You know in case it escaped anyones notice this 'I' has aspirations to become some kind of a meditation teacher. I was reflecting on this this morning and how it seems to be one of my central ego-identifications.
I can trace this all the way back to when I was 16 and getting very into Transcendental Meditation (TM). After feeling intensely lost and separate I suddenly found something which made perfect sense to me and provided a pathway to travel and friends along the way. It was clear to me that I wanted to become enlightened and, when the time was right, to also teach meditation.
Of course I didn't, and still don't, really know what enlightenment is but at least I had a feeling that this was the right direction to take and a rational concept of what growth in consciousness meant. A concept which went something along the lines of releasing all of the internal crap that was making me miserable and keeping me separate, and similtaneously getting tuned up with the cosmic intelligence and all of the wisdom, power and peace that that entailed. When I say power, I mean using ones full potential rather than just getting by on the measley 10% or so they say we are using of our brains capacity.
So that whole TM journey is a story in itself which I won't go into now. Getting back to my aspirations as a teacher. Now these rantings on this blog are a reflection of my own journey of trying to gain and express some clarity on these matters; and it may be that some persons might find something of use, something of interest, something which resonates for themselves amongst it all or not as the case may be. But I was looking into it this morning from the perspective of what is in it for 'me'? What juice is my ego getting out of holding onto and pursuing this self-concept?
I took a pen and paper and started drawing it out. The first thing that came up is that it can give me a sense of self-worth, a sense of contributing something helpful to others. Seems harmless enough but the lack of cleanness and the ego comes in from basing my sense of self-worth upon something I do rather than naturally just feeling enough within myself regardless of what I do or don't do. In other words, ones sense of oneself to be based upon simply Being rather than having some kind of gun against my head based upon 'my doing' and 'my achieveing'.
Not only that but in perhaps seeming to help someone else in their own journey, or expressing something well and getting good feedback, that is feeding my own ego and helping me to feel good about myself. Then comes pride and pride comes before a fall. So I identified that beneath this seemingly innocent desire to help others is the not so innocent desire to help myself. On the one hand to prop up a lack of self-worth and on the other hand giving me a feeling of false pride, both of which stem from self-judgement, and fear of judement from others, that I am not already intrinsically enough as I am.
Of course the egoic 'I am' is never enough (I'm diverging into spiritual metaphysics here which necessarly entails borrowed knowledge and speculation upon my part); the inherent nature of the ego is that it is always full of cravings and aversions. Seeking pleasure, avoiding pain and all the time creating misery. That's the point; the ego-self will never bring us lasting fulfilment; it is not capable of this and isn't meant to, despite it's best efforts.
Lasting fulfillment comes from within, not from any situation or circumstance in this world no-matter how carefully arranged. Now once we get onto this inner-fulfillment aspect then our situations and circumstances in this world may change to reflect this inner-fulfillment back to us, but as long as we mistake the world as being the source of happiness then we will always be on the merri-go-round of chasing our own tails.
I read a good analogy the other day in a book by Sadhu Om; he says, 'as long as we seek to chase our own shadow it will always be running away from us and slipping through our fingers. When we start to gain wisdom and seek to move towards the sun instead then our shadow will always follow us with no effort on our part.'
So, the egoic 'I am' does a good job of creating suffering for us until such times as we begin to move back towards our own source which is the True 'I Am' of the Self. Then the mind becomes our servant rather than our master and although we still have a personality we are no longer bound by it, and in all likelihood it will have gradually become a wiser, more balanced, version of our former selves.
The other main thread which came up in this investigation was that being a teacher might provide me with a livelihood in this world. Now aside from any issues over whether or not 'spiritual teachings' should ever be charged for I was looking into what ugly stuff lurks beneath the surface of this again, apparently innocent desire.
In a stream of deepening consciousness it came as :
financial security giving a general sense of security
based on a sense of insecurity, lack of trust and greed
insecurity and lack of faith come from a fear of letting go of 'me'
this 'me' gives me a sense of 'self', familiarity, security and hope (that one day I will get it right)
so I am afraid of 'no-self', of losing 'my-self'
what does this 'self' give me?
the 'self' gives me a story and the possibility of a heroic overcoming of fears and short comings
no story equals no glory
what is this 'glory'?
jubilation, adulation, celebration
a temporary good-feeling, a high
but then it becomes the 'same old story' and no more 'glory'
so I always need a new story and eventually I'll have a 'multi-story'
'multi-stories' need a lot of maintainence and upkeep
a lot of time and energy to maintain the 'multi-story'
wouldn't I be more happy with a simple dwelling?
a simple life could be a good life
that's another story
who's making up all of these stories?
'I am'
from whence does this 'I am' arise?
from the Stillness of 'I Am'
I Am that I Am
I Am Awareness, Being and Bliss
I Am clarity, stability and peace
I Am whole as I Am
I Am
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
I Am therefore I Aum
Um, amness? What's with the 'ness', Elliot Ness, Chicago? How the mind streams.
Loch Ness? Ok, so no 'ness' required, but "I" and "I AM"? U can't object to that surely?
Jesus says "before Abraham was, I AM" John 8:58
and "I and the Father are One" John 10:30
God said unto Moses, "I AM That I AM" Exodus 3:14
In Kashmiri Tantra the ever-blissful transcendental identity is called Aham - "I"
Um, Am, Aum. Now there's a word.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" John 1:1
So I Am therefore I Aum? Perfectly good
Friday, March 20, 2009
a dialogue on awareness
The following is a dialogue which seemed to help the questioner in gaining some clarity about awareness. Clear understanding helps and then one has to apply it in practice.............same for me, same for you, same for everyone.
Questioner : I really must be missing something here, so I will go back to basics. I read somewhere the process of waking in the morning goes like this; ‘I – am – awake – in the world.’ So ‘I’ is already in existence. I think that is what you have been saying.
Answer : first is awareness, denoted as I AM, then arises the 'I' thought and so the wheel starts turning
Questioner : So the ‘I’ is the ‘am-ness’ , the awake-ness and that which is in the world?
Answer : I have noticed that there is an embodied feeling of 'am-ness' which seems to be more of an energy or a feeling rather than a thought. however this still pertains to the body-mind and can be witnessed therefore it is not the True I AM which is the witnessing consciousness itself.
I was taking this feeling of 'embodied beingness' to be the feeling-sense of 'I' however I no longer think this to be the case as I ask myself, 'who is experiencing this 'embodied beingness'? 'I am'. It is this prior sense of 'I' which is the feeling-sense of 'I'. it denotes the subject; the perceiver. the feeling of 'embodied beingness' is an object of perception. the 'I' is the subject; the experiencer. by following this feeling-sense of 'I' we arrive at the simple naked awareness from which this 'I' arises
It can be quite confusing what is meant by all these terms like 'I', 'amness', etc as they have two levels of meaning - the meaning as denotations of pure awareness and the meaning as reflections of that in the body-mind; Self and self. I notice that teachers are not always very clear in their use of these terms either which can lead to confusion.
you could say that the world is in the awake-ness as without the awake-ness we would not percieve any world and it is found that our perception of the apparently solid world changes as our lense of perception becomes clearer.
Questioner : So the question is, how will the ‘I’ be known when found and by who? Or is it that the ‘I’ cannot know itself, as you said before, like the eye cannot see itself?
Answer : Awareness simply Is. without it there would not be awareness of this and that. ' you' know awareness by being awareness. there is no separate ' you' to know awareness. awareness simply is and it is possible to abide as that and then all these ideas of 'I' and ' you' are seen to be simply thoughts coming and going within awareness.
you define yourself as your thought identity. this only has a borrowed sense of reality from the true I AM which is the prior awareness. you are not the patterns of thought. you are that in which these thoughts arise. it is a case of mistaken identity
Questioner : Then it comes down to a matter of faith.......I don’t like faith. I much prefer logic or evidence.
Answer : the only evidence that will satisfy your thirst is the actual experiential realisation of how simple this thing is. forget about enlightenment and self-realisation. it is so simple. here is the logic : without awareness there would not be awareness of thoughts. thoughts come and go; you, as the awareness do not come and go.
you are simply caught in the habit of identifying with thoughts. give attention to the prior awareness itself and the clarity and simplicity of this will dawn upon you with consistent and persistant intention in the right direction. the effort is not to realise awareness. awareness already is. the effort is to break the habit of thought identification and then the awareness of awareness will dawn upon you.
fix your attention on the feeling-sense of 'I' (that 'thing' which feels like me); keep attention fixed on that (with the help of 'who am I?' and/or 'I,...I,...I,'); keep refocusing on that when you are drawn out by thoughts. gradually the thoughts will lose their strength and the ability to keep attention focused on the feeling-sense of 'I' will gain in strength. you have to develop your attention muscle then once you have some stability in that you will be able to relax into the ever-present simple awareness from whence this feeling-sense of 'I' arises.
simple but not easy because we have the habit of a lifetime to change which has us basing our sense of self on objects (even thoughts are objects of awareness); we have to develop our attention muscle to be centered as the subject which is aware of all this.
it may be that there is a corresponding change or opening in the physical apparatus (brain, nervous system, endocrine, etc.) which supports this but that will happen gradually by itself.
don't split philosophical hairs of what if or what may be. eat the cake and find out for yourself. If this path of self-inquiry doesn't suit you and you feel more drawn to some other form of meditation then nothing wrong; that will help you and keep you moving in the right direction. some of the other things which have been suggested are perfectly good.*
* Please refer to the March postings 'on mantra and meditation' and 'a meditation upon 'I' (now stripped back to basic essentials)
Questioner (some time later) : Good answer. I can see now that there is only awareness. Everything else arises from this. That which is described as ‘I’ is in fact awareness.
Answer : That which is described as 'I' is Awareness. The 'I'-thought arises within this. So, great, now do it and Be It. Rome wasn't built in a day. The paper sets alight when you focus the suns rays with a lense and hold it steadily on one point. In this case the point is the feeling-sense of 'I' and the fire is one of Awareness. As for me, it's one thing to talk the talk, and walking the walk? a work in progress.
N.B. Ramana Maharishi has advised that at some point the current of Self-Awareness/Self-Inquiry becomes established in us all of the time, at first requiring conscious attention and later becoming effortless (like learning to ride a bike). It is very helpful to establishing Self-Awareness that one set aside regular dedicated periods where one gives this ones full, undivided attention. Twice a day for 20/40 minutes is good, starting off slowly and building up steadily. Having said that once a day is also good and whenever you can manage is certainly beneficial.
Remember, don't worry and don't hurry; what we are looking for is already here; we only have to become still enough to appreciate it. Apply the wisdom of the tortoise.
Namaste
Questioner : I really must be missing something here, so I will go back to basics. I read somewhere the process of waking in the morning goes like this; ‘I – am – awake – in the world.’ So ‘I’ is already in existence. I think that is what you have been saying.
Answer : first is awareness, denoted as I AM, then arises the 'I' thought and so the wheel starts turning
Questioner : So the ‘I’ is the ‘am-ness’ , the awake-ness and that which is in the world?
Answer : I have noticed that there is an embodied feeling of 'am-ness' which seems to be more of an energy or a feeling rather than a thought. however this still pertains to the body-mind and can be witnessed therefore it is not the True I AM which is the witnessing consciousness itself.
I was taking this feeling of 'embodied beingness' to be the feeling-sense of 'I' however I no longer think this to be the case as I ask myself, 'who is experiencing this 'embodied beingness'? 'I am'. It is this prior sense of 'I' which is the feeling-sense of 'I'. it denotes the subject; the perceiver. the feeling of 'embodied beingness' is an object of perception. the 'I' is the subject; the experiencer. by following this feeling-sense of 'I' we arrive at the simple naked awareness from which this 'I' arises
It can be quite confusing what is meant by all these terms like 'I', 'amness', etc as they have two levels of meaning - the meaning as denotations of pure awareness and the meaning as reflections of that in the body-mind; Self and self. I notice that teachers are not always very clear in their use of these terms either which can lead to confusion.
you could say that the world is in the awake-ness as without the awake-ness we would not percieve any world and it is found that our perception of the apparently solid world changes as our lense of perception becomes clearer.
Questioner : So the question is, how will the ‘I’ be known when found and by who? Or is it that the ‘I’ cannot know itself, as you said before, like the eye cannot see itself?
Answer : Awareness simply Is. without it there would not be awareness of this and that. ' you' know awareness by being awareness. there is no separate ' you' to know awareness. awareness simply is and it is possible to abide as that and then all these ideas of 'I' and ' you' are seen to be simply thoughts coming and going within awareness.
you define yourself as your thought identity. this only has a borrowed sense of reality from the true I AM which is the prior awareness. you are not the patterns of thought. you are that in which these thoughts arise. it is a case of mistaken identity
Questioner : Then it comes down to a matter of faith.......I don’t like faith. I much prefer logic or evidence.
Answer : the only evidence that will satisfy your thirst is the actual experiential realisation of how simple this thing is. forget about enlightenment and self-realisation. it is so simple. here is the logic : without awareness there would not be awareness of thoughts. thoughts come and go; you, as the awareness do not come and go.
you are simply caught in the habit of identifying with thoughts. give attention to the prior awareness itself and the clarity and simplicity of this will dawn upon you with consistent and persistant intention in the right direction. the effort is not to realise awareness. awareness already is. the effort is to break the habit of thought identification and then the awareness of awareness will dawn upon you.
fix your attention on the feeling-sense of 'I' (that 'thing' which feels like me); keep attention fixed on that (with the help of 'who am I?' and/or 'I,...I,...I,'); keep refocusing on that when you are drawn out by thoughts. gradually the thoughts will lose their strength and the ability to keep attention focused on the feeling-sense of 'I' will gain in strength. you have to develop your attention muscle then once you have some stability in that you will be able to relax into the ever-present simple awareness from whence this feeling-sense of 'I' arises.
simple but not easy because we have the habit of a lifetime to change which has us basing our sense of self on objects (even thoughts are objects of awareness); we have to develop our attention muscle to be centered as the subject which is aware of all this.
it may be that there is a corresponding change or opening in the physical apparatus (brain, nervous system, endocrine, etc.) which supports this but that will happen gradually by itself.
don't split philosophical hairs of what if or what may be. eat the cake and find out for yourself. If this path of self-inquiry doesn't suit you and you feel more drawn to some other form of meditation then nothing wrong; that will help you and keep you moving in the right direction. some of the other things which have been suggested are perfectly good.*
* Please refer to the March postings 'on mantra and meditation' and 'a meditation upon 'I' (now stripped back to basic essentials)
Questioner (some time later) : Good answer. I can see now that there is only awareness. Everything else arises from this. That which is described as ‘I’ is in fact awareness.
Answer : That which is described as 'I' is Awareness. The 'I'-thought arises within this. So, great, now do it and Be It. Rome wasn't built in a day. The paper sets alight when you focus the suns rays with a lense and hold it steadily on one point. In this case the point is the feeling-sense of 'I' and the fire is one of Awareness. As for me, it's one thing to talk the talk, and walking the walk? a work in progress.
N.B. Ramana Maharishi has advised that at some point the current of Self-Awareness/Self-Inquiry becomes established in us all of the time, at first requiring conscious attention and later becoming effortless (like learning to ride a bike). It is very helpful to establishing Self-Awareness that one set aside regular dedicated periods where one gives this ones full, undivided attention. Twice a day for 20/40 minutes is good, starting off slowly and building up steadily. Having said that once a day is also good and whenever you can manage is certainly beneficial.
Remember, don't worry and don't hurry; what we are looking for is already here; we only have to become still enough to appreciate it. Apply the wisdom of the tortoise.
Namaste
Ramana, Nisargadatta and Mooji collage of quotes
Psiplex, a friend of this blog has put together a very nice 3/4 minute collage of quotes from 3 Sages on Youtube to ambient music.
You can find it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3oehOpPaNU
Have a nice day.
You can find it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3oehOpPaNU
Have a nice day.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Jesus Christ, Super Star
Only a couple or three small things for you today. one is a good quote from the back cover of a book I was looking at. It was about this western guy who had spent 25 years in an intense spiritual quest. he finally meets this yogi who he says it was clear had achieved some deep insight into life. he beseeched the yogi "I have searched so long and so hard, please tell me the secrets of inner power", the yogi looked at him and asked "why do you want power? what are you afraid of?", then got up and walked away. this was the start of the westerners real spiritual journey......
The next thing is a short excerpt from another book. it says "In Kashmiri Tantra, this ever blissful transcendental identity is called aham ("I") versus the finite ego ahamkara ("I-maker"), which is driven by the desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain and yet continuously sows the seeds of suffering."
And here is a paraphrased quotation from an Adyashanti video satsang I caught ten minutes of the other night, he says :
The very nature of the mind is to seek order
in the recognition and acceptance of this comes freedom
for then there is no longer this troublesome mind we have to fix
there is just an allowing oneself 'not to know'
and in this not knowing the 'me' is seen as just another thought
and all there is then is consciousness perceiving this moment
You know, as I was saying to a friend, aside from the possibility of my ego getting inflated it's very nice to receive any feedback and comments about the writings in this blog. apart from the people who are publicly listed as followers of the blog, the people who sometimes leave comments/emails and a handful of others I am aware of, then I have absolutely no idea who else, if anyone, is tuning in. so please feel free to make yourself known if you feel like it.
Ok, so there is one other thing that's been simmering for a day or two that I will share. that is my thoughts and feelings about Jesus. now I've meet a few relaxed Christians over the years and it was pretty obvious that their lives had been greatly impacted and transformed through some kind of acceptance of Jesus into their hearts. and there have been a good deal more Christians who seem more dogmatic in their approach and seem to be more in a persuading mode.
Now for me it is easy to accept that Jesus was a pure being of love and truth and whatever or whoever 'God' is, Jesus was in intimate communion with that. As such, I can very well accept the possibility that, for some people, by somehow feeling surrendered and connected with Jesus then Jesus can become for them like a gateway and a symbol for the mystery we call 'God'.
Where many people have a problem is with the whole exclusivity thing, that Christianity is right and everything else is wrong or somehow the work of the devil. Christians often quote Jesus as saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except by Me" as justification for this exclusivity clause.
So let's look at that statement, firstly, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Ok so when Jesus says 'I am' is he referring to himself personally or is he referring to the universal 'I AM' of which he was an embodiment and which is the essential nature of us all?
I tend to go with the later interpretation in that Jesus was pointing us towards the Christ within, the Kingdom of Heaven within, and of which he was the living proof.
To further substantiate this line of thought consider the following :
In John 8:58 Jesus says "before Abraham was, I AM"
In Exodus 3:14 God said unto Moses, "I AM THAT I AM"
and again from the passage I quoted earlier :
"this ever blissful transcendental identity is called aham ("I")
Ok, so taking the second part of the statement "No-one comes to the Father except by Me", again who or what is the 'Me' he is referring to? The individual 'me' or the Cosmic 'Me-I AM'?
Even if we take it that he was referring to himself as the gateway to God, then it was surely in his capacity as an embodiment of Unity-God-Consciousness ("I and the Father are One" John 10:30). Since we all have that potential, and it seems many have realised it over the long course of history, then it seems unlikely that Jesus was claiming exclusivity.
Even if he was, it was in the context of Israel which was full of Torah-bashing zealots and idol worshippers, and so in that sea of ignorance he could very well say that "No-one comes to the Father except by Me".
But that statement of exclusivity then related to the historical circumstances of that time and place and was not a universal statement for all times and all places. Even if the statement is taken as universal then we have to look at the inaccuracies of translation and biased interpretation.
Finally if Jesus really did say that and really did mean what the Christians take him to mean then we have to consider the possibility that he was under a slight misconception or that for some reason God wanted him to say that inorder to help set up the context for division amongst world religions.
In the Indian conception of time, existence passes through many cyclic stages ranging from an age of Truth (Sat-Yuga) to an age of darkness (Kali-Yuga) with two others inbetween. We are currently said to be firmly in the Kali-Yuga for some thoasands of years and therefore these times are typified by division, corrution and quarrel.
Why? Because these cycles of existence are considered to be like a cosmic washing machine which expose the individual beings to a whole range of experiences (both 'good' and 'bad') which act as a ripening process so we each can finally come to realize our true nature and that we (as Consciousness) become all the richer for the experience. After all what else is God/Goddess going to do for all eternity if not have a little fun?
That is why they say this existence is a Divine Play, a Lila.
All of these last few paragraphs are just speculations; just possibilities.
The mystery remains.....................
Satchitananda
The next thing is a short excerpt from another book. it says "In Kashmiri Tantra, this ever blissful transcendental identity is called aham ("I") versus the finite ego ahamkara ("I-maker"), which is driven by the desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain and yet continuously sows the seeds of suffering."
And here is a paraphrased quotation from an Adyashanti video satsang I caught ten minutes of the other night, he says :
The very nature of the mind is to seek order
in the recognition and acceptance of this comes freedom
for then there is no longer this troublesome mind we have to fix
there is just an allowing oneself 'not to know'
and in this not knowing the 'me' is seen as just another thought
and all there is then is consciousness perceiving this moment
You know, as I was saying to a friend, aside from the possibility of my ego getting inflated it's very nice to receive any feedback and comments about the writings in this blog. apart from the people who are publicly listed as followers of the blog, the people who sometimes leave comments/emails and a handful of others I am aware of, then I have absolutely no idea who else, if anyone, is tuning in. so please feel free to make yourself known if you feel like it.
Ok, so there is one other thing that's been simmering for a day or two that I will share. that is my thoughts and feelings about Jesus. now I've meet a few relaxed Christians over the years and it was pretty obvious that their lives had been greatly impacted and transformed through some kind of acceptance of Jesus into their hearts. and there have been a good deal more Christians who seem more dogmatic in their approach and seem to be more in a persuading mode.
Now for me it is easy to accept that Jesus was a pure being of love and truth and whatever or whoever 'God' is, Jesus was in intimate communion with that. As such, I can very well accept the possibility that, for some people, by somehow feeling surrendered and connected with Jesus then Jesus can become for them like a gateway and a symbol for the mystery we call 'God'.
Where many people have a problem is with the whole exclusivity thing, that Christianity is right and everything else is wrong or somehow the work of the devil. Christians often quote Jesus as saying "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except by Me" as justification for this exclusivity clause.
So let's look at that statement, firstly, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". Ok so when Jesus says 'I am' is he referring to himself personally or is he referring to the universal 'I AM' of which he was an embodiment and which is the essential nature of us all?
I tend to go with the later interpretation in that Jesus was pointing us towards the Christ within, the Kingdom of Heaven within, and of which he was the living proof.
To further substantiate this line of thought consider the following :
In John 8:58 Jesus says "before Abraham was, I AM"
In Exodus 3:14 God said unto Moses, "I AM THAT I AM"
and again from the passage I quoted earlier :
"this ever blissful transcendental identity is called aham ("I")
Ok, so taking the second part of the statement "No-one comes to the Father except by Me", again who or what is the 'Me' he is referring to? The individual 'me' or the Cosmic 'Me-I AM'?
Even if we take it that he was referring to himself as the gateway to God, then it was surely in his capacity as an embodiment of Unity-God-Consciousness ("I and the Father are One" John 10:30). Since we all have that potential, and it seems many have realised it over the long course of history, then it seems unlikely that Jesus was claiming exclusivity.
Even if he was, it was in the context of Israel which was full of Torah-bashing zealots and idol worshippers, and so in that sea of ignorance he could very well say that "No-one comes to the Father except by Me".
But that statement of exclusivity then related to the historical circumstances of that time and place and was not a universal statement for all times and all places. Even if the statement is taken as universal then we have to look at the inaccuracies of translation and biased interpretation.
Finally if Jesus really did say that and really did mean what the Christians take him to mean then we have to consider the possibility that he was under a slight misconception or that for some reason God wanted him to say that inorder to help set up the context for division amongst world religions.
In the Indian conception of time, existence passes through many cyclic stages ranging from an age of Truth (Sat-Yuga) to an age of darkness (Kali-Yuga) with two others inbetween. We are currently said to be firmly in the Kali-Yuga for some thoasands of years and therefore these times are typified by division, corrution and quarrel.
Why? Because these cycles of existence are considered to be like a cosmic washing machine which expose the individual beings to a whole range of experiences (both 'good' and 'bad') which act as a ripening process so we each can finally come to realize our true nature and that we (as Consciousness) become all the richer for the experience. After all what else is God/Goddess going to do for all eternity if not have a little fun?
That is why they say this existence is a Divine Play, a Lila.
All of these last few paragraphs are just speculations; just possibilities.
The mystery remains.....................
Satchitananda
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
On mantras and meditation
N.B. As part of my 'slowing down' on the blog writing there are two posts today!
See below for 1st one 'to be or not to be.......'
I am coming around to the view that repeating the thought 'I,...I,...I,' is best reserved for self-inquiry rather than for general meditation upon an object (body/energy/breath). The reason being is that meditation upon an object is still a focusing upon an object, whereas self-inquiry is a turning of the attention around 180 degrees to focus on the subject (the 'I' focusing on the 'I'). By saying 'I' we are invoking the feeling sense of 'I' which invites this 180 degree turn. Therefore mixing the two up creates the possibility of trying to look in two directions at once which will only lead to frustration.
The 'a meditation upon 'I' posting though is fine as it is not focusing on any other object than the thought of 'I' itself which may lead to awareness of the feeling-sense of 'I' or directly into pure awareness itself.
As for what mantra (mind-tool) would be suitable for general meditation purposes, then.......?
Mantra seems to be a precise and sophisticated science and I don't pretend to understand or be qualified in this field. Each mantra seems to invoke a particular quality of energy and therefore it would be important to use one which is in harmony with the individuals own energy patterns or constituition.
Having said that however there are mantra's which are generally considered to be universal and safe for everyone to use. For example, one sanskrit mantra of this category is 'Soham' (usually pronounced 'So-hum'). Soham is said to be the natural mantra of the breath; 'So' on the inhale and 'Ham' on the exhale. It is said to mean 'I am That' affirming our essential unity with the Higher Self - however you concieve that to be.
This mantra can be very well combined with the breath and an awareness, for example at the navel (cultivating the energy of 'embodied beingness'). Allow the breath to become deep and smooth and feel the rising and falling of the belly with the inflowing and outflowing breaths. Some meditators and martial artists focus on a point called the 'Hara' which is said to be two finger widths below the navel and two in. This is said to be the energetic centre of the body and is very much connected to the same energy as the navel. Find which one suits you best and stick with that.
This meditation can be enough by itself (for the time being) and will help to cultivate a very grounded, stable, centered and solid energy in your being. And, as previously mentioned, it can act as an excellent starting point for self-inquiry if one is so inclined - simply do the first for a period until you feel very well established in the experience and then proceed to the next stage. I don't feel there is a need to hurry to the self-inquiry stage and I know from my own experience that if one is going off in more abstract practices without a solid grounded foundation within oneself then it can lead to all kinds of difficulties in normal life (i.e. exasperating ungroundedness and uncentredness etc.).
A mantra in this context is a simple sound or word which acts like a support for the mind to help us to step out of the circular patterns of thought and into deeper aspects of our being. By giving the mind a relaxed focus, which we keep on easily returning to when attention wanders, awareness will naturally begin to sink towards it's own centre like a pebble in a lake. Don't throw the pebble in making a noisy splash! Allow it to be more as if the pebble is gently sliding off your hand at the level of the water and easily slipping into the lake hardly making any ripple.
Another 'mantra' I feel you could very well use is the word 'peace'. Simply don't think about the meaning of peace (contemplation), don't imagine peace (visualisation) and don't use the word 'peace' as an intense mental focus to keep off other thoughts (concentration). No, none of that, simply allow the word 'peace' to be a gentle focus which helps you to relax and settle into your own subtle depths where upon you will begin to experience real peace. And naturally the meaning association of the word itself will help to invoke the experience which will become stronger as you cultivate a regular practice.
One word of caution. Don't go on chopping and changing your mantra as this just creates conflict in the deeper levels of the mind and leads nowhere. By all means try a few out and once you've found one that suits you then stick with it. Don't be seduced by what special quality this mantra or that one might invoke. The central purpose of this meditation, and use of the mantra is as an aid, is to help us to become consciously conscious in the moment and centred in our own being. Once that is done then all of the good qualities and energies of Consciousness will begin to manifest by themselves. Therefore, there are several good mantras and each one would be as good as the other. Just choose a simple one that resonates with you and stick with it.
When I say resonates with you, that has as much to do with the meaning of the mantra as anything else. For example, someone with a Christian upbringing would probably feel uncomfortable using a mantra which is coming from or connected to the Hindu tradition. And for good reason as it will automatically create confict with all of the religious conditioning and beliefs of that person. Far better to use something which is in harmony with the existing orientation such as 'Amen' which would be an excellent choice. Don't even call it a mantra, call it a prayer or a word of peace which invokes the blessings and protection of the Divine.
On the other hand obviously 'Amen' may cause a conflict with an agnostic or athiest person! Taking a good look at at transcending the limitations of ones conditioning is a whole other topic but for now, if you want to engage with this form of meditation, choose a word or a sound which you feel comfortable with, both in terms of it's feel and it's meaning.
Shalom could be good for a Jewish person and Allah for a Muslim. Soham is pretty neutral, as is peace. Some people meditate without even using a mantra at all, perhaps just focusing on the sensations of the body/energy and/or the breath. The important thing is not the form of the meditation but the substance of it in helping us return to the centre. Try a few things out and see what suits you.
Happy meditating! It's good, you'll like it.................
See below for 1st one 'to be or not to be.......'
I am coming around to the view that repeating the thought 'I,...I,...I,' is best reserved for self-inquiry rather than for general meditation upon an object (body/energy/breath). The reason being is that meditation upon an object is still a focusing upon an object, whereas self-inquiry is a turning of the attention around 180 degrees to focus on the subject (the 'I' focusing on the 'I'). By saying 'I' we are invoking the feeling sense of 'I' which invites this 180 degree turn. Therefore mixing the two up creates the possibility of trying to look in two directions at once which will only lead to frustration.
The 'a meditation upon 'I' posting though is fine as it is not focusing on any other object than the thought of 'I' itself which may lead to awareness of the feeling-sense of 'I' or directly into pure awareness itself.
As for what mantra (mind-tool) would be suitable for general meditation purposes, then.......?
Mantra seems to be a precise and sophisticated science and I don't pretend to understand or be qualified in this field. Each mantra seems to invoke a particular quality of energy and therefore it would be important to use one which is in harmony with the individuals own energy patterns or constituition.
Having said that however there are mantra's which are generally considered to be universal and safe for everyone to use. For example, one sanskrit mantra of this category is 'Soham' (usually pronounced 'So-hum'). Soham is said to be the natural mantra of the breath; 'So' on the inhale and 'Ham' on the exhale. It is said to mean 'I am That' affirming our essential unity with the Higher Self - however you concieve that to be.
This mantra can be very well combined with the breath and an awareness, for example at the navel (cultivating the energy of 'embodied beingness'). Allow the breath to become deep and smooth and feel the rising and falling of the belly with the inflowing and outflowing breaths. Some meditators and martial artists focus on a point called the 'Hara' which is said to be two finger widths below the navel and two in. This is said to be the energetic centre of the body and is very much connected to the same energy as the navel. Find which one suits you best and stick with that.
This meditation can be enough by itself (for the time being) and will help to cultivate a very grounded, stable, centered and solid energy in your being. And, as previously mentioned, it can act as an excellent starting point for self-inquiry if one is so inclined - simply do the first for a period until you feel very well established in the experience and then proceed to the next stage. I don't feel there is a need to hurry to the self-inquiry stage and I know from my own experience that if one is going off in more abstract practices without a solid grounded foundation within oneself then it can lead to all kinds of difficulties in normal life (i.e. exasperating ungroundedness and uncentredness etc.).
A mantra in this context is a simple sound or word which acts like a support for the mind to help us to step out of the circular patterns of thought and into deeper aspects of our being. By giving the mind a relaxed focus, which we keep on easily returning to when attention wanders, awareness will naturally begin to sink towards it's own centre like a pebble in a lake. Don't throw the pebble in making a noisy splash! Allow it to be more as if the pebble is gently sliding off your hand at the level of the water and easily slipping into the lake hardly making any ripple.
Another 'mantra' I feel you could very well use is the word 'peace'. Simply don't think about the meaning of peace (contemplation), don't imagine peace (visualisation) and don't use the word 'peace' as an intense mental focus to keep off other thoughts (concentration). No, none of that, simply allow the word 'peace' to be a gentle focus which helps you to relax and settle into your own subtle depths where upon you will begin to experience real peace. And naturally the meaning association of the word itself will help to invoke the experience which will become stronger as you cultivate a regular practice.
One word of caution. Don't go on chopping and changing your mantra as this just creates conflict in the deeper levels of the mind and leads nowhere. By all means try a few out and once you've found one that suits you then stick with it. Don't be seduced by what special quality this mantra or that one might invoke. The central purpose of this meditation, and use of the mantra is as an aid, is to help us to become consciously conscious in the moment and centred in our own being. Once that is done then all of the good qualities and energies of Consciousness will begin to manifest by themselves. Therefore, there are several good mantras and each one would be as good as the other. Just choose a simple one that resonates with you and stick with it.
When I say resonates with you, that has as much to do with the meaning of the mantra as anything else. For example, someone with a Christian upbringing would probably feel uncomfortable using a mantra which is coming from or connected to the Hindu tradition. And for good reason as it will automatically create confict with all of the religious conditioning and beliefs of that person. Far better to use something which is in harmony with the existing orientation such as 'Amen' which would be an excellent choice. Don't even call it a mantra, call it a prayer or a word of peace which invokes the blessings and protection of the Divine.
On the other hand obviously 'Amen' may cause a conflict with an agnostic or athiest person! Taking a good look at at transcending the limitations of ones conditioning is a whole other topic but for now, if you want to engage with this form of meditation, choose a word or a sound which you feel comfortable with, both in terms of it's feel and it's meaning.
Shalom could be good for a Jewish person and Allah for a Muslim. Soham is pretty neutral, as is peace. Some people meditate without even using a mantra at all, perhaps just focusing on the sensations of the body/energy and/or the breath. The important thing is not the form of the meditation but the substance of it in helping us return to the centre. Try a few things out and see what suits you.
Happy meditating! It's good, you'll like it.................
To Be or not to Be, that is the question.......
Ok, so I probably won't be turning into Darth Vader anytime soon. Just a little purging of the ego and a bit of fresh air in the shadows. You know in the whole of February I only posted on this blog 5 times. There are still nearly two weeks of March left and already I think this is number 18; that's quite some going and represents a considerable input of time and energy. Obviously I felt I had something I wanted to express and at least a couple of people seemed to like it.
Maybe my blog writing will slow down now (or maybe not). Yesterday, during and after a Werner Satsang, I had the experience of residing as energy. That is I was still walking around in my body, but my mind/thoughts were as if evaporated into the energy which precedes them. It seemed that there is this life-energy (prana/chi) and 'we' use this life energy to form the structure of our mind/thoughts.
I seemed to be experiencing the state of energy prior and was conscious of the tendency for this energy to take the form of thoughts and solidify as mind (and a particular view of the world). A. Ramana (Big Tex) said in one of his satsangs that Consciousness becomes energy and energy becomes matter, so we have to retrace our steps and go back the way we came.
All this talk about 'embodied beingness' I've been going on about seems to relate to a particular configuration of energy pertaining to the body-mind. I relate to 'embodied beingness' as a strong energy field which comprises a subtle aspect of this human form; of which we are normally unaware. So, abiding in the natural awareness of embodied beingness is a deeply pleasant experience of stillness and groundedness which is certainly captivating to the attention and keeps one pretty much in the present moment.
Meditating upon the energy or the body or the breath are all valid methods of meditation which help us to step back from thinking and to be more conscious in the present moment. Maintaining a relaxed focus on something which is naturally occuring within us, and repeatedly bringing our attention back there when it wanders, acts as a valuable anchor to the present moment.
This can be very worthwhile and beneficial in itself and it can also be a helpful precursor to actual self-inquiry.
Because energy or energy fields are something which can be percieved then they are not who I am. They comprise a subtle aspect of my vehicle in this existence but what is that which is aware even of this? What is that pure awareness beyond any percievable experience?
Who is experiencing this? I am. Who am I?
Behind the scenes is this feeling-sense of 'I' which is the subject of all experience. Becoming aware of that, however vaguely at first, and following that scent trail one-pointedly with our attention, is said to be the means which leads us back into the pure awareness which is prior to all thought, all energy, all relative experience.
Even our everyday sense of 'me', as mixed up with all kinds of identification as it is, is said to have at it's core the reality of the pure feeling-sense of 'I' which is the reflection of the true 'I AM' or Transcendental Pure Existence/Consciousness/Bliss; the Self.
Indeed it is said to be only because of this fact that our usual sense of 'me' has any sense of reality at all, and why by following this clue of 'I-ness' we are able to find our way back to the source.
And so what remains...........?
What remains of the individual being when all the rubbish falls away? I asked this question to Werner in relation to the fear of annihilation. To paraphrase him he said that what remain is the true essence of who you are beyond any psychological or emotional crap. Good riddance to it!
There is an opening to our transcendental universal nature which is then expressed through our own unique individual essence. Unity within diversity. Individuality within universality. Satchitananda in reflection. As above, so below.
Werner often advises that there is nothing we can do to Be That which we already Are, but that what we can do is to make ourselves available; and that much we are asked to do.
Satchitananda
Maybe my blog writing will slow down now (or maybe not). Yesterday, during and after a Werner Satsang, I had the experience of residing as energy. That is I was still walking around in my body, but my mind/thoughts were as if evaporated into the energy which precedes them. It seemed that there is this life-energy (prana/chi) and 'we' use this life energy to form the structure of our mind/thoughts.
I seemed to be experiencing the state of energy prior and was conscious of the tendency for this energy to take the form of thoughts and solidify as mind (and a particular view of the world). A. Ramana (Big Tex) said in one of his satsangs that Consciousness becomes energy and energy becomes matter, so we have to retrace our steps and go back the way we came.
All this talk about 'embodied beingness' I've been going on about seems to relate to a particular configuration of energy pertaining to the body-mind. I relate to 'embodied beingness' as a strong energy field which comprises a subtle aspect of this human form; of which we are normally unaware. So, abiding in the natural awareness of embodied beingness is a deeply pleasant experience of stillness and groundedness which is certainly captivating to the attention and keeps one pretty much in the present moment.
Meditating upon the energy or the body or the breath are all valid methods of meditation which help us to step back from thinking and to be more conscious in the present moment. Maintaining a relaxed focus on something which is naturally occuring within us, and repeatedly bringing our attention back there when it wanders, acts as a valuable anchor to the present moment.
This can be very worthwhile and beneficial in itself and it can also be a helpful precursor to actual self-inquiry.
Because energy or energy fields are something which can be percieved then they are not who I am. They comprise a subtle aspect of my vehicle in this existence but what is that which is aware even of this? What is that pure awareness beyond any percievable experience?
Who is experiencing this? I am. Who am I?
Behind the scenes is this feeling-sense of 'I' which is the subject of all experience. Becoming aware of that, however vaguely at first, and following that scent trail one-pointedly with our attention, is said to be the means which leads us back into the pure awareness which is prior to all thought, all energy, all relative experience.
Even our everyday sense of 'me', as mixed up with all kinds of identification as it is, is said to have at it's core the reality of the pure feeling-sense of 'I' which is the reflection of the true 'I AM' or Transcendental Pure Existence/Consciousness/Bliss; the Self.
Indeed it is said to be only because of this fact that our usual sense of 'me' has any sense of reality at all, and why by following this clue of 'I-ness' we are able to find our way back to the source.
And so what remains...........?
What remains of the individual being when all the rubbish falls away? I asked this question to Werner in relation to the fear of annihilation. To paraphrase him he said that what remain is the true essence of who you are beyond any psychological or emotional crap. Good riddance to it!
There is an opening to our transcendental universal nature which is then expressed through our own unique individual essence. Unity within diversity. Individuality within universality. Satchitananda in reflection. As above, so below.
Werner often advises that there is nothing we can do to Be That which we already Are, but that what we can do is to make ourselves available; and that much we are asked to do.
Satchitananda
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Who the devil am I? Who, the Devil am I?
You know I'm having 2nd thoughts about this self-inquiry business. After all, who in their right mind would undertake something which was going to destroy everything that I take myself to be?
Sure I want the bliss and the love, but I also want the Power and the Glory. I want to do it my way and I want to be around to enjoy it goddamit!
Better maybe I just meditate my way to a just before enlightenment stage and then I can have it all for me. Have my cake and eat it too.
I want to be the great teacher, I want to have all the affirmation, I want to be the Great One, I,I,I,I,I,I,I!!!
What's the point if I am not going to be there to enjoy it? Doesn't sound like a very good deal to me.
Who is this God guy anyway?
Sure I want the bliss and the love, but I also want the Power and the Glory. I want to do it my way and I want to be around to enjoy it goddamit!
Better maybe I just meditate my way to a just before enlightenment stage and then I can have it all for me. Have my cake and eat it too.
I want to be the great teacher, I want to have all the affirmation, I want to be the Great One, I,I,I,I,I,I,I!!!
What's the point if I am not going to be there to enjoy it? Doesn't sound like a very good deal to me.
Who is this God guy anyway?
Monday, March 16, 2009
having ones cake and eating it too
Self-inquiry is essentially a Vedantic approach which seeks to directly transcend relativity whereas the approach of Tantra goes by the scenic route.
Veda means knowledge and Vedanta means the end of knowledge and relates to the single minded pursuit of transcending relativity and Realising the Transcendental Self; the one without a second. The teachings of the Upanishads (a class of Indian spiritual texts) expound on this, but the same intent of transcending relativity can be pursued outwith this context of traditional Indian culture.
There are several schools of Vedanta, each looking at things from a slightly different angle, but the school which this teaching of self-inquiry, as expounded by Ramana Maharishi and others, belongs is that of Advaita Vedanta. Advaita means 'not-two' or 'non-duality' and refers to the viewpoint or experience where everything is percieved as the manifestation of the One Essence with no degrees of separation.
Tantra on the other hand comes from the angle of the multiplicity of life, rather than the unicity. Ultimately the aim is the same but the approach is different. I only have an incomplete and outline understanding of Tantra (as of Vedanta), but I understand it to deal with the diversity of the ways that the One Unified Source manifests in this creation.
The essential insight of Vedanta is that the Self alone is Real and all else is an illusion, so it tends to not give much attention to, or is even dismissive of, the relative aspects of life. On the other hand, from the stand point of this ultimate realisation, even this world is seen as a manifestation of the Self, and the Jnani (Enlightened Sage from this Vedantic pathway) makes no distinction between the Self at rest (Absolute Transcendental Silence) and the Self in action (creation; the world; relativity). For the Jnani it is all a play of Oneness.
Therefore, given that diversity/manifestation is as much the Self as the Absolute is, then approaching Self-Realisation from and through the apparent experience of differences is an equally valid approach. This I understand is Tantra.
In the West tantra is associated with sex, however this is only one aspect and not the main point in itself. As far as I can work out the connection with sex has two aspects. The first aspect is in encountering and releasing our inhibitions, fears and neurosis around sex which are all part of the false-ego which keeps us in the illusionary experience of separation.
The second aspect is in the actual energetic interplay between the male and female polarities. Just like electricity has two opposite poles between which the electrons flow, so both within ourselves and between the sexes somehow the Self has manifested as this polarity of male and female and tantra has evolved ways and means to harness this polarity for accelarating the process of evolution (back towards our original true nature and that much the richer for the experience).
Broadly speaking the male aspect is considered to be Silent Awareness and the female aspect is considered to be Dynamic Energy. Both of these poles are contained within each of us and on a cosmic level are said to be the two inseparable aspects of the One Divine Self.
Tantra concerns itself with all of the various manifestations of energy inherent in this human form as expressed through the various energy pathways (nadis) and centres (chakras). The main chakra system, running up the spinal column, represents the various planes of energy and perception available within the human experience.
Connecting the dots of Satchitananda in reflection as this human form, it is apparent that the energy centre connected to the navel (and the inner body space between the naval and the base of the torso) relates to the 'Sat' aspect. That is the aspect of existence or what I have been referring to in this context as the experience of 'embodied beingness', 'I amness' or simply 'amness'.
The energy centre connected with the 'third eye' between the eyebrows (and the inner space from the base of the neck to the top of the head) relates to the 'Chit' aspect. That is the aspect of awareness, or the knowing capacity.
The energy centre connected with the centre of the chest (and the inner space from the navel to the base of the throat) relates to the 'Ananda' aspect. That is the aspect of bliss, love or the capacity to feel. N.B. Bliss and love in this context don't mean overwhelming ecstacy and emotional sentimentality. Rather more likely to be a still contentment and a pure connecting energy, however, anything can and does happen.
Of course this trinity of energies are not separate from one another and are all intrinsic aspects of the one thing. They are part of a smooth circular continuum with each quality coming to the fore at times and seamlessly melding into the others. Similarily there is no clear cut physical location to them either; any or all of these energies could fill the whole body of experience. The physical locations are only approximate counterparts which can act as a guide to help one tune into particular aspects of a more subtle experience.
So tantra views this human form as a gateway to the Ultimate and honours it as such. Tantric practitioners are not in a hurry to transcend relativity but are interested in investigating and integrating all aspects of their relative experience as the very pathway to the Self.
In Tantra there is the possibility of getting lost in the diversity of life and in Vedanta there is the possibility of missing the beauty of life. Personally, and if at all possible, I favour a balanced approach which encompasses the best of both worlds.
Satchitananda - Awareness of Being is inherently Blissful
I would just add that investigating the various subtle aspects of our experience is still a different thing from self-inquiry which is directly turning the awareness around 180 degrees back towards its own source in Pure Awareness. There is not necesarly a conflict just don't try and look in two directions at once! Do one thing or the other at any one time or at least that's how it seems to me at the moment. Each one must find their own way home.
Bare bones self-inquiry
When thoughts arise inwardly ask oneself 'to whom are these thoughts arising?'
The answer naturally comes 'to me'
Then ask oneself 'who am I?'
Nip the thoughts in the bud and refocus attention directly upon the feeling-sense of 'I'
Persist in this inquiry with the intention that the True Self be revealed
Keep on persisting in this inquiry until the false ego has been entirely destroyed and the Pure Self alone remains
That is it
Veda means knowledge and Vedanta means the end of knowledge and relates to the single minded pursuit of transcending relativity and Realising the Transcendental Self; the one without a second. The teachings of the Upanishads (a class of Indian spiritual texts) expound on this, but the same intent of transcending relativity can be pursued outwith this context of traditional Indian culture.
There are several schools of Vedanta, each looking at things from a slightly different angle, but the school which this teaching of self-inquiry, as expounded by Ramana Maharishi and others, belongs is that of Advaita Vedanta. Advaita means 'not-two' or 'non-duality' and refers to the viewpoint or experience where everything is percieved as the manifestation of the One Essence with no degrees of separation.
Tantra on the other hand comes from the angle of the multiplicity of life, rather than the unicity. Ultimately the aim is the same but the approach is different. I only have an incomplete and outline understanding of Tantra (as of Vedanta), but I understand it to deal with the diversity of the ways that the One Unified Source manifests in this creation.
The essential insight of Vedanta is that the Self alone is Real and all else is an illusion, so it tends to not give much attention to, or is even dismissive of, the relative aspects of life. On the other hand, from the stand point of this ultimate realisation, even this world is seen as a manifestation of the Self, and the Jnani (Enlightened Sage from this Vedantic pathway) makes no distinction between the Self at rest (Absolute Transcendental Silence) and the Self in action (creation; the world; relativity). For the Jnani it is all a play of Oneness.
Therefore, given that diversity/manifestation is as much the Self as the Absolute is, then approaching Self-Realisation from and through the apparent experience of differences is an equally valid approach. This I understand is Tantra.
In the West tantra is associated with sex, however this is only one aspect and not the main point in itself. As far as I can work out the connection with sex has two aspects. The first aspect is in encountering and releasing our inhibitions, fears and neurosis around sex which are all part of the false-ego which keeps us in the illusionary experience of separation.
The second aspect is in the actual energetic interplay between the male and female polarities. Just like electricity has two opposite poles between which the electrons flow, so both within ourselves and between the sexes somehow the Self has manifested as this polarity of male and female and tantra has evolved ways and means to harness this polarity for accelarating the process of evolution (back towards our original true nature and that much the richer for the experience).
Broadly speaking the male aspect is considered to be Silent Awareness and the female aspect is considered to be Dynamic Energy. Both of these poles are contained within each of us and on a cosmic level are said to be the two inseparable aspects of the One Divine Self.
Tantra concerns itself with all of the various manifestations of energy inherent in this human form as expressed through the various energy pathways (nadis) and centres (chakras). The main chakra system, running up the spinal column, represents the various planes of energy and perception available within the human experience.
Connecting the dots of Satchitananda in reflection as this human form, it is apparent that the energy centre connected to the navel (and the inner body space between the naval and the base of the torso) relates to the 'Sat' aspect. That is the aspect of existence or what I have been referring to in this context as the experience of 'embodied beingness', 'I amness' or simply 'amness'.
The energy centre connected with the 'third eye' between the eyebrows (and the inner space from the base of the neck to the top of the head) relates to the 'Chit' aspect. That is the aspect of awareness, or the knowing capacity.
The energy centre connected with the centre of the chest (and the inner space from the navel to the base of the throat) relates to the 'Ananda' aspect. That is the aspect of bliss, love or the capacity to feel. N.B. Bliss and love in this context don't mean overwhelming ecstacy and emotional sentimentality. Rather more likely to be a still contentment and a pure connecting energy, however, anything can and does happen.
Of course this trinity of energies are not separate from one another and are all intrinsic aspects of the one thing. They are part of a smooth circular continuum with each quality coming to the fore at times and seamlessly melding into the others. Similarily there is no clear cut physical location to them either; any or all of these energies could fill the whole body of experience. The physical locations are only approximate counterparts which can act as a guide to help one tune into particular aspects of a more subtle experience.
So tantra views this human form as a gateway to the Ultimate and honours it as such. Tantric practitioners are not in a hurry to transcend relativity but are interested in investigating and integrating all aspects of their relative experience as the very pathway to the Self.
In Tantra there is the possibility of getting lost in the diversity of life and in Vedanta there is the possibility of missing the beauty of life. Personally, and if at all possible, I favour a balanced approach which encompasses the best of both worlds.
Satchitananda - Awareness of Being is inherently Blissful
I would just add that investigating the various subtle aspects of our experience is still a different thing from self-inquiry which is directly turning the awareness around 180 degrees back towards its own source in Pure Awareness. There is not necesarly a conflict just don't try and look in two directions at once! Do one thing or the other at any one time or at least that's how it seems to me at the moment. Each one must find their own way home.
Bare bones self-inquiry
When thoughts arise inwardly ask oneself 'to whom are these thoughts arising?'
The answer naturally comes 'to me'
Then ask oneself 'who am I?'
Nip the thoughts in the bud and refocus attention directly upon the feeling-sense of 'I'
Persist in this inquiry with the intention that the True Self be revealed
Keep on persisting in this inquiry until the false ego has been entirely destroyed and the Pure Self alone remains
That is it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)