Chasing reflectivity: seek to notice the 'mirror' quality of each moment

[blackfence]

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.

Edited June 5, 2020 by blackfence

[ilumairen]

51 minutes ago, dwai said:

What I shared is not 'just theory'   any more than a map is 'just a drawing'. Teachings are there to show the way, similar to maps. 

It is something that helps grasp what is being pointed to more easily than abstract statements without a proper framework.

 

 

Instead of arguing your misunderstanding of my post why not ask?

 

I was actually agreeing with your point on practice and recognition which isn’t “just theorized” (in your words, and “beyond theory” in mine), you silly defensive man.
 

If what you consider a proper framework isn’t understood by an individual (owing largely to a specialized vocabulary the individual doesn’t know and/or hasn’t been taught) how does/will this help the individual grasp what is being pointed towards more easily than what you have placed in the category of “abstract statements” (which based on the posts here were understood in their intent by three contributors)?

 

Quote

But at the end of the day, each person will take from something whatever their limitations allow them to. Little by little, or all at once, the limitations will reduce and finally disappear. 

 

 

Limitations like undue defensiveness in communication with others which obscures understanding? Or attachment to specific jargon and framework which also seems to obscure understanding?

Edited June 5, 2020 by ilumairen

[dwai]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

23 minutes ago, blackfence said:

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.

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. 

 

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

 

[blackfence]

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.

Edited June 5, 2020 by blackfence

[dwai]

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

If what you consider a proper framework isn’t understood by an individual (owing largely to a specialized vocabulary the individual doesn’t know and/or hasn’t been taught) how does/will this help the individual grasp what is being pointed towards more easily than what you have placed in the category of “abstract statements” (which based on the posts here were understood in their intent by three contributors)?

Why not just learn the vocabulary? That's why it is being shared  

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Limitations like undue defensiveness in communication with others which obscures understanding? Or attachment to specific jargon and framework which also seems to obscure understanding?

Really, one can't find anything more direct than Vedantic teachings (imho). 

 

Let me give an example. What if instead of being given a map, if you were given a detailed description of the map in textual format? Which is more effective? For some, a map is sufficient. Some need a map and detailed descriptions. Some prefer a list of turn-by-turn instructions.

 

Which is better? Depends on the person who's using it. 

[dwai]

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, blackfence said:

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.

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

3 minutes ago, blackfence said:

 

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.

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. 

 

[ilumairen]

@dwai, do you have me on ignore? Or is there some other reason you are able to quote my posts, and I can quote anyone else’s posts, but I can’t quote your posts?

 

As for just learning the spiritual language you speak this is slowly and naturally happening through interaction - even though your path is not my path, and my path has it’s own jargon which I generally choose not to employ in conversation as the words used can often carry their own baggage (and contentions and misunderstandings).
 

As an aside I’m presently finding some amusement in this interaction as it relates to our last interaction, where I was the one suggesting you use historically established vernacular in regard to a particular subject so as to circumvent unnecessary associations and baggage.

The tables turn, but who is turning them? 

[blackfence]

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.

[dwai]

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

@dwai, do you have me on ignore? Or is there some other reason you are able to quote my posts, and I can quote anyone else’s posts, but I can’t quote your posts?

No no...why should I have you on ignore? I have issues with some formatting stuff in my posts too. Sometimes I can't edit posts -- seems to be some issue with the "quote" feature here (or could just be me  )

 

 

 

1

8 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

As for just learning the spiritual language you speak this is slowly and naturally happening through interaction - even though your path is not my path, and my path has it’s own jargon which I generally choose not to employ in conversation as the words used can often carry their own baggage (and contentions and misunderstandings).
 

As an aside I’m presently finding some amusement in this interaction as it relates to our last interaction, where I was the one suggesting you use historically established vernacular in regard to a particular subject so as to circumvent unnecessary associations and baggage.

The tables turn, but who is turning them? 

haha   

I am all for using "established" terminology where applicable. 

[dwai]

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, blackfence said:

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.
 

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 

11 minutes ago, blackfence said:

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.

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?

 

 

[blackfence]

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.

Edited June 5, 2020 by blackfence

[dwai]

10 minutes ago, blackfence said:

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.

 

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.

Yeah I used to say that too.  

[ilumairen]

 

 

2 hours ago, blackfence said:

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.

 

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.

[blackfence]

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?

[blackfence]

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.

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, blackfence said:

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?

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

 

[ilumairen]

1 minute ago, blackfence said:

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.

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?

[ilumairen]

3 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. 

 

The conclusions enable dismissal.. 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, ilumairen said:

The conclusions enable dismissal.. 

Yes indeed.

[blackfence]

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]"

[blackfence]

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.

Edited June 5, 2020 by blackfence

[ilumairen]

Yeah, no.

Edited June 6, 2020 by ilumairen

[ilumairen]

 

 

1 minute ago, blackfence said:

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.

 

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.

 

 

[blackfence]

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.

Edited June 5, 2020 by blackfence

[dwai]

34 minutes ago, blackfence said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

21 minutes ago, blackfence said:

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]"

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.  Prarabdha will playout. That is why tattvajnana and jivanamukti are considered distinct phases. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by dwai