|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 05 2008 : 08:20:42 AM
|
Hi Christi,
Y and H are Yesudian and Haich.
Can you give me your definition of self and Self and your take on their relationship?
At present, I see no difference between the two. They are different states or stages of the same thing. Who is the witness? Someone other than myself? Is the witness my Self?
Who and what else can it be?
I am very interested in this subject and how you and others conceptualize it.
Best, yb.
Thanx, yb. |
|
|
cosmic_troll
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - Feb 05 2008 : 08:48:07 AM
|
The title of this post is very beautiful 
I have no further comment
Peace and Love |
 |
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 06 2008 : 10:26:28 AM
|
Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Acts 10:34, "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons." |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 07 2008 : 08:03:05 AM
|
There is but One Life, one Life Underlying. This Life is manifesting thru ME, and thru every other shape, form and thing. I am resting on the bosum of the Great Ocean of Life and it is supporting me, and will carry me safely, tho the waves rise and fall--tho the storms rage and the tempests roar.
I am safe on the Ocean of Life, and I rejoice as I feel the sway of its motion. Nothing can harm me--tho changes may come and go, I am safe.
I am One with the All Life and its Power, Knowledge, and Peace are behind, underneath and within me.
O! One life! express Thyself thru me--Carry me now on the crest of the wave, and now deep down in the trough of the ocean--supported always by Thee--all is good to me, as I feel Thy life moving within and thru me. I am Alive, thru Thy life, and I open myself to thy full manifestation and inflow.
Yogi Ramacharaka |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 08 2008 : 06:37:58 AM
|
Hi YB,
Sorry about the late reply.
quote:
Yogibear wrote: (in another thread):
An essential confusion for me has been the reconciliation of different teachings regarding the nature of myself. You have the ego is not you and is bad and should be weakened crowd like Tolle and Krishnamurti and then the ego is you and is good and should be strengthened crowd represented by Ramacharaka and Y and H.
Based on my own experience and upon alot of reading, thinking and observing, I go with the ego is you and is good crowd for now. I am certainly not the last word on the subject. My own direct experience with meditation was an incredible strengthening of myself in a very good way.
I experienced myself as a little star, a sun, a nucleus of concentrated spiritual energy and awareness, independent of and separate from everything. I was completely I.
In reading Yogani's book, I see that I was engaging in Self Inquiry in the way he recommends at the time with good effect. But then I read all of Krishnamurti's books. And that gave me some spiritual indigestion. It confused me because the message I took away from him is that I was bad and should be gotten rid of.
This is a complex area... but I’ll happily give you my take on it.
“Ego” just means, “I sense”, so it’s who, or what you identify as yourself. So it’s a moving target, as people identify with different things at different times, especially when they are on a spiritual path.
So first off, we start with identifying ourselves with thoughts in the mind. Like “I am an American” or “I am white” or “I am good in bed” or "I am happy/ sad". This is the “ego” that Tolle talks about.
Then you move from being the “person existing in time and space” to being the one witnessing that whole process of becoming as being essentially something “outside” of you and separate from you.
So then the “ego” or “I sense” becomes the “witness self”. This is a stage on the path, and I guess those who say that the ego needs to be strengthened are encouraging the aspirant to become established fully as the “witness self”.
This would correlate with the “dispassion” stage in Yogani’s self enquiry book:
"4. Dispassion – Rise of the condition of no judgment and no attachment. The process of self-inquiry becoming automatic to the point of all objects and self-inquiry itself being constantly dissolved in the witness."
I like your description of it:
“A little star, a sun, a nucleus of concentrated spiritual energy and awareness, independent of and separate from everything. I was completely I.
In the sky of my mind, I was the sun.
Thoughts were simply objects in a 6th sensory field and I was simultaneously aware of the other 5 as well.
They were thoughts about the past and future and nothing more. They had no reality other than that. There was only now. Unbroken presence.”
But it is not the end of the spiritual path, because, as you say, you are still separate from everything. You are no longer identified with the clouds of the mind, and you are inhabiting a much vaster, and more free state, but there is still the fundamental pain of separation.
I believe this is why Krishnamurti talked the way he did. He was taking people beyond the “identification with the witness” stage and on to the “unification stage”. That’s probably why you found it unsettling, because you could see the truth in it. That’s why he always said things like “you are the world” and “the perceiver is the perceived”. In the language of yoga it is the transcendence of the “knower, the known and the knowing”. These three together are called the “triad”. This stage is the stage of unity consciousness and corresponds with the fifth stage in Yogani’s Self Enquiry book:
"5. Merging of Subject and Object – “I am That. You are That. All this is That.” Ongoing outpouring divine love, service to others, and unity."
In your simile of the sky and the sun it would be: In the ocean of being and non-being, I am all.
As Sri Karunamayi once said:
When you sit down to meditate say to yourself... “I am the Supreme Self, I wish only to know myself”.
Jesus said something similar when he said:
“When that day comes, I shall be in you, and you in him and him in me”.
He was talking about the state he called the “resurrection”. For the early Christians the “resurrection” meant enlightenment (moksha).
So that’s how I would differentiate between the self and the Self. If there is still something you are not, then this is the “self”. If there is nothing you are not, this is “Self”. As we have always been “Self” and none other, then “self” is always illusory. Self is always real.
Christi
|
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 08 2008 : 10:48:49 AM
|
That is great, Christi,
At first glance, we see things pretty much the same.
I will comment more when I have more time.
"I" am a center. Around me revolves my world.
"I" am a center of influence and power.
"I" am a center of thought and consciousness.
"I" am independent of the body.
"I" am immortal and cannot be destroyed.
"I" am invincible and cannot be injured."
Affirmation encapsulating the teaching in the first lesson of the book Raja Yoga by Yogi Ramacharaka. |
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 08 2008 11:04:51 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 09 2008 : 08:51:38 AM
|
Hi Christi,
Sorry about the late reply.
No problem. Posting takes time and thoughtfulness.
This is a complex area... but I’ll happily give you my take on it.
Agreed. But only conceptually. This is crucial as is evident from Yogani's book. If you don't have a proper understanding of things,
if you don't have an adequete map, you can take a detour and spend alot of time finding your way back to the right road.
“Ego” just means, “I sense”, so it’s who, or what you identify as yourself. So it’s a moving target, as people identify with different things at different times, especially when they are on a spiritual path.
But this I sense is essentially the primordial you. In its unpurified/identified state, it appears as the John Smith aspect of yourself.
I like the moving target idea. The ego is like a shape shifter, very flexible and plastic, depending on its current identifications.
So first off, we start with identifying ourselves with thoughts in the mind. Like “I am an American” or “I am white” or “I am good in bed” or "I am happy/ sad". This is the “ego” that Tolle talks about.
Yes. He does a great job of dissecting and laying out the structure and function of the mind identified self in his book, A New Earth.
Then you move from being the “person existing in time and space” to being the one witnessing that whole process of becoming as being essentially something “outside” of you and separate from you.
Yes. This is why I sometimes scratch my head when people talk about their ego. You don't have an ego. You are an ego. You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You are your ego. The rest of it is mindstuff. You may be identified with mindstuff but you are still you. It is problably just semantics.
So then the “ego” or “I sense” becomes the “witness self”. This is a stage on the path, and I guess those who say that the ego needs to be strengthened are encouraging the aspirant to become established fully as the “witness self”.
Agreed. It is a more purified state of yourself.
From the book, Yoga and Health, Yesudian and Haich.
"LIFE within us is what man refers as 'I' within himself. LIFE is the 'I', the ever-living, immortal SELF that was never born and can never die, for the SELF is LIFE and LIFE cannot die.
When LIFE becomes conscious of itself and leads back this consciousness, via the intelligence, into its own SELF, we call this condition CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF."
But it is not the end of the spiritual path, because, as you say, you are still separate from everything. You are no longer identified with the clouds of the mind, and you are inhabiting a much vaster, and more free state, but there is still the fundamental pain of separation.
I gotta tell you, this state was anything but painful.
I believe this is why Krishnamurti talked the way he did. He was taking people beyond the “identification with the witness” stage and on to the “unification stage”. That’s probably why you found it unsettling, because you could see the truth in it. That’s why he always said things like “you are the world” and “the perceiver is the perceived”.
The problem with Krishnamurti, from my point of view, is that he didn't give you a map to get to where he was trying to get you. He just expected you to jump from NY to LA. No planes necessary.
Tolle says the same thing as K except that it is more understandable to me (K just totally discounted the ego from what I could gather). But he doesn't take into account the many unconscious individual mind identified selves, deriving their identity from the dead past and seeking their salvation in the imaginary future (desires), in the unconscious of the individual which must be brought up into the light of consciousness and released into silence and self inquiry. And this is where deep meditation comes in. This is the plane for moving from the mind identified self to the witness self.
Is the witness still an identified condition, a mind identified self with desire?
In the language of yoga it is the transcendence of the “knower, the known and the knowing”. These three together are called the “triad”.
From Raja Yoga, by Y and H:
Gotta go. I will finish later.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Best, yb. |
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 09 2008 08:59:29 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 10 2008 : 08:53:46 AM
|
I believe this is why Krishnamurti talked the way he did. He was taking people beyond the “identification with the witness” stage and on to the “unification stage”. That’s probably why you found it unsettling, because you could see the truth in it.
I thought he just wasn't speaking my language. My thought is that it was because I perceived, rightly or wrongly, that it was so destructive and derogatory of myself, a negation of me. I am instinctively averse to that idea.
Of course, how could I warm up to this idea. But he is the authority, he is the world teacher. He must be right. Tolle communicates better the same message or I am able to understand it better now.
That’s why he always said things like “you are the world” and “the perceiver is the perceived”.
That is an interesting take. That "observer is the observed" stuff always confused me and I finally came to the conclusion that he meant that you are your conditioning and that what you perceive is what your belief system has conditioned you to see. I.e., your experience of life is the result of your conditioning.
And he spoke so much in the third person when refering to himself: "the speaker...."
In the language of yoga it is the transcendence of the “knower, the known and the knowing”. These three together are called the “triad”.
From Raja Yoga, by Y and H:
"What is consciousness?
Consciousness is a condition of the self. If I look at myself face to face, become conscious of my self, and pereceive this, there arises a condition or state. This state has varios levels depending on how much I understand my self. The less I recognize of myself, the more limited, and the narrower is consciousness. In proportion as I progress in self-understanding, my consciousness expands. The highest level will be reached when I shall have recognized my SELF in its entirety. This state is perfect: for it is three in one and one in three: RECOGNITION, the RECOGNIZED and the RECOGNIZER,--they are one and the same: I myself."
Then there is a picture of an equilateral triangle with the words KNOWER, KNOWLEDGE and KNOWN written ONE along each side.
"The average person is not able to experience this condition, because he does not know his SELF."
"5. Merging of Subject and Object – “I am That. You are That. All this is That.” Ongoing outpouring divine love, service to others, and unity."
In your simile of the sky and the sun it would be: In the ocean of being and non-being, I am all.
As Sri Karunamayi once said:
When you sit down to meditate say to yourself... “I am the Supreme Self, I wish only to know myself”.
Jesus said something similar when he said:
“When that day comes, I shall be in you, and you in him and him in me”.
He was talking about the state he called the “resurrection”. For the early Christians the “resurrection” meant enlightenment (moksha).
From Raja yoga, by Yogi Ramacharaka:
"I am a Being far greater and grander than I have as yet conceived.
I am unfolding gradually but surely into higher planes of consciousness.
I am moving Forward and Upward constantly.
My goal is the Realization of the True Self, and I welcome each stage of Unfoldment that leads me toward my aim.
I am a manifestation of REALITY. I AM."
So that’s how I would differentiate between the self and the Self. If there is still something you are not, then this is the “self”. If there is nothing you are not, this is “Self”. As we have always been “Self” and none other, then “self” is always illusory. Self is always real.
I can't make this distinction. They are the same to me. They are one and the same. It is only a matter of perception. Right or wrong, that is the way I think about it.
You could maybe call them the relative self and the absolute self. The only difference is that the relative self has the impurity of perceived separateness.
Perhaps this perception of separateness could be labeled the primordial impurity.
But still, I think we conceptualize things pretty closely. A few differences. I think that I am the separate self and the unified SELF at the same time, even if my union with all things is not presently perceived.
The very core of little old me is the ALL.
Best wishes and thanks for sharing your ideas on the subject and helping me to futher sort out my thoughts, yb.
|
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 11 2008 : 10:30:26 AM
|
Affirmation encapsulating the teaching in the second lesson of the book Raja Yoga by Yogi Ramacharaka.
"I" am an entity--my mind is my instrument of expression.
"I" exist independent of my mind, and am not dependent upon it for existence or being.
"I" am master of my mind, not its slave.
"I" can set aside my sensations, emotions, passions, desires, intellectual faculties and all the rest of my mental collection of tools as "not I" things--and still there remains something--and that something is "I", which cannot be set aside by me, for it is my very self; my only self; my real self--"I".
That which remains after all that may be set aside is set aside is the "I"--Myself--eternal, constant, unchangable. |
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 11 2008 11:49:46 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 15 2008 : 08:02:40 AM
|
Affirmation encapsulating the teaching of the third lesson entitled Expansion of the Self, in the book Raja Yoga by Yogi Ramacharaka.
There is but one ultimate form of Matter; one ultimate form of Energy; one ultimate form of Mind. Matter proceeds from Energy, and Energy from Mind, and all are an emanation of the Absolute, threefold in appearance but One in substance. There is but One Life, and that permeates the Universe, manifesting in various forms, but being, at the last, but one.
My body is one with Universal Matter; My energy and vital force are one with the Universal Energy; My Mind is one with the Universal Mind; My Life is one with the Universal Life.
The Absolute has expressed and manifested itself in Spirit, which is the real "I" overshadowing and embracing all the apparently separate "I"s. "I" feel my identity with Spirit and realize the Oneness of All Reality. I feel my unity with all Spirit, and my Union (through Spirit) with the Absolute.
I realize that "I" am an Expression and Manifestation of the Absolute, and that its very essence is within me. I am filled with Divine Love. I am filled with Divine Power. I am filled with Divine Wisdom. I am conscious of identity in spirit; in substance; and in nature; with the One Reality.
|
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 20 2008 08:10:13 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 16 2008 : 08:28:22 AM
|
From the Self Inquiry book by Yogani:
"The difference between inner silence and the
temporal states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep
states of consciousness is that inner silence is
unchanging and can be cultivated in the nervous system
as an unending presence superimposed under, in, and
through the other three states of consciousness."
This means that there is a neurological correlate or circuit in our nervous system that corresponds to our mental habit of letting go into the silence.
Thru constant use, the circuit grows to the point where the habit of letting go becomes ubiquitious and continuous with regard to any and all mind stuff.
This means that, on one level, Self Inquiry can be reduced to the cultivation of a neurological automaticity. |
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 16 2008 08:32:06 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 16 2008 : 08:30:20 AM
|
From the Self Inquiry book by Yogani:
"When the witness is present, a natural inclination toward self-inquiry becomes self-evident, for then the innate condition of
the practitioner as the witness becomes the answer to
every inquiry – the eternal stillness that does nothing
even as life carries on in all of its diversity."
So the question, "Who am I?" is like a koan because the correct answer is not a thought; it is inner silence. Correct? |
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 17 2008 07:14:04 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 17 2008 : 07:36:01 AM
|
From the book, Yoga and Health, by Y and H:
"The greatest miracle on earth is man.--His body consisting of bones, flesh and blood hides secrets he has been seeking thousands of years to unravel, in the search for a solution to the great enigma, the great mystery of the great sphinx. Many have tried to solve this mystery of man, but only a few have been able to make the sphinx speak. Only the very rarest of seekers who delved deeper and deeper, untiringly, into their own SELF, finally succeeded in comprehending the greatest secret there is: themselves.
In India, people have been studying the secrets of the human soul since time immemorial, and many have devoted thir whole lives to this goal in order to discover: what is man--and what is his destiny here on earth?
They withdrew from the commotion of the world and concentrated all their thoughts and desires on the one question: who am I?--their indefatigable striving, the iron endurance and the yearning with which they pursued their search for truth--all bore fruit, and lo!--their spirit was enlightened, and spread out before them lay the whole secret of BEING.
They understood LIFE. They were able to see the deepest, hiddenmost causes. And open before them, they saw the path which leads out of suffering, upward to freedom, happiness, eternal bliss....They knew that this state is attainable for every human being, and those who had been thus enlightened took pity on suffering mankind and began to teach people the way to redemption and liberation.
....Life within us is what man refers to as 'I' within himself. LIFE is the 'I', the ever-living, immortal SELF that was never born and can never die, for the SELF is LIFE and LIFE cannot die.....When LIFE becomes conscious of itself and leads back this consciousness, via the intelligence, into its own SELF, we call this condition CONSCIOUSNESS OF SELF." |
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 17 2008 07:57:22 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 18 2008 : 05:19:11 AM
|
“But this I sense is essentially the primordial you. In its unpurified/identified state, it appears as the John Smith aspect of yourself....
This is why I sometimes scratch my head when people talk about their ego. You don't have an ego. You are an ego. You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You are your ego. The rest of it is mind stuff. You may be identified with mind stuff but you are still you. It is probably just semantics.”
Well... sort of! You could also say that ultimately the supreme Self is beyond differentiation, and so is beyond the “I sense”. As Yogani says, we move from “I Am” to simply “Am”, because even the “I” requires differentiation. This is I believe why people say that ultimately the ego is transcended.
“You are no longer identified with the clouds of the mind, and you are inhabiting a much vaster, and more free state, but there is still the fundamental pain of separation.
I gotta tell you, this state was anything but painful. ”
I’m sure! But “the fundamental pain of separation” is a subtle thing. It can exist in its gross forms: anger, pain, fear, grief... or it can exist in joy, happiness, bliss etc. It is simply a subtle sense of incompleteness, or unwholeness which underlies every action, or thought, or state that is not the wholeness that comes from “being home”. It is the cause of all spiritual seeking, and is the driving force behind all movement in life. Even in the witness state this separation is there, pain is there, and this pain will either lead us back into identification with mind/body, or leads us on through an intense longing for unity, to the supreme self beyond all form.
“The problem with Krishnamurti, from my point of view, is that he didn't give you a map to get to where he was trying to get you. He just expected you to jump from NY to LA. No planes necessary.”
The maps are there if you look for them! And the methods, and practices. I do them every day. Don’t forget, he didn’t want you to jump from NY to LA, he wanted you to wake up in LA, which is where you fell asleep, and started dreaming you were in NY. He doesn’t give you the tools to fly from NY to LA, but he does give you the tools to wake up in your own bed.
“Is the witness still an identified condition, a mind identified self with desire?”
The witness is beyond the mind. It is an aspect of consciousness. But it is still conditional, for it is dependent on a witnessed object arising. The witness arises in each moment with the object (form), and ends with the dissolution of the object. So it is a dependent condition (dependent on the existence of that which is witnessed). Desire still exists in the witness state, which is a good thing because it is this desire, which takes us beyond the witness to the absolute self.
“That is an interesting take. That "observer is the observed" stuff always confused me and I finally came to the conclusion that he meant that you are your conditioning and that what you perceive is what your belief system has conditioned you to see. I.e., your experience of life is the result of your conditioning.”
If he had wanted to say that, I think he would have said that “we are all the end product of everything we have ever done and everything we have ever thought”, which is true, but is not the same as saying “the observer is the observed”. Krishnamurti was quite capable of speaking directly, and the “observer is the observed” stuff sounds very much like the merging of the witness and the witnessed which happens in the unification stage beyond absorption in the witness self.
“And he spoke so much in the third person when referring to himself: "the speaker...." “
It’s an Indian thing... to avoid using the word I as it is associated with the ego so strongly. Amma (the hugging mother) also calls herself “Amma” in the third person. Yogani sometimes says “here” instead of “I”.
“The average person is not able to experience this condition, because he does not know his SELF."”
There’s an understatement if ever I heard one!
“So that’s how I would differentiate between the self and the Self. If there is still something you are not, then this is the “self”. If there is nothing you are not, this is “Self”. As we have always been “Self” and none other, then “self” is always illusory. Self is always real.
I can't make this distinction. They are the same to me. They are one and the same. It is only a matter of perception. Right or wrong, that is the way I think about it.
You could maybe call them the relative self and the absolute self. The only difference is that the relative self has the impurity of perceived separateness.”
I don’t think it is so important what names we use... illusory/ relative, absolute/ supreme, lover, beloved... love....
“From the Self Inquiry book by Yogani:
"When the witness is present, a natural inclination toward self-inquiry becomes self-evident, for then the innate condition of
the practitioner as the witness becomes the answer to
every inquiry – the eternal stillness that does nothing
even as life carries on in all of its diversity." “
I’m glad you found this in the Self-inquiry book, because it clearly shows that the witness self is not the highest stage in yoga, not the ultimate self, for if it were, then why engage in self-inquiry once the witness self is the established state of consciousness? But it also shows that there is a condition which exists in the witness self, eternal stillness, which is also a condition of the supreme or absolute Self. It is like when the sun is seen reflected in a mirror, there is a quality, sunlight, which is present in both the sun and in the mirror. But the mirror is not the sun.
In my own experience there is a movement of consciousness from the silence of the witness self towards the supreme Self, and this movement I can only describe as ecstatic love. It is like a flow, and everything is taken up in it. It happens to me when I am in (samvikalpa) samadhi, and I contemplate the nature of the absolute self. When I am taken up in that flow I loose consciousness of the body and the mind. But I am still conscious of myself as the flow of ecstatic love towards the supreme Self, the Beloved. Occasionally I begin to loose the identification of myself as the flow... but then everything starts to get a bit Bright, for want of a better word. Sometimes there is another flow, a flow from the supreme Self towards the witness self, which is also a flow of love, and this is Grace.
“So the question, "Who am I?" is like a koan because the correct answer is not a thought; it is inner silence. Correct?”
I would say, yes, it is at first...(merging with the witness), and then it becomes ecstatic love (the pouring of the relative/ witness self into the supreme consciousness), and ultimately it is outpouring divine love (the pouring of our true self into the world as love).
I don’t know that last one first hand, so I am taking Yogani’s word on it.
Christi
“God is ecstatic love. How else can he be known except through ecstatic love?”
Ramakrishna, from the Gospel of Ramakrishna |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 18 2008 : 08:53:20 AM
|
Hi Christi,
quote:
Christi wrote:
Well... sort of! You could also say that ultimately the supreme Self is beyond differentiation, and so is beyond the “I sense”. As Yogani says, we move from “I Am” to simply “Am”, because even the “I” requires differentiation. This is I believe why people say that ultimately the ego is transcended.
Ultimately is the key word here.
From Raja yoga, by Y and H:
"Who ever would be completely free must give up the last concrete idea, their personal consciousness of self. The SELF is the first thought that is born as an individual which becomes conscious and the last thought that accompanies him to the gate": I AM Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,"(Rev. 1; 8) says the Logos in the Bible. "I AM the beginning, the middle and the end of all,' says the Logos in the Bhagavad Gita. But even this consciousness of Self must be dropped. The gate is open; the consciousness drops completely into the Father, melts away into HIM--into THE ABSOLUTE, THE ETERNAL."
You made me think of this quote.
quote:
But “the fundamental pain of separation” is a subtle thing. It can exist in its gross forms: anger, pain, fear, grief... or it can exist in joy, happiness, bliss etc. It is simply a subtle sense of incompleteness, or unwholeness which underlies every action, or thought, or state that is not the wholeness that comes from “being home”. It is the cause of all spiritual seeking, and is the driving force behind all movement in life. Even in the witness state this separation is there, pain is there, and this pain will either lead us back into identification with mind/body, or leads us on through an intense longing for unity, to the supreme self beyond all form.
This was not perceptable at first, but crept in later, and became more and more pronounced as time went on. At first, there was only perfection and wholeness, having been reduced to first principles.
If it was there it was to subtle for my perception.
But I did not return to the primordial state, of pure awareness without objects, in this experience.
Gotta go. Thanks for your reply, Christi. |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 19 2008 : 08:58:37 AM
|
Hi Christi,
I was reading this article from Jim and his karma, (good article, thanks, Jim) and this guy Stuart Sovatsky has a nice way of putting things that relates to what we are talking about:
FIFTH DECADE The desire-self identity matures toward the immortal soul-self identity;
This is how I conceive of it, a maturation and expansion of the ego, as it jettisons false identification after false identification. But this immortal soul-self identity is an experience and realization, not a mental self concept.
SABIJA-SAMADHI and NIRBIJA-SAMADHI: fully matured origin-consciousness with, and then without, future waverings emerge;
REPEAT 25 TO 50 INCARNATIONS: Divya sharira: exceedingly rare full maturation of the ensouled body as "divine light body" and moksha: complete maturation of all soul-body potentials; ultimate liberation into eternal being-in-time.
This is what I am refering to when I say that 'ultimately' is the key word. The bold is my addition.
I don't think the dissolving of the salt doll (ego ,an awareness of awareness unit, formed awareness or attention) into the ocean(awareness, formless attention), to use Ramakrishna's analogy, is something that happens any time soon. I.e. the ego, you, me, is around for a long, long time.
Just my speculation from my present time limited yb perspective.
Best, yb.
|
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 19 2008 09:17:22 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2008 : 08:08:58 AM
|
Hi Christi,
The maps are there if you look for them! And the methods, and practices. I do them every day. Don’t forget, he didn’t want you to jump from NY to LA, he wanted you to wake up in LA, which is where you fell asleep, and started dreaming you were in NY. He doesn’t give you the tools to fly from NY to LA, but he does give you the tools to wake up in your own bed.
In fact, while I was practicing at this time, I read Krisnamurti's book, Think on These Things (I call it "Krishnamurti for Idiots" ), in which he was talking to children at his school. He mentioned two methods, which I think are pretty common. One was to simply sit quietly and watch your thought stream as if you were sitting on the bank of a river. The second was to listen to the sounds between the sounds. He basically said, "See what happens." And that was about it.
I need more than that. Call me lazy. But I need a good conceptualization of what I am trying to accomplish and how to go about it.
Yogani provides this. Krishnamurti does not, imo. Which is why I am not a big fan.
I have thought that I should reread something of his in present time(it has been about 30 years) since I would probably understand him more, except that I already have a pile of unread books and right now, I am really interested in understanding the Self Inquiry book, which jumped to the fromt of the line.
If he had wanted to say that, I think he would have said that “we are all the end product of everything we have ever done and everything we have ever thought”, which is true, but is not the same as saying “the observer is the observed”. Krishnamurti was quite capable of speaking directly, and the “observer is the observed” stuff sounds very much like the merging of the witness and the witnessed which happens in the unification stage beyond absorption in the witness self.
I understand your interpretation.
I’m glad you found this in the Self-inquiry book, because it clearly shows that the witness self is not the highest stage in yoga, not the ultimate self, for if it were, then why engage in self-inquiry once the witness self is the established state of consciousness?
I get the impression from Yogani that the witness is an evolving state and not an exclusively static state. It has its impure and pure states. The witness acts. The more you disidentify with the mind, the more the witness is revealed. And the primary act of the witness is discrimination between "I" and "not I". Once this is achieved it can expand into formless awareness.
In my own experience there is a movement of consciousness from the silence of the witness self towards the supreme Self, and this movement I can only describe as ecstatic love. It is like a flow, and everything is taken up in it. It happens to me when I am in (samvikalpa) samadhi, and I contemplate the nature of the absolute self. When I am taken up in that flow I loose consciousness of the body and the mind. But I am still conscious of myself as the flow of ecstatic love towards the supreme Self, the Beloved. Occasionally I begin to loose the identification of myself as the flow... but then everything starts to get a bit Bright, for want of a better word. Sometimes there is another flow, a flow from the supreme Self towards the witness self, which is also a flow of love, and this is Grace.
Are you in this intensely alive state I described all the time or better? I can only relate what you are saying to my one experience. When you say you are in Samadhi I conceive that you are in some exalted state. When you talk about being in Samadhi, are you in this concentrated condition I have been describing?
In normal daily life, my awareness was expanded and included simultaneous reception of all my sense perceptions and thoughts rather than the focused attention I experience now, which excludes alot of sensory input.
Right now my goal to achieve and maintain this type of consciousness again on a permanent basis, i.e., to make it my normal. I.e., intense, concentrated presence and the ability to go into ever deeper states of meditation on a regular basis.
Is that how it is for you?
I would say, yes, it is at first...(merging with the witness), and then it becomes ecstatic love (the pouring of the relative/ witness self into the supreme consciousness), and ultimately it is outpouring divine love (the pouring of our true self into the world as love).
I don’t know that last one first hand, so I am taking Yogani’s word on it.
I understand. Yogi Ramacharaka calls it the "Expansion of the Self."
So you could conceptualize the progression as person identified self to witness self to Supreme Self.
Best, yb.
|
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 21 2008 : 08:34:32 AM
|
From the book Self Inquiry by Yogani:
"All spiritual paths are about revealing our "I," and
becoming it in its native unconditioned state. All
spiritual paths are for answering the question "Who am
I?" and consciously becoming That.
The witness alive in us is known to
be that ever-awake sense of “I” during waking,
dreaming and deep sleep stages of awareness.
With direct experience through deep meditation,
self-inquiry, and other integrated practices, we can go
from the philosophy/theory of inner silence to the
reality of it."
|
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 22 2008 : 07:55:44 AM
|
quote:
Yogani wrote:
Keep in mind that inner silence is not on the level
of the curious mind or the intellect. It is beyond all
thinking and philosophy. In that sense the call to do
nothing is valid. In order to do that we must do
something.
From the book Self Inquiry by Yogani:
"It cannot be understood by the intellect, but the intellect can make the necessary choices along the way.
The role of self-inquiry in this is to let it go and allow it to proceed.
The witness never does anything, even while it is doing everything." |
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 22 2008 08:00:38 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 08:27:23 AM
|
From the book Self Inquiry by Yogani:
The witness is awareness
independent of all objects. Yet, the witness does coexist
with objects, as anyone who engages in daily deep
meditation for a while knows. So we can try and
describe it, even though it is who we are beyond all
descriptions. It is a riddle. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 11:28:35 PM
|
Hi YB
quote:
”Ultimately is the key word here....
I don't think the dissolving of the salt doll (ego, an awareness of awareness unit, formed awareness or attention) into the ocean (awareness, formless attention), to use Ramakrishna's analogy, is something that happens any time soon. I.e. the ego, you, me, is around for a long, long time.”
I think there can be a danger in making enlightenment into something that is always far away. Especially once the witness is cultivated and awareness is established in silence (Samadhi). See Yogani on this subject here:
http://www.aypsite.org/120.html
quote:
“I get the impression from Yogani that the witness is an evolving state and not an exclusively static state. It has its impure and pure states. The witness acts. The more you disidentify with the mind, the more the witness is revealed. And the primary act of the witness is discrimination between "I" and "not I". Once this is achieved it can expand into formless awareness.”
Yes I would agree, it does seem like that. We don’t end up as kind of passive zombies once we become established in the witness state. Well, some people do, but I think they have missed the point somewhere along the way. Awareness is dynamic as well as passive, it flows and acts. I once heard that before enlightenment the Self is controlled exclusively by the mind, and afterwards, the mind becomes a tool (one among many) for the Self. Activity is still happening, but the relationship has changed. The slave becomes the master (king of kings). Something can only be a tool for something else that is able to wield a tool (is capable of action).
quote:
“Are you in this intensely alive state I described all the time or better?”
No, I fluctuate between different states of awareness.
By the way, I think the state you described would be what Adyashanti would call an awakening. It is like a preview of enlightenment that doesn’t last. He talks a fair bit on how to move from awakening experiences to final enlightenment. And then just to prove that he is a true Zen master, he goes on to describe the process of transformation beyond final enlightenment.
quote:
“When you say you are in Samadhi I conceive that you are in some exalted state. When you talk about being in Samadhi, are you in this concentrated condition I have been describing?”
Samadhi is a bit difficult to describe, it’s a bit of a broad palate. Yes, I would call the condition you described above as Samadhi (sahaja (spontaneous) Samadhi). It is one of those words that has been ascribed so many meanings that it starts to become more confusing than useful. I have noticed that Yogani generally avoids it.
I have seen it translated as “concentration”, which means that anyone reading a newspaper is in Samadhi. I have also seen it translated as: The highest stage of yogic development, or full enlightenment. So maybe it is something in between those two.
For me, Samadhi is an exalted state of awareness, in which awareness is established, or rested, in silence and stillness. The best way I can describe it, is if you first imagine that you are floating on the surface of the ocean. The sunlight is a bit too strong (contracted ego sense), and the waves (thoughts/ emotions) keep bashing you in the face. Then imagine that you dive down under the water. At first it is a bit scary (laya Samadhi) because you have forgotten that you can breathe underwater (exist in silence). Then gradually you realize that you can breathe underwater, and everything is fine (samvikalpa/ sambija Samadhi). The sunlight is still there, but it is diffused through the water and doesn’t disturb the beauty and peace. You can still see the waves rising and falling above you, but they don’t touch you. And what is even more remarkable is that you can now move vertically (etheric, astral, causal, atmic) as well as horizontally (physical, emotional, mental). The ecstatic love I mentioned earlier is a movement of consciousness vertically (diving down/ rising up) towards the blissful realms.
quote:
“Right now my goal to achieve and maintain this type of consciousness again on a permanent basis, i.e., to make it my normal. I.e., intense, concentrated presence and the ability to go into ever-deeper states of meditation on a regular basis.
Is that how it is for you?”
Actually, what I’d really like (just in case God is listening) is a gentle, innocent, all-embracing presence that is capable of recognizing the Divine in the eyes of everyone I meet, and seeing God in all things. And an opportunity to serve all as That. Oh yea, and whilst I’m making my Christmas list, I’d like the kind of love that can illuminate whole civilizations from within.
Do we get everything we want?
The ever-deeper states of meditation sounds like a great way to move forward.
Christi
|
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 02:53:06 AM
|
Christi,
That was truly a beautiful and earnest post with a pleasant softness to it! Thank you!
/emc |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 05:36:32 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by emc
Christi,
That was truly a beautiful and earnest post with a pleasant softness to it! Thank you!
/emc
Yep, it is very nice 
and you (emc) reached the magical postnumber 777  |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 09:00:59 AM
|
Christi, I have enjoyed your post, but would like to comment on this generally held misconception and want you to know that it is not directed at you, but this erroneous concept:
quote:
Christi: I have seen it translated as “concentration”, which means that anyone reading a newspaper is in Samadhi.
Samadhi has nothing to do with the intellect and even if one is reading a newspaper and thoughts are not perceived, on a conscious level, they are still thinking. There is a reason that meditation is practiced to go beyond the mind by way of internal transformation/perception.
Let's not confuse Samadhi with the mind and make it some mundane thing. The reason that the mind becomes a tool is that the person has died of this world by way of endogenously breaking this connection with nature or severing the cord of the circadian rhythm via the subtle heart. This is touched upon in the Rig Veda, as you can see where it is bolded:
"Creation Hymm from the Rig Veda
Not even nothing existed then
No air yet, nor a heaven.
Who encased and kept it where?
Was water in the darkness there?
Neither deathlessness nor decay
No, nor the rhythm of night and day:
The self-existent, with breath sans air:
That, and that alone was there.
Darkness was in darkness found
Like light-less water all around.
One emerged, with nothing on
It was from heat that this was born.
Into it, Desire, its way did find...: "
http://www.princeton.edu/~howarth/5...ig-veda.html
Take care:
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Feb 24 2008 10:55:03 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 24 2008 : 09:04:41 AM
|
Hi Christi,
quote:
Christi wrote:
I think there can be a danger in making enlightenment into something that is always far away. Especially once the witness is cultivated and awareness is established in silence (Samadhi). See Yogani on this subject here:
quote:
Yogani wrote in Lesson 120:
I have been doing all this writing here for months. Why? Well, it is
a good thing that needs to be done for sure. Many agree with that.
From my perspective, it is going out with my inner silence into many
lives, and that is helping me expand tremendously inside. The more I
give away, the more I am filling up with ecstatic bliss. I am a very
selfish person doing all this transmission of knowledge. Yet, my self
is becoming more and more in everyone. Your joy is my joy. You can do
the same thing in your life. Do your sitting practices, however much
and whatever kind you find is good for you, and then go do something
good for someone. That is rising enlightenment.....
Getting enlightenment is giving it away. Getting enlightenment is
letting it go.
This is how I think of it.
quote:
Christi wrote:
I think there can be a danger in making enlightenment into something that is always far away. Especially once the witness is cultivated and awareness is established in silence (Samadhi).
quote:
Yogani wrote in Lesson 120:
The future isn't real. Today is real. It is misery to want a thing in
the future, keeping it out there, out of reach. The future never
comes. It is maya (illusion). On the other hand, it is bliss to want
what we are having today that this good, and tasting it being more
already tomorrow. That is why I have said, "Do something nice for
someone today." That is more enlightenment than we can find anywhere
in our imagination of the future. If there is enlightenment, it is to
be found today. It is a fine point.
I understand this. All I am saying is that the ego, yourself is the very last thing to go. When nirvikalpa samadhi is attained depends on karma which is perhaps impossible to predict.
quote:
Christi wrote:
I fluctuate between different states of awareness. quote:
I am Happy for you.
quote:
Christi wrote:
By the way, I think the state you described would be what Adyashanti would call an awakening.
That is how I have thought of it, too. Birth is perhaps more what I have thought, but yes, a small degree of awakeneing, a preview of coming attractions.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
quote:
Christi wrote:
For me, Samadhi is an exalted state of awareness, in which awareness is established, or rested, in silence and stillness.
I am getting the concept of it, not having ever experienced it my self.
[quote]Christi wrote:
Actually, what I’d really like (just in case God is listening) is a gentle, innocent, all-embracing presence that is capable of recognizing the Divine in the eyes of everyone I meet, and seeing God in all things. And an opportunity to serve all as That.
I remember my teacher saying one time that this is how it was for him. Once we were standing out side his yoga school and a retarded man happened by. He approached us, stepped close to my teacher, and put his hand on my teacher's sternum. The man stood there laughing softly, looking at him for about 15 seconds before taking his hand off and walking away. My teacher looked at me, shrugged his shoulders, and we continued our conversation as if nothing had happened.
To me, there was a lot of non-verbal conversation going on.
[quote]Christi wrote:
....The ever-deeper states of meditation sounds like a great way to move forward.
Agreed!
Best, yb.
Hi emc and Wolfgang,
One time I went to a puppy dog class and it was so fun. There were all kinds of breeds there, big, small, etc. A wide variety. It was hilarious to watch perhaps 15 puppies rollicking and gamboling about in the room with each other while all the owners sat around the edge. I asked the leader of the class why she let the puppies play like this for the first 10-15 minutes. She said that it socialized the dogs and made the more aggressive ones less aggressive and the less aggressive ones more aggressive. It balanced them out. It created a healthy social expression when they would meet other dogs on the street.
Woof, woof.
Best, yb.
|
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 27 2008 07:55:39 AM |
|
|
|
yogibear
409 Posts |
Posted - Feb 25 2008 : 08:33:15 AM
|
Commentary on 'Light on the Path' from the book Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy by Yogi Ramacharaka:
'Kill out the sense of separateness.'
The sense of separateness that causes us to feel as if we were made of different material from our fellow men and women--that makes us feel self-righteous--that makes us thank God that we are different from, and better than, other men--is error, and arises from the relative point of view. The advanced occultist knows that we are all parts of the One Life--varying only as we have unfolded so as to allow the higher parts of our nature to manifest through us.
The lowly brother is but as we were once, and he will some day occupy the same position that we now do. And both he and we will surely mount to still greater heights--and if he learns his lessons better than do we, he may outstrip us in development.
And besides this, we are bound up with the lives of every other man and woman. We participate in the conditions which contribute to their sin and shame. We allow to exist in our civilization conditions and environments which contribure largely to crime and misery. Every mouthful we eat--every garment we wear--every dollar we earn--has had some connection with other people, and their lives and ours are intermingled--we touch all mankind at thousnds of points.
The law of cause and effect makes close companions of persons apparently as far apart as the poles. What we call sin is often the result of ignorance and misdirected energy--if we were in exactly the same position as those who do wrong--with the same temperament, training, environment, and opportunity--would we do so very much better than they?
All life is on the Path--we are all advancing slowly--often slipping back two feet for every three we advance, but still registering a net advance of one foot. And all are really trying to do the best they can, although often the appearances are very much against them.
None of us are so very good or perfect--then why should we be so ready to condemn? Let us lend a helping hand whenever we can, but let us not say, "I am holier than thou."
Let us remember the precept of the great Master who warned to cast the first stone only when we are free from sin ourselves. Let us avoid the sense of separateness in the relative sense, for it is a snare and a delusion and the parent of nearly all error." |
Edited by - yogibear on Feb 26 2008 09:08:59 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
In the sky of your mind you are the 
