Why are directly opposing viewpoints or advice given in this field always explained away as if it makes perfect sense to someone that somehow has had this ‘realization’? For example, just the other day I saw a little picture of a poem on one of these subs and one of the pieces of advice in it was to not seek inner quietude at all. However, supposed sages like Ramana Maharshi would say to stop every thought in its tracks, thus rendering you completely silent. Often times there will be completely conflicting pieces of information given on this entire topic.

Why closer to sleeping or waking up does the mind appear to be most silent for me and visual perception appear to be the most dream-like or particle-y? On one hand it seems that taking my contacts out at night is a naturally obvious explanation but there’s something that lends itself to make me contemplate Advaita at times like laying in bed in the dark. I don’t know how to explain this but it’s almost like the sense of quiet gets amplified and the dial of that quality gets turned up during these times. Almost like I can visually see silence.

Why is it that every ‘teacher’ I trusted the most to guide me to my supposed salvation always turned out to be some weird sex cultist or hack or grifter? Examples are Mooji or Nirgun John. With John he would just straight up give terribly wrong information and would get mad in the comments if I pointed it out to him. He also has a PayPal on his website, amplifying the sense of the grift. One time I asked him about something I read N. Maharaj saying where he said the “I Am” is fraudulent. When I told John that he called me a liar essentially. I was merely asking about something I read; I wasn’t making it up. So he made me feel bad about it. Then a year later in a John video I can see John saying the same thing he got mad at me for quoting, calling the I Am fraudulent. What gives? There’s many such examples of his ridiculous antics. Another one I can immediately remember is how he uses UG K. As an example for someone that would agree with him about Advaita and all that. However UG K hated this field. He would say stuff like consciousness is a pretentious word, meditation can put you in a looney bin, you are nothing more than the biological organism, and many more such things that are in direct opposition to Advaita Vedanta. Some other examples being UG saying that the phenomenon of AUM is only the sound of blood flow or him saying any spiritual goal is actually only material in nature. When I confronted John about this in his comments, he ended up calling me a fool. And for what? I was merely pointing out something drastically confusing. If UG would say all of these things, why would John use him as an example? UG briefly touted Advaita-like stuff after his supposed calamity experience but that quickly got cleared out of his system, where he then took on the whole biological approach. UG even would say he is unsure about the existence of God yet John is absolutely sure, and even got mad at me in the comments and in his videos when I pointed out that it was something I was unsure of myself. Honestly I don’t even pursue anything more than an empty mind nowadays because everyone that I trusted to guide me turned out to not be trustworthy.

The largest breakthrough I’ve ever had was one time meditating at night. It was completely dark, but for a brief moment of unserious meditation, bright inner lights were seen, albeit only for a few seconds. Why the tease? Why nothing else even though years of contemplation and eschewing thoughts? Why do people say that the self loves this process? This isn’t fun to be placed in or to be in complete ignorance in the slightest.