Purity of Heart Reflections | The Higher Self as a Mode of Being


The contemplative traditions each have some way of talking about a “higher self” – an egoless ego, the selfless self, our Buddha nature, Atman, the Divine Indwelling.  The primary characteristic of this higher self is that it operates with a lack of concern for chasing self-interested desires. It is at peace and no longer seeks satisfaction from the world.  It lives purely to do the will of God, simply to serve the Good. 

These ideas of a higher self sometimes become confusing because they are discussed in terms of ontology.  Because each tradition has very different models of the self, they will likewise have different models of what constitutes a “higher self.”  

Perhaps an easier way of thinking about these concepts is in terms of the Higher Self as a Mode of Being.  The Higher Self spoken of in various ways by various traditions is simply a human being who has achieved and operates with Purity of Heart.  However one conceptualizes it, it is a way of being in the world. 

Contemplative practice is a, perhaps the, way through which one allows themselves to be transformed into that kind of person.

Purity of Heart | Conclusion: Man and The Eternal

 

“Father in Heaven! What is a man without Thee! What is all that he knows, vast accumulation though it be, but a chipped fragment if he does not know Thee! What is all his striving, could it even encompass a world, but a half-finished work if he does not know Thee: Thee the One, who art one thing and who art all! So may Thou give to the intellect, wisdom to comprehend that one thing; to the heart, sincerity to receive this understanding; to the will, purity that wills only one thing. In prosperity may Thou grant perseverance to will one thing; amid distractions, collectedness to will one thing; in suffering, patience to will one thing. Oh, Thou that giveth both the beginning and the completion, may Thou early, at the dawn of day, give to the young man the resolution to will one thing. As the day wanes, may Thou give to the old man a renewed remembrance of his first resolution, that the first may be like the last, the last like the first, in possession of a life that has willed only one thing. Alas, but this has indeed not come to pass. Something has come in between. The separation of sin lies in between. Each day, and day after day something is being placed in between: delay, blockage, interruption, delusion, corruption. So in this time of repentance may Thou give the courage once again to will one thing. True, it is an interruption of our ordinary tasks; we do lay down our work as though it were a day of rest, when the penitent (and it is only in a time of repentance that the heavy-laden worker may be quiet in the confession of sin) is alone before Thee in self-accusation. This is indeed an interruption. But it is an interruption that searches back into its very beginnings that it might bind up anew that which sin has separated, that in its grief it might atone for lost time, that in its anxiety it might bring to completion that which lies before it. Oh, Thou that givest both the beginning and the completion, give Thou victory in the day of need so that what neither a man’s burning wish nor his determined resolution may attain to, may be granted unto him in the sorrowing of repentance: to will only one thing.”

Purity of Heart | What Then Must I Do? Live As An Individual


At this point the reader may ask, What Then Must I Do?  What is the Good that I must be ready to suffer all for?  And how do I complete it?  To which Kierkegaard returns the following responses:

“… at each man’s birth there comes into being an eternal vocation for him, expressly for him.  To be true to himself in relation to this eternal vocation is the highest thing a man can practice… ”

“The talk asks you, then, whether you live in such a way that you are conscious of being an ‘individual.’  The question is not of the inquisitive sort; as if one asked about that ‘individual’ in some special sense, about the one whom admiration and envy unite in pointing out.  No, it is the serious question, of what each man really is according to his eternal vocation, so that he himself shall be conscious that he is following it; and what is even more serious, to ask it as if he were considering his life before God… Indeed it is precisely this consciousness that must be asked for.  Just as if the talk could not ask in generalities, but rather asks you as an individual.”

“You do not carry the responsibility for your wife, nor for other men, nor by any comparative standard with other men, but only as an individual, before God, where it is not asked whether your marriage was in accordance with others, with the common practice, or better than others, but where you as an individual will be asked only whether it was in accordance with your responsibility as an individual.”

“For as only one thing is necessary, and as the theme of the talk is the willing of only one thing; hence the consciousness before God of one’s eternal responsibility to be an individual is that one thing necessary.”

Regardless of if a modern reader agrees that an “eternal vocation” is given to him at birth, life will call us to something which we are responsible to fulfill.  This is very, very similar to Viktor Frankl’s thought:

"In an age in which the Ten Commandments seem to lose their unconditional validity, man must learn more than ever to listen to the ten thousand commandments arising from the ten thousand unique situations of which his life consists."

“To be sure, man is free to answer the questions he is asked by life.  But this freedom must not be confounded with arbitrariness.  It must be interpreted in terms of responsibleness.  Man is responsible for giving the right answer to a question, for finding the true meaning of a situation.  And meaning is something to be found rather than to be given, discovered rather than invented.”


In Kierkegaard’s terminology we must “live as Individuals.”  We must take personal responsibility for our lives and responsibilities before God.  We must ask, What is my life calling me to? and take responsibility for completing that calling. In Frankl’s terms, we must listen to the ten thousand commandments.

As the philosophers attest, you can’t definitively answer “What is the Good?” in the abstract.  The Good is concrete, embodied in each particular situation in each Individual’s life.  It is up to us to find it and complete it.  

Purity of Heart is a one-pointed focus on finding and fulfilling the Good we are uniquely called to do, in each individual moment, without any ulterior motives.

Purity of Heart | The Price of Willing One Thing and the Exposure of Evasions

 

After discussing the barriers to willing the Good authentically and in simplicity, Kierkegaard tells his reader that “if a man shall will the Good in truth, then he must be willing to do all for the Good or be willing to suffer all for the Good.”

Willing the Good authentically demands complete commitment.  Kierkegaard will go on to encourage his reader to “use his cleverness to expose evasions” – to examine all the ways he cleverly avoids doing the Good he knows he should do.

Thus far Purity of Heart has been fairly abstract.  In the final portion of this work, things get more concrete for the reader as Kierkegaard turns his attention to the question What Then Must I Do?

The New Cosmic Story | The Story is Not Over


“In all this debunking of religion, a persistent background assumption is that the physical universe is pointless because nothing of lasting importance seems to be going on there. As it turns out, however, something has been going on in the universe, something undeniably and dramatically important. The drama began long before humans came along, and it is still in play. During the past two centuries, science has gradually presented the universe for all to see as a grand adventure, full of twists and turns we never knew about until recently. And today science allows ample room for even more surprises up ahead. As the cosmos has developed over billions of years, entirely new kinds of being—most notably life and thought—have emerged. These are two cosmic developments that none of us could have predicted had we been around to witness the inauspicious elemental state of the early universe. Since even more surprising developments may be waiting to take place farther along on the cosmic journey, therefore, the contemporary secularist verdict that the universe is manifestly pointless, that evolution is a meaningless experiment, and that religion is illusory, may be premature. The story of the universe, after all, is not over.”

– John F. Haught, The New Cosmic Story

The New Cosmic Story | Religious Inclination

 

”Religion, however, has to do not only with the need for consolation and healing in the face of perishing and suffering but also with the overflowing sense of wonder at the fact that anything exists at all. In this respect religion has its origin in a sense of grateful surprise at the mystery of being. At some level, all conscious beings, including those who call themselves irreligious, experience the shock that anything exists at all. We humans, however, have devised countless ways to avoid acknowledging the mystery of it all, today perhaps more than ever. In most eras of human history, nevertheless, responsiveness to the gift of existence has manifested itself in an instinct to worship a hidden and indestructible source of all being. This religious inclination has come to expression in symbols, analogies, metaphors, rituals, myths, and theologies. These obscure modes of communication point allegedly to an indestructible and transcendent dimension of being from which we came, toward which we are destined, and in whose ambience we find both moral guidance and a meaning for our lives.”

– John F. Haught, The New Cosmic Story

Beginner's Mind


Beginner’s Mind – a sense of the newness of each moment and an openness to all possibilities in the ever-new-present-moment – is another effect of practice emphasized in the Zen tradition.

One-Pointedness


The “effects” of various types of meditation are often discussed as reasons for having a practice. One effect that has stood out to me recently is that of One-Pointedness – the ability to focus completely on the task at hand.

When I am more consistent with my meditation, I notice this ability in myself more often.

One-Pointedness is often emphasized in the Zen tradition.

Establish a Relationship with the Highest Thing You Can Conceive Of


I continue to find Jordan B. Peterson’s thought to be a fantastic bridge between “spirituality” and psychology, especially for those who may identify as agnostic.

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/s3-e10-biblical-series-abraham-a-father-of-nations (17:00ff)

“Establish a relationship with the highest thing you can conceive of.”

“We can argue forever about what God might or might not be but we can at least say that the concept of God is an embodiment of humanity’s highest ideal.”

Eknath Easwaran | Description of Atman and Brahman


The following is Eknath Easwaran’s description of Atman and Brahman in the Introduction to his translation and commentary on the Upanishads.

“In meditation, as the mind settles down to dwell on a single focus, attention begins to flow in a smooth, unbroken stream, like oil poured from one container to another. As this happens, attention naturally retreats from other channels. The ears, for example, still function, but you do not hear; attention is no longer connected with the organs of hearing.

When concentration is profound, there are moments when you forget the body entirely. This experience quietly dissolves physical identification. The body becomes like a comfortable jacket: you wear it easily, and in meditation you can unbutton and loosen it until it scarcely weighs on you at all.

Eventually there comes a time when you get up from meditation and know that your body is not you. This is not an intellectual understanding. Even in the unconscious the nexus is cut, which means there are sure signs in health and behavior: no physical craving will be able to dictate to you, and any compulsion to fulfill emotional needs through physical activities will vanish. Most important, you lose your fear of death. You know with certitude that death is not the end, and that you will not die when the body dies.

The Taittiriya Upanishad says that the body is the first of many layers that surround the human personality, each less physical than the one before. These are, roughly, components of what we call “mind”: the senses, emotions, intellect, will. As awareness is withdrawn from these layers of consciousness one by one, the sages gradually made another astonishing discovery: the powers of the mind have no life of their own. The mind is not conscious; it is only an instrument of consciousness – or, in different metaphors, a process, a complex field of forces. Yet when awareness is withdrawn from the mind, you remain aware. When this happens you realize you are not the mind, any more than you are the physical body.

When awareness has been consolidated even beyond the mind, little remains except the awareness of “I.” Concentration is so profound that the mind-process has almost come to a standstill. Space is gone, and time so attenuated that it scarcely seems real. This is a taste of shanti, “the peace that passeth understanding,” invoked at the end of every Upanishad as a reminder of this sublime state. You rest in meditation in what the Taittiriya Upanishad calls the “body of joy,” a silent, ethereal inner realm at the threshold of pure being.

For a long while it may seem that there is nothing stirring in this still world, so deep in consciousness that the phenomena of the surface seem as remote as a childhood dream. But gradually you become aware of the presence of something vast, intimately your own but not at all the finite, limited self you had been calling “I.”

All that divides us from the sea of infinite consciousness at this point is a thin envelope of personal identity. That envelope cannot be removed by any amount of will; the “I” cannot erase itself. Yet, abruptly, it does vanish. In the climax of meditation the barrier of individuality disappears, dissolving in a sea of pure, undifferentiated awareness.

This state the Upanishads call turiya – literally “the fourth,” for it lies beyond waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleep. Turiya, the Upanishads say, is waking up in dreamless sleep: in the very depths of the unconscious, where one is aware of neither body nor mind. In later Hindu thought this awakening will receive more familiar names: samadhi, “complete absorption”; moksha, “liberation” or “release,” for it brings freedom from all conditioning and the limitations of time and space.

What remains when every trace of individuality is removed? We can call it pure being, for it is in differentiating this unity that created things acquire their name and form. The sages called it Brahman, from the root brih, “to expand.” Brahman is the irreducible ground of existence, the essence of every thing – of the earth and sun and all creatures, of gods and human beings, of every power of life.

Simultaneous with this discovery comes another: this unitary awareness is also the ground of one’s own being, the core of personality. This divine ground the Upanishads call simply Atman, “the Self” – spelled with a capital to distinguish it from the individual personality. In the unitive state the Self is seen to be one, the same in everyone. This is not a reasoned conclusion; it is something experienced at the very center of one’s being, an inalienable fact. In all persons, all creatures, the Self is the innermost essence. And it is identical with Brahman: our real Self is not different from the ultimate Reality called God.

This tremendous equation – “the Self is Brahman” – is the central discovery of the Upanishads. Its most famous formulation is one of the mahavakyas or “great formulae”: Tat tvam asi, “You are That.” “That” is the characteristic way the Upanishads point to a Reality that cannot be described; and “you,” of course, is not the petty, finite personality, but that pure consciousness “which makes the eye see and the mind think”: the Self. In this absorption there is no time, no space, no causality. These are forms imposed by the mind, and the mind is still. Nor is there awareness of any object; even the thought of “I” has dissolved. Yet awareness remains: chit, pure, undifferentiated consciousness, beyond the division of observer and observed. When the mind-process starts up again, as it must, and we slip back into body and personality, the multiplicity of the perceptual world will unfold as a seed bursts into a tree.

Astrophysicists use similar language when they talk about creation. All the matter in the universe must have been present in that “primeval atom,” supercondensed to an unbelievable degree. In such a state, matter would no longer be possible as matter. It would be stripped down to pure energy, and energy itself would be raw and undifferentiated; variations like gravity and light would not have emerged. Time would not yet be real, for there can be no time before zero; neither would space make sense in the context of a question like, “What was there before the Big Bang?” Physicists reply, with Gertrude Stein, “There’s no ‘there’ there. There’s no ‘then’ then.” Space and time, matter and energy, sprung into existence at the moment of creation; “before” that moment the concepts do not apply.

The sages would find all this a perfect metaphor for the unitive state. In samadhi, reality is condensed into pure potential, without dimensions, without time, without any differentiation. Physicists do not say there was nothing before the Big Bang; they say everything came from that, and nothing more can be said. Similarly, samadhi is not emptiness but purnata: plenitude, complete fullness. The whole of reality is there, inner as well as outer: not only matter and energy but all time, space, causality, and states of consciousness.

That fullness the Upanishads call sat: absolute reality, in which all of creation is implicit as an organism is implicit in DNA, or a tree in a tiny seed.

The joy of this state cannot be described. This is ananda: pure, limitless, unconditioned joy. The individual personality dissolves like salt in a sea of joy, merges in it like a river, rejoices like a fish in an ocean of bliss. “As a man in the arms of his beloved,” says the Brihadaranyaka daringly, “is not aware of what is without and what within, so one in union with the Self is not aware of what is without and what within, for in that state all desires are fulfilled.” And what other scripture would cap such an image with a pun? “Apta-kamam atma-kamam akamam rupam: That is his real form, where he is free from all desires because all his desires are fulfilled; for the Self is all our desire.”

Nothing less can satisfy the human heart. “There is no joy in the finite; there is joy only in the infinite.” That is the message of the Upanishads. The infinite – free, unbounded, full of joy – is our native state. We have fallen from that state and seek it everywhere: every human activity is an attempt to fill this void. But as long as we try to fill it from outside ourselves, we are making demands on life which life cannot fulfill. Finite things can never appease an infinite hunger. Nothing can satisfy us but reunion with our real Self, which the Upanishads say is sat-chit-ananda: absolute reality, pure awareness, unconditioned joy.”

All This is Verily Brahman


More audio from Atmananda Udasin. Different teachers in any tradition will break things down in slightly different ways, but this seems to me to give a good “taste” of Advaita Vedantic thought.

The Self Reveals Itself to Itself by Itself


Swami Atmananda Udasin is a teacher in the school of Advaita (“not-two” or “non-dual”) Vedanta. I came across his teaching on the blog The Unthought Known.

In this school, the Ground of the individual self is identified 1:1 with Pure Consciousness, Brahman, the Self. Atman is Brahman. The ultimate goal, in this school, is to make this experiential realization for oneself. This is sometimes referred to as Self-realization.



Atmananda references multiple ways to make this realization:

(1) Remaining as the witness (1:05ff, as I understand it, this is the practice of Vipassana)

(2) Self-Enquiry (1:55ff, asking Who am I? essentially as a koan, until one discovers and identifies with Pure Consciousness)

(3) Abiding in the feeling of I Am (18:00ff)

Of the three, I am most fascinated by what he calls “Abiding in the feeling of I Am” (sadly he doesn’t expound on the specifics this method). This is essentially what I believe can happen during Centering Prayer. It also seems to be the form of practice that most commonly transcends the religious traditions. Stilling the mind, consciousness without thought, “resting in the feeling of I Am.”

I also find his response to the Question: Does that mean one doesn’t enter into relationships? (24:28) to be profound. “Non-attachment” is sometimes interpreted as resignation, not ever really loving people, withdrawal from the world. But from the perspective he presents, it’s the exact opposite. We are able to truly love people because (and only because) we are coming to them without searching to fulfill our own need. One is fulfilled in the Self – in God. Relationships can then become pure because there is no need to use others for our own gain.

There are many models of the self. I am not committed to any particular model (Is “what I truly am” – my identity – identical with Brahman/God? How does the “lower self”/“ego”/”personality” fit in to the picture?, etc.), but there clearly is an experience of Pure Consciousness, consciousness without thought, that transcends traditions. How one interprets this experience seems to depend on the tradition a practitioner comes from.

Monk Days


I am a former teacher and still work in education, which means I get summers off. Long periods of unstructured time tend to drive me crazy. So, counterintuitively, summers end up being somewhat of a struggle for me.

This year I have been experimenting with “monk days.” On these days, I essentially wander around town with periodic breaks to practice meditation. Hospitals often have quiet meditation/prayer rooms as do many universities. So my day ends up looking like this:

Meditation at home
Walk to hospital/coffee shop, read, study, write
Meditate at hospital
Bus across town, walk to university, read, study, write
Meditate at university
Bus to shopping center/book store, read, study, write, talk to people
Meditate in quiet area
Walk/bus to new location (another university, quiet place, etc.)…

Basically these are days of alternating meditation with simple activities. These simple activities range from walking, to reading/writing, to talking with strangers, to cleaning the house.

I really like these monk days. Although I will have to modify my places of meditation because of the current pandemic (perhaps making my locations outside), I’m hoping to do them more often this summer.

Purity of Heart | Summary of Barriers

 

“My listener, before going further, if it seems right to you, we shall look at the course our talk has taken up to this point. For the talk, too, has its laborious development, and it is only when this is completed in the necessary slowness that we may come to an understanding with each other about what the talk presupposes. Only at that point can the talk, being then secure, make use of the agreeable speed that is properly the very life of conversation. Thus, purity of heart is to will one thing, but to will one thing could not mean to will the world’s pleasure and what belongs to it, even if a person only named one thing as his choice, since this one thing was only one by a deception. Nor could willing one thing mean willing it in the vain sense of mere bigness, which only to a man in a state of giddiness appears to be one. For in truth to will one thing, a man must will the Good. This was the first, the possibility of being able to will one thing. But in order genuinely to will one thing, a man must in truth will the Good. On the other hand, as for each act of willing the Good which does not will it in truth, it must be declared double-mindedness. Then there was a type of double-mindedness that in a more powerful and active sort of inner coherence seemed to will the Good, but deceptively willed something else. It willed the Good for the sake of reward, out of fear of punishment, or as a form of self-assertion. But there was another kind of double-mindedness born of weakness, that is commonest of all among men, that versatile double-mindedness that wills the Good in a kind of sincerity, but only wills it ‘to a a certain degree.’”