symptoms of purification or of practice?

[tallis]

Why is it that some of us experience certain 'scenery' repeatedly - in same cases virtually every time we exercise a certain practice? And why is it that some of us experience that same scenery just once?

Experience of the star is just one example.

When we experience a certain vision, once, twice or infrequently, it seems to me that this is what Yogani is talking about when he says that purification is the cause.  That it is the friction between our newly released inner energy and a less than perfectly pure nervous system which produces what we see.  After a while - perhaps after just one experience - the process smoothes out, our nervous system moves on, and we no longer see the scenery in question.  Personally, I have experienced this with pretty much every new AYP practice I've taken on.

But if this is the case, why is it that certain scenery occurs repeatedly in other people?  The process of purification which yields any scenery will surely have an end after there is no more 'friction'.  Therefore the cause of frequently or daily recurring scenery must be different.  But what is the cause then?  Is it the practice itself which directly causes the scenery to arise?  For those with highly purified nervous systems, can the practice create the same scenery, again and again, in a 'frictionless' environment, whereas for lesser mortals we experience just a 'one-off'?  I can't see the logic here.

But then again, it's probably not about logic...
Any thoughts?

Is there anyone out there who first experienced certain scenery as a one-off occurance, and then, later, re-experienced the same scenery as a regular, frequent phenomenon?

[VIL]

tallis:

quote:whereas for lesser mortals we experience just a 'one-off'? I can't see the logic here.

That's the best kind.

tallis:  

quote:But if this is the case, why is it that certain scenery occurs repeatedly in other people?

Because we all get attached to the scenery at one time or another.  

VIL

[Richard]

quote:Why is it that some of us experience certain 'scenery' repeatedly - in same cases virtually every time we exercise a certain practice? And why is it that some of us experience that same scenery just once?

Experience of the star is just one example.

This is my experience as well tallis especially with the star it was so clear and intense the first time I did Yoni Mudra, I very rarely see it at all now, I used to wonder why as well but now days I have stopped trying to Analise anything I just do the practices and live my life and life is good.

Scenery isn't important some people get a lot and some of the most experienced practitioners on here get hardly any at all. The thing to look for is changes for the better in your everyday life.

[VIL]

quote:tallis: Is there anyone out there who first experienced certain scenery as a one-off occurance, and then, later, re-experienced the same scenery as a regular, frequent phenomenon?

Yes, but then you learn to differentiate between what is just scenery and what is Spirit - (Another term used to denote a Universal Law that is not understood or made aware to a persons consciousness).

Let me explain, for example, we've been discussing syncronicity and as we progress along the path we seem to just get things out of the blue or how things just happen seemingly in our favor.  According to the law of probability this is impossible, although it's proven that it does happen regardless of this Law.  

So a person may reexperience these types of things over and over again, but it is order for a person to even experience this phenomenon they HAVE TO BE DETACHED.  Again, it is impossible to attach yourself to a Universal/Spiritual Law.  So, then you begin to understand that something very different is at play here and you begin to differentiate between scenery and Universal/Spiritual Law and begin to learn how to work in accordance with these Spiritual Laws and benefit yourself by helping others through reciprocity.  As these experiences continue to repeat themselves, the person naturally becomes more detached from scenery, surrenders, benefits him/herself and others by increased Faith and Awareness.

...the moment I let go of it was the moment I got more than I could handle - Alanis Morisette



VIL

[x.j.]

Could you guys be more specific when you use the term "scenery"?
To just say "scenery" implies that all perceptions are meaningless and maybe, symptoms, that will clear with time as we get more pure.  Maybe we can only speak for ourselves on that? Maybe the star perception, of sushumna, which you mention in the above posts,is  reality and not symptom?
As far as symptoms of purification and yogic changes, for me those include the following: existential doubt, physical pain, and psychological suffering. It's like those uncomfortable symptoms, symptoms of  purification, are some kind of growth pains.Your concept of scenery though sounds somehow strange to me, and seems to imply that mystical imagery that results after yogic growth, could be just meaningless scenery and illusive symptoms, and not really true. This evokes the story of the blind men feeling the different parts of an elephant.

Correct me if I am mistaken, and tell me you are not being totally dismissive of mystical visions and insights as somehow being only symptoms of purification.
John c

[VIL]

Hey, John, I changed my original reply to "we all experience" instead of "they" as if I'm non inclusive to the same ups and downs of attachment and non attachment.

I think a good indicator to guage the reality of any experience, whether considered mystical or mundane, is our willingness to question the experience and rid ourselves of preconceived notions of what we think we are experiencing or our willingness to give up the experience all together.  That was a hard thing for me to do when I originally thought that the seat of the Self was located within the heart, since I experienced looking through my body at objects imbued with light and I heard a distant ticking like that of a bell.   The experience was very real and my mind immediately attatched itself to the experience, because of the mythical connotation, which was later reinforced by literature validating what I thought was the reality of the experience.  I went as far to say that the Seat of the Self was also in the Ajna, et al.  Since then, I've been using the gift of self-inquiry to further demystify the experience which has created a deeper perception of the reality of things by understanding the metaphorical content of the actual experience itself.  A picture is worth a thousand words:

Your paradigm of the elephant is a perfect metaphor for the need for diligence to continually question ourselves and to search for the deeper meaning from the experience.  If those mystics would have done so they would have found that the truth didn't lie beneath the darkness concealing the elephant, but from not patiently awaiting to hear the sound of the elephant, and, in time, the sun would have risen and they would have known it was an elephant.

Self-inquiry has opened so many doors that I can tell you this, that there is no seat of the Self within the heart, nor the Ajna or even the Crown.  I know that may sound unbelievable, but it's not true in the sense that some people may think it to be true:



VIL

[x.j.]

Hi VIL,
Thanks for your good hearted, caring and well taken admonishment, which I accept fully. I promise to explore that advice. And see if I can come to the kind of understanding and insight that you have achieved in this.

Regarding what you and others are referring to above, as the star --- and I assume that is reference to the star that is perceived at the uppermost point within the Sushumna--- is that "scenery" or not?  
respectfully submitted to my sibling forumites VIL and the others.
John C

[emc]

Hi all,

The term scenery is surrounded by many individual connotations. We had a discussion in the "Non-duality - multiplicity"-thread, and Yoganis answer to what scenery is, is seen here:

http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=3148#27124

Scenery is ulitmately everything we experience, since what we are in the deep is: nothing. So EVERYTHING that is perceived can be called scenery - that is the whole existence!

However, if we are in existence as persons and start experiencing freaky spiritual stuff during meditation or outside meditation, it is easy to get caught in that and believe THAT is it! And it's not! So therefore the term scenery is also used for such events: to remind us that it's not what we experience as cool spiritual development signs that is IT (for example I'd count seeing the star as one such thing). It's what's behind it, that is IT. And we won't "experience" that. We will eventually BE that. And when we ARE that, the whole existence is... again... just scenery! A show on the screen.

[x.j.]

Thanks emc. I like you. But tell me this, is scenery just imagery, that is not substantial in the least? Like all the Third
Eye stuff?  Is that just so much baloney? It seems real, like a window into the universe. And the guys that started this post above, talk about these scenic perceptions just disappearing when purification has been completed, yet I can't imaging all this Third Eye stuff ever disappearing for me. Cosmic consciousness and all the rest of it is definitely here to stay for me. Even just closing my eyes, not even requiring yoni mudra, so how non subsubstantial is that alleged scenery anyhow?  Don't we die into Akasha through that aperature called AJNA someday? How unreal is that scenery? You can see where I am going with this.  Personally, I think your concept of scenery is being carried A LITTLE TOO FAR. Will death be scenery? Are your toes scenery? Corect this poor mistaken yogin some more please.
John

[tadeas]

Why distinguish real and unreal (substantial/unsubstantial)? It's arbitrary. Everything is what it is. It's possible to label it, but it's not necessary. Maybe the star will disappear, maybe it won't. Death will be a scenery, for sure. Who dies? A part of the whole is transformed. How it feels from the inside we'll all know. But any conceptualization of that is arbitrary.
Toes are toes label them as scenery if it helps you to recognize the true nature of the toes

[Scott]

John,

Scenery is what is happening to you as a result of yogic practices.  The word is used to point to the fact that the practices are what's driving us down the spiritual path, not the effects of the practices...so it shows us where to put our focus.

[yogani]

Hi John and All:

Here is are two lessons related to the star, and the evolution of experiences into, through and beyond the star:

http://www.aypsite.com/plus/92.html
http://www.aypsite.com/plus/179.html

All the best!

The guru is in you.

[x.j.]

So I assume these considerations are in so many words, the system of non-dualistic Hindu philosophy known at Avaita Vedanta. Same thing retooled with terminology like scenery. Right?
John

[yogani]

Hi John:

The non-dual and dual philosophies are describing the same thing -- the process, means toward, and end result of human spiritual transformation. Every tradition and teaching is dealing with the same dynamics, which can be found operating within the human nervous system.

The trick is to travel on through to fruition. This cannot be achieved by latching on to the interim steps. Remember the story of Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey?  

This is not to diminish any experience we may have along the way. Indeed, we are free to indulge at any stage as we may be inclined. But let’s not mistake the experience for the practice. It is only practice if it moves us through and beyond the current landscape.

AYP has been accused of being both too dual and too non-dual, which tells me it is probably in about the right place -- straddling the opposing views, recognizing that both are valid from their own perspective. There are practitioners here viewing it experientially from both sides. So there is some evidence for the efficacy of this approach.

The new Self-Inquiry book dances through these overlapping territories also, more-so than any previous AYP writing. It is neither all one way or all the other. It is both. The enlightened condition is both divine energy and absolute stillness -- stillness in action. Both are integral parts of the whole. It is a paradox. We will know the path is progressive if it too seems to be a paradox at times, even while offering practical handles and guidelines which can be easily utilized.

We are bootstrapping ourselves from here to here, steadily toward a realization of what is. It is an ongoing process of purification and opening.

The guru is in you.

[tallis]

Hi All,
Great discussion!
What I was originally interested in, when writing this post, was the process of what causes/produces frequent versus infrequent 'scenery'. (Sorry, John, about the confusion re terminology!)
I threw out some questions, because I feel that the 'friction' explanation of scenery - while it might perfectly describe occasional experiences - does not adequately cover the kind of scenery which occurs to us daily.  Please correct me, Yogani, if I've missed something, but in the books the emphasis is usually placed instead (and rightly so) on a general underlying infusion of divine love and inner silence as we progress along the path.  Nevertheless, daily scenery can and will happen, and I don't remember a specific explanation for it in this respect.

So I have my own ideas and wanted to compare them with all of your own.  I think VIL sums it up very nicely with:

VIL wrote:

quote:So a person may reexperience these types of things over and over again, but it is order for a person to even experience this phenomenon they HAVE TO BE DETACHED.

Exactly: detached.
That's why I was interested in pursuing examples of scenery first experienced as an isolated event, and then, after further purification of the nervous system, as a regular occurance.  In both cases a certain element of detachment occurs.  We've all heard of beginner's luck, and it occurs because we begin as - for lack of a better word - idiots.  Without practical experience or even perhaps full knowledge of the particular forces at work in a given practice (yogic or otherwise), we can much more easily enter into it without bias, without our conscious minds setting up barriers.  You see the relationship here with detachment? - In both cases the conscious mind is in the background.  Anyway, poof!, we get scenery.  From that first experience we lose, or begin to lose our innocence, our conscious mind inevitably setting up an expectation for further experiences, if only by innocuously comparing one sitting with another. (Which, by the way, highlights the need truly to live in the present now, if we are to escape such pitfalls...)  So for a while, perhaps a very long while, our ego prevents further scenery from happening.  Then, when we really and truly are detached, we are free again to experience what was always there in the first place.  Again and again.

Well, that's my take on it, anyway.