Jean Klein - Excerpts from "I Am" - #1

[Guest guest]

Tim Gerchmez

Tim's Quote from Jean Klein:

"There are basically two known approaches to truth, the gradual and the

direct. In the direct approach the premise is that you are the truth, there

is nothing to achieve. ....

 

In the gradual approach you are bound to the mind. The mind is under the

illusion that if it changes, alters states, stops, etc., it will be absorbed

in what is beyond it. This misconception leads to the most tragic state in

which a truth-seeker can find himself: he has bound himself in his own web,

a web of the most subtle duality."

---

 

Jean says there are TWO known approaches to truth, but then apparently

places the DIRECT way superior to the GRADUAL way.

 

Well, if the DIRECT way, aka nonduality or the short path or Jnana Marga or

the path beyond yoga, is superior, then why even mention the gradual way?

 

Because the spiritual quest is a developmental process. The gradual way

using subtle effort is necessary to first still the mind. Once the mind is

still, then the direct way is possible, however, the direct way IS PROBABLY

NOT POSSIBLE till the mind is still.

 

In any a particular moment, if through mere intention the mind rests in

receptive stillness, then the direct way is appropriate. Although it's not

really an "approach" because there is no volition, no effort!

 

If in any particular moment the mind is occupied with thought/emotion, if

the mind is obsessively identified with repetitive circular compulsive

projective thought or emotion, then HEY!!! Isn't this situation just

ordinary un-realized waking state? In this moment, some subtle technique to

still the mind might be appropriate.

 

However, as Tim has noted previously, obsession with meditation technique

can also PREVENT stilling of the mind. Instruction such as "if the mantra is

not there, then start the mantra..." seems to make the practitioner a slave

to technique, it makes the mantra superior to 'I AM'. Perhaps this might be

a more suitable instruction: "IF there is thought, then start the mantra,

otherwise 'I AM'"

 

Quite likely it's impossible to adequately describe all the variations in

individual style regarding this. For example: the various paths of the body,

senses, mind, intellect, the will, devotion, integral path, tantra all have

different approaches and different characteristics. See my departed friend

Edward's work: www.newu.org

 

If occasional instructive glimpses of higher reality occur and these

glimpses leave some subtle clue about how to receptively effortlessly

encourage further insight, the "direct" way sounds appropriate.

 

If thoughts about non-duality remain only thoughts without DIRECT

experience, then, the direct way is may NOT be appropriate. Here the

practice of the 'direct approach' may only encourage smug delusion. "I AM

GOD" may lead to liberation under some circumstance, but at the other

extreme a strait jacket may be waiting for you at the local mental hospital.

 

Personally, I find all these distinctions useful in my personal practice,

and I feel they have worthy of long term investigation. I'm less interested

in a lot of investigation of the "direct way", whatever I need seems to fall

in my lap when it's appropriate. If effort was involved it wouldn't be the

"direct way"! The "direct way" is experiential, why should I read anything

or even think at all?!

 

In public discission, I'm more interested in these distinctions: when is the

direct way appropriate? when is the gradual way appropriate? Which gradual

method is appropriate for an individual (ie hatha, raja, karma, jnana,

kundalini, bhakti, integral yoga, tantra or others)? What are the

characteristics & pitfalls along the different stages & different paths?

 

Roger