Some time ago, Rick Archer, Adyashanti, and Susanne Marie had a conversation I wrote about as it had some interesting distinctions in the experience of self and identity.
Recently, Susanne, John Rogers, and I had a related conversation on No-Self and Brahman.
And now, Rick and Susanne had a related conversation on the sense of personal self – something they’ve been discussing for some time. And something I’ve talked to Rick about, too. I wrote the following comment:
“As you know, I’m more in Rick’s camp. There was a sense of ego-death with awakening, but I soon realized it was still there, but now just as a function. It was no longer the centre. I’ve also seen the “renunciation of the self” used as a bypass of our lived experience. That concept can be a hazard if there is a denial of responsibility or care.
However, here Susanne frames it as coming with Brahman. This goes back to our conversation at Sophia years ago. In our more recent conversation with John, she talked about all the somatic unpacking she did during Unity.
One thing that’s gradually becoming stronger here is an awareness of the intelligence within an experience. It’s embedded in the process of experience within consciousness, the devata. No knower needed, just knowing.
In such cases, there is no self-reflection. A clear knowing simply arises. Listening to this conversation, I was reminded of that.
Yet there is a strong analytical bent here, which draws me into reflection. I see it as part of my nature. It’s a major influence on the writing too, although that also comes through the knowing mentioned above.
As we discussed, there is now a somatic process that’s arisen and a recognition of unfinished business that was unconscious and carefully hidden prior.
As I clear the residues (samskaras), I can see the potential for this to develop further from reflection into knowing. A process that happened more suddenly for Susanne may be happening here more slowly. However, it may also relate to our different makeup. We shall see… :-)”
More and more realization of All That Is must necessarily include all that is still hidden. From the Veda: Brahman says, “My indestructible Maya.”
Right, Sharon
The more conscious we are, the more becomes conscious. However, we also carefully hid this stuff from ourselves as a coping strategy when young. If there isn’t a curiosity and willingness to go there, it can remain hidden. For example, if the person develops a concept that they’re done, then there is a resistance to seeing the resistance. 🙂
Further, we can develop ideas that “this is my nature” so that even when signs pop up of trauma, we dismiss it as normal. There can be subtle, complex dynamics around this stuff.
Even in this conversation, our relationship with a sense of person can vary. Those dynamics will affect what is conscious.
I’ve noticed that in CC moments, I might just “witness” it. In GC moments, might see it as lila, God’s play. Or just go the route of “consciousness is all there is.” You are so right. It is very tricky.
Yes, and behind all that is our own narratives about the “way it is”. Spiritual experiences can expand our perspective and framework, but some of that personal stuff (cognitive biases) can remain, unaffected.
That’s why I prefer to use Sanskrit whenever possible. I think it gets under all of the personal stuff to work directly on the brain and nervous system. Plus it’s powerful and gentle at the same time.
Right – to a degree. But if we know the meaning of the Sanskrit, there are still threads of association. Not a problem, but not 100% innocent. 🙂
In those moments of being triggered, my prefrontal cortex is pretty much useless. So the meaning of the Sanskrit is not easily accessible. Nor is it needed to be, or even welcome. Yet the sound value is immediately compelling and soothing. And healing on deep levels.
Perfect, Sharon. And wonderful you have the natural tendency to go there when a trigger arises. That suggests an observer in play, which in itself is also very helpful for seeing and healing without getting too drawn into it.
Hi David,
The clear knowing that you are describing reminds me quite a lot of the Buddhist notion of the “Great Mirror-Like wisdom”. In that tradition there are 5 basic wisdoms ( each one relating to one of the 5 elements – the space element is included – and each wisdom having an enlightened or neurotic style) Mirror-like wisdom is defined as the capacity of mind to see or reflect things ‘ just as they are” without adding or denying anything to one’s experience – just like a mirror reflects unbiasedly. Also, like a mirror, there is no attachment to the images that come and go. Anger would be the neurotic version of that particular wisdom. The analytical bent you speak of called is called ” Discriminative – Awareness Wisdom” in that tradition. It can see all the fine and particular details of experience/phenomena as well as the totality, simultaneously. These wisdoms are considered omniscient wisdoms ( when fully developed) . I THink you would really like the description of these wisdoms if you ever get a chance to read about them. I refer to it as ” fundamental or transcendental psychology”.
Thanks, Scott
I can relate to the 5 great wisdoms. They can show up at various stages of development. However, one must sustain that discrimination as subtle influences can still arise. One must not assume perfection.