Occupy Love

This evening, I saw Velcrow Ripper’s film Occupy Love. It’s the third in the series, after Scared Sacred and Fierce Light. It was held as a free showing in a local church, a rare showing in his home town. (the previous 2 had theatre runs) It was also crowd funded.

“Occupy Love explores the growing realization that the dominant system of power is failing to provide us with health, happiness or meaning. The old paradigm that concentrates wealth, founded on the greed of the few, is causing economic and ecological collapse. The resulting crisis has become the catalyst for a profound awakening: millions of people are deciding that enough is enough – the time has come to create a new world, a world that works for all life.”

He asks “How can the crisis we’re facing become a love story?” The film explores the Alberta oil sands project, the Occupy movement where he spends time during the Wall St. protest, and several other events. He speaks with a number of participants and experts on social change. It shows the Occupy Movement from a different reference point than was common in the media. For example, they used horizontal organization which was foreign to those used to hierarchy. And love was a major theme. Did you know that?

The film speaks of solutions revolving around raising consciousness, changing paradigms, and love. In discussions afterwards, it was clear some attendees viewed these as abstractions rather than practical solutions. That was a good reminder. And we discussed how things have evolved since Occupy, such as with Idle No More. Non-violent or Compassionate Communication was also observed to be growing.

“We live in a time of record-breaking crisis, but it’s also a time of record-breaking vision.” Not “the 99%”, 100%.

It’s Elemental

Prior to the age of science, traditions the world over described the world as composed of 4*-5 fundamental elements or components, whose combinations lead to the various qualities and building blocks of the physical world. This was not because of primitive beliefs, though they may have degraded into such. The origin of the idea is in the direct experience of the way the world becomes.

There are 2 ways of looking at these 5 elements.

One is the way elements are the fundamental building blocks of the physical world. Not elements in the sense of the periodic table you learned in Chemistry but more the fundamental qualities whose combinations give rise to the groups of elements in the periodic table. They function as different modes of physical properties. I described them this way in the kosha (purusha) chart here. The pranas (energy) and senses are more subtle.

Another way to look at them is even more fundamental. In that sense, the 5 elemental qualities arise in sequence, each arising within the previous, each progressively less subtle.

In this model, the qualities of the 5 elements are all present in the gross as above, but the physical is dominated by the earth element. The next most subtle level is dominated by water, and so forth.

Kosha	element	chakra	layer
Annamaya	earth	root	physical, etheric
Pranamaya	water	2nd	astral/emotional/vital
Manonmaya	fire	3rd	lower mind
Vijnanamaya	air	heart	intellect, causal
Anandamaya	space	throat	bliss, celestial

(Note that these are not 1-to-1 correspondences but relationships. And they are not separate layers but interpenetrating.)

Origins
The elements arise due to the nature of awareness itself. When awareness curves back on itself and becomes aware of itself, it creates a subtle space: self witnessing self. Feeling the recognition leads to air, seeing to light and fire, taste to water, and smell to earth. They are then structured as personal sensory experiences by our energetic physiology; the chakras and their expression. Here they shift from principles into actual elements.

And thus can we know the world from within our own awareness.
Davidya

* some leave off space/ether

What’s Your Story?

Over time, as we have experiences of the world and learn from others, we pick up stories or beliefs about the world. Our stories are self-reinforcing. We filter out sensory information that doesn’t correspond. This is right in the brain mechanism – current input is compared to memory before it even becomes conscious. So new experiences tend to continue to reinforce the old and they tend to get stronger with age. This is perfectly normal and mostly sub-conscious. It is how we function in the world and become better drivers, workers, and lovers.

Without our stories, we would be seriously handicapped. In fact, we would not be able to make sense of our sensory experiences. They would be a jumble of data, much as a newborn sees the world, or a toddler sees the alphabet.

The problem arises when we use stories to resist or deny what is here. Or when we sustain a belief that was once true but no longer serves us. This puts us out of sync with the world and leads directly to suffering.

When we pay attention to how we’re responding to life, then we can be more conscious about the stories or beliefs we’re running. Listen to the stories we tell others. Is it true? Really? Or are we telling a fish story that grows in time? And the more we tell it, the more we believe it because telling it helps make it more real. Ask yourself – how is this story serving you?

At first, you’ll mostly catch yourself after the fact, after the story is told. Then, you’ll notice during, perhaps because of the emotional tone you feel. You begin to recognize the process. Finally, you’ll recognize the story as it arises, by its emotional signature, and you can choose to drop it. Then, in resolving the emotion, the belief loses its substance.

Note this isn’t an intellectual exercise. We can’t fix a story with another story, although we might be able to obscure it. Many of us have layered stories, stories to account for or justify other stories. It is this tendency that makes the process of unwinding more complex, like peeling an onion.

Because our resisting beliefs create energy blockages and restrict flow, over time they cause us discomfort and eventually disease. As Rev. Mary Hennessey said “what you don’t heal will eat you from the inside.” They also put us out of sync with the world, leading to more bumps in our journey. Thus this is not an idle issue.
Davidya

The State of Illusion

Finally got a chance to see Austin Vickers film People vs The State of Illusion. As a former lawyer, he sets the story of the film in a trial and prison as metaphors for the prisons of belief we build for ourselves.

Like the film What the Bleep, it’s a series of experts talking about our personal reality, interspersed with the story of a man jailed for causing a fatal accident. The information comes fast, with quick edits from commentary to commentary. Also like What the Bleep, the (few) film critics generally hated it while the audience loves it. Anything that suggests we can have a direct effect on our reality is rejected by some outright.

We got Vickers himself for a Q&A afterwards. Judging by the questions, many people missed some of the main points in the deluge of info, but the subtlety of the message was also unfamiliar to many.

The key message is recognizing the difference between content and process. Most of the time, we ignore how we are relating to people and events, focusing on the what or content. What is being said, what is happening, and judging the what as good or bad. But if we’re unconscious of the process underlying the content, we’re unable to separate ourselves from it and are caught in a reactive mode. We feel like a victim.

If we take a step back and notice the process of the interaction, and under that, the process of how we’re internally responding, we begin to have choice in how we’re responding. I’ve spoken about this in a number of ways before. A deeper stepping back means the observer or witness mode. Then recognizing ourselves as the awareness in which the process is taking place. Then we see the meaning and judgements are what we add to it, our story, not what is actually taking place.

Unlike the film, he also framed it as learning to listen. What are we being called to do? This is aligning with the universe, God or whatever you’d like to call it.

The various speakers illustrated how we see the world says more about us than the world. Two you may have met in What the Bleep. Two others were a part of Princeton’s PEAR (“Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena”) project.

He noted (and the story illustrated) that if we see our behaviour as negative, it won’t change. We’re focused on the problem. Whereas if we ask what value the negative behaviour has for us (eg: drinking to mute feelings), we can see it as it is and can change. If we believe ourselves to be broken, we will remain so. Healing is much easier when we see ourselves as whole rather than broken.

Vikers observed that the clothes we’re wearing all started as an idea. And the chair we were sitting in, and the building, the city, the province, the country – all ideas. He said the Law of Attraction (The Secret) did not work from simple intention alone but rather from belief. Watching our process reveals what the underlying beliefs are. Expectations also point to beliefs.

On several questions, Vickers turned the question back on the questioner as they were not recognizing their own process [story] and resulting assumptions. Like using “we” to assume everyone thinks like me. It’s so ingrained that we may not even realize we’re doing it, assuming our stories about the world to be true. And because we identify with our beliefs, we associate them with ourselves. When they’re questioned, this can trigger ego defenses. We take it personally and are emotionally reactive. If we notice we’re reacting, it’s a good sign there’s something to notice and resolve. We can follow the feeling back to its assumption.

It’s the kind of film you may want to see more than once to digest. There’s a lot of information, some of which is framed uniquely. And it doesn’t summarize main points. The DVD evidently has another hour of footage from the source interviews too.
Davidya

Householder and Monk

We’ve been slowly rising out of a dark age spiritually. For some time, real spiritual progress was best achieved by withdrawing from the heaviness of the world. Thus, for hundreds of years, the most illustrious examples of enlightenment have often been monks and nuns. Many traditions have come to teach the renunciate path as the only way to enlightenment.

While this has been relatively true for a time, it is no longer true. As world consciousness rises, dharma is restored and householders can once again make decent progress. Some are becoming remarkable shining lights. Older history shows many past examples as well. The majority of ancient texts like the Rk Veda were written by householders.

A householder is one who is out in the world, with work, family, and so forth. A renunciate or recluse is one who withdraws to an ashram, monastery or cave. The vast majority of people are the first.

The renunciate path you can recognize by its Neti Neti (not this, not this) approach. It is a disconnecting from all expression, seeking only the depths of silent being. The reality of the person is denied. Some promote this as the only truth. But there is a different approach for the householder.

For them, it is in some ways the opposite. And this, and this. A householder is obliged to very much engage their person as an aspect of their expression. They add the full range of creation to their daily life.

In the back of the book Science of Being, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi describes the “Paths to God Realization.” In it, he specifies that the Intellectual path of discrimination is the path of the renunciate. Other paths, such as that of action & perception, devotion, and so forth are generally householder paths.

If a householder tries to follow a renunciate path, they will succeed at neither. Very simply because they will be in conflict. Their natural inclinations will fight their practice. But because of teaching influences, many householders drift in a kind of middle ground, with one foot in each.

They pursue long daily spiritual practice while trying to hold down work and a life. Or they focus on practices that are better for monks such as long retreats or a deep practice of inquiry.

I say this from experience. When I first read Maharishi’s reference above, I thought this meant I had to be a renunciate. I didn’t even know how.(laughs) When I began, long practice was more necessary for good progress. But millions of meditators have softened and smoothed the way.

We have to note that it’s not all black and white, as my error above indicated. Many people are inclined to a combination of paths. Royal or Raja Yoga itself, outlined in the Yoga Sutras, is a blend of Yogas.

Further, people’s personalities vary. More introverted people will have reclusive tendencies, even if they’re householders. And renunciates may benefit from some activity in the world. Many do good works, for example.

This also does not mean a householder should not take periods of retreat from the world for rest, healing and deepening. And some retired people may find retreat ideal. But only the renunciate should pursue this over all. The householder should not see withdrawing as an escape from worldly troubles or a means to enlightenment.

Also, this does not mean a householder will not go through the same stages as a renunciate. There will still be a detachment and witness phase. But for the householder, this is a stage whereas for the renunciate, it is the emphasis. And they will relate to the stages differently.

The apparently indistinct line between the 2 can confuse people and there are many promoting detachment as the goal. But what feels natural? There is so much richness beyond ego-surrender, it cannot be imagined. To deny that over confusion about our path is to miss the fullness of our being.
Davidya

What Supports Happiness?

Really the question should be: What gets in the way of Happiness? Happiness is innate, it is the subjective experience of the flow of life itself. If we are alive, simply being, we should be happy. It’s our natural state. You’ll notice it shows up naturally when we open, like in awe or in love.

But it does move in the depths of our being. So the sheaths (koshas) or veils between our “bliss body” and the other layers of our experience need to be fairly clear.

From the kosha perspective, the first body is Annamaya or the food body. What we put in our mouth, its volume and its suitability are the difference between a plugged up system and a clear one. The body has great intelligence on what it needs if we don’t confuse it or overload it. We may need to learn to listen though.

The second body is the Pranamaya, the vital body, also known as the astral or emotional. This is another body that is often plugged up, but with unresolved traumas that cloud our feelings. Same rules as above. The tendency to excess (food, drink, activity, etc) is one way people try to mask how they feel. Avoidance is another but these don’t exactly support happiness.

Manonmaya comes next, the lower mind. This is the home of thoughts and identification. Out of touch with our source, we become ego-identified and build a false self-construct. We believe ourselves to be in control to feel safe. This creates a false barrier to who we are and what is here. Of course, Self Realization is the resolver of this trap.

You may have noticed by now that the bodies have a relationship with the chakras, the above being first to third. This isn’t one to one but there is close ties.

Vijnanamaya is the next. This is the intuitive mind and discrimination. While we do have to awaken this value within and remove some crusts, it is not typically as polluted or stuck as the lower energies.

And thus we come to Anandamaya, the bliss body. The prior sheaths don’t have to be perfectly clear. Just unfogged enough for the bliss to shine through. And then we’ll find happiness is indeed our birthright. It is only for us to prepare the way.

Readers of this blog know that the best way to clear the decks is transcendence (samadhi). When we practice an effortless meditation, we regularly touch down into source. That gives the body deep rest, allows feelings to release, and breaks the boundaries of the mind. Of course, we’ll still have healing to do through conscious attention. But meditation will lighten the load considerably.
Davidya

The Rose List

I first became aware of Rose Rosetree through her interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump (Batgap). She’s all about subtle perception and healing and developing skills for same. Her tag-line is “Reading People Deeper and Healing with Energy Spirituality“

As I’m exploring models of awakening, I was fascinated by the idea that her “energetic literacy” allows a person to read if someone is enlightened or not. I know a small number of people who can see this and can help people past their last barriers. As this is a potent way to support others and opens the door to objective ways to study transpersonal development, the ability to learn it was intriguing. But evaluating such a unique vision is not a simple matter.

She sees the stages very similarly to how I do. But she determines the shift quite differently, through auras. By auras though, she don’t necessarily mean coloured light around the body but rather energetic signatures. Light is only one aspect of that.

She describes an enlightened person as having a “stabilized, habitual state of consciousness with certain characteristics that would be easy to identify for someone with Stage Three Energy Literacy.” She refers to “databanks” in each chakra and said they’d all be working well, are relatively balanced, and are free of “stuff” – her term for astral or emotional debris. The aura will also be permeated with the divine in some way and there will be a value of joy from that connection.

In other words, the personal crud is cleared and they are feeling the divine. A dry Self Realization would not make the cut.

She’s rather fearless about calling a spade a spade and tells it like she sees it. A few teachers she mentions as being enlightened but having messed up (including ones she’s studied with).  A few others she mentions as awake but not enlightened, even if they say otherwise. I’d agree there are some who have recognized the Self but not become it yet. I was such for many years. And there’s a difference between Self Realization and its mature state, sat chit ananda (absolute bliss consciousness).

At first, I wondered if she was reading sattva development rather than atman. But her comments suggest more. “Permeated with the divine in some way” suggests a deep perception. Earlier, I had the impression that there was a standard underlying energetic process in enlightenment. The chakras are awakened and we connect with source in the crown. Advanced stages unfold during a decent. Some teachers and kundalini traditions follow this model. However, others experience the stages during the rise and there are kundalini traditions that support that as well. And so on. She has apparently recognized this variety in the results.

The List
The result of her reads is her Enlightenment Life List, people she’s rated as Enlightened by the above criteria. Unexpectedly, it includes some famous people like Obama, the Clintons, and George Clooney. Shades of Men in Black! (laughs) From comments, it would seem that being in the larger public eye can raise someones consciousness. (a group consciousness effect?) But I’ve never explored that. In most cases I’ve seen, people who are enlightened know they are. I have met a few who were unsure. But once verified, their progress accelerated.

Rose indicates that when she started expanding the edge of energetic literacy into enlightenment, she didn’t meet the standard herself. Also, as she’s more heart driven, there is less conceptual precision. Plus it’s kind of an organic unfolding like this blog, rather than a presentation of a fully formed teaching. But as Rick Archer (Batgap) said to me, “she’s a sweetheart, making her much-needed contribution.“

Of course, making pronouncements about others is tricky territory. David Hawkins, of Power vs Force fame, is notorious for having rated many famous teachers, all of whom he rated as lower than himself, save Jesus. His ratings are considered infallible by himself & adherents. (he’s a no on Rose’s list) There are also some guru rating sites that are essentially trash-em lists.

Rose’s approach doesn’t fall into these traps but is instead a simple is or isn’t (yet). She says it’s about clarity rather than judgment. And offering examples for students to read. But a few issues still come to mind. For example, it’s not the person who is enlightened. It is the Self that wakes up to itself, through an apparent person. Making a list of names points to the person. But addressing that requires only a caveat. She talks about some of this here.

It’s useful to note here that she differentiates Householder and Renunciate enlightenment. A renunciate is Neti Neti (not this, not this) oriented whereas a householder still very much engages their person as an aspect of their expression. If this difference isn’t clear and a householder tries to play a middle ground, they succeed at neither. I’ll write more on this later.

Secondly, her process is by perception which can be fallible. The perception is also reading the effects of awakening not the awakening itself. She does however mention a few exceptions who appear to meet criteria but have issues that overshadow that development. She also notes it’s her read and opinion. No absolutes stated. That’s a good sign.

Clearly, it depends on the skill and experience of the reader. As I don’t have these skills, I’m keeping an open mind to get a better sense of what this is. I’ve bought her book Aura Reading Through All Your Senses but have just started it. She’s since recommended more recent books to me, like Read People Deeper. Thus, this article is more a work in progress than a review.

Here’s a good article on how her outlook evolved. She also talks about what she sees as the 10 most significant things about enlightenment there.

Meanwhile
Meanwhile, I commented on her blog a few times. One she quite liked and moved forward to a more recent post, then offered to read me for her list.

I found the exercise interesting as it looks to the question from a different angle than usual and confirms a couple of subjective impressions.

As prior posts mention, I’ve stayed pretty low key about who I am here, for various reasons. And awakening really isn’t about a person anyway. So it was a consideration if this was even appropriate. But now I sit at #180 on her list. (laughs)

I’ll do some more reading & exploring before I have better handle on the techniques she teaches. She certainly has a unique vision and some excellent insights. If her processes are as effective as she suggests, they could be quite useful in a number of ways.

Meanwhile, we’ve exchanged blogroll links. 
Davidya