|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tallis
Hungary
71 Posts |
 Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 4:25:54 PM
|
Why is it that some of us experience certain 'scenery' repeatedly - in same cases virtually every time we exercise a certain practice? And why is it that some of us experience that same scenery just once?
Experience of the star is just one example.
When we experience a certain vision, once, twice or infrequently, it seems to me that this is what Yogani is talking about when he says that purification is the cause. That it is the friction between our newly released inner energy and a less than perfectly pure nervous system which produces what we see. After a while - perhaps after just one experience - the process smoothes out, our nervous system moves on, and we no longer see the scenery in question. Personally, I have experienced this with pretty much every new AYP practice I've taken on.
But if this is the case, why is it that certain scenery occurs repeatedly in other people? The process of purification which yields any scenery will surely have an end after there is no more 'friction'. Therefore the cause of frequently or daily recurring scenery must be different. But what is the cause then? Is it the practice itself which directly causes the scenery to arise? For those with highly purified nervous systems, can the practice create the same scenery, again and again, in a 'frictionless' environment, whereas for lesser mortals we experience just a 'one-off'? I can't see the logic here.
But then again, it's probably not about logic...
Any thoughts?
Is there anyone out there who first experienced certain scenery as a one-off occurance, and then, later, re-experienced the same scenery as a regular, frequent phenomenon? |
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 5:14:34 PM
|
tallis: quote:
whereas for lesser mortals we experience just a 'one-off'? I can't see the logic here.
That's the best kind.
tallis: quote:
But if this is the case, why is it that certain scenery occurs repeatedly in other people?
Because we all get attached to the scenery at one time or another.
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Jan 17 2008 7:25:34 PM |
 |
|
|
Richard
United Kingdom
857 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 5:52:03 PM
|
quote:
Why is it that some of us experience certain 'scenery' repeatedly - in same cases virtually every time we exercise a certain practice? And why is it that some of us experience that same scenery just once?
Experience of the star is just one example.
This is my experience as well tallis especially with the star it was so clear and intense the first time I did Yoni Mudra, I very rarely see it at all now, I used to wonder why as well but now days I have stopped trying to Analise anything I just do the practices and live my life and life is good.
Scenery isn't important some people get a lot and some of the most experienced practitioners on here get hardly any at all. The thing to look for is changes for the better in your everyday life. |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 6:34:32 PM
|
quote:
tallis: Is there anyone out there who first experienced certain scenery as a one-off occurance, and then, later, re-experienced the same scenery as a regular, frequent phenomenon?
Yes, but then you learn to differentiate between what is just scenery and what is Spirit - (Another term used to denote a Universal Law that is not understood or made aware to a persons consciousness).
Let me explain, for example, we've been discussing syncronicity and as we progress along the path we seem to just get things out of the blue or how things just happen seemingly in our favor. According to the law of probability this is impossible, although it's proven that it does happen regardless of this Law.
So a person may reexperience these types of things over and over again, but it is order for a person to even experience this phenomenon they HAVE TO BE DETACHED. Again, it is impossible to attach yourself to a Universal/Spiritual Law. So, then you begin to understand that something very different is at play here and you begin to differentiate between scenery and Universal/Spiritual Law and begin to learn how to work in accordance with these Spiritual Laws and benefit yourself by helping others through reciprocity. As these experiences continue to repeat themselves, the person naturally becomes more detached from scenery, surrenders, benefits him/herself and others by increased Faith and Awareness.
...the moment I let go of it was the moment I got more than I could handle - Alanis Morisette
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Jan 17 2008 6:52:34 PM |
|
|
|
x.j.
304 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 6:55:26 PM
|
Could you guys be more specific when you use the term "scenery"?
To just say "scenery" implies that all perceptions are meaningless and maybe, symptoms, that will clear with time as we get more pure. Maybe we can only speak for ourselves on that? Maybe the star perception, of sushumna, which you mention in the above posts,is reality and not symptom?
As far as symptoms of purification and yogic changes, for me those include the following: existential doubt, physical pain, and psychological suffering. It's like those uncomfortable symptoms, symptoms of purification, are some kind of growth pains.Your concept of scenery though sounds somehow strange to me, and seems to imply that mystical imagery that results after yogic growth, could be just meaningless scenery and illusive symptoms, and not really true. This evokes the story of the blind men feeling the different parts of an elephant.
Correct me if I am mistaken, and tell me you are not being totally dismissive of mystical visions and insights as somehow being only symptoms of purification.
John c |
Edited by - x.j. on Jan 22 2008 09:11:38 AM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 8:46:49 PM
|
Hey, John, I changed my original reply to "we all experience" instead of "they" as if I'm non inclusive to the same ups and downs of attachment and non attachment.
I think a good indicator to guage the reality of any experience, whether considered mystical or mundane, is our willingness to question the experience and rid ourselves of preconceived notions of what we think we are experiencing or our willingness to give up the experience all together. That was a hard thing for me to do when I originally thought that the seat of the Self was located within the heart, since I experienced looking through my body at objects imbued with light and I heard a distant ticking like that of a bell. The experience was very real and my mind immediately attatched itself to the experience, because of the mythical connotation, which was later reinforced by literature validating what I thought was the reality of the experience. I went as far to say that the Seat of the Self was also in the Ajna, et al. Since then, I've been using the gift of self-inquiry to further demystify the experience which has created a deeper perception of the reality of things by understanding the metaphorical content of the actual experience itself. A picture is worth a thousand words:
Your paradigm of the elephant is a perfect metaphor for the need for diligence to continually question ourselves and to search for the deeper meaning from the experience. If those mystics would have done so they would have found that the truth didn't lie beneath the darkness concealing the elephant, but from not patiently awaiting to hear the sound of the elephant, and, in time, the sun would have risen and they would have known it was an elephant.
Self-inquiry has opened so many doors that I can tell you this, that there is no seat of the Self within the heart, nor the Ajna or even the Crown. I know that may sound unbelievable, but it's not true in the sense that some people may think it to be true:
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Jan 17 2008 10:14:43 PM |
|
|
|
x.j.
304 Posts |
Posted - Jan 17 2008 : 10:11:16 PM
|
Hi VIL,
Thanks for your good hearted, caring and well taken admonishment, which I accept fully. I promise to explore that advice. And see if I can come to the kind of understanding and insight that you have achieved in this.
Regarding what you and others are referring to above, as the star --- and I assume that is reference to the star that is perceived at the uppermost point within the Sushumna--- is that "scenery" or not?
respectfully submitted to my sibling forumites VIL and the others.
John C
|
Edited by - x.j. on Jan 18 2008 01:49:37 AM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 02:51:11 AM
|
Hi all,
The term scenery is surrounded by many individual connotations. We had a discussion in the "Non-duality - multiplicity"-thread, and Yoganis answer to what scenery is, is seen here:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=3148#27124
Scenery is ulitmately everything we experience, since what we are in the deep is: nothing. So EVERYTHING that is perceived can be called scenery - that is the whole existence!
However, if we are in existence as persons and start experiencing freaky spiritual stuff during meditation or outside meditation, it is easy to get caught in that and believe THAT is it! And it's not! So therefore the term scenery is also used for such events: to remind us that it's not what we experience as cool spiritual development signs that is IT (for example I'd count seeing the star as one such thing). It's what's behind it, that is IT. And we won't "experience" that. We will eventually BE that. And when we ARE that, the whole existence is... again... just scenery! A show on the screen. |
|
|
|
x.j.
304 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 02:58:19 AM
|
Thanks emc. I like you. But tell me this, is scenery just imagery, that is not substantial in the least? Like all the Third
Eye stuff? Is that just so much baloney? It seems real, like a window into the universe. And the guys that started this post above, talk about these scenic perceptions just disappearing when purification has been completed, yet I can't imaging all this Third Eye stuff ever disappearing for me. Cosmic consciousness and all the rest of it is definitely here to stay for me. Even just closing my eyes, not even requiring yoni mudra, so how non subsubstantial is that alleged scenery anyhow? Don't we die into Akasha through that aperature called AJNA someday? How unreal is that scenery? You can see where I am going with this. Personally, I think your concept of scenery is being carried A LITTLE TOO FAR. Will death be scenery? Are your toes scenery? Corect this poor mistaken yogin some more please.
John |
Edited by - x.j. on Jan 18 2008 03:22:21 AM |
|
|
|
tadeas
Czech Republic
314 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 09:12:17 AM
|
Why distinguish real and unreal (substantial/unsubstantial)? It's arbitrary. Everything is what it is. It's possible to label it, but it's not necessary. Maybe the star will disappear, maybe it won't. Death will be a scenery, for sure. Who dies? A part of the whole is transformed. How it feels from the inside we'll all know. But any conceptualization of that is arbitrary.
Toes are toes :) label them as scenery if it helps you to recognize the true nature of the toes :) |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 09:27:08 AM
|
John,
Scenery is what is happening to you as a result of yogic practices. The word is used to point to the fact that the practices are what's driving us down the spiritual path, not the effects of the practices...so it shows us where to put our focus. |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5196 Posts |
|
|
x.j.
304 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 1:41:51 PM
|
So I assume these considerations are in so many words, the system of non-dualistic Hindu philosophy known at Avaita Vedanta. Same thing retooled with terminology like scenery. Right?
John |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5196 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 2:19:59 PM
|
Hi John:
The non-dual and dual philosophies are describing the same thing -- the process, means toward, and end result of human spiritual transformation. Every tradition and teaching is dealing with the same dynamics, which can be found operating within the human nervous system.
The trick is to travel on through to fruition. This cannot be achieved by latching on to the interim steps. Remember the story of Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey?
This is not to diminish any experience we may have along the way. Indeed, we are free to indulge at any stage as we may be inclined. But let’s not mistake the experience for the practice. It is only practice if it moves us through and beyond the current landscape.
AYP has been accused of being both too dual and too non-dual, which tells me it is probably in about the right place -- straddling the opposing views, recognizing that both are valid from their own perspective. There are practitioners here viewing it experientially from both sides. So there is some evidence for the efficacy of this approach.
The new Self-Inquiry book dances through these overlapping territories also, more-so than any previous AYP writing. It is neither all one way or all the other. It is both. The enlightened condition is both divine energy and absolute stillness -- stillness in action. Both are integral parts of the whole. It is a paradox. We will know the path is progressive if it too seems to be a paradox at times, even while offering practical handles and guidelines which can be easily utilized.
We are bootstrapping ourselves from here to here, steadily toward a realization of what is. It is an ongoing process of purification and opening.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
tallis
Hungary
71 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 4:04:14 PM
|
Hi All,
Great discussion!
What I was originally interested in, when writing this post, was the process of what causes/produces frequent versus infrequent 'scenery'. (Sorry, John, about the confusion re terminology!)
I threw out some questions, because I feel that the 'friction' explanation of scenery - while it might perfectly describe occasional experiences - does not adequately cover the kind of scenery which occurs to us daily. Please correct me, Yogani, if I've missed something, but in the books the emphasis is usually placed instead (and rightly so) on a general underlying infusion of divine love and inner silence as we progress along the path. Nevertheless, daily scenery can and will happen, and I don't remember a specific explanation for it in this respect.
So I have my own ideas and wanted to compare them with all of your own. I think VIL sums it up very nicely with:
VIL wrote:
quote:
So a person may reexperience these types of things over and over again, but it is order for a person to even experience this phenomenon they HAVE TO BE DETACHED.
Exactly: detached.
That's why I was interested in pursuing examples of scenery first experienced as an isolated event, and then, after further purification of the nervous system, as a regular occurance. In both cases a certain element of detachment occurs. We've all heard of beginner's luck, and it occurs because we begin as - for lack of a better word - idiots. Without practical experience or even perhaps full knowledge of the particular forces at work in a given practice (yogic or otherwise), we can much more easily enter into it without bias, without our conscious minds setting up barriers. You see the relationship here with detachment? - In both cases the conscious mind is in the background. Anyway, poof!, we get scenery. From that first experience we lose, or begin to lose our innocence, our conscious mind inevitably setting up an expectation for further experiences, if only by innocuously comparing one sitting with another. (Which, by the way, highlights the need truly to live in the present now, if we are to escape such pitfalls...) So for a while, perhaps a very long while, our ego prevents further scenery from happening. Then, when we really and truly are detached, we are free again to experience what was always there in the first place. Again and again.
Well, that's my take on it, anyway. |
|
|
|
Black Rebel Radio
USA
98 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 4:58:49 PM
|
Sounds good to me Tallis. I'm just along for the ride!
With regard the star, I thought a reference to this lesson was
appropriate as well.
http://www.aypsite.org/T25.html
I just happened to pick the AYP book of lessons and instantly came to 91 and 92 and then Yogani referenced them today and then after my sitting practices again I stumbled on this Tantra lesson.
Peace
Mac |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 5:25:35 PM
|
John,
"...is scenery just imagery, that is not substantial in the least? Like all the Third Eye stuff? Is that just so much baloney? It seems real, like a window into the universe."
I don't know which state I'm stuck in, but to me, existence is not substantial in the least. It seems real. But it's not. That is the illusion.
You are not looking into the universe through the third eye window. It is exactly the other way around.
Yogani writes:
"So, it is not about going off into the star. It is about
bringing the star in here, into the earth plane."
I'd say - you are not looking INTO the star, into a universe inside you. You are the star, which is pure consciousness - heaven - looking OUT at the marvellous world of existence, which is itself manifesting itself!
It is YOU all the way. The identity shift goes from the "I" being the physical body with a personal mind - looking for spiritual development, being surprised and delighted to find such a vast spiritual world inside when closing the eyes - to realizing "I" am that vastness which contains it all, the universe, the sun, the moon, the stars, the Earth, all beings, and further, that the present physical body with a little bubble of personal mind attached to it is the vehicle I have for my journey of sense-perception experiences in this existence.
John: "How unreal is that scenery? You can see where I am going with this. Personally, I think your concept of scenery is being carried A LITTLE TOO FAR. Will death be scenery? Are your toes scenery?"
I am not stable in my realizations and can't live them in the Now fully, but yes. What I have come to know is that it is all, what I call, very unreal. I am accused sometimes of taking things too far , also being a great fan of Nisargadatta. My toes and my body is total scenery. It is not MY body at all. It is A body, which is actually totally see through and transparent, built out of... nothing..., temporarily existing in time and space as an appearance, a projection in the mind, and as soon as time and space is transcended, the body is a funny thing to feel through and watch. And when the body is gone, I will still be here. Death is illusion. Nobody ever died on this planet, since individual identities are fake/illusion/not real. That is what detachment is about. To realize my personal identity was fake all the way. IT is experiencing itself in living life through different nervous systems.
When stillness is the eternal base it becomes the only reality, everything else which is temporal is unreal. I 'survive' or overlive all temporal changes. I watch it all come and go, watch the dance of life and death, which is only a beautiful performance of energies changing form. I am that form, and the non-form, and the Source behind it all.
Yogani:
"Then we have it all, become it all, heaven, earth, the cosmos, LA, everything. Then we become an expression of heaven on earth..."
And today's quote from Nisargadatta was very conveniently this:
quote:
You may die a hundred deaths without a break in the mental turmoil. Or you may keep your body and die only in the mind. The death of the mind is the birth of wisdom.
/Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
(from http://www.mpeters.de/nisargadatta/index.cfm)
The Dhammapada says:
For consider the world -
A bubble, a mirage.
See the world as it is,
And death shall overlook you.
|
|
|
|
x.j.
304 Posts |
Posted - Jan 18 2008 : 10:05:14 PM
|
Very nice discussion! Thankyou. Sounds like Advaitic Vedanta to me.
I have read Nisargatta and Ramana Maharshi, so had exposure to the whole concept.
I wonder if one could simply say that we are experiencing consciousness expansion, or consciousness de-contraction, but that since we are incarnate, the sense of self is the natural paradigm for us in this usual consciousness-contracted state, until we die. Often times, and daily in fact in meditative state, I lose all sense of individulized duality-based consciousness, but then I am not conscious of the mystical imagery, until on the precipice between nondual consciousness and the usual waking state. And the mystical visions and imagery that I and others bring up here, of necessity requires the consciousness of this Earth realm, wakeful consciousness of duality, for it's perception and remembering. Speaking just for myself, I love the mystical insights and the greasy under the hood stuff, though dual.
Advaitic Vedanta's most well known proponent is of course the wonderful and renown Shankara who stated:
"Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately, no difference between Brahman and the individual self."
John |
Edited by - x.j. on Jan 18 2008 10:42:32 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Jan 20 2008 : 04:24:35 AM
|
Hi EMC and all
quote:
EMC wrote:
I don't know which state I'm stuck in, but to me, existence is not substantial in the least. It seems real. But it's not. That is the illusion.
You’re not stuck at all EMC! You’re exactly on the right path. First of all you have to realize that everything is not real, which you have done. Then, later on, you have to realize the infinate reality of everything that is. In both cases the phrase “only Brahman is real” is true, because Brahman (the supreme reality) is not a “thing”.
The confusion comes about, I believe, because all these great teachers who say the world is not real (and there are many of them) actually mean, “the world of form (akara) is not real”. I think they leave the words “of form” out deliberately as it is difficult to understand. After all, what is a world of form? And what does a universe without form look like?
So they simply say, “the world is not real”, which leads the spiritual practitioner to deny the world and merge with the infinate formless state (Purusha/ Parashiva) in satchitananda (pure bliss consciousness). From that vantage point it is far easier to distinguish between the real and the unreal as the consciousness is already seated in the formless.
quote:
I am that form, and the non-form, and the Source behind it all.
That's the viewpoint coming back in, after the denial of the world. So you see... it happens automatically.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jan 20 2008 : 09:10:47 AM
|
"All is Illusion
Only Brahman is Real
All is Brahman"
|
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Jan 20 2008 : 09:48:40 AM
|
"All is Illusion
Only Brahman is Real
All is Brahman"
When the illusion is seen through, when Brahman only is real, then it is obvious that it is all Brahman since Oneness is, but the world of form/the world of illusion does not become "real" in the same sense again as before. It is impossible to take it in with the same seriousness as before since so many ideas that was believed before just turned out not to be true! Believing solid is solid, that anything is separated from The Whole, that death is a tragedy and means some kind of loss... ridiculous! It is impossible to believe the world exists outside of 'me' as something else than me. Outside and inside looses it's meaning, since IT is everything, everywhere.
Discovering the illusion does not mean denial of the world. It is not even logically possible. On the contrary. Seeing through the illuson means embracing, loving and holding and being the world, the totality. Impossible for One to deny any part of itself... since it's only One - there are no parts to be denied.
The whole idea of being able to deny the world is only possible from a separated state of mind. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Jan 21 2008 : 04:45:06 AM
|
Hi EMC,
quote:
"All is Illusion
Only Brahman is Real
All is Brahman"
When the illusion is seen through, when Brahman only is real, then it is obvious that it is all Brahman since Oneness is, but the world of form/the world of illusion does not become "real" in the same sense again as before. It is impossible to take it in with the same seriousness as before since so many ideas that was believed before just turned out not to be true! Believing solid is solid, that anything is separated from The Whole, that death is a tragedy and means some kind of loss... ridiculous! It is impossible to believe the world exists outside of 'me' as something else than me. Outside and inside looses it's meaning, since IT is everything, everywhere.
Discovering the illusion does not mean denial of the world. It is not even logically possible. On the contrary. Seeing through the illuson means embracing, loving and holding and being the world, the totality. Impossible for One to deny any part of itself... since it's only One - there are no parts to be denied.
The whole idea of being able to deny the world is only possible from a separated state of mind.
And seeing all this has what effect on the mind? |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Jan 21 2008 : 11:52:13 AM
|
Yeah, the problem with saying "we are naturally attracted to the star....it is 'heaven.'" is that one reads that and then immediately wants to GO THERE. The mind craves a goal!
I find it far more conducive when Yogani refers to all this stuff in one sweep as "Scenery". Perfectly nice, interesting, even profound, but utterly and intrinsically disregardable.
Who can disregard "heaven"? |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4381 Posts |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 05:06:36 AM
|
Hi Jim
quote:
Yeah, the problem with saying "we are naturally attracted to the star....it is 'heaven.'" is that one reads that and then immediately wants to GO THERE. The mind craves a goal!
I find it far more conducive when Yogani refers to all this stuff in one sweep as "Scenery". Perfectly nice, interesting, even profound, but utterly and intrinsically disregardable.
Who can disregard "heaven"?
I hope you are not confusing my meaning. When I asked EMC what effect seeing all this has on the mind, it was not a rhetorical question. I was not saying, “seeing all this has no effect on the mind, so it is not a worthwhile discussion or process”, and then phrasing it as a question which I had already answered! It was a genuine question, and I asked it because I see the relevance of discussing truth only comes when it is really seen. When it is really seen, it has an effect on the mind. We are discussing something in the mind, on the mental level using words, but a discussion about truth is a peculiar kind of discussion because it has the power to awaken. The Buddha once said, “the stories I tell you are like dreams. They are like dreams within a dream. But they are special kinds of dream because they have the power to wake you from your sleep.”
So discussing truth can just go round in circles if it remains only on the level of the mind. Then it can just become another form of false identity, like a belief system, something to become attached to. Attachment to a particular view of existence is just another form of attachment. It is not particularly special. It does not become truth unless it is seen clearly. And that is not an easy business.
EMC gave a most beautiful and insightful description of truth. But the usefulness of such a discussion (and such descriptions) as I see it, only comes when there is a transformational effect on the mind. Then only it has some meaning, some power, and that is why I asked the question. So my question remains: Seeing all this, what effect does it have on the mind?
Of course the matter, and usefulness of visions (stars or anything else), and the danger of attachment arising in connection with those visions is another question, and that is what you were referring to, so we are really discussing two different things.
I hope that clarifies something.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Jan 22 2008 : 1:16:38 PM
|
| Christi, FWIW I was neither addressing nor referencing anything from you in my posting. |
|
|
|
tallis
Hungary
71 Posts |
Posted - Jan 23 2008 : 03:59:37 AM
|
Jim wrote:
quote:
Yeah, the problem with saying "we are naturally attracted to the star....it is 'heaven.'" is that one reads that and then immediately wants to GO THERE. The mind craves a goal!
I find it far more conducive when Yogani refers to all this stuff in one sweep as "Scenery". Perfectly nice, interesting, even profound, but utterly and intrinsically disregardable.
Who can disregard "heaven"?
bingo - you hit the nail on the head
but can you sweep heaven under the carpet?
is ignorance bliss?
(just being provocative, but you take my point...) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
symptoms of purification or of practice?
