blackfence

Gustav Klimt's famous painting Portrait of Adele Bloch Bauer serves as a metaphor for Self-Realization. Realization proceeds in stages. At first, the usual distinction between self and other -- between the woman and her environment -- is punctured by the process of intense concentration, showing that underneath what was thought to be a physical or social or mental environment was this beautiful golden 'stuff': call it silence or bliss or consciousness. But then this very bliss is itself realized to be just another color of paint on this painting, just another object. And so in that sense both the 'egoic' and the 'blissful' states are themselves considered to be merely points of view that are themselves formed by something else, something that is beyond the egoic and the non-egoic, something which is not itself a point of view. And in that process even the very stages of realization are themselves recognized to be occurring only from one of these points of view... points of view which are part of the painting, which is not limited or bound by them.

There are at least three useful ways of thinking about the ego and how it is generated. One is the static: this is the sense of the subject, of the "I," that is generated whenever you have an experience. The I is generated from and contrasted to the not-I. The I here is a mass of unconscious and unseen assumptions. Self-inquiry and surrender discern away these assumptions, leaving the I by itself, whereupon it disappears. The second view is the dynamic: this is the sense of the "I" that is generated by the motion of thought. Thought by flowing creates the hallucination of a stable perceiver OF those thoughts. If this motion is slowed down or stopped, that hallucination can be seen for what it is. Self-inquiry and surrender concentrate the mind, redirecting it away from its usual desire-and-fear focused movement, thereby slowing and even stopping it. The third view is the structural view of the ego: this is the fact that the content of our thought all refers to a self-image, and is validated by all the other thoughts referring to the same image. These form a kind of web or net of mutually reinforcing illusion. Spiritual pointers like the simple question "Who am I?" or the image of the ego as being like a dream try to gesture one away out of this web.

I think it did, since I just got a notification for your reply. Thanks!

I'm automatically subscribed to posts I start, and have the setting where I should be notified by email whenever there's a new reply. But I never get those emails. My email address in settings is correct. Any idea what might be happening? Thanks.

A tricky and very interesting distinction is present in Maharshi's work between samadhi -- a profound state of concentrated absorption where the distinction between "I" and "not I" breaks down -- and laya, which is also absorption... but in which ignorance does not break down. Both are states or profound peace. Samadhi can easily turn into laya, Maharshi says, so seekers should be warned. Elsewhere, however, he says that states of peace need not be interrupted. So which is it? Well, the answer lies in where the seeker is along the path. The mind has to be turned inward and concentrated, and various methods that produce laya can result in this; but the ultimate samadhi is not one that turns into laya, but is that which is seen when even laya is questioned, self-inquired into, or surrendered.

How does one deal with difficult decisions? From the psychological perspective, it's important that one be clear and honest about what you want. Therapy and artistic expression can help with this. But from a purely spiritual perspective, you simply recognize that you are not the doer and that you have nothing to do with decisions. You let the mind fall absolutely quiet through surrender or inquiry. The funny thing is that these approaches are not actually opposed. They occur in different contexts.

Very interesting, thanks for the description!

There is a difference between the feeling of the still mind, that is, bliss, and the sense or coming of Knowledge of the Self, whose nature is insight... Even insights are temporary and *not* the real Self, but they constitute the 'gate' part of the 'gateless gate', and there are certain distinguishing characteristics that can be helpful for the seeker: the inversion of in and out in what I've called in the past the spacious mind. You thought you were a body inside the world; now you see that you are a world within which a body is. Insights are revisited over and over again through self-inquiry and surrender until they burn away all residual ignorance and become steady, at which time it becomes clear that insights and ignorance were both illusions.

Spiritual awakening or liberation is essentially a matter of immense, intense discernment -- an act of focused distinguishing away of all the things one is not, which then reveals what one really is, though that revelation is not to the one who originally sought it. That's the paradox of seeking: you seek as you know that you are what you seek. The intense discernment required for the search is driven by equally intense desire for liberation, which generates, through practice, a relatively quiet mind, and focus... which must be then be channeled all the way through, via surrender or self-inquiry -- to discerning away ALL the things that you are not. There is an end to the process, but it is not what you think it is.

Reflectivity is a central concept for the seeker... each moment has a kind of unchangeable quality which isn't about its content, but is a reflection of the experiencer, of the Self. The seeker needs to chase that reflectivity, which is nothing but being, awareness, bliss and, the I. The chase for reflectivity can never result in catching it, but it can result in a restructuring of the mind that destroys the ignorant belief that "I am an experiencing, doing person" that conceals the *true* reflectivity.

On p. 98 he writes "So the Zhi, the Base, the fundamental condition of the individual and of existence, is in essence void, and yet its nature is nevertheless to manifest. How it manifests is as Energy, and by way of example, this Energy is compared to the reflections that arise in a mirror. The master may once again show a mirror to the disciple and explain how the reflections that arise in it are the energy of the mirror's own inherent nature manifesting visibly." Seems like a pretty close match to me, actually.

Good luck on your quest.

I disagree. Here's what you wrote: "Do you understand how very rudimentary this idea of a label not being what is labeled is to me?" That's not really the point of the distinction between stillness and Stillness. My point wasn't that stillness isn't the label "stillness." My point was that any state of mind, however still, is not enough. So when you wrote originally: "What do you believe the experience would be if instead of “seeking” (for lack of a better term) stillness of mind, one begins with stillness of mind?" If "one" "begins" with anything, that is a state of mind. If you're asking about what an experience would be like, that too would be a question about a state of mind. So the stillness referred to here is a state of mind. As I just said, states of mind aren't Truth. That's the point. I'm responding to what you wrote. I have no idea about you beyond that.

Right, it's as I thought. You've accepted jnana in name only. "Yes, jnana, but..." No. Prarabdha, body, mind, etc. -- and yes, "being smacked on the head and hurting" -- these are absolutely all merely appearances. One who believes that they are more than that has not actually understood the true nature of jnana. What logic is there in the "maturation" of a mirage? And certainly the idea that "one will hurt when smacked" as proof that the individual is not an appearance is completely rooted in the egoic illusion. There is no "maturation of the individual" as some official "post jnana phase" -- accepting that is accepting the reality of ajnana... its continuation and thus gradual reduction. Tattvajnana and jivanmukti are not truly distinct phases. They are "distinct" only from the standpoint of ajnana. "As the kindled fire reduces firewood to ashes, Arjuna, so the fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes." (Bhagavad Gita 4:37) What there may be said to be imperfect or incomplete knowledge; unsteady knowledge. In that identification remains. That is not true jnana. It is only a phase of seeking.

You asked what I thought, then get irritated when I tell you what I think... When I'm pointing it out with regards to silence or stillness is not rudimentary, because many "advanced seekers" get stuck in believing that long spells of a silent or still mind are the final destination. That's it and no more. That's incorrect.

Then one is in a far simpler position. As the Buddha might say, one has "little dust in one's eyes." The stillness must then become the target of self-inquiry -- who is that experiences the stillness? Or, in other words, attempt to grasp the reflectivity of the stillness... Because any stillness that is labeled stillness is still not Stillness; the real Stillness is compatible with both seeming stillness of mind and seeming thought. Relative stillness of mind is an important necessity for the grasping of that real Stillness, however.

What is written and what is understood are two different things... the shastras are subtle. And they most certainly support what I am saying. Getting rid of vasanas and the qualifications of a seeker are intermediate concepts that encourage a seeker to purify the mind and not to get discouraged by glimpses of the truth that come and go. But true jnana is not that something that goes on and on, that "develops," "matures," etc. etc. That would make it changeable. The point of jnana is that it is eternal and perfect. Jnana instantly and immediately destroys ignorance, leaving no seeker. The very idea that there ever was a seeker, or ever were vasanas, is itself the very ignorance that jnana is designed to destroy. Take Sankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras, verse 4.1.14. He writes "The opponent holds that Liberation is attained, in spite of Knowledge, only after one has experienced the results of one's sins committed before illumination. [Sound familiar? These are vasanas! This is karma!]... This Sutra says that when a person attained Knowledge, all his past sins are destroyed and future sins do not cling to him. For by realizing Brahman he experiences that he never was, nor is, nor will be an agent, and such a person cannot be affected by the result of sins... The scriptures also declare that... "The fetters of the heart are broken, all doubts are solved, and all works are destroyed when He who is high and low is seen..." [Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.8]"

The luminosity of true nature cannot be focused on, because it is what one is. If it is something that could be focused on, it would become an object... if one thinks one is focusing on that, one is actually focusing on a subtle concept or feeling that one has labeled as that. So what the seeker needs to do is to chase the luminosity reflecting off of experiences and attempt to hold it, recognizing at each moment that every such attempt is in actual fact failing, that it is in fact grasping yet another object of experience. This attempt leads to stillness of mind, and when that very stillness also becomes the target of inquiry... when one attempts to see the reflectivity of stillness, that is, of reflectivity itself... something else opens up. It's certainly very far from nihilism.

So you parroted the words of real jnana, then felt that you were still suffering, but didn't want to give up your jnani status, and so bought into the reality of the vasanas so you could have your jnani cake and continue to eat it?

Yes, all of these are helpful. Yes, concepts must be taught, but the concepts must point to a quality of experience -- the reflective quality -- that must be examined. That reflective quality is also known as the "I" -- which is a false I, but which when examined opens up into the "real I." Chasing the reflective quality is not direct apperception. It is what leads to direct apperception, so to say. This is all irrelevant. Questions 1 and 2 are based on total misunderstandings. There is no such thing as a "jnani" in fact -- that is what jnana is, that realization. Neither are there anything called "vasanas." These are all only said from the standpoint of ignorance, for the seeker's sake. Jnana is the firm understanding that all of these categories are unreal.

You get there by noticing the subjectivity of experience. Simply mentioning over and over again "the Knower is not a reflection" and "it is directly recognized" is unhelpful, unless it is linked to the way that these facts can be grasped in direct experience -- and that is through their reflection in that experience. To mention the first without the second is indeed lofty. No, this is a misunderstanding. There is no such thing as a jivanmukta separate from a jnani. Real jnana is the recognition that there is no such thing as a person. Real jnana is the destruction of all karma. So how can there be an "ongoing unfolding"? This is a way to excuse the inability to grasp real jnana by hiding in the concept of gradual development. One can have glimpses of the Truth and not be steady in its understanding. Maybe that's what you are referring to. But when truth is fully grasped, there is nothing further.

I never said the Knower is a reflection. In order to get to "the realization of one's true nature as Awareness," one starts with the reflectivity in direct experience. One doesn’t practice starting from these lofty theoretical concepts. That is only from the standpoint of ignorance. There is a single sudden realization, which is in fact the destruction of ignorance -- and in fact not even that, as ignorance never existed.

Yes, asti bhati priyam is just another variant of sat-chit-ananda. That's fine, but pure asti bhati and priyam cannot be cognized directly. What can be cognized (or attempted to be cognized) is their instantiation in the reflective, sattvic quality of objects. "Practice" is not telling yourself that asti-bhati-priyam is the cause, and nama-rupa and effect. That's just self-hypnosis. Practice is the discernment in experience of the unchanging from the changing, and that happens through the consistent noticing of the sattvic, reflective aspect of things, which is relatively more unchanging... it is the "I"-ness of experience. It's a felt pursuit. Why "reflective"? Because the asti-bhati-priyam you're talking about is not known directly but is reflected in the objects of experience. So one pursues that reflectiveness, tries to hold/grasp/localize it. And of course that then becomes a chase, since that quality cannot in fact be focused on, is in fact a mirage.

There's nothing wrong with those concepts, but they are more theoretical and philosophical. One is not a substitute for the other. Reflectivity is referring to something that can be noticed in experience. Every experience is quite obviously on the mirror of awareness, and that constantly-unique-yet-somehow-unchanging shine that glows off of it, that shimmering quality, is something that all of us can become familiar with if we pay attention.

That's not the reflectivity I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that within experience there is the content of objects in awareness, let's say their feel and color and associated sense perceptions and thoughts, and yet in and through any of those, but not reducible to any of them, there is the ineffable illumination of those things. There is the fact that the rose is red, but then there is the fact that redness of that rose shines in my consciousness, reflects the light of my consciousness, and that shining is both unique to that rose in that moment in space and time and to that person who senses it, and also at the same time the same between every experience.