tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post8454095123986668436..comments2023-11-17T00:21:43.022-08:00Comments on The Broken Yogi Samyama: Spiritual Narcissism, Self, and Self-Image in Non-DualismBroken Yogihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-57884702972637713202017-06-06T23:48:18.342-07:002017-06-06T23:48:18.342-07:00He is known for his practical application of the n...He is known for his practical application of the non-dual teachings necessary to experience the Unified Mind. <a href="http://nondualteacher.com/" rel="nofollow">non dual teaching</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12116215199717176530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-40481760129225908052010-03-09T10:21:28.724-08:002010-03-09T10:21:28.724-08:00But I think it would be hard to have your fascinat...But I think it would be hard to have your fascinating blog and deal on such worldly topics (and have a fanclub-lol) if you actually inquired to see that you are not an individual mind, something I'm still working on.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-1789589132354226352010-03-09T10:15:00.919-08:002010-03-09T10:15:00.919-08:00"The problem with too many spiritual seekers ..."The problem with too many spiritual seekers is that they leap immediately to the mind and the images of the self, and don't give the body a chance to reveal its true nature to them."<br /><br />But both seem to miss the mark. Self-inquiry really has nothing to do with the body, and neither do mental imagery, self-imagery. Self-inquiry is meant to get past being identified with either the body or the mind, or really being an experiencer of the body or the mind. I agree with you in your essay when you talk about taking care of the body. It's the vehicle in a sense to inquire, to experience this waking state where inquiry is possible. And I also agree with you, after a while of attempting inquiry, that inquiry is not meant to be escapist from the world. But if I inquire into the one who would be escapist, who would have these problems, if I keep my focus on I, will I suffer these issues? Either body obsession or spiritual narcissism. Because the I has to run rampant as a spiritual narcissist as a body obsessed one, and if I keep my focus rapt on I, it doesn't have a chance to arise in that way.<br /><br /> "Then they become Gurus who are addicted to the same fascinations that those who are identified with they body exhibit, because they are in reality still identified with the body, they just don't realize it because they are so absorbed in the spiritual self-imagery they have created for themselves. And the power of their mental identification is so strong that it even creates for them all kinds of seemingly profound spiritual experience that seems to validate their notions of enlightenment and higher knowledge. Others may be sucked into their world as well, and imagine it to be real. And so goes the folly of human spirituality."<br /><br />But to have all sorts of opinions and worries about the world, also requires that I allow my I to be rampant, and lose focus on the inquiry. The world can take care of itself, and if it is as Maharshi said, like a script, or as in the note penned to his mother, "the fates of souls are all by god ordained, according to the deeds they have done.". Then those gurus really in the ultimate sense, in terms of the Self do not really exist. They are individual minds, and for me to perceive other individual minds, I would have to have an individual mind, and inquiry is inquiry into that individual-mind, to see that it's real nature is not an individual-mind. As Maharshi said, for there to be others, a 2nd and 3rd persons, there needs to be a 1st person.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-64036503057725094702010-03-09T10:04:26.696-08:002010-03-09T10:04:26.696-08:00"To begin that process, we simply have to obs..."To begin that process, we simply have to observe the body, mind, and ego as they arise, and not fall into exclusive identification with the internal self-images that are generated by the mind as a natural part of born life. To ease our identification with the body does not mean increasing our identification with that internal self-image. It means merely observing both without identifying with either - or at least while easing our identification with either. To observe the process of our own identification with the body and mind and self-image is the quickest way to ease that identification, and to begin to see and feel beyond it. As we mature in that process, we will find ourselves enjoying a greater freedom in consciousness and life, but we will still be subject to identification with the body, and we have to accept that, and allow our self-image to correspond to the body as well. As our understanding and perception of the body increases, our self-image may even grow, but only in natural accord with the body itself. It needs to always keep step with the body, since that is its source."<br /><br />The same question applies, who is there to observe? I thought the purpose of inquiry is to realize that there is no observer or that the observer's nature is not person-hood, individuality, observer-ship, witness-hood. To go one step further and look at the one who is looking, to realize the worldless, egoless, experiencer-less state. I'm still a practicer, not a jnani, but this is my understanding. On your last part my understanding is that the body is not the source of the self-image, or the I-thought. It is a result of the I-thought. I remember Papaji and Maharshi both saying that with the I's arising, all else arises. To inquire into that I. Papaji called it cutting off the head, and that true surrender is the surrender of I, or individuality. Regardless, I don't think you addressed this. I is left intact by this essay. (laugh)Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-39601659287831878762010-03-09T09:58:43.000-08:002010-03-09T09:58:43.000-08:00"It's important to observe the body, the ..."It's important to observe the body, the mind, the ego, and the self-image, and see how they relate to one another."<br /><br />But I think the apt question in light of Maharshi's teachings, is who has that body, mind, ego. Who is it who can observe them, and see how they relate with eachother. That one, would be the supposed individual that inquiry is supposed to illuminate as not being real, am I right? If there is anything observed, there is an observer. Who is that one? I think is the question Maharshi poses? And to investigate, probe into that observer, to see what the nature of that observer is, and if it really is a person, an individual.Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-32529952403741268652010-03-09T09:53:14.741-08:002010-03-09T09:53:14.741-08:00I read alot of this, I might read a little more. W...I read alot of this, I might read a little more. What I read seemed a really good analysis of the ego. And that spiritual practice does not involve creating an enlightened self-image. In my own experience, the ego is always narcissistic as you described. I've never had an egoic experience that did not fit that description. And even spiritually, sometimes I'm taken out of, or seperated from 'deep' experience by objectifying it, and feeling like I accomplished something. Though I do have to say, bliss or happiness itself is in my experience and opinion based on experience, is not another state of mind, it shines most fully in the absence or decline in states of mind. I would go from the suffering narcissism of the ego, to states of less thought and effulgent bliss, but the thing that has often been left intact is the ego that is observing that state. Because it's a subtler state. The Bliss is natural and not because of, or created by the ego, and I would say it is positive, and in the 'right' direction so to speak. Certainly if I get spiritually narcissistic which I have, then that bliss starts to decline. Because the narcissism is not a blissful or happy state, or the happiness starts to decline as the ego arises again in it's usual narcissism, even if it defines itself as somehow a 'spiritual' ego. It's still the ego. It's not spiritual in the ultimate sense of the word. So the thing that has happened lately, and seems an improvement over my previous understanding is I'm starting to notice that I take a self for granted in any kind of experience gross or subtle, egoic or less egoic, blissful or sorrowful. There is still the I that is watching or experiencing that state. In Maharshi's teachings of Who am I? What I'm realizing is that inquiry is kind of in a sense turning the light of awareness on that one who is watching. There is no other way to actually transcend the ego. Because anything else leaves the central I intact. So if there is one spiritually practicing, if there is one who is an adept, if there is one who has a deep grasp, it is still the central I who is the witness of that experience left intact, it is still the central I that is person. That was something, in what I read, I didn't see you address. You addressed the forms of the ego quite well, but I didn't see a whole lot on the actual inquiry to transcend the ego. That narcissism, those experiences, there is one who has them, who is central to them. One turns the light of awareness on that one, the narcissistic one, the spiritual one, the supposed adept. And that's how the sadhana is accomplished, is finished, I think. I guess that is how the Self is realized, though there is nothing objective there. I think it is worthy of note, that happiness or bliss, is good. The interpretations of it, necessitate further inquiry, the ego who is observing it, or experiencing it, necessitates further inquiry. Turning the light on that supposed individual, to see that there is no individual there, nor there mentally created world experience, fanclub or not. (laugh)Losing M. Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593870441560584967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20670916.post-39071420816297018342010-02-24T18:28:40.131-08:002010-02-24T18:28:40.131-08:00Hey Conrad - when you get a chance-
my Maya-Gaia w...Hey Conrad - when you get a chance-<br />my Maya-Gaia website was moved when GeoCities shut down couple of months back. The URL to your link to Maya-Gaia should now read-<br />http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/maya-gaia_sitemap.html <br /><br />On another note, Don't know if you have interest in W.T. Stace's work "Mysticism and Philosophy" but complete book is online at: http://wudhi.com/mysticism/ws/index.htm <br /><br />I did a review starting with an examination of his two categories<br />of mystical experience- introvertive and extrovertive that<br />evoked considerable confusion for me as described at -<br />http://maya-gaia.angelfire.com/stace_mysticism.htmlmaya-gaiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635338282525024784noreply@blogger.com