The male’s dark blue body represents “purusha” -the still witness consciousness.
The feminine is “prakriti” - the ever moving, changing material world. The difference between them, spirit and matter creates an attractive polarity which remain in constant “sexual” embrace.
Notice it yourself, you have the aspect of you which is “looking” and then you have what is being “looked at”. Can one exist without the other? Dualism says yes, the things we look at exist regardless of there being an observer. Nondualist (advaita) philosophies says no, the seen and seer are intertwined, like two lovers. In fact, they were never different at all, any sense of separation, or limitation in your being is an illusion (maya).
Where the seen meets the seer or we could say, where the rubber hits the road, exists the potential to realize the interconnection between them. Yoga first begins by catagorizing what is seen (sankhya: five elements) so that we have a real clear way of understanding who is looking, and what is temporarily in the field of observation.
After deliniating what the seen is, you realize who the actual perciever is, inside of you. So you start with negation: “that’s not it, that’s not it, this isn’t it”, etc. Remember, if you observe something, anything, internally or externally, subtle, or gross it is the field of prakriti - ever changing.
When you introvert the mind and wake up to recognize that you are that observer, and not the limitations, this is freedom. You are in yoga, or union, between your individual self and the wide, all encompassing consciousness. For that moment or longer, you expand and encompass the entire field of prakriti and purusha. You are God. And it’s inside you this whole time. That’s really all you need to realize.
Moving your awareness through creation you find freedom. Start with your body in yoga, understand it from top to bottom, inside and out.
In the process, you find freedom physically and emotionally and ultimately spiritually. The highest realization of life and yoga can be attained in any relationship between the seen and the seer: with any object, piece of food, song, or best of all, in love!
2 responses so far ↓
1 Christopher Gladwell // Jan 13, 2008 at 3:37 am
Greetings Bro, the image used is from the Nyingma tradition and is actually of Samatabahdra and Saamntabhadrini the primordial AdiBuddha. Beautiful image and a shame it is connected in your piece to Samkhya philosophy and Vedanta which in many ways are substantialy different in their view, path and fruit. The Nyingma school does not do purusha or prakriti. Samkhyan schools such as Patanjali’s and Views such as the Gita who use the terminology and meanings of Purusha and Prakriti do not really accord with the Buddhist understandings as recognised in the nyingma schools that the beautiful image of AdiBuddha comes from.
The Gita sees everything as the emanation of the one Krishna; Shankaracharya and the non-qualiifed Advaitins see everything as ‘not two’ ‘never in embrace’ only the formless divine and all else (including purusha’s and prakriti) as illusion. Patanjali speaks of Kaivalya as the goal and thios in no way being oneness but a pluarality of Purusha’s exisitng in perpetual freedom. This dualism does not do anything more than temporary embrace of Purusha and Prakriti where Prakriti serves Purushas awakening to the truth of itself.
The Nyingma view goes to different realiities of no Purusha, no Prakriti and the Buddha and consort represent a non-dual view that is not constituted of these, according to Tibetan Buddhism, fabricated and not fully awakened understandings. Instead Adi-Buddha represents the totally non-dual (therefore no separate purusha and prakriti, no illusion and no Kaivalya unless the understanding of Kaivalys is warped to somehow represent such a non dual view. What does it matter? Who cares if the philosophical views are homgenised and presented as analagous? Isnt it helpful to belnd the different views and seek the easiest and perhjaps lowest common denominator o understanding? Fortunately it matters because the philsophical view and map available through the teachings guide ones meditative and disciplinary experience leading one to a goal that is partial revelation or deeper revelation. That is what the teaching say and that is why it gets important to see similarity and also the fundamental differences in philosophical view. So what is the Nyingma view? Why do they use the image of Samantabhadra and Consort? How do they differ from schools such as the Jonagpas and the Gelugs and Kagyus? Are the Tibetan schools so different from Vedantic Advaita and Samkhya. I think the differences are vitally important in making real and deep sense of Yoga in our contemporary western world. The reason wby the western world is so open to moral retribution from fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Hinduism and Christianity is the philsophical limitatiopns and metaphysical mistakes perpetuated in post-modernist thinking and subsequent views and practice. Too easy to make similar metaphysical mistakes today. The metaphysical mistakes of today create the Frankensteinian monsters of future expereince. The Secret is rich with such metaphysical mistakes, the future of life on this planet is too precious to throw away with such confused representations is my feeling. What is at stake? Love! Real Love and the vitally important role of unadulterated care, kindness, unobstructed compassionate energy and reral universal intelligence that flows with deeper realisation than the simpler views of Shankaracharya and even Samkhya and the Gita. Peace and Love. Christopher aka Longrig Khalding aka Vairagyamurti.
www.radikalfreedom.com
2 Adrian Cox // Jan 13, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Hey Chris, I agree that the image doesn’t really fit the post. As I was blogging, I knew I was treading a fine line because I understand that the image isn’t quite backing up my experience in Sankhya. The truth is, my experience in Tibetan Buddhism is too minmal to make posts with. I’ve been teaching and practicing yoga/sankhya long enough to kind of get a taste of what it teaches but it’s just the beginning.
Where though does sutra say that there will be a plurality of purushas? I’ve heard this before but can’t find the reference. I just dug this online super quick: (yoga sutra fourth chapter)
“Mind is not self-illuminating: That mind is not self-illuminating, as it is the object of knowledge and perception by the pure consciousness (4.19). Nor can both the mind and the illuminating process be cognized simultaneously (4.20). If one mind were illuminated by another, as its master, then there would be an endless and absurd progression of cognitions, as well as confusion (4.21). ”
Like I said, I head the Vedantins argument against Sankhya/yoga (plurality of purushas) but couldn’t find the reference. I thought that these sutras may counter or agree with that but… as always, looking for more illumination.
Leave a Comment