I want to take a moment to discuss the layer beneath the instrumental layer, the subjective. Recall that Patanjali, the compiler of the yoga sutras discussed three distinct modes of awareness that he terms the objective, the instrumental, and the subjective. We have discussed the objective and instrumental quite a bit so far. Time to take a look at the subjective.
For many years I used to follow a form of vichara (the practice of moving in) dedicated to asking the question "who am I"? I won't say it wasn't an interesting journey of investigation but years later I have come to question "why"?
In other words why ask that question? It is funny and very strange to me that the very question contains within itself an axiom. It contains within itself an assumption. That there is an I. That someone can ask the question. I remember my mind continually annihilating itself trying to "get somewhere" with the answer... Quite funny really.
What do we really mean by I? When we examine closely, not so much to determine who I am (and definitely not trying to describe preference or personality) but if we examine carefully what we mean by I we come to the fact that there is a certain localization of energy that is presenting itself in this very time and space.
Localization. Even the best inquirers I have known in the world, even the ones who claim to not be the body, that claim to be just consciousness, all of these practitioners cannot escape their locality. I haven't met one that is omnipresent, omnipowerful, all knowing (can tell me and everyone else exactly what they are thinking and more).
Where am I going with this? There is a tendency in modern spiritual culture to overcome and move through the ego. To transcend the ego. What are we transcending? If there truly is no ego why do we even bother? What are we giving energy to?
In my investigations through long enquiry, I have found that ego is something that exists only on the objective level of mind. Nowhere else. Ego is a defined thought about a me, from which arises preference for this or that.
At the instrumental level does ego exist? Here in my investigations, there is only locality, localization in this time and this space. Nothing screams out "me". I don't see an "I" in locality. There isn't even really any definition. Pure seeing in itself, pure hearing in itself, pure sensing in itself involves no "I". But strangely there is localization in these pure acts of witness.
What is this localization of continuity that presents itself from moment to moment? Like I say, I have not met one practitioner who has overcome localization. I have heard tale of some but never met them.
Localization is interesting. It still is invested in self preservation of that very locality. Think for example of a time when you were in danger. The deep sensory localization most likely took over to remove you as rapidly as possible from the situation. This is witnessed all the time in the animal kingdom.
Even to expand into space with meditation on the subtler element, this localization of consciousness/bliss/energy/awareness always reforms itself around this local body phenomena. Could the body truly talk and move if not?
This localization to me is the subjective level that Patanjali describes in his yoga sutras. Not the ego. I used to think the ego itself was the subject but truly the locality is the common meeting point of all sensory instrumental level modes of experience.
To recap and summarize, I don't follow exactly in my own investigations the same track described by the samkhya. In my direct experience, the senses are prior to the objective mode of thought that many call the mind. Many traditions place this mind prior to the senses, a belief which I do not relate to. Ego for me dies with the mind. The continuity of awareness however precedes that and functions through the differentiation of the 5 elements which I witness as the senses. And all of these resolve into what I call locality or what we might call the subjective level of continuum.
There is more I would like to say on this, regarding how the continuum functions through the subjective, instrumental, and objective modes and about what lies beyond the subjective mode. Interesting questions about space and time travel as well. Also questions such as : is the locality truly a problem? More on that later.
Interesting post, Matt. No locality is not specifically a problem. It just is. Inquiry is not meant to change anything, but simply to recognize what is. If you, as a human are in a car, you may identify with the car or with yourself as a human. But you are still localized by the car. Similarly, we may be expressing as human body, but that does not negate the reality that what is prior to the pronoun "I" is simple Awareness or consciousness. When the wave inquires into what he is "prior" to waveness, it recognizes the nature of water. Though localized, it doesn't negate the waterness of the wave and potentially move it toward the infinite waterness which it is now able to begin to recognize (unlike when it was totally identified as the wave body). The question of whether there is or is not a separate entity (atma, soul) eternally distinct from the singular Absolute, is a question which makes the very distinctions of the various Vedantic schools - Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vishnu Swami, Baladeva Vidyabhushana, etc. There are three modes of evidence or pramana: pratyaksha - direct experience, anumana - reasoning, and shabda - scriptural evidence. While the shabda and anumana can guide us, ultimately it is the direct experience which satisfies.
ReplyDeleteRecognizing that one is consciousness is really not a big deal, just like it's no big deal to realize you are a human within the car. Will you be affected by the car? Certainly to a large extent, but it still allows distinction. Can one recognize they are consciousness, distinct from the body, experiencing the body as object, and be affected by it. Again, yes. In the last 4 levels of sapta jnana bhumika (seven stages of knowledge) from brahma-vid onward, the distinction of these 4 is determined by what extent they re-identify with the individualized body/mind phenomena, and even that is not within their control but due to pre-destined karma. Weird, huh?
Also, the question Who am I, although appearing to have the assumption that there is an "I", in fact is not meant for that at all, but to drectly experience what it is that we refer to as a localized "I". I do not think you would want to discourage people from making a direct inquiry into Truth, anymore than you would want to discourage anyone from following their bliss.
Okay, I've ranted on your blog long enough. Hope you are well and sending all my love to you and yours.
Aja
Hi Aja, I appreciate your comments. I suppose the reason for my above blog is the distinction between ego and localization which at least for me for many years was confused. Inquiry takes one fast below the level of the ego but it doesn't (at least for me in this time and space) take one past localization. And it makes me wonder what exactly Patanjali and the ancient Samkyaites viewed as Buddhi. The tantrics took the whole tattva thing to an entirely different level with the introduction of God and maya and those tattvas are what seem to exist prior to localization. I agree consciousness is not a big deal. Many folks that wake up to this though are not in my opinion necessarily waking up to the depth of what creates localization in the first place and seem to stop here (which is also not a big deal). But my inquiring movements (due to my karma I suppose) seem to want to investigate further....
ReplyDeleteThanks again. Your "rants" are always welcome.
For me, inquiry is a good starting point. But instead of ”WHO am I?” the question quickly shifted to ”WHERE am I?” Not referring to place on the earth, but in my mind? My brain? My heart? Body, which kosha.... This undercut the WHO by seeing there was not a set location at all in the normal scheme of time and space. It also gives you a different experience of the senses. Once a student sees this they are on a different path. As I said it is the initial steps.
ReplyDeleteEven where am I implies an I and this is in my opinion is a false assumption based on a strange axiom. It doesn't invalidate or change the fact of localization of consciousness. But I definitely appreciate your comment! Where or who both involve a motivation that is based on locality. Your question of "where" am I is close to the idea of locality but it also involves the question of "I" which is not necessary in the the actuality of locality. A wave can "exist" in the ocean but not actually "see" itself as separate from the ocean. My point in this particular blog is to question and examine the locality itself which is in my opinion prior to the concept of I. This is why I believe that in the the tantric conception of tattva, there are many tattvas prior to the concept of purusha. Does the ego equate with locality? Many praises to the questions though. Inquiry of any level is good and I don't mean to criticize it. I aim to sharpen it. And clarify it. I think all aspects of the question need to be examined, including the axioms they are based on.
ReplyDeleteYes but.... by asking WHERE you more quickly see there isn't really an ”I” other than something wholly made up. Because where exactly is this I? That was my point. In my opinion, the WHO question could get anyone distracted for quite a while.
ReplyDelete