Does AYP give bad kundalini advice?

Birch · June 25, 2012

I dunno T_I. Even on here there has been discussion about the dangers and validity of 'head-based' qi-gong. Generally speaking I've seen it advised to attempt that stuff only after having gained some ability to sink/ground chi and with various 'locks' in place (the good ttbs can correct me here about tongue to palate being considered a lock or not.)

Anyway, as I already mentioned, the AYP is a 'single teacher'-run setup whereas other forums (including ttbs) are multiple-teacher/peer-practioner type setups. It's possible IMO that AYP forumers read this one as well as other stuff. Are you concerned about people in particular over at AYP T_I?

Tibetan_Ice · June 26, 2012

TI, this Tim guys sounds like he doesn't need advice at all, but the forum he is chatting on appears to be rather 'lost' when it comes to kundalini, JMHO

astralc

Hi Astralc

Thanks for your impressions.

Yes, I agree, Tim sounds like he is capable of thinking for himself, although AYP is designed in such a way that it exerts an awful lot of pressure on the unsuspecting to conform to their practices. That's what happens when you practice heavy moderation and prune out any inquisitive or dissident views like they do on that forum and site.

TI

Tibetan_Ice · June 26, 2012

RIGHT ON. Danger all over that site. some things are authentic but no one to show you how to do it properly. if one is on the right path their are road maps and big red flags along the way that are there for all to see as confirmations. its the same for all though experiences may vary. the guideposts let you know you are on the right track. that site is what it is. can be found here, in other countries and in India as well. i will talk on the crown if you are interested in another posts. almost 10pm here and time to sit. i do like your post though TI.

Hi Yuanqi

The irony of all of this is that AYP preaches about staying away from the crown, and Yogani has written much about 'premature crown opening'. Yet, the AYP Spinal Breathing includes performing the bandhas and sambhavi.

When I learned the Red Phoenix technique (Kunlun), it was said that rolling the eyes upwards opens the crown.

Just two days ago, I found this about sambhavi (bolding is mine):

link: http://www.rainbowbody.com/asana/bandha.htm

The ajna bandha moves the energy up from the ajna chakra to the crown (sahasrara) and down to throat (vishuddi).

...

Ajna Bandha: the Third eye or Ajna Chakra

Ajna Bandha: Not discussed in the classical hatha yoga literature except as a mudra. It is the most subtle of all the bandhas moving the distilled energy of all the other chakras in a fine line into crown (sahasrara). When it is done spontaneously, it is characterized by the eyes moving up and back into the third eye, the eyelids lightly quivering, the eyebrows slightly raising, the tongue spontaneously in khechari mudra, the nostrils lightly flaring, the ears slightly elongating and raising, the condyles at the back of the neck unwinding, the jaw naturally dropping long. In addition a spontaneous puckered smile forms on the tightly closed lips and internally there is perceived a translucent effulgent energy interface at the third eye sometimes producing a slight external quivering at the forehead region.

In meditation and mudra practice ajna is usually activated lastly after all the other bandhas are implemented, raising the energy up out of the lower and middle sushumna, removing any blockages to the crown., and in this way it completes the siva/shakti circle. It will help in pranayama as to complete the final journey of the prana after the retention (kumbhaka), both after the inhalation (puraka) and exhalation (rechaka). It should never be forced, but rather practiced as a cooperation and allowance for these energy vectors to occur.

Ajna bandha energetically interlocks, inter-connects, and intelligently opens creative dialogue between the throat chakra, talu chakra, third eye, and sahasrara permitting the energy to synchronize and flow inward and upward re-forming the sacred link between creation and creator in effulgent and trans-conceptional embodied Love. With all the chakras energetically linked and interconnected through the bandhas the crown and root are re-united, heaven and earth, the groom and bride, the right and left, spirit and nature, Kether and Malkuth. Here we rest in the healing eternal waters that bathe and nurture all.

So, as AYP teaches to stay away from the crown, their main practice of spinal breathing with sambhavi, is taking it's practioners directly to the crown!!!

Is it true that the Ajna bandha takes the energy directly to the crown?

Isn't AYP saying, 'don't play with guns' in one breath, and then in the other breath saying "here is your gun"?

Thanks for your responses.

TI

Tibetan_Ice · June 26, 2012

I dunno T_I. Even on here there has been discussion about the dangers and validity of 'head-based' qi-gong. Generally speaking I've seen it advised to attempt that stuff only after having gained some ability to sink/ground chi and with various 'locks' in place (the good ttbs can correct me here about tongue to palate being considered a lock or not.)

Anyway, as I already mentioned, the AYP is a 'single teacher'-run setup whereas other forums (including ttbs) are multiple-teacher/peer-practioner type setups. It's possible IMO that AYP forumers read this one as well as other stuff. Are you concerned about people in particular over at AYP T_I?

Hi K

Yes, it is not good to have chi/prana/energy build up in the head, no matter what system your are practising.

You know, the idea that maybe AYP forumers might venture over here is kind of comforting. Perhaps they will learn that the annonymous anti-guru inventor of yoga called Yogani doesn't really know his stuff.

Yes, I am very concerned. Yogani has people 'working' for free, giving yoga lessons (and booze) at retreats. He has people translating his works into other languages. He is propagating his deviated "Patanjali's Yoga Sutras", spreading false ideas that dharana and dhyana involve no effort or continous concentration.

There are so many people who start the practices because they are easily accessible online, practice for a few months or years, and then start asking questions. They have no idea what they got themselves into.

People are posting on the forum, perhaps for years (like me), and then when you start to question the AYP methodologies and customized practices, you find yourself banned and blocked from even viewing your posts.

AYP is a con job and Yogani is very slick. He doesn't realize he is hurting allot of people, by taking advantage of them.

Just the other day someone posted a post about the kriyas they were having during meditation. From reputable gurus, the message has always been to sit and let kundalini do her thing. It is intelligent and she knows what has to be done.

But this is the advice that Yogani gives:

link: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11693

...then let it go while continuing to favor reducing automatic yoga during deep meditation".

...

Extreme movements are not a requirment for purification and opening to advance. In any case, we just easily favor the mantra over anything else that comes up.

...

The thing about automatic yoga is that we are not required to favor its occurrence. If it is disrupting our meditation or causing overloads due to overindulging/allowing, then we should favor not engaging in automatic yoga so much. As discussed in the lessons, automatic yoga does not necessarily want our long term stable unfoldment. It wants it all right now, and that is simply not possible. So we should favor a balance. If we do, we can avoid the delays that can occur while we are recovering from any overdoing.

To be clear, Yogani is saying that automatic yoga (kriyas), which are automatic by definition, are caused by the practioner overindulging/allowing them. How can that be? Kriyas are involuntary motions, kundalini cleansing the nadis, breaking blockages, doing her work. How is this incumbant on the practioner's indulging or allowing? Yogani is suggesting, in his slick way, that we should not let kundalini do her thing. Yogani says to go back and do the DM (TM Style meditation). He also attributes "automatic yoga" as having volition and a goal (It wants it all right now..). Kriyas are an effect caused by kundalini, they are not capable of desire or goal seeking.

This is quite different from what Swami Satyananda Saraswati said in his book called "Kundalini Tantra".

Note: In the following passage, he specifically states that the practioner need not meditate anymore.

Some people think they should practise a lot of meditation or pranayama when

kundalini is ascending so it will go straight to sushumna. However, I don't think

meditation is necessary anymore, because when kundalini is in the process of transition,

you can do nothing with your mind. If it is quiet, it is quiet, nothing can disturb it. If your

mind is agitated, you can do nothing about it because that is the effect of the awakening

of kundalini. It is not the effect of your practice.

The movement of consciousness during the transition of kundalini is spontaneous,

whether it is depression, a state of trance, an experience or visions a feeling or sensation

in the body; you can't alter any of them. They will continue because they are forced on

you, they are evolving in you because you are passing through that stage. But if you live

in the non-agitating ashram environment and partake of ashram food and share in the

karma yoga, there will not be disturbances in your experiences.

I guess when you remain annonymous, don't participate in retreats or have any contact with members, it's easy to make a 'one size fits all' kind of answer, as Yogani has done. But he is doing a disservice to his members by straying from the classic yoga principles and inventing his own 'solutions'.

TI

Birch · June 26, 2012

T_I, that's a lot of good stuff to discuss. I reckon a few threads could be started for each of your paragraphs. Or you could find the ones on here that discuss them and open them back up?

What I've already seen done about 'bad gurus' is some kind of web-presence (used to be books) where the practices etc could be called into question. I wouldn't call the person into question unless the 'guru' is running a cult with life-endangering practices, like the sweat-lodge person whose incompetence ended up in the death of a 'client'. I reckon that ought to be acted upon in a more active manner - but I'm not sure exactly what that 'action' would be.

It sounds like what's going on here could unfortunately be dismissed as students doing the practices wrong, and/or some kind of sour grapes on your part.

Aside that people are consenting adults and allowed to go on retreats and party - that's called a 'vacation' in my book and why not if it's cheaper at the ashram and you can pay by sweeping the floor a couple of hours per day? Hell, I'd pretend to be a nun to get cheap room and board in some places:-)

If kids are involved, I think it gets into more legislated territory, but then look at Scientology and Sunday school...

What do you want to do about it?

Jeff · June 26, 2012

Yogani has people 'working' for free, giving yoga lessons (and booze) at retreats.

Hi TI,

I hope you are well. Not trying to "enter" the debate on AYP, but I thought it important to clarify a point. I have actually spent a day now at two AYP retreats, and there is no "booze" offered or available. I was invited to a "pre-retreat dinner party", where wine was offered. The dinner party attendees were all good friends and it was just a social gathering. The retreats are very simple, basically 2 or 3 sessions of mantra meditation & basic energy practices with walks in the woods and discussion in between.

While not really an AYP practitioner, I consider a few of the AYP retreat leaders very good (and knowledgable) friends.

Tibetan_Ice · June 27, 2012

Hi TI,

I hope you are well. Not trying to "enter" the debate on AYP, but I thought it important to clarify a point. I have actually spent a day now at two AYP retreats, and there is no "booze" offered or available. I was invited to a "pre-retreat dinner party", where wine was offered. The dinner party attendees were all good friends and it was just a social gathering. The retreats are very simple, basically 2 or 3 sessions of mantra meditation & basic energy practices with walks in the woods and discussion in between.

While not really an AYP practitioner, I consider a few of the AYP retreat leaders very good (and knowledgable) friends.

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for confirming. I would not want to go to a "retreat" where people who attend damage their brain cells with alcohol right before the retreat.

And, did you see Yogani there?

TI

ShaktiMama · June 27, 2012

Just the other day someone posted a post about the kriyas they were having during meditation. From reputable gurus, the message has always been to sit and let kundalini do her thing. It is intelligent and she knows what has to be done.

This is quite different from what Swami Satyananda Saraswati said in his book called "Kundalini Tantra".

Note: In the following passage, he specifically states that the practioner need not meditate anymore.

TI

Shakti is Divine Intelligence, the energy of the Cosmos. She knows what she is doing. I can speak from experience since 1991 when my kundalini started to rise. Learning to surrender is so important and is the main reason my experience was so blissful and powerful and continues to be so.

Shakti is a little bit like Chuck Norris. She meditates you. You have to meditate when she decides it's time. No excuses. No escape. :wub:

Birch · June 27, 2012

"Shakti is a little bit like Chuck Norris..."

Hehehehe. That's funny, but a I reckon a good analogy:-)

Not sure if it's your doing Susan, but the golden lights are back since I've been reading your latest posts on TTB's;-) Also reminded me of Doc Morris, who's version of Secret Smile I listened to this morning as an alarm (not that it's alarming or anything:-))

Tibetan_Ice · June 29, 2012

...

It sounds like what's going on here could unfortunately be dismissed as students doing the practices wrong, and/or some kind of sour grapes on your part.

Hi K

I tell you what. Here is the last post that I wrote on the AYP forum that caused me to become banned. It was a reply to chit-ananda51. I've bolded my statements:

Hello Tibetan_Ice.

You made a post in the Other Systems and Alternate Approaches forum entitled Jhana and Nirvikalpa Samadhi. A forum moderator has decided to reject your post for the following reason:

Your post is not approved because it contains statements about the authenticity, validity or status of principles, persons or scriptures in religions or spiritual teachings. People have very different and often deep-seated opinions about these subjects, and therefore discussions about them will often create heated debates. Such can be interesting, revealing and entertaining, but would take away focus from spiritual practices. Attempts to discredit by logic, scholarship or any other means, of gurus, religious or public figures (guru bashing), should also be avoided, for the same reason. The AYP forum is intended to be a medium for discussion of Advanced Yoga Practices and related subject matters, and "other systems" is for discussing other systems, not AYP. Below is your post:

Hi Chit

quote:

Originally posted by chit-ananda51

Hi TI

...

However here in AYP, most of the people visit the lessons/forum look for a practice that is simple and can provide stable results in the long run. Amazingly, the techniques given here worked for many and works for me. It is all that matters at the end of the day. A life filled with love and sharing. If we are missing something in this lifetime, the grace which brought us this far will lead us even more now or in the days to come.

I don't pretend to speak for anyone on the forum, or for anyone else for that matter. General opinions and blanket statements can sometimes be erroneous.

I first 'joined' AYP 4 1/2 years ago. I was looking for answers. I was looking for expertise, knowledge and the way to find the truth about life. I'm not in it for the long run. I'm too old for that. I'll be dead soon. I want effective, proven, reliable practices that lead to self-realization.

I was also drawn to AYP because I had had a kundalini awakening which was very painful and it was so nice to be able to read about and talk to other people with kundalini symptoms.

You know, for the longest time I thought AYP was mainly a landing site for people who had had kundalini awakenings and were trying to understand and control the symptoms.

Intellectual expositions on 'not' using back-support or how DM works or how it has another practice flavour does not matter - no matter how much mentally titillating.

For someone whom is inclined more towards bhakti, living a loving and sharing life, it does not matter how you sit.

If, however, you are more interested in why, sometimes, when you meditate, your body falls away and it feels like you've become a vapourous cloud of ether, it is because you are practicing perfect posture and not resting your back. That is the kind of thing that intrigues me. That realization helped me believe that I am not the body. To sit, in a cloud of bliss, while my body ached in pain and not be affected by it, to be so detached, is wonderful!

I agree that you have an in-depth understanding of wide spectrum of esoteric practices and I respect your views.

I wouldn't call them esoteric practices. That is putting an unfair slant on my discussion. Did you know that it is estimated that there are between 500 million to a billion Buddhists in the world? How can that be 'esoteric'?

All that I feel is these discussions should not put a new soul coming into this forum for simple solutions and question the teachings presented here.

It is my right to question, to understand and to be responsible for my decisions. I spent 4 years "I AM" ing without really understanding the practice and the subtler implications of proper technique. That is my fault. I just assumed that AYP was preaching universal yoga principles, and that is how I did Deep Meditation. I was focusing on the mantra during Deep Meditation with all my effort. I couldn't keep focus on it by saying it and letting it go, thoughts or visions would always appear. So, I started visualizing the mantra as I repeated it. I could maintain more continous attention on the mantra that way. I would visualize a stream of letters corresponding to the sounds as "AAAAAAAYYYYEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMM". That worked pretty good. My body would dissolve and kundalini would activate. But then one day, I thought "I'm not getting anywhere", just lots of ecstatic distraction that lasted for hours after. I thought, that isn't what I want. So, I focused on the "I" in the

"I AM" mantra and kept my focus on it. I visualized the "I" and kept the "I" sound going. Well, all of a sudden everything became really bright and clear. Everything else turned black. There was only me and the "I", lots of golden light and immense bliss. And then I was gone! I had finally hit what I thought to be a higher samadhi through continous concentration. That forced me to re-assess my meditation practice.

Then, when I started examining the meditation practice closely, started questioning exactly what inner silence was, examining the DM and TM practice, comparing it to Patanjali's Sutras. I found what had been written by Yogani deviated from classic Yoga.

Yogani has made huge efforts to keep his lessons simple without discussing his personal experiences too much for a reason.

Yes, and what might those reasons be? The guise of annonymity is a hard pill to swallow. Ever hear the expression, "Do as I say, not what I do."? Well, if you can't see what the person does, how can that foster confidence, understanding and faith? How can you assess if the person is a true guru, sage or arahant? Reffering to chakras and the details of psychic architecture as 'under the hood' raises so many red flags. And then there is the "It's all scenery" concept. That idea is so top-down, from the top of the mountain looking down, that it frustrates anyone who is trying to climb up.

By this time, he had the wisdom to understand that each individual is unique(karmically) and what works for one may NOT work for another(this can even be shared).

If that is so, then why does AYP cater to the lowest common denominator? Why is there not a section for advanced students, or students with 5 years or more experience?

Anyone who has successfully meditated for 40 years should be able to psychically sense what each and every person needs in order to rapidly evolve spiritually. Yet the AYP solution seems to be to follow the practices regardless of 'where you may be at'. One size fits all.

But what is discussed above - before trying them out for min. 5-10 years is not that acceptable. It is upto them to choose.

If we are all at different levels of understanding and different rungs of the spiritual ladder of evolution, then hard and fast statements like that don't apply to everyone. To someone who is ripe, sometimes just a word or glance is all it takes.

To me, what is not acceptable is trying something out for 5 or 10 years only to discover that some of the details weren't exactly right. You can't make up for lost time.

And, if it is up to them to choose, how can they choose without choices? Where is the fairness of that? How can anyone make a choice without knowing all of the options?

Even if I tried AYP for 10-15 years and it did not work for me, I will not post here saying that it won't work(for the reasons already stated above). Its again me! Just felt like pouring it.

P.S : Normally I don't like to discuss much on what's on paper unless it is tried and tested in the course of life.

If you tried AYP for 10 to 15 years and it did not work, don't you feel that you would have an obligation to other people, other practitioners to let them know? Don't you have an obligation to tell Yogani that it isn't working? If you don't, how is that helping other people? How is that helping Yogani?

Many people would not point out perceived inconsistencies for any number of reasons: fear of being ostricized or banned, fear of falling into direspect from the teacher, fear of being exposed as foolish or ignorant. Others simply don't care and would not mention anything, and go on their merry way. What remains is a forum full of parrots and brown-nosers.

It is a very hard thing to do. Believe me. It takes courage to point out perceived inconsistencies with someone's system of practices. I could have walked away a long time ago. Perhaps I should have.

You know, you seem like a very nice person, bahkti oriented and not that concerned with the details of practice. If the practices are giving you what you expect out of them and you willing to let the rest fall into the hands of "God" or grace, that is very wonderful. I wish I were more like that..

And despite some differences in the details and strange quirks, I believe AYP does help a beginner to establish a solid base of regular practice from which one can grow his/her routine into something more advanced.

Thanks for your comments.

TI

So, K, perhaps it is sour grapes. Or just poor treatment and answers from Yogani.

For example, this was my post to Yogani back in 2010:

Hi Yogani,

Thank you for your response.

Well, there are many things I'd like to say.

First off, I have re-read the Deep Meditation book again (last night).

Many times in that book you refer to 'thinking the mantra' and yet you say that value of the mantra is in the sound of the mantra.

Just to be clear, there is a difference to me between thinking the mantra and silently subvocalizing the mantra. When I think the mantra I see the words; I see the letters "I AM". I do not visualize them, they just appear in my head. When I am concentrating like that I also see thoughts. In order to think the mantra I have to raise my consciousness to be separate from the subvocalization process. It is not hard, I just disengage the connection to the breath or abdomen and focus more on the light realm by increasing the frequency and location of the manifestation of the mantra. It is in the realm of pure thought. It is at a higher frequency level than the sound spectrum. However, when I do that, there is very little audible vibration from the mantra as it becomes very subtle because it is made of light at that point. Should I be silently subvocalizing the mantra because it is the coarser vibrations from the sound of the mantra that does the work? I'm not exactly clear on what 'thinking the mantra' means.

The other thing I am still not clear about is the rapidity of the repetition of the mantra. What is a normal pattern? What should one start out with? Is it 'easily think the mantra, pause 1/2 a second and then repeat'? Do you end up with a steady stream of mantra repetitions? Or do you think the mantra once and then focus on the sound, the resonance as it lives and then dies? And then, once it is gone, you 'think the mantra' once again? Is it the repetitive pattern that you are referring to when you say 'each time we "lose" the mantra, we have gone through a natrual shift in our attention. page 15' or is it a single "I AM"? By now you must think I'm incredibly thick but I can conceive of thinking the mantra once, taking my time and waiting until it dies and then repeating it once again. This time span could be 5 seconds later.. So perhaps you would be thinking "I AM" 12 times per minute? What should a beginner start out at?

And my last mantra question is this: Do you just think "I AM" or do you stretch it out into variations of "AAAAAYYYYAAAAAAAMMMMM" lasting a second or longer (like 10 seconds) etc.?

I can appreciate what you are saying, that the practice is what purifies and causes occurences of inner silence. As you practice, the inner silence grows. I have experienced inner silence twice during mantra repetition when I first started out (using the subvocalization process of mantra repetition), and yes, I did experience the bliss and quiet that you described in the "Deep Meditation" book without lights or visions. It didn't last very long and it was far and few in between. But what happenend is that after that, each time I would hit that silence, I would see lights or visions or be transformed into some other reality (large empty space, other dimension or plane etc). Actually, the silence and peace was very similar to the experiences that I've had when I've visited heaven. And perhaps it is just my way of thinking but, after hitting inner silence and seeing that it was full of light, it only seemed natural that the next step is to do something with the light. This led me into researching the nimittas and jhanas, the clear white light and the christ consciousness light above the head. ( a while ago).

This is the reason I keep asking about whether or not inner silence is dark or light, and nobody seems to want to answer me.

If someone were to say "the light is not part of the formless state" and inner silence is formless, has no light in it, then at least I would know. I do notice, however, that even in your "Deep Meditation" book you say (page 80) "Discover the light within and you know my light".

The other fascinating thing about your Deep Meditation teaching is this. Conventionally, the term "meditation" refers to a concentrative state. This is what I grew up learning: Meditation is focusing your attention on something until you become one with the object of contemplation. You find this "steady concentrative method of meditation" everywhere, in most teachings. I think it is the norm, not the exception. Then, there is TM and Deep Meditation. This methodology seems to be the opposite, that is, there is no intense concentration, instead, there is "easily repeating the mantra, letting go, floating away until 'bingo' you are there in the utter depths of consciousness", your mind has stopped and the Witness appears.

Certainly this is a far easier method than directed concentrative meditational techniques which require effort, discipline and persistence (if you can get the practice correct). And, if inner silence is the absolute bottom or center of the depths of consciousness (or no mind) and you can get there by performing just Deep Meditation, well then certainly it is one of the most powerful techniques available. If it is possible to get 'there', bypassing all the planes, lights, beings, angels and other phenomenon through Deep Meditation, then this is perhaps the fastest easiest route. I can see where getting hung up on "scenery" would definately be a hinderence. It would also be hard to convince people that they could skip all the stages, all the jhanas and astral/higher planes/ beings/realizations etc.

Just to be clear, I do not seek out scenery during meditation. I only want to discover the truth of what life is and what I am. I do not start my meditations thinking "Ok this time I'm going to visit a certain plane or meet a specific being". I do not try to create the light. The light is always there (above my head). Sometimes it is brighter than other times. My goal during meditation is to become silent, truly silent, to stop the mind, to split out awareness from consciousness, to behold the truth of existence, to become enlightened.

So if Deep Meditation is the most powerful meditation for becoming "THAT" just so long as you don't get stuck on the scenery, I'm all for it. I do long for that inner silence/bliss/peace. I will give it another try. I have gone back to mantra repetition. I hope I am performing it correctly.

Just a few more questions. I'm so used to putting my tongue on the palatte/epiglotis (have been for 2 1/2 years) that when I don't do that, I get a headache from mantra repetition. Do you think I should try to drop that practice during meditation? I know you've said that sambhavi splits the mind during meditation and I have dropped that one (did today). I'm willing to start over to see what happens.

Also, do you think I should silently subvocalize the mantra rather than watching the thought appear in the cave in the back center of my head?

Thank you so much.

TI

and this was his reply:

Hi TI:

Any or all of the variations in experience (and mantra) you mentioned above are fine. The particulars are not important. What is important is the intention.

If the intention is to favor the mantra when we realize we are off it, and allow it to go however it will (patterns do not matter), then this will lead to losing (refinement) of the mantra, which is the cultivation of inner silence. This is the process we keep repeating easily for the allotted time of our meditation session.

If the intention is to analyze, control, question, modify, report, etc., this will not be meditation. And it will not matter what system of meditation we may be following. All meditation procedures involve systematically going beyond the object, whether it be mantra, breath, nada, vision, sensation, concept, or whatever.

It is dharana (attention on an object), becoming dhyana (natural dissolving of the object), becoming samadhi (absorption in inner silence). These are the last three limbs of the eight limbs of yoga, which gives an indication of how important this process is in the overall scheme of yoga. Samyama also utilizes these three limbs, in a different way.

Obviously, choosing and sticking with a method of meditation is important. We can't cross the vast ocean of samsara (impurity/illusion) in two or more boats at the same time. It is all about developing and maintaining consistency in practice over time.

This is the only question we need to be asking ourselves about meditation: "Am I in a consistent practice with a proven method?" All the rest is diversion.

We can never, ever, ever! put it in a mental bottle. Meditation is about emptying the bottle, and dissolving the bottle. So all this talk is not very relevant - only to get rid of doubts about the simplicity of sitting down and doing it every day. That's all. If it is going to keep going in endless circles of mental analysis, etc., don't expect any serious meditator to take that ride with you for long. It is not about creating complexity. It is about releasing into simplicity. Meditation is for that.

The guru is in you.

So you see, Yogani said "Any or all of the variations in experience (and mantra) you mentioned above are fine. The particulars are not important. What is important is the intention. "

So, here he has told me that subvocalizing the mantra is fine, thinking the mantra is fine, visualizing the mantra as letters is fine, etc.. !!! TM is a very simple procedure, which is why they have personalized instruction to prevent the meditator from straying too far from the simple procedure. Here, apart from not answering most of my questions, Yogani says that "the particulars are not important".. What a bunch of bad advice. The particulars are important. If you visualize that mantra, that is not TM. If you think and don't do the subvocalization part, you won't stimulate the medulla and cause it to shut down.

Then Yogani says "If the intention is to analyze, control, question, modify, report, etc., this will not be meditation." Well, duh! Of course it isn't meditation, You don't analyze, control, question or report while you are meditating. How ridiculous even to suggest this.

Then, in ignorance of Buddhist meditation techniques where you progress through stages (like anapanasati) and use the signs (nimittas) to determine when to change the style and objects of meditation, Yogani says "All meditation procedures involve systematically going beyond the object, whether it be mantra, breath, nada, vision, sensation, concept, or whatever. " This is just false. A blanket statement with no bearing or respect for other traditions..

And!!! Isn't Patanjali's last three limbs of yoga about the subject and object fusing together revealing a state of samadhi? To me, that is not going beyond the object (which is a form of duality), but a joining to the object.

And, Yogani slickly implies that his methods are 'proven' methods. Yes, TM is "proven" to induce a relaxation response, and Kriya Yoga is 'proven' to have intense reactions by most meditators, but where has it been proven that the combination of the two is a formula for enlightenment? It appears to me to be a formula for overload, grasping to ecstatic sexual energies and deceiving one's self in the name of the Divine.

K. Now, I really don't expect you or anyone to read all of that. But yes, sour grapes! You bet.

TI

Birch · June 29, 2012

T_I my remark about sour grapes and wrong practice was supposed to be helpful - as in when considering your approach towards criticism of AYP be aware that it could be (mis?)construed as sour grapes or wrong practice. I'll respond in more detail later.

Birch · July 4, 2012

Seems in my absence that your critique and questioning of AYP has opened the floor for another thread arguing about teachers and technique. Pretty regular TTB's stuff :lol:

I'm not sure what to say about the admonishment you received as cited above. Personally that just turns me off. It does seem strange that the AYP forum would have a space for criticism of other techniques and not the one being taught. I've been reading that 'Inner Bliss' book Cow Tao mentioned and I came across this passage about teachers being open to other techniques and not just insisting on their own (the author didn't seem very appreciative of what he referred to as 'egoistic' teachers. I found myself thinking of you T_I

Tibetan_Ice · July 4, 2012

Seems in my absence that your critique and questioning of AYP has opened the floor for another thread arguing about teachers and technique. Pretty regular TTB's stuff

I'm not sure what to say about the admonishment you received as cited above. Personally that just turns me off. It does seem strange that the AYP forum would have a space for criticism of other techniques and not the one being taught. I've been reading that 'Inner Bliss' book Cow Tao mentioned and I came across this passage about teachers being open to other techniques and not just insisting on their own (the author didn't seem very appreciative of what he referred to as 'egoistic' teachers. I found myself thinking of you T_I

Hi K

Thank you very much for your response. Yes! I always thought that a good teacher should be able to sense where you were at, what you required and would help you to achieve enlightenment. That is the main purpose isn't it? The practices are just secondary and should be tailored to the student's level of attainment.

Slowly I learned that AYP techniques come first, before the student. And then I learned it was Yogani's way or the highway. Instead of answering my questions in an enlightened way, turning me around and proving to me through his behaviour that his system works, he frowned on analysis, downplayed the acquisition of true knowledge, attacked my practices and then booted me out.

Thank you for listening. I appreciate it. It means allot to me.

TI

JustARandomPanda · September 16, 2012

And, yes, Gatito, Yogani's book on Self Inquiry is a veritable mystery to me. He seems to have condemned every other valid method of self inquiry and leaves the reader with the message that self-inquiry must be relational, that is, performed from inner silence in order to be effective. And, yes, you guessed it, the only way to cultivate inner silence is through Deep Meditation..

I looked up the following Self-Inquiry process as done in certain Buddhist traditions as well and found the following on Wikipedia.

"1)The chariot cannot be identical with its parts such as wheels, axle, spokes, etc.
2)The chariot cannot be posited as something separate from its parts, for this would mean that it was independent of its parts.

3)The parts of the chariot do not exist intrinsically as the basis for the chariot.

4)The chariot too does not exist intrinsically as dependent on its parts.

5)The chariot cannot be said to possess its parts.

6)The chariot cannot be identical with the collection of its parts.

7)The shape or configuration of its parts cannot be posited as the chariot."

And here's what someone had to say about Yogani's meditation practices

AYP's information and techniques are presented simply and clearly, so that anyone can make use of them. AYP's sexually-related practices are presented in that same spirit. I've read Mallinson and White, and their work is much more academic; they appeal to a different reader.

Regarding non-duality: Yogani clarifies his use of the term "witness" (a technical term in AYP), in the book Liberation, and, overall, he describes the experience of non-dual reality accurately - and far more simply and clearly so than most authors do, or are able to do, including ancient authors.

AYP isn't big on philosophy; it's big on giving people tools, from simple, deep meditation techniques, through to what is needed for liberation - and, as some of us can attest:

AYP works.

To which Mr Feisty Amazon Buddhist replied:

Where is the evidence that AYP works? AYP is totally unbalanced which is why everyone complains of crown openings. These are not crown openings. These are signs of an unbalanced energy body. Again this is a result of Yogani's ignorance. Significant work needs to be done on the LEGS first.

Yogani's explanation of nonduality is the most muddled and wrong. How do you think he is clear? How do you think he is correct? He believes that the natural state needs to be contrived through yogic and meditation practice. Hence the title of this book. He actually has no clue about the real purpose of yoga.

The reason why you think "ancient authors" are confusing, is because you stick to the Hindu tradition. The Buddhist tradition is crystal clear. Modern Ramana Maharishi's self-inquiry is merely a muddled Buddhist 7-point chariot analysis. Even a crystal clear 7-point analysis would not be expected to point out unfabricated instant presence.

Tibetan_Ice · September 16, 2012

I looked up the following Self-Inquiry process as done in certain Buddhist traditions as well and found the following on Wikipedia.

Buddhist self-inquiry is called 7 Point Chariot training

Hi Serene,

I wouldn't call the 7 point chariot training self-inquiry as much as I would call it a justification for emptiness. The point of examining that the various parts of the chariot is to reveal that the construct of the chariot is wholly a conceptual construct, which is grasped by the conceptual mind and as such is empty. Also, individually, each part can be grasped by the conceptual mind, like a wheel, or a part of wood, but again, these are labels which the conceptual mind has created and attributed to the parts of the chariot. Without the function of the conceptual mind to overlay on top of the chariot and its constituent parts, the Buddhist view is that it is empty.

Emptiness, in Buddhism, is a point of view which promotes the correct view that nothing exists separate and apart from the whole. The Emptiness view is applied to thoughts, the mind, the self, everything. Not only is this view beneficial to practices that lead to true realization, but it is the main view that once enlightened, the Buddha held. In my mind, I interpret it to mean that "There is only God". (from as much as a non-conceptual view that I can muster).

link: http://www.zensydney.com/sutras.and.readings/prajna.paramita.heart.sutra/

The Heart Sutra

The Prajna Paramita Heart Sutra

From the depths of prajna wisdom

the Bodhisattva of Compassion saw into the emptiness

of every construct, and so passed beyond all suffering.

Know then that in such depths form is only emptiness,

emptiness only form.

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

This is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses

and the rest of consciousness.

All these, by their very nature, are emptiness,

being neither born nor dying, stained nor pure,

waxing nor waning.

So in emptiness there is neither form,

feelings, perceptions, impulses or consciousness;

no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind;

nor form, sound, smell, taste, touch or object of the mind;

no element of sight nor any other element of consciousness;

no ignorance, no old age or death;

no extinguishing of ignorance, old age or death;

no suffering, no beginning or end, no path,

no wisdom, no attainment.

The Bodhisattva who dwells in this perfect wisdom,

attaining nothing, is not entrapped by delusive fantasies

and where there are no such obstacles there can be no fear.

Now, beyond all delusions, one reaches ultimate Nirvana.

Having practiced this same Great Wisdom Gone Beyond,

All Buddas in the past have come to supreme enlightenment.

Know then that this peerless mantra, this true mantra

of the highest wisdom, unfailingly relieves all suffering

and so proclaim it -

Gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond

Awakened - fulfilled

Heart of Great Wisdom

and here is a quote from the Hsin hsin ming:

link: http://allspirit.co.uk/hsinhsinming.html

With a single stroke we are freed from bondage; nothing clings to us and we hold to nothing.

All is empty, clear, self-illuminating, with no exertion of the mind's power.

Here thought, feeling, knowledge, and imagination are of no value.

In this world of suchness there is neither self nor other-than-self.

To come directly into harmony with this reality just simply say when doubt arises, 'Not two.'

In this 'not two' nothing is separate, nothing is excluded.

No matter when or where, enlightenment means entering this truth.

And this truth is beyond extension or diminution in time or space; in it a single thought is ten thousand years.

Emptiness here, Emptiness there, but the infinite universe stands always before your eyes.

In most Buddhist books, shamatha practice is the stabilization of the mind, it is the practice of resting the mind in the natural state. The other practice, which I would term closer to self-inquiry is Vipassana, which is the examination of phenomenon (including the mind, thoughts, the body, etc) in order to gain insight.

Next, Serene, you quoted this:

AYP's information and techniques are presented simply and clearly, so that anyone can make use of them. AYP's sexually-related practices are presented in that same spirit. I've read Mallinson and White, and their work is much more academic; they appeal to a different reader.

Regarding non-duality: Yogani clarifies his use of the term "witness" (a technical term in AYP), in the book Liberation, and, overall, he describes the experience of non-dual reality accurately - and far more simply and clearly so than most authors do, or are able to do, including ancient authors.

AYP isn't big on philosophy; it's big on giving people tools, from simple, deep meditation techniques, through to what is needed for liberation - and, as some of us can attest:

AYP works.

The second quote you quoted is from Kirtanman, who is a member from AYP, who runs his own "sister AYP site" and pushes Yogani's books (affiliate program for kickbacks? ). Notice his last statement of " as some of us can attest"? Kirtanman is a self-declared enlightened person. He makes it a point to tell everyone that he is enlightened and that AYP enlightened him. Yet, when you question him about being omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent he denies any of that. I know, I had a lenghty discussion with him on the AYP about that. Basically, he just redefines the term 'enlightenment' to suit his own state. Further, when questioned specifically about which AYP practices led to his supposed enlightment, he does not say. There is never any detail. Kirtanman also has a history of associating with Adyashanti and Kirtanman also claimed that Adyashanti had given shaktipat to someone who then ended up in a mental hospital.. Kirtanman attends AYP retreats and can write pages and pages of nonsense. Upon close examination most of what he says is self-contradictory and shows a definate lack of logic.

I suspect that perhaps Kirtanmen is an enlightened ego. Why else would he try to convince everyone that he is enlightened and hold himself up as an example that AYP works?

This is the discussion I had with Kirtanman, you can judge for yourself (or not). One warning, Kirtanman is so full of himself that he doesn't know when to quit writing)..

http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6652&SearchTerms=omniscient

And here is Kirtanman's self-declaration of enlightenment:

link: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8180&SearchTerms=omniscient

This knowing our true nature by being our true nature is what most teachers and traditions have called "enlightenment".

And so, "yep; me, too."

Sometimes people make a really big deal out of enlightenment, and on some levels it is, though in experience it's infinitely more normal than anything else could ever be, or be imagined to be --- it's just reality; that's all.

So, no rainbow body, no walking through walls, no clairvoyance or any minor siddhis, just a ludicrous statement and self-absorbed arrogant attitude, a redefinition of enlightenment and a denial of the classic characteristics of the truly enlightened beings throughout history. .

The last quote you quoted is basically correct about Yogani, in my opinion.

Anyone who says that "Stillness in action" is a mystery, like Yogani, is not aware that Buddhists have mapped the spectrum of consciousness all the way to enlightenment and they have a clear and concise language for it.

This is what Yogani says at the end of the "Liberation" book:

What is it then, this awareness that cannot be perceived as self, or Self, being beyond all perception whatsoever? This might beg the question: Is there awareness after death? It is a source of fascination to speculate intellectually on this, but the more fundamental question would be, is there awareness before death? The question of awareness after death we can’t do much with. It either is or it isn’t, and we won’t know experientially until we get there. But the question of awareness before death we can do a lot with, in the here and now. We can become free in this life by addressing it with effective means, and that will bring us freedom in all future lives, if any.

In liberation, life continues to go on in ordinary ways. We may well have our old thoughts, feelings, and reactions in life but they will not pull us out of liberation. Getting rid of thoughts and feelings is not a prerequisite for unity. But transcending our identification with them is. This is the key point. And, yes, our conduct will be affected much for the better, but not as dramatically as might be imagined.

Yogani (2012-05-23). Liberation - The Fruition of Yoga (AYP Enlightenment Series) (pp. 87-88). AYP Publishing.

In the aformentioned quoted text, Yogani evades the question of what happens after death. He has evidently not become enlightened nor has he read any books about the Buddhist bardo state. Buddhists will even tell you how to become enlightened as you are in the death experience.

If you are interested, see http://near-death.com/experiences/buddhism01.html

Then, here is another one of Yogani's ignorant statements; he says: "In liberation, life continues to go on in ordinary ways. We may well have our old thoughts, feelings, and reactions in life but they will not pull us out of liberation. Getting rid of thoughts and feelings is not a prerequisite for unity."

Let me ask you this. Was Buddha's life ordinary after enlightenment? When he stopped the raging elephant or duplicated himself 1000 time in the sky for all to see, was that ordinary? When enlightened Buddhists or Arahats, upon death, convert their bodies into rainbow bodies leaving behind only hair and nails, is that ordinary? Jesus healed many people and raised a person from the dead. He changed wine into water. He walked on water. Is that ordinary?

This is no definition of enlightenment, or liberation! If is was, then why bother?

No wonder there are so many people from AYP who think they're enlightened! If you don't have to get rid of thoughts and feelings and it's just ordinary (no siddhis, no powers, no omnipresence omnipotence or omniscience, no miracles) then heck, you too are enlightened! We all are!

But seriously, when you have someone who is a clever author but who lacks the proper powers of understanding and discernment, yet persists in trying to push their own brand of yoga and enlightenment, someone should really do something about it. Many people are being misled and are wasting their time by following his erroneous beliefs, customized practices and band of brown-nosers and parrots.

If you want to learn more about classic, authentic, historical Buddhist practices, I would recommend the following instead:

1) The Four Immeasurables - Alan Wallace.

This book has an excellent section on breath meditation, the stages that one will progress through and is followed up with meditation practices to develop the heart and true compassion

2) Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond - Ajahn Brahm

This is a wonderful book. Not only does it explain Buddhist breath meditation in great detail, it covers the jhanas. It is sprinked with wonderful stories and will help you get an honest understanding of what needs to be done to still the mind and experience your true nature.. Can't say enough about it.

3) Focused and Fearless - Shaila Catherine

This is another excellent Buddhist Breath Meditation manual. There are slight differences between Shaila's teachings and Ajahn Brahms and as such, it is an excellent way to gain two different perspectives, each with their own benefits to comprehension.

4) Stilling the Mind - Alan Wallace

Not only is shamatha clearly explained, but Dudjom Lingpa's teachings (similar if not exactly the same as "awareness watching awareness") are examined and explained, along with the stages leading to the realization of emptiness. (and the pitfalls).

5) The Attention Revolution - Alan Wallace

This book contains some very interesting practices on how to settle the mind using exercises which address the directing attention.

You may find that many western meditative practices have their roots in Buddhism.

Serene, I know it is very tempting to join AYP because all the lies and brown-nosing parrots are a very powerful force that suck people in. I did an awful lot of homework when I started to examine the crap that AYP was putting out.

I've even been studying James H. Austin (M.D.)'s book called "Zen - Brain Reflections".

In there, he says that TM (which is AYP's deep meditation) causes it's practitioners to gain a greater sense of self, while, interestingly, Zen meditation creates less of a sense of self.. So who would you go with?

In the interim, the evidence suggests that when TM meditative practice continues

for more than two decades, it can be associated with a subjective impression

of being more aware while sleeping deeply that is supported by several

EEG patterns. The semantic implication in the authors’ wording that ‘‘a greater

sense of self during activity’’ is present (and that this ‘‘sense of self’’ is perhaps a

quality to be desired) would need to be checked against the findings in long-term

Zen meditators. This may just be another problem involving words, because

in Zen meditators a lesser ‘‘sense of self’’ during activity would be regarded as

optimal.

Further, it seems to me that this quote also supports the notion that TM is training in laxity, cat napping.

It is training in REM sleep.

From the same book:

Eyes-Open vs. Eyes-Closed Meditation

Some patients are predisposed to develop a depression during the darker months

of the year (a condition called seasonal affective disorder, or SAD). Sustained,

closed-lid meditative practices can make such depressions worse, by reducing the

amount of light energies that normally stimulate the brain.

The recommended Zen approach is to keep the eyes partially open during meditation.

This traditional Zen approach, with the eyes hooded, has several beneficial

roles [Z:table 19, 582]. Included among the benefits of open-eyed meditation:

It can reduce or delay the hallucinations and other phenomena associated with

inturned absorption.

It helps extend awareness, delays drowsiness, and defers episodes of sleep.

It allows more room in which to train various meditative skills.

The meditator maintains contact with the outside visual world.

TI

Edited September 16, 2012 by Tibetan_Ice

Mark Foote · September 16, 2012

I have to keep this short, apologies.

In the lecture on "Beneficial Impertubability" (MN III 106) in the Pali Canon, Gautama the Buddha is quoted as saying: "...whatever is own body, this is "own body". But this is the deathless, that is to say the deliverance of thought without grasping."

Elsewhere we find: "...making self-surrender (one's) object of thought, (one) lays hold of concentration, lays hold of one-pointedness of mind." (SN V 200)

The Gautamid described his own practice before and after enlightenment as "the intent concentration on in-breaths and out-breaths". He spoke of meditative states in which the habitual activity of speech, body, and mind ceased, that is to say, the exercise of volition in action of speech, of body, and of mind ceased.

I agree that everyone experiences "single-pointedness of mind" all the time, and I have written here on Tao Bums and on my own site about a relationship between the experience of "single-pointedness of mind" and the experience of waking up and falling asleep. On another site, I put it like this:

"We can’t teach someone else how to pee, but if I say the mind shifts around in the body when I’m falling asleep and this is the practice of zazen, then anyone can look for themselves at where their mind is when they are falling asleep- and then look again when they are waking up!"

Here are a couple of other thoughts:

A fine line between realizing my own necessity, realizing my survival in the place of occurrence of my consciousness and how it enables feeling, and pushing the edge of survival to experience the same thing. In a way, that’s what I’m doing when I take the lotus.

What I find is that the place of occurrence of consciousness and the ability to feel allow the natural movement of breath in a stretch, when the necessity is there. Neil Young spoke of digging down, just keep digging down he said; get your oxygen line going, then keep digging (on NPR Fresh Air). I think the safest thing is to center the practice on the oxygen line, really.

What's it got to do with the inner happiness that conducts to the deliverance of thought without grasping, to Dogen's "nonthinking", which he described as the pivot of zazen? Where consciousness takes place with regard to contact in the six senses has impact, and that impact opens an ability to feel that enables consciousness to take place spontaneously (see "The Great Sixfold(-sense) Sphere", MN III 287). Feldenkrais outlined three exercises intended to overcome the habit of holding the breath getting up out of a chair; these are nothing more than allowing the pitch, yaw, and roll at the place of occurrence of consciousness to open the ability to feel (as in referred sensation) throughout the body to the surface of the skin, and opening the ability to feel throughout the body allows the perception and sensation of the necessity of breath in the perception and sensation of the length of the current inhalation, or the current exhalation.

So that would be what I experience as the "practice of intent concentration in in-breaths and out-breaths", yet my concern is that we find the means to communicate this practice to elementary school children, not my own passage from this world. Maybe these are not mutually exclusive.

Birch · September 17, 2012

T_I, when you mention "correct" view. I can't help but wonder who has decided it's 'correct' and from what POV!

Thanks for your reply!

Tibetan_Ice · September 17, 2012

T_I, when you mention "correct" view. I can't help but wonder who has decided it's 'correct' and from what POV!

Thanks for your reply!

Hi K

Referring to emptiness as the "correct view" is a common Buddhist convention. Within the context of my post, it is being used in this manner, to further describe the Buddhist meaning of emptiness. It is a very useful view to help with the abandonment of grasping and aversion when practising "resting the mind in the natural state".

link: http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A%20-%20Tibetan%20Buddhism/Authors/Denmo%20Locho%20Rinpoche/Three%20Principal%20Aspects%20of%20the%20Path/Three%20Principal%20Aspects%20of%20the%20Path-the%20Correct%20View%20of%20Emp.htm

Aspect 3: Correct View

So continuing on with our text then, today we are going to cover the subject of the correct view, that is to say, the correct view of reality. Without this correct view then, it is impossible to sever the root of existence, that is to say, cut the root of the cycle of existence, that is to say, uproot the seed which brings about all the manifest sufferings within Samsara, or within the cycle of existence. If you ask 'Why is this, what is this cause of the cycle of existence which holds us in its grip?' - that is none other than the ignorance, or the confusion, with regard to the mode of phenomena, that is to say, grasping on to self-existence, or autonomous existence. To uproot this then, we needs its antidote, or antithesis, which is then this wisdom which cognises the actual nature of phenomena. When this arises in our continuum, then we can be said to be on our way to getting rid of the root of the cycle of existence, kind of dragging up or tearing up this root of the cycle of existence. Without this wisdom, it is impossible for us to sever this root of the cycle of existence, therefore it is impossible for us to gain either of the two kinds of enlightenment (that is to say, the enlightenment of the lesser vehicle or the Buddhahood of the greater vehicle) because both of these arise in dependence upon thoroughly shedding the cycle of existence. So in order to do that, we need to generate this wisdom within our mental continuum, or mind.

And this too:

link: http://www.scdharma.org/portal/teachings/showstory44.htm

In Buddhism, the practitioner makes progress by bringing together three spiritual

elements: renunciation, bodhicitta, and a correct view of emptiness.

With a correct view of emptiness, we understand ultimate reality precisely or

correctly. Our perception doesn't confuse the truth of reality with appearances. The way

things and objects appear to our mind is not the way they really are.

Our naïve or ordinary perception finds the truth of reality in appearance. Since

appearances don't give us correct information on reality, it's confusing. This is the

fundamental cause of our delusions, such as attachment, which is an emotional response

to the objects of our experience. Our attraction or repulsion doesn't match what the object

really is.

The correct view of emptiness means the mind or conscious that understands an

object as it really is, does not confuse the truth of reality with appearances.

When a mirage appears, air seems to be water. An animal sees the mirage, sees

truth in appearances, rushes there, finds no water, and is upset. Our naïve perception sees

the mirage as actual water, sees truth in appearances. We try to find the truth of objects in

appearances; we think truth exists in the way something appears.

With a correct view of emptiness, we have a perception that perfectly understands

the reality of phenomena without being confused by looking for truth in appearances.

Renunciation, bodhicitta, a correct view of emptiness: Without bringing these

three together, it is difficult to make any progress in spiritual practice.

TI

Birch · September 17, 2012

Thanks T_I!

I'm going to show further ignorance:-)

'Where' does 'correct view' come from? I was thinking that if it came from 'the truth' itself, why would it require being taught? I'm finding myself aware (or at least semi-conscious!) that a persistent wordview, whether the latter is actually based in any truth whatsoever or not, can result in a conditioned worldview. So we could say, 'alright then, knowing this happens anyway, why not just hand down the most 'beneficial for all beings' worldview and tell them 'that's how things are in truth' and give them exercises, practices and 'logic' that reinforces the view in question? But if one is looking for 'truth' then this inevitably falls short.

Tibetan_Ice · September 17, 2012

Hi K

You are posing some very hard questions. But I will take a shot at it.

Thanks T_I!

I'm going to show further ignorance:-)

'Where' does 'correct view' come from? I was thinking that if it came from 'the truth' itself, why would it require being taught?

Buddha originated the correct view. Perhaps it needs to be pointed to because the view comes from beyond the conceptual mind. I don't think you can teach emptiness because it will only foster an intellectual understanding of the term. In my mind, you have to truly believe that the wall is empty before you walk through it, and true belief cannot be taught.

I'm finding myself aware (or at least semi-conscious!) that a persistent wordview, whether the latter is actually based in any truth whatsoever or not, can result in a conditioned worldview. So we could say, 'alright then, knowing this happens anyway, why not just hand down the most 'beneficial for all beings' worldview and tell them 'that's how things are in truth' and give them exercises, practices and 'logic' that reinforces the view in question? But if one is looking for 'truth' then this inevitably falls short.

I guess that is what the Buddhists are trying to do as well as every other spritual organization and person in the world.

However, we have to be careful not to be drawn into a battle of words, concepts and interpretations.

If everyone in the world had one language, one culture then it would be very simple. But, that is not the case.

If everyone in the world could shut off their conceptual mind and peer through the veils, then maybe we wouldn't have to teach anyone anything and argue about Truth vs Emptiness vs Tao vs...

To me, The Taoists' Tao is the Buddhists' Emptiness is the Christians' God. Each one is their own correct view.

They all manifest in a myriad of forms and it is the conceptual mind which, through grasping, produces the plethora of essences and scents that make up the wonderful flower garden of the world that we live in. But really, there is only one flower, and we, as the human race, keep the garden well fertilized.

TI

Birch · September 17, 2012

Thanks T_I!

It's strange for me because the way ('correct view') gets presented as I understand it so far is very much a concept. A concept presented to appeal to my 'conceptual mind' -yes I agree I think a lot in those terms and when explaining, yes I do appeal to same in others as an attempt to be understood but I don't reckon I always have 'the truth' when doing so.

I guess I believe that truth has itself (me included). However I don't know that :-(

Kirtanman · September 18, 2012

Hi TI,

It's been a while; I hope all is well with you.

You made a few statements about me (quoted below) where it seems like some clarification might be useful.

Hi Serene,

The second quote you quoted is from Kirtanman, who is a member from AYP, who runs his own "sister AYP site" and pushes Yogani's books (affiliate program for kickbacks? ). Notice his last statement of " as some of us can attest"? Kirtanman is a self-declared enlightened person. He makes it a point to tell everyone that he is enlightened and that AYP enlightened him.

The website in question, Living Unbound, is not a sister website to AYP; the two websites simply have links to one another. We recommend Yogani's books, along with quite a few others, in the website bookstore.

I actually don't recall the last time I had a specific discussion along those lines, and I don't recall ever having one exactly as you imply in your statement quoted above -- understanding, of course, that opinions and perceptions vary, as opinions and perceptions will do.

Why do you imagine omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence as being requirements for the natural state?

As far as I know, the definition of enlightenment I've used, and continue to use, is the same definition used by many recognized teachers from various traditions, including teachers from the Kashmir Shaivism tradition, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, Adyashanti, and other teachers expressing similar views of the natural state.

So, no rainbow body, no walking through walls, no clairvoyance or any minor siddhis, just a ludicrous statement and self-absorbed arrogant attitude, a redefinition of enlightenment and a denial of the classic characteristics of the truly enlightened beings throughout history. .

And ... so?

Why do you imagine the rainbow body, walking through walls, and siddhis, as being requirements for experience of the natural state?

They call it the natural state for a reason.

This is no definition of enlightenment, or liberation! If is was, then why bother?

Well, the (literal) freedom beyond imagination, the ongoing peace, and the living in, from and in harmony with reality are all pretty good.

No wonder there are so many people from AYP who think they're enlightened!

Anyone who thinks they're enlightened .... isn't.

Thinking has nothing to do with realizing the natural state.

The natural state, or what I tend to refer to simply as wholeness, these days -- or enlightenment, or liberation -- are all just words - terms for recognition of the real which is always present, now -- and is simply obscured by the over-focus on conditioned thoughts, feelings and reactions.

If there is attachment or aversion or non-peace, then there's obscuring of the real in that moment of experience.

By over-focusing on conditioned forms of mind - by attachment to them, as driven by conditioned memory - we make up unenlightenment.

"Enlightenment" is simply what's here when we don't do that.

You seem to have kind of declared war on AYP.

What's up with that?

By the way, for what it's worth, I highly recommend Alan Wallace, too.

He's quite awesome.

All The Best,

Kirtanman

Mark Foote · September 18, 2012

It's strange for me because the way ('correct view') gets presented as I understand it so far is very much a concept. A concept presented to appeal to my 'conceptual mind' -yes I agree I think a lot in those terms and when explaining, yes I do appeal to same in others as an attempt to be understood but I don't reckon I always have 'the truth' when doing so.

I guess I believe that truth has itself (me included). However I don't know that :-(

If I can relax and be where I am, as I am, then where I am opens an ability to feel. The dynamic of the ability to feel allows for a relaxed experience of location at the moment. "Sharpen the wits to brilliance", said the Gautamid; "be aware of where you really are twenty four hours a day", said Yuanwu (the 12th-century Chan teacher). There comes a feeling for the necessity of the inhalation at the moment, and for the necessity of the exhalation; with such a feeling, is a free occurrence of perception and sensation.

Tibetan_Ice · September 19, 2012

Hi TI,

It's been a while; I hope all is well with you.

You made a few statements about me (quoted below) where it seems like some clarification might be useful.

The website in question, Living Unbound, is not a sister website to AYP; the two websites simply have links to one another. We recommend Yogani's books, along with quite a few others, in the website bookstore.

I actually don't recall the last time I had a specific discussion along those lines, and I don't recall ever having one exactly as you imply in your statement quoted above -- understanding, of course, that opinions and perceptions vary, as opinions and perceptions will do.

Why do you imagine omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence as being requirements for the natural state?

As far as I know, the definition of enlightenment I've used, and continue to use, is the same definition used by many recognized teachers from various traditions, including teachers from the Kashmir Shaivism tradition, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, Adyashanti, and other teachers expressing similar views of the natural state.

And ... so?

Why do you imagine the rainbow body, walking through walls, and siddhis, as being requirements for experience of the natural state?

They call it the natural state for a reason.

Well, the (literal) freedom beyond imagination, the ongoing peace, and the living in, from and in harmony with reality are all pretty good.

Anyone who thinks they're enlightened .... isn't.

Thinking has nothing to do with realizing the natural state.

The natural state, or what I tend to refer to simply as wholeness, these days -- or enlightenment, or liberation -- are all just words - terms for recognition of the real which is always present, now -- and is simply obscured by the over-focus on conditioned thoughts, feelings and reactions.

If there is attachment or aversion or non-peace, then there's obscuring of the real in that moment of experience.

By over-focusing on conditioned forms of mind - by attachment to them, as driven by conditioned memory - we make up unenlightenment.

"Enlightenment" is simply what's here when we don't do that.

You seem to have kind of declared war on AYP.

What's up with that?

By the way, for what it's worth, I highly recommend Alan Wallace, too.

He's quite awesome.

All The Best,

Kirtanman

Hi Kirtanman, :0

I just know I'm going to regret this because I don't want to spend hours and hours debating your twisted terms and ridiculous perceptions.

But let's start with your declaration that you detected an enlightened person (along with yourself).

If you reread the Wayne Wirs thread, do you recall that you declared Wayne 'enlightened' and that it takes an enlightened being (yourself) to recognize this? Here, let me refresh your memory:

http://www.aypsite.o...p?TOPIC_ID=6652

Meet "Wayne Wirs, Newly-Minted Enlightened Guy".

http://waynewirs.com/

His realization is clearly authentic; he's got some interesting stuff to say.

And he's a good and creative photographer.

And, he seems to be doing a good job of noting what it feels like to be a recent arrival on the mountain-top, before the newness, and the "way there" resolve themselves entirely.

And so, "recommend reading", fer shure.

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

...

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His realization is clearly authentic;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question is, how do you know that he is clearly authentic?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recognize Wayne's expressions as authentic, based on my own (quote-unquote) experiencing of original awareness.

And that's the key; you can comment on the realization of another, when you experience a sufficient degree of realization // original awareness, in your experiencing.

Well, lets go see how Wayne is doing.. Hmm.. He dropped all his students because they were sucking his energy off of him, and he blames his students because they want to "add something" and not "let go"..

http://waynewirs.com...ormer-students/

From his apology:

As I’ve mentioned in recent posts, I’ve been feeling the need to go deeper, to delve into the mysteries of God/Her, to uncover the subtle knots in my being that drag me away from Her.

The students, through no fault of their own, were drawing ‘energy’ from me in the form of constant, one-on-one guidance. Normally this wouldn’t be a problem, but the Pull keeps tugging—keeps gnawing at me.

So I gave each of the students a piece of personalized advice to help them continue with their practice… and I set them free.

But…

Later, while sitting on a rock in a stream (I’ve been doing that a lot lately), I realized that one student, Michelle, drew no energy whatsoever from me. Why was that? What was she doing differently from the other students which made “teaching” her so effortless?

Simply put, Michelle’s primary focus isn’t in trying to gain anything from the practices. It isn’t in trying to fix herself, or even attain new levels of awareness. Her primary focus is on losing herself—on dissolving into God/Her.

Every other student, very subtly (and I’m sure they will argue with me on this), had a deep—possibly unconscious—desire to improve themselves. To gain or add to themselves.

Rather than uncover themselves as a Soul, they were trying to become a Soul. Rather than uncover their Radiance, they were trying to gain Radiance.

And all that “trying”—all that resistance—was tearing at me.

It’s not their fault. You go to a teacher and expect to gain something. The fault is entirely mine. Mine for not seeing it. Mine for not addressing it sooner.

To my former students, I’m sorry.

I’m new at this—but I’m learning.

I've bolded the parts that clearly indicate that Wayne is not enlightened and in no permanent state. And one might ask him/herself, why didn't Wayne just explains to his students that it is not an addition but a subtraction?

So, just a little off the mark there in your declaration? What? No clairvoyance or advanced intuition?

Why do you imagine omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence as being requirements for the natural state?

Actually, realizing rigpa, the primordial consciousness, entails the realization of super powers. It is built in as part of the realization. Once a person realizes the emptiness of appearances, miracles are no problem and become somewhat mundane. Also, according to Alan Wallace, if the person cannot perform some form of miracle then we should dismiss their declaration of enlightenment as nonesense. That is the acid test.

So, any time you'd like to prove your realization and manifest some jewels, or transport yourself to my living room, feel free to do so.

Thinking has nothing to do with realizing the natural state.

The natural state, or what I tend to refer to simply as wholeness, these days -- or enlightenment, or liberation -- are all just words - terms for recognition of the real which is always present, now -- and is simply obscured by the over-focus on conditioned thoughts, feelings and reactions.

If there is attachment or aversion or non-peace, then there's obscuring of the real in that moment of experience.

By over-focusing on conditioned forms of mind - by attachment to them, as driven by conditioned memory - we make up unenlightenment.

"Enlightenment" is simply what's here when we don't do that.

Wrong. What you are talking about is the substrate consciousness, that which samsara emerges from and dissolves back into.

There is something else to realize, rigpa. Then it all becomes clear. You evidently haven't been beyond.

Further, if you were enlightened and realized rigpa (were a buddha) then why have you never talked about vividness? It is found in very many Buddhist books. The mind is vivid. According to Alan Wallace, the vividness that one cultivates can be as bright as normal reality, if not brighter. And, this vividness is cultivated by overcoming dullness and laxity of the mind. Why have you never mentioned it?

Here is what the book "Vivid Awareness, The Mind Instructions of Khenpo Ganshar by Khenchen Thrangu" says about vividness:

RECOGNIZING THE EXPERIENCE OF RESTING

What does it feel like to rest like that?

If you rest like that, your mind-essence is clear and expansive,

vivid and naked, without an concerns about thought or recollection,

joy or pain. That is awareness (rigpa).

At this point, there is no concern about what you are thinking, what your remember, what is nice, or what is painful. You will not think, "Ah, that is what it is." You will not think, "this is empty," or "this is not empty." You will not think, "Oh that's nice," or "Oh that not so nice," of "That's bad." There won't be any thought of pleasure or displeasure in any way at all. This is just the natural essence of the mind. It is not something that makes us jubilantly happy, nor is it something that makes us unhappy.

But you will see the mind-essence and it will be clear and expansive, vivid and naked. When we say "Clear", this is like the clear aspect of the mind. When we talk about it being clear or luminous, sometimes we understand that as meaning some sort of a light - a blazing bright light. But that is not what this means. It means that it can know and understand. It does not stop. We do not turn into some sort of rock. That is not what happens: there is the clear, knowing aspect of the mind. It is also expansive, which means here that the clarity is vast: we can see and know many things. Then the text says "vivid and naked". "Vivid" means that it is as if we are actually seeing it. There is no doubt whether or not this is it - it is just right there. It is naked: we are not thinking about it with logic or seeing it from far away; it is right here.

Did you catch the part that says "we can see and know many things"? Now, what do you suppose that ability is? Could it be? Direct perception? Direct knowing? Remote viewing? Knowing by not using the 5 senses? A siddhi?

And the clarity is vast! Infinite.

AND!! Vivid means that is is as if we are actually seeing it.

Alan Wallace (and many buddhists writings) talks alot about vividness. He teaches how to increase vividness (which combats laxity and dullness). Doing his practices I have gotten to the point, on a few occasions that my thoughts were as bright and clear as if I was looking at normal reality. This is something that won't ever happen at AYP because AYP's deep meditation is training in laxity. It teaches the mind to become dull and thickens the veils. And I believe the various Buddhists who say that this can actually stilt the intelligence.

Why is DM training in laxity? This is due to a misinterpretation by Yogani of Patanjali's last limbs of Yoga and the fact that he has adopted TM (deep meditation) as the tool to promote what he calls "inner silence". Effortlessly releasing the mantra promotes sleep. Cat naps. Dipping into laxity. There is no cultivation of vividness, just diving into laxity. There is no monitoring the mind's state and applying a remedy, as in Buddhist meditations, there is just effortless letting go of the mantra. And where do you suppose the mantra comes from? How can using the mantra in this way promote stillness when it is coming from and disturbing the substrate consciousness?

Alan Wallace recommends meditation on awareness of awareness (Padmasambhva) with eyes partially open, as do most Zen practices. The reason is not only to combat sleep but also to get more headroom in the expansion of conscious awareness.

From Zen Brain Reflections by James H. Austin, M.D.

The recommended Zen approach is to keep the eyes partially open during meditation.

This traditional Zen approach, with the eyes hooded, has several beneficial

roles [Z:table 19, 582]. Included among the benefits of open-eyed meditation:

It can reduce or delay the hallucinations and other phenomena associated with

inturned absorption.

It helps extend awareness, delays drowsiness, and defers episodes of sleep.

It allows more room in which to train various meditative skills.

The meditator maintains contact with the outside visual world.

[line deleted as requested].

If you'd like more information of what actually happened to me at AYP, (not that you care, you are only focused on trying to convince yourself and others that you are enlightened), I would suggest that you read this link:

http://thetaobums.co...yama-questions/

TI

P.S. Please don't write me a novel. I have better things to do with my time. You had your chance at AYP and you did not convince me there and I doubt if you could convince me now.

And, by the way, Adyashanti is not enlightened, nor is Nisargadatta for they have/had no miracles. Adyashanti is confused and Nisargadatta is a sage. Ramamana did have miracles, so he would qualify, but Ramana's self-inquiry is not like Yogani has painted it. Ramana's self inquiry is a form of mindfulness which is to be performed continously, day and night, as much as possible. Constantly. I guess Yogani missed that point too.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Tibetan_Ice

idiot_stimpy · September 19, 2012

P.S. Please don't write me a novel. I have better things to do with my time.

Why bother even replying.

Does AYP give bad kundalini advice?

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites