|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
 Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 4:29:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Continuing,
In Byron Katie's self enquiry, you ask yourself key questions which dismantle the ego. But when you answer those questions truthfully, after a while, without meditation practice in place and having no inner silence, your ego simply adapts to the questions.
I agree without inner silence present, self-inquiry is difficult. However some people have inner silence without having meditated and can do well with self-inquiry.
quote:
Perhaps you know more about this...if so, could you explain why you see no difference between the two methods?
When I said the methods being one and the same, I was referring to Yogani's use of the term "self-inquiry" and Katie's method. I see Katie's way as just being a clearly defined method to achieve self-inquiry which to me is the process of bringing awareness to the world of virtual thought or "delusion" if you prefer. To me all Self-Inquiry comes down to asking ourselves "What Is" (true), what is found is that Being/ Awareness is True.
The method you describe of bringing your attention to what Is Aware has been described often by members of the forum as bringing their attention back into the here and now, into presence or being, from my perspective this is all falls under the same banner of the process of self inquiry.
A |
 |
|
|
yogani
USA
5196 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 4:45:57 PM
|
Hi David:
Obviously, those who defy authority for the sake of defying authority aren't going to progess much more than those who uphold authority for the sake of upholding authority. Both are out on the edges and can't see the middle.
In Einstein's case, he was considered a misfit and a never-do-well, flunked math (famously now) and was kicked out of school. When he put together the theories of relativity, he was working as a bureaucrat in the Swiss patent office. No doubt he was a creative genius all along, but his disregard for authority was obviously going on for a long time too. Or maybe he just didn't care what people thought. Is that defying authority? It is said he didn't even speak as a child until much later than usual.
The relevance of his idea on authority usurping creativity, as used here, doesn't have much to do with your well-stated argument about the abuses. Rather, it is about how when new innovations happen and are finally accepted (usually after a struggle), they then become the status quo, and the window for further new innovations looking beyond the original one tends to close. Einstein felt this was true of him personally, and it is obviously true of many institutions as well. As something or someone becomes prominent, a kind of paralysis creeps in. Maybe it is like an actor being type cast.
It is very difficult to change what has been established in the public mind, unless an environment fostering constant innovation can be established and sustained. In that case, the status quo can be constant innovation. That is the hope for this AYP community.
Einstein became the icon of a certain scientific ideology (mythologized!), and he was not able to go much beyond it. When quantum physics came along, introducing probabilities into the exploration of the inner energy realms, Einstein dismissed it out of hand by saying (famously again), "God does not play dice." He was wrong, and that is where the forward march of physics into the subtle realms started to leave him behind.
The point being that if knowledge is being calcified by the status quo (or for any other reason), we'd better be prepared challenge that if we want to advance. That is why I used the quote.
It has certainly been true in spiritual circles, where the problems have been much more severe, because so few have come along in history with innovations. The traditions have been bastions of authority with very few coming along with new approaches to aid spiritual progress. Those who did were treatly very unkindly, like crucified or burned at the stake. Come to think of it, some forward-leaning scientists were burned at the stake too. Fortunately, times have changed, in many places anyhow.
Meanwhile, the wheels of progress just keep turning, because human beings simply must know the truth about themselves and everything else. The good news is that we can not only know the truth, we can live it too.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 4:55:28 PM
|
Anthem,
quote:
I agree without inner silence present, self-inquiry is difficult. However some people have inner silence without having meditated and can do well with self-inquiry.
That's what I meant by the ego adapting to the self enquiry. They learn how to play the new game, of dismantling delusions, never actually dismantling the ego. Their ego simply becomes more tricky.
Many people have have enhanced their lives, but who has achieved genuine enlightenment from this method? That question is a good measuring device of how effective a practice is in terms of dismantling the ego.
quote:
When I said the methods being one and the same, I was referring to Yogani's use of the term "self-inquiry" and Katie's method. I see Katie's way as just being a clearly defined method to achieve self-inquiry which to me is the process of bringing awareness to the world of virtual thought or "delusion" if you prefer. To me all Self-Inquiry comes down to asking ourselves "What Is" (true), what is found is that Being/ Awareness is True.
I don't think Katie's method has to do with finding being/awareness to be true. It has more to do with just seeing how flawed your initial reactions are. I don't know much of Yogani's idea of self inquiry, so I can't comment on that.
I like how you say the Byron self enquiry method brings awareness to the world of thought...that is what it does. But there's a bit of a difference between becoming aware of distinctions in thought, and "the witness". Although both use the same word, the techniques aren't similar at all.
quote:
The method you describe of bringing your attention to what Is Aware has been described often by members of the forum as bringing their attention back into the here and now, into presence or being, from my perspective this is all falls under the same banner of the process of self inquiry.
I agree that is what the technique involves, but I don't see how this can fall under the same banner as "the work". They're very different techniques with very different results. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 5:11:32 PM
|
Yogani said:
The relevance of his idea on authority usurping creativity, as used here, doesn't have much to do with your well-stated argument about the abuses.
Yes, I'd agree entirely. I'm on something of a side-bar. My point is a somewhat different one to yours, doesn't contradict yours, is less close to the discussion, but has some merit of its own I think. 
|
|
|
|
Eddy
USA
92 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 6:46:00 PM
|
so yogani chimes in and all of a sudden everybody starts posting.. i see how it is... j/k... anyway...
yogani-It takes whatever it takes for as long as it takes
what i would say to this is that most poeple that i'm associated have no idea whatsoever what it takes and they certainly don't do whatever it takes. people here seem to be a lot better. just the fact that we are talking about self-pacing in this manner suggests something. so i take it back i don't disagree with you. i just think more emphases should be placed on self-enquiry. that is why i like those dudes i mentioned because that's all they say.
you have to be smart more than anything so that's why i think self-enquiry is the best. couped with fallowing and digging into what you "heart tells you". you can't really go wrong.if you feel you should take a break take a break, if you you can push further by all means push further. associate yourselves with phrases like take your time and try your best. i always say take it easy because it's sort of paradoxical in a funny overlooked way.
and with this i don't mean killing yourself with asking who am i? till you end up shooting yourself. it means taking EVERYTHING into consideration. noticing everything that you mind get's placed n in the present moment. it means practicing vipassana and deep meditation. i guess the reason for the title of the post is because i want to empasize all inclusivness so people do not become imbalanced.
with my approach and how it works for me i find it literally impossible to cling to anything(knowingly) i just can't anymore. and i know i still do or else I'm enlightened so i can just keep on shedding off whatever is in my way.. the four agreements was also very helpful in my thinking.... really even the questioning become automatic just like Ramana says it does. because what's really happening when you ask questions: it's just reverting the energy back to it's source. so you are really energy. and that's what i feel like pretty much all the time now. I can be doing 20 things at once and still feel in the flow. unperturbed by everything that approaches me. i analyze everything but the anxiety that used to be there when making desicions has almost completley disapeared. my whole experience seems to be just melting together sometimes. i used to experience a lot of dissociative type feeling but now they are dying too. my chronic headaches are disapearing. i almost sometimes feel as if it's not fair that it's happening to me.
i then think about this past year, and how most of it has been considered by "me" to be hellish. then i can go back to those moments and find the beauty in them. in every single hellish moment there's truth that you can see (scientology inspired)
so you say self pacing is about cranking up and throttleing down when nessecary. i agree, but where i differ is that i think the idea of self-enquiry (foundation of finding out who what you are, then other questions for the various components of your life) should come first. my opinion admittedly. which i'm more than willing in arguing
|
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 8:36:27 PM
|
Hey, I chimed in first! 
I'm beginning to wonder really what is the difference between methods of self-inquiry ("i" like that "in" thing in inquiry too) and methods like AYP meditation. In a way I'm thinking maybe the combination of deep meditation and pranayama are actually a method of self-inquiry. One is going within and inquiring deeply on the source of oneself, then bringing what is found into daily activity and creating an ever-increasing connection with that source within manifestation as well. I've tried the sitting practice of self-inquiry that Scott refered to and alas, I don't yet have enough inner stillness to stay with it. My Kriya practice on the other hand still gets me deep and keeps the prana moving. For now tapping into ecstatic conductivity and inner silence/stillness is the method that works best for me. When moving about in the world I have my ever-evolving ways of inquiring into the nature of relations and attachments and such.
Keep up the good work all!
Alan
|
Edited by - Balance on Apr 28 2007 03:09:46 AM |
|
|
|
Eddy
USA
92 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 10:43:59 PM
|
good points.... i guess all is technically a method of self-enquiry when it comes down to it. there are just better ways of doing it. deep meditation indeed is a good way i think. but it seems more like a primer. nisargadatta "I am" which i'm still not complete on understanding seems to be more directed at the "source". and ramanas "who am i?" even better. or asking "who's doing it?"
unfortunatley i still have a lot of pent up doubt in my mind that's trying to work itself out. i want to understand the question of how?.. that question seems to be one that's not really answered. i get descriptions and such but nothing that expresses what exactly goes down. right now i'm actually a little stuck. maybe that's the point, we'll see.. all i know is that i'm in way over my head and i can't stop now....
peace out |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 10:58:01 PM
|
| To figure out how it all works, AYP is great. You'll get it after some consistent practice. |
|
|
|
Eddy
USA
92 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 12:22:20 AM
|
| oh this place is rediculous why do you think i'm here |
|
|
|
Eddy
USA
92 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 01:08:44 AM
|
do you think questioning is important? how ?
? |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 01:37:15 AM
|
You're here because you want to figure it out. The way is by practicing. Questioning is important. Question all things...but don't merely question. Practice, as well. You could question all day what would happen if you'd step out the door, but you won't get the answer til you do it. All you will get is speculation, most of which will never be true.
So practice practice practice, and the answers will come. |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 03:09:08 AM
|
Hi all
Though my Kriya practice works well for me I'm still reading the 'Awareness Watching Awareness' book that Scott provided the link for and I do like what is there. It is in my opinion worthy of checking out. It is good to read the whole thing to get a feel for what the author is presenting (even though the author says one should read it slowly). I think I'll have a go at the practice some more just to see if I can catch on to what really seems like could be a simple and effective practice. |
|
|
|
ajna
India
59 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 08:33:02 AM
|
Hi All
Thanks for this wonderful discussion. My 2 cents.
A while ago Balance posted a link to www.itisnotreal.com which has very good transcripts (look for collected works III) of Robert Adam's satsangs - advaita non-guru. Robert also suggests repeating IAM mentally as a method of self-inquiry. So frankly i do not see the difference between IAM meditation and self-inquiry (enquiring who am I). To me both are same, as they pull the I into the spiritual heart, as told by Robert.
Cheers |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 11:26:35 AM
|
They're different energetically. The mantra "i am" has a certain vibration which differs from being in samadhi...although you reach samadhi by repeating the mantra. The awareness watching awareness method puts you directly in samadhi, so the only vibration affecting your body/mind is the kind samadhi gives.
There are also effects on the brain when using a mantra versus this other method. Those can be found out by those who practice both for a long enough period.
Both take you to the same place but the difference is like driving a truck versus driving a car, to get there. Some people don't fit in cars. Some people are too small to drive trucks.
In the same way, mantra meditation is best for some people, and this awareness watching awareness method is best for other people.
The only way to find out what's best for you is to practice one of them and see if you experience problems. I did the mantra meditation for a quite some time and found that it gave me very intense rushes of energy...so intense that I wasn't able to practice it at all.
To further make the case for the difference in techniques: yama and niyama take one into the spiritual heart. So does asana. So does pranayama. Etc...but these aren't all the same thing. They're different tools which get you the result of yoga.
I wouldn't say that a trowel is the same as a tiller, but both get you the result of a workable garden. |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 1:22:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ajna
Hi All
Thanks for this wonderful discussion. My 2 cents.
A while ago Balance posted a link to www.itisnotreal.com which has very good transcripts (look for collected works III) of Robert Adam's satsangs - advaita non-guru. Robert also suggests repeating IAM mentally as a method of self-inquiry. So frankly i do not see the difference between IAM meditation and self-inquiry (enquiring who am I). To me both are same, as they pull the I into the spiritual heart, as told by Robert.
Cheers
Hi Ajna
Actually Robert Adams ultimately teaches to "Do nothing". He says it is counter-productive to watch thought, repeat anything, or to even say "Do nothing" to yourself. It sounds like he's saying to just be present in awareness and attach to nothing. His student, Ed Muzica, says that an actual sitting meditation should be something that is short and sweet and brings one to silence, but the "Doing nothing" practice is an all the time affair.
At www.elysha.org Elysha says one should "stop and drop" anything and everything that "binds and blinds" one. This would be any thought and action of the mind-body. He says to energetically be at the point of awareness where it flows out of the eyes, the flow of seeing itself.
They both say it is a tremendous help to find someone who is liberated and be in their presence as much as possible to learn to be in such a state directly from the influence of the state of the liberated teacher.
The difference at the "Awareness Watching Awareness" site is that the watching awareness practice is a sitting practice that should be done as many hours as possible until the goal is acheived. Anything that is not necessary (except eating, working, showering, breathing ha-ha) should be dropped so one can practice above all else.
There's some of my takes on a few of these teachings.
Peace
~Alan |
Edited by - Balance on Apr 28 2007 1:27:46 PM |
|
|
|
Eddy
USA
92 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 1:56:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balance
quote:
Originally posted by ajna
Hi All
Thanks for this wonderful discussion. My 2 cents.
A while ago Balance posted a link to www.itisnotreal.com which has very good transcripts (look for collected works III) of Robert Adam's satsangs - advaita non-guru. Robert also suggests repeating IAM mentally as a method of self-inquiry. So frankly i do not see the difference between IAM meditation and self-inquiry (enquiring who am I). To me both are same, as they pull the I into the spiritual heart, as told by Robert.
Cheers
Hi Ajna
Actually Robert Adams ultimately teaches to "Do nothing". He says it is counter-productive to watch thought, repeat anything, or to even say "Do nothing" to yourself. It sounds like he's saying to just be present in awareness and attach to nothing. His student, Ed Muzica, says that an actual sitting meditation should be something that is short and sweet and brings one to silence, but the "Doing nothing" practice is an all the time affair.
At www.elysha.org Elysha says one should "stop and drop" anything and everything that "binds and blinds" one. This would be any thought and action of the mind-body. He says to energetically be at the point of awareness where it flows out of the eyes, the flow of seeing itself.
They both say it is a tremendous help to find someone who is liberated and be in their presence as much as possible to learn to be in such a state directly from the influence of the state of the liberated teacher.
The difference at the "Awareness Watching Awareness" site is that the watching awareness practice is a sitting practice that should be done as many hours as possible until the goal is acheived. Anything that is not necessary (except eating, working, showering, breathing ha-ha) should be dropped so one can practice above all else.
There's some of my takes on a few of these teachings.
Peace
~Alan
this is another area where ui disagree. which i why i also practice self-enquiry. i want to understand why people say "just do nothing" what kind of effects it has on you and such.
that's why i came up with rearranging. because just doing nothing is still clinging. you have to be completley integrative with the entirety of your experience. you can't neglect anything. shine the light of awareness on everything that crosses your path and you will just start seeing the natural truth in it. "it just comes" "the self want's to awaken itself" "you autmatically remember the things that really matter" "it's not abotu changing what you ahve but changing what you are"
i can go on forever... i say keep the question who am i? at the forefront. don't even cling to it either just keep it in mind. see through (neti neti. it's jsut like an energy transference when you start to se how things really are) . ofcourse don't neglect the "branches" (vairous compnents that stem out of the ignorance of your true nature) become conscious of key questions that you ask yourself.
the beautiful part about it all is that the purpose is to not get an answer. because there simply just isn't one. it's nto even abotu realizing that there isn't an answer. it's about becoming compeltley conscious of what's happening right now. an energy transference like i said. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 3:30:14 PM
|
Hi everyone,
quote:
David wrote:
People certainly do have energy problems that result from self-enquiry practices. Almost any spiritual practice (if effective) can produce imbalances. In those cases, the 'backing-off' aspect of self-pacing is advised as for anything else.
I agree with David here. I know quite a few people who do a lot of self enquiry practices and who suffer from energy problems. In general they are often confused, find it difficult to make decisions, struggle to deal with the imbalanced energies in their bodies, suffer from headaches, are argumentative, defensive and suffer from verbal dioreah (usually revolving around themselves, their theories and their problems).
Not a pretty picture.
To make it worse, they often seem to think that the only way out of their obvious energy imbalance is to do more self-enquiry, more often.
I see self-enquiry as another spiritual practice which needs to be approached with caution, and if it is taken up, needs to be self-paced carefully. I cannot see how it can work as a stand-alone practice. Eventually, with enough self-enquiry, inner silence will come, and when it does, it will cause the kundalini fire to rise. If the body has not been purified first, all hell could break loose, and usually does.
When are we going to wake up?
Christi |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 4:20:40 PM
|
Hey Christi,
quote:
I agree with David here. I know quite a few people who do a lot of self enquiry practices and who suffer from energy problems. In general they are often confused, find it difficult to make decisions, struggle to deal with the imbalanced energies in their bodies, suffer from headaches, are argumentative, defensive and suffer from verbal dioreah (usually revolving around themselves, their theories and their problems).
We should be clear about which kind of self enquiry we're talking about. From now on, lets only call my method: awareness watching awareness....and not self enquiry. As seen previously in this very thread, there are different kinds of methods that fall under the banner of self enquiry, and they need to be distinguished.
A headstand has much different effects than a downward dog, and they are performed entirely differently, though both are asanas. So awareness watching awareness is different from "the work" or neo-Advaita, in results and in effort, but both can be classified as self enquiry. So to get more specific, my method is going to be referred to only as awareness watching awareness.
quote:
I see self-enquiry as another spiritual practice which needs to be approached with caution, and if it is taken up, needs to be self-paced carefully.
I can agree with this regarding awareness watching awareness. Everything we do must be self paced...but that doesn't necessarily mean we should approach the practice with fear, assuming it will be devastating. If something is causing no problems: full speed ahead.
quote:
I cannot see how it can work as a stand-alone practice.
My method does. After the kundalini awakened, I could tell different effects of everything. Of course it's all based on my own nervous system, and not an objective measurement, but hey this is all I've got.
Anyway, with awareness watching awareness, the energies rise but they do so in a way that's not so intense. It's a very pleasurable energetic/consciousness shifting experience. The samadhi is just like in mantra meditation.
Okay, so lets look at the 8 limbs of yoga to see if this could be a stand alone practice. Yama and niyama: as a result of becoming relaxed and entering samadhi, these work themselves out. The same is true with any good yogic practice. And the more you change your life in a direction that follows these laws and rules, the more easily you attain yoga. So, this is accomplished by the proper practice of this method. Asana: in the Yoga Sutras, this is defined as being mastered when the mind is absorbed in the infinite and all effort is relaxed. Of course we're not talking Iyengar hatha yoga here, but the awareness watching awareness method does master the asana in the traditional sense. Pranayama: kevala kumbhaka is the summation of proper pranayama practices...this technique makes it happen. Pratyahara: when the mind turns upon itself, the senses are withdrawn, so this is accomplished. Dharana: bringing the mind to a single focus. This is done by bringing the mind to awareness as the focus, and turning away from any other kind of mental activity...same as in the AYP "i am" meditation...so this is accomplished as well. Dhyana: holding the focus on something. With increased practice of the technique, this occurs...as with any focusing technique. Samadhi: Yep this happens too, and it encompasses all of the previous limbs into one practice.
At least this is my experience regarding the method. I do see how it could be a standalone practice...it's just that someone needs to know how to perform it correctly.
quote:
Eventually, with enough self-enquiry, inner silence will come, and when it does, it will cause the kundalini fire to rise. If the body has not been purified first, all hell could break loose, and usually does.
In my experience, the awareness watching awareness method causes both to come simulataneously. Meditation is a form of energy manipulation. I consider this technique to be a form of kundalini yoga...as is any reputable technique. It's not as if the mind and body are ever disconnected...the effects of one influence the effects of the other.
...I know it may seem I am defending this technique pretty intensely. That's because it works very well for me, and I'm betting it would for someone else as well. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2007 : 07:42:57 AM
|
Hi Scott,
quote:
We should be clear about which kind of self enquiry we're talking about. From now on, lets only call my method: awareness watching awareness....and not self enquiry. As seen previously in this very thread, there are different kinds of methods that fall under the banner of self enquiry, and they need to be distinguished.
I agree, there are different kinds of self- enquiry. At the gentle end would be asking ourselves things like "do I really need to feel like this? Could I just make my attitude a bit more positive and lighten up a bit, and feel... well... pretty good?". That's one form, and I think it's very useful. It's probably not going to cause anyone any energy imbalances and is definately a lot better than walking around feeling grumpy . But it's probably not going to lead to realization of our Divine nature either. At least, not very fast anyway.
As I see it, at the other end of the scale are the more direct (or very direct) methods of self enquiry which Eddy is talking about and which you are practicing. If I continuously ask myself "who am I?" every time I blink, as I see it, it is pretty clear that I am not the body, I am not my emotions (feelings), I am not my thoughts, and I am not the thinker of my thoughts. If I disengage from the thinking process, thoughts keep arising for some time of their own volition. So it brings me directly to awareness that I am awareness (or the witness). Simply being aware of awareness brings us to that state even faster as we are cutting out the process of negating what we are not. But how much faster must depend on the consciousness of the practitioner. So for me, these direct practices of self-enquiry amount to much the same thing, either through negation (I am not this, I am not that...) or directly (I am the witness of all this).
quote:
I can agree with this regarding awareness watching awareness. Everything we do must be self paced...but that doesn't necessarily mean we should approach the practice with fear, assuming it will be devastating.
Yes and no. I don't think we should aproach anything with fear. But fear is very different than caution, and fear is different from being aware that there could be difficulties ahead. When I cross a road, I am not terrified, but I always look both ways.
quote:
If something is causing no problems: full speed ahead.
I think this could be a misconception. This theory is not based on human experience of spiritual practices as they unfold over time. Gopi Krishna is the classic example. Somehow he had learned how to meditate, I assume someone taught him. He was practicing a meditation where he imagined a beautiful white lotus flower in full bloom on top of his head. The lotus flower was shining and beautiful, and his meditation was to imagine it as vividly as possible and to merge his consciousness into it as fully as he could. Now I don't know why anyone taught him this meditation, presumably they thought it was a good idea. He did it every morning before sunrise and then went off to his office job. As far as I can tell this was his only spiritual practice. He had no idea what kundalini was at this time, so presumably his kundalini was dormant. I don't know how many months or years he was doing this for, but he was getting pretty good at it. He seemed to be able to enter samadhi and fully merge with the (imagined) lotus flower. Then his kundalini awoke and went straight through the top of his head. The rest is a pretty grim tale lasting many years and involving the deterioration of his body and mind, until he finally managed to avoid death, and stabalize the energies.
So, in this case, it was not true that just because things seemed to be going well for a time, it should have been "full steam ahead". In Gopi Krishna's case it should have been "drop the crown practice, begin with deep meditation and add spinal breathing in due course"... or something like that . Or if I was not so AYP biased, I could have said "drop the crown practices and add in any system of spiritual practices which brought about inner silence whilst purifying the subtle nervous system in a balanced way".
Now the meditation that Gopi Krishna was doing (white lotus etc..), was cultivating inner silence. It was also purifying the subtle nervous system. Inner silence automatically purifies the subtle nervous system, but it does so slowly. The crown beginning to open would also have some purifying effect on the subtle nervous system. The reason everything went wrong, was because the practice did not purify the subtle nervous system fast enough to keep pace with the rising inner silence and the opening crown chakra. So when the kundalini awoke, the nadis were not able to take the force, and he was burned alive from the inside.
So when we look at spiritual practices, it is important to look at what they are achieving, but also, what is the balance? What is being cultivated at what speed? Will it be safe and stable in the long term? For everyone? These are the questions we need to ask.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot see how it can work as a stand-alone practice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My method does. After the kundalini awakened, I could tell different effects of everything. Of course it's all based on my own nervous system, and not an objective measurement, but hey this is all I've got.
Anyway, with awareness watching awareness, the energies rise but they do so in a way that's not so intense. It's a very pleasurable energetic/consciousness shifting experience. The samadhi is just like in mantra meditation.
I am sure you would agree that we cannot base anything on one person's experience, yours or Gopi Krishna's. We need to look at how things work for many people, over the long term, to see how effective they are. In your case, you are already Kundalini awakened, and you already have enough inner silence to be able to enter samadhi. So plenty enough inner silence to effectively take up direct self-enquiry practice and use it to great effect. You can feel the energies moving in your body, gague the effect that different practices have on the energies, and self-pace accordingly. In other words, you are already working in partership with the kundalini energies from a position of inner silence. You are a classic example of someone who could (should) be practicing awareness of awareness. Whether you should be doing so every time you blink is another question. I guess that is a question of whether you are ready or not.
But, getting back to the point, many people (most people?) are not at the stage you are at. If someone does not have inner silence well established, does not have an already awakened kundalini, does not have a sufficiently purified subtle nervous sytstem to handle the load, then are direct self-enquiry methods suitable, or even safe?
To answer that effectively, (dare I mention the word "scientifically"), would involve a study of large numbers of people. Thousands would be needed to get a large enough sample size to proove anything statistically. Then we would need to monitor them over a long time (many years), and record what happens to their mind/ energy body/ kundalini shakti/ consciousness etc, and see how many fell into minor or severe energy imbalances during the experiment. Unfortunately we are way off being able to do anything like that. We do not even posess the equipment necessary to measure the variables involved, we haven't invented them yet, so everything would have to depend on subjective reports.
So at the moment, all we have to go on really, is the testament of individuals. One person says "this is all you need to do... it works for everyone", another says "are you crazy? That's an advanced practice... if you're not ready for it yet, it could blow you right out of the water..". So how are we going to decide how to proceed in the interim? Well I would say that the first theory, that it works as an effective stand alone practice for everyone, is easy to disprove. After all, all you need is to find one person who has practiced direct self-enquiry (mindfullness of mindfullness) as a stand alone practice from the start, and has come a cropper energy wise, and the theory has to go back to the drawing board. I think we are already seeing enough casualty cases who have come up against this stuff too early, to be able to say that it doesn't work from the start as a stand alone practice. But it certainly could (and, I would say, does) still work as a stand alone practice once a certain level of purification has been reached. The reason I say that is because many enlightened teachers seem to have adopted it as their last and only practice before their enlightenment. They dropped all other practices and took up direct self-enquiry in a big way. This is true, I believe, for Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Papaji (Punjaji), Krishnamurti and others.
So I see it as a set of very important practices, but I feel direct self-enquiry practices, especially when done outside of controlled practice times, must come with a caution stamped on the box.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Apr 29 2007 10:01:41 AM |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2007 : 11:16:43 AM
|
| You make a great case for your argument, Christi. I can agree with all that you've said. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Eddy
USA
92 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2007 : 2:01:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi everyone,
quote:
David wrote:
People certainly do have energy problems that result from self-enquiry practices. Almost any spiritual practice (if effective) can produce imbalances. In those cases, the 'backing-off' aspect of self-pacing is advised as for anything else.
I agree with David here. I know quite a few people who do a lot of self enquiry practices and who suffer from energy problems. In general they are often confused, find it difficult to make decisions, struggle to deal with the imbalanced energies in their bodies, suffer from headaches, are argumentative, defensive and suffer from verbal dioreah (usually revolving around themselves, their theories and their problems).
Not a pretty picture.
To make it worse, they often seem to think that the only way out of their obvious energy imbalance is to do more self-enquiry, more often.
I see self-enquiry as another spiritual practice which needs to be approached with caution, and if it is taken up, needs to be self-paced carefully. I cannot see how it can work as a stand-alone practice. Eventually, with enough self-enquiry, inner silence will come, and when it does, it will cause the kundalini fire to rise. If the body has not been purified first, all hell could break loose, and usually does.
When are we going to wake up?
Christi
this makes sense to me. i find myself experienceing a lot of these symptoms but then the next day everything is all gravy.
it's like not much bothers me at all anymore but now i just don't know what to do.
i guess i just have to do what i feel i need to do but what's that? |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2007 : 2:20:04 PM
|
Thanks Christi, well said. For me, it was quite a pleasure to read as I've been often trying to say the same thing. I'll mentally bookmark your last post and it will be handy to refer people to. You'll probably save me a lot of typing.
Christi said:
I am sure you would agree that we cannot base anything on one person's experience[ ]. To answer that effectively, (dare I mention the word "scientifically"), would involve a study of large numbers of people. Thousands would be needed to get a large enough sample size to proove anything statistically. Then we would need to monitor them over a long time (many years), and record what happens to their mind/ energy body/ kundalini shakti/ consciousness etc, and see how many fell into minor or severe energy imbalances during the experiment. Unfortunately we are way off being able to do anything like that. We do not even posess the equipment necessary to measure the variables involved, we haven't invented them yet, so everything would have to depend on subjective reports.
Many of us are participating in an important cultural ferment: yogic awareness and knowledge is now fermenting nicely with rational, scientific cause-and-effect perspective. Human consciousness is being pushed forward by those who understand both and integrate them.
Yoga so far has developed in an older culture that was not as 'hot' in terms of effective cause-and-effect thinking. I remember one thing J&k said which I thought was quite funny but captures it well -- someone becomes enlightened meditating in a blue shirt down by the river, so soon he has a big spiritual school going in which the main practice is putting on a blue shirt and meditating down by the river. That's funny, but really that very thing happens -- it's not as much an exaggeration as I would prefer. We tend to 'mythologize' the enlightened, thinking they won't make mistakes like that. We may tend to make the mistake of thinking that enlighenment has perfected their cause-and-effect analysis. So we (and they) may misunderstand the domain-of-competence of such people.
As time goes on, we (the world) will learn to understand properly the 'domain-of-competence' that enlightenment brings, and what 'domains of competence' it does not in itself bring. Then the enlightened will have less of a tendency to talk outside their domains of competence and all will benefit. In the meantime, there will be some elements of a 'culture clash' in our Yoga world, as some people's efforts to push illustrious Yogis (living or dead, as people, or as their teaching corpus) back into their domains of competence, will be interpreted as disrespectful by others.
Christi said:
When are we going to wake up?
Dude, this is it! We (the world) are waking up now! These posts are part of our waking up!
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Apr 29 2007 2:40:03 PM |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2007 : 3:32:38 PM
|
"When are we going to wake up?"
When we completely surrender our fear to what Is.
A
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 29 2007 : 4:33:30 PM
|
Going back over your post, Christi, I have a few problems with it. Perhaps I shouldn't have said I agreed with all that you said. Here....
quote:
As I see it, at the other end of the scale are the more direct (or very direct) methods of self enquiry which Eddy is talking about and which you are practicing. If I continuously ask myself "who am I?" every time I blink, as I see it, it is pretty clear that I am not the body, I am not my emotions (feelings), I am not my thoughts, and I am not the thinker of my thoughts. If I disengage from the thinking process, thoughts keep arising for some time of their own volition. So it brings me directly to awareness that I am awareness (or the witness). Simply being aware of awareness brings us to that state even faster as we are cutting out the process of negating what we are not. But how much faster must depend on the consciousness of the practitioner. So for me, these direct practices of self-enquiry amount to much the same thing, either through negation (I am not this, I am not that...) or directly (I am the witness of all this).
The two are still different, because one is generally taken on as a philosophy or a way of life and one is just a method.
Mantra meditation gets us to the witness state, but that can't be said to be self enquiry. So I wouldn't say that Advaita type stuff has anything to do with the AWA method, besides being another branch of yoga.
I wouldn't say Vipassana is self enquiry, although both yield the same result in the end. The means are different in all of these cases.
So they really aren't the same thing. The results on all levels differ, aside from attaining the state of samadhi...which doesn't change between practices.
quote:
The reason everything went wrong, was because the practice did not purify the subtle nervous system fast enough to keep pace with the rising inner silence and the opening crown chakra. So when the kundalini awoke, the nadis were not able to take the force, and he was burned alive from the inside.
I disagree with your assessment of his practice. The reason why it went wrong was because he was focusing on his crown. Focusing on any one part of the body is a horrible idea, kundalini-wise. It wasn't because he was bringing too much inner silence and not enough purification. It doesn't work that way. The two always go hand in hand, and the technique is what determines how effective and efficient the purification process is.
What I've found is that the most effective way to purify the nadis is through entering samadhi. I still can say that I believe AWA would be an effective stand alone practice from the start, if the person knew how to do it correctly.
quote:
So when we look at spiritual practices, it is important to look at what they are achieving, but also, what is the balance? What is being cultivated at what speed? Will it be safe and stable in the long term? For everyone? These are the questions we need to ask.
I agree with this completely. Keeping that in mind...
quote:
I think we are already seeing enough casualty cases who have come up against this stuff too early, to be able to say that it doesn't work from the start as a stand alone practice.
I disagree.
quote:
So I see it as a set of very important practices, but I feel direct self-enquiry practices, especially when done outside of controlled practice times, must come with a caution stamped on the box.
I would say don't even attempt practices outside of controlled practice times. Yeah, or at least I'd put stamps covering that entire box...then I'd bury it and never tell another soul about the box, just in case someone got curious. In other words, I think it's a horrible idea energy-wise, if someone were to try that. |
|
|
|
ajna
India
59 Posts |
Posted - Apr 30 2007 : 01:31:32 AM
|
Hi Scott, Balance and All
Thanks for your replies. As already told in this discussion thread (and as well by Robert Adams) ask the question "who am I" repeatedly and leave it unanswered. The answer will be revealed in due course and the answer is Brahman or Pure awareness or God or whatever name it is called by.
PS: I agree with Scott that methods are different but result is the same. I meant that but did not convey it properly. Iam "practicing" who am I all the time, for the last few weeks and it has given me a glimpse of the inner silence. Strangely i could not fluently do "IAM meditation". Stating the obvious, everybody is different and so different methods work for different people.
Cheers |
Edited by - ajna on Apr 30 2007 02:12:55 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
radical no holds barred self enquiry
