Select Page
Awakening

Awakening

The term “awakening” is often used, although what it implies is rarely examined. Wherever the will acts, a figure has already been formed. And every figure, even the most subtle, remains trapped in the dream. If something deserves that name, it cannot be attributed to anyone. It cannot be narrated. For this reason, intense experiences—visions, ecstasy, altered states—are often more distraction than revelation. The essential does not need to be highlighted. It was already there, without being displayed.
You will not find a doctrinal proposal here. No method or structure is offered. Any attempt to cling to an idea, a phrase, an image, or a concept reactivates the search it seeks to end. If there is any teaching, it does not consist of offering content, but of suspending attachments. No truth is asserted; a habit is deactivated.
The reflex to follow is not guided, but interrupted: with precision, yes, but without direction. What remains is observation. And this observation does not depend on a voluntary act. It happens only when even the intention to achieve or attain it ceases. Effort, in itself, is not an obstacle. It is the way in which it is directed that is. A practice can have value if it reaches, through its own exhaustion, the point of dissolution.
There is a clarity—to name it already implies a risk—that is not achieved through repetition, but emerges when the will to possess or dominate it is extinguished. It is not the result of moral renunciation or ascetic demands. Rather, it is the radical halting of the impulse to move forward.
If these words arouse in you the hope of transformation, perhaps you still inhabit the reflection of your own desires. But if something falls silent without your provocation, if for an instant the tireless machinery that interprets everything stops, then something that does not belong to time, to the self, or to expectation may emerge.
I do not want you to believe me. Nor do I want you to follow me. It is enough, if anything, that you remain attentive—when that is allowed—to what precedes even the impulse to understand.”
Prabhuji
The pause

The pause

“There are phenomena whose uniqueness lies precisely in their ability not to show themselves. They do not announce themselves with fanfare, they do not demand attention. Their appearance, if one can speak of appearance, does not obey the logic of the exceptional, but rather that of the unnoticed. They do not present themselves as experiences in the usual sense: they are not added to the repertoire of experiences that can be remembered, classified, or attributed to a subject. They are inscribed in another way. They do not add, they subtract. They do not illuminate, they extinguish what was superfluous. And in doing so, they reveal something that was not absent, but covered.
What is glimpsed in this descent does not have the texture of a declarative truth. It does not aspire to be proven, nor does it impose itself as evidence. Rather, it stands as a tenuous certainty that does not need to impose itself in order to remain. It appears without preamble, without announcement, without exaltation, without introduction, without frame. The most ordinary of days, the very normality of life, an involuntary suspension of internal discourse: in these tiny cracks, something presents itself. Something that does not change, that does not lose its eternal freshness, that has not been affected by the passage of time or by the self-construction work to which the self devotes itself with varying degrees of devotion. That something does not refer to an entity, to a “something” or “someone.” It cannot be thought of as a foundation, nor can it be thematized as a category. Any attempt to fix it within the usual frameworks of conceptual thought betrays its nature. There is no form, figure, name, or outline. There is no story to organize it. It does not assert itself, but neither does it withdraw. Without manifesting itself or hiding, it remains available without intention. Distance is not the obstacle; the difficulty does not lie in remoteness. The problem arises from the very disposition with which we relate to experience. We live under the unspoken premise that each moment must lead to another that is fuller, denser, more interesting, more meaningful, better, or superior in every way. Modern subjectivity is conceived as an unfinished task, as a figure in constant elaboration whose legitimacy depends on the horizon of its own overcoming. This establishes an economy of lack that demands of the subject a continuous effort to improve, to correct, to transform themselves into an ideal that is never fully attained.
Accepting that there is nothing to achieve—no self to realize, no ultimate meaning to fulfill—destabilizes that horizon. It deactivates the narrative tension that sustains experience as something with direction. Hence, it is so difficult to admit, even silently. Contemporary thought, shaped by the ethics of performance and the logic of improvement, distrusts any statement that does not imply progress, trajectory, goal. A way of being that does not depend on the promise of becoming something else has become almost unthinkable. And yet, when that machinery stops—even for a moment—what is revealed is not nothingness. Nor is it a sense of fulfillment as compensation. Instead, a way of being emerges that does not respond to any purpose, that does not require intention, that does not obey the logic of achievement. This is not an extraordinary experience, nor is it a sudden understanding. It is the interruption of the narrative of the self, the possibility of being without telling oneself.
The term “awakening” has been used so often—and with so many interests—that it no longer names anything without bringing with it a host of spiritual promises. There is no revelation here. There is no break with the past. There is no dividing line marking a before and after. There is nothing that is possessed or achieved. Only the impulse to sustain oneself through a constant narrative dissolves, without violence. Life ceases to be property, and with that it loses its weight. This cessation does not require resolution. It does not lead to final clarity. There is no meaning to be attained, no stabilizing answer. What is experienced, if that verb can still be used, is a form of lightness that does not come from a solution, but from the interruption of the need to resolve. It is not a matter of having arrived anywhere. Only the internal friction has stopped. Not as a conquest, but as a deactivation.
That kind of pause cannot be sought. It does not respond to a strategy, technique, or methodology. It is not produced by will. It arrives unannounced, sometimes in the most trivial gesture: a leisurely walk, an unintentional silence, a moment that does not demand interpretation. It is where thought has nothing to add, but is not perceived as absent either. What is there does not seek to be named. It does not demand translation. It does not point to another place. Its consistency lies in not needing to be integrated into any system. To speak of freedom in this context requires revisiting the concept itself. It is not about choosing or affirming something about oneself. It is not about having options. Freedom here is not possibility, but the cessation of compulsion. What liberates is not a decision, but the end of the need to decide. When the impulse to define oneself fades, what remains does not need a name.
The greatest obstacle, then, is not outside. It is not the world, nor language, nor the finitude of the body. It is that persistent conviction that life must be oriented toward an end. That impulse toward another place, toward a different state, interrupts the possibility of being with what is already given. The difficulty lies less in action than in pause. Less in movement than in functionless stillness.
What remains is not at the end of any journey. It does not dwell on the margins. It does not demand to be found. It is not lost, nor is it conquered. It is not related to will. It does not respond. It is, as it always has been, though not as an object, nor as a substance, nor as a certainty. It sustains without asserting itself. And when no demands are made of it, it simply allows itself to be.”
Prabhuji
Awakening

Awakening

“Meditation does not involve doing, achieving, or transforming. From the perspective of Advaita Vedānta, there is no distance between the subject who meditates and what is sought through practice. There is no journey, since there is no duality: what is, is already present. Silence is not conquered; it manifests spontaneously when the search ceases, when the will to change stops completely.
The mind, by its very nature, remains in motion: it names, discriminates, anticipates. It seeks to improve, to possess, to control. But such impulses do not lead to the real, but unfold within the realm of illusion—māyā. In this sense, meditation is not a method aimed at obtaining a particular state. It is, in its most rigorous formulation, an unmediated recognition of what already is. Tat tvam asi — “You are that,” affirms the Chāndogya Upaniṣad — not as metaphysical consolation, but as direct observation. Not as conceptual elaboration, but as unmediated presence.
Zen, although it uses a different language, refers to the same experience. Satori is not a psychological achievement or a progressive acquisition. It is the dissolution of all attempts to achieve. Only when the effort to calm the breath, correct the mind, or induce calm ceases can a lucidity without direction or effort emerge. Then one understands that there was never any separation from the moment. And that this moment, when unmanipulated, contains within itself a fullness that takes no form.
The real is not opposed to mental noise. Even the most intense agitation occurs in the field of an unfluctuating consciousness. It is not a matter of suppressing thoughts, but of realizing that they do not constitute identity. The error lies not in thinking, but in identifying with what is thought. When the struggle against what appears—whether it comes from the external world or the inner realm—ceases, a clarity is revealed that does not depend on favorable conditions. In Zen, this openness without appropriation is called mushin—“no-mind”; in Advaita, sākṣin—“the pure witness.” Both concepts refer to the same foundation: that which remains unchanged in the midst of change.
Meditating, then, does not mean withdrawing from the world or seeking refuge within. It is opening oneself completely to what is, without imposing interpretations or rejecting what arises. Adding nothing, subtracting nothing. Without preference, without aversion, without purpose. In this radical openness, a stillness arises that does not depend on physical immobility, a force that does not originate in effort.
One should not meditate to perfect oneself, achieve liberation, or exercise control over the mind. Such motivations strengthen the illusion of the self as an agent. To meditate is to cease denying what already is. And in that cessation—sudden, unprovoked—an understanding may arise: one was never asleep, only dreaming of being someone separate from the present, someone lacking who had to achieve something external.
Awakening is not a change of state. It is realizing that there never was another.
Prabhuji