Pushing Back the Veil? · 23 January 2008
What is practice?
- a self-soothing routine we use to build up a stable, continuous sense of self in the face of uncertainty
- a forum for pursuing a vision of perfection
- an arena for self-mastery
- competition
- PERFORMANCE, duh
- a systematic daily pushing back of the veil between consciousness and the unconscious
Yeah. REALITY CHECK on aisle six!
Given the possibilities (and here are some other definitions of practice), isn’t it wildly self-congratulatory to say what we do is number six?
What exactly does it take for any systematic action to be “practice” as self-inquiry? In other words, under what conditions can we actually honestly push back the veil into the shadowy places?
What energies (perfectionism, nervousness, sloth, disbelief, willful shallowness?) will sabotage practice and merely deposit new neuroses behind the veil?
Can anything (asana, pranayama, sitting, writing) be practice? What actions are most likely to make for good practice? What activities are least likely?
Oh, And is the new mantra of Yogaworks—“practice makes yoga”—anything other than a backwards double-double-entendre, spiritual materialism, and a craven appeal to the unconscious? Come on ladies: get a practice—everybody’s got one! Get perfect!
Posted by (0v0)
Categories: astanga yoga
, beta state
, self-deception
Previous entry: Eeyore's Dream / Next entry: Give a girl the technology for bliss, she turns it into a hair-shirt
Comment
Commenting is closed for this article.
A toughly inquisitive post…easy to read as aggressive, cynical, other things.
Practice, praxis, Marxism: back, maybe to a group called Praxis, in Yugoslavia, in the 60s. To act, rather than to substitute ideology for moralism with similar censoring and other a-productive effects.
Conscious/unconscious. Depends on whether or not and to what degree you buy the binary. As exercise, maybe being “in the zone” is unconscious, allows one to access “more power.” But if physical existence is an illusion?
Practice makes yoga: indeed, bring your suspicion. Of course, one is already holy, enlightened, part of what some call Mind. But one does not realize this, thus one strives for it (so goes some reasoning). No mention, as you note, of precisely the opening question, what is a practice? Practice (whatever it is) makes (how? does it?) yoga (whatever that is). Yes, and here see lululemon, exercise, body image, recyclable mats or not, full rooms or not, capitalism or not, onward!
Deposit new neuroses: samskaras. Digging up seeds, vaporizing seeds, planting new seeds. Not even samadhi (certain variations) eliminates the seeds. Indeed, what shall we practice? How shall we not plant the garden, not become the garden, but what? Transcend the garden? Is that what’ll happen if I put my foot behind my head?
Yes, great questions. Productive little things.
Posted by: patrick · Jan 23, 10:27 AM · #
Dude. Sometimes I just hate words. So tempting, so promising. And so inadequate to the project at hand.
Quite possibly all that stands between us and
ooooh, what?
Can’t say.
Posted by: karen · Jan 23, 10:41 AM · #
:)
Thanks, Karen.
About the feeling underlying this. I am just trying to shake off my theory for a moment. My theory is practice and all is coming.
But like Patrick mentions, what we call “practice” in the ashtanga sense can create samsakras. But maybe not as a larger process of burning them off?!? Especially in the complicated kinds of scenes where we often tend to do it in this country.
Not every routine is contemplative. God no. I want to understand what are the conditions that support (and what are those that sabotage) contemplation.
Any offerings to that question would be so interesting…
Posted by: (0v0) · Jan 23, 10:53 AM · #
I’d say that practice can create the conditions that may lead to the pushing back of the veil between the unconscious and the conscious. But, like the song goes, you don’t know what you got till it’s gone. Samadhi’s already gone by the time you realize that you had it!
Posted by: cody · Jan 23, 11:15 AM · #
support/sabotage: well some folks would say that a student leaving in the middle of other peoples’ svasana is sabotage. Um, mysore rooms?
Not to give a totally simplistic answer, but the old standby: attend to breath in asana, works for me. More than usual, lately.
Posted by: patrick · Jan 23, 11:21 AM · #
Yeah, every mysore room has a fire. Right now I’m blessed to practice with a crazy strong one that nothing can sabotage. No threat to savasanas there. But fires vary.
Hey CP, that’s not what I’m asking at all.
I’m asking under what conditions does doing asana even qualify as contemplative practice AT ALL.
Alone in your living room: very likely some kind of pushing back the veil happening there.
But whenever practice becomes an elaborate self-control or self-punishing mechanism (in those whose habits of self-hate are stronger than their habits of self-study)? Or with a teacher who would motivate you by making you believe you are FOREVER inadequate? Or whenever you’re being treated as an object by yourself or others?
If you seek and give yourself to this kind of experience above others, is it not self-deceiving to say this is part and parcel of “all”—of some larger process of “awakening”?
I feel like it might be a little too easy to fool ourselves on this one.
Posted by: (0v0) · Jan 23, 11:32 AM · #
Isn’t “practice” supposed to be a systematic process that demands that one steps through his/her fundamentals in order to achieve a result? That is to say, it’s an activity that doesn’t allow skipping or glossing over all the little bits? I’d say anything can be a “practice” as long as it resets the brain/body/self/whatever to its correct operating state.
Posted by: Carl · Jan 23, 12:04 PM · #
well, whenever I don’t have a good answer on my own, I go back to my favorite text…
2.1 Kriya yoga practice consists of commitment, self-study and devotion to God (my translation)
Posted by: cody · Jan 23, 12:48 PM · #
Support: same time, same place, same practice
Sabotage: thought, word, deed? (Not sure why I just thought that!)
Is the contemplation in the automaticity turning hypnogogic? (Pet theory ;-)
Posted by: karen · Jan 23, 12:59 PM · #
Carl, I like that definition of practice. Resetting to a kind of functionality. That’s a big part of how I experience the ashtanga every morning. But that’s pretty different from this idea of practice as a kind of un-doing. More deconstruction than reconstruction. This definition of practice that I’m floating—of action that progressively reveals more of the unconscious (a.k.a. “shadow work” for the more therapy-oriented) seems a little more difficult.
Asana is great physical work, great meditation. And yet it’s also at its best a trance state. Is that really ideal for spelunking the shadows? I think so, but…
Which is to say, Karen: I love that question!
Parenthetically: (I am a huge fan of certain mental states. Is my tendency to think of them as “higher” a justification for spending as much time as possible luxuriating in them?)
CP: 2.1. Ashtangis are so great at commitment/ discipline! But is self-involvement the same as self-study? As for devotion to God….
And why is almost everyone in this thread someone with a near-exclusively home practice, not a word/thought/deed laden community practice?
Posted by: (0v0) · Jan 23, 02:43 PM · #
for me, asana = making shapes with my body for an hour or so. the shapes enable me to pay attention to my breath for that dedicated time each day, which is where the fun stuff happens. sometimes that includes sorting through habits, patterns, crutches; other times it’s a self-induced high. still others, it’s a non-issue — i manage to shut off the brain to such an extent that the time just happens without me actively doing to it.
i guess that means my practice entails #1, 3, 5 and/or (perhaps maybe) 6.
my girlfriend calls her yoga mat a prayer rug, and starts every practice with the shema. for her, i would hazard a guess that the movement itself is a religious practice — not in the sense that she’s practicing to perfect anything, but rather she’s practicing open communication with a different/higher power.
“But is self-involvement the same as self-study?” is a fantastic question. i’m tempted to say yes and no, in the sense that there has to be a level of selfishness for one to be interested in self-study. but at some point there has to be a disengagement from the self-in-relation-to-others (what my self involvement generally revolves around) in order to examine the self as a thing.
wow, that was a lot of rambling.
Posted by: rew · Jan 23, 03:59 PM · #
Thinking back to people I knew and was in college: I see self-involvement as larger than self-study, but that’s only to the degree that “self” stays within the limits of one body/mind/bodymind. Self-study quickly, for me, becomes/became a matter of ethics and metaphysics (which Deleuze and Guattari quickly turned back into, effectively, ethics, and which my recent exposure to the films of New French Extremism enhances; owl or anyone else, you want to hit me with an email about this?). So self-study quickly transforms into “place in the universe” questions. The relationship, the job search, ideas about old age, mortality, none of it escapes or can be escaped by self-study; the very reverse, in fact. And then we are far, far far, from asana practice (at least, from mine).
Posted by: patrick · Jan 23, 06:04 PM · #
far from asana practice is where i want to go anyway. there’s just too much psychosomatic activity going on in during yogasana to induce samadhi, samadhi remaining invisible unless all cortical activity subsides and we’re doing pretty much nothing! not even playing with our basset hounds.
Posted by: eeyore · Jan 23, 08:56 PM · #
Hi (0v0). My own career, architecture, is a practice. And you sometimes have to be as dedicated as an ashtangi to do it well. It’s good to read the definitions you link to. And yes, it is insightful of you to ask what contributes and distracts from practice. Practice is discipline. Discipline is doing over and over good habits that bring good results, like a dancer rehearsing what he or she is going to present. I think you asked a while back what types of people does ashtanga attract. I imagine it attracts people who don’t view discipline as something difficult to achieve.
Cheers, Arturo
Posted by: arturo · Jan 23, 09:00 PM · #
I was reading one of your links and found a quote from Ken Wilber..” the genuine, authentic path does not console, it shatters “. That is when a “practice” authentic, that is when yoga is working at “spelunking the shadows”.
Posted by: Susan · Jan 24, 08:59 AM · #
you wilberhead Snuzin!
Posted by: eeyore · Jan 24, 09:56 AM · #
“To study the Self is to forget the Self and to forget the Self is to be enlightened by the Ten Thousand Things.”
So the study of self is the dismantling of the Self?
If so, definitely the opposite of “Come on, ladies — get a practice” and/or anything that involves spiritual materialism. God, hard to dismantle the Self when there’s all this stuff to buy/own/value.
Posted by: karen · Jan 24, 11:44 AM · #
If you copy all this, from the title to the last comment and past it into ms word document, it makes 5 pages. The 5 pages of bullshit. One after another…
How to get enlightment?
YES…First, put the right question, do not go around and around with “a systematic daily pushing back of the veil between consciousness and the unconscious”.
The answer is so simple: DO NOTHING. Not even that. Just BE.
But because you can not “DO” THAT you came up with all these… (and much more).
Inside Owl and others, here is the “koan” for you:
Let say you are GOD and you have 1 million of savage people in one large area of the city. Nobody else is there except these people. You as a GOD, you have ability to create/maintain and destroy everything you want. Also, you are responsible to re-incarnate a person that have died. The people depends from you, you must act through them as a giver of life-energy. They only have one thing that is their own- consciousness – the “sense of existence”, nothing else. On the base of that consciousness (sense of existence) they “act on their own”, they practice yoga asana, they even contemplate and they move veil between consciousness and unconsciousness, they also create desires, looking for pleasures, avoiding pain etc. etc. etc.. and all in search for happiness and consequently they suffer if they do not find it.
The “koan” is this: What would you as a GOD do to make them conscious of you?
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 11:54 AM · #
That’s not a koan. That’s a question.
But the obvious answer to the question is to impress one’s godly likeness upon random objects like grilled cheese sandwiches. Some of the savage people have enough humor to “get it,” though most probably don’t. But that’s okay — those people just mill around, doing “nothing” anyway.
Posted by: Carl · Jan 24, 12:15 PM · #
Oh Cody… I am not well versed in english …
“savage” for me means:
1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance.
4. easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.
Cody, from that story.. where do you see the DOOR, to “impress one’s godly likeness “?
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 12:19 PM · #
This is a “koan”. Koan is suppose to be solved on “click” on “aha”… if not then it is a question. So, where is the connection (the door) between YOU as a GOD and a savage one.
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 12:26 PM · #
(If a jivanmukta is one who does nothing, who needs do nothing, but yet I believe that I must do something, it is easy to say that I am not a jivanmukta. But if I am not a jivanmukta, is it not, in a fashion, inethical, to not act, even if acting colors the clear “just be” of the jivanmukta? Is that not precisely where the introductory question begins?)
Posted by: patrick · Jan 24, 12:26 PM · #
Carl this is question for you. I see now Cody in every comment…since he told me that he loves me ;)
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 12:28 PM · #
PATRICK, do you really think that you do something NOW? YOU are that GOD from the story and YOU are that savage who search for HIM (for your Self)
So help your SELF, find the door… find the connection link. Where is it?
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 12:30 PM · #
PATRICK, Carl , Cody.. through away ALL fucking books. Take attitude (firm conviction) that YOU are doing nothing, everything is done through you, Ask yourself the question “What is wrong with me NOW, just NOW?” The answer will always be NOTHING is wrong with you NOW. So that means to be in NOW.
OR
Make your attitude that YOU are doing EVERYTHING. In that case see YOURSELF in anybody and in everything, in pleasure and in pain equally… and STOP complaining.
Take one of this attitude and BEHAVE like that. That means JUST BE.
Fucking books made your brain incapable of thinking. I am still awaiting answer on my question.
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 12:43 PM · #
Koans make words do the light fantastic.
Yes, zee, I’m with you, on all counts. I sit or type or be, and I encounter this question, “What will I do next?” and I realize the illusion (maya) there, of I and of do, and yet the question persists. And I sit with maya; hi maya, how are you. Maybe it’s an illusion that maya and I are even sitting, eh? :)
Posted by: patrick · Jan 24, 12:48 PM · #
Don’t underestimate yourself Patrick. The door is obviously: consciousness. It is life force (that comes from you as a GOD) and it makes you (as a civilized being) conscious of yourself.
Now, Patrick, how, due to what you know that you are conscious? We are introducing now another important term “knowledge”. So how you KNOW that you KNOW yourself?
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 12:55 PM · #
Zee, you mention that you copied this post and string of comments and pasted them to a document, where the aggregation took up 5 PAGES. I wonder why.
Your most recent comment reminds me of something Mao Tse Tung said: To read too many books is harmful.
It’s also remarkably similar to something Lao Tzu said: People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.
These two quotes might be considered koans of sorts.
Posted by: Carl · Jan 24, 12:57 PM · #
Carl, the answer is very simply. I am at work so I must hide blogs. They blocked all and only two are left free. Also, I read every blog very carefully…
You put in the same context Mao Tse Tung, Lao Tzu and Zee. I must disappoint you I am not Chinese. Although Zee Tse Tzu sounds cool. :)
Seriously, stick to ONE teaching. Do not deviate…
Oh I see what you saying… Do you also think … should I be again Ti Man instead Yi Man? (Again Chinese hahaha)
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 01:12 PM · #
Zee, shouldn’t you be working at work rather than reading blogs and posting comments to them?
Cheers, Arturo
Posted by: arturo · Jan 24, 01:20 PM · #
Thanks for this to-and-fro, zee, I spent the last probably most-of-an-hour on a really cool ride from these comments. Time for some jnana yoga, maybe: “Who is acting? Who is thinking? Who is knowing?” Cool; thanks!
Posted by: patrick · Jan 24, 01:22 PM · #
Sage words: Every system of knowledge is also a system of ignorance.
Zee, your pursuit of singular teachings leads to singular thinking. Open your mind a little, bro. There are many teachings and articles of information you must draw from to build your own comprehension.
Get it yet? Many Teachings — One Learning.
Posted by: Carl · Jan 24, 01:23 PM · #
Thanks Ms. Arturo, you just remind me. My work day is over I am going home ;) Patrick went too. Hey bro, where is the answer? Ahhhha.
But what am I going to do with Carl? He has characteristics of a cynic (very good); distrusting and disparaging my actions, showing contempt for my honesty and morality. Hmmm he is bitterly, sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous and pessimistic.
Dictionary is great thing.
Ok Carl, from tomorrow I will be Ti Man again. Right?
Posted by: Zee · Jan 24, 01:37 PM · #
zee,
first you confused me with carl, then carl said what I would have said to you anyway. spoooooky!
first, subscribe to your blogs through google reader and big boss man won’t be able to block them. start with mine! :)
second, in the material world, dualism is the door to non-dualism; but both are merely theories of the mind. do what carl said and consider the possibility that the theory of non-dualism might be wrong!
Posted by: cody · Jan 24, 01:57 PM · #
Frustrated. All this questing for enlightenment is making me gurgle. Really. Does it not undermine itself in its own questing? I’m sorry. (Clearly, I’m blind.)
“What would you as a GOD do to make them conscious of you?”
A: Absolutely nothing. Nothing. What an atrocious idea.
(Why on earth would I? What kind of GOD would I be if I desired their consciousness of me? And why would I feel a need to undermine the beautifully simple, confused, existential experiences of my creations by wishing them conscious of GOD and GODNESS? There are so many sources of beauty in the vignette painted by ZEE—in the pieces of it and relations of it—how can savage-consciousness of GODNESS even compete? And even if I in my GODNESS brought such consciousness about, its instantiation would undermine itself.)
Posted by: R · Jan 24, 02:12 PM · #
Incidentally, re: the original practice question: people seem to be forgetting that Owl was being snarky with option 6 (re: veils and all), not posing it as the actual correct answer. Option 6 treats practice as a means to an end as much as do the other 5. Also: in what respect is 6 different from 1?
Posted by: R · Jan 24, 03:19 PM · #
Hello boys; I’m home. Why did you scare off Karen and Susan? In any case, you know I like it when you clean up after yourselves and leave the house nice and tidy for me after a long day. Thanks, loves.
I do see a few empties (in addition to a whole case of Deleuze and Guittari) lying around though.
Eeyore, you are ruling out EMO as a route to Samadhi?
REW, I’m honored. Funny I forgot to put “praise to the universe” or “merging with the I Am” as an option. I wonder if you or gurlfriend are among the holy silent practitioners I’ve come up alongside at Eddie’s in the past.
R, it’s ok. Zee didn’t mean the narciccistic projection god—the long-since-dead God-head god of theism. Just I Am. Higher self. That shit. Though in a way, it doesn’t change your detraction. Why think of ourselves as not awake? Why think of ourselves as incomplete?
Zee, you took my “veil” image, called in bullshit, then just turned it in to a “door.” Don’t think I didn’t notice that. Both are bullshit, and both are good. ALL these ideas— dismantling, shattering, spelunking —they’re useful, despite what I’m about to post.
To be brutal, my asana practice is mostly #1 and #6, plus a lot of straightup pleasure. The less of the first and more of the sixth, the more interesting it gets (and when it stops being both and turns to pure bliss, I’ll vaporize from the blogosphere).
For practical purposes—‘cos this nondualism shit is not fucking practical—I’m good with that.
Posted by: (0v0) · Jan 24, 04:02 PM · #
Who is frustrated?
Of course…the questioning undermine itself in its own questing. Agreed. It is all mind entertainment.
But R.. you did not quoted me correctly… It is said “The answer is so simple: DO NOTHING. Not even that. Just BE.” And then “Just BE” is explained… it is related to ATTITUDE CHANGE... basically, to be aware… to be conscious of consciousness..
“Doing nothing” means to be conscious of “I” so you can clearly experience that your body is moving and doing the things… not YOU… you just observe it. It is not so hard… but You have to do NOTHING.
What kind of GOD would I be if I desired their consciousness of me? Exactly. If we define “I” as a gap between two thoughts then GOD and “I” are the same. We finally met at the DOOR, I mentioned before.
“why would I feel a need to undermine the beautifully simple, confused, existential experiences of my creations by wishing them conscious of GOD and GODNESS?” Because… there is no difference. Without “beautifully simple, confused, existential experiences” I as a GOD do not KNOW myself. It is the purpose of creation.
“even if I in my GODNESS brought such consciousness about, its instantiation would undermine itself.” Again, and again, there is no competition, there is NO DIFFERENCE. GODNESS and consciousness (universal or particular) are the same. Consciousness is expression of GODNESS. Consciousness is the GOD. To know the GOD you have to be GOD, but you are not that. YOU are beyond GOD. GOD is Your First Body. (I am a practical man).
Posted by: zee · Jan 24, 04:25 PM · #
Hi Zee – I’m Mr, not Ms, but it doesn’t matter in a dualist world – we all have a feminine and a masculine side. Also I understand that you speak many languages, English being one of them, but perhaps your pun was intended. And if you really just went through a heart operation -bless you. Cheers, Arturo
Posted by: arturo · Jan 24, 08:22 PM · #
it does so work, according to the accordian! this is fun, i missed Z.
Posted by: eeyore · Jan 26, 11:30 AM · #