SMS - a simple model of spirituality

The SMS - simple model of spirituality - has these parts:

1. A physical body, of an individual human being;
2. a transcendental entity, "inside" 1;
3. an interface - practically unlimited - between 1 and 2, a non-physical part inside 1, yet different from 2;
4. the world outside 1 (the physical body), including living and non-living things. That includes other humans as well.

In Mind Sandwich, I talked about a single entity or field which is different at different levels or at different boundaries, next to two very different entities. This single field could be considered a communication channel - a pipe - or a layer between those two entities.

In communication networks, such a channel or pipe is a router or gateway, one that transforms one type of communication into another. For example, data sent in wireless mode changed to wired mode. Or vice versa.

Now imagine a similar thing exists inside you. Indian philosophy calls it antaḥ-karaṅa, literally, inner instrument. It is also translated as mind, intellect, ego, etc., depending on its function or mode. This inner instrument has two boundaries or interfaces or ends, one near a transcendental entity that subsumes the physical and spiritual universes, and one near the physical body.

Spiritual practice simply aims to activate the entirety of this inner instrument, especially the parts closer to the transcendental entity. Those parts are much, much, subtler than the parts closer to the physical body. Increase in subtlety comes with fewer and fewer qualities related to individual and separated entities. Thus, from selfishness - for one entity, or a limited set of entities related to that one entity - to selflessness - away from one or a small set of related entities, towards all entities.

The inner instrument translates communication from the transcendental entity to the physical body. But, since it carries out other functions like memory, ego, discrimination, emotion, etc. for the physical body, in contrast to the router, it also uses the communication in its own activities.

Different paths focus on different levels of the antah-karaNa. advaita, to take an extreme example, focuses only on the transcendental entity and the subtlest parts nearby, much to the detriment of the rest of the interface. cārvāka - the favourite whipping post of other Indian philosophies - is at the other extreme, focusing only on the physical body and very few parts of the antaḥ-karaṅa nearest to it.

The Patanjali Yoga Sutras take a three-pronged approach.

At the lowest level is the eight-step process - aṣṭānga yoga, including outward-oriented or other-oriented moral and ethical practices, as well as sensor- or boundary- (skin, ears, etc.) oriented, and inward-oriented practices which train the attention to face three different directions - outward, at the instruments, and inward.

At the middle level is the three-step process of kriya yoga, including austerity or reducing over-indulgence, self-study (of and by oneself), and feeling the presence of the transcendental entity at various levels of delimitation.

At the highest level is the unnamed two-step process of going directly from the grossest to subtlest levels of the interface - antaḥ-karaṅa - through the practice of stabilising or holding it at different levels of subtlety, and letting go or relinquishing grosser levels. That transmutes a grosser level of antaḥ-karaṅa into its subtler causal level. At the highest or subtlest level, the antaḥ-karaṅa becomes unmanifest for a single human being.

The higher levels become habitual, effortless, and effective only after the lower levels have been mastered. Those who want to do only the subtlest practices, a-la advaitins, risk getting subtler states randomly and definitely have trouble maintaining them.

(Along similar lines, Idries Shah writes that Sufi training emphasises practices for emotional stability first in order to reliably - and repeatedly - get and keep veridical - true inner - experiences.)

NOTES

The three levels of practice are based mainly on Swami Veda Bharati's translation and commentary on the Yoga Sutras. Any mistakes in interpretation or paraphrasing are mine.

The logical paradox of self-realisation

Revered practitioners in the advaita tradition say there is nothing to realise.

We are already self-realised.

A logical paradox since we don't normally feel self-realised or always peaceful and happy.

Some logical reasons from advaita for that statement:

- a state in which self-realisation is not and then occurs is not eternal

- nor is it stable, i.e, unchanging

- a state subject to change or loss is, by definition, not absolute

- self-realisation is absolute, by definition again

- hence it must be ever-present

(Practically, this means we don't have to struggle to achieve anything. We have to simply let go of whatever blocks the simple awareness of our natural state. Of course, easier said than done!)

From - just do it - to - just be

Let your

ever-busy,

cogitating, 

doubting, 

rearranging, 

creating, 

planning, 

worrying 

mind-field

take

a well-deserved nap.

Just BE.

Becoming happens.

A simple model of spiritual practice - sāṁkhya

A simple model from traditional sāṁkhya.

An infinity exists - unmanifest. Within are three categories:

1. sattva - illuminating/discriminating/"aware"-ing,

2. rajas - impelling - and,

3. tamas - impeding.

All three are initially unmanifest as well.

sattva is subtlest, rajas gross, tamas grossest, with respect to understanding.

sattva, rajas, and tamas can have individually different levels of vibration or subtlety.

sattva is also related to willpower; subtlest sattva => subtlest intention or will.

The effects of rajas and tamas on mental and physical "stuff" are the same - causing/changing movement or stopping movement. (Movement is eternal, across different levels, so tamas is also temporary vis-a-vis eternity. Thus, even static rocks erode and disappear over millennia.)

When manifestation starts, sattva is maximum, rajas and tamas are minimum or nil.

Manifestation evolves to grosser levels and devolves to subtler levels. (Why manifestation at all is unclear, though there are speculative answers.)

At our current individual state and that of the universe, sattva is minimum, rajas and tamas maximum. Put differently, free-will in the present is minimum; habitual unthinking reaction - fighting/fleeing or freezing - is maximum.

Individual meditation and other spiritual practices increase the ratio of sattva - in this infinity - compared to rajas and tamas. 

One view: increasing activity - rajas - reduces the quantity of tamas, and rajas is reduced in turn by increasing sattva.

Another view: sattva is transmuted into rajas and tamas and reversal happens during spiritual/inward practice.

(krodha may be equivalent to rajas and kāma to tamas. Hence Babuji saying they are natural and practically ineradicable.)

rajas and tamas are "mechanical" or "non-conscious". sattva is also non-conscious, but is closest in appearance or function to consciousness. Thus, spiritual practice aims first at increasing sattva to attain or become pure consciousness.

Once the "devolution" reaches pure or maximum sattva, it can only go further through unmanifestation. At this point, even separation or "this and that" awareness are lost.

Individual devolution probably results in only a part of the infinity becoming unmanifest. A universal devolution alone - mahāpraḷaya - can cause total unmanifestation. What if every individual did not devolve? Can universal devolution occur?

Please note all of the above are only regarding prakṛti or pradhāna. Consciousness-energies - puruṣas - are another set of infinities, each one eternally separate from the prakṛti infinity, and untouched by its series of evolution-devolution sequences.

Simplest definition of spirituality

Attention - inward and upward/subtler, effortlessly, continuously.

Babuji puts it pithily, as usual: Turn your head from here to there.

Daaji and/or Chariji: Don't turn your head back from there to here afterwards!

Why effortlessly?

It is as natural for the attention to go inward as outward. It is even easier.

Why continuously?

It's an infinite journey.

Can I look inside and yet lead a normal life?

Apparently, we understand the outside world only through our brains [1], or we live in our heads already, so it's nothing new.

NOTES

[1] Eagleman, David. 2015. (Video) How The Brain Creates Reality, Episode 1, The Brain with David Eagleman. PBS, USA.

Happiness, carpets, expectations, and now

Consider:

Can I be happy without something outside? Do I want to carpet the whole world so I can walk barefoot? What about shoes?

Can I be happy or sad - or whatever - right now, when something is happening, than later - after I have figured out what emotion I should have?

Is life without expectations possible?

Does happiness from outside circumstances last?

Now these:

Something I like          happens - I am        happy.

Something I don't like happens - I am not happy.

From Idries Shah's Pleasantries of the Incredible Mulla Nasruddin:

  There Is a Different Time-Scale

Nasrudin went to a Turkish bath. As he was  poorly dressed, the attendants treated him in a casual manner, gave him only a scrap of soap and an old towel.

When he left, Nasrudin gave the two men a gold coin each. He had not complained, and they could not understand it. Could it be, they wondered, that if he had been better treated he would have given an even larger tip?

The following week the Mulla appeared again.

This time, of course, he was looked after like a king. After being massaged, perfumed and treated with the utmost deference, he left the bath, handing each attendant the smallest possible copper coin. 

‘This’, said Nasrudin, ‘is for last time. The gold coins were for this time.’

And finally:

           Babuji: The happiest man is he who is happy under all circumstances.

[Heartfelt thanks to Daaji - unwritten words make a much bigger set than written ones.]

Yogic evolution - defence to defencelessness

A profound story:

Two yogis meet.

Yogi #1 is immensely proud of his powers and says, "I'll show you my siddhis. Strike me with this sword as hard as you can!"

The other does and the sword shatters against his adamantine frame.

Yogi #1 then says, "See, nothing can hurt me! What about you?"

Yogi #2 says, "Do the same to me."

The first yogi whips out another sword and strikes with immense strength, but the sword simply swishes through the other yogi without any resistance.

Try replacing:

• swords with words, 
• adamantine body with adamantine ego and self-image;
• both yogis with yourself

to understand the evolution:

from aggressive defence

to

total defencelessness or unreactiveness.

Idries Shah writes somewhere that a seeker first becomes a dervish and then a Sufi. A dervish may have greater powers than a Sufi who has surrendered totally.

NOTES

The two yogis may be Gorakhnath and Sadasivendra Sarasvati, aka Sadashiv Brahmendra, though I have no idea from where I got this story.