blackfence

Gustav Klimt's famous painting Portrait of Adele Bloch Bauer serves as a metaphor for Self-Realization. Realization proceeds in stages. At first, the usual distinction between self and other -- between the woman and her environment -- is punctured by the process of intense concentration, showing that underneath what was thought to be a physical or social or mental environment was this beautiful golden 'stuff': call it silence or bliss or consciousness. But then this very bliss is itself realized to be just another color of paint on this painting, just another object. And so in that sense both the 'egoic' and the 'blissful' states are themselves considered to be merely points of view that are themselves formed by something else, something that is beyond the egoic and the non-egoic, something which is not itself a point of view. And in that process even the very stages of realization are themselves recognized to be occurring only from one of these points of view... points of view which are part of the painting, which is not limited or bound by them.
 

There are at least three useful ways of thinking about the ego and how it is generated. One is the static: this is the sense of the subject, of the "I," that is generated whenever you have an experience. The I is generated from and contrasted to the not-I. The I here is a mass of unconscious and unseen assumptions. Self-inquiry and surrender discern away these assumptions, leaving the I by itself, whereupon it disappears.

The second view is the dynamic: this is the sense of the "I" that is generated by the motion of thought. Thought by flowing creates the hallucination of a stable perceiver OF those thoughts. If this motion is slowed down or stopped, that hallucination can be seen for what it is. Self-inquiry and surrender concentrate the mind, redirecting it away from its usual desire-and-fear focused movement, thereby slowing and even stopping it.

The third view is the structural view of the ego: this is the fact that the content of our thought all refers to a self-image, and is validated by all the other thoughts referring to the same image. These form a kind of web or net of mutually reinforcing illusion. Spiritual pointers like the simple question "Who am I?" or the image of the ego as being like a dream try to gesture one away out of this web.

Just now, steve said:

I found two settings that may be responsible and adjusted them.

Please let me know if that helps.

 

I think it did, since I just got a notification for your reply. Thanks!

I'm automatically subscribed to posts I start, and have the setting where I should be notified by email whenever there's a new reply. But I never get those emails. My email address in settings is correct. 

Any idea what might be happening? Thanks.

A tricky and very interesting distinction is present in Maharshi's work between samadhi -- a profound state of concentrated absorption where the distinction between "I" and "not I" breaks down -- and laya, which is also absorption... but in which ignorance does not break down. Both are states or profound peace.

Samadhi can easily turn into laya, Maharshi says, so seekers should be warned. Elsewhere, however, he says that states of peace need not be interrupted. So which is it? Well, the answer lies in where the seeker is along the path. The mind has to be turned inward and concentrated, and various methods that produce laya can result in this; but the ultimate samadhi is not one that turns into laya, but is that which is seen when even laya is questioned, self-inquired into, or surrendered.

3 hours ago, Nungali said:

I used to be (many many years ago)   the chairperson of a 'Baha'i Spiritual Assembly' - an elected council of 9 that helps run the affairs of a community , they replace the function of 'clergy' in other religions .  Since they have to sometimes decide on affairs that effect peoples lives, it is very important to make a 'spiritual decision'  and not a selfish one .  very basically it works like this ;

 

First you have to get in 'spiritual mode' - there is no point coming into it from some charged emotive state , so one must have the ability to leave that behind . They used the method of prayer for that ,  the meetings started with prayer or philosophical readings . The key thing is to release your attachments to any opinion offered  , put it 'in the pot on the table '  (there isnt one, thats a metaphor ), then release it as your own idea / contribution, examine it as you do the other contributions, by keeping in mind the best solution to the problem .

 

Easy to say that, some are  able to this and others cant really, they mask it but underneath they are pushing for their own ideas.

 

I suppose it takes 'spiritual people ' to make 'spiritual decisions '  ... remedy ?  Get 'spiritual' .

 

The test is - its fairly easy for the 'advanced' to decide on an issue that might effect others , but one may also have to decide on an issue that effects YOU as well , thats the real test of any spiritual decision making for community !

 

Get more 'spiritual'    (  become selfless, develop understanding, cultivate wisdom and balance mercy and severity , but do not fear to act )  .   The idea is (in Bahai ), if you stick together, even a wrong decision will become apparent and you can fine tune it or drop and change it later , the community learns together in experience . becoming attached to all different opinions and solutions, causes division, which is hard to resolve and the community may not learn adapt and evolve . Otherwise there are people undermining decisions that go against their personal wants .  If the council/ors    cant get it together  or keep making unpopular decisions then  the community is able to vote different members in . 

 

 

.

Very interesting, thanks for the description!

How does one deal with difficult decisions? From the psychological perspective, it's important that one be clear and honest about what you want. Therapy and artistic expression can help with this. But from a purely spiritual perspective, you simply recognize that you are not the doer and that you have nothing to do with decisions. You let the mind fall absolutely quiet through surrender or inquiry. The funny thing is that these approaches are not actually opposed. They occur in different contexts.

There is a difference between the feeling of the still mind, that is, bliss, and the sense or coming of Knowledge of the Self, whose nature is insight... Even insights are temporary and *not* the real Self, but they constitute the 'gate' part of the 'gateless gate', and there are certain distinguishing characteristics that can be helpful for the seeker: the inversion of in and out in what I've called in the past the spacious mind. You thought you were a body inside the world; now you see that you are a world within which a body is. Insights are revisited over and over again through self-inquiry and surrender until they burn away all residual ignorance and become steady, at which time it becomes clear that insights and ignorance were both illusions.
 

Spiritual awakening or liberation is essentially a matter of immense, intense discernment -- an act of focused distinguishing away of all the things one is not, which then reveals what one really is, though that revelation is not to the one who originally sought it. That's the paradox of seeking: you seek as you know that you are what you seek. The intense discernment required for the search is driven by equally intense desire for liberation, which generates, through practice, a relatively quiet mind, and focus... which must be then be channeled all the way through, via surrender or self-inquiry -- to discerning away ALL the things that you are not. There is an end to the process, but it is not what you think it is.

58 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

Here is what ChNNR has to say about the mirror (Crystal p. 99):

 

 

This is not the same, IMHO, as the idea that the Self is reflecting off of objects (like light off of a mirror). However, YMMV.

 

On p. 98 he writes "So the Zhi, the Base, the fundamental condition of the individual and of existence, is in essence void, and yet its nature is nevertheless to manifest. How it manifests is as Energy, and by way of example, this Energy is compared to the reflections that arise in a mirror. The master may once again show a mirror to the disciple and explain how the reflections that arise in it are the energy of the mirror's own inherent nature manifesting visibly."

Seems like a pretty close match to me, actually.

Just now, ilumairen said:

Let it go. You are to intellectualized for us to meaningfully connect at this point. All you write is about the words used, and it doesn’t appear you have a willingness or perhaps a capacity to look at what the words are attempting to convey. And I am uninvested, with no motivation to proceed with what to me are little more than word games.

 

I wish you well, and if, at some point you are reading a post I have made and actually find yourself understanding where the finger is pointing without getting caught up in the finger itself, I will welcome further interaction. Until then, this is a dance I’ve grown weary of and will not continue.

 

All the best to you on your path.

Good luck on your quest.

13 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

I did say rudimentary to me, the person who believed they were engaged in conversation with you, and yet it appears you are speaking more to an audience than with me. 

I disagree. Here's what you wrote: 

"Do you understand how very rudimentary this idea of a label not being what is labeled is to me?"

That's not really the point of the distinction between stillness and Stillness. My point wasn't that stillness isn't the label "stillness." 

My point was that any state of mind, however still, is not enough.

So when you wrote originally: 
 

"What do you believe the experience would be if instead of “seeking” (for lack of a better term) stillness of mind, one begins with stillness of mind?"

If "one" "begins" with anything, that is a state of mind. If you're asking about what an experience would be like, that too would be a question about a state of mind.

So the stillness referred to here is a state of mind. As I just said, states of mind aren't Truth. That's the point. 

I'm responding to what you wrote. I have no idea about you beyond that.

Just now, dwai said:

Of course Jnana is complete. It always is. Before the seeker begun seeking it was so, after the seeker realizes it is so. That said, experience shows that there indeed is a process of maturation, not of the jnana but within the individual. 

 

Now,  if you say, "there is no individual...that is an appearance only", I'll say "if you are smacked on the head, you WILL hurt". So long as there is a body and mind, they are subject to the influence of the arrows (flying around in samsara). Body will age, disease will come.  Prarabha will playout. That is why tattvajnana and jivanamukti are considered distinct phases. 

Right, it's as I thought. You've accepted jnana in name only. "Yes, jnana, but..."

No. Prarabdha, body, mind, etc. -- and yes, "being smacked on the head and hurting" -- these are absolutely all merely appearances. One who believes that they are more than that has not actually understood the true nature of jnana.

What logic is there in the "maturation" of a mirage?

And certainly the idea that "one will hurt when smacked" as proof that the individual is not an appearance is completely rooted in the egoic illusion.

There is no "maturation of the individual" as some official "post jnana phase" -- accepting that is accepting the reality of ajnana... its continuation and thus gradual reduction.

Tattvajnana and jivanmukti are not truly distinct phases. They are "distinct" only from the standpoint of ajnana.

"As the kindled fire reduces firewood to ashes, Arjuna, so the fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes." (Bhagavad Gita 4:37)

What there may be said to be imperfect or incomplete knowledge; unsteady knowledge. In that identification remains. That is not true jnana. It is only a phase of seeking.

12 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

 

Yes yes... 

 

Do you understand how very rudimentary this idea of a label not being what is labeled is to me?
 

And are you only interested in holding court and playing games with words, never stopping to consider the arguments based on the words shared are understood as being built into the experience of attempting to share with words?
 

Anything I say is technically “wrong”, the more words used the further off target things become.. 

 

So now I will offer the gift of silence, and enjoy the sunlight shining through the rain.

 

 

You asked what I thought, then get irritated when I tell you what I think... 

Quote

Do you understand how very rudimentary this idea of a label not being what is labeled is to me?

When I'm pointing it out with regards to silence or stillness is not rudimentary, because many "advanced seekers" get stuck in believing that long spells of a silent or still mind are the final destination. That's it and no more. That's incorrect.

19 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Perhaps there is more dissimilarity of these paths than I had considered, or perhaps expression is simply getting in the way. In either case, I have no wish to argue what is clearly of great importance to you.

 

Although, I do have one question. What do you believe the experience would be if instead of “seeking” (for lack of a better term) stillness of mind, one begins with stillness of mind?

Then one is in a far simpler position. As the Buddha might say, one has "little dust in one's eyes." The stillness must then become the target of self-inquiry -- who is that experiences the stillness? Or, in other words, attempt to grasp the reflectivity of the stillness... Because any stillness that is labeled stillness is still not Stillness; the real Stillness is compatible with both seeming stillness of mind and seeming thought. Relative stillness of mind is an important necessity for the grasping of that real Stillness, however.

6 minutes ago, dwai said:

 come on now! Aren't you jumping to conclusions here? I didn't bring anything up..it is all written in the shastras. 

 

What is written and what is understood are two different things... the shastras are subtle. And they most certainly support what I am saying.

Getting rid of vasanas and the qualifications of a seeker are intermediate concepts that encourage a seeker to purify the mind and not to get discouraged by glimpses of the truth that come and go. But true jnana is not that something that goes on and on, that "develops," "matures," etc. etc. That would make it changeable. The point of jnana is that it is eternal and perfect. 

Jnana instantly and immediately destroys ignorance, leaving no seeker. The very idea that there ever was a seeker, or ever were vasanas, is itself the very ignorance that jnana is designed to destroy.

Take Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras, verse 4.1.14. He writes "The opponent holds that Liberation is attained, in spite of Knowledge, only after one has experienced the results of one's sins committed before illumination. [Sound familiar? These are vasanas! This is karma!]... This Sutra says that when a person attained Knowledge, all his past sins are destroyed and future sins do not cling to him. For by realizing Brahman he experiences that he never was, nor is, nor will be an agent, and such a person cannot be affected by the result of sins... The scriptures also declare that... "The fetters of the heart are broken, all doubts are solved, and all works are destroyed when He who is high and low is seen..." [Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.8]"

9 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Actually, in this I agree with dwai, although different path and different terminology. The “luminous warmth” of what is called “true nature” can be rested in and gently focused upon.. it is very difficult to put into words because it is “beyond” elaboration and conceptualization.. mirror like wisdom is one quality of this “it” which isn’t an “it”.. and to negate “it” is to trip into the pitfall of nihilism on my path - something I very easily do when trying to paint with words, which by their nature are the tools of ego imo.

The luminosity of true nature cannot be focused on, because it is what one is. If it is something that could be focused on, it would become an object... if one thinks one is focusing on that, one is actually focusing on a subtle concept or feeling that one has labeled as that. So what the seeker needs to do is to chase the luminosity reflecting off of experiences and attempt to hold it, recognizing at each moment that every such attempt is in actual fact failing, that it is in fact grasping yet another object of experience. This attempt leads to stillness of mind, and when that very stillness also becomes the target of inquiry... when one attempts to see the reflectivity of stillness, that is, of reflectivity itself... something else opens up.

It's certainly very far from nihilism.

48 minutes ago, dwai said:

Yeah I used to say that too.  

So you parroted the words of real jnana, then felt that you were still suffering, but didn't want to give up your jnani status, and so bought into the reality of the vasanas so you could have your jnani cake and continue to eat it?

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

How do you know what to notice without first being taught? Without the jnana being revealed in some format to the seeker, it is very hard to have the direct apperception. Yes, other steps are helpful -- such as meditation, clearing the mind, focusing the mind, etc. They are all formative and help in the

 

Yes, all of these are helpful. Yes, concepts must be taught, but the concepts must point to a quality of experience -- the reflective quality -- that must be examined. That reflective quality is also known as the "I" -- which is a false I, but which when examined opens up into the "real I." Chasing the reflective quality is not direct apperception. It is what leads to direct apperception, so to say.

Quote

 

 Haha not so fast mon ami...  

There is indeed a process of maturing the tattvajnani into a jivanamukta.

 

These are the factors that are in play for that --

1. Is the jnani a krtopāsaka or an aktropāsaka?
2. What is the state of vasanakshyaya?

 

This is all irrelevant. Questions 1 and 2 are based on total misunderstandings. There is no such thing as a "jnani" in fact -- that is what jnana is, that realization. Neither are there anything called "vasanas." These are all only said from the standpoint of ignorance, for the seeker's sake. Jnana is the firm understanding that all of these categories are unreal.

1 minute ago, dwai said:

How do you get to the reflectivity in direct experience without the "theoretical concepts"?  There's nothing lofty about it. Just statements of facts...  

 

You get there by noticing the subjectivity of experience. Simply mentioning over and over again "the Knower is not a reflection" and "it is directly recognized" is unhelpful, unless it is linked to the way that these facts can be grasped in direct experience -- and that is through their reflection in that experience. To mention the first without the second is indeed lofty.

 

Quote

 

Agreed that ignorance never existed. Yet, there is an ongoing unfolding too. The realization is the first step -- tattvajnanam or brahmajnanam. The ongoing unfolding is how it transforms into jivanamukti. 

 

No, this is a misunderstanding. There is no such thing as a jivanmukta separate from a jnani. Real jnana is the recognition that there is no such thing as a person. Real jnana is the destruction of all karma. So how can there be an "ongoing unfolding"? This is a way to excuse the inability to grasp real jnana by hiding in the concept of gradual development.

One can have glimpses of the Truth and not be steady in its understanding. Maybe that's what you are referring to. But when truth is fully grasped, there is nothing further.

22 minutes ago, dwai said:

Knowing is in reflection, but the Knower is not a reflection. Once there is the realization of one's true nature as Awareness, the same is recognized in all objects. The cognizance is that of one's own nature shining forth in objects. And it IS directly recognized. The reflection is also powered by awareness alone, there is no  "reflection", "reflective material" or "object" apart from awareness. 

I never said the Knower is a reflection. In order to get to "the realization of one's true nature as Awareness," one starts with the reflectivity in direct experience. One doesn’t practice starting from these lofty theoretical concepts.

Quote

 

And it is a process, not a single 'big bang' -- a process of maturation and deepening of the realization is ongoing.  

 

That is only from the standpoint of ignorance. There is a single sudden realization, which is in fact the destruction of ignorance -- and in fact not even that, as ignorance never existed.

2 hours ago, dwai said:

Actually it is very much in line with what you're describing. All objects have 5 qualities. 

 

Asti - Is-ness

Bhati - Luminousness

Priyam - 'Loved-ness' (best I could come to translating the word into english)

Nama -- Name

Rupa -- Form

 

Asti-Bhati-Priyam is Brahmarupam

Nama-Rupa is Jagadrupam

 

While normally in our transactional mode of being, we only see the names and forms (Nama-Rupa) and operate as if that's all there is to the world, when we understand our relation wrt the object (aka world), we can see the Asti-Bhati-Priyam aspect too and with that a realization that what Nama-Rupa is an effect, while reality is Asti-Bhati-Priyam (Sat-Chit-Ananda). It is to be practiced and recognized, not just theorized. 

Yes, asti bhati priyam is just another variant of sat-chit-ananda. That's fine, but pure asti bhati and priyam cannot be cognized directly.

What can be cognized (or attempted to be cognized) is their instantiation in the reflective, sattvic quality of objects.

"Practice" is not telling yourself that asti-bhati-priyam is the cause, and nama-rupa and effect. That's just self-hypnosis. Practice is the discernment in experience of the unchanging from the changing, and that happens through the consistent noticing of the sattvic, reflective aspect of things, which is relatively more unchanging... it is the "I"-ness of experience.

It's a felt pursuit. Why "reflective"? Because the asti-bhati-priyam you're talking about is not known directly but is reflected in the objects of experience. So one pursues that reflectiveness, tries to hold/grasp/localize it. 

And of course that then becomes a chase, since that quality cannot in fact be focused on, is in fact a mirage.

52 minutes ago, dwai said:

Why not reference it by highlighting the brahmarūpam/jagadrūpam aspects of objects? 

There's nothing wrong with those concepts, but they are more theoretical and philosophical. One is not a substitute for the other.

Reflectivity is referring to something that can be noticed in experience. Every experience is quite obviously on the mirror of awareness, and that constantly-unique-yet-somehow-unchanging shine that glows off of it, that shimmering quality, is something that all of us can become familiar with if we pay attention.

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

For me, it makes sense, as a concept. This is a different thing than verified by experience. 

 

Have you ever seen an object apart from awareness? I have not. The idea presented here is that objects are somehow sitting out there, presumably colorless, soundless, etc. (those are all mental phenomenon), that awareness (which has no form or shape whatsoever) somehow goes out (through the eyes?), bounces off those objects like photons, and returns (via the eyes?). Awareness is formless--- it can't bounce or reflect off of objects. Objects, eyes, bodies, etc. all arise in awareness. 

 

So, from my POV, not only is the idea of reflectivity inferential (i.e. therefore it lacks corrigibility or certainty), but the whole thing cannot be directly experienced (as one would presumably have to be aware of objects prior to being aware of them). 

 

 

That's not the reflectivity I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that within experience there is the content of objects in awareness, let's say their feel and color and associated sense perceptions and thoughts, and yet in and through any of those, but not reducible to any of them, there is the ineffable illumination of those things. 

There is the fact that the rose is red, but then there is the fact that redness of that rose shines in my consciousness, reflects the light of my consciousness, and that shining is both unique to that rose in that moment in space and time and to that person who senses it, and also at the same time the same between every experience.

6 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

Why not just call it that then, rather than come up with a clunky concept?

 

 

This is the first explanation of Chidabhasa that I have heard that actually makes sense. 

 

 

The second sentence is the answer to the question in the first sentence. Reflectivity not a clunky concept; it's an important one with a long pedigree in vedanta and yoga. Experience does have a reflective aspect to it, and that reflective quality is key to the illusion. When our minds contact an object, the flavor the object takes on as a result of the light of awareness falling upon it, that particular taste, that particular ineffable aesthetic quality... is most certainly describable as reflective.

And to reflect also means to contemplate/introspect, and essentially the search is about introspection...