Gateway to limitless being

[Jeff]

In first reading... he seems to pose that as a guru, he is no mountain.  but being a gateway to a mountain again.. for others... as they find it themselves.

 

Like he "steps out of the way".. for "you to find your way".

You have to remember that the mountain again is my reference (not his). In his case, he sees himself as a "connector" to God. And hence, he himself is not God, so is dualistically separate. To me, he is sort of saying that he "ceases" to make room for you to touch God. Not saying that you become Siva like the KS quote I posted above.

 

Additionally, as Karen's posted quote shows. There is still a "him" that notices and is formulating a personality to interact with others. Hence, he is not "gone".

 

In traditions like Buddhism, a Buddha would also say things like "anger drops", so there is no way that you can be infinitely angry as part of your path.

[dwai]

You have to remember that the mountain again is my reference (not his). In his case, he sees himself as a "connector" to God. And hence, he himself is not God, so is dualistically separate. To me, he is sort of saying that he "ceases" to make room for you to touch God. Not saying that you become Siva like the KS quote I posted above.

 

Additionally, as Karen's posted quote shows. There is still a "him" that notices and is formulating a personality to interact with others. Hence, he is not "gone".

 

In traditions like Buddhism, a Buddha would also say things like "anger drops", so there is no way that you can be infinitely angry as part of your path.

 

What happens to "Yang" if it continues to expands? What happens to "yin" if it continues to compress?

[Pilgrim]

Yes it is simple.

 

What you think you know is okay with me Jeff.

[Pilgrim]

Yes, and he is describing himself as separate (or a gateway) from Shiva. Where compariably in Kashmir Shaivism, a guru is Shiva himself. Or you could say that one goes from the realization of Jiva, to more fully realize Shiva.

Also, I am not trying to disagree with him. Just pointing out that he is describing something different than what you would find in Buddhism, Kashmir Shaivism, Taoism and Mystical Christianity. Which is why I questioned the "simple" post earlier.

I think knowing too much about traditions, sutras etc is getting in the way. For instance in my view he is not describing himself as separate from anything. To me he is describing himself as limitless emptiness. From this perspective he is generating personalities for the express purpose of keeping others seeking.

[Jeff]

What happens to "Yang" if it continues to expands? What happens to "yin" if it continues to compress?

It is problematic as there is no balance. At a deeper level the "two" actually emerge from the "one". Having infinite of one side of the two is not the same as the one. Or, a particle going the speed of light is no where near the same (or as fast) as quantum entanglement.

[Jonesboy]

What happens to "Yang" if it continues to expands? What happens to "yin" if it continues to compress?

According to Kashmir Shiavism with regard to expanding and contracting and being one with Shiva.

 

From the Triadic Heart of Siva.

 

The Heart, says Abhinavagupta, is the very Self of Siva, of Bhairava,

 

and of the Devi, the Goddess who is inseparable from Siva. Indeed,

 

the Heart is the site of their union (yamala), of their embrace (samghatta).

 

This abode is pure consciousness (caitanya) as well as unlimited bliss

 

(ananda). As consciousness the Heart is the unbounded, infinite light

 

(prakasa) as well as the freedom (svatantrya) and spontaneity (vimarsa)

 

of that light to appear in a multitude and variety of forms. The Heart,

 

says Abhinavagupta, is the sacred fire-pit of Bhairava.1

 

The Heart is the Ultimate (anuttara) which is both utterly transcendent

 

to (visvottirna) and yet totally immanent in (visvamaya) all created things.

 

It is the ultimate essence (sara). Thus, the Heart embodies the paradoxical

 

nature of Siva and is therefore a place of astonishment (camatkara), sheer

 

wonder (vismaya), and ineffable mystery. The Heart is the fullness and

 

unboundedness of Siva (purnatva), the plenum of being that overflows

 

continuously into manifestation. At the same time, it is also an inconceivable

 

emptiness (sunyatisunya).2 The Heart is the unbounded and

 

universal Self (purnahanta).

 

The Heart of Siva is not a static or inert absolute, however. In fact,

 

the non-dual Kashmir Shaiva tradition considers it to be in a state of

 

perpetual movement, a state of vibration (spanda)3 in which it is continuously

 

contracting and expanding (samkoca-vikasa), opening and closing

 

(unmesa-nimesa), trembling (ullasita), quivering (sphurita), throbbing,

 

waving, and sparkling (ucchalata). The intensity and speed of this move

 

ment is such that paradoxically it is simultaneously a perfect dynamic

 

stillness.4

 

The tradition states that the Heart is the enormous ocean (ambunidhi),

 

the ocean of light, the ocean of consciousness. The waters of consciousness

 

that in man are broken by countless polarizing and divisive waves (urmi)

 

may be easily brought to a state of dynamic stillness by the process of

 

immersion or absorption (samdvesa) in the Heart.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Jonesboy

[Jeff]

I think knowing too much about traditions, sutras etc is getting in the way. For instance in my view he is not describing himself as separate from anything. To me he is describing himself as limitless emptiness. From this perspective he is generating personalities for the express purpose of keeping others seeking.

My point is that he is saying limitless emptiness is a "thing" (and hence not empty). As his opening statement says...

 

"If something within you becomes limitless – whatever it is – it will work. If you become limitless ignorance, it will work. If you become limitless love, it will work. If you become limitless anger, it will work. If you become limitless in anything, it will work."

 

Saying you can be any limitless "thing", whether it be anger, love or ignorance. All such things are emotions/concepts of the mind, and in many tradition's view there is no ultimate escape velocity. You have to let such things go...

[3bob]

and of course we really don't know much about transfiguration

[Pilgrim]

Jeff, Oh I see your point. Yes good, good thank you.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Pilgrim

[neti neti]

'Limitless emptiness' is just a subtle perception of consciousness, from within the consciousness. Who perceives the emptiness?

 

A door appears. Whether open or shut, both or neither, there is no door. Who perceives the door?

 

The Guru appears. Whether within or without, both or neither, there is no Guru. Who perceives the Guru?

 

Lost in perceptions, the perceiver remains oblivious of itself. Seeking must cease once having lost sight of the seeker.

[dwai]

It is problematic as there is no balance. At a deeper level the "two" actually emerge from the "one". Having infinite of one side of the two is not the same as the one. Or, a particle going the speed of light is no where near the same (or as fast) as quantum entanglement.

 

it's quite the opposite imho. Yang expands till there's nothing left to expand. Yin contracts till there's nothing left to contract. End result is that there is nothing...emptiness.

 

This dualistic world is predicated upon the duality of yin and yang, positive and negative. There is no such predicate for the primordial to exist (calling it one is also wrong, it is just not-dual).

 

So if I took the logic route, even then, if I take anything to infinity, it becomes nothing. Be it infinite expansion or infinite contraction...

[Bindi]

it's quite the opposite imho. Yang expands till there's nothing left to expand. Yin contracts till there's nothing left to contract. End result is that there is nothing...emptiness.

 

This dualistic world is predicated upon the duality of yin and yang, positive and negative. There is no such predicate for the primordial to exist (calling it one is also wrong, it is just not-dual).

 

So if I took the logic route, even then, if I take anything to infinity, it becomes nothing. Be it infinite expansion or infinite contraction...

 

If Yang expanded till there's nothing left to expand, wouldn't that need to be balanced by Yin contracting till there's nothing left to contract? Not just one or the other?

[Pilgrim]

'Limitless emptiness' is just a subtle perception of consciousness, from within the consciousness. Who perceives the emptiness?

 

A door appears. Whether open or shut, both or neither, there is no door. Who perceives the door?

 

The Guru appears. Whether within or without, both or neither, there is no Guru. Who perceives the Guru?

 

Lost in perceptions, the perceiver remains oblivious of itself. Seeking must cease once having lost sight of the seeker.

Very well written. Thank you.

[dwai]

If Yang expanded till there's nothing left to expand, wouldn't that need to be balanced by Yin contracting till there's nothing left to contract? Not just one or the other?

extreme yin becomes yang and extreme yang becomes yin. And yang also contains a little yin and vice versa.

 

But that too is in the domain of the dualistic world.

 

I was using yin and yang as rhetorical devices, in response to Jeff's point about how limitless something can't lead to a limitless being or emptiness.

 

Scientists today struggle with how the universe sprung forth from a singularity and how from nothing sprung forth the singularity. They posit the Big Bang and a Big Crunch or a big rip. And then they say "the universe arose by chance..." and yet don't recognize the fact that logically, if the universe arose from nothing and went back into nothing again after a crunch or rip, the same conditions exist in potentiality that existed before this universe arose. In fact that potentiality always exists in that "emptiness".

 

 

Watch this discussion without judgement. Just go along with the discussion and see the outcome --

 

https://youtu.be/erSd5xep30w

Edited January 26, 2017 by dwai

[Jeff]

it's quite the opposite imho. Yang expands till there's nothing left to expand. Yin contracts till there's nothing left to contract. End result is that there is nothing...emptiness.

This dualistic world is predicated upon the duality of yin and yang, positive and negative. There is no such predicate for the primordial to exist (calling it one is also wrong, it is just not-dual).

So if I took the logic route, even then, if I take anything to infinity, it becomes nothing. Be it infinite expansion or infinite contraction...

Thanks for your response. It looks like we might just disagree a little. Imho, while I completely agree that there is no need to (or even the concept of) balance in the primordial, the primordial itself cannot even really be said to "exist". Additionally, as I stated earlier, you can't really "get there" by just expanding (or contracting) a polarity. The problem with the concept of such ongoing expansion is that the is alway "more" that can be added. The cleverness of the "mind" is that you can always make something bigger or want more.

 

As an example, all math people know that even the number infinity has a bigger number, infinity^2, and so on...

[Jeff]

'Limitless emptiness' is just a subtle perception of consciousness, from within the consciousness. Who perceives the emptiness?

 

A door appears. Whether open or shut, both or neither, there is no door. Who perceives the door?

 

The Guru appears. Whether within or without, both or neither, there is no Guru. Who perceives the Guru?

 

Lost in perceptions, the perceiver remains oblivious of itself. Seeking must cease once having lost sight of the seeker.

What is "limited emptiness"? And how can Emptiness be perceived? If something is being perceived, does that not mean that it is not "empty"?

[Kar3n]

I think knowing too much about traditions, sutras etc is getting in the way. For instance in my view he is not describing himself as separate from anything. To me he is describing himself as limitless emptiness. From this perspective he is generating personalities for the express purpose of keeping others seeking.

 

I am still struggling with the changing of his personality to keep others seeking. Sadhguru, says, "The Guru-shishya relationship is on an energy basis. A Guru is touching you in a dimension where no one else can touch you". From my perspective when you are dealing with energy, there are two perspectives, yet still one being, the feminine (Shakti) and the masculine (Shiva), yin and yang or what some might call reception (the filter) and transmission. There is no manipulating that energy into anything, energies will naturally balance without any doing on the part of the guru or the shishya. If a bond is formed with an "limitlessly empty" guru, the energy bond and balance should be enough to sustain the seeker without any involvement of personality changes to suit the needs of the seeker, as it would be part a natural flow of where the energy leads. The energy is what shakes us up on the inside, and working with the guru, who is the conduit for said energy and sort of a stabilizer allows us to go deeper and to clear more than we would be able to on our own.

 

I am of the belief that once a person (guru or shishya) reaches a certain level of realization the personality naturally evolves and continues to do so, but is not to be engineered to suit perceived needs of another or to reach them in some manner. Being anything other than who you truly are for any reason is a form of manipulation. Shiva, at the highest levels, is unchanging, and as a gateway to Adiyogi, would Sadhguru not strive to be as Shiva, rather than a manufactured version of himself?

 

http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/yoga-meditation/demystifying-yoga/what-is-a-guru/

Edited January 26, 2017 by Kar3n
added reference link for Sadhguru quote

[Jeff]

I am still struggling with the changing of his personality to keep others seeking. Sadhguru, says, "The Guru-shishya relationship is on an energy basis. A Guru is touching you in a dimension where no one else can touch you". From my perspective when you are dealing with energy, there are two perspectives, yet still one being, the feminine (Shakti) and the masculine (Shiva), yin and yang or what some might call reception (the filter) and transmission. There is no manipulating that energy into anything, energies will naturally balance without any doing on the part of the guru or the shishya. If a bond is formed with an "limitlessly empty" guru, the energy bond and balance should be enough to sustain the seeker without any involvement of personality changes to suit the needs of the seeker, as it would be part a natural flow of where the energy leads. The energy is what shakes us up on the inside, and working with the guru, who is the conduit for said energy and sort of a stabilizer allows us to go deeper and to clear more than we would be able to on our own.

 

I am of the belief that once a person (guru or shishya) reaches a certain level of realization the personality naturally evolves and continues to do so, but is not to be engineered to suit perceived needs of another or to reach them in some manner. Being anything other than who you truly are for any reason is a form of manipulation. Shiva, at the highest levels, is unchanging, and as a gateway to Adiyogi, would Sadhguru not strive to be as Shiva, rather than a manufactured version of himself?

Now that was an extremely impressive post on the workings of guru connections. Thank you for sharing.

[dwai]

Thanks for your response. It looks like we might just disagree a little. Imho, while I completely agree that there is no need to (or even the concept of) balance in the primordial, the primordial itself cannot even really be said to "exist". Additionally, as I stated earlier, you can't really "get there" by just expanding (or contracting) a polarity. The problem with the concept of such ongoing expansion is that the is alway "more" that can be added. The cleverness of the "mind" is that you can always make something bigger or want more.

 

As an example, all math people know that even the number infinity has a bigger number, infinity^2, and so on...

 

And yet, when yang reaches it's peak, it becomes yin. And when yin reaches it's peak, it becomes yang. We might say that it is never possible for something to go to infinity as there is always going to be the "opposite" after a certain point. So fullness becomes emptiness after expanding to a certain point. And Emptiness becomes fullness after contracting to a certain point. The two keep transforming into one another.

 

Full and empty are simultaneously coexistent. Only what we choose to see is what we see...I think that is what was being suggested in the article quoted...

[Pilgrim]

I am still struggling with the changing of his personality to keep others seeking. Sadhguru, says, "The Guru-shishya relationship is on an energy basis. A Guru is touching you in a dimension where no one else can touch you". From my perspective when you are dealing with energy, there are two perspectives, yet still one being, the feminine (Shakti) and the masculine (Shiva), yin and yang or what some might call reception (the filter) and transmission. There is no manipulating that energy into anything, energies will naturally balance without any doing on the part of the guru or the shishya. If a bond is formed with an "limitlessly empty" guru, the energy bond and balance should be enough to sustain the seeker without any involvement of personality changes to suit the needs of the seeker, as it would be part a natural flow of where the energy leads. The energy is what shakes us up on the inside, and working with the guru, who is the conduit for said energy and sort of a stabilizer allows us to go deeper and to clear more than we would be able to on our own.

 

I am of the belief that once a person (guru or shishya) reaches a certain level of realization the personality naturally evolves and continues to do so, but is not to be engineered to suit perceived needs of another or to reach them in some manner. Being anything other than who you truly are for any reason is a form of manipulation. Shiva, at the highest levels, is unchanging, and as a gateway to Adiyogi, would Sadhguru not strive to be as Shiva, rather than a manufactured version of himself?

 

http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/yoga-meditation/demystifying-yoga/what-is-a-guru/

See said it was simple.

 

Agree with you .

[neti neti]

What is "limited emptiness"? And how can Emptiness be perceived? If something is being perceived, does that not mean that it is not "empty"?

 

It is both without limitation, and without limitlessness, and neither. There is no emptiness. Just a subtle form of consciousness appearing as if it were separate from consciousness. Mist on the ocean.

 

"Form is emptiness and emptiness is form." -Heart Sutra

 

Within a dualistic paradigm, the absence of form can be considered "empty". In a non-dual perceptual state, the mist and the ocean are one.

 

Both states are within the consciousness. Reality lies beyond.

[Jeff]

It is both without limitation, and without limitlessness, and neither. There is no emptiness. Just a subtle form of consciousness appearing as if it were separate from consciousness. Mist on the ocean.

 

"Form is emptiness and emptiness is form." -Heart Sutra

 

Within a dualistic paradigm, the absence of form can be considered "empty". In a non-dual perceptual state, the mist and the ocean are one.

 

Both states are within the consciousness. Reality lies beyond.

"A subtle form of consciousness appearing as if it were separate"... Then we are very definitely talking about different things regarding emptiness.

[dwai]

"A subtle form of consciousness appearing as if it were separate"... Then we are very definitely talking about different things regarding emptiness.

 

What he is referring to as "lying beyond", is what I (and Advaita Vedanta) calls Pure Objectless Consciousness.

[Jeff]

What he is referring to as "lying beyond", is what I (and Advaita Vedanta) calls Pure Objectless Consciousness.

Thanks for the explanation. So is what you (both) are saying is that you see emptiness as a subset of consciousness? Sort of like the totally pure and clear version/layer/mist of consciousness?

 

And, hence if you push mental consciousness to the extreme, it becomes totally pure? Like (as the guru link states) if you push your hatred/anger for someone to the max you will realize the totally pure and clear version of consciousness? Become enlightened?

[dwai]

Thanks for the explanation. So is what you (both) are saying is that you see emptiness as a subset of consciousness? Sort of like the totally pure and clear version/layer/mist of consciousness?

 

And, hence if you push mental consciousness to the extreme, it becomes totally pure? Like (as the guru link states) if you push your hatred/anger for someone to the max you will realize the totally pure and clear version of consciousness? Become enlightened?

 

Emptiness is Pure Objectless Consciousness.

I don't suggest that bit about hatred/anger

 

There is a story in India about something like this though. The author of the Epic Ramayana, was a sage named Valmiki. Before he became a sage, he was a notorious murderous robber named Ratnakar.  He had an encounter with a traveling sage in his forest. He would attack travelers passing through the forest he lived in, kill them, and steal their possessions. 

 

When he went to attack the traveling sage, the sage stopped him and asked - "Before you kill me, can you answer my one question?"

Ratnakar responded "What?"

Sage "Can you tell me why you're doing this? Killing people and stealing their belongings?"

Ratnakar replied "I have to feed my wife and kids...I have to feed my aging parents. If I don't do this, we will all starve to death!"

Sage said "Can you do one thing? Can you go ask your wife and kids and your other dependents, if they will share the bad karma you are earning by killing and looting? I promise you I'll stay right here until you return. Then you can kill me and steal my meager possessions"

Ratnakar was mystified. He ran home and asked each of his dependents whether they'd share his negative karma. Each replied that they didn't think they would have to share his bad karma, because he was doing his duty to provide for them. How he did it was entirely his own choice!

 

He ran back to sage with a dejected look on his face. He said "I am at a loss for words. I had thought my family, whom I love and provide for would be willing to share some of my sins...but they refused!"

 

And as he sat in front of the sage, he broke down and cried at the outrage he felt by the betrayal of his loved ones. 

 

He asked the sage "If this is the outcome of my murdering and stealing, how do I make amends?"

The sage replied - "You have to repent!"

Ratnakar said - "How?"

Sage said - "Think of a deity you love dearly and just chant his or her name in total devotion..."

Ratnakar replied "I've never prayed to any deity and my heart is full of anger and sorrow right now...I can't make room for devotion."

Sage asked "Then what do you know?" 

Ratnakar replied "The only thing I know is to kill...so I know death...Mara"

Sage said "Okay then..sit here under this tree and keep chanting Mara..mara...mara...don't get up to eat, sleep, drink...etc...until I come back"

Ratnakar was a man of very strong will...he sat down and started chanting "Mara...mara..."

 

The sage went about his business and walked out of the forest.

 

Seven years went by and the sage was passing through through the forest again. He saw there were animals and birds flocking around a huge anthill that had formed around a tree. There was a very peaceful and serene energy around the place. He immediately knew that it was the dreadful Ratnakar who was there. He walked up to the Anthill and slowly dug Ratnakar out.

 

Upon being touched by the sage, Ratnakar came out of his meditation and seeing the sage, fell at his feet in joy and gratitude.

 

He asked the sage "how long has it been since I've been meditating?"

The sage replied "It has been at least 7 years..."

 

The sage could tell that there was no vestige of Ratnakar, the dreaded murderer left in the man. He renamed him Valmiki, because he was "born again" from an anthill. 

 

Valmiki had to just channelize his anger and sorrow into a single-minded task with his eyes closed and senses turned inward. He did pratyahara, dharana and dhyana. Soon he entered samadhi where he remained until the Sage came and woke him up. So his anger and sorrow became the seed for his enlightenment. The word "Mara" (kill) had become "Rama" (The name of God).

Edited January 26, 2017 by dwai