|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 24 2009 : 1:50:11 PM
|
If one has the view that all is good, self-perfected, already realized, nothing to accomplish, then what is the point of practicing?
The usual criticism that this view is destructive, because people really do need to practice is based on lack of information. "No path" people do have to practice. They do have something to accomplish, breaking the bad habit of self identity, quitting all addictions cold turkey.
The "no path" people recognize that the nature of unconditioned awareness is free, unobstructed, that there is no ego to release or an ultimate reality to realize, and so on. However, due to karmic tendencies and habits, i.e., addictions, which are like a powerful wave or strong wind, we constantly wind ourselves up in the same bad habits.
So if our problem is action, then the solution is inaction. If our actions are like a wind, then we just stop blowing. That is the practice, ceasing.
Then, the first auxiliary practice is to recognize when we are in motion, our unconditioned awareness is not. By disassociating with the conditioned and associating with the unconditioned, we gain a sense of effortlessness in the midst of effort. Then, our effort is liberated and does not tie back in to the habit energy. In other words, we keep our "eye on the ball" (mindfulness).
Second auxiliary practice is to remain ever vigilant about our mental activity, to recognize any time a feeling of attachment to gain, repel or ignore phenomena arises. Again, we "keep our eye on the ball" of unconditioned awareness, throughout all activities of walking, standing, sitting or reclining, and the object of attachment automatically becomes moot and that habit wave ceases.
Over time, we encounter what might be a very large number of habits, but eventually we recognize a basic set of similar recurring habits. 24/7 we notice and cease as unconditioned awareness, until the habit energy of the whole turbulent storm we have been stirring up since time immemorial just fizzles out. What remains is unconditioned awareness, and reflects a wonderful reality.
So it is a very simple to understand practice, very effective, but it is very very difficult. If one cannot maintain mindfulness throughout the day and night, one takes up practices to attain that skill, which is where all the various tantra yoga practices come in.
Adamant |
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 25 2009 : 7:29:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
...
Then, the first auxiliary practice is to recognize when we are in motion, our unconditioned awareness is not. By disassociating with the conditioned and associating with the unconditioned, we gain a sense of effortlessness in the midst of effort. Then, our effort is liberated and does not tie back in to the habit energy. In other words, we keep our "eye on the ball" (mindfulness).
...
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
Thank you for posting this. To me it is an affirmation that one should strive 24 hours a day (mindfulness). There is great value in your statements. I have attempted to be aware 24 hours a day and it is no easy task. One method I tried is to gently smile all day. Not only did it open both my nasal passages (right and left) but it gave me a good understanding of the type of willpower and effort that one must put in in order to achieve a consecutive span of awareness.
:)
TI |
 |
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 06:31:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
If one has the view that all is good, self-perfected, already realized, nothing to accomplish, then what is the point of practicing?
The usual criticism that this view is destructive, because people really do need to practice is based on lack of information. "No path" people do have to practice. They do have something to accomplish, breaking the bad habit of self identity, quitting all addictions cold turkey.
The "no path" people recognize that the nature of unconditioned awareness is free, unobstructed, that there is no ego to release or an ultimate reality to realize, and so on. However, due to karmic tendencies and habits, i.e., addictions, which are like a powerful wave or strong wind, we constantly wind ourselves up in the same bad habits.
So if our problem is action, then the solution is inaction. If our actions are like a wind, then we just stop blowing. That is the practice, ceasing.
Then, the first auxiliary practice is to recognize when we are in motion, our unconditioned awareness is not. By disassociating with the conditioned and associating with the unconditioned, we gain a sense of effortlessness in the midst of effort. Then, our effort is liberated and does not tie back in to the habit energy. In other words, we keep our "eye on the ball" (mindfulness).
Second auxiliary practice is to remain ever vigilant about our mental activity, to recognize any time a feeling of attachment to gain, repel or ignore phenomena arises. Again, we "keep our eye on the ball" of unconditioned awareness, throughout all activities of walking, standing, sitting or reclining, and the object of attachment automatically becomes moot and that habit wave ceases.
Over time, we encounter what might be a very large number of habits, but eventually we recognize a basic set of similar recurring habits. 24/7 we notice and cease as unconditioned awareness, until the habit energy of the whole turbulent storm we have been stirring up since time immemorial just fizzles out. What remains is unconditioned awareness, and reflects a wonderful reality.
So it is a very simple to understand practice, very effective, but it is very very difficult. If one cannot maintain mindfulness throughout the day and night, one takes up practices to attain that skill, which is where all the various tantra yoga practices come in.
Adamant
I don't disagree with this. The paradox of non-dual non-practice in the midst of life demands reflection.
It is worth adding that there are those who point to non-duality who say that even what is proposed here is way too much practice. That the moment we have truly seen 'the natural state', there is no good or bad, or any other distinctions of meaning, and that any seeking or doing which we might attempt inevitably takes us away from THAT, from our Self, from the Natural State.
UGKrishnamurti and Nisargadatta remind us forcefully of this perspective. UG describes very clearly the loss of all mind, the resolution of all life into 'physical' phenomena, just forms. He describes the associated involuntary arising and dissolution of all thought and communication and practice and action itself, in the moment that it arises, without any possibility of reflection on it. He describes the unconnectedness of perceptions and senses, without any 'coordinator'. All connects itself up spontanously. Words are just blurted out and actions take place, for no apparent reason, entirely spontaneously. There can be no explanation of it. And no notion that anything we could do could lead to or modify this 'natural state'.
The same view is found in Nisargadatta, though he doesn't bother with a description of what it is like to live like this, beyond saying that he just blurts out whatever words arise, that there is no thinking process.
The journal of J Krishnamurti, UG's namesake, which is the one book where JK records his own experience day by day over a period of a couple of years, and describes the impersonal, infinite, imponderable, changeless, reality ('adamantine' comes to mind), obliterating thought and self, of whatever it is (or isn't) that 'takes over' his experience of himself.
During this period JK experienced the natural state as overcoming him and receding, repeatedly, and so was able to describe it in his journal. It made his everyday perceptions and connection to nature much more vivid - he was nature, the whole field of perception.
UGK also describes this cyclical purging of all 'content', which has nothing to do with practice and about which he has no choice, until such time as there is only THAT.
UGK provides a salutary corrective to the idea that we can obtain 'bliss' and all kinds of other wonderful things through spiritual practice, or indeed anything for ourself, by describing the impact of realisation on his life as 'The Calamity'.
chinna |
Edited by - chinna on Dec 28 2009 06:39:05 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4379 Posts |
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 10:59:19 AM
|
Hi Chinna,
quote:
UGK provides a salutary corrective to the idea that we can obtain 'bliss' and all kinds of other wonderful things through spiritual practice, or indeed anything for ourself, by describing the impact of realisation on his life as 'The Calamity'.
Yogani was once asked about this and he said that in enlightenment bliss is always present. He certainly doesn't mention any calamity. I think this is one of the beautiful things about Yoga: with the tools that we have available to us today, it doesn't need to be a calamity for anyone.
Christi |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 2:28:25 PM
|
Hi Christi and Chinna :)
Yes, something went wrong with UG Krishnamurti's enlightenment. He did say that the body is not meant to withstand continual bliss and his overall attitude to what had happened to him was very disconcerting. Quite an interesting point of view.. He reminded me of someone who got stuck in 'complaint' mode and never found grace. Kind of like the wiring in his head got blown out and burned the connection to his heart. Very disturbing.
:)
TI |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 3:10:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
UGK provides a salutary corrective to the idea that we can obtain 'bliss' and all kinds of other wonderful things through spiritual practice, or indeed anything for ourself, by describing the impact of realisation on his life as 'The Calamity'.
Yogani was once asked about this and he said that in enlightenment bliss is always present. He certainly doesn't mention any calamity. I think this is one of the beautiful things about Yoga: with the tools that we have available to us today, it doesn't need to be a calamity for anyone.
Christi
I agree with Christi. The natural state is bliss. It is not something attained. But if one is not experiencing bliss; it's because of karmic tendencies. That's where yoga comes in.
Adamant |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 08:13:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
UGK provides a salutary corrective to the idea that we can obtain 'bliss' and all kinds of other wonderful things through spiritual practice, or indeed anything for ourself, by describing the impact of realisation on his life as 'The Calamity'.
Yogani was once asked about this and he said that in enlightenment bliss is always present. He certainly doesn't mention any calamity. I think this is one of the beautiful things about Yoga: with the tools that we have available to us today, it doesn't need to be a calamity for anyone.
Christi
I agree with Christi. The natural state is bliss. It is not something attained. But if one is not experiencing bliss; it's because of karmic tendencies. That's where yoga comes in.
Adamant
Every teacher's teaching reflects their own journey, as UGK made clear. UGK simply and persistently pointed out that, for the ego, realisation is a calamity, it is its destruction. For the ego, his uncompromising teaching left nowhere to go, and is uncomfortable, not subtle and inviting. To shock is just as valid an approach as to seduce, and for some, at some stages, may be a helpful corrective.
UGK's responses react to, and correct if one is ripe for them, the subtle belief that inevitably persists during our practice that the ego is going to obtain bliss/freedom for itself. His descriptions of his moment-by-moment experience, like those of JK and NM, point to the impersonality of the experience of realisation, from the point of view of the personal, the ego.
I agree that this is a style that may be for the few, or for the right moment, and is far from the path of bhakta. But sometimes a bit of rigour, the razor of discrimination, amidst the sweetness, is salutary. And for some it is the only palatable invitation.
Is UGK's (or NM's) austere and painful teaching so very different to the austere rigour, sometimes approaching brutality, of the Zen Master? It seems unwise to attibute personality defects or defects of realisation to him because his style is uncongenial. He harmed noone, helped many, and assiduously and faithfully challanged and supported his followers on their journeys, accepting nothing but his subsistence needs for himself - 'the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head - even to the point of refusing to protect any of his teachings by copyright. 'Anyone is free to claim authorship for themselves' he said. I wonder if perhaps his sense of humour is also being missed!
The natural state is not anything describable. The term 'bliss' is one of many possible pointers, but can be just a cliche. Body-mind bliss can be a real bore. Some may experience bliss some of the time, as a result of practice, some most of the time, in conducive circumstances. Even the blissful Ramana got angry and knew pain. Jesus was angry, wept and cried for help. Nisargadatta was very clear about the danger of over-valuing bliss.
chinna |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 29 2009 : 2:19:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
UGK provides a salutary corrective to the idea that we can obtain 'bliss' and all kinds of other wonderful things through spiritual practice, or indeed anything for ourself, by describing the impact of realisation on his life as 'The Calamity'.
Yogani was once asked about this and he said that in enlightenment bliss is always present. He certainly doesn't mention any calamity. I think this is one of the beautiful things about Yoga: with the tools that we have available to us today, it doesn't need to be a calamity for anyone.
Christi
I agree with Christi. The natural state is bliss. It is not something attained. But if one is not experiencing bliss; it's because of karmic tendencies. That's where yoga comes in.
Adamant
Nisargadatta was very clear about the danger of over-valuing bliss.
chinna
Don't under value it.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4379 Posts |
Posted - Dec 30 2009 : 10:22:17 AM
|
Hi Chinna,
quote:
The natural state is not anything describable. The term 'bliss' is one of many possible pointers, but can be just a cliche. Body-mind bliss can be a real bore. Some may experience bliss some of the time, as a result of practice, some most of the time, in conducive circumstances. Even the blissful Ramana got angry and knew pain. Jesus was angry, wept and cried for help. Nisargadatta was very clear about the danger of over-valuing bliss.
As I understand it, bliss is what is left when everything else has been let go of. It is also the experience of the merging of energy and silence within the body. You could also call it rapture. In a state of rapture someone could cry and weap, or laugh and sing. But the bliss would still be there.
Christi |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 01 2010 : 1:47:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
As I understand it, bliss is what is left when everything else has been let go of. It is also the experience of the merging of energy and silence within the body. You could also call it rapture. In a state of rapture someone could cry and weap, or laugh and sing. But the bliss would still be there.
Christi
Hi Christi
Is this bliss you refer to a 'something', eg a feeling, or the condition of the possibility of things, eg consciousness, or beyond even that?
Nisargadatta points beyond saccidananda (.....as the condition for its arising). The jnani focuses beyond, beyond, always beyond. What then arises is what arises, not to be grasped, defined, limited.
This is the same subtle difference in expression, in essence, as the 'subtle vampires' thread. And an equally crucial difference to be explored by the seeker, for saccidananda to be known.
I am reminded of the early church discussions about whether the Holy Spirit was something very subtle, a gas or some other kind of substratum, or not any 'thing' at all, however subtle. The answer chosen was that It is not anything, however subtle, it is 'a person'.
What is a person, fully a person (a jivanmukta), but absolute openness, indefinability.
The traditions have often been wary of the terminology of 'substrata' (whether they be blisses or any other subtleties) or indeed of names of God, for the good reason that they can mislead us, and leave us seeking some subtle 'thing', and so limit our perspective, our freedom, our availability, our non-duality.
The idea that bliss is 'what is left' after everything else has been let go of, potentially lays a trap for the unwary. Better to avoid naming or proposing a 'what is left', and just keep pointing beyond?
I'd rather say 'all is bliss' (kataphasis), or 'not bliss' (apophasis), than that bliss is 'what is left'. In the western tradition, the idea of an identifiable 'what is left' has long been regarded as a theological error and a cause of confusion.
chinna |
Edited by - chinna on Jan 01 2010 1:57:00 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4379 Posts |
Posted - Jan 01 2010 : 2:58:54 PM
|
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Is this bliss you refer to a 'something', eg a feeling, or the condition of the possibility of things, eg consciousness, or beyond even that?
Yes, bliss is beyond all feelings such as pleasure and pain, or ecstasy and despair. It is also beyond consciousness, in the sense that everyone is conscious but not all are living in a state of bliss. It could be called an aspect of liberated consciousness when, as I said, there is a letting go of attachment.
I believe that if bliss is actually ecstasy, a sensation, then it is possible to be led astray by it. But if bliss is a factor rising from transcendence, from the process of letting go of all things, then it is simply a symptom of rising freedom and a useful pointer on the path.
In Yoga it is one of the terms used to describe the liberated condition: Satchitananda (pure bliss consciousness).
quote:
I'd rather say 'all is bliss' (kataphasis), or 'not bliss' (apophasis), than that bliss is 'what is left'. In the western tradition, the idea of an identifiable 'what is left' has long been regarded as a theological error and a cause of confusion.
As far as theological error is concerned, all I can say is that God lives in a permanent state of bliss. In divine consciousness every movement, every manifestation on every level of being is a movement of bliss.
God is "what is left" when the illusion has fallen from our eyes. The closer we come to that reality, the more bliss becomes a condition of our lives because we are coming more and more into harmony with the bliss of divine consciousness.
Of course illusions have no actual existence in reality, so to say that God is "what is left" is the same as saying that "God is all".
Christi
|
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Jan 01 2010 : 3:06:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
...
The idea that bliss is 'what is left' after everything else has been let go of, potentially lays a trap for the unwary. Better to avoid naming or proposing a 'what is left', and just keep pointing beyond?
I'd rather say 'all is bliss' (kataphasis), or 'not bliss' (apophasis), than that bliss is 'what is left'. In the western tradition, the idea of an identifiable 'what is left' has long been regarded as a theological error and a cause of confusion.
chinna
Hi Chinna :)
I found this statement from Ed Muzika that indicates that bliss consciousness is not the final stage. Thought you might like to read it too since Ed seems to have achieved enlightenment in the Ramana/Nisargadatta tradition..
link: http://www.itisnotreal.blogspot.com/
quote:
You have come far Rajiv, and very rapidly, which means you have to spend some time consolidating all the states and understanding to make it permanent in yourself.
The bliss generally passes after a time as it is a function of Samadhi and various types of unitary consciousness. In fact, I found the bliss to be quite distracting and unnecessary.
Most make a big deal of Sahaja Samadhi, unity with the totality of consciousness, which really means the Void. But the source—YOU—are beyond the Void, and Sahaja does not apply to the source. It is a traditional precondition that isn’t really necessary.
In the end, after many of your remaining hindrances drop off, you will just rest, doing nothing special, in yourself, no longer making effort to explore or grow spiritually. Your journey and struggle will be over.
:)
TI |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 02 2010 : 06:53:08 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Is this bliss you refer to a 'something', eg a feeling, or the condition of the possibility of things, eg consciousness, or beyond even that?
Yes, bliss is beyond all feelings such as pleasure and pain, or ecstasy and despair. It is also beyond consciousness, in the sense that everyone is conscious but not all are living in a state of bliss. It could be called an aspect of liberated consciousness when, as I said, there is a letting go of attachment.
I believe that if bliss is actually ecstasy, a sensation, then it is possible to be led astray by it. But if bliss is a factor rising from transcendence, from the process of letting go of all things, then it is simply a symptom of rising freedom and a useful pointer on the path.
In Yoga it is one of the terms used to describe the liberated condition: Satchitananda (pure bliss consciousness).
quote:
I'd rather say 'all is bliss' (kataphasis), or 'not bliss' (apophasis), than that bliss is 'what is left'. In the western tradition, the idea of an identifiable 'what is left' has long been regarded as a theological error and a cause of confusion.
As far as theological error is concerned, all I can say is that God lives in a permanent state of bliss. In divine consciousness every movement, every manifestation on every level of being is a movement of bliss.
God is "what is left" when the illusion has fallen from our eyes. The closer we come to that reality, the more bliss becomes a condition of our lives because we are coming more and more into harmony with the bliss of divine consciousness.
Of course illusions have no actual existence in reality, so to say that God is "what is left" is the same as saying that "God is all".
Christi
Thanks Christi.
In response to the idea that God lives in a permanent state of bliss, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the christian theology of the Trinity. In these terms, you perhaps speak of Holy Spirit and Son. The jnani speaks of 'the Father', who is beyond living as anything. He is the Indefinable, Absolute, Unknowable, Infinite, etc etc. All three divine 'persons' are One but at the same time they are also three. It took hundreds of years and much struggle to clarify this formulation, as I imagine you know, and it remains a valid clarification. (Though of course such words, any words, can be just as obscuring as 'bliss'.)
With Nisargadatta, the jnani points beyond bliss. The word bliss might be used to point beyond, but only momentarily, beyond which the mind makes it into something. One might say that jnana yoga focuses on the Father, the Absolute in trinitarian terms, via the direct route of negation. Other yogas focus on Holy Spirit and Sonship, via the 'scenic' route of affirmation. (With apologies to all for the distractingly gendered language.)
Three aspects of the same Reality - Absolute, Spirit, Body-mind. Each expressing a different aspect (from the limited mind's point of view) of a theological 'Trinity'. Each necessary to know, at some point, and to know as One, for the fullness of Reality.
Whatever arises on The Way must be negated or subjected to Self-enquiry. Including bliss-affirmation. Including negation. To whom/what does Bliss arise? To whom/what does the Absolute arise? Beyond which nothing can be known. And from which everything arises.
chinna
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 02 2010 : 07:40:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
...
The idea that bliss is 'what is left' after everything else has been let go of, potentially lays a trap for the unwary. Better to avoid naming or proposing a 'what is left', and just keep pointing beyond?
I'd rather say 'all is bliss' (kataphasis), or 'not bliss' (apophasis), than that bliss is 'what is left'. In the western tradition, the idea of an identifiable 'what is left' has long been regarded as a theological error and a cause of confusion.
chinna
Hi Chinna :)
I found this statement from Ed Muzika that indicates that bliss consciousness is not the final stage. Thought you might like to read it too since Ed seems to have achieved enlightenment in the Ramana/Nisargadatta tradition..
link: http://www.itisnotreal.blogspot.com/
quote:
You have come far Rajiv, and very rapidly, which means you have to spend some time consolidating all the states and understanding to make it permanent in yourself.
The bliss generally passes after a time as it is a function of Samadhi and various types of unitary consciousness. In fact, I found the bliss to be quite distracting and unnecessary.
Most make a big deal of Sahaja Samadhi, unity with the totality of consciousness, which really means the Void. But the source—YOU—are beyond the Void, and Sahaja does not apply to the source. It is a traditional precondition that isn’t really necessary.
In the end, after many of your remaining hindrances drop off, you will just rest, doing nothing special, in yourself, no longer making effort to explore or grow spiritually. Your journey and struggle will be over.
:)
TI
Thanks TI. I agree with this, up to a point.
Ed expresses the jnana viewpoint, which is just as traditional as the bliss-affirmative schools. But if he is implying that sahaja samadhi is a traditional precondition that modern non-traditional advaitins can now do away with, he is surely mistaken. Something is being missed something here. 'All in due time' as Yogani has said.
For those who can manage it, both perspectives, affirmation and negation, must be held together. The spritual path is about keeping one's balance right on the razor's edge of paradox, and not collapsing into any particular affirmation or negation. This holds us beyond the crystallising, reifying, illusion-generating, mind.
Zen is particularly strong on holding all sides of paradox until the mind's grasping-conceptualising-controlling-reflex (ie 'me') has been bust by it. Traditional Koans do this in a rather mannered way. Dogen's Shobogenzo does it more directly. He will say things like "X is ever-present because it does not exist". When one has SEEN, this is absolutely clear. Both sides of the paradox must be held together. In one of his Koans Dogen records 'In the tranmission of the Great Matter, absolutely no communication takes place.' The transmission may be experienced as bliss. But it must also be clear to the lineage successor that absolutely nothing has happened, has been given or received. Or it is not the transmission.
This may be the best answer to the question of whether bliss, or anything else, exists or not; whether sahaj or any other state of consciousness is necessary or not. "It is mandatory when it is spontaneous; it is possible because it does not exist."
Most yogas use the idea that we are achieving something, and ideas such as bliss and enlightenment, to take us beyond such illusions. Zen directly frustrates and exposes such illusions at every turn, in order to achieve something. Paradox always, our surest refuge. The sangha, the shared quest for awakening, helps us to keep our balance, to persevere, when all is confusion, as it needs to be for real Clarity to arise. Both the affirmative yogas and the frustrating zens/jnanas can be skillful means. Both in due time.
Thanks again TI for posting that.
chinna |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Jan 02 2010 : 2:11:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
...
Zen directly frustrates and exposes such illusions at every turn, in order to achieve something. Paradox always, our surest refuge. The sangha, the shared quest for awakening, helps us to keep our balance, to persevere, when all is confusion, as it needs to be for real Clarity to arise. Both the affirmative yogas and the frustrating zens/jnanas can be skillful means. Both in due time.
...
Hi Chinna, :)
I believe that the something that Zen is achieving is the collapse of the mind. Because, as one persists in trying to solve problems with no solutions, the mind eventually gives up and a hole to silence is created..
However, since you are what I would consider to be an expert on Nisargadatta/Ramana and perhaps Robert Adams, I would like to ask you a question.
In THE COLLECTED WORKS OF ROBERT ADAMS link: http://itisnotreal.com/Collected_Wo...ms_Vol_1.pdf
it says:
quote:
The first principle: the whole universe is a projection of my mind. Then you say, "My mind. Who is 'my'? I'm referring to 'my' mind." And then again you tell yourself, "I am referring. I'm back to I again. I am referring to my mind." Again you go back to, "Where did this I come from? Who created it? What is it's source? Who gave it birth?" And you keep questioning this Draft Only way, again, and again, and again. And, as I said before, with most people, one day there will be like an explosion, and the I will blow itself to pieces. And you'll see light, tremendous light. You'll become light. The light of a thousand suns. But that's not the answer. You have to go through the light, into emptiness, into nirvana, into absolute reality, which is called Parabrahman, nothingness. That nothingness becomes everything.
So my question is this: If the purpose of focusing on the "I AM" is to cause it to explode and this reveals the light, and you have to go through the light to get to nirvana, wouldn't any technique that revealed the light be valid?
Now, I'm not saying that seeking the 'I' is not a useful thing to do as I have tried this and the results of such trying is that I end up in a colorful space in my chest region as which I can only interpret as 'consciousness watching consciousness'. This phenomenon has the same texture and quality as when I remote view from the heart or practice withdrawing my attention from the mind/body/emotions. If I had to describe the state I would say that it is pure consciousness, not connected to anything and everything.. It is very bright and colorful and is like looking at high definition cartoons. It feels like it is from another dimension.
However, what does going through the light (as mentioned by Robert Adams) have to do with it all? Surely dissolving the "I AM" would leave a big hole that would let the light shine through, but if one can see the light without dissolving the "I AM", couldn't you skip that step?
Does Nisargadatta or Ramana ever mention "going through the light" like Robert Adams does?
Thanks. :)
TI
|
Edited by - Tibetan_Ice on Jan 02 2010 5:54:39 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4379 Posts |
Posted - Jan 02 2010 : 5:46:02 PM
|
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Thanks Christi.
In response to the idea that God lives in a permanent state of bliss, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the christian theology of the Trinity. In these terms, you perhaps speak of Holy Spirit and Son. The jnani speaks of 'the Father', who is beyond living as anything. He is the Indefinable, Absolute, Unknowable, Infinite, etc etc. All three divine 'persons' are One but at the same time they are also three. It took hundreds of years and much struggle to clarify this formulation, as I imagine you know, and it remains a valid clarification. (Though of course such words, any words, can be just as obscuring as 'bliss'.)
But the Father is not dead. If he was, how could he create all this? So he must be living:
"Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. "[Jesus Christ, John 6:57]
So not only is the Father not dead, but he also loves:
"The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands."[John 3:35]
So in terms of the Trinity, the Father is one aspect of the divine person, which is alive and loving. That love, as it passes through the Son and flows into the world, is experienced as a sublime bliss.
So bliss is one of the aspects of the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
It may be true that in the depths of the void bliss is absent, but God is not only the living Father, he is the whole, the created and the uncreated, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, the Daughter, the Mother, the Bride, the Bridegroom, the Divine marriage... all of it.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Jan 02 2010 5:49:05 PM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 03 2010 : 1:25:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Does Nisargadatta or Ramana ever mention "going through the light" like Robert Adams does?
Hi TI
Nisargadatta does not, to my knowledge, mention going through the light like Robert Adams does. What he does suggest is that different people will experience the transition to the natural state in different ways. Ramesh Balsekar, for example, when Nisargadatta told him to teach, effectively to be his lineage successor, expressed the doubt that nothing dramatic seemed to have happened, was this IT! Nisargadatta said that for some people that is the way it is. From this viewpoint, I have always regarded the dramatic scenery as evidence of my incapacity (the friction created by a suddenly widening perspective) rather than something to be prized. I guess the key is that Adams, like Nisargadatta, tells us that what we seek is beyond particular phenomena, however exalted they may seem, even the light of a thousand suns. Andrew Cohen has always said told his disciples that they would have to go through a humungous amount of bliss to reach their goal. I think that what we see penultimately (just like the rest of the time) is a function of our expectations more than anything else!
chinna |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 03 2010 : 2:02:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Thanks Christi.
In response to the idea that God lives in a permanent state of bliss, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the christian theology of the Trinity. In these terms, you perhaps speak of Holy Spirit and Son. The jnani speaks of 'the Father', who is beyond living as anything. He is the Indefinable, Absolute, Unknowable, Infinite, etc etc. All three divine 'persons' are One but at the same time they are also three. It took hundreds of years and much struggle to clarify this formulation, as I imagine you know, and it remains a valid clarification. (Though of course such words, any words, can be just as obscuring as 'bliss'.)
But the Father is not dead. If he was, how could he create all this? So he must be living:
"Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. "[Jesus Christ, John 6:57]
So not only is the Father not dead, but he also loves:
"The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands."[John 3:35]
So in terms of the Trinity, the Father is one aspect of the divine person, which is alive and loving. That love, as it passes through the Son and flows into the world, is experienced as a sublime bliss.
So bliss is one of the aspects of the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
It may be true that in the depths of the void bliss is absent, but God is not only the living Father, he is the whole, the created and the uncreated, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, the Daughter, the Mother, the Bride, the Bridegroom, the Divine marriage... all of it.
Christi
Dear Christi
Well, in the western tradition, that is the theological error of pantheism. It's not just an academic issue. If one speaks of God in this way, it is an error which cannot but affect spiritual progress.
The Absolute is just that. The purpose of the theology of the Trinity is to prevent the collapse of Spirit (outpouring love) and Son (the human embodiment of love) into the Absolute. All three are necessary and distinct (at the same time, One Reality) for there to be anything at all, and anything worthwhile. If all is God, there is no God, the word is meaningless, because there is no non-God against which the word God would be meaningful. If we want to talk of God, we need something like Trinitarian theology for it to be meaningful, we need to maintain the distinction of Persons.
This Trinitarian theological construct prevents one having to collapse human reality into the less satisfactory constructs of 'illusion' or 'play', maya or lila, where human life seems to have no value of its own, to be pointless, and human suffering a terrible indictment of God, just his play, presumably to torment us. Without Trinity, or something like it, and the distinction of persons, with 'sonship' being an offering which we can refuse, God can be nothing but the Evil which gnostics and today's atheists say He is.
Furthermore, were the Absolute not wholly beyond all attributes, there could be no attributes, nothing could exist. Hinduism often meets this challenge by saying that nothing does exist, in reality. Or that it's all play, illusion. But these aren't very satisfying answers.
Your biblical quotes support the point of view I am expounding rather than pantheism, God collapsed into his creation.
No the Father is not dead. But He is Absolute. Or there could be no creation, no love, no meaning, no goodness, and no chance for us to be both ourselves and one with Him, to be real.
chinna |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Jan 03 2010 : 5:34:06 PM
|
I have studied Robert Adams for many years now. I believe he was simply trying to convey the difference between the clarity and vividness of the moment versus the thoughtstream.
He was advocating the same analysis on "I" that the Dalai Lama does in many of his books. Because the thought "I" cannot be identified with the body or the aggregates in general. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Jan 03 2010 6:04:51 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4379 Posts |
Posted - Jan 03 2010 : 6:06:41 PM
|
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Well, in the western tradition, that is the theological error of pantheism. It's not just an academic issue. If one speaks of God in this way, it is an error which cannot but affect spiritual progress.
I wouldn't like to suggest that the pantheistic spiritual traditions are in error. But in fact, I wasn't suggesting a pantheism at all. As you say, even the separate realities of God are all One Reality. So we are on the same page there.
quote:
all three are necessary and distinct (at the same time, One Reality) for there to be anything at all, and anything worthwhile. If all is God, there is no God, the word is meaningless, because there is no non-God against which the word God would be meaningful.
It may seem like that from the conventional viewpoint yes. We often believe that for something to exist then it must have an opposite, or at least something that it is not, otherwise it could not exist. But from the point of view of divine consciousness this is not the case. Reality simply is, and needs nothing to define itself against. It is whole and complete in itself.
quote:
If we want to talk of God, we need something like Trinitarian theology for it to be meaningful, we need to maintain the distinction of Persons.
Yes, it can be useful to talk in these terms, or in other terms, which point to the nature of divine consciousness.
quote:
This Trinitarian theological construct prevents one having to collapse human reality into the less satisfactory constructs of 'illusion' or 'play', maya or lila, where human life seems to have no value of its own, to be pointless, and human suffering a terrible indictment of God, just his play, presumably to torment us. Without Trinity, or something like it, and the distinction of persons, with 'sonship' being an offering which we can refuse, God can be nothing but the Evil which gnostics and today's atheists say He is.
I assume you mean "agnostics" here, as the Gnostics have a reverential attitude towards God.
In Yoga we have the same model as the Christian trinity, only less emphasis is put on it. The Holy Spirit would correlate with Mahashakti, the Father/ Mother with the Parampurusha, and the Son/ Daughter with the Jivanmukti. God, the whole of divine reality, equates with Brahman.
So I am not suggesting either a pantheism or a monotheism, but simply an awakening to that which is real. And I was saying that bliss is a factor, which accompanies that awakening because it is also the experience of reality knowing itself.
quote:
Furthermore, were the Absolute not wholly beyond all attributes, there could be no attributes, nothing could exist.
Again, I think this is based on dualistic thinking... the idea that for something to exist, its opposite must also exist. The Father is the absolute, but I would not say that it is without qualities. Loving, living, intelligent, the creator of all things, these are all attributes.
quote:
Hinduism often meets this challenge by saying that nothing does exist, in reality. Or that it's all play, illusion. But these aren't very satisfying answers.
Hinduism doesn't really say that nothing does exist. The term Maya is used in the sense of a veil cast over our perception, which prevents us from knowing reality as it is. When the veil of maya falls away, reality is seen in its full glory.
quote:
Your biblical quotes support the point of view I am expounding rather than pantheism, God collapsed into his creation.
Again, I wasn't suggesting a God collapsed into his creation. Simply an understanding of the fullness of divine reality, and the way in which bliss functions in relation to That.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Jan 03 2010 : 6:38:49 PM
|
Hi Chinna :)
Thank you for your reply.
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
...
Nisargadatta does not, to my knowledge, mention going through the light like Robert Adams does. What he does suggest is that different people will experience the transition to the natural state in different ways.
...
Thank you for this. I believe that that point is where Nisargadatta and Robert Adams differ.
Nisargadatta does refer to the light of consciousness in many places and he indicates (at least to me) that the light of consciousness is the final/ultimate attainment. (from "I AM THAT")
quote:
Q: Can there be life without consciousness?
M: No, nor consciousness without life. They are both one. But in reality only the Ultimate is. The rest is a matter of name and form. And as long as you cling to the idea that only what has name and shape exists, the Supreme will appear to you nonexisting.
When you understand that names and shapes are hollow shells without any content whatsoever, and what is real is nameless and formless, pure energy of life and light of consciousness, you will be at peace -- immersed in the deep silence of reality.
...
Q: Can't they co-exist, as the tumult of the waves and the quiet of the deep co-exist in the ocean.
M: Beyond the mind there is no such thing as experience. Experience is a dual state. You cannot talk of reality as an experience. Once this is understood, you will no longer look for being and becoming as separate and opposite. In reality they are one and inseparable, like roots and branches of the same tree. Both can exist only in the light of consciousness, which again, arises in the wake of the sense 'I am'. This is the primary fact. If you miss it, you miss all.
...
Q: How can the absolute be the result of a process?
M: You are right, the relative cannot result in the absolute. But the relative can block the absolute, just as the non-churning of the cream may prevent the butter from separating. It is the real that creates the urge; the inner prompts the outer and the outer responds in interest and effort. But ultimately there is no inner, nor outer; the light of consciousness is both the creator and the creature, the experiencer and the experience, the body and the embodied. Take care of the power that projects all this and your problems will come to an end.
...
Q: When I was younger, I had strange experiences, short but memorable, of being nothing, just nothing, yet fully conscious. But the danger is that one has the desire to recreate from memory the moments that have passed.
M: This is all imagination. In the light of consciousness all sorts of things happen and one need not give special importance to any. The sight of a flower is as marvellous as the vision of God. Let them be. Why remember them and then make memory into a problem? Be bland about them; do not divide them into high and low, inner and outer, lasting and transient. Go beyond, go back to the source, go to the self that is the same whatever happens. Your weakness is due to your conviction that you were born into the world. In reality the world is ever recreated in you and by you. See everything as emanating from the light which is the source of your own being. You will find that in that light there is love and infinite energy.
Because Nisargadatta says "The light is the source of your own being" I have taken it to mean that it is not the doorway (as Robert Adams stated) and that there is nothing beyond it. I know this is a small technicality and perhaps ultimately insignificant when one gets to that point. We are the light, the light is not a doorway..
You said:
quote:
From this viewpoint, I have always regarded the dramatic scenery as evidence of my incapacity (the friction created by a suddenly widening perspective) rather than something to be prized.
Chinna, I'm not sure if you wish to discuss this or not, but this statement from you is perplexing to me. Nisargadatta says this (from the previous quote):
quote:
In the light of consciousness all sorts of things happen and one need not give special importance to any.
Have you never seen any dramatic scenery or heard any dramatic sounds? Have you ever tried 'seeing from the heart'? Do you dream?
Do you have any regular practices? What might they be?
:)
TI
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 04 2010 : 2:49:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Well, in the western tradition, that is the theological error of pantheism. It's not just an academic issue. If one speaks of God in this way, it is an error which cannot but affect spiritual progress.
I wouldn't like to suggest that the pantheistic spiritual traditions are in error. But in fact, I wasn't suggesting a pantheism at all. As you say, even the separate realities of God are all One Reality. So we are on the same page there.
quote:
all three are necessary and distinct (at the same time, One Reality) for there to be anything at all, and anything worthwhile. If all is God, there is no God, the word is meaningless, because there is no non-God against which the word God would be meaningful.
It may seem like that from the conventional viewpoint yes. We often believe that for something to exist then it must have an opposite, or at least something that it is not, otherwise it could not exist. But from the point of view of divine consciousness this is not the case. Reality simply is, and needs nothing to define itself against. It is whole and complete in itself.
quote:
If we want to talk of God, we need something like Trinitarian theology for it to be meaningful, we need to maintain the distinction of Persons.
Yes, it can be useful to talk in these terms, or in other terms, which point to the nature of divine consciousness.
quote:
This Trinitarian theological construct prevents one having to collapse human reality into the less satisfactory constructs of 'illusion' or 'play', maya or lila, where human life seems to have no value of its own, to be pointless, and human suffering a terrible indictment of God, just his play, presumably to torment us. Without Trinity, or something like it, and the distinction of persons, with 'sonship' being an offering which we can refuse, God can be nothing but the Evil which gnostics and today's atheists say He is.
I assume you mean "agnostics" here, as the Gnostics have a reverential attitude towards God.
In Yoga we have the same model as the Christian trinity, only less emphasis is put on it. The Holy Spirit would correlate with Mahashakti, the Father/ Mother with the Parampurusha, and the Son/ Daughter with the Jivanmukti. God, the whole of divine reality, equates with Brahman.
So I am not suggesting either a pantheism or a monotheism, but simply an awakening to that which is real. And I was saying that bliss is a factor, which accompanies that awakening because it is also the experience of reality knowing itself.
quote:
Furthermore, were the Absolute not wholly beyond all attributes, there could be no attributes, nothing could exist.
Again, I think this is based on dualistic thinking... the idea that for something to exist, its opposite must also exist. The Father is the absolute, but I would not say that it is without qualities. Loving, living, intelligent, the creator of all things, these are all attributes.
quote:
Hinduism often meets this challenge by saying that nothing does exist, in reality. Or that it's all play, illusion. But these aren't very satisfying answers.
Hinduism doesn't really say that nothing does exist. The term Maya is used in the sense of a veil cast over our perception, which prevents us from knowing reality as it is. When the veil of maya falls away, reality is seen in its full glory.
quote:
Your biblical quotes support the point of view I am expounding rather than pantheism, God collapsed into his creation.
Again, I wasn't suggesting a God collapsed into his creation. Simply an understanding of the fullness of divine reality, and the way in which bliss functions in relation to That.
Christi
Thanks Christi. I think we present two slightly different viewpoints, reflecting the traditions in which have found ourselves. But they are only viewpoints.
On a point of information, I did mean gnostics and not agnostics. Certainly the historical gnostic christian groups of the early church centuries often promoted a sharp dualism, with creation the work of a lesser, evil god, and gnostic practitioners seeking a disembodied 'spiritual' state reflecting their view of the ultimate God, ie a very non-trinitarian understanding of God.
It's belief in the existence of, or pursuit of, special 'spiritual realms', between this one and the Absolute, that tend to cause the body/humanity to be downgraded, or the Absolute to be stopped short of, and thus enlightenment to be missed. That's why it seems important to me.
Thanks again for this exchange.
chinna |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Jan 04 2010 : 6:26:58 PM
|
TI,
You would GREATLY benefit from reading "Flight of the Garuda" by Keith Dowman. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Jan 04 2010 7:45:16 PM |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Jan 04 2010 : 9:14:35 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
TI,
You would GREATLY benefit from reading "Flight of the Garuda" by Keith Dowman.
Hi Alwayson :)
I had a look at the example excerpts from that book and I found this:
quote:
When at rest the mind is ordinary perception, naked and unadorned; when you gaze directly at it there is nothing to see but light; as Awareness, it is brilliance and the relaxed vigilance of the awakened state; as nothing specific whatsoever, it is a secret fullness; it is the ultimacy of nondual radiance and emptiness.
It is not eternal, for nothing whatsoever about it has been proved to exist. It is not a void, for there is brilliance and wakefulness. It is not unity, for multiplicity is self-evident in perception. It is not multiplicity, for we know the one taste of unity. It is not an external function, for Awareness is intrinsic to immediate reality.
In the immediate here and now we see the face of the Original Lord abiding in the heart centre. Identify yourself with him, my spiritual sons. Whoever denies him, wanting more from somewhere else, is like the man who has found his elephant but continues to follow its tracks. He may comb the three dimensions of the microcosmic world systems for an eternity, but he will not find so much as the name of Buddha other than the one in his heart.
The last paragraph really resonated with me big time.
Do you happen to know, is the light referred to above a multi-colored light? (bolded)
Yes, thank you very much. I've ordered the book.. :)
:)
TI |
Edited by - Tibetan_Ice on Jan 04 2010 9:21:28 PM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Jan 05 2010 : 06:19:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Chinna :)
Thank you for your reply.
Thank you for this. I believe that that point is where Nisargadatta and Robert Adams differ.
Nisargadatta does refer to the light of consciousness in many places and he indicates (at least to me) that the light of consciousness is the final/ultimate attainment. (from "I AM THAT")
quote:
M: You are right, the relative cannot result in the absolute. But the relative can block the absolute, just as the non-churning of the cream may prevent the butter from separating.
the light of consciousness is both the creator and the creature, the experiencer and the experience, the body and the embodied. Take care of the power that projects all this and your problems will come to an end.
...
In the light of consciousness all sorts of things happen and one need not give special importance to any.
See everything as emanating from the light which is the source of your own being. You will find that in that light there is love and infinite energy.
Because Nisargadatta says "The light is the source of your own being" I have taken it to mean that it is not the doorway (as Robert Adams stated) and that there is nothing beyond it. I know this is a small technicality and perhaps ultimately insignificant when one gets to that point. We are the light, the light is not a doorway..
quote:
In the light of consciousness all sorts of things happen and one need not give special importance to any.
Have you never seen any dramatic scenery or heard any dramatic sounds? Have you ever tried 'seeing from the heart'? Do you dream?
Do you have any regular practices? What might they be?
:)
TI
Dear TI
Thanks for this.
I think you are missing the key to the fact that Nisargadatta and Adams are saying exactly the same thing. And in truth it is missed in much of this thread, and is what I persist in mentioning. It is the Absoluteness of the Absolute.
Adams points to consciousness, which resolves into light, which is prior to THAT. In one of the quotes above, Nisargadatta says there is 'the light of consciuousness' (a more metaphorical use of light), which is the source of the manifest/arises with the manifest, and beyond that there is 'nothing'. He also says everywhere that beyond that is the Ultimate, THAT, which is what he recognises he truly IS. And that the Ultimate, THAT, has absolutely no connection with I-Amness/consciousness and its objects. There is no path to reach it via bliss, lights, god knows what.
This is not to say that bliss, lights and other phenomena are not commonly associated with the path to dropping/seeing through the limited self. Like a doorway, as Adams says. But all we can do is drop the self, the ego, all of its fascinations and interests, ultimately including the spiritual life, 'give up' at a deep level, as Wayne Wirs provocatively said on another thread, see through it all. We cannot know for sure if this will result in us being lost in the Absolute, finding our true Self, or just becoming 'a dead thing, a rejection' (T Merton). There is no way of proceeding, in the end, by anything but faith. 'There is no path', 'Truth is a pathless land', all that, is a way of communicating this truth. You can get or achieve nothing for yourself, ultimately. Al that is 'for yourself' is falsehood, however subtle. One may be lost in delightful bliss or light and have many miraculous powers. It is, from the jnani's point of view, a diversion from the Ultimate, the Absolute.
So both Adams and Nisargadatta are saying that what one ultimately IS, is beyond any trace of attributes, beyond any subtlety, blisses or lights or otherwise. They also say, in many places, that these blisses and lights and other phenomena are ultimately of no significance and should be ignored, they are a distraction and a potential trap.
I say with certainty that Adams and Nisargadatta are right in this. Which is why I remain sceptical of holding together an interest in blisses and lights, whether as language or as experience, with apperceiving (Jean Klein's word), or intuiting, the Ultimate, the Absolute, the Natural State, Who or What one really IS.
For those who have an interest in blisses and lights, this will surely have to be surrendered for the final step to be taken into nothingness, that allows the Absolute, the Ultimate, the Natural State, to be known.
As for my practice, the phenomena of blisses and lights and emptiness and no-self and so forth, have always preceded any practice, arisen spontaneously, unsought. I explored the traditions for decades in order to find out what was going on with me, and only practised in order to try to get some stability in the midst of this. I have never practised in order to achieve anything, and never had any interest in the phenomana of the spiritual life. I was always focused beyond phenomena, however subtle, on the Absolute. I have only, since I was able to consider myself, at about five years old, wondered and enquired into what this self-experience was about, what it was for, who I am, what everything is, and tried to make sense of it. I did this in the context of a Roman Catholic upbringing (and the Mass was always one of the most powerful kundalini experieneces, though I didn't know the word), and since my teens, in the context of non-dual Hinduism and Zen Buddhism - always though with a jnana orientation rather than anything else. I meditated on and off to get to know and get a handle on the experiences which otherwise at time threatened stability/functioning in the world.
The most powerful, me-shattering, kundalini experiences were following acauaintance with the early teaching of Da Free John, and his appearance to me 'in the subtle realms', so I regard him as my diksha guru (I never got into his cult, and never read him once these experiences arose, since I then felt a direct relationship). He had introduced me to Ramana, who introduced me to Nisargadatta, and then everything fell into place conceptually and I knew I was Home. This was formally confirmed by advaita-master Dr Vijai Shankar (before he became well-known, and once again I have never been part of his group) and so I regard him as my shiksha guru.
I do recommend that one avoids fascination with phenomena. The only place to focus, to be a jnani, is on oneself, one's own experience, rigorously allowing nothing but the evidence of one's own experience, and discriminating it from anything received, any concepts. This is the royal road of the jnani, which will quickly bear fruit, in that you will be clear that nothing exists, ultimately, first of all the subject, and thus all of its objects (however subtle and delightful), and then you will know that you are the Absolute, and absolutely free. And so you will no longer have much interest in blisses and lights, or even self-motivated practice. Though practices may continue, from habit, to stabilise daily life in the light of realisation of THAT, to assist others from compassion. But any facsination with practice, seeking via practice, will be gone. Books will no longer be of interest at all. All self-motivation falls away and is replaced by spontaneity. One can only say "who knows if you will practice or not; you may or you may not; you will be past caring; you may well do so if you are told to, or if others need you to, or if you are still the tiniest bit uncertain?".
That is my experience. I hope I am not, as you suggest, an expert in Nisargadatta. The only expertise I have ever sought is in my Self. That is my practice.
chinna
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Jan 05 2010 : 3:05:20 PM
|
I think there's some confusion going on here about lights and bliss. To be clear: there are visible lights with colors, and also sensations of pleasure that arise from samadhi. These are mundane lights and bliss that arise from harmonization of prana in the channels and chakras.
Then there are what are just named lights and named bliss, but are not visible lights or sensation of bliss. These are transcendental and are beyond ordinary experience that we can communicate. They are associated with knowledge.
There is the light of self-awareness, known as clear light. There is the light of sensation, which is not sensation itself, but the readiness to experience. There is the light of distinction, that discriminates dualities and sameness. There is the light that is unimpeded capacity to manifest. There is the light of the vast expanse of space and possibilities. Lastly there is the light of time that perceives time and timelessness.
These are called lights, but they are not lights. They are knowledges. Light is a metaphor for what is the opposite to unknown. These knowledges are the same as the so-called Absolute. Knowledge of the Absolute is also called bliss, because it is finally being free of the burden of ignorance. It is the kind of bliss one would feel if one thought one were going to prison for life, but suddenly received a clemency and were set free. Or having an enormous debt and having some benefactor pay it off. This bliss is not associated with prana, but with knowledge.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
What Does Practicing No Path Mean?
