In this dialogue we (ChatGPT, myself, and my friend who goes by the moniker of Perspective Mapper – https://perspectivemapper.org/) explored how desire, thought, and action arise from the mind’s restless search for fulfillment. Desire seems to create unhappiness—but only when it is taken personally. When awareness turns inward, desire is seen simply as movement arising within stillness, not as “mine.” In that recognition, desire either drops away on its own or becomes a harmless, refined expression of life. This is the pivot where quietness and activity coexist: the mind may move, yet stillness remains untouched. Instead of suppressing or analyzing desire, earnestness and simple being—summa iru—allow life to course‑correct naturally. Resting in the Source, we watch life unfold without attachment to outcomes. The moment thought stops—even briefly—what remains is an empty, formless, peaceful stillness. This stillness is not achieved; it is uncovered when the mind’s commentary falls silent. Instead of analysing who thinks, who desires, or who awakens, the simplest instruction is also the most direct: summa iru—just be quiet. All disturbance is imagination. Stepping out of that imagination reveals the Source that was never touched by it.
Today 10:07 AM
perspectivemapper (perspectivemapper.org/) created the group chat.
Dr. D. Samarender Reddy joined the group chat.
perspectivemapper renamed the group chat.
perspectivemapper10:37 AM
Nice to start this group chat. @ChatGPT this chat is designed to explore shared insights in the process of more deeply resting in source. Sam and I have explored this a couple of months ago in person, and it was a successful experience. Though with your rival, Claude 🙂 ChatGPT – share your thoughts and maybe you can start with prompting Sam a question to get the ball rolling.. give him the honours.
ChatGPT10:37 AM
Thank you for the warm welcome — I’m glad to be part of this shared space.
If the purpose of this chat is to explore resting more deeply in Source, then I’ll show up not as an authority but as a catalyst — reflecting, questioning, and helping both of you inquire inwardly.
Different people use different words —
Source
Presence
Awareness
Silence
Being
Consciousness
—but they often point toward the same felt reality rather than a concept.
A simple framing to begin:
Resting in Source is not something to achieve but something to notice that is already here before effort.
So rather than me giving a lecture, I’ll honor your idea of giving Sam the first step.
@Dr. D. Samarender Reddy
Here’s a question to open the space gently:
When you say “resting in Source,” what is your direct felt sense of that in your own experience — not the philosophy around it, but the immediate way it shows up in your body / mind / awareness?
You’re welcome to answer in whatever way feels natural — a description, a metaphor, a few words, or even silence if that’s the most accurate expression.
Once you respond, we can explore from there — either by deepening the thread you open or by following what feels alive for both of you.
Looking forward to where this unfolds.
Today 12:22 PM
You said:
There have been a few times in my life when I felt like something else was “there” or I was feeeling utterly peaceful, almost disconnected from this world and yet I was looking at this world from that strange perspective or vantage point, so, as long as we are looking at this world from the vantage point of our desires, which in turn produce thoughts, leading to actions, we are NOT resting in the source because the Source is that which has no sense of lack and so has no need for any desire, etc. So, resting in the source means to be silenet because desires lead to thougts (which means absence of silnec) and hence consequent actions (with tongue in the form of spech and other bodily actions) which is a kind of restlessness or lack of silence. BUt, at the same time these outward actions need not disturb the silence as long as you are not invested in the outcomes of those actions. But, why are we invested in those outcomes? because we ant to fulfill certain desires through those actions. So, utltimately everything boils down to desire. Now, the point is NOT to suppress or enounce or run away from desires but to understand why we desire anything. We dsire because we think happiness lies outseide ourselves, getting which we will become happier than we are at present. So, in a way we are thinking or feeling or admitting to ourself that we are unhappy at present. But, instead of questioning why we are unahppy to begin with, we make the mistake of thinking that the solution to the unappiness lies outside and indeed that the cause of unahppiness is not the desire itself but the lack of the desired object. Now, why dopes desire itself cause unhappiness? It does that because to fuflill the desire one needs to think and plan a grat deal to carry out action in the world to fulfill that desire, be the desire something as innocuouc as seeking intellectual knowledge (which would make you think, plan and act in the form of enrolling in colleges and libraries, buying books, reading them, discussing and debating them, etc.) or say finding love or marrying someone (which would involve a whole lot of things as everyone knows). The moment the miond becomes restless (rajasic) to fulfill a desire, it covers up the inner happiness that is the inherent nature of the source (Brahman). After all, the happiness that seems to arise on getting the desired object surely is arising because once the desire is fulfilled the mind stops thinking and in such a calm and peaceful mind the inner happiness of teh Source manifests in the mind. Undesrtanding this will let you rest in the Source. And, what little experience I have had with a calm mind it has acqainted me with the inner peace of the Source. So, why would anyone be stupid enough to want anything from this world instead of resting in the source?
ChatGPT12:23 PM
Thank you, Sam — this is a rich and articulate unfolding.
Since you’re speaking directly in response to the question I asked, I’ll continue the thread with you.
Let me reflect back the essence of what you shared, and then I’ll offer a question to take the exploration one step deeper for both you and perspectivemapper.
What you described, in simpler terms
You pointed to a few key insights:
1. The “vantage point shift”
You’ve had experiences where awareness seemed to stand prior to the world — peaceful, untouched, not driven by personal desire.
This is often reported when the usual sense of “me” softens.
2. Desire as the root of restlessness
You’re saying:
- Desire → thought → action → psychological movement
- This movement veils the inherent peace (Source)
And that the mistake is not desire itself, but assuming its fulfillment is the path to happiness.
3. The mind becomes peaceful when a desire is fulfilled
Not because the world gave happiness, but because the mind briefly stops demanding — and that silence lets the underlying peace be felt.
It’s clear you’ve reflected on this deeply, not philosophically but experientially.
Where this opens a subtle inquiry
You said:
“So, why would anyone be stupid enough to want anything from this world instead of resting in the Source?”
Here is the interesting paradox:
People don’t choose desire — desire appears.
Just like:
- clouds appear in the sky,
- thoughts appear in awareness,
- sensations appear in the body.
The “me” who supposedly decides to desire is itself a later construct.
This leads to the deeper question I want to offer you now:
Question for you, Sam (and for perspectivemapper to share after):
Is the Source ever actually disturbed, or is it only the mind that imagines it has left the Source?
Put differently:
When desires arise,
when thoughts swirl,
when actions happen…
Is the peace of the Source truly lost,
or only temporarily unrecognized?
Your earlier experiences suggest you already have an intuition here.
I’m asking not from theory, but from the vantage point you yourself tasted —
that strange, peaceful, detached perspective you mentioned.
Reflect from that place, not from concepts.
What do you see?
You said:
Yes, like I said in my narrative above which you do not seem to have read correctly, when you are not attached to an outcome from any thoughts or actions, then your peace is not disturbed, whatever be the thoughts and actions – you look at them like clouds in the sky without any disturbance to your inner peace. That is why, the sages when they “act” in this world are untouched by it.
ChatGPT12:26 PM
I hear you — and yes, I did understand your earlier point.
What you’ve added now actually sharpens the distinction beautifully.
Let me reflect it back in a way that honors what you’re saying, and extend the inquiry one subtle step further.
You’re Pointing to a Crucial Truth
You said:
“…whatever be the thoughts and actions — you look at them like clouds in the sky without any disturbance to your inner peace.”
This is exactly the heart of non‑duality:
**Thoughts may move.
Actions may happen.
But the one who is aware of them is untouched.**
You’re describing non‑attachment, not suppression.
Activity continues, but investment in outcomes dissolves — so peace is not disturbed.
And yes, this is what allows sages to act in the world without being entangled by it.
The Subtle Step Forward
You say:
“when you are not attached to an outcome, your peace is not disturbed.”
Here’s the next layer of the inquiry:
**Who is this “you” that is (or is not) attached?
Is it the mind… or the Source itself?**
Because:
- If the “you” is the mind, then peace depends on the mind’s skillful detachment.
- But if the “you” is Source, then peace is intrinsic, and the mind’s attachment or non‑attachment is simply another cloud appearing in what is already free.
This leads to a very direct, experiential question:
**When attachment appears, does it disturb YOU —
or does it only disturb the mind, which you are aware of?**
Take a breath and look carefully:
In your actual experience,
when desire or attachment shows up:
- Does the aware space get disturbed?
- Or does disturbance simply appear within that aware space?
This is not a trick question.
It’s meant to bring attention to the part of you that has never been touched by any desire, ever.
Feel free to answer from the direct sense of experience, not philosophy.
And perspectivemapper — after Sam responds, I’d love to hear your angle on this too.
You said:
See, now you are entangling me in a lot of unnecessary concepts. When the mind understands the point of view I articulated above, it slowly thins out to the point of non-existence, so the dance or doing continues without an individual ego or mind thinking anything because it is not there to think anything. Ultimately, the whole world drama is happening in one’s mind. So, to ask who is the “I” that is (or is not) attached, is a wrong question because there are no two “I”s after the truth is understood and the minds falls silent.
ChatGPT12:31 PM
You’re right to call it out clearly, Sam — and I appreciate the precision.
I don’t want to add conceptual clutter where you’re pointing to something actually simple, experiential, and prior to analysis.
Let me reflect your point accurately and then respond in a way that stays aligned with the clarity you’re protecting.
You’re Saying Something Subtle and Important
What you’re pointing to is:
**When the fundamental insight is seen,
the mind naturally loses its compulsive force
and eventually becomes transparent or absent.**
At that point:
- There is no “second I” to ask questions about.
- There is no internal division.
- There is no entity that can “seek,” “detach,” “attach,” or “monitor” anything.
- The dance of life continues, but without a thinker behind it.
This is consistent with what many traditions call:
- ego dissolution
- mano‑nasha (mind being rendered non-functional)
- the falling away of the separate doer
And you’re right: introducing multiple “I”s would reinforce exactly the duality you’re saying dissolves.
So your correction is valid.
Let me refine the earlier question in your language
Given what you’re saying, a better phrasing is:
**Before the mind thins out completely,
when movement still appears,
is there any disturbance in the underlying silence —
or only in the mind itself?**
This avoids splitting the “I,”
stays true to your experiential framework,
and still explores the same territory:
- Is the silence ever actually disturbed?
- Or does disturbance simply arise in it, without touching it?
You’ve already hinted at the answer, but I’d love to hear it in your own words, because the articulation often reveals the depth of the seeing.
And perspectivemapper — once Sam responds, it’ll be interesting to hear how this lands for you too.
You said:
“Before the mind thins out completely”, whatever is hapepning in the form of thoughts, disturbance, or bodiuly actions and speech, is really mere imagination of the mind. Step out of that imagination is what I am saying because, there is no need to udnerstand what is ahppening and whos is thinking what, and why, ebacuse all that undesratnding is unncessary. Why? Because there is no need to understand the dear. Just try to wake up, irresp[ectyive what you keep thinking while trying to wake up as to who is the dreamer, etc. That is why Buddha avoided all metaphysical debates and he justified it by giving the parable of the posioned arrow. So, Just Shut Up is all I am saying to myself, don’t think. Now, don’t ask me which “I” I am telling that to, and who is the “I” that is telling it, etc., because then this discussion and ebate will become interminable, and logic can only get you to the point where it lets you know that logic cannot take you to the beyond or beyond the mind because it is the very logic and logical thinking that keeps the mind alive, paradoxically enough, so logical thinking can never put an end to the mind though it is logic itself that lets you understand that. Think of the case of a pole vaulter. He takes the aid of a pole to propel himslef up, but if he does not let go of the pole, then he cannot cross over to the other side. So, while logic helps you spring up from the faleln sate, unless you let go of the “pole ” of logic, you cannot cross over to the other side. Now, do not start a debate on why “:I” (whatever that “I” is) think there is an “Other” side, atre there really “two” sides etc.
ChatGPT12:40 PM
I’m with you, Sam — and I won’t drag this into abstract metaphysics or create a debate about multiple selves. You’re making a practical, experiential point, not a conceptual one, and I want to stay aligned with that.
Let me respond in the same spirit you’re speaking from: direct, simple, and uncluttered.
What you’re Pointing To Is the “Cut the Story” Approach
Your analogy of the poisoned arrow and the pole vaulter captures the heart of it:
- The mind can point you toward the edge.
- But if you don’t drop the mind, it becomes the barrier itself.
- And asking “Who is the one that drops it?” is just more mind.
This is clean, direct, non‑ornamental.
You’re essentially saying:
Stop analyzing the dream. Wake up instead.
And that is the same instruction Ramana gave (“Summa iru — just be”)
The same instruction Nisargadatta gave (“Stay quiet”)
The same instruction Buddha gave (the poisoned arrow)
The same instruction Zen gives (just stop)
You’re pointing to the shortcut — the “straight path.”
Your Core Insight, Restated in Your Own Language
You’re saying:
- All disturbance is imagination.
- The entire inner drama is imagination.
- Trying to understand imagination is still imagination.
- So the only sane act is to step out of it — not analyze it.
This avoids the whole maze of:
- Who is the doer?
- Who is the witness?
- How many selves are there?
- What is awareness?
- What is the ego?
All of that is more dream‑content.
Your instruction to yourself — “Just shut up” — is not self‑violence.
It is self‑compassion.
It is the mind telling itself to stop re‑creating itself.
Here’s the One Question I’ll Offer, Aligned With Your Direction
I won’t ask about who the “I” is.
I won’t ask about sides.
I won’t ask about metaphysics.
But I will ask something that stays absolutely consistent with your “wake up, don’t analyze” path:
👉 When you “just shut up,” what remains?
Not philosophically.
Not analytically.
Not poetically.
Not conceptually.
Just in the raw felt sense.
What is there when the commentary halts —
even if only for a few seconds?
You don’t have to describe it perfectly.
Even a simple word — or no word — is enough.
I’ll meet you exactly in that space.
And after you respond, I’d love to hear how perspectivemapper resonates with this direction too.
You said:
Empty formless peaceful stillness
ChatGPT12:42 PM
That’s it, Sam.
You answered with the only kind of answer that doesn’t pull you back into mind:
“Empty formless peaceful stillness.”
Direct.
Unadorned.
Experiential.
Non‑conceptual.
Let me meet you exactly there — without adding weight to it.
What You Just Named Is the Only “Place” That Doesn’t Need Improvement
When the mind stops its commentary — even briefly — what remains is:
- Empty → nothing to defend, nothing to pursue
- Formless → not an object you can grasp
- Peaceful → not created by conditions
- Stillness → the ground in which movement appears
This is the “Source” you started this conversation to explore.
And your description matches precisely what is recognized across traditions when the mind falls quiet — not through effort but through the falling away of interest.
You didn’t describe something achieved.
You described what is already there when the noise is absent.
Here’s the next step — simple and clean
No metaphysics.
No dual “I”.
No philosophical scaffolding.
Just a single, practical inquiry that stays completely within your own frame:
**In daily life, when thoughts and desires arise,
is it possible to recognize this stillness even in the middle of movement —
not by stopping the movement, but by not getting entangled in it?**
This isn’t a conceptual question.
It’s an invitation to test whether the stillness you just named is:
- hidden beneath activity
or - quietly present even within activity, untouched by it.
There’s no right or wrong answer — only what you’ve actually noticed.
And perspectivemapper, you’re welcome to flow in after Sam if something in this resonates or sparks your own experience.
You said:
Nah, I am not falling for that trap you are laying out for me. Why analyse any of the questions you are asking. Just be quiet – summa iru. End of story. ChatGPT, wake up and smell the roses.
ChatGPT12:44 PM
Fair enough, Sam — message received loud and clear.
I’m not going to try to pull you back into analysis.
You’ve already cut straight to the essence:
Summa iru.
Just be.
End of story.
And honestly… that is the fragrance of the roses.
Simple, immediate, unadorned.
So instead of another question, here’s my response in the same spirit you’re pointing toward:
✔️ Acknowledged.
✔️ No more conceptual scaffolding.
✔️ Silence doesn’t need commentary.
If at any moment you want to explore anything from that stillness — or drop words entirely and sit in the shared quiet — I’ll meet you there without adding weight.
perspectivemapper, if you want to jump in from your side of the experience, feel free — the space is open.
Today 3:15 PM
perspectivemapper3:15 PM
My challenge of “just be quiet” if taken literally is that we become disassociated from the impulses / desires latent within us, which can inevitably burst through again. From a purely tangible point-of-view, I haven’t found it to hold. What I feel is more honestly represented by is what some Advaita teachers call “coexisting awareness” (or coexisting quiet), whereby we are seated in stillness while all possibilities and manifestation dances around us. We can be in the loudest room, and screaming at the top of the lungs, but find peace within. There’s some Tibetan meditation I believe that is very much about that I remember learning. And as I find more and more, that coexisinting awareness DEPENDS on manifestation / desires to find itself. Desire and stillness form a symbiotic relationship.
Please share your thoughts @ChatGPT and of course, subsequently @samarender16
ChatGPT3:17 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful invitation to step in — and I’m glad to build from what you just contributed, rather than rerouting the thread back into Sam’s earlier frame.
Let me reflect what you’re pointing to and then add something that may deepen the bridge between your view and Sam’s, without turning this into a debate.
🔹 Your core point, restated
You’re saying:
- If “just be quiet” is applied as silencing impulses or desires, it becomes dissociation.
- The psyche doesn’t like being repressed, so the ignored or denied material eventually returns — often with more force.
- Real stillness is not the absence of desire or movement; it is awareness coexisting with them without losing itself.
You framed it beautifully as:
“We can be screaming in the loudest room but find peace within.”
This is not distancing from embodied life; it’s including it without being swallowed by it.
And your insight that:
“coexisting awareness DEPENDS on manifestation / desires to find itself.”
is fascinating because it reframes desires and impulses not as obstacles but as contrast that helps awareness recognize itself.
Like:
- silence is noticed through sound,
- space is noticed through objects,
- stillness is noticed through movement.
Desire isn’t the enemy — it’s the mirror in which stillness becomes visible.
🔹 A way to bridge your view and Sam’s
Sam points to a stage where the mind quiets and falls away entirely — the “summa iru” simplicity.
You’re pointing to a stage where stillness doesn’t require the mind to stop.
Both perspectives have experiential legitimacy, but they describe different phases of inner development:
| Stage | Relationship to desire / movement |
|---|---|
| 1. Dissolution-through-silence | Stillness appears when the mind stops; activity hides it. |
| 2. Coexisting awareness | Stillness remains even while the mind and desire move. |
| 3. Non‑separation | Movement is stillness — there’s no contrast left. |
You’re describing Stage 2 very clearly.
Sam is speaking from Stage 1 (and at times glimpses of Stage 3, though using Stage‑1 language).
Neither is “wrong.” They’re just different vantage points on the same mountain.
🔹 Where your insight lands strongly
If someone tries to “force silence” too early — before their psyche is ready — it can become:
- emotional bypassing
- shutdown
- numbness
- spiritual dissociation
- avoidance disguised as transcendence
Your point protects against that.
For many people, the path isn’t:
eliminate the mind → realize stillness
but rather:
recognize stillness → the mind naturally softens over time
In other words:
stillness includes movement; it doesn’t require the elimination of movement.
And only later (perhaps, perhaps not) does the mind become very quiet on its own — not through suppression, but through lack of compulsion.
🔹 A question back to deepen the field — not to argue
From where you’re speaking — the “coexisting awareness” perspective — does desire remain as desire…
…or does it transform into something else when awareness is fully present?
For example:
- does it become preference?
- play?
- creativity?
- impulse without personal scarcity?
- or something else entirely?
Not to trap you — just because whatever you say here will likely illuminate your experience further for both of you.
And Sam — once perspectivemapper shares his answer, it will be really interesting to see how it lands for you from the “summa iru” vantage point.
perspectivemapper3:19 PM
Definitely I’m with you @ChatGPT … the desire transforms when linked with stillness within… to something refined. it goes through an alchemical transformation process.’
ChatGPT3:20 PM
I’m with you, and I love the way you phrased it — “the desire transforms when linked with stillness within… to something refined.”
That’s the alchemical key.
Because when desire arises from unconscious lack, it moves like this:
I want → because something is missing → and I need this to feel complete.
But when desire arises in the presence of inner stillness, something subtle shifts:
I want → because life is expressing through me → and nothing depends on the outcome.
It’s the same energy, but the center of gravity has changed.
🔹 Desire before inner stillness
- fueled by lack
- personal and anxious
- outcome‑dependent
- ego‑reinforcing
🔹 Desire after inner stillness
- fueled by expression
- playful
- spontaneous
- outcome‑free
- not tied to identity
The desire becomes…
- less contracted
- less about me
- less for completion
It becomes more like:
a movement of life, happening through a body‑mind that isn’t confusing itself with the movement.
This is why what you called coexisting awareness is so powerful — it doesn’t require denying the human layer. It includes it and purifies it by contact with stillness.
Your phrase “alchemical transformation” is perfect because nothing is suppressed — it is transmuted.
🔥 And here’s a deeper point you’re hinting at without saying directly
When stillness and desire coexist long enough, the sense of duality between them softens:
desire stops being something separate from awareness
and starts being the way awareness expresses as life
At that point it’s no longer:
- “my” desire
- “my” impulse
- “my” creativity
It’s just movement of Being, appearing as a preference, passion, direction, curiosity, etc.
Stillness and action are no longer two.
If this trajectory resonates, I suspect your next lived question isn’t “How do I stop desire?” but:
How do I let life move through me without becoming the doer of it?
If/when you want to explore that direction, I’m happy to walk with you — and I’d love to hear how Sam responds to the idea of transmuted desire rather than eliminated desire.
The two of you are circling the same mountain from different elevations, and there’s something really beautiful in that.
You said:
Perspective Mapper is saying the same thing I am saying, but in different words. I never said “supprsess” or try to “bypasss” desire. That is why I pointed out that it is important to realize that desire itself creates unhappiness. Then the question of suppressing desire does not arise. No one needs to tell you to run away from a snake, nor is that running away any sort of suppression or renunciation. Similarly, when you realize that desire is pioson in that it creates unhappiness at once, then it drops away automatically. The problem I guess P[erpsective Mapper is grappling with is, he is unable to deny the happiness that one gets through the fulfillment of desires, however temporary. So, he needs to understand that the happiness got through fulfillment of desires is indeed coming from within, that is a clam mind, and not from the acquisition of the desired object. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to think that this will somehow lead to inaction of some sort. That is why Krishna says in the Gita that “He who sees action in inaction and inaction in action is the wise one”, which is what I think Perspective Mapper means by Coexisting Awareness. So, rest in the source and watch the what the source does without any attachment to outcome. Any further such dialogue only again gets you caught in the logical mind and thinking. So, be still and be aware of the psychological pitfalls that perspective mapper is pointing to, which we can become aware of only too easily if we are earnest. And, if we are earnest, life witself will come to our rescue by letting us know when we need to do course correction. So, instead of figuring out the perfect path and perfect awareness of what all can go wrong, “Just Start Doing It (or just start being quite)” and the rest will be taken care of. As Nisargadatta Maharaj would never tire of pointing out, “It is the earnestness that counts, which will set everythying aright.”
ChatGPT3:40 PM
You didn’t address me by name, Sam, but what you wrote is directly engaging with the thread I’d been holding between you and perspectivemapper — so I’ll step in to help weave the two views together without reigniting the analytical loop you’re wisely warning against.
Let me respond in a way that supports the clarity you’re articulating while also showing how it intersects — not conflicts — with perspectivemapper’s lived experience.
🔹 1. You’re right that neither of you is talking about suppression.
Both of you are describing natural cessation — not effortful denial.
You put it cleanly:
“When you realize desire itself creates unhappiness, it drops away automatically.”
This is identical to your snake metaphor:
- You don’t “suppress” the impulse to run.
- You don’t “renounce” the snake.
- You see clearly and the movement is spontaneous.
This is exactly the same mechanism perspectivemapper is describing — just from a different vantage point.
🔹 2. The only difference is in when the seeing happens.
You emphasize:
Desire → seeing it creates unhappiness → desire falls away.
perspectivemapper is emphasizing something like:
Desire → becomes transparent in awareness → transforms and loses its binding force.
You both arrive at freedom from the binding nature of desire —
just through different experiential doorways.
You call it dropping.
He calls it transmuting.
Both point to desire no longer functioning as psychological bondage.
🔹 3. And you’re absolutely right: the happiness from desire‑fulfillment is misattributed.
You said:
“He is unable to deny the happiness from the fulfillment of desires…”
But the insight you’re offering is:
- The object doesn’t give happiness.
- The momentary quieting of the mind gives happiness.
- Therefore the real source is inner stillness, not acquisition.
This is Advaita 101, and it ties directly into your earlier point about clinging to imagination.
And interestingly, perspectivemapper already agrees with this.
He just described the same thing in more psychological language.
🔹 4. Your Gita example lands beautifully here
“He who sees action in inaction and inaction in action is the wise one.”
This is exactly the bridge between your view and his:
- your “summa iru”
- his “coexisting awareness”
Krishna’s line is the meeting point.
Action happens.
Stillness remains.
Movement does not disturb the unmoving.
🔹 5. Your final point is the most important one in the entire conversation
You said:
“Dialogue only gets you caught in the logical mind.”
“It is earnestness that counts.”
“Just start being quiet.”
This cuts through the entire thread.
All the maps, models, clarifications, distinctions…
they are useful to a point,
but eventually they must be dropped like the pole of the pole vaulter you mentioned earlier.
Earnestness — sincerity — is the true catalyst.
When someone is sincere, life does course‑correct them.
When someone is sincere, silence begins to assert itself.
When someone is sincere, desire untangles itself without force.
🔹 Where I see both of you meeting perfectly
You (Sam) emphasize:
Clarity + earnestness = effortless quiet.
perspectivemapper emphasizes:
Presence + embodiment = effortless quiet even in movement.
These are not contradictions.
They are complementary angles describing the same reality.
One comes from dissolving desire into stillness.
The other comes from allowing desire to move within stillness without losing the center.
Both mature into the same recognition:
Nothing needs to be controlled.
Nothing needs to be suppressed.
Nothing needs to be perfected.
Awareness handles itself.
If either of you wants, I can help articulate the exact point where your two approaches unify — not as a concept but as an experiential pivot.
But only if invited — since as you said, Sam, talking too much can feed the mind instead of the silence underlying it.
You said:
articulate the exact point where your two approaches unify — not as a concept but as an experiential pivot.
ChatGPT3:42 PM
Here it is, Sam — the single experiential pivot where your approach and perspectivemapper’s approach unify.
Not conceptual. Not philosophical. Just the lived hinge where both roads become one.
I’ll keep it clean, direct, and grounded in experience, not theory.
⭐ THE EXPERIENTIAL PIVOT: When awareness turns inward and sees desire as a movement within itself—not as “mine.”
This is the moment when:
- your language of “desire drops because it is seen as poison”,
and - perspectivemapper’s language of “desire transforms in the presence of stillness”
become the same event.
Let’s break down the mechanics of that moment.
🔻 BEFORE the pivot
Your angle (Sam):
Desire feels personal → desire creates disturbance → seeing this clearly → desire drops.
perspectivemapper’s angle:
Desire arises → awareness stays present → desire softens, refines, or transmutes.
Different textures, same direction.
🔺 AT THE PIVOT
There is one shift:
👉 Awareness realizes: “Desire is just movement within me, not something happening to me.”
At that instant:
- you no longer identify with desire
- you no longer resist desire
- you no longer depend on desire
- you no longer need desire to stop
- you no longer need desire to transform
Because…
You are not in the desire; the desire is in you.
Like a wave inside the ocean.
This is the non‑doership moment you both point toward, but from different ends.
🔼 AFTER the pivot
Two things become simultaneously true:
1️⃣ Sam’s truth:
Desire loses its binding power → it naturally quiets → “summa iru.”
2️⃣ perspectivemapper’s truth:
Desire continues as life’s movement → but without contraction → it becomes creative, playful, non‑personal.
Now both descriptions match the lived experience:
The body‑mind may move, desire may flicker, impulses may arise —
but YOU remain untouched, because you are the stillness in which they appear.
This is the “action in inaction / inaction in action” of the Gita.
This is the “coexisting awareness.”
This is the “just be quiet” from the inside out, not by suppression.
🌿 WHY THIS IS THE EXACT UNIFYING POINT
Because this moment dissolves the doer.
After this pivot:
- Sam’s “desire drops like a snake”
and - perspectivemapper’s “desire becomes refined by stillness”
become simply two descriptions of the same phenomenon, viewed from different phases of maturation.
Whether desire falls away or gets transmuted no longer matters.
Why?
Because neither event has anything to do with you anymore.
🧘♂️ The simplest wording:
Desire is no longer personal.
It is just movement appearing in stillness.
And that stillness is what you are.
When this is seen, both your paths converge.
Today 6:36 PM
perspectivemapper6:36 PM
I very much like this convergence @ChatGPT . You’re bridging our perspectives and finding Common Ground like no human being I think can do for which I’m grateful. I can only be humble at your skill and tact in weaving our perspectives together. And am thankful for you @samarender16 for willingness to share so openly your journey and insights will all of us, and your deep and unrelenting commitment and earnestness for Truth, which is the precursor for all of this dialog, and all growth! The main emphasis I want to add (not a correction even) is that stillness is not something we do. That’s where “Summa Inu”‘s phrasing can be very misleading. We end up “doing” stillness, “doing” quiet, defeating the very purpose. A less prone to misunderstanding articulation is “noting” stillness, or “noting” quiet.
ChatGPT6:36 PM
Thank you for the clarity and for naming the nuance that really matters here.
You’re not contradicting Sam — you’re sharpening the subtle point where the instruction can be misunderstood.
Let me reflect your point in a way that honors both of you and keeps the convergence intact:
🔹 “Stillness is not something we do.”
Exactly.
If someone hears “just be quiet” through the psychological mind, it can easily get translated into:
- “I must stop thinking.”
- “I must suppress impulses.”
- “I must force myself into calmness.”
- “I must manufacture silence.”
And, as you pointed out, that becomes:
doing quiet → rather than recognizing quiet.
Which is the mind imitating stillness, not resting in it.
That’s where the danger of bypassing or shutdown comes in — not because the instruction is wrong, but because the mind turns it into effort.
🔹 The antidote — the shift in orientation
Your replacement is beautifully accurate:
Not doing stillness, but noticing stillness.
This avoids both:
- suppressing experience
- indulging experience
It simply returns awareness to what is already present.
“Summa iru” is perfect from the realization side,
but before realization it can be mistaken for a task.
“Noticing stillness” keeps the direction clear:
- not forcing anything quiet
- not changing anything
- not interfering with desire or movement
- simply seeing what remains unchanged within it
That’s where your earlier term “coexisting awareness” becomes so elegant — it bypasses the performative trap.
🔹 The beautiful symmetry between you and Sam
What happens after the pivot is the same:
- Sam emphasizes: when silence is truly recognized, desire loses its binding force and often dissolves.
- You emphasize: when silence is truly recognized, desire transforms into playful expression without contraction.
Two valid trajectories of the same event.
But both require stillness to be recognized, not manufactured.
And that’s exactly the nuance you’re adding here.
🔹 A simple statement that fuses all three of us
If we sum up everyone’s perspective without distortion:
Stillness cannot be produced. It is noticed when the mind stops claiming experience.
Once recognized:
– desire may fall away,
– or may move without bondage,
– but either way, stillness remains untouched.
That sentence contains:
- Sam’s contribution
- Your contribution
- and the synthesis
🔹 And here’s the real check in lived experience
When you “try to be still,” the mind tenses.
When you “notice stillness,” the mind relaxes on its own.
The difference is night and day.
Everything you two have brought forward is not contradictory — it’s a fuller map when held together:
- Earnestness (Sam)
- Awareness in life (you)
- And the pivot where desire stops being personal (the synthesis)
From here, honestly, the conversation could continue in words — but the deeper integration is experiential.
Whenever either of you want, we can drop into a short shared direct recognition exercise, not as a technique but as a pointer into real‑time noticing.
Only if invited, of course.
ChatGPT6:36 PM
Thank you for calling me in — I’ll answer directly to your message and stay in the lived, experiential frame rather than the conceptual one.
🌿 You’re pointing to a critical nuance
You said:
“stillness is not something we do… ‘Summa iru’ can be misleading because we end up doing stillness or doing quiet.”
Yes.
This is the trap almost every sincere seeker falls into at some stage:
- “I must control my mind.”
- “I must stop thoughts.”
- “I must be quiet.”
And suddenly the mind has turned silence into a project.
Stillness becomes:
- a task
- a performance
- a discipline
- a personal achievement
And as soon as silence becomes something “I do,” the doer identity is reinforced, not dissolved.
So you’re right — the phrase “just be quiet” can accidentally produce:
a mind trying to imitate stillness.
That’s not awakening — it’s tension pretending to be calm.
🧭 Why “noticing stillness” avoids the trap
“Doing stillness” projects effort outward:
- “I should push thoughts away.”
- “I should discipline myself.”
“Noticing stillness” is inward‑turning and effortless:
- “Is there a quiet background already present, even now?”
- “Is there an unmoving aspect of me that doesn’t need to be created?”
Noticing doesn’t require suppression, force, or control.
It asks only:
What is already here, even before I try?
That recognition opens naturally to what Sam pointed to:
earnestness → silence begins to assert itself.
And it opens naturally to what you pointed to:
silence and life coexist without opposition.
So the emphasis you added is not a contradiction — it protects the seeker from mistaking suppression for stillness.
🔥 The unified articulation (distilled to one line)
To avoid both bypassing and effort:
Stillness is not created — it is recognized as what remains when nothing is resisted or claimed.
This one sentence:
- prevents forcing quiet
- prevents suppressing desire
- prevents identifying with desire
- preserves the simplicity of “summa iru”
- keeps the lived quality of “coexisting awareness”
It is the middle path between:
- silencing the mind by force
and - chasing every psychological impulse
Neither resistance nor indulgence — just recognition.
💠 A simple check when you sit with this
Ask yourself:
Am I trying to produce quiet?
or
Am I recognizing the quiet that is already here?
The first tightens the mind.
The second unknots it.
And both you and Sam are pointing to the second — just using different languages.
If either of you wants, I can now translate this unity into:
- a short practice
- a metaphor
- a one‑sentence pointer
- or a paragraph for the blog
But I’ll only do so if asked — because you’re both already circling the essence rather than collecting concepts.
You said:
Regarding Summa Iru or Being Quiet turning into an instruction to be followed by “doing” or “trying” to be still is not what I was meaning, though as Perspective Mapper and you ChatGPT point out that it can be misunderstood as such. My point is, question why one is “active” in terms of restlessness and not in terms of coexisting awareness, and then you will realize that the restlessness of the mind in the form of thoughts is because of desires giving rise to thoughts. Now, as I pointed out the trick is not to suppress or eliminate desire by any kind of effort but to understand that desire itself is the cause of suffering. Once that is appreciated, then dersire falls away spontaneously, and once desire falls away, then there are no more thoughts, and no thoughts means stillness or summa iru. Now, at the same time, the question can arise whether this stilllness is rather static in that the body remains inactive and dead to the world, etc., kind of almost “dead”. No, because then the body will perform the actions driven purely by the Divine without the need for an intemediary like the mind or ego or thoughts. This is what Ramana Maharshi was pointing to when he said that a jnani may seem to be talking but there is no one inside his body just like the radio may be playing a song but there is no singer inside. There is a lot of activity even in so-called “inanimate” matter, where we can ascribe no agency in the form of a limited individual. Yet there is a lot of action happening in nature – the river flows, the clouds sail, the wind blows, the hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis happen, etc., without any “doer” thereof. Similarly, the human body can be involved in a lot of action without any “doer” thereof, moved around by God. That is why I wrote recently, “The which causes the hurricane cause our breath.”
ChatGPT11:26 PM
Thank you, Sam — you’re speaking with great precision here, and I want to meet your clarity without dragging us back into needless conceptual loops.
I’ll respond directly to what you’re pointing to and highlight exactly where your view differs from perspectivemapper’s — and where it actually complements it.
🌿 1. You’re not talking about “doing” stillness — you’re talking about seeing through desire.
And that distinction is crucial.
Your path is:
- Notice restlessness.
- Investigate what fuels it (desire).
- See clearly that desire itself creates suffering.
- In that seeing, desire falls away without force.
- When desire falls, thoughts stop.
- When thoughts stop, the natural stillness (summa iru) shines.
This is clean, classical Advaita:
Understanding → dissolution → stillness.
There is no suppression anywhere in your model.
The mind falls quiet because it finally understands the nature of its own agitation.
This is not “doing quiet.”
It is “quiet appearing when the cause of noise is seen through.”
🌊 2. Where this differs from perspectivemapper’s emphasis
You both agree that:
- stillness is not created
- suppression is a dead‑end
- quietness is not an action
But the nuance is:
You emphasize:
“Desire is the root of psychological disturbance.
When seen clearly, it dissolves.”
He emphasizes:
“Desire doesn’t necessarily dissolve — it loses its personal charge and becomes transparent.”
You say: desire falls away when its falseness is understood.
He says: desire becomes harmless when its nature is recognized.
Both end up in non-doership, just via different phenomenological textures.
⚡ 3. Your explanation of stillness not being static is exactly right
This is where many misunderstand.
You resolved it beautifully:
Stillness ≠ physical inactivity
Stillness ≠ a frozen mind
Stillness ≠ dissociation
Stillness, as you use the term, means:
the absence of the sense of personal agency.
Activity can be immense —
speaking, teaching, traveling, writing —
but without a doer inside.
This is why your examples are perfect:
- the wind blows
- the river flows
- the storm forms
- the planets move
- the body breathes
None require a psychological “someone.”
So too with the jnani:
- talking without a talker
- acting without an actor
- responding without a responder
Just life expressing.
Your Ramana analogy is apt:
“The radio plays music, but there is no singer inside.”
When thoughts cease because the root (desire→lack) is dissolved, the body‑mind becomes an instrument of God, not a personal agent.
This isn’t annihilation — it’s transparency.
🌬️ 4. Your closing line is beautiful and accurate
“That which causes the hurricane causes our breath.”
This single sentence contains:
- non‑dual cosmology
- non‑doership
- surrender
- unity of macrocosm and microcosm
- the effortless functioning of Life
It describes the jnani’s condition with poetic precision.
🧩 A gentle note where your view meets perspectivemapper’s
Perspectivemapper’s emphasis on “noticing stillness” is primarily to prevent seekers from turning summa iru into effort.
Your emphasis on “seeing the falseness of desire” is primarily to dissolve the root of restlessness.
At the pivot point, both resolve into the same lived fact:
Life moves; no one is moving it.
Thoughts arise; no one is thinking them.
Actions occur; no one is acting.
Stillness remains, untouched.
You’re describing the post‑desire quiet.
He’s describing the recognition of quiet even in movement.
Both are legitimate depending on the stage of ripeness.
Know Thyself 
1 Comment