible much, and I only go to church for sightseeing, I still feel that the white version of Christ is the image of God that suits me.

As is often said, the story that Christ was not white but of yellow race, so the white portraits are distorted, and although I don't have any proof, I think it might be true, but in reality, the image of Ishta-Devata as a portrait is fine for almost anyone, and it is okay if you feel divinity towards it and can easily imagine it. It could be the Virgin Mary, or Fudo Myoo, or a Tibetan god. I don't think there is much difference.

The important thing is whether it helps with meditation. If you can surrender to "the whole" or "infinity" by contemplating it, then it is helpful.

Such contemplation is essentially useless, but it is a useful tool. When you want to connect with "the whole" or "infinity" at any time, you can connect with infinity by contemplating that god. In daily life, when you are slightly out of a deep state of meditation and your conscious mind is working, the technique of contemplating the image of God, which is Ishta-Devata, can be used as a bridge to bring you to a deeper state of consciousness.

To be honest, I believe that imaginary figures, which do not actually exist, can be trusted because they exclude the messy aspects of real human beings. Therefore, the image of Christ as an Ishta-Devata, an imaginary deity, is more suitable for this purpose than the actual, human-like Jesus Christ who lived. The same applies to other images; I think it is better to use idealized images of gods rather than those based on reality, so that one can truly relinquish.

Personally, the first image that appears is the idealized, white-skinned version of Christ. After a while, it changes to a familiar image of Fudo Myoo, reminiscent of a character from a manga by Osamu Tezuka. Then, it changes to a Tibetan-style deity, like a thangka painting. After that, it changes to the form of an archangel, located on the Earth's geostationary orbit, at least in my memory.

In Zen Buddhism, there is a saying, "When you meet the Buddha, cut off the Buddha." This probably refers to the state of meditation. In this case, when such an image appears, it is essentially just a temporary aid. So, "cutting off" might be an exaggeration, but it means not relying too much on the image. In my case, I remembered this saying and tried to "cut it off," and what was cut off was replaced by the next image. The order is as follows: when I cut off the white-skinned Christ, only the bones remained and it disappeared immediately. Then, the image of Fudo Myoo appeared. When I cut off Fudo Myoo, a Tibetan deity appeared. When I cut off the Tibetan deity, it changed to an archangel. However, the archangel could not be cut off. No matter how much I tried to cut it off, its existence was so real that I couldn't. Even when I tried to cut it off, the blade stopped just above the archangel's head, or even if it seemed to have been cut, there was no visible cut, and it remained there. Even when I tried to cut it off, my heart protested, saying that it was not good, and I couldn't bring myself to cut it. However, I tried to cut it off, as if I had to according to the teachings of Zen. But it seems that the final archangel does not need to be cut off, and rather, it is an important being that should not be cut off. When I tried to cut it off, the blade became soft and turned into a hazy mist around the archangel.

From this, I think that the archangel might be my true deity. I have always understood it that way, and since I can't cut it off, I think it might be the true form.

This means that there are various images of God, such as the white-skinned Christ, as an easily imaginable form, and that the true deity behind it is a certain archangel.

I think that the image of God and the actual deity are different things.

The true deity is so noble and wonderful that it is usually kept hidden and not touched. It makes sense to use the image of God as an Ishta-Devata, which can be used in daily life without being affected by external influences.

However, caution is needed at this time. If you are careless, you may mix your aura with that of other beings. Therefore, it is important to keep your aura close to you and not let it dissipate, and then perform the relinquishment to the "whole."

This is a very misunderstood area in spirituality. There is a misunderstanding that expanding one's aura is oneness or love, but this is quite different from the concept of relinquishing to the "whole." An aura cannot extend to the entire universe. Even if you try to expand your aura, it will gradually become thinner as it spreads. That is because an aura cannot become the infinite "whole." On the other hand, when you relinquish to the "whole," it happens at a deeper level, and it has little to do with the aura. Of course, the aura itself is also a part of the whole, but because it is a part of the whole, there is no need to deliberately expand the aura; it is already a part of the whole. Accepting that you, who were originally a part of the whole, are the whole, is the "relinquishment," and whether or not you are expanding your aura at that time is almost irrelevant.

The true oneness is the opposite of aura merging. It involves stabilizing your aura and keeping it close to you, rather than letting it dissipate. This allows you to connect with the infinite, which encompasses everything around you.

In contrast, aura merging, which is often practiced in spiritual circles, involves integrating your aura with others, especially those nearby. While this creates a sense of oneness between those individuals, it is different from the true oneness that connects you to the fundamental, infinite nature of all things.

The fundamental infinite encompasses "everything," including things that you and I may not know, things that are not visible to the eye, such as the "empty" space and matter. However, aura merging focuses on the integration of auras, particularly between living beings, and often with those nearby.

This is not to say that aura merging is inherently bad. It can be a valuable experience. However, it is important to understand that it is different from the true oneness.

When you experience oneness through aura merging, you are essentially integrating energies and karmas. While it may feel like everything is becoming one, it is only a partial integration. This means that energies, and even some karmas, can be exchanged.

For example, someone who is energetic may have their energy drained, while someone who is less energetic may receive energy from someone else and feel revitalized.

Conversely, someone may unknowingly receive the karmic burdens and conflicts of another person. In such cases, individuals may feel a sense of lightness and well-being after experiencing aura merging in spiritual seminars, but this may be due to receiving energy from someone else or having their own karmic conflicts taken on by someone else.

True spirituality emphasizes self-reliance. It encourages individuals to address their own problems and to avoid creating new karmas.

When people engage in aura merging and experience a sense of oneness, they may mistakenly believe that their problems have been resolved. However, in reality, they are simply being helped by others. If they do not use this experience as an opportunity to change their behavior and mindset, they may create new conflicts and karmas.

There are individuals who skillfully use techniques like aura merging to manipulate situations and get what they want. They may live their lives as they please, while shifting their karmic burdens onto others or draining the energy of those around them. While some of these individuals may be aware of what they are doing, others may not. It is important to be cautious of individuals or organizations that use the language of oneness and spirituality to exploit others or to seek out those they can manipulate.

While aura merging may be acceptable in certain situations, such as with family members who are committed to a shared path, it is generally best to avoid it unless you are fully aware of the potential consequences.

To reiterate, the true oneness involves stabilizing your aura and connecting with the infinite nature of everything around you. This connection can be experienced, but it is also a realization that you were always one with everything. It is as if a veil has been lifted, and you are now aware of the underlying unity. When you experience this true oneness, your heart will radiate with light.

While aura merging can also bring about a sense of joy and connection, it is often accompanied by a feeling of being surrounded by a hazy, undefined boundary. Your consciousness may expand, and you may receive impressions or intuitions about the person or thing you are connected to.

In contrast, the true oneness is characterized by a different kind of experience. It is as if an invisible horizon stretches out before you, seemingly far away, but also very close. You become aware of the vastness and depth of everything, without necessarily understanding any specific details.

When people talk about spirituality, they often focus on the unusual aspects, such as knowing or seeing things about others, which can seem quite novel. However, these are often related to various aspects of aura merging, and in the true, fundamental essence of spirituality, such things are not so strange.

Zen Master Dogen also said something like "enlightenment without wonder," and I believe that the fundamental basis of true enlightenment is something that is not strange.

I have gradually come to realize this over the past 30 years. At first, I was drawn to the unusual aspects, but I now understand that such novelty is different from the essence. The essence, I believe, is a state of being without wonder, which is the fundamental basis.

Manipur is also known as the solar plexus, and it refers to the love felt in the abdomen, the area around the navel, which is a love based on passion.

On the other hand, the love of Anahata is a love from the heart.

There is a clear difference between the two.

Below Manipur is Swadhisthana (sacral), which is a love based on sexuality. In each layer, love exists in different forms.

While all of these are generally expressed as love, they represent quite different aspects.

People start at one stage, but gradually learn the higher forms of love.

For example, some people start with the sexual love of Swadhisthana and then learn the passionate love of Manipur. Others start with the passionate love of Manipur and then learn the more universal love of Anahata.

In the Earth, most people seem to be at these three stages. There may be people who have reached higher stages, such as Christ, Buddha, or saints, but most people seem to be living with either sexual love or passionate love.

This is not to say that one is better or worse than the other; rather, there is something to learn at each stage.

Most people are at one of two stages: those who primarily experience sexual love, those who have a mix of sexual and passionate love, those who primarily experience passionate love, those who have a mix of passionate and universal love, and those who primarily experience universal love.

When there is a difference of two stages, it is less common. For example, if sexual love is active, universal love may not be as active, and vice versa.

However, it is possible to engage in sexual love, and the form of love may change depending on the stage of the partner. However, on Earth, there seem to be regions where sexual love is dominant and regions where passionate love is dominant.

It is rare for people to not experience sexual love at all; most people are at either the sexual or passionate love stage.

Because people at different stages of love experience love differently, misunderstandings often occur.

People who have universal love may see everyone as wonderful, and those who are attractive may be quite popular. However, this is not necessarily because they are in love with someone; it is simply because they have universal love.

Passionate love is easy to understand in Japan, and most Japanese people are at this stage.

People who are dominated by sexual love and do not understand passionate love tend to be more materialistic and focus on themselves. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is also necessary for people who are more spiritually developed to help those materialistic people grow.

There is a clear difference between people who live with sexual love and those who live with the universal love of the heart. However, in reality, people who live with sexual love but have good upbringing and manners may seem completely different from those who live with the universal love of the heart. This is a strange and interesting phenomenon. However, in reality, the difference is significant, although both are detached from passion and tend to act based on logic and reason, which makes them seem similar.

There are various combinations of couples:
- A man who lives with sexual love and a woman who lives with passionate love.
- A man who lives with passionate love and a woman who lives with sexual love.
- Both a man and a woman who live with sexual love.
- Both a man and a woman who live with passionate love.
- A man who lives with universal love and a woman who lives with passionate love.
- A man who lives with passionate love and a woman who lives with universal love.
- Both a man and a woman who live with universal love.

It seems difficult to maintain a relationship when there is a difference of two stages.

Ideally, both partners should be at the same stage, but sometimes one partner may awaken to a higher form of love while living together as a family, which makes things complicated.

In my opinion, it is acceptable to accept a partner who is one stage different. However, if there is a difference of two stages, it may lead to unhappiness and divorce. A difference of one stage may be unavoidable.

Although these are called stages, they are gradual changes, so there are some differences between men and women. Therefore, it may be acceptable to tolerate a difference of one stage.

It is necessary for one party to accept a slight difference in level, as the partner who is at a higher level will see the other as being at a lower level. Therefore, I think it is good to accept a difference of about one level. Otherwise, marriage is impossible. However, I am not currently married for various reasons. Many of my past lives' wives are happily living in the afterlife, and I am speaking based on those memories.

I think it is good to be with a wife with whom you can live happily together in this life or in the next life.

Over time, affection will develop, and you may be able to accept the negative aspects, or you may feel a desire to guide the other person in a better direction in the next life.

For example, in a past life, I was a man, and the first woman I dated was driven by physical love, and I was immersed in lust. I think she was very beautiful, and I often desired her body. However, even if I had affection or a higher level of love, I would be drawn to her physical love. In relationships, both parties are influenced by each other's levels, and one person can be drawn to the other's level. In that life, I thought I was tired of physical love, but I met the reincarnation of a wife from a previous life and fell in love, but I couldn't escape physical love, and I was in a two-timing situation, although I wasn't married at the time. That was eventually revealed, and it became quite a mess. However, the wife who was with me in a previous life continued to be with me even after she died and went to the afterlife. My former wife, who had such a long relationship with me, later wanted to free me from that lust, and when I was about to reincarnate, she volunteered to be my mother. As you can see, in long-term relationships, there is not only love in the form of marriage, but also being there for each other as friends or family.

Sometimes, you may be drawn to physical love, but basically, you will return to the level you were at before.

And basically, you are learning higher levels of love.

Even a one-level difference can significantly change the form of love, and a two-level difference can make it difficult for each other to understand. Therefore, I think that is probably the case.

It is said that in Japan and the world, relationships are often formed through romantic love, but that is based on love involving sex or emotions. When it comes to the universal love of the heart chakra, it is separate from that kind of love, so the form of love itself changes, and romantic love becomes less common, which makes it more difficult to get married through romantic love.

If most people have a fixed idea that love is not love unless it involves sex or emotions, then love will take that form. However, if you live with the universal love of the heart chakra, you may not be able to experience love unless you descend to the level of love involving sex or emotions, which can be a painful state.

There are not many people who have the universal love of the heart chakra, and even if their appearance is not bad, they are often quite popular, so you might think they would not struggle with love, but surprisingly, many of them are not interested in love. Of course, they have universal love, so they like everyone, but that is different from love involving sex or emotions.

As the number of people with the universal love of the heart chakra increases, romantic love will naturally decrease, and it is possible that things like arranged marriages or introductions will become more common again. Because everyone is capable of love, the focus will be on basic etiquette, intelligence, habits, and the living environment. This may seem like it is driven by money, but the economic aspect is also important for supporting life, but the main focus is on the other person's basic level of development. If the levels are too different, they will not be compatible, and it is unlikely that they will be exactly the same, but it is best if they are relatively close, and the difference is within one level.

I have heard stories about women from noble families, including former royalty, who were immersed in physical love being assigned as wives to priests in rural shrines. It seems like it would be quite difficult for a man who has affection to take in a woman who is immersed in physical love. Even a one-level difference can be quite difficult, so a two-level difference would likely be almost impossible, and it would probably be difficult for them to understand each other.

There's a saying, "A man's shame is not being offered a meal and refusing it," but a man who has awakened to universal love will refuse even a prepared meal. Then, the sexually driven men and women around him will often say, "He's not a real man," or "Is he a homosexual?" But that's not the case. There's a significant difference between a stage dominated by sexual desire and a stage of universal love. When it reaches that point, especially those lower down on the scale, they can hardly understand it. While those higher up can understand those lower down to some extent, universal love is a different way of life, separate from sexual desire. Therefore, even if a person driven by sexual desire cannot understand someone with universal love, it's understandable because they are on completely different levels of being.

In many cases, when we go about our daily lives, we perform automatic actions and think about other things while acting.

At that time, we are not in a state where we can feel the action itself. The state of being separated from the action itself is sometimes called "living in a state of distractions," "having many distractions," "living with afflictions," or, in some schools of thought, "being enveloped in ignorance."

All of these are saying the same thing, but the common point is that the action has become mechanical.

On the other hand, when we reach a state of stillness, the action itself becomes aligned with our own will.

This is different from feeling the sensations of the skin of the five senses. Although they may seem similar, they are quite different states.

Meditation that focuses on feeling the sensations of the skin is a different practice, and it is performed as a "moving meditation" in some Vipassana schools. For example, there is a meditation where you slowly walk and simply observe the movement, or a meditation where you broadcast the sensations while walking. However, what I am talking about here, "the action itself being aligned with one's own will," is not the "broadcasting" meditation that is practiced in some Vipassana schools.

When we are acting, there is naturally a chance that we will experience the sensations of the skin. However, the sensations of the skin are relatively unimportant, and the state where we can observe the will itself to move our body is what is meant here as "the action itself being aligned with one's own will."

This is because, in normal life, we tend to perceive that the action itself is aligned with our own will because the body is always present. However, I suspect that it is not actually that, but rather that we have begun to perceive the will itself that exists within us.

This could be called the soul, or, in some schools of thought, it could be called Atman (the individual consciousness) in Vedanta, or Purusha in Yoga.

While it is perceived as starting to perceive the action of the body, it is more likely that we are starting to perceive something like the soul or Atman.

Until now, I definitely found it easier to meditate with my eyes closed.

If I don't close my eyes, various things appear in my field of vision, and thoughts related to those things arise, and the information coming from my vision seemed to hinder entering a meditative state.

Once, I continued meditating with my eyes closed, then reached a state of stillness, and after that, if I continued my daily life in a state of stillness for a while, I could maintain a meditative state even with my eyes open. However, even in that case, there was still the need for meditation with my eyes closed as a foundation to support that state of stillness.

Some schools of thought have meditation techniques that are performed with your eyes open, but I didn't really understand those, and I thought that meditating with your eyes open was difficult.

However, recently, I've started to feel that meditating with my eyes open might be easier because I'm not distracted by extraneous thoughts.

I think this understanding came about only after I had established a foundation of stillness.

I've come to understand that it's only when you can live your daily life in a state of stillness that meditating with your eyes open might be easier.

When you are in a state of stillness, information coming from your field of vision enters your awareness as it is, and you can live your life by becoming the action itself. In that sense, daily life and seated meditation become quite similar.

On the other hand, even so, when I meditate with my eyes closed, even though I'm supposedly in a state of stillness, some extraneous thoughts still arise. For example, classical music might repeat, or a slight idea might pop up. These things don't really distract or bother me anymore, but a state of stillness is not a state where thoughts completely disappear, but rather a state where the absence of thoughts lasts much longer than the presence of thoughts. So, some ideas will inevitably appear.

In that way, when I close my eyes, these subtle ideas appear. However, by opening my eyes, those ideas feel much smaller.

This is probably just a difference in what you focus on during meditation. I think that even with meditation with your eyes closed, there may be a need to go deeper into more subtle aspects. However, just looking at ease, it seems that I have entered a stage where meditating with my eyes open is easier.

The ordinary mind is a thinking mind, filled with distractions and thoughts, while the mind's true nature, or "rikpa," is the observing mind.

This distinction becomes clearer with meditation, but initially, it may appear differently.

In the early stages of meditation, "will" refers to the ordinary mind, and the true nature of the mind, "rikpa," is either not perceived or recognized as the observing mind. Therefore, the classification is as follows:

- Ordinary mind → Thinking mind
- True nature of the mind (rikpa) → Observing mind

In a broad sense, this is the basic distinction. However, the ordinary mind also has aspects of action and observation, and the true nature of the mind, "rikpa," also has aspects of action and observation. Therefore, there are aspects of both will and awareness, so in reality, there is only one mind, not two. However, they appear to be different functions, so for the sake of simplicity in meditation, they are often classified as the ordinary thinking mind and the observing mind. This classification varies slightly depending on the school of thought, but generally, it is divided into the surface-level ordinary thinking mind and the deeper observing mind or will.

Therefore, while the classification is "thinking" and "observing," it is more accurate to understand that there is a surface mind and a true nature of the mind, with the surface mind being described as the thinking mind and the deeper mind being described as the observing mind. In reality, as mentioned above, both observation and will exist in each. However, they have different aspects, so this type of classification is often used in the meditation community.

In meditation, concentration meditation refers to the ordinary mind, while mindfulness meditation refers to meditation related to the true nature of the mind. Many schools of thought classify them in this way. However, as mentioned above, both the ordinary mind and the true nature of the mind have their own characteristics, and both will and awareness exist.

- Concentration meditation → Ordinary mind
- Mindfulness meditation → True nature of the mind (rikpa)

Some schools of thought divide meditation into concentration meditation and mindfulness meditation, while others describe it as a combination of concentration and observation. This can be confusing.

Concentration meditation often refers to the ordinary mind, but the concentration of will also exists in the true nature of the mind, "rikpa." Therefore, concentration meditation is actually a meditation on the function of focusing the mind's movement.

- Concentration meditation → The entire mind (both the ordinary mind and the true nature of the mind, "rikpa")

Similarly, mindfulness meditation can refer to the ordinary mind or the true nature of the mind, "rikpa," depending on the context.

- Mindfulness meditation → Ordinary mind, or the true nature of the mind, "rikpa"

When a single meditation is divided into concentration and observation, it generally focuses on the aspects of concentration and observation of the ordinary mind. However, as meditation progresses, the same description can often be applied to the true nature of the mind, "rikpa."

- True nature of the mind (rikpa) → Concentration and observation

Perhaps the most understandable explanation comes from the Tibetan and Vedanta traditions. The Tibetan tradition distinguishes between the ordinary mind and the true nature of the mind, "rikpa," while the Vedanta or Yoga tradition describes the thinking mind as "antahkarana," which includes the mind's cognitive abilities (the five senses) and thinking abilities (buddhi). On the other hand, the true nature of the mind is described in Vedanta as "satt," one of the three elements of Atman (chit, sat, ananda), with "satt" representing "will." Since "satt" is not thought but will, it resonates with the deep part of the mind that is more like will than thought when recognized in meditation.

- Ordinary mind → Antahkarana (buddhi = cognition, chitta)
- True nature of the mind (rikpa) → Atman (chit, sat, ananda)

These explanations are a mixture of descriptions from various schools of thought, so someone from those specific traditions might say, "What is this?" However, from a practical perspective, understanding these commonalities can be helpful.

Recently, I feel that the influence of the true nature of the mind has become stronger than the influence of ordinary mental functions. This was not the case a while ago, but recently, the balance has shifted, and the influence of the true nature of the mind has become more dominant. Specifically, I realize that the force that pulls me back into a meditative state is stronger than the force that pulls me out of it, even during normal daily activities.

Of course, there are times when I am very tired, and this is not the case. However, in normal daily life without significant stress, there is a constant force that pulls my consciousness towards a meditative state.

Previously, the force that pulled me away from the meditative state was stronger. While it was relatively balanced recently, the force that pulls me away from the meditative state was stronger overall. However, recently, the force that pulls me into a meditative state has become a constant presence in my daily life, although it is not yet very strong.

Therefore, in the past, after finishing meditation, I would unconsciously slip out of the meditative state. Now, even during work, I sometimes notice it, or I feel that I am easily drawn back into a meditative state during daily activities.

This state has allowed me to clearly recognize that I am not just a physical body, but Atman (the true self) as pure consciousness (Sat).

When Atman acts as pure consciousness, the action itself becomes unified with its own true nature, or Atman. This can be called a unification, and in the language of yoga, it would be described as "finding one's center" or "being aware of one's center." The center in yoga is sometimes referred to as "Purusha" based on the Samkhya philosophy, but I believe it is the same thing.

By clearly realizing that Atman is one's true nature, and with Atman becoming more dominant than the thinking mind, I feel increasingly liberated and free.

Previously, when my meditation practice was not as advanced, I recognized Atman as a "feeling" or an "observing consciousness." However, recently, I have become aware of Atman as a real presence within me, a conscious will that drives me.

Atman is what gives me life, and Atman's will moves my body, decides what I do, and Atman is me. I clearly understand that Atman exists within my chest. It is not just a feeling, but a real "will" that moves my body and is the fundamental will that drives my thoughts. Atman is clearly and undeniably real.

This is not just a matter of logic. While studying and understanding it intellectually can help, that is only for explanation. The essence is that this can only be understood through actual meditation, and not just as a temporary experience, but as a permanent state.

Some schools of thought use the word "understanding" to describe this. However, this is not just understanding, but a realization. The word "understanding" seems insufficient. Some schools of thought use phrases like "knowledge arises" or "knowledge manifests." However, even that is insufficient, because clearly perceiving something is a permanent experience that cannot be understood simply by the mind. It is important to experience it, and it is a certain, permanent, and irreversible state change that leaves no room for doubt. Although it takes a long explanation to express it in words, the essence is much simpler: it is a clear realization that the words in the scriptures are true.

This can be clearly recognized in a state of stillness. As purification progresses and stillness is achieved, one eventually becomes aware of Atman.

Atman and awareness are not separate; Atman itself is awareness. There is no separation between my perception of Atman and Atman itself. What is within my chest is awareness, and that is what I realize is Atman. Therefore, I do not possess Atman; I realize that my own awareness is Atman.

I began to realize that I am Atman (the true self) through the feeling that my consciousness is directly moving my body.

In short, I became aware of "I am Atman."

Recently, not only have I been experiencing a slow-motion perception of my surroundings, but also a heightened awareness of my physical sensations. Furthermore, I've started to feel a direct connection, as if the consciousness in my heart is directly moving each part of my body.

This might be something that people would simply say "hmm" to, or something that would be dismissed with a "Of course. What's so special about that?" or "Isn't that normal?" The idea that consciousness or the mind moves a person is common knowledge, especially in Japan, and it's often something that people would simply gloss over with a "Hmm, I suppose so. Maybe."

There's a huge difference between knowing something intellectually and actually experiencing it.

Directly recognizing that consciousness is moving the body is, in other words, realizing that the mind is moving the body. While "mind" encompasses various things like consciousness, awareness, emotions, and memories, "consciousness" is a more appropriate term here, as it's a conscious awareness that's moving the body.

This consciousness isn't just concentrated in the area around the heart; it's spread throughout the entire body. It's as if the body is filled with consciousness, and that consciousness is directly moving the body. It's not as if some distant consciousness is remotely controlling the body like a remote control; instead, consciousness is superimposed on the body, and that superimposed consciousness is directly moving the body.

I hadn't been aware of this before.

Logically, I probably always had this ability to move my body with consciousness, but even if I logically deduced that it was true, I didn't have the vivid feeling of experiencing it as I do now.

The feeling of directly manipulating the body's movements has gradually appeared since I started experiencing a slow-motion perception of my surroundings. Even then, I thought I was experiencing a much more heightened sense of physical sensation compared to before, but compared to the direct feeling I have now, that feeling was still quite dull.

Sometimes, it's difficult to put it into words, but there's a difference of several levels between the feeling of seeing things in a stop-motion sequence and the direct feeling I have now. Even when I saw things in slow motion, I couldn't identify the Atman (the true self) that's hidden in my heart, and it seemed like it was just my senses becoming sharper.

This time, my senses have become somewhat sharper, but what's even more important is that a consciousness of creation, destruction, and maintenance has emerged from the depths of my heart, which is like the Atman. This Atman, which was previously just a presence in the depths of my heart, now seems to have become a "consciousness" that's moving.

According to Vedanta, Atman is Sat-Chit-Ananda, and it's often said that Sat is existence, Chit is consciousness, and Ananda is bliss. However, until now, I only recognized it as a feeling of heat and energy, but now, Chit (consciousness) seems to have appeared.

It seems that the feeling of the Atman's Chit (consciousness) moving the body has emerged.

Perhaps this is what it means when Vedanta says, "You are Atman."

However, the Atman also has elements of Sat and Ananda, which are generally translated as existence and bliss. The true meaning of Sat is something that exists unchanging, transcending past and future. Therefore, I wonder if my Atman can consciously transcend time. While I sometimes unintentionally transcend time during dreams or meditation, I don't think I can consciously transcend space-time. That's something I still need to work on. I suspect there will be a stage where I can consciously transcend time.

Also, Ananda is generally translated as bliss, but its true meaning is "fullness." While I feel a sense of "fullness" within my individual body, I don't yet feel that "fullness" towards the world around me. So, I think there's still a long way to go. According to Vedanta, the individual self is Atman, which is the Sat-Chit-Ananda of the individual self. However, there's also the Sat-Chit-Ananda of the "whole," which is called Brahman. It's said that in Vedanta and yoga, people initially believe they are Atman, but then realize that Atman and Brahman are one. So, I'm still at the stage of realizing myself as an individual Atman.

People often say "unity of person and horse," but in this case, it's not about a person and a horse, but about one's mind and the body. It feels like a state that could be called "unity of mind and person" or "harmony of body and mind."

"Harmony of body and mind" is a phrase from Dogen, but when I researched it, the original meaning of Dogen's "harmony of body and mind" seems to have various interpretations, and it might not be what I thought. However, based on the meaning of the words themselves, it's possible that it's saying the same thing. Dogen's words contain truth in various places, and this phrase might be one of them.

When I say things like this, there are always some people who say, "You're just making up a story that sounds familiar," or "You're just imagining it," or "You're just saying it like that because you think it sounds cool." However, in reality, this phrase is often used by Ramana Maharshi, so it's very well-known, and I've known about it for a long time, having read several books about it. The same thing is also said in Vedanta, so I've known about it for a long time. And from that time on, I haven't been particularly interested in it, and I haven't imagined myself as being that way or said it like that as a fashion statement. As far as I can remember, I usually felt a sense of wonder and a somewhat cool attitude, and I responded with something like, "Hmm," or "Well, maybe," or "That's correct, but why do you keep repeating that thing so often and with such a confident tone?"

Therefore, it's impossible for me to bring up this topic now and feel like it's a fashion statement or imagine it as something that sounds good. For me, it's very old knowledge, and I only had a vague awareness that Ramana Maharshi used to say something like that. When I studied Vedanta, the same story came up, but I mostly ignored it, saying, "Hmm. Well, maybe."

However, when I actually experienced that state, it was precisely the words that were appropriate and perfectly described it. "I am Atman" is a phrase that I think best represents the state where consciousness and the body are directly connected.

Of course, there are people who have lived like this from birth, and there are many people who live like this naturally. In that case, it's probably very natural. Since I only know about myself, I live within my own sense of normalcy, and what I think is normal is actually true and normal in some cases, but on the other hand, there are times when what I think is normal is not actually the case. That's where the difficulty lies in recognizing.

It's very different between understanding something with your head and actually experiencing that state. It's not something you can achieve just by understanding it; understanding is just a foundation or a logical explanation for it. You can only confidently say, "I am Atman," when you are convinced that consciousness, which is Atman, is directly connected to the body.

The Yoga Sutra states the following in its opening:

(2) Stopping the fluctuations of the mind is yoga.
(3) Then, the observer (self) abides in its own nature.
From "Integral Yoga" by Swami Satchidananda.

(2) Yoga is the cessation of the fluctuations of consciousness (chitta).
(3) Then the observer (purusha) is unshaken, abiding in its own nature.
From "Raja Yoga" by Swami Vivekananda.

On the other hand, Ramana Maharshi says, "I am the Self (Atman)."

The state of constantly experiencing being-consciousness through a quiet mind is samadhi. (Omitted) You realize that you are moved by a deeper inner Self. (Omitted) The sages say that only the silence of the absence of self is the pinnacle of knowledge of truth, the unmoved samadhi (silent samadhi). Until you reach the state of no-self, the unmoved samadhi, seek only to eliminate the "I."
From "I Am That" by Ramana Maharshi.

These seemingly different words are actually saying the same thing.

The Yoga Sutra says that when the "fluctuations" of the mind are calmed, the purusha (the observer) appears.
On the other hand, Ramana Maharshi says that when you remain in a state of quiet mind, you realize that you are moved by a deeper inner Self.

The Yoga Sutra is based on Samkhya philosophy, so it uses the word purusha. Although there are some differences in the concepts, if you want to grasp the general idea, you can think of it as something similar to the Self (Atman) or soul.

Both say that when the fluctuations of the mind are calmed, the purusha (the observer) or the Self (Atman) appears.

Although the steps may be slightly different, they are essentially saying the same thing.

Therefore, although they are the same, it seems that these are often understood as separate things in the world.

The Yoga Sutra is associated with yoga practices that involve physical movement, while Ramana Maharshi is understood as a path of Jnana (knowledge) exploration in the Vedanta tradition.

Indeed, the methodologies are different, and Ramana Maharshi guides people through the method of Self-exploration without asanas (physical postures).

However, the result is the same in that both involve calming the mind and discovering the purusha or the Self (Atman).

I may receive criticism from strict people for saying this, but I think this understanding is acceptable for now. Even if it seems different, there are often things that are actually the same because the essence is simple.

Regarding this point, for example, people in the Vedanta tradition of India generally do not accept the Yoga Sutra. They say that the Yoga Sutra is only a part that has been cut out, and that the original form remains, and that it has been distorted by later people for their own ego, so it should not be trusted.

However, it is normal for not all of the original texts to remain, and even if only a part remains, there is truth in it.

There are debates about the authenticity of such scriptures everywhere, and this kind of thing is often said in the Bible. Nevertheless, the true stories remain.

In reality, you cannot succeed by reading anything unless you think for yourself and judge based on your own experience. This is the same in the real world, whether it is business or academia, or the pursuit of truth. There is a difference in growth between those who believe in books as absolute truths and those who trust books but ultimately make their own judgments.

In my opinion, the content of the Yoga Sutra is generally correct, but there are many misunderstandings in its interpretation, and it is quite difficult to read as is.

In reality, Ramana Maharshi is recognized as a sage and is basically classified as a path of Jnana (knowledge) exploration in the Vedanta tradition, but he is actually different from the orthodox Vedanta schools. There is a misunderstanding about that.

People in the Vedanta schools do not emphasize experience, but rather strictly deny "experience" itself, believing that only "knowledge" can achieve Moksha (liberation, enlightenment).

Therefore, it seems that while Ramana Maharshi was relatively flexible and understood yoga, the more strictly one studies Vedanta, the less likely they are to accept yoga, especially the Yoga Sutras.

The moksha that the Vedanta school speaks of is a state of freedom, and I think that moksha (freedom) is the same as the realization of the true self that Ramana Maharshi talks about. (I have not yet studied Vedanta deeply, but that is my current understanding.)

So, from what I have seen, both the Yoga Sutras and Vedanta seem to be saying the same thing.

Although Vedanta is certainly more logically structured, it seems that it is more understandable to modern people. And ultimately, they are the same thing. If one starts from the path of yoga as a form of exercise or physical postures (asanas) that is currently popular in the world, then starting with the Yoga Sutras may eventually lead to the same destination, which is samadhi or moksha.

Although they may seem different at first glance, to me, Ramana Maharshi, the Yoga Sutras, and Vedanta seem quite similar.

India is surprisingly conservative, and although the caste system has been abolished, it is still deeply rooted in society. In particular, the conservative Vedanta schools are composed of the upper caste Brahmins, while the people who practice asana yoga are relatively from the lower castes, so there are fundamental incompatibilities.

Therefore, it will take time for these different Vedanta and yoga traditions in India to understand and coexist with each other. Perhaps it is because we, as Japanese people who are looking from the outside, that we can find common ground between them. When you go to places like Rishikesh in India, they are basically conservative and organized into caste-based groups, but recently, among people who speak English and interact with foreigners, mutual understanding between the two sides seems to be progressing. When I talk to the teachers of ashrams that accept foreigners, I can see that people who practice yoga are studying Vedanta, and that people in the Vedanta school are becoming more understanding of yoga. Therefore, I don't think they need to fight each other so much. However, the fact is that there is a deep division in Indian society.

If you don't take into account the social hierarchy of such a society, for example, someone who has studied Vedanta in India may bring the Indian customs and ways of thinking to Japan and say things like, "The Yoga Sutras are not a good scripture." However, this is simply because India is divided by caste and there is no interaction between them, so there is no mutual understanding. We, as Japanese people, can go to either side, so I think it is better to understand the good aspects of both.

Personally, I think that we should not bring the bad aspects of India, such as the caste system and conservatism, to Japan, but rather bring only the good aspects of Vedanta and yoga to Japan.

As a foreigner and a Japanese person, when I look at the Yoga Sutras and Vedanta, or Ramana Maharshi in India, the methods may be different, but both seem to lead to the same destination.

Those who have studied conservatively in India may have objections to this opinion, but from what I have seen, based on my own experience, I think it can be said that they are the same.

1. Intense focus, a state of flow. Intense joy and absorption. A state of unstable energy.
2. A shift towards quiet joy. The vision becomes like a movie.
3. A temporary state of silence. Energy stabilization. The beginning of coexistence with deep stillness.
4. Awakening of the heart. It appears in the depths of the heart as "creation, destruction, and maintenance."
5. The "consciousness" of the heart is moving the body, and that is the Atman (true self). This is the state of self-realization, a state of unity of mind and body.

There are actually more subtle stages, but if we pick out the main points, these are the steps.

In yoga, discussions about energy instability or stabilization are often expressed in various ways, such as the awakening of kundalini or energy blockages. In the stages leading up to energy stabilization, yoga asanas (exercises) are very helpful, and "concentration" is fundamental in meditation.

Meditation basically starts with "concentration," and it is preferable to continue concentrating for as long as possible until the state of stillness is achieved.

Even in the initial stage, meditation concentration is effective, especially because there are many distractions at the beginning, making it difficult to concentrate. However, by continuing even a little concentration, the energy will eventually stabilize. Not only does the energy stabilize, but it is also blocked in various parts of the body, and yoga asanas help to remove these blockages.

Thus, first, the energy is stabilized, and the state of stillness is reached.

After that, the heart awakens, initially as a sensation accompanied by a feeling of warmth, and it is recognized as "creation, destruction, and maintenance." Recently, the heart has shifted from being recognized as "creation, destruction, and maintenance" to being recognized as "consciousness," and I have realized that "will" is the "Atman (self)."

Only then can one recognize that "I am the Atman (self)."

If this is what is called "self-awareness," I now realize that it is a rather profound word.

It can also be called "deep stillness," "silence," or "self-awareness" or "self-realization," or "I am the Atman (self)," and it may seem like separate topics, but from the perspective of the meditation ladder, they are all referring to the same stage.

I feel that the stage of self-realization, where I realize that I am the Atman, is the same stage as moksha (liberation) in Vedanta, but I am not sure if that is definitely the case. That is something that needs to be verified in the future. Currently, it is the stage of realizing the Atman as an "individual," so, theoretically, there is a stage of union with Brahman, which is the "whole," after this. Therefore, moksha (liberation) may mean the union with Brahman, but even so, this self-awareness almost completely frees one from various bonds, so it seems like it is close to the ultimate goal of moksha (liberation) in Vedanta. I would like to observe this further.

By the way, this self-realization is often translated as "self-actualization," but I feel that there is a misunderstanding. It seems that "self-actualization" has become established in the spiritual world, but I suspect that it was originally a mistranslation. If we are referring to this state, it is more accurate to say "self-awareness" rather than "self-actualization." Self-realization is the realization that one is the Atman. Of course, this term is used in various places, so there may be places where it is used with different meanings. However, if we use it in the context of enlightenment, I think this interpretation is correct. Self-actualization is a term in psychology and has a different meaning, and I think that someone mistranslated self-realization as self-actualization, and that is how it spread. What do you think?

This stage of self-awareness of the Atman can also be called enlightenment or awakening, but this stage of self-awareness is much simpler, more straightforward, and more mundane, so it doesn't quite fit the glamorous image of enlightenment or awakening that is often seen. It is so mundane that it is easy to miss, but in reality, this self-awareness seems to be the most important thing.

However, although it is mundane, it improves mental clarity and makes things easier to see. Therefore, it is not entirely wrong to call it enlightenment or awakening, but the person themselves would feel that it is very mundane. It is mundane, but clear and refreshed, so the person would say something like, "It's normal," "It's the same as everyone else," or "It's just a matter of course." However, in reality, it is different from the state before awakening. It is a bit different from the glamorous image of enlightenment or awakening that is rumored in the world, and the reality is quite mundane. I have to say that to avoid misunderstandings.

Perhaps it is a state where subtlety and clarity coexist.

Ultimately, the only difference is whether one has become aware of their own Atman, and there are various things that accompany that, such as becoming more conscious and able to see and think about things clearly. However, fundamentally, it is only a difference in the awareness of the Atman. In reality, the scriptures say that it is as if one is already aware of it from the beginning, so nothing has changed; it is simply a matter of becoming aware. Therefore, it can be said that there is nothing that has changed in terms of existence, or that only the perception has changed.

However, I feel that it is not yet "enlightenment" in the essential sense. Perhaps "enlightenment" refers to the union with Brahman. There are various types of enlightenment depending on the school of thought, but personally, I feel that that is what is most appropriate for the term "enlightenment."

My purpose in this lifetime is to resolve karma and to verify the stages of awakening. Now, most of the stages have become clear, and I believe that my purpose is almost achieved.

Originally, I understood Samadhi, which involves the emergence of the so-called "rikupa," the true nature of the mind, as "observation."

Initially, when the mind becomes calm and still, a state of relaxation and tranquility arises. In this state of tranquility, concentration is not necessary. Although meditation is practiced to achieve this state of tranquility, concentration is stopped once that state is reached, and the process transitions to observation. In this state of observation, the various sensations of the body are recognized not only through the skin but also as subtle, minute observations of the body's movements.

Recently, I've noticed that after initially engaging in concentration meditation, continuing in that state of relaxation leads to an even deeper state, where "will" or "intention" exists within Samadhi, rather than just "observation."

Meditation is often discussed in terms of concentration and observation, and these two concepts can be summarized as "zikan." While the interpretation of these two concepts is nuanced, fundamentally, concentration is understood as the concentration of the ordinary, thinking mind of the conscious mind. This is the concentration of consciousness through what is called "buddhi" or "manas" in yoga.

Many terms like "will" and "consciousness" appear here, which may cause confusion. However, when "concentration" is mentioned in meditation, it refers to the act of concentrating the conscious mind, the ordinary thinking mind, on a single point. Similarly, when "observation" is mentioned, it is based on the five senses of the conscious mind, and in addition, more subtle internal sensations are added to the act of observation.

This is the basic understanding: concentration or observation is based on the conscious mind, and observation includes even more subtle sensations. In Samadhi, the true nature of the mind, "rikupa," exists, and "rikupa" recognizes and observes the body.

However, recently, I've realized that "rikupa" not only observes but also possesses consciousness, and that this consciousness is what drives everything about me, including my body and thoughts.

This process occurs in stages. When the mind is in a chaotic and tired state, the consciousness of "rikupa" is not as prominent, and "rikupa" primarily functions as observation. However, upon repeated meditation and reaching a state of tranquility, "rikupa" emerges not only as observation but also as "will."

This seems to be related to the progress of meditation. Previously, "rikupa" as observation only appeared after reaching a state of tranquility.

Recently, "rikupa" as observation tends to be present almost constantly, and when a state of tranquility is reached, "rikupa" as "will" emerges.

This "rikupa" as "will" tends to be more continuous. While "rikupa" as observation appeared for a relatively short time, this "rikupa" as "will" lasts for a longer period. However, after a while, the state gradually diminishes, so repeated meditation and reaching a state of tranquility allow one to return to "rikupa" as "will."

This "rikupa" as "will" can be described as Samadhi. Specifically, it is the feeling that consciousness is directly moving the body, which is a fundamental change in one's being.

Therefore, it is not something to be manipulated directly, but rather a fundamental change in one's foundation.

I said "change," but in terms of feeling, it is a change.

However, according to scriptures, this is not a change but rather an inherent quality that was simply hidden.

Even so, in terms of personal recognition through meditation, it is perceived as a change. While scriptures can explain that it is not a change but rather a manifestation of something that was originally present, the explanation differs depending on whether it is being described in terms of scriptural knowledge or practical experience. However, in reality, it is saying the same thing.

In this way, when "rikupa," the true nature of the mind, emerges, it initially appears as a function of observation, and eventually, it emerges as consciousness.

In spiritual terms, "rikupa," the true nature of the mind, can be called the spirit or soul, and metaphorically, it can be described as "surrendering to the spirit."

In spiritual terms, it is called "surrendering," but in reality, this "spirit," "rikupa," or the soul is the true self. The realization that one was living with the conscious mind as the primary identity is a delusion. Therefore, what is being "surrendered" is the conscious mind, which previously believed itself to be the self. In reality, the spirit has always been the true self, and the spirit has been the one driving oneself, but the conscious mind has been mistakenly identifying itself as the self.

When reading books, the state where this "spirit" self is moving is a state of awakening, and the state where conscious awareness controls me is called "ignorance."

Therefore, when you say "ignorance," you might think it's about knowledge, but in reality, "ignorance" here means self-awareness, not knowledge.

The understanding of this concept varies among different schools of thought. Some schools believe that studying diligently will dispel ignorance through understanding. These schools further have various approaches, with some aiming to achieve samadhi (liberation) by actually dispelling ignorance through understanding, while others say that simply understanding it is enough.

From my perspective, simply understanding is not enough. What is truly important is the transition from a state of "ignorance" to a state where the spirit is oneself.

Some schools say that the knowledge of scriptures (Vedanta) is a tool to dispel ignorance. Indeed, I believe that it is more important to escape the state of ignorance through knowledge and understanding and to live as the spirit self, rather than knowledge itself being important.

In this way, scriptures can help to escape the state of ignorance, and of course, meditation becomes important as a foundation. However, meditation itself and scriptures are just means, and ultimately, it is important that ignorance is dispelled, the true nature of the mind, so-called "rikpa," appears, and a state of samadhi is achieved, leading to living as a spirit.

■ "Stopping" Meditation
Sanskrit: Shamatha
Tibetan: Shiné

■ "Insight" Meditation
Sanskrit: Vipassanā
Tibetan: Lhathong

Concentrative meditation (omitted) involves focusing the mind on a specific object and then gradually relaxing that concentration, which is called Shamatha in Sanskrit and Shiné in Tibetan, meaning "tranquil abiding" (Shi). In contrast, when dealing with the movement of thoughts, it is called Vipassanā in Sanskrit and Lhathong in Tibetan. "Tibetan Buddhist Meditation" by Namkai Norbu.

According to the book, it seems that, according to the Tibetan Buddhist classification, the state of Vipassanā, which is "insight," is not classified as Samadhi or meditation.

Indeed, I have now realized that this classification makes sense.

Until now, I had classified "stopping" as concentration and "insight" as Samadhi, and I had categorized the Samadhi of "insight" as the time when the true nature of the mind, Rigpa, manifests.

However, when applying this classification, both "stopping" and "insight" are not Samadhi, and both are simply ways of dealing with the movement of thoughts.

This was a revelation, and I feel that by reclassifying things as described above, the state becomes clearer.

Indeed, the approach of "insight" and the true nature of the mind (Rigpa) are completely different, so I feel that this Tibetan Buddhist classification is more clear.

■ Previously
The understanding was that observation meditation (Vipassanā) has different meanings depending on the context, and that the method of observation meditation (Vipassanā) is actually the same as concentration meditation, and that Vipassanā can sometimes mean Samadhi.
Concentration meditation includes Shamatha, Shiné, and the method of observation meditation (Vipassanā) (of course, this is not Samadhi).

■ Classification based on Tibetan Buddhism
As mentioned above, observation meditation is a meditation that deals with the movement of thoughts and does not include Samadhi.
Concentration meditation includes Shamatha and Shiné (of course, this is not Samadhi).

This classification feels more clear.

Indeed, I was influenced by the explanations I have heard in various places, where "observation meditation" is described in relation to Samadhi, but it feels more clear to understand that Samadhi is a state of awakening due to the true nature of the mind, Rigpa, and that the meditation that deals with the movement of thoughts is the one described above.

■ Before Samadhi
Meditation involving concentration (Shamatha, Shiné).
Meditation that observes the movement of thoughts (Vipassanā, Lhathong).

■ Samadhi
A state of awakening where the true nature of the mind, Rigpa, is active.

Although there may be various classifications depending on the school, I feel that this classification is more clear.

I had read about Lhathong many times in books on the Dzogchen system, but I didn't quite understand the descriptions of Lhathong, and I had been mostly ignoring them. However, now it seems that Lhathong has become clear, and the interpretations of Vipassanā (insight) in the Theravada tradition and Lhathong (insight) from the Tibetan tradition have connected within me.

In the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the term "meditation" (which corresponds to Samadhi) is often associated with the explanation of Vipassanā. Until now, I have understood this based on that explanation, but it seems that it causes a lot of confusion. Rather, this Tibetan classification seems to align better with my own sense.

In the classification of the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the concept of "enlightenment" (which corresponds to the enlightenment of an Arhat) seems ambiguous, and it seems to be defined in a vague way that can be interpreted to mean anything. (I apologize to those who are actually practicing. This is a personal opinion.) I can now understand the descriptions in the Theravada tradition, and I think they are correct, but the expressions used in the Theravada and Vipassanā traditions are difficult to interpret, and I think I had a misunderstanding.

On the other hand, based on this Tibetan definition, the word "enlightenment" is not used, but the awakened Samadhi is a state where the true nature of the mind, Rigpa, is active, which is very clear and obvious.

Until I actually experience that state through meditation, it is difficult to judge what is correct, but it seems that the descriptions in the Tibetan tradition are more accurate, less likely to be misunderstood, and more correct.