|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 24 2009 : 3:10:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
Hi Chinna:
I don't think we have any disagreement on the value of non-dual self-inquiry. Only on how and when it might be applied. With the multiple points of view expressed here, anyone reading can find some assistance for making decisions about it according to their own inclination and need.
Many thanks for sharing!
The guru is in you.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Hi Chinna:
AYP is more concerned with helping everyone find their ears. 
The guru is in you.
As was the original speaker of these words! I wasn't contradicting you, I was echoing your thought that everyone can take what they want from the dialogue, but adding the perspective, on much greater authority than my own, that ultimately what we will take is already 'written in the stars'.
chinna |
 |
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Sep 24 2009 : 4:17:10 PM
|
so i guess Adya and Mello seem to resonate best with my current state at the present time...
Thk you for the nice inputs everyone.
in gratitude,
Ananda |
Edited by - Ananda on Sep 24 2009 4:19:12 PM |
|
|
|
manig
India
88 Posts |
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2009 : 05:47:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
Hi Chinna:
I don't think we have any disagreement on the value of non-dual self-inquiry. Only on how and when it might be applied. With the multiple points of view expressed here, anyone reading can find some assistance for making decisions about it according to their own inclination and need.
Many thanks for sharing!
The guru is in you.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Hi Chinna:
AYP is more concerned with helping everyone find their ears.
The guru is in you.
As was the original speaker of these words! I wasn't contradicting you, I was echoing your thought that everyone can take what they want from the dialogue, but adding the perspective, on much greater authority than my own, that ultimately what we will take is already 'written in the stars'.
chinna
Dear Yogani
Pondering these repeated misunderstandings, it may be helpful to wonder what is unaligned in the respective assumptions, or starting points, behind what we each assert.
When I consider the AYP system as the foundation or context of your responses, the penny drops that we are probably talking about almost completely different things. When you speak of "non-dual self-enquiry" in the context of AYP, you are I think speaking of something quite different to what I speak on in terms of philosophical self-enquiry in the context of "jnana".
AYP offers a comprehensive set of yoga practices and techniques aimed at achieving spiritual progress. The ancient path of jnana yoga, 'philosophical yoga' or 'wisdom yoga', by contrast, has little place for techniques. It is simply the pursuit of a born curiosity about who or what one is, what everything IS, prompted by the feeling that this is not at all self-evident or aligned with what everyone else seems to invite us to assume. 'Who am I?' in this context is not really a technique, systematically 'practised', and aimed at achieving 'results'. Much of my teaching is aimed at helping the seeker drop ideas of techniques and results, and just to look, to see and feel, to explore, only what is there in the moment. It is about seeing clearly, beyond everything we have been led to believe or assume, re-starting the business of understanding and awareness from scratch.
AYP helps the seeker to overcome the need for techniques and results, in that all yoga techniques 'burn themselves out', along with the practitioner. When you make assumptions about what I mean by self-enquiry, you are basing it on the view from AYP, which is about step by step technqiues for achieving or allowing a spiritual refinement.
When I speak of self-enquiry and of jnana, I am speaking of something very different. In a way, the problem is Ramana Maharshi, whose simple and practical teaching has often been turned into the practice of techniques. But Ramana did not realise via such techniques, and the guidance he offered is perhaps often misunderstood by those coming from a less exalted perspective than his own.
Well, perhaps that sheds some light on why the conversation has been so contradictory?
peace
chinna |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2009 : 11:08:02 AM
|
Just for ***ts and giggles, I decided to try out Chinna's approach from a Western philosophical approach. So I gave a scan of Hume, Wittgenstein and Searle see what that approach might look like. What I found is very interesting, Each of these philosophers write about looking within their own minds for truth and have a difficult time describing an "external world" outside of descriptions. They also all make extensive use of the "thought experiment" to intuit the nature of mind and "reality." None of them find an identifiable self while examining within; they just find packets of sensations, and whatever we call "a self" is just "a use" of language for social discourse. Wittgenstein explicitly states that the present moment is the timlessness. Wittgenstein says the "mystical" is not "what is" in the sense of identifiable metaphysical subjects, but "THAT it is." hmmm...
Wittgenstein also identifies what he calls "a halo around all thought." And that there is a pervasive "meaning" that runs through all thought (thought hanging together interdependently) which is the realest thing, hardest thing, like the purest crystal. This was the closest description of the dharmakaya that I have every read, and the pure crystal analogy is used often in dharma literature.
This crystal can be "seen" says Wittgenstein insomuch as one has a visual field within the mind, though one cannot "see" an "eye": meaning one can see but see no seer; one can only see the pure crystal in infinite "logical space." Everything else is pictures.
So I surmised that this is the best analogy to Vajra meditation and what I imagine is Jnana: resting in the "view" of THAT. And THAT halo is the intuitive power that runs through all thought; that which the philosophers tap whenever checking whether propositions are "counter-intuitive" or not, the common sense. This sense of underlying meaning is also the Dharmakaya, where knowledge is spontaneously known, the source of all knowledge.
Once we recognize that all thought is connected like this, and bleeds together at the perifery of the perceivable and linguistic "world," we are in THAT halo (luminosity). When we don't reach out to the objects of thought, we are resting in THAT. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 25 2009 11:22:08 AM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5201 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2009 : 12:32:35 PM
|
Hi Chinna:
All in due course... 
Yes, there is a difference. All approaches rely on prerequisites, whether they choose to admit it or not. AYP is about covering prerequisites for as many people as possible. The goal is to leave no one to rely on "the stars" for finding salvation. Rather, it is a longing heart which can find its legs and its "ears," if provided enough effective means for doing so. It is really only about attending to the nuts and bolts (of which jnana/advaita is a part), and self-realization will fly.
I am not much interested in an "AYP point of view," or any other point of view. I am interested in opening doors. For this, the integration and transcendence of all points of view is essential. If this is in agreement with the sages, that's great. And if not, well, we are still going ahead with it.
Therefore, I do not see jnana/advaita as a specialized stand-alone approach that is only for those of a particular intellectual or philosophical bent. In fact, intellectual indulgence is well-known to be an obstruction to awakening. This is not to deny a stand-alone intellectual approach. As the saying goes, "Knock yourself out."
But know this. With the pre-cultivation of abiding inner silence, much of the futility can be by-passed. This is a fact that has been demonstrated again and again. But no busy intellect wants to hear it. That's fine. Each will choose their own way. Live and let live, which is what you are asking. Fair enough.
Now here's the rub. When jnana/advaita claims exclusivity and superiority over a broad range of methods, then you must expect some push-back, for that is nothing but ideological posturing. I am not directing this observation specifically at you, for you have been very kind and generous, and it is much appreciated. However, for many, jnana/advaita is adopted as a "magic bullet" ideology that breeds a false sense of sectarian superiority, which, ironically, is duality to the extreme.
True non-duality is the way of absolute inclusion, whether the ideology-clinging mind likes it or not.
So, regardless of our persuasion, it is good if we can ask ourselves regularly, "Am I in love with enlightenment, or only with 'an idea' of enlightenment?" If it is the latter, and we are not applying systematic means for transcending it, we are at risk of becoming a hazard to ourselves and others.
While jnana/advaita may seem to you an innocent endeavor, a wonderful playground promising "instant enlightenment" for curious minds, it also, with its ideological matter-of-factness, often finds itself debunking the realms of spiritual practice that benefit the vast majority of the population. This does not help anyone.
I'm not much concerned about it. We are just going to keep working on the prerequisites, and the rest will take care of itself. The truth will prevail. It is not about "this or that." There is only This, which we also call That.
All in due course ... and all the best!
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2009 : 2:34:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manig
quote:
Originally posted by Ananda
or maybe i misunderstood all of these guys + the whole thing ...
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=6402#57593
flow.... :)
lolz great post\great wisdom, and a namaste from the all dullzy Ananda
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2009 : 5:27:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
Hi Chinna:
All in due course...
Yes, there is a difference. All approaches rely on prerequisites, whether they choose to admit it or not. AYP is about covering prerequisites for as many people as possible. The goal is to leave no one to rely on "the stars" for finding salvation. Rather, it is a longing heart which can find its legs and its "ears," if provided enough effective means for doing so. It is really only about attending to the nuts and bolts (of which jnana/advaita is a part), and self-realization will fly.
I am not much interested in an "AYP point of view," or any other point of view. I am interested in opening doors. For this, the integration and transcendence of all points of view is essential. If this is in agreement with the sages, that's great. And if not, well, we are still going ahead with it.
Therefore, I do not see jnana/advaita as a specialized stand-alone approach that is only for those of a particular intellectual or philosophical bent. In fact, intellectual indulgence is well-known to be an obstruction to awakening. This is not to deny a stand-alone intellectual approach. As the saying goes, "Knock yourself out."
But know this. With the pre-cultivation of abiding inner silence, much of the futility can be by-passed. This is a fact that has been demonstrated again and again. But no busy intellect wants to hear it. That's fine. Each will choose their own way. Live and let live, which is what you are asking. Fair enough.
Now here's the rub. When jnana/advaita claims exclusivity and superiority over a broad range of methods, then you must expect some push-back, for that is nothing but ideological posturing. I am not directing this observation specifically at you, for you have been very kind and generous, and it is much appreciated. However, for many, jnana/advaita is adopted as a "magic bullet" ideology that breeds a false sense of sectarian superiority, which, ironically, is duality to the extreme.
True non-duality is the way of absolute inclusion, whether the ideology-clinging mind likes it or not.
So, regardless of our persuasion, it is good if we can ask ourselves regularly, "Am I in love with enlightenment, or only with 'an idea' of enlightenment?" If it is the latter, and we are not applying systematic means for transcending it, we are at risk of becoming a hazard to ourselves and others.
While jnana/advaita may seem to you an innocent endeavor, a wonderful playground promising "instant enlightenment" for curious minds, it also, with its ideological matter-of-factness, often finds itself debunking the realms of spiritual practice that benefit the vast majority of the population. This does not help anyone.
I'm not much concerned about it. We are just going to keep working on the prerequisites, and the rest will take care of itself. The truth will prevail. It is not about "this or that." There is only This, which we also call That.
All in due course ... and all the best!
The guru is in you.
Thanks for your reply. But you caricature what I say, every time. You seem to be responding to something very different from what I am actually saying. You compare the best of what you offer (which is extraordinarily sane and good) with the worst of neo-advaita. History suggests that there are just as many misleading advocates of every path as there are skilfull guides.
peace
chinna |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2009 : 5:43:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
Just for ***ts and giggles, I decided to try out Chinna's approach from a Western philosophical approach. So I gave a scan of Hume, Wittgenstein and Searle see what that approach might look like. What I found is very interesting, Each of these philosophers write about looking within their own minds for truth and have a difficult time describing an "external world" outside of descriptions. They also all make extensive use of the "thought experiment" to intuit the nature of mind and "reality." None of them find an identifiable self while examining within; they just find packets of sensations, and whatever we call "a self" is just "a use" of language for social discourse. Wittgenstein explicitly states that the present moment is the timlessness. Wittgenstein says the "mystical" is not "what is" in the sense of identifiable metaphysical subjects, but "THAT it is." hmmm...
Wittgenstein also identifies what he calls "a halo around all thought." And that there is a pervasive "meaning" that runs through all thought (thought hanging together interdependently) which is the realest thing, hardest thing, like the purest crystal. This was the closest description of the dharmakaya that I have every read, and the pure crystal analogy is used often in dharma literature.
This crystal can be "seen" says Wittgenstein insomuch as one has a visual field within the mind, though one cannot "see" an "eye": meaning one can see but see no seer; one can only see the pure crystal in infinite "logical space." Everything else is pictures.
So I surmised that this is the best analogy to Vajra meditation and what I imagine is Jnana: resting in the "view" of THAT. And THAT halo is the intuitive power that runs through all thought; that which the philosophers tap whenever checking whether propositions are "counter-intuitive" or not, the common sense. This sense of underlying meaning is also the Dharmakaya, where knowledge is spontaneously known, the source of all knowledge.
Once we recognize that all thought is connected like this, and bleeds together at the perifery of the perceivable and linguistic "world," we are in THAT halo (luminosity). When we don't reach out to the objects of thought, we are resting in THAT.
Yes, wisdom knows no East or West. I was encouraged, from my teens, by finding that the enquiry which naturally arose in me had similarly arisen in, and shaped the lives of, seekers in every tradition.
I write from a city where Wittgenstein's imposing presence is still alive in philosophy and religion, and played its part in my formation. A beloved friend, now dead, widely regarded as a saint in his lifetime, was the Dominican catholic priest whom Wittgenstein visited every week for years for 'wisdom dialogue', and who received LW into the Catholic church on his deathbed. I have enjoyed your well-targeted invitation of LW into this forum.
chinna |
Edited by - chinna on Sep 25 2009 5:56:41 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5201 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2009 : 8:39:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
Thanks for your reply. But you caricature what I say, every time. You seem to be responding to something very different from what I am actually saying. You compare the best of what you offer (which is extraordinarily sane and good) with the worst of neo-advaita. History suggests that there are just as many misleading advocates of every path as there are skilfull guides.
peace
Apologies, Chinna.
It is not my intention to offend. At this stage of the game, given the nature of the work here, it is very difficult for me to resonate with a spiritual approach that is hard-pressed to produce real change in the population at large, no matter how skillfully it is presented. Therefore, it is impossible for me to endorse jnana/advaita as a stand-alone. This is not to diminish what jnana/advaita is for you or anyone else who benefits from it as a stand-alone approach. The knowledge you share is precious, but only under very special circumstances. That simply will not do for the whole of humanity, which is the focus here.
On the other hand, the natural inclination toward self-inquiry that evolves with the rise of the witness and the underlying principles of jnana/advaita are highly relevant to what we are doing here, and AYP has moved to incorporate those aspects. As has been the case with all of the AYP practices, this often involves a stripping away of traditional elements to facilitate an effective integration into the whole of the open source practice system. Traditionalists often do not like that. Hopefully, the end result in the hands of many will help to compensate. Again, apologies...
While we may have a parting of the ways, we do not have a parting of the principles.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2009 : 9:39:43 PM
|
| One way or another, we must see the reality as it is. People will never just use one means. People will touch upon several. The finger needs to point to the fact that we are already free; no amount of practice makes that more true. Though practice is what makes us realize it. The simplicity of the practice utilized by those gifted practitioners should be a sense of hope and joy, because the blessed pleasure of life is not some far off attainment. It's right here. Those gifted practitioners should have the insight, foresight and skill mastery to know what will benefit practitioners of differing levels of experience and intelligence. Intelligence is not a prereq for success. Like Yogani, we should know what helps whom. Though also, we should not be so naive as to assume a one size fits all regimen is the only way. |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 26 2009 : 05:59:17 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
Thanks for your reply. But you caricature what I say, every time. You seem to be responding to something very different from what I am actually saying. You compare the best of what you offer (which is extraordinarily sane and good) with the worst of neo-advaita. History suggests that there are just as many misleading advocates of every path as there are skilfull guides.
peace
Apologies, Chinna.
It is not my intention to offend. At this stage of the game, given the nature of the work here, it is very difficult for me to resonate with a spiritual approach that is hard-pressed to produce real change in the population at large, no matter how skillfully it is presented. Therefore, it is impossible for me to endorse jnana/advaita as a stand-alone. This is not to diminish what jnana/advaita is for you or anyone else who benefits from it as a stand-alone approach. The knowledge you share is precious, but only under very special circumstances. That simply will not do for the whole of humanity, which is the focus here.
On the other hand, the natural inclination toward self-inquiry that evolves with the rise of the witness and the underlying principles of jnana/advaita are highly relevant to what we are doing here, and AYP has moved to incorporate those aspects. As has been the case with all of the AYP practices, this often involves a stripping away of traditional elements to facilitate an effective integration into the whole of the open source practice system. Traditionalists often do not like that. Hopefully, the end result in the hands of many will help to compensate. Again, apologies...
While we may have a parting of the ways, we do not have a parting of the principles.
The guru is in you.
Thank you Yogani, and I don't mean to be disagreeing with you.
I have never recommended standalone jnana/advaita. Indeed quite the contrary. I have said, rather, that whichever facet of the diamond one is drawn to and enters by, the rest will inevitably be known, whether one 'practices' other aspects or not. The question is whether entering by "the narrow gate" of jnana is valid and helpful for the people who are drawn to it, and will it 'work' for them, or is it necessary to start with other practices, or indeed to start with a whole range? (And could the same would be true of the narrow gates of bhakta, seva, etc?)
My experience is not as negative as yours. There are many who have found what they seek by entering through the gate of jnana/advaita teachers of the quality of Nisargadatta, Hari Prasad Shatri, Jean Klein, Douglas Harding, Robert Adams, etc.
And there have been many others who have found what they seek in their very desire (bhakta) alone, or in their humble service of others (seva), etc.
There are of course a lot of charlatans in neo-advaita, but that is true of all of religion and spirituality, and other fields too, and any seeker would do well to explore the field until they have a sense of the map, just as they would in buying a car or a house.
One might feel that the greater and louder the public claims made by a teacher, and the grander and more expensive their retinue, the wiser it could be to avoid them (with the honourable exception, retinue-wise, of some traditional lineage-holders). And the more attracted one is by such exalted claims, the more one needs to throw oneself into helping the poor, the halt and the lame until the feeling goes away!
Real jnana teachers, like those I mention, are ordinary men and women, who:
1. make it clear that all they can offer is that the seeker will lose everything they imagine to be theirs, and
2. ask for nothing from the seeker but their sincerity and authenticity.
These are the signs I would recommend a seeker look for in a jnana/advaita teacher, the starting points for wisdom rather than fantasy.
One might say that we find the teachers we deserve, and it is very hard to avoid that reality. I honour you for offering such skilfull means to help others avoid falling into the gap between ambition and reality.
Once again, thanks for the dialogue.
peace
chinna
|
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Jan 13 2010 : 4:06:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ananda
quote:
Originally posted by beetsmyth
I think there is a major point being missed here. Ramana always said that the most powerful practice is to seek out the thought/feeling of 'I'.
Meditation is more of a object/subject practice. Yes it stills the mind, but then when meditation is finished, guess who comes back to the fore-front? The ego/mind.
By constantly looking for the source of 'I' even in the midst of work, play, and even sleep ...the 'I' will sink down into the heart, disappear, and leave Union only.
The constant seeking out of the 'I' and ignoring everything else is the most powerful practice is what has always been said by Ramana, Nisargadatta, Advaita Vedanta, Yoga Vasistha, and countless others.
As a result of this, you will come to automatic and permanent stillness of mind and constant meditation will become the only state.
beautiful post brother; i have a few inquiries from you if you don't mind and from dear Kirtanman on Adyashanti in case he is reading this post.
if anyone else can give some good advise plz do that would be very appreciated.
on the way i would like to add Father Anthony de Mello to that list... of sages.
okay so i've been doing what you shared with us here for a few months now and i might've been doing it a little bit wrong as it seems...
i was sort of feeling the I and enquiring on it but while at it i was meddling with mind thoughts and not letting things be as they are; not letting go of things while being aware of the I "being the witness of it all."
the point is that this practice has led me into having one hell of a one mind pointedness and thoughts control and i can burn thoughts now the moment they rise... a thoughtless state which is becoming automatic you may say... and in turn this is bringing more clarity more emptiness more loneliness... and the witness is automatic but not to the total point of abiding and that's from AYP'S deep meditation.
but as i was hearing an audio session named "true meditation" by Adyashanti he spoke of people like myself and pointed out that this kind of practice is like putting a doc tape on the lips of the mind\ego and that once we let go of our guard it will all break loose...
and he advised letting go of things and sort of being in the state of witness...
now i hope i am not mistaken but i remember reading an interaction between Sri Annamalai swami and Bhagavan Sri Ramana and within it Bhagavan spoke of the parable of the fortress and concerning burning thoughts the moment they rise and that you should hold on... the point is that what i was doing and i hope i didn't misunderstand it was right according to the Maharshi but wrong according to Adyashanti and father Anthony de Mello who sort of advises the same thing as Adyashanti just being aware of what's out and in and not interfering...
or maybe i misunderstood all of these guys + the whole thing...
hope if you or anyone else could clear this whole thing out...
btw not to worries i am not too confused from it all, and i have Yogani to thank for that i am using his teachings on letting go into samyama and melting it all in the witness in unity... but this is a practice which cannot be done on a steady basis and it can bring energy overload...
but i would like to do inquiry and be mindful the right way and i would appreciate any help from the Adyashanti or the Sri Ramana people...
light and love,
Ananda
reviving this old post again, it seems to me that Father Anthony De Mello and Adyashanti are very helpful in their approach but Sri Ramana's method and Yogani's samyama habit (which according to my ongoing experience are pretty much the same) seem to be more direct and more peace inducing and bringing forth good results in normal daily living and to my surprise without any overloading symptoms.
L&L,
Ananda
|
|
|
|
Ananda
3115 Posts |
Posted - Jan 14 2010 : 11:43:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ananda
and to my surprise without any overloading symptoms.
L&L,
Ananda
i should point out that this practice might bring some overloading symptoms so each should watch out and act according to their own ongoing experience.
the reason why i added this is that this practice seems to activate the crown as well and for the sake of caution we should watch out for this symptom in precise because it might be the start of an energetic overload on the nervous system which might turn out later but on the other hand it might be a good thing... guess we'll have to see.
namaste |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Ramana Maharshi on Meditation Experiences
