Core-Self and Adjuncts ~ Clarification
Correspondence Inquiry:
You (Michael Beloved) have often characterized the core self as being the energy supplier for the adjuncts of kundalini, analytical orb, senses, intellect, sense of identity. This may be the simple and initial way to approach it.
In the long run, as one nears the state of kaivalam (isolation) from the adjuncts, there is greater clarity on this, at least from my experience.
Mi~Beloved’s Response:
My list of the adjuncts is:
Sense-of-Identity
Intellect
Kundalini (including sensual energies)
Memories
The central factor or core for these is the core-self. Generally speaking, this core is tagged as the atma in Sanskrit.
Sense-of-identity is tagged as the ahankara or identification primal urge.
Intellect is tagged as the buddhi or analytical function.
Kundalini is tagged as the lifeforce or feelings-organization, but it includes the senses and the sensual energies.
Memory is tagged as impressions which were recorded in the individual psyche and which is used as associative references in the creature survival bid.
It is important to know that the senses actually serve the kundalini but they are found to be servants of the intellect as well. When they serve the intellect they are loaned to it by the kundalini, which means that they are always prejudiced to the kundalini and will betray the intellect if the intellect does not serve the interest of the kundalini. Stated otherwise, if the intellect feels that it should serve the purpose of the core-self, it will find that the senses will betray it because their master is the kundalini not the core-self.
Correspondence Inquiry:
As the sense of identity diminishes and the attentive energy nearly ceases its outward movement/interest/reactions, one sees that the adjuncts continue on their own, even without the interest of the sense of identity or core self. At that point, it becomes obvious that the adjuncts have no reliance on the core and that they perform on their own without a prop. That's the essential insight, because the core can then stand alone with confidence. These adjuncts trick the core into believing that the core is required, when in fact it is not. Only kundalini is required to go round and round in samsara, and can do so on its own. Any thoughts?
Mi~Beloved’s Response:
My opinion is that the sense-of-identity cannot diminish. I remains the same all the time, no matter what it is involved in. However it appears to flare up or to simmer down to a minimum due to its reception by the intellect and the kundalini. The example of a searchlight may help with this. If one sees a search light without a reflexive background which is silvered or mirrored, it will not look like much. As soon as it is surrounded by a silver color it will glare. In fact the bulb has not changed and still there is that evidence that it did change in brightness because of the reflection material which it is placed in.
The sense-of-identity remains the same but when it is invested in this or that interest, it seems to expand or to be increased in power such that it seems to have more force to compel the core-self to be interested in this or that idea.
I agree however that the adjuncts continue their behaviors even when the core-self is withdrawn from them. But this means some of their behaviors. And there are many of these impulsive actions of the adjuncts which the core is non-essential to.
One perspective is that the non-essentiality of the core is freedom for the core. Another is that it is depressing for the core to know that. After all, finding that you are unnecessary is not always uplifting. Generally it is better to have a value than to have little or no value whatsoever. Those who are advanced enough should be relieved when it is discovered that the core-self is so unnecessary. The world would do very well and may be better off if a certain core-self were to vanish from it. That is an occasion for happiness.
-
Thank you for clarifying. I will continue the investigation! The main difference between your approach and what I am doing and discovering now, is the perspective on personality and sense of identity. Here you have personified kundalini and the intellect:
Stated otherwise, if the intellect feels that it should serve the purpose of the core-self, it will find that the senses will betray it because their master is the kundalini not the core-self.
From the perspective of my current meditation, the sense of identity provides the display of personality based on it's identification with sensual contact and also with memories and thoughts which arise in the container of the intellect (buddhi analytical organ). When thoughts diminish, there is an accompanying stillness in that organ. This stillness seems to be based on the sense of identity's interest being either withdrawn or placed elsewhere, i.e on the breath or into naad sound.
Regarding this statement:
My opinion is that the sense-of-identity cannot diminish.
If this is taken to be true, would it then be correct to say that kaivalyam is when the core and the sense of identity are separated from all the other adjuncts? In this case, the sense of identity is always with the core, even in the state of kaivalyam.
Michael Beloved’s Response:
I have personified the adjuncts because the convention is that we personify many things. For instance, my father, a seaman use to call the ship which he worked on as a she. It is a fact that sometimes when one is in a certain position in reference to even an inanimate object that the gadget behaves in a way which justified it being called as if it were a person.
Certainly the kundalini displays qualities and actions which might cause a yogi to consider it as such, In fact in Vedic tantra in some books, kundalini is regarded as the great mother of the creation.
But all the same some yogis deny this. For instance, Yogeshwarananda my primary teacher for meditation, denied that the earth was personified even though in the Vedic literature, like the Puranas, it is personified as a celestial woman named Bhumi.
I would verify that your statement below is valid:
correct to say that kaivalyam is when the core and the sense of identity are separated from all the other adjuncts? In this case, the sense of identity is always with the core, even in the state of kaivalyam.
In addition there will come a time, when the core-self splits off from the sense-of-identity which it is tagged with in this subtle and gross creation. It uses that sense-of-identity until the point of total break-away. Then it no longer has it and the core-self or atma finds itself to be looking in another direction where that adjunct has no application and does not register in any way.
