Vishvarupadarshana & 'Seedless Samadhi'
-
In his commentary on Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms, Vivekananda notes that there are primarily two types of Samadhi: 'seedless' & 'non-seedless' (or seeded). He suggests that the only 'true' Samadhi is the seedless variety, in which the Object of concentration is not external nor internal, but a pure meditation on the True Self - the Soul (Purusha/Atman). This seedless Samadhi is associated with Nirvana and liberation, as well as Nirvikalpa-Samadhi and Atmadarshana. These latter two - specifically Atmadarshana - are attributed primarily to Kether, and thus the Trance of the Grade of Ipsissimus. Thus liberation, enlightenment, and knowledge of the True Self seem limited to Kether, and not before.
But what of Tiphereth, and the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel? The Trance attributed here is Vishvarupadarshana - the vision of the form of Vishnu - and Crowley describes it as a kind of 'first Samadhi'. But is this Samadhi to be considered seeded or seedless? Is the Object of meditation the Angel itself, and thus not the true Soul? K&C of HGA is often described as a realisation of the True Self, and yet Vedantist terminology apparently hold this vision off until the final liberation - Atmadarshana and Kether. Should, then Vishvarupadarshana/K&C of HGA be considered an imperfect Samadhi, or a true apprehension of Self? Is it seeded or seedless?Also, this raises questions of the nature of the Trance of the Magister Templi. His consciousness is in a constant state of Neshamah - Samadhi - and this has become his normal state of mind. But what Samadhi is this? Is it seeded, with an actual Object of concentration, or seedless? Perhaps the attribution of 'regular' Samadhi to Briatic consciousness might explain this. Thus a 'higher' Samadhi - perhaps Atmadarshana or the 'seedless' Samadhi - would pertain to Kether and Atziluth.
Well I'm done for tonight. Any thoughts?
-
@PatchworkSerpen said
"In his commentary on Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms, Vivekananda notes that there are primarily two types of Samadhi: 'seedless' & 'non-seedless' (or seeded). He suggests that the only 'true' Samadhi is the seedless variety, in which the Object of concentration is not external nor internal, but a pure meditation on the True Self - the Soul (Purusha/Atman). This seedless Samadhi is associated with Nirvana and liberation, as well as Nirvikalpa-Samadhi and Atmadarshana. These latter two - specifically Atmadarshana - are attributed primarily to Kether, and thus the Trance of the Grade of Ipsissimus. Thus liberation, enlightenment, and knowledge of the True Self seem limited to Kether, and not before."
Yes. Or, to put it differently (bowing to Guru Pranavananda's writings), you can either meditate on something or on nothing. Meditating on something is easier, and it almost certainly where one wants to begin practice, and takes one very far, but meditating on nothing is the higher.
"But what of Tiphereth, and the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel? The Trance attributed here is Vishvarupadarshana - the vision of the form of Vishnu - and Crowley describes it as a kind of 'first Samadhi'. But is this Samadhi to be considered seeded or seedless?"
First, I'm not sold on the Liber 777 attributions of the trances. That was something of a toss-off column just to load it up with stuff reflecting Crowley's thinking in 1907 or so. It's useful, but don't take it necessarily as definitive.
So, skipping the Sanskrit part altogether... the K&C of the HGA has elements of both types, depending on its purity. Also, don't confuse the method with the result. Again, the methods most would use in approaching the K&C of the HGA are seeded. The result often is seeded or, to the extent that the Adept's attainment in Tiphereth is really an experience of Kether, at a very high level it is seedless. And yes, I agree that the K&C experience is one of the earliest levels of Samadhi.
As I type, I'm curious... Why does this label matter to you? I suspect you are "just trying to understand all of this," but the experience is what matters. The labels are more like travelogues.
"[Is the Object of meditation the Angel itself, and thus not the true Soul?"
At some point, you may see that this question logically flawed.
"K&C of HGA is often described as a realisation of the True Self, and yet Vedantist terminology apparently hold this vision off until the final liberation - Atmadarshana and Kether."
Why are you trying to render this experience in terms of Hindu methodology and labels? Other than for the sake of curiosity, why do you care what Vedantists say about this or do about this? (I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just forcing the question.)
"Should, then Vishvarupadarshana/K&C of HGA be considered an imperfect Samadhi, or a true apprehension of Self? Is it seeded or seedless?"
Any samadhi short of Kether is imperfect samadhi, yes. The K&C of the HGA is a starting point that arises out of the conclusion of everything that came before - hence the Phoenix symbolism often used.
It's a starting point! Until one solidly opens to Briah at the conclusion of the Dominus Liminis work, there is no samadhi.
"Also, this raises questions of the nature of the Trance of the Magister Templi. His consciousness is in a constant state of Neshamah - Samadhi - and this has become his normal state of mind. But what Samadhi is this?"
Hard to say. There is a sense in which it is seedless. And yet, much of the experience is a continuous concentration and frequent samadhi on all of the phenomena of the universe. The M.T. is a continuous witness and student of the phenomenal universe. Yet the link to Yechidah has become so deeply planted in the womb of the psyche as to be nearly unconscious. - The M.T. is just possibly the most outward directed of all the grades, something of a perfection of what the Neophyte 1=10 resists.
"Is it seeded, with an actual Object of concentration, or seedless?"
See above. But again I ask: What does it matter? (The M.T. certainly isn't going to care, unless he or she has a teaching point to make about it.)
"Perhaps the attribution of 'regular' Samadhi..."
Oh, I love that! "Regular samadhi." Available at a couple dimes per gallon less than high octane samadhi. And unleaded! Sweet.
-
First of all, thanks for the lengthy and thought-out response, much appreciated.
@Jim Eshelman said
"First, I'm not sold on the Liber 777 attributions of the trances. That was something of a toss-off column just to load it up with stuff reflecting Crowley's thinking in 1907 or so. It's useful, but don't take it necessarily as definitive."
These attributions are also present in The Equinox and Magick Without Tears. How would you attribute them?"Also, don't confuse the method with the result. Again, the methods most would use in approaching the K&C of the HGA are seeded. The result often is seeded or, to the extent that the Adept's attainment in Tiphereth is really an experience of Kether, at a very high level it is seedless. And yes, I agree that the K&C experience is one of the earliest levels of Samadhi."
Thinking about it now, perhaps the notion of 'seeded' and 'seedless' Samadhi is overly dualistic. Perhaps it is more of a continuum between the two."As I type, I'm curious... Why does this label matter to you?"
Just trying to understand the map better. But moreover, I'm trying to reconcile the different interpretations of the Path among the various systems."At some point, you may see that this question logically flawed."
I think this relates to relates to a deeper question of mine: What is the relationship between Ishvara and Purusha/Brahman? Are they ultimately synonymous, and thus the shades of Kether that shine through in the K&C HGA? Perhaps my question is more intelligable this way. For although the terms of the Absolute, Brahman, Purusha or THAT seem interchangeable, one Trance is of Tiphereth and the other of Kether. If both are intimate realisations of the Angel which is TRUTH, then what is the difference?
The conclusion I tend to make is based on the Qabalistic model: That only through the Son might we behold the Father; or that a Vav is a Yod extended. In other words, the K&C HGA is God in his particular manifestation to us, whereas the Trance of Kether is God as he Is. The former being the realisation of our particular Star in the Body of Nuit, and the latter a realisation of Nuit Herself."Why are you trying to render this experience in terms of Hindu methodology and labels? Other than for the sake of curiosity, why do you care what Vedantists say about this or do about this? (I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just forcing the question.)"
See above. I tend to find one system complements or 'fills the gaps' of another."Hard to say. There is a sense in which it is seedless. And yet, much of the experience is a continuous concentration and frequent samadhi on all of the phenomena of the universe. The M.T. is a continuous witness and student of the phenomenal universe."
This explaination helped me greatly. The notion of 'Samadhi upon all things' does seem to be very close to seedless Samadhi after all. For if the None and the Many are ultimately no different, then the expansion of consciousness to include all phenomena and the reduction of consciousness to include none are one and the same. IIRC Crowley uses the metaphor that the former is akin lighting a candle in a dark room, and filling the room with mirrors so that nought is visible but pure light; and the latter to snuffing out that candle so nought is visible but darkness. Both lead to Unity. Similar metaphors could be Coagula vs. Solve, or the method of Magick vs. the method of Mysticism."Oh, I love that! "Regular samadhi." Available at a couple dimes per gallon less than high octane samadhi. And unleaded! Sweet.
"
Now if I could get my car started I'd be set... -
@PatchworkSerpen said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"First, I'm not sold on the Liber 777 attributions of the trances. That was something of a toss-off column just to load it up with stuff reflecting Crowley's thinking in 1907 or so. It's useful, but don't take it necessarily as definitive."These attributions are also present in The Equinox and Magick Without Tears. How would you attribute them?"
I don't have an alternative to propose, and I do tend to recirculate that list more as a study element. I mostly just avoid linking the A.'.A.'. stages to a Hindu mapping. (It isn't a one-for-one in any case.)
"What is the relationship between Ishvara and Purusha/Brahman?"
That would depend on who you asked. For most people in practice, they might functionally synonymous. That doesn't mean their definitions are the same, etc., but that, in practice, most people don't have a very fine line between "god" and "God," or any of several dozen other possible pairs of terms.
"For although the terms of the Absolute, Brahman, Purusha or THAT seem interchangeable, one Trance is of Tiphereth and the other of Kether. If both are intimate realisations of the Angel which is TRUTH, then what is the difference?"
There are different characteristics that could be attributed to each; for example, the experience of Tiphereth is saturated with Beauty, etc. But anything I could say would just be words. If you haven't had at least the first of these, what language could possibly distinguish it from another unknown? (Mathematically, two infinites are both infinite, but it's possible to define scaled infinities that are subsets of each other without any of them being less infinite.)
If what you are asking, ultimately, is, "What is the real nature of the HGA?" I'd have to point out that Crowley answered this differently for different people according to (1) their own natures and (2) their grade of attainment; and I do my damndest never to answer it (because, as much as I don't want you to think I'm wrong, I shudder even more that you'd read my words and think I was right!).
"The conclusion I tend to make is based on the Qabalistic model: That only through the Son might we behold the Father; or that a Vav is a Yod extended. In other words, the K&C HGA is God in his particular manifestation to us, whereas the Trance of Kether is God as he Is."
Perhaps I won't go far afield to give this technical commentary: A common misunderstanding is that the HGA is in Tiphereth. Not true. The Adept is in Tiphereth and, from there, experiences the HGA through the medium of the Path of Gimel.
I also strongly recommend you read Crowley's commentary (New Comment) to vv. 63-67 of Chapter 3 of Liber Legis.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"There are different characteristics that could be attributed to each; for example, the experience of Tiphereth is saturated with Beauty, etc. But anything I could say would just be words. If you haven't had at least the first of these, what language could possibly distinguish it from another unknown? (Mathematically, two infinites are both infinite, but it's possible to define scaled infinities that are subsets of each other without any of them being less infinite.)"
To an extent this gives further weight to my idea that the experience is not black and white - 'seeded' vs 'seedless', but rather a continuum experienced according one's level of attainment.
"Perhaps I won't go far afield to give this technical commentary: A common misunderstanding is that the HGA is in Tiphereth. Not true. The Adept is in Tiphereth and, from there, experiences the HGA through the medium of the Path of Gimel. "
This helps my understanding greatly! I think I must have made this misconception, at least at some point. That it is in fact through Gimel that this Vision reaches us reaffirms to me that the Trances of Tiphereth and Kether (or Binah, for that matter) are the same experience of the One Self that remains unchanged - the reason they vary being the aspirant's level of attainment, and the depth of their relationship with their Holy Guardian Angel.
I might make a further leap: That the Vision of Adonai and the sublime Trance of Kether are the same experience, differing only in our ability to perceive it.Edit: This all seems to be so much clearer when I remember that the Angel is the Axle of the Wheel, and not myself.
-
93,
JAE wrote:"There are different characteristics that could be attributed to each; for example, the experience of Tiphereth is saturated with Beauty, etc. "
Would this mean that to feel oneself in beauty, or profoundly conscious of beauty, is a condition that's borderline to actual samadhi? I don't mean beholding the beauty of the beloved, or of a particular work of art, but beauty as a condition of existence, however temporarily it's perceived.
I realize in asking this I'm presuming a 'yes' answer
but I am curious what you have to say on this topic.93 93/93,
EM
-
@Edward Mason said
"Would this mean that to feel oneself in beauty, or profoundly conscious of beauty, is a condition that's borderline to actual samadhi? I don't mean beholding the beauty of the beloved, or of a particular work of art, but beauty as a condition of existence, however temporarily it's perceived.
I realize in asking this I'm presuming a 'yes' answer but I am curious what you have to say on this topic."It's always hard to make absolute statements, especially when the form is "Most Bs are As," and one tries to draw the conclusion that "So an A must be a B" - and even more of a mess when that would often (and perhaps even usually) be true.
Generally, I think you've come to a valid conclusion. I just wouldn't want to be held to it in any particular instance.
Mostly you are describing the Beaitific Vision, which is a characteristic of Tiphereth at one or another level.
-
JAE 93,
Thanks for the highly qualified Yes.
Yes, I meant the Beatific Vision, which can be easy to slip into, however briefly, when it's a sunny day in late summer and there's nothing particularly pressing on your mind. The beauty of the day on the physical level opens, at least momentarily, into a sense of beauty on deeper levels than Assiah.I wanted to see if you saw a specific objection to the notion I suggested, rather than if you agreed. That is, that a delusory idea might be forming up, beyond the usual obstacle of concluding "I" have perceived (or even attained) something über-cool.
93 93/93,
EM