We can all seemingly act from love and wish to spread a message of love to realize infinite love, as many have described very well, but if that message does not hold within it a sense of compassion for others, and the viewpoints and lessons of others, then are we really fostering what we are endorsing? And can the words and teachings that come from others and from ourselves ever be a cause for integration rather than condemnation and divisiveness? Can the similar threads be woven in harmony allowing for illumination rather than pulled apart into fragments and discarded as irrelevant? Is Unity ever unity if it discounts anything else in favor of itself?
I understand that the disagreement here, as is the case with all other disputes, counterpoints, or whatever anyone would prefer to call them, which will be mentioned here is: a difference in perception which is reflected as accuracy or inaccuracy. And not assuming we’ve all heard or read Blake, “If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.” But to describe this infinite we, through the faculties of our mind, break it apart, endlessly it seems, into more manageable parts. Otherwise, could we even begin to explain this with language? And an inherent ‘problem’ with language is that interpretations are going to differ, often to extremes, because the conditioning and paradigms which we individually reject or embrace, or our karma, that one undergoes in the course of a lifetime are dictated subjectively from our individual conceptions of what we usually call ‘ego.’
Unlike Mr. Ball, I will readily acknowledge that my response to what he has written has been influenced by "pre-existing religious, philosophical, metaphysical, spiritual, or scientific system(s)." I don't see any reason to throw out the various other’s teachings, ideas, methods, metaphors, musings, or even speculations as to the nature of 'reality.' And while I do agree that there is a single underlying unity of experience, I do not feel it is accurate to claim that there is only one way, path, or vehicle to “reach the other shore," a metaphor taken from teachings of Buddhism. (And to paraphrase this point further, Buddha says that once one reaches the other shore, nirvana, awakening or what have you, to let go of the boat that enabled to cross the river of delusion, lest holding onto that boat will continue to be an obstacle for a continuum of experience in nirvana, awakening, what have you... which might be applicable in this instance.)
Yet I'm not entirely sure, admitting my own subjectivity in relation to what I'm writing, how one cannot be influenced or conditioned by concepts or paradigms from such teachings from the outset, which in themselves seem to nudge one towards reaching a genuine understanding of 'reality,' whether through science, religion, philosophy, etc. Taking into account the findings of others serves to provide a more expansive perspective and is a grounds for discovery and openness rather than chiding and dismissal. I find this especially puzzling, given that Mr. Ball has readily admitted to having a Ph.D. in religious studies, which through an assumption would also imply a comparative analysis of the various religions or methods, which would result in an influence in patterns of thought leading towards insights.
I do have a great many questions, and if Mr. Ball is willing, I would sincerely request that he please address some of them, not only from myself, but also the others that have responded to his post entitled, “Energy, Ego, and Entheogens: The Reality of Human Liberation from Illusion.” A lot of what he has to say seems to me very relevant and pertaining to elements of truth, while at other times seems to entirely refute and undermine precisely what I assume he has intended to describe, with much of the problematic material I’ll focus on in this response being the direct experience hypothesis, egoic constructs, and methods or practices.
"This is objective truth and others can confirm this for themselves. In fact, that is what is preferred. "Believing" in something is utterly meaningless. Experiencing the truth directly is the only way to genuinely know reality. There is no need for beliefs in the Entheological Paradigm."
To this first point, I agree implicitly with a direct experience 'model.' As a forerunner to this, however, wouldn’t a belief that something is possible, and with potential, be more likely to be sought or acted upon? A belief does not necessitate ignorance or any more than an idea (or stream of ideas), which is what a belief is, is ignorant in and of itself. It is only in comparative analysis through perspective that we create a morality of good or bad and the hierarchy of better or worse, which is based upon implicit assumptions derived from an egoic perspective. Never-the-less, while I am aware that spontaneous awakenings, or what have you, do occur (with the assumption that those accounts I have read about and spoken with others about are genuine) it seems that for many of us, there is a preparation time, studying, practicing, etc. that we feel is necessary, especially given how much information is available and as such, requires a sifting or filtration which paradoxically allows for many of the egoic filters to dissolve.
As a model, I can hardly agree that an Entheological Paradigm is a sole genuine method, considering the unassuming non-egoic intervention from whence it came. The validity of claiming to be genuine as a means is very possible, and in my opinion even likely, yet in providing information pertaining to yet another paradigm an intrinsic authoritarian demeanor has developed. For seemingly much of human history, we, as a collective, have relied too much on the interpretation of 'reality' from authority, and indeed to create a paradigm as being above and/or beyond and/or better than others is to assume the very authority that Mr. Ball has decried in other systems or paradigms. Whatever form that authority may take, it seemingly condemns other teachings as false and/or inaccurate, as has happened here. This does not recognize the possibility that it is not the teachings themselves which are false, but only that a misuse of authority has occurred to 'determine' a dogmatic or acceptable (mis)interpretation and spread like a virus.
Yet to imply that an Entheological Paradigm is seemingly the only paradigm, or model, that encourages direct experience, rather than relying on beliefs, appears fallacious and foolhardy. Of course, unstated here yet implicit, is the 'belief' that only this paradigm has the capacity to empower an individual towards the direct experience of 'God,’ and everything, all traditions, practices, and interpretations that have come before are the result of delusional ego-driven humans.
And as a disclaimer of sorts, I would acknowledge that simply because I am drawing upon texts and references here that I do not 'believe' that any single way or teaching is better or worse than any other or that I follow any specific methodology. I've found that many seemingly disparate aspects from many seemingly disparate cultures or times, including many different –ologies or -isms, can all serve to help in understanding the obscurities associated with these types of discussions. For example, I draw from what are considered the Gnostic Gospels in a Christian heritage, as much of what’s written in them serves to help me understand that religion better than canonical texts, even though they are often disregarded as having no relevance to sanctioned Christian teaching.
That said, mere belief and acceptance of the nature of reality does not seem to have been what any genuine mystic or master or teacher has ever taught, regardless of Mr. Ball’s claims. Quite on the contrary, they seem to be encouraging everyone to experience what they can only describe in words indirectly, and to challenge the assumptions of others, even the very teachings that the men and women have shared. And if so many of these past men and women were off the mark, I can only ask: why do their descriptions share an essential quality of unity and sameness, given that many of the descriptions available have ‘occurred’ throughout disparate epochs on a linear timeline?
I readily accept that all such learning may eventually be discarded as one must experience directly what, up to a point, may only be described. What follows are only a few of the various examples one may find encouraging a direct experience of, as its been termed, ‘reality.’
From the “Gospel of Thomas,” as representative of not accepting mere belief, “Jesus said, ‘The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of Knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.’"
This seems to me to be a critique of a misuse of authority for preventing a population from empowering themselves through direct experience and a chastisement for such a deliberate deception resulting from a misuse of 'power,' which can also be observed in any institution today that serves to have answers and attract followers. To have followers, an authority needs individuals to be subservient to strictures or rules and, as such, do not serve to empower the individuals they claim to protect or love; if empowerment were a direct transmission, the authority would cease to exist because people would become responsible for themselves and not need an authority to follow. And, also implied from this quote, it may also mean that only through individual experience will we come to understand or realize our nature, which is why it is related to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Also, is the reference of being as wise as serpents related to the concept of Kundalini emerging within the body, not as separate from physiology but as energy not usually perceived simply from utilizing our six ‘material’ senses?)
Further relating to the encouragement of direct experience, from "Yoga and Kriya," by Swami Satyananda Saraswati, "Actually it is impossible to really appreciate the aims of yoga, at least the higher ones, without personal experience. All we can do is to broadly indicate the direction in which yoga can take you, if not its destination... And this is the essence of yoga - neither descriptions, nor theories, nor suppositions, but direct personal experience... In review, we can say that yoga is not really union. It is in fact realization of the union already existing. This is the culmination of yoga."(pgs. 125 & 126)
And in an examination of "The Heart Sutra" by Red Pine, which explores various interpretations of one of the Buddha's teachings, which is worth examining in its entirety, it is offered, "If a person resolves to find their true source and plumbs the depths of reason and nature, they will see their original face and instantly awaken to what is unborn. This is to reach to the other shore. [For] the Tao is everywhere... When you see form you see the mind. But people see only form... Upon close analysis, nothing exists by itself. Any given entity can only be defined in terms of other entities in time, space, or mind... Thus nothing exists by itself, and nothing exists as itself. There is no such thing as self."(pgs. 34 & 68)
I am not sure how one would even begin to "plum the depths of reason and nature" without doing so through personal experience, as the very means of doing so would be entirely subjective in nature and indeed questioning the very nature of subjectivity. Yet to discard the teachings pointing the way for some on this journey simply because they do not help a specific individual seems foolish.
Mr. Balls writes, "For one, it meant that all those "possibilities" for which I had once held out an open mind, and in some cases, and yearning heart, were just illusions. It also meant, even more shockingly, that somehow, I had come to understand things that others hadn't -- even the so-called "great mystics" and "masters," because it was simply too clear to me where their egos were influencing what they were saying and teaching."
Indeed, what have been deemed illusions seem to be illusions, including the illusion that the teachings of others have been influenced by an ego and this paradigm has not been influenced by an ego. This is not a outright negation of validity, however. Thoughts are constructs of the mind, and, in employing a dharma from Buddhism, again, are empty of their own nature precisely because anything that can be explained or written, etc. is not the truth, but a map, or aspect of the mind, which points towards the truth which is indefinable and inexpressible. How many before us have said, maybe in using different metaphors that were more readily understood in specific contexts and times, that the map is not the territory? Any function of the mind is going to break the experience of reality into manageable parts with which we can then use to make distinctions and differentiations, and thus we have all the words or symbols of every concept and abstraction that we can conceive. That's what our minds appear capable of doing to understand experience(s). Yet it's also this capacity that gives us the tools we need to move beyond or behind or deeper into this experience of reality, if we realize that everything we can describe using words is not reality but a symbol pointing to reality, or a metaphor which describes reality.
To speak or write of an experience needs the mind to conceptualize, and to some degree the ego to translate (after all, we all relate to experience to some degree or another as a result of the conditioning we inherit, whether as paradigms of mystical understanding or scientific understanding, etc.). This is the method through which communication is possible. It is the ego's vehicle of language and symbols that allows for this linguistic transmission. The Self, or the Unitary Energy Being, or Awareness, or God, or Consciousness are only metaphors pointing towards the same underlying experience, which doesn't seem to need any explanation of itself because 'itself' is explained and experienced in every single possible form, conception, part or whole of reality, etc. And the means of realization of this Awareness or God or Consciousness are just that, means. It's only in our minds that we really differentiate between the methods... yoga, meditation, entheogens, etc. They all aim us towards the same end, we just think the vehicles are different, and thus conclude subjectively that one is better or valid and one is worse or inaccurate. Why else would the various, or perhaps infinite, vehicles and/or paths be described so well as ‘paths that are no paths’ or ‘realizations that are no realizations’ in such seeming paradoxes? The conditioning of my ego is not the same as the conditioning of anyone else’s ego, and while similarities certainly exist, no single aspect or teaching will necessarily serve to ‘free’ me any more than that same teaching could ‘free’ anyone else. Only a multitude of teachings could serve this end.
This can be evidenced in the transmissions that are passed to us about the occurrence of circumstances (synchronicity or ‘the time being ripe’?) in which others have realized their awakening. Speaking more specifically of within a Buddhist tradition, we have quite a few examples. Often this takes the form of a master speaking, or not speaking, at a key point for the student. There are seemingly curious examples (paraphrased) such as, “Have you finished eating? Than was your bowl,” or “This tree is tall. This tree is short,” or after a student holds up his fore-finger as an answer to what is enlightenment, only to have it cut off, asked again, to which the student again holds up his hand in the same gesture as before, only now with an ‘empty finger.’ What could the purpose for this signify? Perhaps that every individual’s awakening is going to be quite particular to that person. Commonalities will exist, but the details will appear differently. And they'll probably seem baffling and maybe nonsensical if the teaching isn't specific to us individually.
So in this respect, it appears that decrying past "great mystics" or "masters" for using the function of the ego, which Mr. Ball himself acknowledges can be realized as being "on" or "off," to express their experience is absolutely no different than using his ego as a tool to manifest what he has understood in through experience, and hence written about as an Entheological Paradigm. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that one is trapped in egoic delusions, but how are we to truly know the difference if we aren't allowing for extensions through various metaphors as a valid means of communication which we can trust? For trust does seem to be an issue here. Or, another way to ask this might be: is it possible to use the ego as a tool when necessary for communication with other egos to explain what lies beyond or behind the egos, without being a 'slave' to the ego? Personally, I don’t find that an ego is such a destructive construct if one can realize that the thoughts and conceptions of one ego are not more or less valid than any other, employing the abstractions of being better or worse. Especially as Mr. Ball, every other mystic, and anyone else who comes to the realization that the ego is not the self, which at heart is the same realization of unity. It’s not that the ego is bad, just that it’s transient and ever-changing, and thus it’s form is emptiness because egos lack a defining nature that can be distinguished from that which an ego may perceive.
But then there is the claim, "Even Buddhism, I found, my personal favorite, was seriously clouded in illusion at many levels. And it wasn't simply a matter of differences in beliefs. It was a difference in our experiences of energy. I found that I could immediately distinguish between ego and truth at an energetic level in my entire being."
I am very curious to understand: how anyone can be certain that their experiences of energy are so different from another's experience of energy? This seems to assume an awful lot from the perspective of an ego, or an individual self, as it clearly exhibits a ‘me and mine’ perspective. Quite simply, if one does not relate to the metaphors that have been used by others, can one really claim that others do not understand what has been termed 'enlightenment' and honesty state, "I have experienced what I can only call genuine human liberation. I have freed myself. Through teaching about the Entheological Paradigm, that is what I hope to share with others: a genuine path to true liberation."?
I have no contention with another path being carved, so to speak, but this seems to be just another offering of the infinite ways in which such liberation may occur, not the only way or a better way, which is implied in stating this method is genuine while others are lacking. To assume as much mirrors the proselytizing which has occurred with other teachings, or metaphors, as the only way to truth, which lead to dogmatism and solipsism, which leads to delusion and unacceptance and ignores the relativity of metaphors as accurate descriptions of reality, but not substitutes for reality. It's not that the realities differ, but the meaningfully accurate phrases and depictions we use to tell others about it certainly may and certainly do.
"So what is the Entheological Paradigm? It is a complete analysis of reality as the integrated and interrelated expression of a Unitary Energy Being, otherwise known as "God." To put it simply, all of reality is a unified energetic system that is conscious, self-aware, and evolving according to energetic laws."
Any complete analysis of anything does not throw out any other possibilities or permutations which exist, especially those with which the analysis readily exhibits congruence, which has at least been acknowledged. And it is also very much worth noting that many other paths have been teaching the realization of "all of reality is a unified energetic system that is conscious, self-aware, and evolving according to energetic laws," and have been taught before this new paradigm and will be taught after, but may also include this paradigm, because the metaphors and methods for expressing and understanding such concepts will evolve and offer different means which may help some while it may not help others.
For it seems that it's the rules, or regulations and conditioning, which have caused such a gap between these other methodologies and the one conceived of by Mr. Ball. Specifically noted here are the regulations applied in the section on symmetry and the perceived difference between bilateral symmetry and postures in yoga.
Now, I'm not an expert in yoga by any stretch, but in having practiced and studied it, and continuing to do so, there seem to be omissions and inaccuracies with a seminal conclusion regarding this particular practice which begins, "I have been told that yoga originally developed from spontaneous, fluid, symmetrical movement. It is also highly likely that yoga developed as a system of techniques to mimic the entheogenic experience (meaning that use of entheogens was historically precedent and yoga a later derivative). Whatever the roots, various yoga traditions, as they are practiced today within Hindu and Buddhist cultures, are a far cry from fluid, symmetrical movements..."
Again, this is assuming and awful lot, not least to mention that Mr. Ball has admitted to being ‘told’ a truth about something, in this case yoga and it’s development being based upon the use of entheogens. And while the precedent may be accurate, and it may not, likening any dispute to be a chicken or the egg dilemma, the issue appears as a willingness to accept what one has been ‘told,’ even if only as speculation, if it fits within the framework that one is espousing. So, it is acceptable for Mr. Ball to believe an idea that he has not personally validated, but for others to accept ideas, or beliefs, which Mr. Ball has not validated for himself (i.e. other systems or paradigms which prove to be genuine for others whether provable or not historically) even if they seem to contain a relevant ‘truth,’ are delusional.
Speaking from personal experience, as I examine the poses as I have studied and practiced, they all seem highly fluid and based on nothing other than symmetry. Much of the advice with regard to poses, etc. states that one should not undertake any of the poses with strain or force. All of the movements, including the awareness of one's breathing, which much of the time is simply to be observed rather than controlled (with the exception of the techniques designed to slow and deepen breathing, or control the flow and depth of breath... yet this is only one aspect of yoga) are fluid and allowing for awareness to subtlely shift throughout one's being, regardless of our identification as to where our awareness is shifting, i.e. mind, body, thoughts, movement, etc. To differentiate in this manner undermines the purpose of the practice: that we are the awareness of consciousness and it is the concepts of the mind (i.e. distinctions of body, thought, movement, etc.) that are divisive and illusory.
This indivisibility is stated, in another way, by Swami Saraswati, “We actually cannot expand consciousness, for consciousness is infinite and all pervasive... What we actually do is to expand awareness. Awareness is the variable that can be developed in all of us. It is the ability that can be developed to tune in with consciousness, the ability to identify with consciousness.”(pg. 90) This sounds very much to me like Mr. Ball’s “living true to one's self means being true to one's awareness of energy,” and also, “Non-egoic energy, or ones true, genuine, and infinite energy, is, in the human form, bilateral in symmetry, centered, and balanced.” For further evidence, again from “Kriya and Yoga,” after explaining the benefits of centering and calming in an earlier section on tension, “In this sense prana can be equated with the Hindu concept of prakriti, meaning the manifest constituents of the universe in the form of matter and energy. From modern science we know that matter is really no more than an expression of energy. As such we can say that prana means energy. This prana or energy, whether it is the mind, body, matter or any form of energy, acts as the medium for carrying consciousness.”(pg78) Yet, that cannot be so, apparently, because the traditions which have taught this for thousands of years, and the practitioners of such practices were obviously deluded and misunderstood precisely what they were attempting to teach... that the true nature of reality must be experienced directly, as well as apt descriptions of such experienece(s).
"Sitting with crossed legs in lotus or meditation posture is not effective for maintaining symmetry or experiencing full energetic openings." All I would ask is that Mr. Ball accept that his opinion is not fact. I have no idea how how many yogis or swamis or even lay persons have benefited and/or experienced an exalted state of Unity Consciousness or God or what have you, from these ancient techniques, so to claim that any and all of these people were deluded by their practice is highly illogical. Again, speaking in familiar language, this is his interpretation. And, naturally, his ‘egoic’ interpretation is going to differ in specific aspects, if not in overall context of content. Is there honestly no observable symmetry, even with all the crossing and such of limbs or fingers? Is there no fluid movement from one posture to the next? No openness, either in physicality or more specifically awareness? Cannot the practice be useful to others, as it is, even if Mr. Ball does not experience it to be so?
If a posture focuses more on the left side, the practice shifts to focus that posture on the right side, which seems symmetrical. If there is a forward bending pose it is recommended that a backward bending pose be performed before or after. Perhaps a past teacher may have not taught this way, and indeed I accept that much of yoga may not be taught this way presently, but I can only speculate. But, alas, yoga, at least as it is been unveiled to me, is not so rigid and is explicitly left open to interpret and modify. Perhaps this is why Mr. Ball has ‘created’ his brand of Fractal Yoga, drawing upon the very same practice which he has pointed out to be “dealing with contrived, egoic projections of energy.”
Maybe the rules and methods, which incidentally are not bypassed even with the Entheological Paradigm, were only designed so the mind could engage with this awareness without being distracted so much by what one was doing with regard to egoic perceptions; perhaps this is akin to ‘reverse psychology,’ enabling the mind to calm/empty by focusing on something other than itself rather than run in circles and attaching to this thought, and then that thought, ad infinitum. Because, after all, the methods are the end as well as the means and once the ‘end’ is achieved the means become irrelevant. For the means allow the mind, or the ego, to let go, just as assuredly as entheogens, as Mr. Ball has described, although more likely within a longer timeframe, so the ‘mind’ may come to understand that there is no true threat from a standpoint of ‘letting go.’
Yet, I was wondering if it is possible that even a non-movement, or awareness-based tradition, could possibly exemplify what Mr. Ball interprets as symmetry in a teaching, taking a fundamental aspect of symmetry to mean a balance or centering, a fulcrum or a point from which undifferentiated extension occurs. “Jesus said to them, ‘When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].’"(Gospel of Thomas 22)
I won’t offer my full interpretation here, other than to state this sounds much like a center that is no center (form that is emptiness and emptiness that is form), or a non-identification with concepts created within the framework of the mind. I would particularly ask if these words could be construed to have come from a deluded ego-based person? If so, could someone please point out to me an interpretation which would validate such a claim. Personally, again admitting my subjective understanding, I can’t fathom how that claim could be valid but I equally cannot claim certainty that such an interpretation does not exist.
And to take another two examples, wrapping up more or less, hopefully a comparison can be made between what what Mr. Ball says and two ‘well-established’ teachers, hoping to find a framework in which common elements can exist in an attempt to weave the fabric back together so there is no need to throw away what we are learning and experiencing.
“Egos tend to experience themselves as existing in a state of paradox. On the one hand, egos are often terrified to let go, surrender, and just "go with the flow," and on the other, egos relish and crave the release that comes with complete surrender. At base is the issue of trust. When an ego is trusting, it can let go. When it feels a lack of trust, it holds on to fear, and refuses. It is always ultimately an individual choice.”
Now if we compare the above, understanding that it is our fear that prevents us from fully ‘letting go,’ with: “Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes,
and the lion becomes man."(Gospel of Thomas 7)
Understood via: “Throughout this sutra, bodhisattva is modified by mahasattva, which I have translated as “fearless.” Normally, mahasattva is interpreted quite literally as “great being,” as Purna does in the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, when he says to the Buddha, “One who is called a mahasattva puts on the great armor, sets forth on the great path, and rides the great vehicle. Such a being is called a mahasattva.” However, this term was first applied not to humans but to lions and only later to those who had the courage of the king of beasts. Hence it was used to suggest the difficulties facing those who wet forth on the bodhisattva path as well as to praise them for such aspiration. Also, without fearlessness, no progress on this path is possible.”(The Diamond Sutra 46-47)
Is there any connection between these three observations? Can we use one to help understand either of the others? Should we dismiss one in favor of the others or dismiss the others in favor of one as wholly accurate?
As it seems to me, all experience is personal experience. If we are all one consciousness or one awareness or a Unitary Energy Being, even reading the words of another’s practice is a personal experience. This seems important: reading what others have learned is a personal, subjective experience that affects us. And, naturally, the full realization of all this, what we’re speaking of here in this topic and my response, as awakening, enlightenment, what have you, comes as a personal experience. And while there’s no substitute for this experience, it can’t harm anyone to prepare themselves for such a realization in experience by thinking about it, or communicating about it, etc. and first acknowledging the possibility that such a realization is possible. If there was a problem with this, then even reading about the interpretation called the Entheological Paradigm would prevent us from ‘awakening.’
And while, throughout this response, I have examined some of what Mr. Ball has laid forth in his Entheological Paradigm, my intention has been to make an attempt to point out the commonalities between his system and just a few minute points of interest found within the great many other systems that are open to us and to point out that what we most readily find fault with in with others, be they individuals or systems, are reflections of our minds and beliefs, no matter how much or how vigorously we try to deny this. As Mr. Ball has stated, “Visions are an excellent means of communication from the self to the self, but they can also become an object of distraction and attachment.” All I can offer, in full conclusion, is that the vision of the Entheological Paradigm and the reaction to other paradigms are serving precisely this same function for Mr. Ball. “In other words, visionary experiences are you giving yourself what your ego is able to process at that time.” And while it seems that Mr. Ball has taken a very determined step in a process of awakening, it still seems that he is not quite there yet.
But, then again, how is that any different than any of us? We’re all in this together.
Speaking from personal experience, as I examine the poses as I have studied and practiced, they all seem highly fluid and based on nothing other than symmetry. Much of the advice with regard to poses, etc. states that one should not undertake any of the poses with strain or force. All of the movements, including the awareness of one's breathing, which much of the time is simply to be observed rather than controlled (with the exception of the techniques designed to slow and deepen breathing, or control the flow and depth of breath... yet this is only one aspect of yoga) are fluid and allowing for awareness to subtlely shift throughout one's being, regardless of our identification as to where our awareness is shifting, i.e. mind, body, thoughts, movement, etc. To differentiate in this manner undermines the purpose of the practice: that we are the awareness of consciousness and it is the concepts of the mind (i.e. distinctions of body, thought, movement, etc.) that are divisive and illusory.
This indivisibility is stated, in another way, by Swami Saraswati, “We actually cannot expand consciousness, for consciousness is infinite and all pervasive... What we actually do is to expand awareness. Awareness is the variable that can be developed in all of us. It is the ability that can be developed to tune in with consciousness, the ability to identify with consciousness.”(pg. 90) This sounds very much to me like Mr. Ball’s “living true to one's self means being true to one's awareness of energy,” and also, “Non-egoic energy, or ones true, genuine, and infinite energy, is, in the human form, bilateral in symmetry, centered, and balanced.” For further evidence, again from “Kriya and Yoga,” after explaining the benefits of centering and calming in an earlier section on tension, “In this sense prana can be equated with the Hindu concept of prakriti, meaning the manifest constituents of the universe in the form of matter and energy. From modern science we know that matter is really no more than an expression of energy. As such we can say that prana means energy. This prana or energy, whether it is the mind, body, matter or any form of energy, acts as the medium for carrying consciousness.”(pg78) Yet, that cannot be so, apparently, because the traditions which have taught this for thousands of years, and the practitioners of such practices were obviously deluded and misunderstood precisely what they were attempting to teach... that the true nature of reality must be experienced directly, as well as apt descriptions of such experienece(s).
"Sitting with crossed legs in lotus or meditation posture is not effective for maintaining symmetry or experiencing full energetic openings." All I would ask is that Mr. Ball accept that his opinion is not fact. I have no idea how how many yogis or swamis or even lay persons have benefited and/or experienced an exalted state of Unity Consciousness or God or what have you, from these ancient techniques, so to claim that any and all of these people were deluded by their practice is highly illogical. Again, speaking in familiar language, this is his interpretation. And, naturally, his ‘egoic’ interpretation is going to differ in specific aspects, if not in overall context of content. Is there honestly no observable symmetry, even with all the crossing and such of limbs or fingers? Is there no fluid movement from one posture to the next? No openness, either in physicality or more specifically awareness? Cannot the practice be useful to others, as it is, even if Mr. Ball does not experience it to be so?
If a posture focuses more on the left side, the practice shifts to focus that posture on the right side, which seems symmetrical. If there is a forward bending pose it is recommended that a backward bending pose be performed before or after. Perhaps a past teacher may have not taught this way, and indeed I accept that much of yoga may not be taught this way presently, but I can only speculate. But, alas, yoga, at least as it is been unveiled to me, is not so rigid and is explicitly left open to interpret and modify. Perhaps this is why Mr. Ball has ‘created’ his brand of Fractal Yoga, drawing upon the very same practice which he has pointed out to be “dealing with contrived, egoic projections of energy.”
Maybe the rules and methods, which incidentally are not bypassed even with the Entheological Paradigm, were only designed so the mind could engage with this awareness without being distracted so much by what one was doing with regard to egoic perceptions; perhaps this is akin to ‘reverse psychology,’ enabling the mind to calm/empty by focusing on something other than itself rather than run in circles and attaching to this thought, and then that thought, ad infinitum. Because, after all, the methods are the end as well as the means and once the ‘end’ is achieved the means become irrelevant. For the means allow the mind, or the ego, to let go, just as assuredly as entheogens, as Mr. Ball has described, although more likely within a longer timeframe, so the ‘mind’ may come to understand that there is no true threat from a standpoint of ‘letting go.’
Yet, I was wondering if it is possible that even a non-movement, or awareness-based tradition, could possibly exemplify what Mr. Ball interprets as symmetry in a teaching, taking a fundamental aspect of symmetry to mean a balance or centering, a fulcrum or a point from which undifferentiated extension occurs. “Jesus said to them, ‘When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].’"(Gospel of Thomas 22)
I won’t offer my full interpretation here, other than to state this sounds much like a center that is no center (form that is emptiness and emptiness that is form), or a non-identification with concepts created within the framework of the mind. I would particularly ask if these words could be construed to have come from a deluded ego-based person? If so, could someone please point out to me an interpretation which would validate such a claim. Personally, again admitting my subjective understanding, I can’t fathom how that claim could be valid but I equally cannot claim certainty that such an interpretation does not exist.
And to take another two examples, wrapping up more or less, hopefully a comparison can be made between what what Mr. Ball says and two ‘well-established’ teachers, hoping to find a framework in which common elements can exist in an attempt to weave the fabric back together so there is no need to throw away what we are learning and experiencing.
“Egos tend to experience themselves as existing in a state of paradox. On the one hand, egos are often terrified to let go, surrender, and just "go with the flow," and on the other, egos relish and crave the release that comes with complete surrender. At base is the issue of trust. When an ego is trusting, it can let go. When it feels a lack of trust, it holds on to fear, and refuses. It is always ultimately an individual choice.”
Now if we compare the above, understanding that it is our fear that prevents us from fully ‘letting go,’ with: “Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes,
and the lion becomes man."(Gospel of Thomas 7)
Understood via: “Throughout this sutra, bodhisattva is modified by mahasattva, which I have translated as “fearless.” Normally, mahasattva is interpreted quite literally as “great being,” as Purna does in the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, when he says to the Buddha, “One who is called a mahasattva puts on the great armor, sets forth on the great path, and rides the great vehicle. Such a being is called a mahasattva.” However, this term was first applied not to humans but to lions and only later to those who had the courage of the king of beasts. Hence it was used to suggest the difficulties facing those who wet forth on the bodhisattva path as well as to praise them for such aspiration. Also, without fearlessness, no progress on this path is possible.”(The Diamond Sutra 46-47)
Is there any connection between these three observations? Can we use one to help understand either of the others? Should we dismiss one in favor of the others or dismiss the others in favor of one as wholly accurate?
As it seems to me, all experience is personal experience. If we are all one consciousness or one awareness or a Unitary Energy Being, even reading the words of another’s practice is a personal experience. This seems important: reading what others have learned is a personal, subjective experience that affects us. And, naturally, the full realization of all this, what we’re speaking of here in this topic and my response, as awakening, enlightenment, what have you, comes as a personal experience. And while there’s no substitute for this experience, it can’t harm anyone to prepare themselves for such a realization in experience by thinking about it, or communicating about it, etc. and first acknowledging the possibility that such a realization is possible. If there was a problem with this, then even reading about the interpretation called the Entheological Paradigm would prevent us from ‘awakening.’
And while, throughout this response, I have examined some of what Mr. Ball has laid forth in his Entheological Paradigm, my intention has been to make an attempt to point out the commonalities between his system and just a few minute points of interest found within the great many other systems that are open to us and to point out that what we most readily find fault with in with others, be they individuals or systems, are reflections of our minds and beliefs, no matter how much or how vigorously we try to deny this. As Mr. Ball has stated, “Visions are an excellent means of communication from the self to the self, but they can also become an object of distraction and attachment.” All I can offer, in full conclusion, is that the vision of the Entheological Paradigm and the reaction to other paradigms are serving precisely this same function for Mr. Ball. “In other words, visionary experiences are you giving yourself what your ego is able to process at that time.” And while it seems that Mr. Ball has taken a very determined step in a process of awakening, it still seems that he is not quite there yet.
But, then again, how is that any different than any of us? We’re all in this together.
No comments:
Post a Comment