Anyone have info about Michael Langford?

[amiatall]

To my mind what he means by awareness watching awareness is abiding in self. It is not like watching an object but it is different word for just being. As everyone says, nothing can describe IT, so again someone just tries to touch the words as the moon and not the pointers to the moon. The best thing to try it and see it and accept it or reject it instead of reading opinions, in other words, it's all about experiencing, no?

[Subramanian.R]

Dear amiatall,

Many like Langford, Echart Tolle have written about self
enquiry and enlightenment, in their own words, and this
is their understanding.  Bhagavan Ramana is like an Elephant.
Many blind people are describing the elephant, and saying
that it is like a pillar, it is like a large fan, it is like a rock,
etc., A few only [eg. David Godman, Robert Butler, Michael
James] have understood Bhagavan Ramana correctly and
their understanding is in tune with the old stalwars who
had spent decades [eg. Muruganar, WHO, Yogi Ramaiah,
Munagala Venkatramaiah] with Bhagavan Ramana and have
writeen or spoke about Him.  Only people who have landed
on the moon can describe the nature of the moon and not
who see it through NASA telescopes.

Arunachala Siva.
 

[Akira]

Dear riktam,

I agree with you.
I am sad to see that some people distort Bhagavan's teaching like this.

Langford confuses 'awareness' with 'mind'.
His method 'awareness watching awareness' is, in fact, nothing but 'mind watching void', which leads you nowhere.

Riktam, I understand you are not here in this forum anymore, seeing you have only one post, but I want to say I am happy to see your post.

[Viveka]

To my mind what he means by awareness watching awareness is abiding in self. It is not like watching an object but it is different word for just being.

That's exactly what I think, @amiatall. ''Awareness watching awareness'' is a very powerful method. Unfortunately, most of the people don't try it. Nisargadatta Maharaj talks about it in ''I Am That'':

Q: You use the words 'aware' and 'conscious'. Are they not the same?
M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.
Q: How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness?
M: Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore the very consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness. Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state. It is at once recognised as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy.

M: The mind must learn that beyond the moving mind there is the background of awareness, which does not change. The mind must come to know the true self and respect it and cease covering it up, like the moon which obscures the sun during solar eclipse. Just realise that nothing observable, or experienceable is you, or binds you. Take no notice of what is not yourself.
Q: To do what you tell me I must be ceaselessly aware.
M: To be aware is to be awake. Unaware means asleep. You are aware anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious.

[amiatall]

Can't tell anything about him, but some time ago i analyzed his website and what he says is not so untrue.
At least he explains beautifully how ego works its tricks to delude one from practice.
He quotes a lot from Guru Vachaka Kovai where Murugnar writes exactly about Self-awareness and how it is important.
The practice itself can be dangerous because not everyone can grasp directly what is meant there, many reads practice in subject-object relationship and that is what causes a problem.
He himself does not state that it is like subject watching object it is people who come and say so. But it is no other way for him to explain it better. Anyway, lets hope to some it will be very helpful and others won't get deluded by their own mind goggles.

[Viveka]

He quotes a lot from Guru Vachaka Kovai where Murugnar writes exactly about Self-awareness and how it is important.

I''ll give some examples for the people who don't know Sri Muruganar's book:

''432. Is it not because you are knowledge [i.e. consciousness] itelf that you are able to know the world? If[instead of knowing the world] you turn your attention, taking that Consciousness alone as your target,
It will Itself as the Guru reveal the Truth [i.e. Reality]. (page 119)

638. If, instead of seeing anything in front [of you] by the mind, you see by the mind the one who sees, all will be found to be oneself, the seer; then all objective knowledges will be found to be foolish. (page 181)

647. Do not look at this, do not look at that. If you simply remain without looking at anything, then by that powerful look at [one’s own] being [that is, by that powerful attention to Self, ‘I am’], you will become the
supreme reality which has the outlook of the unlimited space of consciousness [chit-akasa]. (page 185)''

The quotes are from GURU VACHAKA KOVAI, translated from the original Tamil by Sadhu Om and Michael James.

[amiatall]

Wanted to add this powerful saying from the same source:

638.      If, instead of looking outward at objects,
you observe that looking,
all things now shine as I, the seer.
Perception of objects is mere illusion.

Grasping what is written here alone is enough to abide in one owns being.

[rideforever]

I am interested in the "albigen.com" site that has been mentioned.

It seems like the author is very intent on providing clarity to the seeker, and this is why he is providing a number of different descriptions of a practice.   From his history he feels that lack of clarity of the instructions caused much delay.

It is good to have clarity, for something that is hard to explain.

Some queries have been raised about whether the techniques at "albigen.com" are the same as Maharshi's or will lead in the same direction.  It doesn't seem that way to me as it seems like when you are practicing you are guided to the direction.

In any case there is far too much difficulty in finding the instructions to Life and I am happy that someone has them so clearly stated.  I mean if the Bible really boils down to "I AM" then it would have taken me quite a few lifetimes to work it out.

It would be good if all humans were directed to a page of simple instructions called "The Instructions to Life".  No more long books !

[Subramanian.R]

Dear rideover,

The simplest book as far as I know, is Who am I? by Bhagavan
Ramana.  No quotes from outside.  All His experience.  This was
WRITTEN and given to Sivaprakasam Pillai and hence no different
versions, no dilutions due to lapse of time.  I read this book
everyday and it gives me the unadulterated guidance that has
helped me a lot.

Arunachala Siva.

[Chuck Cliff]

This was WRITTEN

  -- and the first answer was WRITTEN in the SAND: The nature of knowledge is sat-chit-ananda [being-consciousness-bliss].
Pillai copied it to his note book and added some explanatory comment. Ramana later approved Pillai's additions if the original answer was printed in bold.

What's important for me is that the answer was written the sand -- that just blows my mind out of the water!

[Subramanian.R]

Dear Chuck Cliff,

Yes. It was writtten by Bhagavan Ramana to Sivaprakasam Pillai.
In respect of ancient scriptures in Hindu theology, there were only
spoken words.  Vedas and Upanishads and Gita were also spoken
These gave rise to various rescensions in later centuries.  But
Who am I?  was different.  Take for example, the Bhagavad Gita.
It was taught among the battle noise.  Arjuna would himself found
it difficult to listen to it carefully.  Then came the various rescensions
and there could be many errors of commission and omission.  Who
am I? that way is blemishless.

The Bible was written,for example in Hebrew.  Then came the King
James Version and then the New English Version.  In translations,
many times the original meaning and purport is lost.  Is it not?

Arunachala Siva.

[Viveka]

Dear rideover,

The simplest book as far as I know, is Who am I? by Bhagavan
Ramana.  No quotes from outside.  All His experience.  This was
WRITTEN and given to Sivaprakasam Pillai and hence no different
versions, no dilutions due to lapse of time.  I read this book
everyday and it gives me the unadulterated guidance that has
helped me a lot.

Arunachala Siva.

Well, if people are afraid of trying ''the awareness watching awareness'' method -I don't blame them: the world is full of false masters-, Ramana's Self-enquiry method is good enough because it leads to Self-awareness, through the agency of Self-attention. Sri Sadhu Om explains excellently Ramana's Self-enquiry in his book, ''The Path of Sri Ramana'':

http://www.notthisnotthat.com/resources/The_Path_of_Sri_Ramana_Part_One.pdf

I will give some quotes from his book (pages 137-138):

''Just as the correct meaning of the term ‘meditation upon Brahman’ (brahmadhyanam) used by the sastras up till now is explained by Sri Bhagavan in the last two lines of the first benedictory verse of ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’ to be ‘abiding in the Heart as it is’ (that is to say, abiding as Self is the correct way of meditating upon it), so also, the correct meaning of the term ‘Self-enquiry’ (atma-vichara) is here rightly explained to be ‘turning Selfwards’ (or attending to Self).''

''In either of these two kinds of enquiry (‘Who am I’?’ or ‘Whence am I ?’), since the attention of the aspirant is focused only on himself, nothing other than Self (atman), which is the true import of the word ‘I’, will be finally experienced.''

''Therefore, whether done in the form ‘Whence am I?’ or ‘Who am I ?’, what is absolutely essential is that Self-attention should be pursued till the very end.''

P.S. Sri Sadhu Om Swamigal tirelessly practised Self-Enquiry in a remote house 'Sri Arunachala Ramana Nilayam' in the interior of Thiruvannamalai for 30-odd years, and scrupulously wrote down the difficulties faced by him in Self-Enquiry and also the methods by which he overcame them.

http://www.nonduality.com/shankar1.htm

[Akira]

A few only [eg. David Godman, Robert Butler, Michael
James] have understood Bhagavan Ramana correctly

David Godman, in his blog,  says that Michael Lnagford's method is correct.

(I myself do not think his method is correct.)

[Subramanian.R]

I agree with you.  Once in a while, I disagree with David also.

Arunachala Siva.

[caat]

Three years later...


ML published another book called THE SEVEN STEPS TO AWAKENING. Unlike the first book, this time no free download is offered. Also his Amazon store starts to recommend manifestation and materialization books(http://astore.amazon.com/powerfulspiri-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=32). See, money is still very important to him and the world is not quite an illusion as he claims. Read his Spiritual Business article: http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/spiritual_business.aspx to see how he contradict himself.