Progress in laya

The general approach in spiritual progress is:

1. turn attention inward
2. move or let the attention flow to subtler levels progressively
   
3. receive the communication or inspiration from the Absolute more and more clearly

Another perspective:

Dissolution or laya of effects into their causes until the ultimate cause or level is reached. This merges 1. and 2. above since dissolution requires going from the grosser (outer) to the subtler (inner).

Consider this sequence of subtle causes manifesting gross effects, from traditional Samkhya:

1. unmanifest pradhana or prakrti, unmanifest guṇas
   
2. mahat (sattva-predominant, rajas-tamas minimal)
   
3. ahaṁkāra (sattva+rajas, tamas minimal)
   
4. manas (sattvic ahaṁkāra) and
   tanmātras (tamasic ahaṁkāra)
   - impelled by rajasic ahaṁkāra
5. jnanendriya and karmendriya (from manas) and
   pancabhūtas (from tanmātras)
   

A subtlety at the end of this sequence makes the practice of Samkhya - progressive laya - elegantly logical and consistent. All three elements in 5. refer to the sensing and acting of a jiva, an embodied entity, in a "sensed world". Thus, pancabhūtas, matter and/or energy outside a jiva, are known to it only by inward sensations resulting from their impinging on its sense organs - jnanendriyas. Outward interactions with matter and/or energy occur through the karmendriyas.

 Consider a similar sequence, from science:

1. Energy fields
2. Subatomic particles
3. Atoms
4. Molecules
5. Elements, compounds, visible matter - gas, liquid, solid
   

To go from the grosser to the subtler requires greater and greater input of material energy, as from solid to liquid to gas, from gaseous matter to molecules to atoms and so on, to energy fields.

This could be why spiritual seekers, especially the scientifically-minded, believe more and more mental and/or physical effort is needed to go to subtler levels. On the contrary, relaxing more and more in meditation is the real meaning of surrendering more and more. Keeping up the artificial barriers of individuality and holding on to just my mental stuff takes much more effort than letting go.

(Important Note: The physical body does not change appreciably during the spiritual journey. It may become more sensitive and healthier as various kośas synchronise and eating habits become regular and better. But mental or non-physical changes won't automatically result in a fitter or healthier body.)

A systematic inward journey to subtler levels in sāṁkhya-yoga is simply this:

First pay attention to the outside, one sense organ at a time if you like, but letting the attention of each organ drift easily from sensation to sensation. E.g., the sounds around you, without analysis or visceral mental reactions - liking or disliking. Simply let your attention drift to whatever draws it.

Next, pay attention to the sensing organs themselves. Systematic physical relaxation from feet to head will do this effortlessly.

Then move inward even further to the mind, manas, itself. The easiest way is by choosing an infinite or transcendental object, especially one that goes beyond verbal limits, and resting the attention on that. An increase in subtlety and successive laya [1] will occur naturally. This and the following three require guidance. [2]

Next the ego, ahaṁkāra.

Next the discrimination, buddhi.

And finally back to a balanced state. But like a salt doll, which goes into the ocean and loses its tiny amount of individual salt, while "getting" all the salt of the ocean, there's no "I" left to discuss its state.n

Ispiration/communication from the Absolute - 3. in the first sequence at the top of this post - is a matter of experience.

NOTES

[1] In the Sahaj Marg spiritual journey, Babuji describes laya as divided into multiple stages which repeat at each point.

[2] The Heartfulness Way/Sahaj Marg practices, especially meditation and constant remembrance, use this technique with the inner Master as the guide.

Perspectives of progress

Attention outward to attention inward.

Inward attention on thoughts and thoughts about thoughts - meta-thoughts.

Attention on feelings without thoughts.

Attention on just being or witnessing.

Reduced energy use of the brain.

Peace at various levels - from a pause in turbulence to an end of turbulence of various kinds.

Peace in the five sheaths - physical and energetic sheaths - smooth, effortless breathing, no aches or pains, relaxation, systems, muscles and nerves working as expected; mental; understanding/wisdom; bliss/being/witnessing sheath.

Immanence to transcendence - a humongous shift.

From transcendence to immanence at will.

Tamasic to rajasic to sāttvic.

Cycles of tamas - rajas - sattva dominance, across levels or points.

Granthi to chakra to padma - static knot to dynamic whirlpool to virtually non-existent open lotus.

Cycles of sameepya - salokya - saroopya - sayoojya across levels or points.

Turbulence after peace. Subtler peace after turbulence.

Increased sensitivity from spiritual practice creating sharper and deeper reactions to situations. Then, accepting the situations and learning to relax, consciously avoiding reactions.

Understanding, after an event. Understanding, during an event. Understanding, even before an event. Ties into reactivity and sensitivity.

I - she - they - pronouns and ego

Consider these pronouns :

He, she, they

Do 'he' thoughts, thoughts about someone, bring up 'not I' - "he's not I" - and thus 'I' thoughts? Thoughts of comparison: positive, negative, or even neutral/objective comparison?

Using '=>' to mean 'implies':

he => not I => I?

How about:

she => not I => I?

Or:

they => not I => I?

E.g., he is nice, he's not me, I am not nice. Or vice versa.

She's not nice, she's not me, I am also not nice.

They're blue-skinned, they're not me, I am brown-skinned.

(I am forced to use 'me' to satisfy English grammatical rules. But I hope the idea that 'he' thoughts can generate 'I' thoughts is clear.)

Other variations [1] on such thought sequences:

him => not me => me

her => not me => me

they => not me => me

his => not mine =>mine

hers => not mine =>mine

their => not mine => mine

All right, so what? Isn't this normal?

That's precisely the point. It doesn't have to be normal. Such thought sequences, especially by deliberate indulgence, bolster the sense of ego.

Simple awareness is sufficient to change.

Why change?

To reduce the energy wasted, on useless and even demotivating comparisons, especially on negative thoughts, and by the resulting physical stress. Using the brain efficiently also reduces one's ego!

Going inward for spiritual evolution is all very well. But if all we do by going inward is outward thinking, about others outside, that doesn't help us in removing our self-created layers of impurities and complexities. Again, it reduces the brain's efficiency.

NOTES

[1] based on "ego" implying "I, me, and my/mine" thoughts or emotions

Limpidity of OM as A-U-M

Om is considered a mystical sound. An entire upaniṣad [1] delves into its significance. But its physical experience as the split-sandhi a-u-m is incredibly limpid.

Try this little vocal exercise:

1. Relax your jaws, cheeks, and lips completely.
2. Open your mouth wide by letting the lower jaw come all the way down.
3. Inhale deeply for an extended, gentle, exhalation. Exhale gently and make a relaxed aaaa sound. (Any other sound will move the lips or the jaws)
4. Gently bring up the lower jaw, keeping the throat and lips relaxed.
5. Let the sound continue.
6. Listen to the change in the sound. When the lower jaw is midway, the sound changes clearly when the vibration has shifted from the back to the middle of the mouth.
7. Let the lips touch and let the sound die out.

The sound changes, effortlessly and naturally, from aaaa to uuuu to mmmm!

Try recording yourself and playing back.

Now, try it at a higher pitch, and bring up the lower jaw faster. But keep the lips completely relaxed to avoid shaping the sound. The change in sound should come from the jaw movement alone.

It's a really nice way to understand why Aa to mm is considered the full range [2] of vocal sound, from the very back to the very front.

NOTES

[1] The māṇḍukya - albeit the shortest upaniṣad at just 12 shlokas!

[2] The plosives - consonant sounds with the lips - require lip movements, while mmm doesn't. So one can argue that mmm is the last sound possible even if it isn't the last letter of an alphabet (Sanskrit, e.g.).

Stacks and thoughts in meditation

 Consider a stack used in a cafeteria for plates. It is spring-loaded to work on only one plate at a time. Plates are inserted into the stack singly, one on top of the other. To take out the lowest plate one must take out all the plates above it, one at a time.

Now imagine a thought is like a plate. When your attention is upon it, it is at the top of the stack. The next thought adds to the stack and one gets back to the previous one by letting go of this one. Related thoughts can keep piling up in this stack until attention shifts to a different stack altogether.

This is a limited metaphor since the mind need not behave like a stack or even a set of stacks. Still it is useful for describing meditation.

When practising meditation, we start with one point/location or thought or idea or concept and then rest our attention upon it for a while. When we realise our attention is no longer on that initial object, we try to come back to it. So, there is one plate on the attention stack first, and then another plate appears on top of it. Take out the second plate and the first one pops up to the top and regains our attention.

The effortless (or less effort) part of meditation lies in the ease with which one gets back to the first plate. One idea is to understand that attention is a gripping action. Relaxing one's mental grip or letting go of the thought causes that thought to drift away or somehow disappear. Engaging with the new thought - in any way whatsoever - gives it more attention and thus more energy or effort gets used to remove the second plate.

By this metaphor, meditation should ultimately be a stack of just one plate for a long time. As long as 12 seconds first is dhaaraNa. Then 12x12 - 144 seconds is dhyaana. (Beyond that, an exponentially longer time, comes samaadhi.)

The first 12 seconds is defined by a "location", which normally denotes a physical location for one's attention. But it could also be a mental location. A list of possibilities shows its generality - an idea, a feeling, an attitude, the mental counterpart of a physical activity (like an audible or subverbal japa).

Simplicity and generality result in fewer and fewer words or thoughts. Feeling is more subtle than thinking, being even more subtle than feeling.

Why a direct experience of self-realisation?

Why should self-realisation be experienced and not just understood?

Here's one perspective [1]:

A new moon in the sky may be hard to see. But someone who has seen it himself can say to those who haven’t, ‘Look, there is a crow sitting on the branch of that tree. Look where my finger is pointing. Behind the head of the crow you can see the moon.’

If you follow the advice you will see the moon, but if you keep your attention on the pointing finger or the crow or the branch of the tree, you will miss the point of the directions that are being given to you.

The books that have been left by the founders of various religions and the teachers who expound on them are the fingers that point. People end up focussing on these fingers and not following the line of sight to see what they are pointing at.

No book, no person, no word reveals the truth. You have to look and see it for yourself. It has to be your own experience, not something you have picked up from someone else.

(In the same book, two experiences are described. One was at the age of six! Another was twenty-five years later.

Understanding self-realisation is difficult precisely because it is not anything new which springs into existence. Papaji, e.g., found no difference in the two experiences, but still continued with his japa until experiences of the Divine as another entity outside him ended naturally.)

Another, simpler, perspective. Babuji (and Ramakrishna Paramahamsa) advised: taste the mango, don't just talk about it!

NOTES

[1] Godman, David. 1998. (Kindle ed.) Nothing Ever Happened - Papaji Biography, vol.I. Chapter: Ramana Maharshi. Question on experience at age of six.