|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Eddy
USA
92 Posts |
 Posted - Apr 25 2007 : 5:56:20 PM
|
i seem to have a slightly different view in reguars to self enquiry... it seems as if this topics isn't mentioned as much...
mainly my disagreement relies on this stressing o the concept of self pacing...
i like many here am an advocate of nisargadatta and ramana...men who become enlightened very very quickly as contrasted to the collective.
ramana became enligthened immeditaley and supposedly he took time to integrate it(12 years appoximatley),, nisargadatta 3 years... osho needed adjustment as well after he became enlightened at 21....
anyway so i say screw this idea of self pacing.... well not exactly.... i mean try to figure out why yogani even advocates this idea in the first place... a reactive response would be because this is scary and very dangerous stuff if tampered with... but don't let that deter you from your "goal" keep the questioning coming... question every damn thing you can possibly think of... whatever crosses your awareness give it your complete and full attention.. question questioning... you see a chair on the sidewalk waiting for the garbage dump to pick it up. your thoughts turn into a tunnle of images (that you have control over never the less) and you see the first chair you ever saw... or the first doorknob you ever saw... or perhaps you lying for the sport of it to a girl a t aparty and you can see directly all of the karmic imprints if you will that leaded up to your lying in that exact moment...
sooner or later you will just explode... get taken in like a star in a black whole as osho would say... now i am not there yet... but i feel that i am very very close...
to go along with this i advocate the idea of rearranging or reconditioning however you ant to put it... this would be different for everybody... it's the bruce lee of the mind.. learn all to be all... associate yourself with as much pop-philosophy as you can.. just watch what comes out of you with a heart of a lion...
we are approaching the end of days my friends. figuratively and perhaps literally for maybe most of us... we need to do everything we can possibly do (example of a pop philosophy to stick to).. it's going to be tough. but "we" have to and wil prevail... |
Edited by - AYPforum on Apr 25 2007 7:11:23 PM |
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 25 2007 : 7:36:14 PM
|
Hi Eddy
Both of those gentlemen went at it I'm sure with an intensity of one-pointed devotion that would probably be hard to comprehend for many of us. Of course that approach is inspiring and something worth pursuing. I would gamble though that neither of those great bhakti/yogi/jnanis looked ahead at their spiritual road and said "Ah, this will be done in no time! Perhaps in only three years!" I imagine they were prepared to traverse eternity to attain their goal, and who knows, perhaps they already had.
God's speed
Alan |
 |
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 25 2007 : 11:28:44 PM
|
| Sorry, I said "both of those gentlemen" and overlooked the reference to osho. I should have said all three of them instead. Though I haven't read much yet about osho I have no reason to not include him. Interestingly I came across a site that I listed once on another thread here where it was said that all three of those fellows were once masters in lineage of the ancient ch'an in first millenium China. It was somewhere on:http://www.interactiveself-developm...om/links.htm |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 12:41:58 AM
|
Hi Eddy:
There is nothing wrong with wanting to get on with it. No argument there. That is bhakti, which is the underlying cause of self inquiry, and of all spiritual practice. But if we want progress, we have to be smart about it. There is much more going on than meets the eye.
Self-pacing is not something we do because anything is feared or imagined. We don't do it because someone says we are supposed to, or because it is fashionable. We do it when our rate of inner purification is slowing our progress, while making us pretty uncomfortable and/or unhealthy at the same time. It is a very common problem that all serious aspirants run into at one time or other on the path. Self-pacing is a practical measure that speeds our progress -- not slowing it down.
In theory we could drive from New York to Los Angeles in about 30 hours at 100 miles per hour. Maybe someone has done it. The mythological Nisagadatta/Ramana of the highways! But more than likely anyone who tries that will get tickets (delays), end up in jail (longer delay), or have a really bad crash (maybe not get there at all).
The smart driver knows that sometimes 100 mph will work (in the lonely desert), other times 65 mph will work (thank you interstate highway system), and other times only 25 mph will work (oops, rush hour in the city). It all depends on the conditions.
Yoga is like that. It is about reacting to what is going on within us as we apply powerful spiritual practices that purify and open us from within. Cause and effect. That is the real world of our evolving neurobiology. It can be done by most anyone, but not very well by those who choose to ignore the mechanics involved.
Do you think the Wright Brothers would have gotten off the ground if they had ignored the aerodynamic principles they were attempting to harness? Remember the guy with the feathers glued to his arms jumping off the cliff? We learn from our mistakes. Well, maybe he didn't, but the rest of us did.
The best person to compare yourself to on the path is yourself, over weeks, months and years. There isn't anything wrong with being inspired by the great ones. But we have to deal with where we are, not with where we imagine someone else was or is. Enlightenment is a state of being, based on a cultivated inner receptivity. It takes whatever it takes for as long as it takes (Alan's point). That is an attitude that will lead to real and lasting results. It has been the attitude of all saints and sages, including the ones you mentioned.
"Magic bullet" instant enlightenment (as in, "You are there already!") is a flawed approach for the vast majority of people, without other methods being employed. Stand-alone self inquiry often will lead to time-wasting fantasies and/or ogling around those who are on the mountain top (or claim to be). Other times it can lead to excess purification causing long delays, because the process of purification is being ignored. To be sure, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but we have to walk that line. The line is our own nervous system, and we should come to understand its transformative powers and limitations well. Then we can travel it.
Spiritual transformation is not an instant event. It only may seem like it is sometimes. If we are seduced by an inner experience, we can fall into an ongoing non-dual rationalization or energy obsession. This can hold us back, as we favor our illusion of attainment over real practice. That is why in AYP we favor our practices over our experiences. Then we will have constantly expanding results. The real signal of enlightenment is the emergence of unending loving service to others. Odd as it may seem, this is the only unmistakable manifestation of enlightenment. Actions over time speak much louder than words.
Self inquiry can be very valuable if it is engaged in with the rise of our inner silence. More than a few around here are doing that. It is beautiful to observe, like watching butterflies emerging. This is stillness in action. It gets back to daily deep meditation and the additional methods for moving stillness out into everyday living. Self inquiry is one of those methods. Only when we allow stillness to move as it must will we be going beyond all movement to non-duality. It is the paradox of enlightenment.
It is great to see more young folks here in the forums these days. The future belongs to the young, just as it once belonged to we who are older now. Keep banging on the door. Do it wisely, and pass on what you learn in this life so the coming generations will benefit. We are benefiting today because those who came before remembered to pass on their well-earned knowledge.
Looking forward to your report three years from now. Wishing you good driving between now and then. Enjoy the ride! 
The guru is in you.
PS: Rumi said, "I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons. Knocking on a door. It opens. I have been knocking from the inside!"
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 11:25:21 AM
|
Self pacing applies to AYP style meditation and practices, not to Ramana style self enquiry practice. The more self enquiry you do, the better. My energy problems have actually totally disappeared due to taking on this type of practice.
These are good instructions:
http://uarelove1.tripod.com/imposter7.htm |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 11:39:13 AM
|
| That looks like a good resource Scott. I'm looking forward to checking it out. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 1:17:08 PM
|
Scott said:
Self pacing applies to AYP style meditation and practices, not to Ramana style self enquiry practice. The more self enquiry you do, the better. My energy problems have actually totally disappeared due to taking on this type of practice.
Scott, perhaps you have misunderstood the term 'self-pacing' to mean 'backing off' from a practice, or 'not applying a practice to the max'?
That's just a misunderstanding of the term 'self-pacing', which means judiciously varying the intensity of the practice when necessary/appropriate, which is what is what Yogani is teaching.
Your experience with self-enquiry has produced no problems for you, and even smoothed things out for you. That is like that case of driving 100 MPH through the desert that Yogani was speaking of. Totally consistent with self-pacing -- throttle up when it is working -- back off when necessary. Going full-throttle can be a judicious application of self-pacing!
People certainly do have evergy problems that result from self-enquiry practices. Almost any spiritual practice (if effective) can produce imbalances. In those cases, the 'backing-off' aspect of self-pacing is advised as for anything else.
One other thing -- you can deciding it is time to 'back off' in one practice, and pressing down on the accelarator in another, which adds yet another dimension to what self-pacing is. And some practices can 'smooth-out' the effect of another at times, while the first practice in question could even produce a need to back off in itself! For example, hatha yoga (sometimes intense) can smooth out other fall-out from meditation, while you can take hatha-yoga practices to levels that you may need to back down from for self-pacing reasons. Self-pacing is optimization -- based on the feedback of results.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Apr 26 2007 1:34:03 PM |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 2:06:24 PM
|
Hey David,
Yes, I understand self pacing as you describe it. When there are no problems, full speed ahead; when there are problems, slow down until they're gone.
quote:
People certainly do have evergy problems that result from self-enquiry practices.
I haven't heard of any. It may be so...I haven't had enough time in my days to fully devote myself to this practice, so I shouldn't say that the practice has no potential energy problems.
Do you have any more info on people that have had energy problems with this practice?
quote:
Almost any spiritual practice (if effective) can produce imbalances.
It's good that you said almost. Self enquiry (when performed correctly) doesn't produce imbalances. It rebalances.
To be clear: there is a difference between energy imbalances and energy problems. A problem may be that a person is awakening too much energy at once...that has nothing to do with the energy being imbalanced.
The question is: does self enquiry awaken too much energy at once? I suppose someone would have to devote their entire day to the practice to find out. I have in the past, but back then the kundalini wasn't awakened for me, so it'd be difficult to say for sure. I don't have time to do it these days. |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 2:37:49 PM
|
Don't forget, overdoing any of these intense and altering practices can manifest in discomfort down the road. I've experienced uncomfortable energy manifestations at times when I am doing very little in the way of meditation and pranayama that I feel were from intense practice weeks, even months before. I recently went overboard when combining a truck-load of intense "Who am I" to the rest of my waking hours beyond my daily meditation. I got a little flippy and lost my bearings a bit. I stopped that type of enquiry completely. I have been looking at the site you are studying Scott and I think I will have a go of that enquiry. It looks simple and intriguing.
Have fun
~Alan |
Edited by - Balance on Apr 26 2007 2:55:53 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 2:47:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Self pacing applies to AYP style meditation and practices, not to Ramana style self enquiry practice. The more self enquiry you do, the better. My energy problems have actually totally disappeared due to taking on this type of practice.
These are good instructions:
http://uarelove1.tripod.com/imposter7.htm
Hi Scott:
Interesting perspective and experience.
The question that is at the center of all this is:
Does self inquiry cultivate inner silence, or does inner silence cultivate self inquiry?
As you know, I lean toward the inner silence cultivating self inquiry scenario, and that is why we emphasize simple daily deep meditation around here. Self inquiry emerges pretty naturally that way over time, and we can see evidence of it in many meditators.
On the other hand, the non-dualists emphasize self inquiry as a starting point, an ending point, and the only point. While it can be stimulating and inspiring because it is philosophically sound, I have not seen any evidence that it actually works in practice as a starting point and sole ongoing practice for large numbers of people.
In fact, I don't know of any teacher who practiced strict self inquiry as their primary path from the beginning. There may an exception or two -- the born enlightened, which isn't you or me, or even Buddha or Jesus. Yet, self inquiry is always presented as the logical thing (and only thing) for everyone to be doing from the beginning, usually from the perspective of a teacher who has umpteen years of previous multi-faceted practice and experience under their belt. While infinitely altruistic, it does not make practical sense.
It always seemed odd to me that someone skilled in the high-wire act would ask beginners to start way up near the top of the tent. Is there any solid evidence that this really works? Any such evidence would have to be over years of experience by numbers of people. It isn't going to be sufficient to say, "I have been doing this for a few weeks or months, and it works." It is encouraging, but not conclusive. It is not sufficient to make conclusions that way about any practice, including deep meditation. The proof of the pudding is in the eating by many, and that eating takes time.
I regard this to be a very important discussion, because it involves reconciling self inquiry with all other yoga practices. It is something which must be done. Not to do so leaves yoga in a state of separation. And as we know, separation is not yoga.
Interestingly, hardcore forms of self inquiry involve a complete denial of manifest existence, which is non-duality built on separation. Ironic, isn't it?
Case in point: Nisargatta's talks shortly before his death read like little more than rationalizations -- mental gymnastics:
"I am dying, but nothing is here so I don't care."
Is pure self inquiry pure rationalization without engagement of any kind? It seems cold and loveless, doesn't it? The witness is about more than that. Stillness is always longing to move as outpouring divine love. Otherwise, absolutely nothing would be here. In our essential nature, we are that also. Can true enlightenment be based on denial? When does denial cease to be a mind game?
None of this is to deny the non-dual (unified) nature of existence, or the role of self inquiry on the path. But it has to be real, not only for the sage, but for the aspirant, and consistent with the rest of yoga. Otherwise, it doesn't hold up.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 3:20:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott
The question is: does self enquiry awaken too much energy at once? I suppose someone would have to devote their entire day to the practice to find out. I have in the past, but back then the kundalini wasn't awakened for me, so it'd be difficult to say for sure. I don't have time to do it these days.
Hi Scott:
See this topic: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....OPIC_ID=2202
The person in question in that topic is still having challenges two months later, following an Adyashanti (leading non-dualist) retreat. It may have also been other factors on the retreat, but the experience was handled strictly from a self inquiry perspective while there, which only aggravated what was already a major overload. She has been self-pacing ever since.
There have been other non-dualist types having problems in my email here. The causes of energy difficulties are often rooted in individual tendencies in relation to practices undertaken. The jury is still out on whether self inquiry is a remedy or a cause in these cases -- maybe it can be either, like spinal breathing can be. I'm glad self inquiry has been of some help to you. We'd like to get more data points on that over time.
Human spiritual transformation is ultimately the same neurobiological process no matter who is doing it, how or where. It is the same nervous system we are working with in every case. Regardless of the method, some management is going to be necessary for every aspirant, depending on individual tendencies in practice. No shortcuts ... just optimizing the process for speed and safety through self-directed practice.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 4:38:31 PM
|
Hi Yogani,
quote:
Does self inquiry cultivate inner silence, or does inner silence cultivate self inquiry?
I'd say that they kind of go hand in hand. If you have no inner silence, it's not possible to do self enquiry (it'll only be misleading). But it's possible for a person to not do any self enquiry and have immense inner silence, as a result of meditation or the yamas and niyamas or bhakti. Self enquiry does cultivate inner silence, though. I've found it accomplishes everything.
But without having done AYP, and had the intense results I did, I doubt I'd have been able to recognize how useful self enquiry would be to me.
...by the way, I'm trying to figure out the difference between "inquiry" and "enquiry"...I always have seen others use enquiry, so that's what I use.
quote:
As you know, I lean toward the inner silence cultivating self inquiry scenario, and that is why we emphasize simple daily deep meditation around here. Self inquiry emerges pretty naturally that way over time, and we can see evidence of it in many meditators.
Yes, I've seen that to be the case as well. I don't discount mantra meditation as an effective practice at all. They are just different. The mantra one was too intense and imbalancing for me. For many other meditators, it doesn't seem to be.
Both practices bring the meditator to that state of samadhi, and the more the meditator does either practice, the more the state permeates and changes the meditator's life.
I guess my opinion is just: different tools for different fools. Or: whatever works.
quote:
On the other hand, the non-dualists emphasize self inquiry as a starting point, an ending point, and the only point. While it can be stimulating and inspiring because it is philosophically sound, I have not seen any evidence that it actually works in practice as a starting point and sole ongoing practice for large numbers of people.
I'm not a nondualist. In my opinion, self enquiry isn't a philosophy to take upon oneself...it's just a practice. When someone begins to believe that they are pure awareness, things start to philosophically clash when they realize they have to take out the trash. "Who is taking out the trash?" Not me!
Their desire for enlightenment can further cloud their view by making them hold onto their erroneous beliefs...and what does it get them? Not much. Just a bunch of confusion.
So in my view, it's really less about finding our true selves, and more about practicing the method in order to gain the meditative state, and maintain it.
quote:
In fact, I don't know of any teacher who practiced strict self inquiry as their primary path from the beginning. There may an exception or two -- the born enlightened, which isn't you or me, or even Buddha or Jesus. Yet, self inquiry is always presented as the logical thing (and only thing) for everyone to be doing from the beginning, usually from the perspective of a teacher who has umpteen years of previous multi-faceted practice and experience under their belt. While infinitely altruistic, it does not make practical sense.
I agree. Good thing there are many other practices out there to choose from. When one doesn't work, the seeker moves on to the next.
quote:
It always seemed odd to me that someone skilled in the high-wire act would ask beginners to start way up near the top of the tent. Is there any solid evidence that this really works? Any such evidence would have to be over years of experience by numbers of people. It isn't going to be sufficient to say, "I have been doing this for a few weeks or months, and it works." It is encouraging, but not conclusive. It is not sufficient to make conclusions that way about any practice, including deep meditation. The proof of the pudding is in the eating by many, and that eating takes time.
I agree...it isn't a practice for someone who's never meditated.
quote:
I regard this to be a very important discussion, because it involves reconciling self inquiry with all other yoga practices. It is something which must be done. Not to do so leaves yoga in a state of separation. And as we know, separation is not yoga.
I agree that self enquiry is an integral part of yoga. I also agree with your stance, that it's not the only part. But in my opinion, all other parts fall beneath it and support it.
quote:
Interestingly, hardcore forms of self inquiry involve a complete denial of manifest existence, which is non-duality built on separation. Ironic, isn't it?
Case in point: Nisargatta's talks shortly before his death read like little more than rationalizations -- mental gymnastics:
"I am dying, but nothing is here so I don't care."
Yeah, those would be false rationalizations, too. I went through that phase of the practice a few years ago, when I began doing yoga. A person finally comes to realize: I am a person pretending to not be a person so that this person can gain some state of mind of not being a person. It's seen as completely foolish.
My idea of self enquiry isn't adopting some belief system. That isn't enquiry, that's belief. It's just a practice.
quote:
Is pure self inquiry pure rationalization without engagement of any kind? It seems cold and loveless, doesn't it? The witness is about more than that. Stillness is always longing to move as outpouring divine love. Otherwise, absolutely nothing would be here. In our essential nature, we are that also. Can true enlightenment be based on denial? When does denial cease to be a mind game?
I agree with this completely, Yogani. To answer your questions: No. Yes, it would. No. When you realize how ridiculous your belief system has become, and you stop doing the practice incorrectly.
quote:
None of this is to deny the non-dual (unified) nature of existence, or the role of self inquiry on the path. But it has to be real, not only for the sage, but for the aspirant, and consistent with the rest of yoga. Otherwise, it doesn't hold up.
I agree completely! |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 4:39:48 PM
|
Alan,
Maybe it'd be best not to mix this with the "i am" meditation. |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Apr 26 2007 : 6:01:49 PM
|
Yogani
Just a quick one - its an interesting thread and something which is clearly exercising you. Also interestingly synchronicity had lead me this way as I will mention below.
The first point is that as an "outsider" I am always entertained by the seemingly strict sectarian division between two tribes "dual" and "non-dual"... you know what its like as an outsider... lets say a Jewish person or a Moslem had wandered into Northern Ireland a decade ago with complete metal partitions between Protestant and Catholic... he might scratch his head and rather think that they both believe in Jesus Christ!
So the division seems to harden over time in terms of language here  ... now for sure that is fine as long as one wishes to be in Camp A rather than Camp B ... however as you also say division is rather against the current as far as yoga (union) is concerned.
Secondly just from a linguistic and philosophical analysis this really seems (again from the outside - I speak from the blissful ignorance of 'beginners mind') to be approaching not just a division on one axis but on many... Or in another analogy a whole package versus another... A bit like "are you Republican or Democrat" leaves no scope for agreeing with some of both and disagreeing with some of both...
Presumably - going back to the northern Ireland analogy - the underlying soteriological goal (union of atman with Brahma) is the same? Presumably both tribes thus agree that apparent separation is not, fundamentally, "real". Presumably both sides appreciate that no-one can convert an entire audience in one lecture by any method..?
In passing I am in total agreement with your basic analogy that if one stops and looks around one will see as much as ones position on the mountain allows and that often (if not always eg Tolle?) one's position on the mountain is determined by how much climbing - wearing whatever boots one has been - one has done.
I found the link interesting (altho' seemingly to me in my ignorance far too excessive in terms of practice time recommendations for a novice). If one allows for difference in terminology and a certain leeway in general it seems to me to correspond quite well to Cittanupassana which I have been researching a lot recently (I can give you a good link to a pdf and a great lecture by a Burmese master if you are interested in further examination). This is mindfulness of the mind(/heart-mind) - the third of the Buddha's (unique  ) invention/discovery of vipassana. It is generally not taught to beginners as it is (allegedly...) not easy to do. There are also few renowned teachers of it. But for sure it is a very kosher Indian meditation technique (and I see neither side as "wrong" just increasingly emphasising their own position.. for sure the more samadhi/calmness/stability of mind you have the easier it is - rather hard to do at some rave bombed out of ones mind lol (and vice versa...))
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
On the other hand, the non-dualists emphasize self inquiry as a starting point, an ending point, and the only point.
Just going back to my original point "two distinct tribes or a spectrum?" is this the general non-dual position or the most extreme position..(used for polemical reasons?)? Is there huge clear blue water between the two camps or just polarisation and actually mostly common agreement (other than over different emphases on different techniques)?
quote:
Yet, self inquiry is always presented as the logical thing (and only thing) for everyone to be doing from the beginning, usually from the perspective of a teacher who has umpteen years of previous multi-faceted practice and experience under their belt. While infinitely altruistic, it does not make practical sense.
Again I am not fully conversant - are there dozens of renowned teachers who suggest this?
Put separately from the perspective of Indian philosophy the search for the self - or no-self - has always been core... it has always been the motivating factor... not so much "what am I?" as "what is I?" perhaps.
quote:
Case in point: Nisargatta's talks shortly before his death read like little more than rationalizations -- mental gymnastics:
"I am dying, but nothing is here so I don't care."
I am not an expert in the gentleman (got his book  ) but for sure it is possible to make sense of his statement at a very deep level... what you refer to as mental gymnastics could be taken merely as rather the problem of using relative language to describe both the relative world and the absolute (which of course transcends language).
For sure the word "I" is a mere convention (in anyone's philosophy) and - as per the great eel-wriggler W.Clinton  - it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is I recently came upon the fact that in Pali (and thus no doubt Sanskrit) there are two different verbs for the one English verb "to be" - one referring to a space-time context ("it is late thursday evening") the other transcendent matters ("awareness is"). So many seeming nonsensical statements one comes across in philosophical circles are merley reflecting linguistic inadaquecies and ambiguities.
Also for sure the last works by all masters (in a different sphere eg Beethoven) are - it seems to me - increasingly abstract... seemingly different from earlier stuff on the surface, whilst actually all-encompassing at a deeper level.
quote:
Is pure self inquiry pure rationalization without engagement of any kind? It seems cold and loveless, doesn't it?
Well like many terms self-enquiry seems to be used in different contexts by different folks... But just equating it for the moment to citanupassana it certainly isnt rationalization - quite the opposite - rationalization is (for the want of a better finger to point at the moon) a kind of logical brain activity, a thought-domain thing. Awareness is well-transcendent of that... Again if one is equating it to some kind of Awareness/Rigpa type thing then it is an a priori reasonable misunderstanding to suspect that if one lets go of everything one ends up with nothing... Ironically one ends up with Everything lol... as per a wise man's quote 
quote:
The witness is about more than that. Stillness is always longing to move as outpouring divine love. Otherwise, absolutely nothing would be here. In our essential nature, we are that also.
quote:
Can true enlightenment be based on denial? When does denial cease to be a mind game?
I wasnt quite sure of which straw man needed to be knocked down here... I saw no denial on the link, or indeed by Adya or others... (might have missed it for sure).
Of course folks differ on their emphasis and language revolving around "ordinary" and "non-ordinary"/"transcendent" realities... but as you folks say "where you stand depends on where you sit"
quote:
But it has to be real, not only for the sage, but for the aspirant, and consistent with the rest of yoga. Otherwise, it doesn't hold up.
Well from what your correspondent posted it was real for him... From what Tolle says many folks have benefited form his direct approach... So for sure these things are real for the aspirant.
Consistent with the rest of Yoga leaks into the other theme of what can you combine AYP with safely and what can you not... I know at least one hard-core Taoist teacher who will (for no doubt sound reasons) allow his students to combine nothing with his practices...
Personally I vote for us modern folks being all to ready to pop off to all sorts of divergent practices... it's not always wise  ... these things - often seemingly innocuous to the western-school-trained mind - can be flammable and burn one.
But this itself is just a "sign of the times" is it not? AYP arose as some young chap in the past was temeritous enough to combine various teachings and learnings... The problem now is that the range is near infinite - only today I heard of one practitioner of qigong who isnt making the usual retreat as they are off to a Shamanic one "for a change".
As I heard someone describe that phenomenon ... "volunteers step forwards" 
Anyway I am not seeking one jot to disagree with any position thats being taken here... its just that the "arguments" on both sides seem to be polarising and the characterisation of the opposing perspective polarising... Maybe a good time for both "sides" to step back and practice for some time praising the wisdom and what is shared by the seemingly opposed... For sure upon examination we always find both shared elements and differences between people, religions, creeds, nations... Emphasising differences leads to seeingthe difference as greater and vice versa - both extremes are - er lol - extreme
To end with my personal view of this non-dual "vs" dual ... I am reminded of Arnold Palmer who famously chipped in from a bunker on one hole in some tournament... A spectator cried "thats lucky".... Palmer turns laconically and says "its funny... the more I practice the luckier I get"
So no real difference or opposition between "practicing" and "getting lucky"?
Peace
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Apr 26 2007 6:27:32 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 10:15:04 AM
|
Hi Mike:
Well, you know, we are all among friends, and working with the same inherent capabilities of the human nervous system.
We have far more in common than culture and creed often dictate. Differences are to be honored, of course. Each of us chooses our own path. Yet, artificial human barriers must be crossed if we are to have a chance of finding the whole truth. It is human nature to make such explorations, and this hunger for truth has been the genesis of all the great traditions. Traveling the dusty corridors of time, the traditions may stray from their own roots, so constant inquiry and rediscovery are necessary to keep knowledge fresh and flourishing in the present.
Einstein, when asked in later life why his greatest discoveries were mainly in his youth, said: "Discovery comes from defying authority. The reward for discovery is to become an authority, and that is the end of discovery."
If AYP is a sect, it is a sect of evolving applied knowledge. A secular sect. This may shake a few boundaries, because the evolution of applied integrated knowledge is ever-expanding. But there is nothing to worry about. It is ourselves we are discovering, and we will always be here, so nothing is lost.
In the case of non-dual inquiry, if it has apparent inconsistencies in its application (such as exclusivity), it should be questioned, not to undermine what is valid, but to get at the truth. No applied knowledge should be immune from such scrutiny. It is about understanding cause and effect, and integrating applied knowledge to optimize both.
No one gets to stand on their laurels with this approach, and that is a good thing. Hopefully any discoveries we make here will not cripple us by making us an "authority." I am not for that. This is why it is important to keep bringing in new blood and fresh points of view. It keeps us all on our toes.
The guru is in you.
PS: Scott, "enquiry" and "inquiry" mean the same thing (the latter is twice as common in Google). I use the "inquiry" spelling because of the "in."
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 10:38:52 AM
|
Einstein, when asked in later life why his greatest discoveries were mainly in his youth, said: "Discovery comes from defying authority. The reward for discovery is to become an authority, and that is the end of discovery."
BTW, I think Einstein is mistaken in an important way there; the process is actually the reverse of what Einstein speaks of. Discovery, insight, leads to the 'defying of authority' at the right time and place, not the other way around. When your insight, your discovery, tells you that the 'authorities' are mistaken, their 'authority' is reduced in your mind. Then you just need bravery, to speak of what you see. No emotional posture of defiance is needed at all in that creative process and if it is there, it is not actually helping. When he states it backwards like that, it sounds like a feel-good cliche for adolescents and militants!
|
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 11:12:22 AM
|
Einstein, when asked in later life why his greatest discoveries were mainly in his youth, said: "Discovery comes from defying authority. The reward for discovery is to become an authority, and that is the end of discovery."
As an alternative to David's view of Einstein's statement, I can also see validity in "Discovery comes from defying authority" from this point of view: If you in your consciousness dare to defy authority, meaning commonly established and accepted views in society, or among other people, of how things are supposed to work in life or in laws of nature, then you are more open in your mind to alternative views and new possibilities, and then you have created more freedom for yourself to make new discoveries. |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 11:42:39 AM
|
Hi Yogani,
I guess you are warming up for your book here, so I will try to serve as a sounding board. I pretty much have a similar perspective as you though.
quote:
Spiritual transformation is not an instant event. It only may seem like it is sometimes. If we are seduced by an inner experience, we can fall into an ongoing non-dual rationalization or energy obsession. This can hold us back, as we favor our illusion of attainment over real practice. That is why in AYP we favor our practices over our experiences. Then we will have constantly expanding results. The real signal of enlightenment is the emergence of unending loving service to others. Odd as it may seem, this is the only unmistakable manifestation of enlightenment. Actions over time speak much louder than words.
I like this a lot, giving ourselves to ever on-going practice keeps our minds open-ended and not locked down as having done it, a great built in safe-guard to our life long spiritual path.
quote:
Does self inquiry cultivate inner silence, or does inner silence cultivate self inquiry?
I think both. First I will say that I agree self-inquiry will seem like gibberish to a mind without enough resident inner silence. Second, without direct feedback from someone who can see around your delusion, there will come a time for everyone where self-inquiry gets stuck as it can be extremely difficult to see our way through issues we are very caught up in. I also think self-inquiry becomes automatic after a while as all thoughts lose their meaning.
Having said all that, I think Byron Katie has been able to put Self-inquiry into a form that is both appealing and practical for a large percentage of the masses who are interested in spiritual development. It is these folks we are talking about I guess, not much hope in getting others involved in spiritual practices of any kind until they are ready? If people take the time to fill out their work sheets properly as Katie teaches, I think a lot of progress can be made. I see self-inquiry as increasing inner-silence as thoughts fall away, it certainly has increased my awareness.
I think using self-inquiry exclusively is definitely the slow way to the top of the spiritual mountain. I think it is one of the tools for a dedicated yogi, not the only one or primary one. To me, meditation is the primary tool as it will start the ball rolling in all departments of practice by putting us in touch with Being and increasing our inner silence.
Sometimes I wonder about self-enquiry creating inner silence without full energy development and the resulting ecstatic bliss, making some spiritual teachers who have realized oneness seeming to be devoid or low on ecstasy and bliss. Maybe they just don’t talk about it, I’m not sure.
A
|
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 12:35:08 PM
|
| Byron Katie's self enquiry is a useful tool for someone breaking through delusions, but it has nothing to do with the self enquiry that I was discussing earlier. I hope that's clear. One is a direct method to samadhi, and one is a self help tool. |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 12:50:26 PM
|
Scott could you elaborate on what differences you see here, to me they are one and the same. Maybe you could describe the process of self-inquiry you are referring to?
thanks,
A
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 1:57:27 PM
|
If you in your consciousness dare to defy authority, meaning commonly established and accepted views in society, or among other people, of how things are supposed to work in life or in laws of nature, then you are more open in your mind to alternative views and new possibilities, and then you have created more freedom for yourself to make new discoveries.
Yes, all that is true, but I still don't think that 'Discovery comes from defying authority' is a particularly useful instruction. I believe it is totally over-rated, and its power is deeply illusory. In the colleges I saw, it was practically rammed down the student's throats. It was a fashionable, hip thing to say and believe. And yet those who believed were as prone to falling into orthodoxies as anyone else. Those who made it a regular touchstone were, if anything, more prone to falling into orthodoxies than other people. Orwell's sheep were bleating every day, 'we must not be sheep, we must defy authority'. Others confused their anti-authority posture, and bleating, with insight and wisdom. Often their emotional anti-authority posture was actually retarding their development of insight more than helping it.
Sure, people need an open mind as a necessary ingredient of insight. But then, 'Discovery comes from defying authority' is like 'Superb health comes from vitamin-B'. If you are short on vitamin-B, you need some, end of story. If you are not, you don't, end of story. If you have even a decent amount of it, it won't do anything decisive to you.
BTW, I certainly don't believe that Einstein lost any of that ability to 'defy authority', or that that had anything to do with his much weaker contribution to physics in his later life. That's absolute rubbish, I'm confident of that. In answering that question, he's a celebrity giving the expected, 'sage', quotable-cliche response when the right answer to that particular question is much less exciting and deceptively 'inspiring'. The right answer to 'Why Einstein, could you no longer contribute so much in your later years' is more like: 'I tried hard, but I was no longer able to. I'm not sure why -- perhaps age was part of it -- most major contributions in Physics and Math are made by younger men. And some of it may have been that my particular mind was suited to the particular discoveries I needed to make. In other words, something was waiting to be discovered that I had particular skills for. I was less good at what came after that.'
Nor do I believe that his ability to produce as he did when he was younger had much to do with any particular ability to defy authority.
In the 20th-century you will see some geniuses like Einstein tending to explain their particular genius in terms of defying authority. Silly men. It's like imagine Michael Jordan attributing his success to adequate Vitamin B -- or defying authority. It just isn't reality, even if it might be fun to believe it is. Is celebrity destined to go to the heads of all who become celebrities, and keep them from telling it like it is any more?
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Apr 27 2007 3:27:16 PM |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 2:19:13 PM
|
Anthem,
In the self enquiry I was referring to, whenever a thought appears you are to question where it came from and not think about an answer. You wouldn't be doing it right if you were to think "it came from here" or "there". The goal is to turn the mind back upon itself, so that it is simply seeing and not thinking.
It's similar to the "i am" meditation, in that when you notice you aren't thinking of the object of meditation you easily bring your mind back to it. But with self enquiry, you don't bring your mind back to a thing but rather the process which becomes aware of things.
Correct practice would be awareness of awareness, and when the mind comes back to an object of awareness, you use the tool to turn it back upon itself so that once again it's only aware of being aware and nothing else.
This website has good instructions:
http://uarelove1.tripod.com/AWA_INSTRUCTIONS1.htm |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 2:23:35 PM
|
Continuing,
In Byron Katie's self enquiry, you ask yourself key questions which dismantle the ego. But when you answer those questions truthfully, after a while, without meditation practice in place and having no inner silence, your ego simply adapts to the questions.
Think of delusion as a building. Her method attacks the walls, and tears them apart so that only the frame is standing. The self enquiry method I refer to attacks the frame, and not the walls, so that the walls collapse upon themselves.
The two together completely destroy the building.
Perhaps you know more about this...if so, could you explain why you see no difference between the two methods? |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 3:36:04 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Scott
"Anthem,
In the self enquiry I was referring to, whenever a thought appears you are to question where it came from and not think about an answer. You wouldn't be doing it right if you were to think "it came from here" or "there". The goal is to turn the mind back upon itself, so that it is simply seeing and not thinking."
Hi Scott. In checking out the site I didn't see instruction to question where a thought came from. On the contrary, I saw instruction to not give thought any attention, just to turn awareness away from thought and toward itself. |
Edited by - Balance on Apr 27 2007 3:45:29 PM |
|
|
|
Scott
USA
969 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 3:56:00 PM
|
| Yep, you're right Balance. I meant to turn awareness away from thought and towards itself. |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Apr 27 2007 : 3:59:31 PM
|
Thanks Scott, I figured that's what you meant |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
radical no holds barred self enquiry
