Ascension : Hype or Happening?

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi Buzz,

If you seek to elevate your consciousness, and do so, and know it - that is 'ascension'. Because you are part and parcel of a larger collective reality, that means the larger collective is also ascending by dint of your individual achievement. If others are also doing the same, that further contributes to and accelerates the process.

So then, where is the "hype"?


~ J

The Tibetans broadly describe three spiritual paths...

The king...attains mastery over self and strives to transform and heal the self. Philosophy is as you described, helping self before helping others, or by helping self, one helps others in the collective sense.

The ferryman...shares the journey in every sense and thereby provides the support and the foundation for others to make or continue their journey. Compassion and empathy and a true sense of self and collective allow for helping both self and others.

The servant...gives of the self for others and thereby elevates and transforms both self and others in the process of serving, learning, healing, and doing. Although by their own acknowledgement, traditional vajrayana buddhism and perhaps buddhism generally has valued the path of the servant most, it is acknowledged that all are equally important along the spiritual journey individually and as a species.

However, in the West, I would say the path of the servant is the least respected or honoured, for all its value and merit. Many would look on it with some contempt, or consider to be irrelevant. The path of the ferryman fares little better. And so we in our own way may also be culturally biased in our preference or our "natural inclination". Here, many feel that "it's good to be the king" There is a sense on the path of the king that one will attain a place where we can extend a hand to others, in grace and in wisdom, once we ourselves have got things sorted. In reality, this time and place is elusive...the work, always in progress.

Perhaps what might be either frustrating, saddening, or somewhat incomprehensible to some is an epoch where many or most consciously choose the journey of the king as the primary or dominant perspective, which by definition can often be more isolationist and self-absorbed than the other paths. Even stranger might be remaining in that particular mode on our spiritual journey and never seeking or incorporating the timeless perspectives of the ferryman and the servant.

All things in balance, ideally, including the spiritual paths of an individual, a society, or a species. From this perspective, it is probably at least as important to discuss the value of the spiritual paths of the ferryman and the servant, versus the king. Although broad archetypes, they serve a useful function in outlining some of the broadly different orientations we may have on our journeys.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[Jyotir]

Hi 7luminaries,

The Tibetan path outline is interesting, and your post is the first I have heard of it, so thanks.

Just to be clear, I never actually said ("as you described") what is indicated by your comment, "helping self before helping others" - not an accurate characterization of what I said, since I only spoke of the general proposition of "elevating consciousness", which would have to be further qualified by means. How it is done, whatever process or method utilized is quite variable and I suggested in a subsequent post that this could be accomplished in different ways. And yes, that could include service of some kind, or any other means as represented by the Tibetan construct you provided, or those from other traditions.

~ J

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi Buzz,

If you seek to elevate your consciousness, and do so, and know it - that is 'ascension'. Because you are part and parcel of a larger collective reality, that means the larger collective is also ascending by dint of your individual achievement. If others are also doing the same, that further contributes to and accelerates the process.

So then, where is the "hype"?


~ J

Well I guess you sorted it, so the hype must be a invention of my own mind. I will now go and write out 2,000 lines of 'I must not perpetrate the myth of ascension hype that does not exist outside of my own mind and attempt to instill my own creation upon the environment.'

Originally Posted by Buzz

I try not to talk or speculate outside of my own lily pad, but I'm drawn to enquire regarding the much heralded subject of the Ascension.
Like many here I have felt a frustration and a sadness with the society I find myself living in. Intuitively I am aware of other ways of being and one need not look too far these days to witness pain and suffering as a result of the machinery and systems and values that we have no choice but to take on in order the survive in mainstream society.
Sure we are allowed our little dalliances just as long as we feed the machine and lower our eyes to the collateral damage it creates with it's love of wealth and power.
I can really only call it as it appears to me. My ascension has been a systematic collapse of old patterns and values. The pain of this shift has been at times unbareable, but there has always been a strength of purpose, a knowledge of something slightly out of focus that calls me to continue trekking.
Sure I could speculate on my own theory about the new age predictions but to do so will draw too much heat. I wlll leave that up to others and simply throw my experience into the mix
So is that arrogance? To consider that my own 'changing of the guard' is a symptom of a much bigger transition?
Maybe. I thought I would throw this out there in case others were identifying their own inner ascension with a more global movement.

First let me say thankyou for posting about this subject, I too am highly interested in this subject!!!
I also can relate to the fact that this shift has been incredibly painful. My emotions have been through the roof. It is to the point where I wonder whether I am helping or hindering the process. I really hope that all of this that I am going through is going to get better and that when it comes time to go through this change, I'm ready. I want to be part of this wonderful experience and have felt up to this point really good about my position in it.

Originally Posted by Angel247

First let me say thankyou for posting about this subject, I too am highly interested in this subject!!!
I also can relate to the fact that this shift has been incredibly painful. My emotions have been through the roof. It is to the point where I wonder whether I am helping or hindering the process. I really hope that all of this that I am going through is going to get better and that when it comes time to go through this change, I'm ready. I want to be part of this wonderful experience and have felt up to this point really good about my position in it.

You're welcome Angel

My own experience is that the only thing that gets in my way is 'me' or the mind or however it strikes at the time. As I get further into the process I am learning to 'back off' in order to allow what needs to occur. But it ain't all beer and skittles for sure. I have been drawn against trying to locate myself and I guess this thread is testamont to that.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

If you seek to elevate your consciousness, and do so, and know it - that is 'ascension'. Because you are part and parcel of a larger collective reality, that means the larger collective is also ascending by dint of your individual achievement. If others are also doing the same, that further contributes to and accelerates the process.

So then, where is the "hype"?

Originally Posted by Buzz

Well I guess you sorted it, so the hype must be a invention of my own mind. I will now go and write out 2,000 lines of 'I must not perpetrate the myth of ascension hype that does not exist outside of my own mind and attempt to instill my own creation upon the environment.'

Hi Buzz,

Not of your own mind...it seems to exist outside - but then, why punish yourself over others' hyper-hyped expectations? Point is, it (the hype) doesn't much matter, it is irrelevant when it comes to instilling your own creation within your own inner environment. In that case it would be inspiration, not hype?

~ J

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi 7luminaries,

The Tibetan path outline is interesting, and your post is the first I have heard of it, so thanks.

Just to be clear, I never actually said ("as you described") what is indicated by your comment, "helping self before helping others" - not an accurate characterization of what I said, since I only spoke of the general proposition of "elevating consciousness", which would have to be further qualified by means. How it is done, whatever process or method utilized is quite variable and I suggested in a subsequent post that this could be accomplished in different ways. And yes, that could include service of some kind, or any other means as represented by the Tibetan construct you provided, or those from other traditions.

~ J

Jyotir, thanks for clarifying .
I think I probably understood you at first blush as many or at least as some others would, so it's valuable that you provided more detail.
But really, that is exactly my point...

I think that we in the West are geared to often assume this self-involved perspective (help self and thus/then help others), unless well clarified or unless the conversation has been deep and broad, with many points well expounded. We really have to dig fairly deep to get past the hidden and often unconscious assumptions with which most of us operate.

Our cultural bias with the focus on a more extreme individualism means that we often look for any rationale or justification to follow the path of the King largely at the expense of other paths.
Who cares so much about including the paths of fellowship and service when you can just stay on the path of self-development, even if this path becomes one of self-absorption and isolation...?
After all, it's good to be the king

At the end, and ideally, we walk all 3 paths simultaneously and it's all the same.
But in the moment, there are many times when it is crucial to all of those who share our universe that we extend a hand in empathy and in aid or service,
or lend our shoulders to share the burden and the pain.
The difference to others in the dimensions of presence and contact and action are crucial, regardless of how we may view it.

These choices and preferences are not always conscious...they are often broadly reinforced culturally by many if not most that one may meet.
And so unless we clearly identify our cultural biases and own them, we can so easily just blithely ignore the other implications or attendant meanings along the way.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[Jyotir]

Hi 7Luminaries,

Originally Posted by 7Luminaries

Jyotir, thanks for clarifying
I think I probably understood you at first blush as many or at least as some others would, so it's valuable that you provided more detail.
But really, that is exactly my point...

In that case, I would riposte my previous.
But it sounds as if you would like to continue to entertain an exploration of these biases, preferences and assumptions, so please continue...

Originally Posted by 7Luminaries

I think that we in the West are geared to often assume this self-involved perspective (help self and thus/then help others), unless well clarified or unless the conversation has been deep and broad, with many points well expounded. We really have to dig fairly deep to get past the hidden and often unconscious assumptions with which most of us operate.

Yes, agreed - "unless well clarified", "...to get past the hidden and often unconscious assumptions...", we should look at this more closely and, "dig fairly deep to get past the hidden and often unconscious assumptions". With that in mind...

It sounds like you are interested in making the case that there are more Japanese gardens in Japan than in England. On the surface that seems plausible. And yet, if the issue is good beautiful proficient gardening, an accomplished gardener in either 'style' would likely recognize quality in the other garden. Each has the same demands and difficulties of attaining quality even if through disparate 'cultural bias'. Meanwhile, can a poor garden in Japan justify that Japanese garden style is necessarily inferior to the English version? Or is it just a case of 'bad' gardener, whatever the style? One must be careful about cultural bias, i.e., "beware of creating a Japanese garden...one could then be vulnerable to becoming a seedy, weed wa*ker!" Not the case in the UK? Well, hardly.

So I'm not so sure about your premise as a tendency, in the form you appear to prefer - rather, how you apply that preference to make your case. For instance, how about turning it around into this: That, in the 'West', what is assumed to be a form of 'service', i.e. altruism, frequently manifests as the sublimest form of selfishness, ego, and personal ambition, which would no doubt qualify as a "self-involved perspective" as well. Yet it is just such a 'cultural bias', the unconscious unexamined assumptions - unquestionable, virtually sacrosanct - which cover-over these defects, that charity, religious, various social service and mental health industries, etc., rely heavily upon in order to perpetuate these various institutions of 'service', which in turn give plenty of people something to do.

In addition, I have often observed that in the 'West' those who usually employ such a bias as their preference, unconscious or not, usually regard (ignorantly misunderstood and superficially) the various tenets of a legitimate yoga of self-perfection as being escapist, narcissistic and abjectly 'selfish', i.e., "self-involved" (and not only that - often associate that 'path' with an Eastern bias). Of course it is not true, except in the majority of observable and obviously deficient cases - which appear in either model, 'king' (self-perfection) or 'servant' (service) - ego and ignorance being common to each as the source of any deficiency - not the form of practice, or path, and that to me is the key issue. The rest really comes down to personal choice within the larger more inclusive and encompassing Path, that neither is superior or inferior - just what is chosen by any practitioner as their means or expedient.

Either 'negative' view may therefore be a distortion of a potential, based on 'worst case', 'inauthentic', 'lesser', etc., versions of each orientation. Or, also possible - the 'worst case' inability or deficiency of any critic or detractor to see the authentic utility in what amounts to their own 'lesser personal preference' according to that same distortion of bias (e.g., beautiful Japanese garden is 'deficient' because not organized in neat rows like an English garden; what a mess!).

So which is the 'Western unconscious bias'?... Self-absorption of ego in a false self-perfection, or self-projection of ego in a false service?

I therefore want to be cautious about disqualifying the available choices of different relative forms of expedience towards the elevation of consciousness since they are all theoretically and potentially viable, effective and progressively valid in their authentic forms, of which the actual practice - regardless of relative form - is the true determinant of 'validity' for the individual practitioner.

Also, why in the case of a genuine transformation of consciousness would so-called cultural bias even matter, or for that matter be an insurmountable barrier or limitation as much or more than any other? As in my original point, it is the elevation of consciousness that is the central issue, and the 'proof is in the pudding' - whatever the flavor (or neighborhood).

Originally Posted by 7Luminaries

Our cultural bias with the focus on a more extreme individualism means that we often look for any rationale or justification to follow the path of the King largely at the expense of other paths.

You would have to demonstrate to me - again returning to the proposition that any personal transformation through whatever means also transforms the Totality, whether personal or collective - - that any legitimate transformation by one means/path, necessarily negates, excludes or is "at the expense of other paths", if indeed that transformation entails the genuine transcendence of ego and ignorance. If anything, any true attainment in and through one enhances capacity and empowers that capacity to engage other means leading towards further and fuller transformation.

It seems that you are simply arguing for the flexibility to apply your preference of means - because there is seen something inherently deficient or hazardous about the path of 'self-perfection', which does not necessarily exclude service anyway (nor is it exclusively considered a 'Western bias'). This doesn't make sense to me, unless an assumed focus on 'worst case' examples is the basis, and in that case, why make the negative and deficient version the model for the purpose of discussion? That is a very significant bias (even a cynical one) and relates to the earlier point that the key is the ignorance and transcendence thereof - not the formal means of doing so. What you appear to be doing is making a clever although perhaps unconscious substitution of worst case ineffectual self-indulgence of ego - for an authentically self-transformative spiritual discipline of self-perfection as the basis of your proposition, which when looked at more closely, to me doesn't seem to hold water.

Every formal means is going to have potential deficiencies which originate in distortions and limitations of ignorance - not necessarily inherent to the path, form, method, but may have manifestations peculiar to, and within the context of the form, giving the appearance that the form is the origination, when the real phenomenon is ignorance working in and through any particular form.

So go ahead, take your pick and rationalize any limitation as being from 'cultural bias', national bias, tribal bias, family bias, spousal bias, sibling bias, personal bias, etc. It is ignorance that is the ultimate bias in any case, and the very determinant of transformation for this purpose is that it is transcended, including any 'bias', cultural or otherwise, which would qualify as ignorance to begin with. In my mind there really is no 'incorrect' or biased choice of authentic legitimate form, means, expedient - since there is always opportunity in each - whether meditating in the loo during a break at work, or coaching a disadvantaged children's football team on your day off, or thousands of other examples greatly varying from one another. So...

Originally Posted by 7Luminaries

Who cares so much about including the paths of fellowship and service when you can just stay on the path of self-development, even if this path becomes one of self-absorption and isolation...? After all, it's good to be the king

Who does care? The one making the choice and their Highest Self. To me the answer is completely open-ended because it is a personal choice, pure and simple, and - the real work, process, content is not dependent on form when it comes to transformation and spiritual growth. 'God'/Highest/Source/Supreme, being omnipresent, is in all of it, and may be invoked through any of it.

However -- let's talk about bias and unconscious assumptions, rationales and justifications (and perhaps naiveté). You may be giving the impression that your most egregiously misdirecting assumption is what appears to constitute the path of the 'king' in your own mind: elegantly reclining on the couch and being fed grapes while being fanned? It is actually very, very difficult to truly trod the path of 'the King' (in the spiritual sense). It takes enormous devotion, sacrifice, dedication, focus, discipline, discrimination and vigilance - and is not at all about self-indulgence, self absorption, isolation, etc.. Many fail outright but that doesn't disqualify through those biases and assumptions, employed as cynical invalidations - the ideal. "In all the lakhs of ochre-clad Sannyasins, how many are perfect? It is the few attainments and the many approximations that justify an ideal." - Sri Aurobindo. And I would argue too, that the same would apply to service modalities as well.

Sorry, but I do not equate the path of 'self-perfection' with "extreme individualism" - that is a bit of a stretch (and betrays a significant bias, btw), as the former is a yoga of a progressive union with the divine within and therefore oneness with all in a profoundly pragmatic expression (unimaginable to most due to very common bias?); while the latter is a distortion of the ego (with its obvious unfortunate results). Certainly the 'service' modality may be equally distorted as well, and I want to address that too.

To add to the discussion: other factors that play into both 'king' (self-perfection) and 'servant' models:
First, the issue that one needs to 'help oneself' first in order to achieve some meaningful capacity. This is the idea that it may be dangerous to try to save a drowning person, if you yourself cannot swim, and there are plenty of examples in life to justify this caution. Opposing that is the undeniable validity of willingness and determination as a huge factor in any undertaking - often more important that actual capacity. There is an old Yiddish saying to that effect, "It's not the one who can - it's the one who wants to". So how to apply that to your issue of cultural bias in terms of each model? I can't see how they both don't apply to each case.

So...

"Who cares so much about including the paths of fellowship and service...?"
Here representing the inversion of that caution regarding the 'king' model as self-indulgent extreme individualism in favor of service is the answer to that question given an equivalent bias imposed on the 'service' model: There is nothing worse that a blind altruism of an untransformed ego proudly imposing its ignorance on others as a predatory 'service'. If anything, the issue of ego within service may even be more insidious because there is the assumption that it is not a factor, given the premise that 'service' intrinsically evades/effaces ego expression. (right!)

Also, I don't find merit in the biased assumption, the necessary conclusion that one necessarily excludes fellowship and service while on, "the path of self-development..." Or especially that necessarily, "this path becomes one of self-absorption and isolation." The only way that happens is if the person is actually not self-developing in the true sense, but merely falsely validating and reinforcing ego - i.e., worst case of that particular form.

It seems to me that, if we "dig fairly deep to get past the hidden and often unconscious assumptions with which most of us operate"...the real 'Western cultural bias' implying a prudent caution would be not the path of genuine self-perfection, but the path of individual ego indulgence - and, the unexamined preference of the latter as a substitution for the former appears to be your own bias in the exploration of this question. Again, the real issue is the ignorance operating in each form or path, not the path itself.

What seems ironic is that if more people actually undertook a genuine dedicated program of self-perfection there would be less need for service as a mitigation for what amounts to the consequences of self-indulgence, but that is perhaps the longest story ever told, one which would probably include an impetus for the development of religion way back when.

Originally Posted by 7Luminaries

At the end, and ideally, we walk all 3 paths simultaneously and it's all the same.

I fully agree with, and it really comes down to that, because since we are individual microcosms of Divinity (even if not fully functioning as such), it is all within each person and all fully available, accessible and attainable.

These constructs in the end are simply an artifice, expedients to gain a greater understanding of inherent possibilities. They all converge, overlap and they all enhance each other. We walk them simultaneously or emphasize one or the other or in combination for varying periods of time in a life. Therefore the greatest 'king' is one who is willing to serve those who are less powerful with genuine magnanimity and humility, because he has dedicated to conquering himself. The true 'servant' actually becomes a king by virtue of a oneness with the spirit of others. The ferryman has the wisdom to discriminate which role to play - when, and how. Etc...

Self-perfection is God, becoming more conscious of Himself in and through a limited human life. Service is God in one form fulfilling some need of God in another form. Which one isn't (becoming) God? (while realizing that even asking that question evokes still more 'cultural biases').

Originally Posted by 7Luminaries

But in the moment, there are many times when it is crucial to all of those who share our universe that we extend a hand in empathy and in aid or service, or lend our shoulders to share the burden and the pain.

Yes of course, it is crucial. That is undeniable. But it is an option for the one who chooses it, and many will - in the moment of their choice. However that option also has its deficient 'lesser' expression as set forth previously. As a form of practice it is not immune to the intrusion of ignorance. So I would like to explore that version to avert any confusion, lest in my mind a mistaken glorification as sacrosanct form wallows unconsciously in biased assumptions that ignorantly operate through it.

There is "sharing the burden and the pain" - pain, which is always the consequence of ignorance - and finding perhaps some temporary solace in commiseration - oneness/empathy, etc. with the suffering of others. There is subsequently the acknowledging of pain and dissatisfaction, and accepting it, validating it as the first step towards its transformation. Then there is waking up and doing something about it, the potential of which is also shared and an irrevocable birthright. A truly selfless service is a possible vehicle of that transformation, and the server or healer in that case is a temporary viable instrument, a 'proxy' for the Highest within the one who suffers - for whatever contextual necessity.

But what about this? The continued languishing in a negative sentimentality, the perverse self-validation of incessantly reliving the painful and unsatisfying past. The maintenance of a facade of caring and interest, the excessive incessant validation of the server's compulsive 'need' to serve at the expense of stasis?

The mud of ignorance, bricks of pain, and the captivating seduction of a monumental edifice that ministers palliative care for surface conditions, symptoms of deeper causes - ignorance - running around under a chronically leaky roof with a very important bucket, catching others' tears - the precipitation of ignorance - as the 'noble' enterprise of service. Sounds cynical? Fair enough.

And in that 'worst case' - while not addressing root causes of the suffering through systematic and progressive mitigation - it is simply the false 'king' attempting to usurp the throne in another version of "self-absorption", "extreme individualism", ego, ignorance, etc. - so back full circle to the perfecting of self. This is how they are all inseparably related and also permutations of each other.

Originally Posted by 7Luminaries

The difference to others in the dimensions of presence and contact and action are crucial, regardless of how we may view it.

I'm glad you said, "no matter how we may view it", with "the dimensions of presence and contact". This is quite variable, and could easily get into many dimensions; and again, relates to the dominant consciousness of any human being as it manifests as individual preference. For some, it could be physical need, for others psychic, for others emotional, or various combinations. However fulfillment of need is undertaken, in whatever form - whether praying for humanity in general or one person in specific, or giving a homeless person a sandwich, or building shelters in Haiti - it is all theoretically: available, legitimate, and therefore practicable according to one's preference, receptivity, capacity and willingness. Of course the means one chooses may vary according to the context of one's entire set of experiences - and that context may also provide opportunity that is not available in other contexts. Cultural bias? People will spontaneously choose what works for them. How successful or progressive they are depends on factors that supersede those so-called biases or contexts - and they have to - because the emergence of truth out of ignorance (including that of healing) takes many forms - within self or through another.

Originally Posted by 7Luminaries

These choices and preferences are not always conscious...they are often broadly reinforced culturally by many if not most that one may meet.
And so unless we clearly identify our cultural biases and own them, we can so easily just blithely ignore the other implications or attendant meanings along the way

What isn't conscious is why people choose to perfect themselves - in order to become more conscious. That is why people engage in spiritual practice - to transcend ignorance in all its forms, including 'cultural bias', to become more conscious - no matter what means are employed to do so.

"Easily just blithely ignore other implications"? Do I detect a thinly veiled contempt based on a personal prejudice for those who knowingly undertake a program of dedicated spiritual practice in the form of self-perfection? So how might such a lack of faith in that divinely human endeavor reconcile itself with the path of service? What are those implications?

My opinion - we don't need to "identify our cultural biases" - just follow one's heart. There is plenty of 'work' for everyone at every moment within innumerable exigencies. It is all God necessity offering human possibility (and responsibility). Pick one and go with it. It doesn't require a cultural bias 'study'. People naturally choose what works for them and they get started when they are awake, inspired, motivated and dedicated. By choosing one particular vehicle, someone else may always say, "but you are excluding others!" - which is superficially true. So what? More opportunity for others. The perceived need to "identify cultural bias" may be arbitrary - just another bias itself.

If one transforms themselves, the world is transformed. If one serves the world they themselves are transformed. What's the difference? All One, all God. Which way: to perfect, or serve? They are ultimately the same. But it is a personal God-given choice, and the breadth of individual choice in those spiritual aspirations is in some sense the song of God's Voice.


~ J