I have been having a constructive discussion... conversation (better)... but here he comes like an offended lady with these "emotional" things that are not suitable to an author (let alone a Gurujii). If he took such an offence at my words, he could have sent me a private message by e-mail explaining the matter to me, instead of posting here his "emotions".Or he can write rules for the posts, by making clear that he doesn't want any criticism/different opinions, and so forth. After all, this is his website. Or he can disapprove the posts directly and that is it. Or he can ban a person he considers offensive. But to post here against a person in the way he did looks childish to me, given the magnitude of the topics being discussed.His mere idea of me as someone who left his huge website and innumerable activities with a lot of disciples to come here in order to "malign him" is just childish in my eyes. In the past I was his Guru and did a lot of good things for him. And he praised me a lot at that time. Why should I come here to malign him then? This makes no sense. If my difference of opinion is an act of maligning in his eyes, this is not my problem. He should specify somewhere, as I explained before, that he doesn't want a different viewpoint or even criticism. It is very simple to do.Besides, I cannot either understand how a disciple could have an ex-Guru. All in all, the whole question looks absurd from beginning to end. I was having an interesting exchange of ideas with you, but unfortunately this cannot continue in this blog for obvious reasons. Best of all for you and the rest of people commenting here.

This comment has been removed by the author.

With experience, I have not seen Guruji to have attached great importance on himself, he publishes all comments so that he is not biased and leaves it to the readers to to take their own call.He can definitely control comments by disapproving it, but what is the point in doing so? Apologies if I have spoken out of my reach, but I'm a regular reader of this website and have not seen Guruji coming back with a reply. Anything can be told, but have a constructive discussion will be more useful for people like us than this.

Additionally, when I said "a person", I referred to that: To any person. If you misunderstood that by "Ravi", that is due to your great sense of self-importance.My only interest is to teach people about non-dualistic Trika, not to criticize your articles. But even if I was interested in doing that, you approved my posts with my "supposed" criticism. What is the point of doing that and next to protest about it? All this makes no sense.One time, many years ago, you told me that I should never say "sorry". Therefore, I won't say sorry now, by following your advise. Hanumaan now knows his own power.

If you think like that about another person who "was your Guru" (to make the things worse), why are you teaching "non-dualism"? If you think that "someone else" is attacking your article or you or your teachings, why are you teaching all this? Non-dualism is when the Self is alone completely in unity with Himself.Besides, even in the case that Gabriel "was attacking" Ravi, as you pointed out, what is your problem? You told all people here that Self-realization is attained by purging one's own ego. So, do it yourself and teach by example. What is the point for you to post these whining messages like an offended lady. This is not the right behavior of someone who is teaching such great wisdom.The tree is known by its fruits.

In one of the above comments Gabriel Pradiipaka, said “the person” instead of saying the author. Again he used an abbreviation a.k.a (abbreviation for ‘also known as’). If he does not want to acknowledge me as the author of that article, there is no need for him to read this article and make comments. He has pointed out the following. “"For truly realizing the Self, we need nothing, except to purify our mind and purge our ego. We need to explore within, instead of searching the Self outside. What is there outside is within us and vice-versa. Pure dedication and perseverance are the only factors that are needed to realize the Self." or also "But to achieve that level of knowledge at the beginning of any persons spiritual journey is nearly impossible. Hence we need first control our ego, actions etc, as this discipline is necessary for taming the mind to achieve the consciousness that you have explained." or also "Unnecessary ego is a problem because it creates karma. Then we have to experience that karma to nullify it. In turns it becomes a cycle or rebirths." I am only quoting Ramana Maharishi to counter his argument.“All thoughts are from the unreal i.e. the ego. Remain without thinking. So long as there is thought, there will be fear. So long as there is thought, even of ‘aham Brahmasmi, there will be forgetfulness.“Aham Brahmasmi is only an aid to concentration. It keeps off other thoughts. That one thought alone persists. See whose thought it is. It will be found to be from 'I'.“Where does the ‘I’-thought originate? Probe into it. The 'I'-thought will vanish. The supreme Self will shine by itself, effortlessly. When the one real, ‘I’ alone remains it will not be saying 'I am Brahman.' Does a man say 'I am a man'? Unless he is challenged why should he declare himself a man? Does anyone mistake him for a brute that he should say, 'No, I am not a brute, I am a man'. Similarly, as Brahman or ‘I’ alone exists, there is no one there to challenge it and therefore no need to be saying 'I am Brahman.'”Has this Sage not quoted about mind and ego? Anyone will accept that Ramana Maharishi is a realized sage. Then who is right? When someone is commenting in public forum, some decency is required. When the author of the article is not acknowledged, what is the need for a comment on the article? I apologise to the readers if I have written anything wrong here. I am also not writing this out of ego. But at the same time, I cannot continue to be silent when someone is continuously maligning me. I leave it to the readers to decide.

The eternal problem is that you separate the Self from "you". So, you cannot understand the Self, because He is not you but "someone else". This is not the right way to reason about the Self, i.e. you.The Truth is non-dual (you are the Self), while the Play is dualistic (you are not the Self). You can attain Self-realization from the Truth that you are the Self, but you cannot attain Self-realization from the Play, i.e. by feeling that you are not the Self. This is the whole problem.Anyway, as you are the Self whether or not you realize Him, the question about bondage and liberation is just a Sport and not the Final Truth. Why? Because you are alone here. Nobody else is binding you. It is just you binding you... but this is mere Sport, Pastime. Every time you say things "to delay" Self-realization, you are binding you despite your being Free. And when you say things "to bring" Self-realization, you are liberating you despite your being Free. All this is mere Sport too, because you are all the time Free. You are so Free that you decided to live like a limited person with an ego which is to be controlled or purged or whatever. This is just humbugs! It is just something that shows your Freedom and not your bondage!

Also my mind is rejecting the idea of you saying that "For truly realizing the Self, we need nothing, except to purify our mind and purge our ego. We need to explore within, instead of searching the Self outside. What is there outside is within us and vice-versa. Pure dedication and perseverance are the only factors that are needed to realize the Self" is not in want of Self realization, as it is only this inquiry which is making us to move towards realizing our Self, otherwise we are oblivious to the awareness that is needed.

Thank you for explaining. So you mean to say that. If the Self itself is delaying the Self Realization then when will the Self allow us to realize it. Meaning if we are in a state of ever self realized, when do we consciously get that awareness?Then if we think on the flip side - As per your clarification the Self decides everything, but the Self is not supposed to do anything and it is just a spectator. It just watches and allows us to do whatever we want. It is only us who have to understand the nature of our self, only then self realization is possible? Meaning we have to use our mind, intellect and knowledge accompanied by practice (sadhana) to realize self.More over if we are in ever realized state what is stopping us to realize our inherent nature. Is it our nature (thought processes like ego, knowledge etc) is stopping us or is it that we are not ready for it or is it that we are ignorant that we are already realized? (If we are already realized then, it brings back to the question why there is a lack of that awareness)My question may be little elementary but kindly provide some new perspective as this will be helpful.What is the question that I’m not asking, which is delaying this.

When I say that the Self says "no" or "yes" about Self-realization, I mean that the person himself says so in different ways: e.g. "For truly realizing the Self, we need nothing, except to purify our mind and purge our ego. We need to explore within, instead of searching the Self outside. What is there outside is within us and vice-versa. Pure dedication and perseverance are the only factors that are needed to realize the Self." or also "But to achieve that level of knowledge at the beginning of any persons spiritual journey is nearly impossible. Hence we need first control our ego, actions etc, as this discipline is necessary for taming the mind to achieve the consciousness that you have explained." or also "Uncessary ego is a problem because it creates karma. Then we have to experience that karma to nullify it. In turns it becomes a cycle or rebirths."In all those phrases, the Self (a.k.a. the person) is tacitly saying: "Now I don't want Self-realization". As the person is Shiva, all of his words are "Mantra-s" effectively delaying Self-realization, as it were. Why should you wait for Self-realization if you are already the Self? This is inconsistent and absurd in the end. Every time you say: "I cannot now because... something", the Self is saying that, and yes, He won't have Self-realization.But in the end the Self does not need to get Self-realization because absence of Self-realization is Self-realization. Why? It is very simple: Because you cannot realize you lack Self-realization without realizing Yourself (your Real I). It is like saying: "I have no tongue!" by the tongue. It is just a Play and not the Final Truth.All in all, it is very important what you say about the Self because you are Him. If you say "No", it will be "No", if you say "Yes", it will be "Yes". People that cannot understand this are the Self thinking that Himself is somewhere else outside or "deep inside". This is another Play.But in the end, why should you want Self-realization if you are already the Self? If you are the only Inhabitant in this universe, how the heck you came to this state where you need Self-realization? As you can see, all this is another Play of this frisky Self (You!). Regarding spiritual practices... they are like lamps trying to reveal the self-effulgent Sun. Evidently, they cannot do that, but the Self (people!) will insist on doing that, because this is another Play too.Self-realization is about "intelligence", and not about "practices". When the Self becomes intelligent, Self-realization happens automatically. And while the Self is not intelligent enough, absence of Self-realization will remain here. Both things are the same in the end, because there is neither bondage nor liberation from bondage. All this is another play as well. May this Self be praised always!