KRIYA YOGA EXPLAINED BY ALSIBAR

Alsibar is a researcher who has extensively studied spiritual guides, and regarding the question "What is Kriya Yoga?", he gave the following answer in this video:

 

And here's my translation:

«  The word "kriya" means action, ritual or practice.

According to Yogananda, the instructor who popularized this technique in the West, Kriya Yoga is a scientific method for achieving Divine realization.

This powerful tool was kept secret for a long time, originally passed down personally from guru to disciple. Eventually, Yogananda's organization (Self-Realization Fellowship) began teaching it through correspondence courses. The success was enormous, but so was the disappointment.

The problem is that many people already knew this secret technique by another name, but they didn't realize it. In fact, many people thought, and still think, that Kriya Yoga is simply a breathing, focus, and concentration technique designed to control prana, or vital energy, and that by practicing it diligently, a person would quickly enjoy the benefits of spiritual enlightenment.

But that's where the great disappointment came in because Kriya Yoga is not limited to the method; the techniques themselves, such as energizing techniques, are only one part of Kriya Yoga, which involves, among other things, a correct lifestyle, effort, balance, willpower, mental control, austerity, good deeds, meditation, prayer, mantras, faith, devotion, etc.

In essence, Kriya Yoga involves not only a set of tools for controlling vital energy, but primarily a life rooted in the spiritual heights of Patanjali's Yoga or the Buddha's Eightfold Path.

That is why many people were disappointed to discover that the technique Yogananda promoted as the scientific path to God was nothing more than the ancient principles already taught by other great masters of the past, such as Buddha, Patanjali, Jesus, etc., and that it would not be easy for anyone to follow that path.

But ultimately, is there any technique that leads to God?

Obviously not, because if that were the case, anyone who practiced such techniques would achieve divine perception.

As Krishnamurti said, "Truth is a pathless land," therefore, no path, method, technique, or system can lead you to God.

So why did teachers like Christ, Buddha, and Patanjali point out paths?

The paths indicated by the great Masters do not seek to lead man directly to God; they only prepare and create the conditions for the truth to manifest itself.

Its manifestation depends on two things: action and grace. Action prepares the ground for grace to manifest at the opportune moment; no one knows the time or place, but it will happen when the person is properly prepared—prepared to receive the impact of the energy of cosmic consciousness or divine consciousness.

Kriya Yoga is therefore not a scientific technique that reveals God, because the unknown is not subject to anything or anyone; it can manifest itself at will, to whomever it wants and whenever it wants, regardless of anything.

However, paths such as Kriya Yoga, the Buddha's Eightfold Path, and Patanjali's Yoga help prepare the aspirant's mind and spirit, creating the ideal conditions for the advent of Truth.

But nothing is guaranteed at all; this is not the field of science, but of spirituality, whose laws are completely different.

Knowing and accepting this fact is already a great step towards the long - awaited final goal. »

COMMENTS

Silva: The ego loves technique, and with technique, "having" would continue to overshadow "being." Thank you for the lesson.

Paulo: Technology diminishes life. Our professor is reading your book, Lumina. How amazed I am by this universe of possibilities and peculiarities called the path of enlightenment! How life reveals, in the encounter with truth, its greatest beauty, which is its plural manifestation.

Miguel: I believe technique prepares the ground and grace fertilizes it. But I have a Lahiri Mahasaya pamphlet on Kriya with practices that greatly affect our energy. :( That's the real problem.)

Bruno: Hi Alsibar, the topic of the video is very interesting. In fact, I wanted to ask you something that came to mind while I was listening. Ramana Maharshi said, in other words, that we are already naturally everything we seek spiritually, because the divine is in everything. In the video, it says that the unknown manifests at a certain point in a person's life, depending on the circumstances. So, is there any difference between the unknown and the divine in this context? Could we say that the unknown is, in reality, the clarity that we already are that?

Alsibar:  Hi Bruno, how are you? In fact, we are all already a manifestation of divine consciousness. What we lack is this perception, the understanding of what Krishnamurti called the manifestation of Truth.

When someone experiences this beyond mere intellectual understanding, it produces what people call enlightenment. But it requires direct experience.

Warm greetings and thank you for your participation.

Pablo: Alsibar, from what I've learned in Self Yoga classes, the technique is only taught in person, with initiation by a monk who comes from outside Brazil. Did you learn the technique that way, by mail?

I've also seen different techniques taught by various disciples of Yogananda and Yukteswarji, and in some cases, they're taught as the person develops. It doesn't seem so simple to talk about "the" Kriya technique.

Regarding lifestyle, Yogananda himself repeatedly stated that practicing Kriya could change a person's preferences. He told a disciple who drank that he could continue drinking, for example, but if he dedicated himself to Kriya, it would transform him, and through the practice of the technique, he would find a way to follow a different lifestyle.

Alsibar: Hi Pablo, how are you? I mentioned that some people who started Kriya after many years were disappointed to discover that they already knew the technique by another name. 

And as you said, there are different techniques taught by other disciples of gurus who are not connected to the Self.

What I see is a lot of competition for the "authentic technique" of Kriya Yoga. And many so-called gurus charge a hefty sum for this initiation.

But when we read Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi," we see that Kriya Yoga is not just a technique, but a set of principles that encompasses much more than a simple technique.

Thank you for your participation and until next time.

Facundo: SantataGamana agrees that Kriya yoga only raises kundalini but does not bring enlightenment. Furthermore, he says that the first kriya alone places you in sahaja samadhi, and from there you must maintain that state through practice, which has no other function, as Lahiri Mahayasa taught. Therefore, self-inquiry should be practiced in addition to kriya. Some authors are already combining them.

It seems very similar to what happens in Buddhism, the great battle between Samatha and Vipassana. You have those who want concentration and to develop powers and jhanas, and those who want to internalize. Apparently, to achieve enlightenment, neither jhanas nor powers are necessary, as Mahayana practices experience with Zazen and Mahamudra (which consists of mindfulness meditations simply to establish presence). If the story of the Buddha is correct, then what happened to him was that Samatha meditation didn't bring him enlightenment, but rather self-inquiry (as Ramana Maharishi recommended, saying it's the only means to reach enlightenment).

CID'S OBSERVATIONS

The masters explained that there are paths that lead to God, but it's not something that takes you there immediately, but rather very gradually.

And as Alsibar pointed out, techniques only create the conditions for spiritual enlightenment to occur someday, but it is not guaranteed.

Now, some methods are more efficient than others, but I don't know how efficient Kriya Yoga is.

HOW TO FIND GOD? (Alsibar's answer)

Alsibar is a researcher who has extensively studied spiritual guides, and regarding the question "How to find God?", he gave the following answer in this video:

 

And here's my translation:

« Today I'm going to talk about how to find God; it's a very interesting topic, without a doubt."

The first thing we must keep in mind is that you can only find or search for something that has been lost. And the question is: when was God lost?

So how can you search for something that may not have been lost?

It's like my car key, it's here, but I start looking for it in other places.

Actually, the key isn't lost; it's here. I just didn't know where to look. The same applies to God. God can't be found or sought because He was never lost.

Another thing implicit in this question is the idea that God is suddenly in some fixed place in the universe, I don't know where, maybe millions of light-years away from us.

But that's also a flawed premise, because if the universe is here, then life is here. If everything is here, then God is here too, because God is in everything. He is omnipresent.

If God is not here, then things cease to exist. God is the sustaining force, the power, the light and the energy, the intelligence that keeps the entire universe in constant motion and functioning, including the human universe.

Unfortunately, people don't understand that if God is omnipresent, He is in everything, even within us. And if He is within us, why don't we see Him? Why don't we feel Him? Why don't we receive His presence?

The other problem implicit in this question, which in my opinion is the wrong question, is that there is a path, a way, something to do, something to practice, the ultimate technique, for man to find God. But does it really exist? Is there a metric? Is there a path?

Because this possibility would only exist if God were someone in a fixed place in the universe. It's completely absurd to look at what nature has shown humanity. Just look at the universe and see that everything is in harmony, everything is functioning, everything is wonderful, perfect, and everything is very intelligent. So God can't be outside of all that.

Actually, He is in all of that because He is the one who sustains the life of cells, the life of birds, the movement of the stars, the creation of the universe, etc. So this idea of ​​"I'm going to find God" is incorrect.

God is already here; you just need to learn to open the eyes of your mind. So, if God is already here, and we don't see Him because we don't feel Him, it's simple: it's because of our beliefs, our opinions, our thoughts, what we mistakenly believe.

We place God in a distant place, high up, when above there is only the firmament, the universe, the stars, the galaxies, and even less down below, where there are only stars, not even after having a ball suspended in space, which is one of the most fantastic things in the world.

This perfection of the movement of the universe would be sufficient to point to the existence of an intelligent force, the present intelligent power that directs, maintains and coordinates everything.

So to find God, you need to understand that God isn't a being located somewhere in the universe. That's the first thing you must understand: that He is in every corner, in every place, in all things, and also within each one of us.

To find it, you have to go beyond all description, beyond all thought and definition, beyond all belief. And there is only one way to do that: when the mind is silent.

When the mind is silent, then it is open to the possibility of this encounter with God, because as long as your mind is not silent, it will be full of words and thoughts of anxiety and worry.

But God is that which is beyond all understanding, beyond all words, beyond all definition and description. Therefore, only in the silence of the mind, in inner peace and stillness, can you glimpse this encounter.

And this encounter is possible, and for that, you have to learn how your mind works, understand its limitations. Understanding and learning to live with that infinite inner space that exists within you—it is in that inner space of silence and peace where suddenly something that is not a product of thought, something that is not a product of desire, something that is sacred, that exists by itself, can happen.

So become aware of this, and the presence of God will come on its own with understanding.

We are so accustomed to society, to worries, to the hustle and bustle of life, that we don't learn to be silent; and this anxiety, this rush, these worries and thoughts limit our ability to find something bigger, something greater than thought, something beyond thought.

God cannot be sought in any way; to say that death cannot reach Him, and yet He comes to us, as Jesus said, "Let the door be opened," and He is already here. But the problem is that we do not open the door of understanding, the door of wisdom and comprehension, so that He can come.

Then, one day, when you least expect it, when perhaps you are not even thinking about it, you suddenly feel the presence of something greater, a light of love, peace and compassion, and a state of union with all things and all beings.

It's a unique state, a description of this state: it's something divine, something tender, something blessed that suddenly manifests. This can last a second, it can last a day, it can last a month, it can last years; you are the one who attracts it. Just relax; this thing happens independently of you, and then when it's over, it's over.

Then go on with your life, meditate, immerse yourself in silence, do not be anxious to relive this experience because you cannot produce it or cause it, you cannot force God to manifest Himself, He is not of the field of knowledge, He is not of the field of the mind, and He is not of the field of desire or thought.

It is precisely when thoughts, desire, worries, the anxiety of winning, all of that ceases, and suddenly He comes.

And when He comes, you have no doubt that something different, something so fundamental, really happened.

Thank you so much for today, I hope you enjoyed it. Today I talked about how to find it; it's said that it can only be found in a fundamental, natural way, and that behavior—silence, tranquility, being here—is key. Thank you so much, may God be with you, and until next time »

COMMENTS

Flora: Misconceptions and so many illusions distance us from Being.

That we may merge with the stillness of the Being that Is.

Fabricio: Perhaps when we "find" God we will feel connected to everything and everyone.

Oscar: Hi Alsibar. Do you have any videos that talk about the natural silencing of the mind? About the power of the mind and the control of the ego in this quest?

Alsibar:  Hi Oscar, regarding the natural silencing of the mind, that's not the specific topic. But I always mention that the mind can only be silenced naturally.

Regarding the "power of the mind and ego" and its control, I believe it's an extension of the first point; that is, neither the mind nor the ego can control this process. Which is to say: silence arises naturally with self-understanding.

But I'll think about making a more specific video about that. Thanks for the suggestion! Best regards.

John: In silence we find our direction, to return to oneness. Every path is different, and this is where we need to step away from all the world's conditioning and learn to follow our inner guidance. To be honest with ourselves and begin doing, or stop doing, what truly moves us. But it requires much honesty and trial-and-error practice to separate truth from falsehood within ourselves, and perhaps the help of someone more advanced.

CID OBSERVATION

The masters mentioned something similar, and so for example, teacher Pasteur pointed out that "the sound of God is a great silence."

THE SPIRITUALITY INSTRUCTORS THAT FACUNDO RECOMMENDS STUDYING

 

Facundo is a reader of the blog who has studied Eastern teachings, and when I asked him to mention the authors he recommends, he replied as follows:

Ramaji: He is a master of self-inquiry; it is important to read him.

SantataGamana: teaches self-inquiry, sahaja samadhi, Kriya yoga, and the turiya state; all in an accessible way so as not to depend on gurus.

Roderick S. Bucknell: is an expert in Buddhism who works on the three final stages of self-inquiry of the original Buddha.

The 2016-2019 PDF compilation of the Tao blog: its author knows a lot and studies the levels from the Tibetan Mahamudra.

Nisargadatta Maharaj; he is one of the most famous teachers of Advaita.

Shinzen Young: explains very well the communication between metta and seated meditation and its practice.

Michael Langford: his meditation method is the freest, clearest, and simplest, also making it clear what to do and what not to do to progress in just 100 pages.

William Bodri: He is an expert in esoteric Buddhism and the East who knows from experience what he speaks and teaches, and of course, he is based on the paramitas of " The Voice of the Silence ".

Facundo recommends the following sequence:

All those books make it clear what the basics are for working on yourself. The order I discovered is: Paramitas, seated meditation, metta for daily life, and arriving at the observation of oneself as a single taste of Krishnamurti, and finally, when introspection begins, self-inquiry in four levels to destroy the mind (three levels of the Buddha and the last of Ramaji-Ramana).

The rest of the books can be used to adapt to your needs or clarify points, as well as add practices according to personal needs.

Warm greetings, and don't depend on gurus, teachers, or institutions. Be free!

Blessed are all true seekers.

His opinion on Jiddu Krishnamurti

Regarding Krishnamurti, Facundo comments as follows:

There are levels of enlightenment, Krishnamurti was not fully enlightened, he was highly enlightened but not fully enlightened, the proof is that he had almost no enlightened followers and he liberated almost no one, although his teaching was interesting (very much for the bourgeois atheist intellectual of the time).

Furthermore, I believe that he had the "one flavor" level (level 3 of 4) of Mahamudra and level 8 of 10 of Ramaji's classification, which is seen as "I AM".

My conclusion after years is that it's not worth reading Krishnamurti. I loved him, but he was only a stimulus to my intellect and somewhat to my inner Buddha, as Ramón Sordo said in his graphic, "he spat out all of tradition," otherwise he wouldn't have gone off to teach without being fully enlightened.

A truly enlightened person doesn't need wealth and has no social or romantic needs, nor are they addicted to food (like Blavatsky). The truly enlightened person is in the world to help others, not because they believe the world is real. That's why I disagree with Alsibar's ideal of an awakened person who is a professional and works; this makes me realize that Alsibar isn't enlightened either, since he considers this world real.

Obviously, compared to Osho and other pseudo-gurus, Krishnamurti is a saint, but he doesn't liberate and he stagnates. How do you think a bodhisattva can be one if not based on the Dharmakaya? How can he be useful if not from a state of non-meditation or natural state to apply the paramitas? Isn't the Bodhisattva the theosophical ideal?

What do you think Prajna, the seventh paramita of theosophy, is? Is it mind, world, beliefs, or something like that?

It is Sahaja samadhi or natural state free of mind (Dharmakaya)... the Mahayana scriptures themselves warn against being deceived by Ishvara or false god.

My opinion on what Facundo said

I get the impression that Facundo has done quite a bit of research, and that's why I'm sharing his recommendations with you, to offer you more options, but I can't comment on the guides and texts he recommends reading because I haven't studied them.

I agree that Krishnamurti and Blavatsky were not fully enlightened. However, several researchers I respect, who have studied spirituality extensively, are fascinated by Krishnamurti.

I do recommend it if you connect with Krishnamurti, but be aware that Krishnamurti also had his flaws.

THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ILLUMINATION ACCORDING TO RAMAJI AND ANANDA DEVI

Guru Ramaji, along with his partner Ananda Devi, published an 820-page book entitled "1000: The Levels of Consciousness and a Map of Stages of Awakening for Spiritual Seekers and Instructors," where they discuss the different levels of enlightenment that this couple considers, and which they list from 1 to 10.

I saw that they've even made a new revised, expanded, and improved edition of their book.

This book also classifies hundreds of gurus.

I haven't read it, but Facundo, who is a scholar of Eastern spirituality, commented on it as follows:

Facundo's Review

Among the instructors that Ramaji and Ananda ranked are:

At level 10: Ramana.

At level 8: Jiddu Krishnamurti and Blavatsky.

At level 7: Osho.

At level 6: UG Krishnamurti.

A truly enlightened being, 100%, that is, at the dharmakaya level and who has already destroyed the mind (the concept of world and self), only settles in consciousness and does not need riches or partners, much less so many.

The subconscious is not cleansed until level 8 is passed.

Krishnamurti didn't liberate almost anyone; he only stimulated the intellect and a bit of buddhi. Clearly, this was because he was at level 8, or the "One Taste" level, of Mahamudra. Obviously, he was evolved, but not fully enlightened.

Krishnamurti had two phrases that I remember hearing as a kid (that's how it's said in Argentina): "Love is destruction" and "The observer is the observed." If we analyze them, they are phrases from level 8 or "I Am" or "One Taste of Mahamudra," since love characterizes that level, the vision of witness and of the world as well as unity. The issue is that this is still a construction of the false self, even if it is minimal.

That's why he didn't achieve enlightenment, because he didn't possess the ultimate truth of no-mind, or nothingness, also called non-meditation and the right heart by Ramana Maharishi, or the state of Sahaja Samadhi. Obviously, Krishnamurti was in a state superior to emptiness or the deconceptualization of self-observation, but he wasn't liberated, as his way of life confirms. Investigate and stop relying so much on the intellect, because the attainment of the Dharmakaya is qualitative and deconstructive and has nothing to do with the intellect. That is true enlightenment, and it is the foundation for the adeptship of the Mahatmas to form the Sambhokaya and the Nirmanakaya.

Another example of level 6 is the "Self-Remembering" of the Fourth Way and "Self-Observation" as level 7. Self-remembering holds the secret of working with earth and water, which no one talks about, and that's why most people get stuck in mindfulness; that is, it's not just attention but also compassion or metta, as Buddhism calls it.

However, it is important to keep in mind that this numbering is merely a reference to organize thought; it is not reality but representations. For example, level 6 represents the level of mindfulness, acceptance, and renunciation; level 7 is adherence to emptiness; level 8 is renunciation of emptiness and living the "I am"; level 9 is transfiguration; and level 10 is no mind, no meditation, equivalent to the final state of non-meditation in Tibetan Mahamudra. From 6 to 10, it coincides with the four immeasurables of Buddhism, the four levels of Mandukya, and the four levels of Kabbalah.

Levels 1 through 5 must be the first 5 paramitas of Blavatsky, and that is why most of humanity is said to be at level 2.

However, there are other classifications, for example according to the blog of studies of enlightenment from the perspective of "a course in miracles" the two Krishnamurtis were not enlightened, nor was Ramana totally, they argue that the illusion has to be broken at all levels including the physical body: Ramana for example lived a lot of pain from cancer.

The blog I'm referring to is: http://jugandoalegremente.blogspot.com/

My opinion

I believe that different levels of enlightenment must exist, but I don't know how valid the classification that Ramaji and Ananda presented in their book is, and I disagree with several of the levels they assigned to some instructors because:

Personally, I wouldn't even put Osho on a positive level, because although this guru was a brilliant man, the abuses and atrocities he committed indicate that he was not at all spiritually enlightened (not even a little because then he would have had some empathy towards his followers), but on the contrary he was a manipulative guru who ended up lost in narcissism, megalomania and madness.

UG Krishnamurti is a tremendously depressing instructor, which is the opposite of an enlightened person who sees divinity in everything; so I consider it very overrated that they put him at level 6.

I don't feel that Ramana was at level 10 if we compare him to Buddha, who is the enlightened one par excellence.

I believe that Krishnamurti and Blavatsky were not completely enlightened, but I don't know if I would give them an 8 because I also don't see that they "renounced emptiness and lived the I am".

My conclusion is that you should be cautious with the rankings.

WHEN THE OBSERVER OBSTRUCTS THE ILLUMINATION

(This article was written by Alsibar, who has studied spiritual guides extensively, and the original text in Portuguese can be read at this link.) 

In this dialogue I address new nuances and specific aspects about observation, the observer, and illumination.

Due to the complexity and depth of the topic, some readers may find it difficult to understand, making it more suitable for experienced seekers who have already progressed on their spiritual path. Read the dialogue to the end and draw your own conclusions!

--oOo--

Aramisio:  I've been reading a lot about the need to be present and observe everything that happens and everything that exists in the present. If the observer is the self/ego (and I know it is), then it seems it shouldn't observe, right?

Alsibar:  When you observe as "sadhana," a spiritual practice, who performs it and for what purpose? In other words: when you practice something, whatever it may be, including this observation of the present moment, why do you do it? What is your goal?

Aramisio:  The goal is always illumination.

Alsibar:  So... someone is looking for him, right? Who is that someone looking for him?

Aramisio:  Isn't that ego?

Alsibar:  That's right! It's the ego itself that seeks Enlightenment. But as long as the ego is in control, there will be no Enlightenment, you understand? In other words, the ego's search for Enlightenment is itself its own negation, its own impediment.

Aramisio:  But the ego does not seek spiritual improvement!

Alsibar:  Well... that's the problem: in this case, it's the ego that's searching, even if you don't think so. That's the root of the illusion. That's what prevents enlightenment. It's the ego that thinks, "I'm observing!" Or, "I'm paying attention!" If you perceive attention as "attention," then it's memory that recognizes the fact. And this recognition comes from the past, that is, from the ego.

Aramisio:  I understand... this is a complicated point. So, when I observe, am I strengthening my ego and moving further away from enlightenment?

Alsibar:  When you observe with the INTENTION of achieving something, you do create obstacles because you then create the time, the search, and the seeker. And what is a seeker if not the ego itself? But when you simply observe, not with the intention of reaching or achieving something, but just a simple, common, everyday observation... Like the one I'm doing now, observing the keys on my cell phone to type.

This observation is natural, you understand? It's not a state that's provoked, practiced, or produced with intention. This is the natural movement of life. You don't need to practice it because it happens naturally. It's the same when the ETERNAL manifests: you do nothing! It is "He" who does everything! You don't even notice when "He" comes. You only realize it after it's over.  

Aramisio:  Yes, I understand, you wrote an interesting article about this a few days ago.

Alsibar:  So, in that state of complete freedom, you suddenly look and see silence. But it's something natural. You don't do anything, nor do you intentionally try to see it. It's like an event, you know?

Aramisio:  That's true, especially because for a seeker, every practice has a spiritual purpose.

Alsibar:  That's right. And this supposed "spiritual ego" is strengthened by practice and the search. And then, instead of being freed, the aspirant becomes trapped, going around in circles.

Aramisio:  Through observation, as a practice, we eliminate our main objective, which is enlightenment.

Alsibar:  Enlightenment doesn't need focus. When you're not focused on anything, it will be there. Enlightenment is the ABSENCE OF SELF. If there is a "focus," then there is "someone" directing that focus. That "someone" directing attention to a focus is the ego itself.

Aramisio:  Therein lies another problem for me. Because how can I search without focus? (even if that search is a metaphor).

Alsibar:  Exactly, that's why you shouldn't search. If you "search," you recreate the "seeker." And by creating it, you become a prisoner of the ego and of time.

Aramisio:  So we can't be seekers?

Alsibar:  Not in that sense. What is there to look for if the very act of looking negates the objective?

Aramisio:  So all I need to do is Be?

Alsibar:  No. You already are! You don't "need to be." When you don't feel like you have to be anything, that's when you are!

Aramisio:  Yes, I know, but I need to be aware of that.

Alsibar:  No. That's another mistake. Another deception. It's the ego that says that. It's the ego that tells itself, "I must become conscious!" And the result? Spiritual pride!

Aramisio:  So I don't know what to do anymore, hahaha.

Alsibar:  Nothing! Just live and be happy! And you will see the light shine naturally within you. The light of peace, of love, of silence, of stillness.

Aramisio:  But if I don't do anything as you say, what will be left? Won't it be the ego?

Alsibar:  The ego is the very act of "doing." It feeds on "doing." When you do nothing, the ego is temporarily neutralized. When the ego is neutralized, what happens?

Aramisio:  Theoretically nothing, but the ego will dominate.

Alsibar:  The ego already dominates. The ego is darkness (ignorance). If you neutralize the darkness, light emerges. That's what you haven't realized yet: if the ego practices, seeks, directs the focus, for example, it's in control.

Aramisio:  That's fine, but if we don't do good, won't evil prevail?

Alsibar:  That's another topic. Regarding doing good... Let's see: doing good with heaven in mind, or in pursuit of any reward, is not good. But when the power of the ego is neutralized, good begins to flow naturally. If you do good thinking of heaven, you are being selfish. The ego doesn't know what good is or what love is. But when, through understanding, the ego is neutralized, love flows spontaneously, like breathing.

Aramisio:  In Christianity we are taught, and so I did for many years, to seek good and avoid evil.

Alsibar:  How do you seek good? Through the ego? Then it's not good. Love doesn't arise while evil (the ego) is in control.

Aramisio:  Yes, that's not entirely correct.

Alsibar:  But when the ego disappears... then love fills your being. Not just love, but peace and wisdom. Because love without wisdom becomes recklessness. Love and wisdom must be in balance.

Aramisio:  Well, yes, but for me the problem is how to take ego out of the equation.

Alsibar:  I already told you. Try it. Just surrender and everything will start to happen naturally. Without you even realizing it.

Aramisio:  Then there should be no struggle, no search, no expectation.

Alsibar:  Exactly, simply surrender and trust. Self-abandonment. Let's take an example we know well. What was Jesus practicing when he attained enlightenment?

Aramisio:  Nothing

 Alsibar:  Do I need to say more?

Aramisio:  No, hahaha.

Alsibar:  Jesus simply felt the need to change. He isolated himself. He went to the desert. But first he went to see John the Baptist and there he was touched by divine energy. That's all!

But he wasn't the only one; Saint Augustine of Hippo was like that, and so was Saul of Tarsus. They simply "repented"... they surrendered, and the Divine Light filled their spirits. Saul of Tarsus was persecuting Christians when he converted!

Aramisio:  That's true. We learn to act frantically, driven by ego. So perhaps our extensive reading is harming us?

Alsibar:  Of course! God manifests in silence, in stillness. Not in the PRACTICE OF STILLNESS. But when the ego disappears and no longer desires or seeks anything for itself, then the Light manifests.

Aramisio:  In the Letters of Christ, Christ recommends reading them extensively.

Alsibar:  Because people have hard hearts. The purpose of reading the cards is to open understanding, to expand consciousness. If you already understand, you don't need to live reading like a robot.

When you find your Inner Light, why keep reading what you already understand? Now, those who haven't understood... they truly need to ask for the grace of understanding.

Aramisio:  Yes, Christ says that after we understand, we should no longer depend on Him.

Alsibar:  Obviously. That's because you'll be guided directly by the Divine Source, the Christ Consciousness within you. Which is what it teaches in all the Letters.

The meaning of the Letters is simple: that we find the Kingdom of God within ourselves. Once you find it, that's it! You no longer need to read them.

Excessive reading can dull the mind and prevent the light of understanding from rising within you. And then you risk falling into the same errors as your ancestors: confusing the moon with the finger that points at it, the means with the ends.

Aramisio:  Yes, that's right!

Alsibar:  The sacred books are simply indicators, suggestions and a guide for each person to find God within themselves.

The purpose of all sacred books is to point to this Inner Light. It has always been so. From Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, and more recently, Christ through the Letters, and Krishnamurti; they have all said in unison: FIND THE LIGHT WITHIN YOU! And every book or teaching is a signpost, a map to this Inner Light. 

Aramisio:  Yes, because the true source is within us. That's right! After this conversation, I'll have to restructure my process.

Alsibar:  Yes, that's true, that's what these conversations are for. Unfortunately, many people become entrenched in their beliefs, views, and opinions and end up stuck.

Your sincere desire to find the Light guides you, and you will undoubtedly find it. But "you" will not be there to see it. NEVER FORGET THIS: where "you" is, there is no Light. "You" is darkness, the "ego," and both cannot exist at the same time. When one emerges, the other automatically disappears.

It is like light and darkness. When one appears, the other disappears. In this balanced movement between the presence and absence of the "ego," life unfolds.

The ego, therefore, will continue to surface from time to time, like a whale surfacing for air. But it needs to come, because otherwise, you die. It is the ego that is responsible for survival, protection, and comfort. If you eliminate it completely, you die.

The ego arrives and does what it needs: work, money, studies, obligations, physical security, family, sustenance, pleasure, etc. But then it withdraws, and when it leaves... there is the Light. But you don't recognize it because you cannot see it.

“Whoever sees my face dies,” says God in the Bible. So… no one sees the Light directly, but only its effects, its results, which are called the “fruits of the spirit”: peace, equanimity, love, balance, tranquility, harmony, wisdom, strength, energy, joy, happiness, serenity, light, etc.

Try what I said. There will be a significant change in you. I have no doubt, and one day you'll be able to give me your opinion! Okay?

Aramisio:  Thank you very much! I'll reread our conversation later to make sure I understand it better.

Alsibar:  You're welcome! We're here for whatever you need!

COMMENTS

Aramisio:  Very good, I learned a lot from this conversation!

Alsibar:  Thank you, Aram, for the opportunity! And may there be many more! Best regards!

Juan:  That's right... we no longer realize what life is like when we lose control; everything goes unnoticed. Only sometimes do we perceive the silence, but we don't touch it and we get lost again. There are days with more noise and confusion, but they no longer leave the same traces as before; they aren't registered, they remain superficial, without penetrating. The ego can do nothing because it itself is nothing.

Alsibar:  Exactly, my friend. Best regards and thank you for your participation.

Miguel:  Very good, I learned a lot. I see many people who loudly proclaim their spirituality, but I see a lot of ego involved. I believe that a person on the path to enlightenment loses the desire to say, "I am this or that," they simply are, and humility drowns that ego.

Alsibar:  That's right, my friend. Thank you for your participation and comment. Best regards.

Enrique:  Very good, my friend, a profound and enlightening dialogue. When this "search" exists, there must be a seeker, the duality between what is and what should be, which generates the whole process of time, effort, gurus, and conditioning. By understanding that this is an illusion, because the result of the search is to find "more of the same," perhaps something will emerge that is not of the ego, what K. called Intelligence, what Jesus called The Truth, and what so many other thinkers and teachers have called by different names. Thank you for sharing these reflections. Peace be with you.

Alsibar:  Hello Enrique, thank you also for your kind words and comments. Best regards.