Samadhi
-
lol...
Judging from the time of your post, I was thinking similar thoughts on the way to work while you were writing, but only regarding myself.
-
[Trying to remember everything that has actually been given to me to understand, minus all the attempts at explaining, justifying, and confirming externally.]
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"
Try and see the whole lot - all of these experiences - as a spectrum or a continuum. Abandon this fancy, divisive labelling crap! You people don't even try and talk about your experiences in English anymore! Fucking spiritual technocrats - you have to make it sound better by using Chinese, Japanese and Indian names... God damn - are we going to have anyone start rattling off in Tibetan too... and be the biggest shiniest knob on the forum?
It holds you all back! I swear it does!"
"We are all part of the same hypocrisy..." - The Godfather II.
You are right, Dar, of course.
Only when deep in Samadhi the projections do cease... -
I don't think it's that much of a continuum. - Or, rather, it IS that much of a continuum in actuality, but passes through specific 'zones' that have different characteristics. (In the same way, "growing up" is a continuum, but toddler and adolescent have very distinctive characteristics so that they are not likely - in most respects
- to be confused for each other.)For example, samadhi isn't just "more and different/riper dhyana." (It IS in the sense that it's the natural consequence and continuation of the unfolding.) But the layers of the psyche (expressed through such things as my favorite bottom-line sorting bin, the Four Worlds) are quite distinctive. Pratyahara is as witnessing of Yetziratic phenomena as they occur. Dharana is a concentrated application of the powers of the Ruach to focus those Yetziratic forces (for its own sake and for the "big punch"). Dhyana is skirting the very topmost edge of the Yetziratic aspect of our psyches and then "popping" through. The phenomena of Samadhi I can't distinguish from descriptions and experience of the World of Briah. IMHO these are valuable, usable distinctions (and practical, because they allow some experiential grounding in the exact "feel" of the different Worlds).
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"@ Jim - say that in plain English please! See if you can say that when stripped of all it's fancy termnology and ONLY in terms of your direct experience."
English doesn't have the words for that. Or, where it has words that might serve, they've been co-opted by more general day-to-day use. Most human experience doesn't touch these levels, so it is understandable that there is no good popular language for it. In comparison, Sanskrit and Hebrew have evolved specific, technical terms over time.
That, to me, is the reason for using non-English words: Specifically, to build terms that can be given useful definitions not trapped in how the rest of the culture uses native terms. I don't think I'm guilty of obscurity here because, in my writings, I've gone to considerable effort to define these. I takes a half page to a page to give an idea of what I mean by "experience of the World of Briah" (and several pages to put it in the context of other ideas in the set. One can't always use those several pages to make a point, so I've spent my time defining terms in one place so that we can use them in another place.
"I say that if you can't then you're talking nonsense! Just added abstractions and division of the intellect after the fact of the experience!"
I understand your point of view. But you're actually citing where the intellect is distinctly useful: It's the function of the sword. It divides, distinguishes, separates, categorizes, catalogues so that we can use these as reference points. Why object to using one particular magical tool for it's best-suited purpose? The senses experience impressions, the emotions feel, the intellect labels - and yes, they're the three veils that, when pulled back, disclose something else, something for which English has no native terms. I don't think we should dismiss the veils doing their intended work.
In my own case, this is particular important because a significant part of my life's work is recording maps for others to follow long after I'm gone. Priorities for one's own explorations often aren't the same priorities had by the map-maker.
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"In my early years I insisted that my yoga teacher didn't use specialist terms. She was perplexed but after thinking it over she gave me something a lot more valuable. She'd ask me to describe my experience after meditation - and since this was from a perspective of a child's complete naivety then it opened doors for both of us. I assure you that the English language is as adequate to the task as any other. It also opens the way for direct transmission to the student - it opens the student. Moreover - it is my contention that there is a lot more to be learned from the exploration of human consciousness than what we have so far uncovered and labelled - but it is this tendency to want to label everything that actually stops us from exploring the territory properly. We depend far too heavily on 'maps'.
If I had a school I would ban the students from studying such texts that are top heavy with technocratic language or using such terms in respect of their own experiences, as I think it stops the progress of the mystic dead. I'm sorry Jim - but most of your works would probably be on the banned list for the first 10 to 20 years of a students career."
I suspect that this dislike of 'labels' on your part is something to do with your own process, personally I don't see what the problem is, every science and art has technical terms, I actually see you using the kind of technical terminology used in empirical science and rather than getting annoyed at your use of terms that I might need to look up in a dictionary I simply go and find out what they mean.
For instance; why not give us a non-technical term for 'qualia' as that one gave me something to think about when I first encountered it, but in finding out about it I found it a useful (but not that useful) way of referring to a certain class of experience, just as 'Samadhi' 'Dharana. and the rest can serve as a way to refer to another class of experience.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with labels, just remember that's all they are.
-
My own thoughts are drifting toward the necessities of my individual work versus the necessities of a complete system of instruction and development.
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"This dislike of labels of mine is nothing new amongst mystics. It's not some personal idiosyncrasy, although I was a little preconscious in adopting it. It's a pretty common attitude in the far east - especially amongst Zen traditions. If you read 'Zen and the Art of Archery' (a classic) you'll come across the same attitude by the Zen master there too. It has a nice early 'east meets west' flavour also.
Philosophy is the polar opposite. It's not a good idea to try and mix the two if you want results."
I read that one, interesting book, I've always had an interest in the eastern methods, especially Zen Buddhism and Taoism. I think the thing is not so much that labels are bad per-se, but that getting hung up on them can create obstacles, no matter whether you get hung up on them in themselves or as an object of aversion, I just treat them as labels, nothing more nothing less.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"But the layers of the psyche (expressed through such things as my favorite bottom-line sorting bin, the Four Worlds) are quite distinctive.
Pratyahara is as witnessing of Yetziratic phenomena as they occur.
Dharana is a concentrated application of the powers of the Ruach to focus those Yetziratic forces (for its own sake and for the "big punch").
Dhyana is skirting the very topmost edge of the Yetziratic aspect of our psyches and then "popping" through.
"Well put, IMO.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The phenomena of Samadhi I can't distinguish from descriptions and experience of the World of Briah. "
Ehm, so verbal or written description of Bliss is the same as experiencing that Bliss?
Would you care to elaborate, pls? -
@Frater INRI said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The phenomena of Samadhi I can't distinguish from descriptions and experience of the World of Briah. "Ehm, so verbal or written description of Bliss is the same as experiencing that Bliss?
Would you care to elaborate, pls?"LOL, no. That would have been a fairer critique of my word choice if I'd left out "...and experience."
Perhaps the sentence is better phrased, "The phenomena of Samadhi I can't distinguish from my experience of the World of Briah, and the phenomena reflected in others' descriptions of that World."
(And there's more to it than ananda, though that's a great place to start.)
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"@ Jim - say that in plain English please! See if you can say that when stripped of all it's fancy termnology and ONLY in terms of your direct experience."
Speaking strictly for myself here, well, it can not be done via internet.
What you speak off, or what I understand you are speaking about, is the direct transmission of the Absolute realization from one person to another.
Me, in my limitation, I still use words. True Masters, they use other means.Ramana Maharshi comes to my mind here, he taught through silence, quite dramatically and successfully. I've been to his room in Tiruvanamalai' ashram, His presence is still there, still teaching. No words.
So, in a way, I agree with your notions. However, out of reach they are, for me at least.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Perhaps the sentence is better phrased, "The phenomena of Samadhi I can't distinguish from my experience of the World of Briah, and the phenomena reflected in others' descriptions of that World.""
I see. Tnx.
Much better.
Was not my intention to critique, it just didn't seem right.@Jim Eshelman said
"(And there's more to it than ananda, though that's a great place to start.)"
Yes.
Words are not enough here, but I hear you. -
@Dar es Allrah said
"I find myself increasing bored by the way people put little box's around their experiences and trip over themselves to find the proper labels for them."
Or perhaps, dar es allrah, there are those of us who merely post our experiences and our own commentary and opinion of them in the hopes that some person further along the path may point out if we are in err. If my posts seem at all to you tinged with puerile jubilation, then I humbly offer my deepest apologies for them drawing you away from your most exalted itinerary.
humbly yours,
-
By all means, let's make the words for these things in English.
For the serpent Hadit hath raised His head and shot forth venom upon the moulding, lava-hot Earth, forming the English language. The new language of the Aeon, and the all-language of the new Aeons arising.
You could call Samadhi the opening of the paths, realization of the paths, and one/nothingness simultaneously with knowledge/wisdom of your immediate experience.
Is this what you mean, fair Dar?
You've come a long way from convincing us to shoot our venom into yeast, haven't you?
I must say I hear your Will and the language does need to be changed.
For instance, did you know that "sidereal" solar rotation is just the time it takes for the sun to rotate in the middle. Not giving time for the rest of the Sun to reveal it's time, identity, purpose and path.
What this means is that just from the observational point on the Earth do we see these "sidereal" versions of things, including the rotation of the sun and all the stars and constellations. What this simply means is that the old astrologers were being guided by the deeper meaning, realizing things in the Aethyrs, sky, and stars that were normally unseeable. This means that sidereal astrology is only correct "on the side", or the flat, viewable perspective of the Stars and constellations.
The Power that held that original ways are still there, about to rip this completely wide open and show us our true selves, outside of what is normally a simple, half-blind day-to-day perspective.
My 93 cents,