Subjective / Objective Enquiry (was Dakini in Meditation)

[Guest guest]

, "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...> wrote:

> Dear Tony:

>

> You wrote:

> > From the teachings of Buddhaghosa.

>

> > As the meditator progresses he/she eventually reaches a high

degree of

> > concentration where the object of meditation becomes a counterpart

> > sign. An image created by the mind on its own accord, a perception

of

> > the object somewhat different from the original.This happens at

the

> > neural level because the image created by the mind becomes

steadier an

> > d more concrete so it can be seen eyes open or shut. This new

image is

> > created independently of the lower consciousness and is a more

perfect

> > image than the original.

>

>

> Too bad you had to quote again, but all right, lets make the best of

it.

>

> Of course this quote does not fit a person at all who is into trying

to

> answer the question, "Who am I?"

> It would be better to discard it, but as a sadhana exercise it is

good to

> see how you make this quote fit YOUR purpose.

> If you don't do that, Tony, misleading approaches will sneak in

through the

> backdoor that deviate from your own authentic and original

endeavour... Your

> search for inner self and truth gets prolonged as you just stepped

onto

> someone else's path.

>

> I'll show what to do with external-second-hand-non-personal-material

and how

> you can transform it into your own.

> I used to have to do that a lot, as in my earlier years there was

not much

> good information easily available in Holland, apart from

Christianity.

>

> That transformation of external-second-hand-non-personal-material is

like

> the digestive process. The expression "You are what you eat" can be

applied

> here as: "You are what you read" but in the following sense: "You

are what

> you eat" does not mean that you are carrots and rice or chicken

wings or soy

> beans or broccoli or even an apple or an orange :-) Whatever you eat

gets

> transformed, and whatever is not befitting or eventually useful gets

> eliminated.

> When we read we need to do the same. While reading, memorizing and

quoting

> you will not be Krishna, or Ramana, or Buddhaghosa, or Buddha or

Suzuki. You

> are not what you quote, but YOU will be the authentic wisdom that

YOU

> recognized as original wisdom in their words..

>

> Some foods may pretty well go straight into the system like mother's

milk

> (although there is still plenty of poo and pee to deal with). The

same with

> what you read, there is good material that goes straight to the

heart. Still

> you are not mother's milk, nor are you your mother, neither will you

be

> Ramana or Wim... so do not fear the guru or this wise guy. As you

eat him

> alive, nothing of his original form will be left, in fact most of

him will

> be eliminated.

>

> Humans do not keep drinking mother's milk, just like humans will not

keep

> reading the straight truth. So, one has to metabolize one's verbal

intake ,

> which is disintegration, transformation, absorption and elimination.

Unless

> you discard texts off hand, the same metabolic process can be used

with

> whatever you read... That way quotes will stop being quotes and turn

into

> your wisdom (chit).

>

> You quoted from the teachings of Buddhaghosa.

> > As the meditator progresses he/she eventually

> > reaches a high degree of concentration where the

> > object of meditation becomes a counterpart sign.

>

> You profess, that you with Ramana are into subjective inquiry: "Who

am I,"

> That being the case you have to transform Buddhaghosa's guidance of

> 'objective inquiry' into 'subjective enquiry'. See how you can

transform

> this quote so that it serves YOU.

>

> Bg's term "object of meditation" needs to become 'subject of

meditation':

> "I."

> Bit of a problem with "counterpart sign" as this is quite

objectified, a bit

> too much extrapolation. So the quote can be transformed and

personalised and

> becomes your own self guidance as follows:

>

> "As I progress I will reach a degree of concentration where I become

my

> counterpart being, my higher self, initially still extrapolated"

>

> > An image created by the mind on its own accord,

> > a perception of the object somewhat different

> > from the original.

>

> Instead of "perception of the object," this becomes in subjective

inquiry

> 'perception of the subject' "I."

> The word "mind" is an objectified faculty used by Bg, but you can

replace it

> simply with 'me'. The word "original" is not used appropriately by

Bg. He

> actually means something like 'pseudo object that you started off

with'.

>

> So the quote becomes:

> *A self image created by me on my own accord through self inquiry, a

> perception of me different from the pseudo-me that I started off

with before

> self inquiry.*

>

> > This happens at the neural level because the

> > image created by the mind becomes steadier

> > and more concrete so it can be seen eyes open

> > or shut.

>

> "This happens at the neural level" sounds a bit too mechanical and

non

> self-involved. After all, you are doing "self inquisition" so you

may

> recognize YOURSELF as the operator, not the objectified mind, the

mind as

> though that is an organ separate from or alien in you.

>

> So the quote becomes at first:

> *At the physical level I become steadier and more concrete so that

gradually

> I see myself more often as self evident, and ultimately that I am.*

>

> After a bit of rework it becomes:

> *I will then reach such a degree of concentration that on the

physical level

> my self image becomes steadier and more concrete so that gradually I

realise

> myself as self evident, and ultimately... directly I know that I

am.*

>

> > This new image is created independently

> > of the lower consciousness and is a more

> > perfect image than the original.

>

> At this stage "the lower consciousness" actually disappears, so we

can strip

> that from the quote. The word "independently" could be stripped as

well,

> because in real independence there is no dependant or causal other.

The word

> is almost superfluous unless it point to 'self-cause'. "This new

image" is

> now not an external and objectified "I" image (ego) as

> that went poof. "This new image" is SELF, your self-evident

identity. The

> old separate and objectified I dissolves into the real original

perfect.

> The word "image" becomes identity.

> Bg. did not use the word "original" properly so we take the audacity

to

> correct him... and why not. What remains is one's original identity:

The

> answer to "Who am I"

> Neat eh?

>

> So the quote becomes:

> *Created independently and perfectly 'I am'.*

>

> Hey, that is the original meaning of the Yahweh !!!

> "I am being been"

> "I am the cause and effect of me being"

> So Ham

> I am That, I am This

> I AM.

>

> This is it!

>

> Now all this was done with words... Of course real sadhana does that

with

> stuff... your body, Tony, here and now, the five physical perceptive

senses

> and the sixth comprehensive one: mind.

> The word perception was not shunned by Bg. Good for him. So senses

were

> involved as perception without them is impossible. He even used the

word

> mind, he did not shun that either, again so good for him. This Bg.

guy is a

> good

> teacher except that he objectifies a little too much.

>

> Notice what we did here, we made all those objectifying words

personal, we

> de-objectified them... and... we did not get into some form of self

> denial...

> That cannot be allowed as the question is "Who am I?"

>

> So we spiralled to a greater reintegrative understanding and... in

our

> words.

>

> I remember that one of Ramana's guests thought that the answer to

> "Who am I?" was a denial of self: "I am nothing." Ramana asked that

guest

> "Who is saying that?"

>

> After a bit of additional work, the new text is thus:

>

> As I progress through self inquiry I will reach a degree of

concentration in

> which at first I appear to become my a counterpart being, my higher

self,

> initially still extrapolated. A self image recreated by me on my own

accord

> through self inquiry, a perception of me different from the

pseudo-me that I

> started off with before self inquiry.

> I will reach such a degree of concentration that on the physical

level my

> self image becomes steadier and more concrete so that gradually I

realise

> myself as self evident, and ultimately... directly I know that I am.

> Created independently and perfectly 'I am'.

>

> Love, Wim

 

Namaste Wim,

 

Actually all I was doing was saying the Dakini exists in the mind and

the image is built by the mind, in response to Dharma's post.

 

With regard to 'Who am I', yes I am conscious of this all the time.

However my lower mind doesn't know as much so I use certain

preparatory practices like, Japa, imaging etc as a precursor to

meditation, kind of getting the lower mind in the right direction.

>From there I proceed to mental mantras and from there to non form.

 

I suppose I learned the Eastern Way because it was similar to my

Catholic Altar Boy experiences of Saints, incense, candles and

images. I recognised the territory so to speak, although as an altar

boy I had been known to 'pass out', during High Masses etc etc.

 

So I approach the non dual through the dual still, in my meditation

ritual. My lower mind so loves the rituals and habits, so I indulge it

somewhat and then it is happy and lets me move on to non dual

meditation. But I do know that it is all images of my own mind.

 

ONS Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tony, I would so love to meet you in person and talk about what you say

here:

> My lower mind so loves the rituals and habits, so I indulge it

> somewhat and then it is happy and lets me move on to non dual

> meditation.

 

All this can be done differently without the self mild deprecation that you

express when you say :"So I indulge it somewhat."

>From the Original SELF those rituals will be enjoyed as celebrations in

Glorious Bliss, not rituals exercises or observances to get you somewhere or

bring something about... Oh, Tony, if you could hear me...

Remnants of self criticism however mild and bitterness about the world (and

you have some) would fall away from you...

When what you do is done the other way around, radically... it works...

> However my lower mind doesn't know as much so I use certain

> preparatory practices like, Japa, imaging etc as a precursor to

> meditation, kind of getting the lower mind in the right direction.

 

That is what I meant with in my previous post to you about the paths that

lead to your backdoor, that may misguide you and keep you on someone else's

path.

> From there I proceed to mental mantras and from there to non form.

 

It is suggested the other way around by Ramana (and me). You have not tried

it as the old habits caused by security issues still prevail.

> I suppose I learned the Eastern Way because it was similar to my

> Catholic Altar Boy experiences of Saints, incense, candles and

> images. I recognised the territory so to speak, although as an altar

> boy I had been known to 'pass out', during High Masses etc etc.

 

I can so relate to that...

> So I approach the non dual through the dual still, in my meditation

> ritual. But I do know that it is all images of my own mind.

 

Would you consider visiting me once... I won't eat you alive, but I will

allow you to take a good bite out of me... or if you want to... you can eat

me alive...

I'm here for the taking...

 

Dear Tony, Dear.

Love, Wim