Mind Practice: What Is It?

[Michael Erlewine]

The quote “Yoga is the cessation of thought” does not synch with any training that I have had, and you go on to clarify that. Of course thoughts do not have to cease or to be more correct: we can’t stop them, even if we thought we wanted to, nor should we try.

Your translation is nice:

“… harnessing the cyclic power of the mind is the true 'corral' (where one might tame one's horse).”

And then you write:

“ one could also say: the cyclic restrain of the mind's movements is the discipline of (lower) mind. ...”

I would like you to say (if you will) more about the ‘cycles’ or what you mean by the ‘cyclic’ restrain of the mind’s movements. That sounds like fun.

[Timothy_Smith]

Michael, you picked up on the key point here: the way the word “vritti” is translated and what it means.

First a little language lesson. The original line has four words: yoga (harnessing—i.e. yoking) + citta (conscious-ness) vritti (circular movement) nirodha (corralling or disciplining). Usually the middle two, citta-vritti are lumped together and called “thought” but that is neither necessary nor accurate. There are better terms for concepts or conceptual thought in Sanskrit, usually based on the verb “man” which means “to think.” Vritti is a participle of the simple verb “vrit” which means: “to turn, turn around, revolve, roll (also applied to the rolling down of tears); to move or go on &c.” Therefore ‘vritti’ means “rolling, turning, moving (in a circle)” which I translate as “cyclic activity”

Now two applications: in meditation and astrology—which might turn out to be the same application! The problem with our thoughts, even trivial ones, isn’t the thoughts themselves, it is that they come back around. Again, and again, and again. The more ego-based the thought, the more frequent a visitor to our mind it is. The mind—the mind that arises in existence—must move, for that is the nature of existence. It must turn upon itself if it is to distinguish itself from anything else—an act you Buddhists think is a bad thing! Be that as it may, it does incessantly turn upon itself. This turning of reflected conscious-ness (cit-ta) generates the basic sense of subject that we operate in and with. Thoughts are generated as the lower mind is melds with the qualities and characteristics of the world, or conjures its own. These thought-contents are just name and form separated from the flow of becoming; and, for a moment they serve as a good interface between our interiority and the world of experience. These thoughts, then, ride around the turning of the mind like so many rags in a dryer.

The point of the Yoga Sutras is that this turning of the mind can be harnessed to other functions. For example, the mind can direct its motion towards itself; thus ‘awareness of awareness.’ As you have said, Michael, once that sort of motion is released/discovered then—for a while at least—it will turn upon itself with no further effort on our part, other than to honor it. Alternately, that turning of the mind can be put to work—turning around a deity, around an idea or issue (like what is surrender) until that single content begins to turn on its own; this is called samadhi, specifically savitarka samadhi. And so on. The idea here is to release the mind from tossing rags – complexes – around, and allow it to do its proper function, so long as it continues to operate as ‘other’ than becoming itself.

The application to astrology, then, should be obvious: attune to the transits and one is rolling with the cosmos; attune to the fixity of the natal chart, and reaffirm the ego! Even taking into account the retrograde behavior of the planets, they do ‘roll around heaven all day.’ Surely we have all seen the therapeutic power of seeing the greater arcs of our lives; making order out of the linear chaos of our lives, giving us a curious sense of harmony and even purpose. It is not so much where we are going as soul, but rather the state of contemplation itself generated by these deep cycles within our mind, within ourselves. To attend to their movement, to invest rather more in the affect ON the transiting planet than OF the transiting planet when it makes an aspect to our natal chart is to corral that vritti, and to unwind the mind.

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Tim,

Thanks for the post. Since we are getting more into language, probably each our own, this may require some clarification. Let me step through some obvious ones:

No problem with the language lesson. As an astrologer, the concept of “cyclic activity” is natural.

You write:

“The problem with our thoughts, even trivial ones, isn’t the thoughts themselves, it is that they come back around. “

In the teachings I have worked with “mostly Mahamudra teachings), this is not stated as a problem. In fact, in these teachings thoughts are not considered a hindrance of any kind. Quite the opposite. Without thoughts we would not be able to learn much about the mind. This is what I have been taught.

You write:

“The mind—the mind that arises in existence—must move, for that is the nature of existence.

In my understanding, nothing is said about the mind (“must move”) as in “having to move,” only that it does move, ceaselessly, always has and always will.

You write:

“… an act you Buddhists think is a bad thing!”

Of course, this comes like a shot out of the blue, a non sequitur if I ever saw one . There are many forms of Buddhism. In which form of Buddhism did you find that thought in? Again: not in teachings I am familiar with.

Next you go on to describe thoughts tumbling in the dryer of the mind. I liked reading that, but I became aware while reading that ‘thoughts’ are being somewhat materialized here, becoming the main focus, when in the teachings I know, it is immaterial as to what thoughts do or not do. Rather, it is the nature of the thoughts that is the focus, not the subject matter of the thoughts or their behavior. We may have a real difference in approach here, so do go into more detail.

As for harnessing the wind-power of thoughts for Samadhi, I have no argument there, with the exception that, again, instead of seeing through thoughts to their nature, you are materializing them again – putting them to work. This may be all well and good, but appears to me as a major distraction.

You write:

“The idea here is to release the mind from tossing rags – complexes – around, and allow it to do its proper function, so long as it continues to operate as ‘other’ than becoming itself. “

Well, here it branches in all directions, which is why we will have to get to know one another through this discussion. You might have to elaborate here, lest I think that (once again) we are introducing a subject and an object, etc. For example, ‘who” is it that allows the mind to do its proper function? That kind of thing.

As to the astrological applications, there are lots of questions that come up in this last paragraph. An example:

You write:

“The application to astrology, then, should be obvious: attune to the transits and one is rolling with the cosmos; attune to the fixity of the natal chart, and reaffirm the ego!”

This last sentence needs some elaboration, again, lest we give the natal chart and the ego power they do not have. I guess you would have to detail what you mean by “fixity of the natal chart.” It does not sound like a ‘good’ thing.

This is fun. My overall take away is of too much concern about ego, as opposed to examining the ego (like the old game of pick-up-sticks) and taking a few sticks away, so it is more transparent. The ego comes out of this discussion fully intact, perhaps even stronger. What is that?

So, tell me more please.

[David_Mastrogiovanni]

Greetings. I find this subject most intriguing.
I have been meditating since 1968 at the age of 15. I didn't start studying Astrology until 1984.
I had very profound and rare experiences from the get-go using Mantra [Japa Yoga] and Prana techniques. I searched for many years thereafter to understand why I had such success so naturally. I found the answer in my natal chart.
Michael, when you use the term 'meditation' are you refering to concentration/contemplation upon the object?
Pantanjali makes mention of more than one form of 'meditation'. The ultimate goal of most yogis is to aspire to "samadhi'. Samadhi is conscious absorbtion into the object of contemplation.
There are two forms of 'samadhi' as regarding subtle objects such as Astrology. Savichara and Nirvichara. Savichara is considered 'reflective' concentration. That is, one becomes totally immersed in the object of concentration yet retains awareness of the name, quality and knowledge of the object in question. Nirvichara samadhi is where one becomes one with the object of concentration and all other awareness is transcended.
Very few individuals can reach a state of Nirvichara samadhi. This is how "Siddhas" are produced. Siddhas are mystic powers that have been demonstrated by notable personages in the history of the world. Walking on water, changing water into wine, these are examples of this kind of samadhi.
What I believe we, as Astrologers, are after here is what Pantanjali calls Savichara and I couldn't agree more. To blend the different and various aspects an Astrologer has found in someones chart into an overall understanding of the "Gestalt" of their being takes this kind of contemplation.
Contemplation may be the better term for us of Occidental upbringing to utilize at this point in time. It is because of what Michael has observed to be a sort of "Knee jerk reaction" to the term meditation. As, yes many do associate the term meditation with some sort of religious practice.
Interestingly, I got into meditation because of a science fiction novel I read as a teenager. The protagonist of the story utilized a form of it to save the world from alien invasion. Because of the experience I had that first night it drove me to understand more of the practice and subsquently led me into practicing forms of Hinduism [and Buddhism to some degree...Zen for awhile] and ultimately led me to Astrology...as I stated before I found the answer to "Why" as per my experiences due to the "wiring" I was given at birth...i.e. My natal chart. [I've got one hell of a mystic rectangle involved in mine, which includes a Saturn/Neptune conjunction...]
So to be brief, what I'm saying here is put me down with the "Yeas" for this subject.
Good topic Michael...and of such great importance, I feel.

ps. as to caffiene. I believe it should more properly be considered an irritant rather than a stimulant. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the two apart.
I like my cup in the morning and sometimes in the eve...along with a shot of 'Wild Turkey' [Rare Breed is the best]...I find that the benifits outweigh the debilities...at least at this time in my life. Caffiene does build up in the physical body and it does seem harder to utilize it as I get older [I'm 55 now].

[Michael Erlewine]

David,

I have described ‘meditation’ in my preceding posts, and I point out there that we don’t have the words in English (yet) to properly (at least the public does not) define terms here.

I can’t speak for Tim Smith, but it seems to me that he is, among other things, discussing ‘contemplation’, if you mean examining a thought or concept. His words were quite wonderful in describing that.

Perhaps Tim Smith will elaborate.

I can’t speak for the goals of most yogis, but in Tibetan Buddhist mind training (as I understand it, of course) the goal is to know the true nature of the mind. The various tools and methods are secondary, just a means to get there.

Note: ”Siddhis” are the powers, and the “Siddha” is the one who has them.

[David_Mastrogiovanni]

Michael, I apologize if it seemed that I was critiquing your outline on meditation. Far from it. I was merely trying to establish some idea of what I know of the subject from study as apart from practice. I'm not world travelled as you and I don't have a college degree...I got a bit sophomoric, excuse me.
Your quite right, Siddhi is the correct form...don't know how that one got by me...maybe too much caffiene.
As to what is the goal of yogis...I would say the goal is that of what the term yoga implies...i.e. "Union"...but that is where a lot of theologies will diverge...because, "Union with what?"...to a Buddhist, I would 'surmise to merge with the formless'
To myself, it is to once again unify with the Light and Word I was given a blissful taste of over 40 years ago...and it is the most vivid and it is the strongest memory I have of all, despite being that long ago.
Lucky the yogi who is given a taste of the nectar...it makes the living far more bearable.

[Timothy_Smith]

Dear Michael and David,
thanks for your replies; this is getting a bit dense, so I’ll tackle what I can today. Also, here’s my disclaimer: I teach Hinduism (very, very old school—Adi Shankara, Patanjali, etc.,) and Plotinus. While I’ve had the honor and grace of being in the presence of His Holiness the Dalai Lama many, many times, and have studied various Tibetan texts in preparation for these visits, I’m neither a Tibetan Buddhist, nor much of a Buddhist at all, which may clash with the energy of this thread. At the same time, I think that this thread is not the place to engage in fisticuffs between Hinduism and Buddhism; I offer my understanding of the former because, like you-all, I think that meditation is fundamental to good astrology, and vice-versa; I wouldn’t do one without the other!

If you like, I’ll step aside from this conversation so that the theme of Buddhism and Astrology can be developed without distractions—a worthy task in its own right.

Continuing for the moment, then:

You write:

“The problem with our thoughts, even trivial ones, isn’t the thoughts themselves, it is that they come back around. “

In the teachings I have worked with “mostly Mahamudra teachings), this is not stated as a problem. In fact, in these teachings thoughts are not considered a hindrance of any kind. Quite the opposite. Without thoughts we would not be able to learn much about the mind. This is what I have been taught.

What I’m trying to say here isn’t that ‘thoughts are bad’ per se. It’s the SAME thought recycling in our mind like an advertising jingle that’s bad. Such pseudomantras are like a computer virus; they fill the lower mind’s attention and carry neither meaning, value, nor purpose. Pass a thought through the mind once: it is reason—the mind in motion; pass it through twice: it is reflective consciousness (if you’re aware) at best, but is more likely the shift from understanding to memorized opinion, and from thence to sheer rote. So I say we must think in order to understand and to complete the mind, and while thought is not the fully refunded to mind until the mind shines clear and creative, thought is never anything other than the mind in motion, no matter how independent or concrete it may be.

So what is properly cyclic is the function of the mind, its faculties such as synthesis and distinction. A more concrete version of this is our sense organs, for example the eyes repeatedly, reliably ‘cycle’ perception, so also, perhaps, our astrological mind’s eye; such faculties are sub-routines (gack—what a poor metaphor!) that are movements within the mind. A better metaphor: the planets move within the solar system, and again they move upon themselves, and, by the regularity of their movements, they are planets, not comets, meteors or other random objects. As spheres in spherical motion, planets are (in my view) super-minds, what the Greeks and others speak of as the Mundane Gods. When the mind becomes, through cyclic (spherical) motion, spherical in shape it is properly sambhogakaya to Buddhism, dianoia to Plotinus, and, as David said, savichara samadhi to Hinduism.

You write:

“The mind—the mind that arises in existence—must move, for that is the nature of existence.

In my understanding, nothing is said about the mind (“must move”) as in “having to move,” only that it does move, ceaselessly, always has and always will.

It is my belief that we’re saying the same thing here. The mind moves for that is the nature of mind; it could be called self-motive in the sense that nothing ‘outside’ it moves it. … or does it? I would suggest that Ideas (read degrees) do irradiate the mind and thereby energize it. At the same time, the mind is self-energized, so that it receives this energy according to its own cyclic nature. This obviously takes this thread in a different direction, so I’ll stop here.

You write:

“… an act you Buddhists think is a bad thing!”

Of course, this comes like a shot out of the blue, a non sequitur if I ever saw one . There are many forms of Buddhism. In which form of Buddhism did you find that thought in? Again: not in teachings I am familiar with.

Sorry about that Michael—it was a shot out of the blue – I am often in arguments with a strong group of Madhyamika folk in Ithaca… local folks that I’ve been talking to for 40 years, and they’ve got me a little trigger-happy. I’ll try to keep at least one of my Virgo or Scorpio planets tucked away from now on…

Next you go on to describe thoughts tumbling in the dryer of the mind. I liked reading that, but I became aware while reading that ‘thoughts’ are being somewhat materialized here, becoming the main focus, when in the teachings I know, it is immaterial as to what thoughts do or not do. Rather, it is the nature of the thoughts that is the focus, not the subject matter of the thoughts or their behavior. We may have a real difference in approach here, so do go into more detail.

Okay, there are several points here—points that live conversation would probably clean up faster… I was afraid that my image might invite over-careful examination; I meant it as a feeling-value, not a technical description. After all, how can one use a perceptual construct to describe that which is prior to perception?

Michael, here you say (and again below, unless I’m misreading you) that what the thoughts are about is immaterial, and yet you say earlier that “Without thoughts we would not be able to learn much about the mind.” by which I understand you to mean that it does matter what the thoughts we have are about. I do think that it matters, and matters a great deal what thoughts we are having, generating. Thoughts which might be called impersonal are of benefit to the mind, which is itself impersonal; no judgment here, just a matter of matching like to like, or rather reshaping the thought so that its own quasi-independent movement is realigned to the movement of mind. When water is moving fast and cleanly, it is transparent and the surface appears still; slow it down and ripples appear that we can distinguish from the water itself as though a form without substance is a thing…

As far as material/immaterial, the former is to me but a believed shadow of the over-extraverted attention, nothing more, albeit nothing less. Thoughts are currents within the mind, and to me are illumined currents informing the mind as well as being integral to it. Such illumination is derived from Ideas, from the degrees, laws or bija-seeds that are some of the transcendent origins of manifestation. A view from the Hindu/Platonic perspective, relevant insofar as the planets are motions or ‘minds’ within us, and the degrees & aspects are their illumined/illuminating thoughts.

As for harnessing the wind-power of thoughts for Samadhi, I have no argument there, with the exception that, again, instead of seeing through thoughts to their nature, you are materializing them again – putting them to work. This may be all well and good, but appears to me as a major distraction.

You write:

“The idea here is to release the mind from tossing rags – complexes – around, and allow it to do its proper function, so long as it continues to operate as ‘other’ than becoming itself. “

Well, here it branches in all directions, which is why we will have to get to know one another through this discussion. You might have to elaborate here, lest I think that (once again) we are introducing a subject and an object, etc. For example, ‘who” is it that allows the mind to do its proper function? That kind of thing.

Michael, your comment is illuminating! I thought I was saying something simple, but your questions point out the assumptions I’m making here. I’m not introducing a subject and object where the object is considered somehow other or outside and imputed to have its own existence. I’m saying that thoughts, when they are in turmoil become a content of the mind, which becomes a container in turn. As far as the ‘who’ is concerned, for me that’s easy: the Soul as the evolving relationship between Being and Becoming, and between Being and the Real. This is neo-Platonic view may not apply here, but I see the Soul as embodying itself as the cosmos, which sets up a domino effect within itself, and that in turn gives rise to individual ‘souls’ within the cosmos—namely ‘us!’

This last sentence needs some elaboration, again, lest we give the natal chart and the ego power they do not have. I guess you would have to detail what you mean by “fixity of the natal chart.” It does not sound like a ‘good’ thing.

This is fun. My overall take away is of too much concern about ego, as opposed to examining the ego (like the old game of pick-up-sticks) and taking a few sticks away, so it is more transparent. The ego comes out of this discussion fully intact, perhaps even stronger. What is that?

Michael, I’m not sure where you got the impression about the ego. At any rate, my view is that the ego is the apparent center of the subtle body as it is interfaced with the body, and while it may be illusory, it still has power and is present so long as the body-mind interface is experienced as a dual. To that end, I think that the ego’s structure is found in the aspect pattern of the natal planets; the evolution of the ego—and psyche are to be found in the history of the transits and other motions brought to bear on the natal chart. And while such attention may be unspiritual, it surely commands the bulk of our experience.

I thought I said that a better meditation for an individual is to attend not to this fixed field of preset relations but to be mindful of the planets in motion as they are today—the mundane chart as it were. Life is motion, there is neither any reality to be found in the ego nor in contents believed to be ‘objects’ which are infused with a fixity they cannot support and do not need. This is one view of the natal chart, from the point of view of becoming.

The other view is from the perspective of Being. Being cannot “be” elsewhere, for ‘where’ itself is a characteristic of becoming, not being. Therefore Being, as Plotinus says, is an immediacy which may appear as ‘here’ to the perceiving mind. Be-ing, while dynamic, doesn’t exactly move, for motion requires some sense of ‘here’ and usually a ‘there’ as well. The Soul, in contemplating Being, takes a snapshot of Being, forms an image of it, as it were, and that impression is further mimicked by the embodying impulse which fixes a moment of time/space which partially reflects this impression. That impression, then is the natal chart, and is far, far from any sort of ‘me’ or ‘mine.’ Contemplating the chart as a mandala of the soul requires impersonality from the get-go; the ego has no locus in the soul, thus the insights gained are not about ‘me’ or even “I,” but about the characteristics of Soul itself, universal soul. Such a universal soul is not unlike the Boddhisattva, albeit not identical either. My own view is that the various teachings of the world don’t converge, but diverge, that the Mystery of consciousness is just that, a mystery. …

[Michael Erlewine]

I have been out of town, so forgive the delay in responding.

This is a response to Tim’s last post. It makes sense that it may take some time for each of us to understand how the other is using language, but that is what these forums are all about.

I am not knowledgeable enough about Hinduism to comment intelligently, much less argue. What I have tried to do is state what I understand about the topics we are looking at, so that others can respond to that.

Tim Smith’s paragraph about the “SAME thought recycling in our mind like an advertising jingle,” I could not agree with more. As I understand it, this kind of endless low-level distraction, often found in daydreaming, obsessing, and so on is a huge source of distraction - pure white noise that creates the ruts of non-useful habits in our mind. The teachings I am used to view this kind of distraction as a principal cause of unwelcome karma. For example, someone can give us a ‘bad’ look and we may spend hours or days cycling it through our mind, digging an ever-deeper trench of habit – and accumulating karma in that regard.

Tim writes:

“After all, how can one use a perceptual construct to describe that which is prior to perception?”

I agree; you can’t do that.

On the topic of the “immateriality of thoughts” and how some thoughts are of benefit to the mind while others are not so:

Here we seem to have found a real difference in approach. In the teachings I am familiar with, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the thought that arises is beneficial or non-beneficial. Regardless of the benefit, the nature of the thought is the same, and it is the nature of the thought that is ‘key’ here, not the content. The view is that all thoughts are like waves on the ocean of the mind, no matter what their content. In the teachings I have worked with, it is pointed out how to recognize the nature of the thought as it arises and thus avoid accumulating the karma of repetitive obsessing – those ruts or habits. So-called 'beneficial' thoughts can be justs as distracting and non-useful-habit-forming as any other kind.

In your closing section, you write:

“the ego… it still has power and is present so long as the body-mind interface is experienced as a dual.”

Here too, we are in agreement and, with some modification, I also agree about the Ego or Self as being found in the aspect patterns of the natal planets, only for me those patterns stem from the heliocentric point of view, for I see the geocentric view as a snapshot of what is going on in the heliocentric solar system. In my understanding, it is the Sun (and helio view) that is the Ego or Self. Therefore, understanding and seeing the true nature of the Sun becomes key. For me, the geocentric chart is a chart of the personality and circumstances of our life and, while the Self is reflected in that chart, it more properly is represented in the helio chart.

I guess where I don’t understand what you write (and this may just require a further definition of terms) is with the term “Soul.” I don’t use this term, so it might help if you could further define what that term means to you and just how the term “Soul” is to be used.

Also, do say more about the “Mystery of consciousness.”

[Timothy_Smith]

Good response, Michael; let’s keep digging—and learning each other’s language. It is said Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras is ‘merely’ an introduction to his Grammar (a frightening 9 volumes of algorithms and linguistics).

On the topic of “immateriality of thoughts” or rather on the value(less) meaning thereof: I agree that we have a difference here, a difference which neither can nor need be completely reconciled. I will simply present my understanding as a compliment to yours.

The key issue here is meaning versus substance: when regarded from the viewpoint of substance, surely all ideas have the same substance—a substance which is not even their own, but that of the mind in which they arise. Regarded from this perspective there is not a whit of value or relevance to any idea arising in the mind; it is the mind itself that is authentic, and thoughts merely mimic that authenticity within their apparent autonomy.

However, there is another way of considering thoughts: their ‘form’ or meaning. Starting here, we begin to look in a different direction, as it were (and a direction that is related to the query about Soul). Let us continue with the water analogy: looking at the surface of a pond we see many things reflected upon that surface. Surely those reflections are comprised of water and therefore are really nothing but water, even as the ‘surface’ is merely a way of speaking about the water, which is water through and through—there is no ‘thing’ called ‘surface’ which can exist independently of the pond water. But is that also true of the tree whose reflection we now see in the water? Of course not: there is a tree it exists elsewhere than in the water, a where that we may not be able to immediately identify. So we can suggest that there are Ideas which reflect into the mind, where they arise and pass away as thoughts; and even as the latter are evanescent and without merit, the former are enduring and continuously illuminate the mind with merit or dharma.

To this way of thinking there are two types of thoughts:
1) those generated as reflections of perception or the exhalations of the ego (moods, complexes, compulsions, memories, etc.).
2) those generated as reflections of Ideas, Dharmas, Deities and the like.

While these latter may again be found to be reflections of void mind or some absolute real, they are not found to be such within the transient mind of existent entities. Where do these Ideas exist? Trick question: existence is the domain of the living mind; when Ideas exist they are mere thoughts in the mind and have no durable differentiation from the repetitive mumblings of the ego. Where else might these Ideas be found? Well sir, that would be the in Soul & in Being. Mind you, these are not real ‘places’ but are self-evident principals revealed through dialectic.

Consider: the teachings about mind, thought, the ego, and so forth are not only durable truths, but largely universal. Why we are ‘here’ and what we might do about it are questions that are constantly being debated, but the structure, function, substance and form of the existing mind is hardly a matter of opinion. All epistemologies describe the mind and its characteristics the same way. (Well, at least all those that consider the mind to exist at all!) It doesn’t matter that the teachings about the mind and the techniques used to cleanse it are centuries old, or are first expressed in foreign languages: we eventually come to see the irrefutable and self-evident meaning of these statements—we see that they are descriptions, not conceptions or theories of the mind.

If these arguments, these dharma-teachings were utterly valueless, why do they recur? Whence is their efficacy? One could claim that anyone examining the mind must come to the same insights, and that is true; however, that’s not our experience. We are given ‘shabda’ or valid testimony from “those who know;” and eventually the truth of what they say—not the words—strikes us and a light literally goes on in the mind. Shankara calls this moment ‘aparoksha’ which we can translate as ‘seeing what is not hidden’—no mean feat as you yourself have said.

The point of all this is: to my way of seeing, there are principles and powers—call them Deities—whose empty appearance arises in the mind, but whose truths and processes continuously illuminate the psyche. These principles and powers are exactly the elements of astrology, specifically the zodiac, houses, aspects and planets. They are in the mind—in fact the mind can be largely deconstructed into these components (or so says Sam’khyâ)—but they are not of the mind; rather, the mind is their child. The challenge then becomes not to think about the planets (for example) but to think the planets themselves—to generate an undistracted mind freed of all varieties of nescience—and engage in some real learning.

***

You give me a little glimpse into your cosmology with your interesting perspective on the Geocentric and Heliocentric views of the solar system. At first glance, I’m inclined to say that you’re on to something here. It also reminds me of how exactly magical astrology really is: there are so many different perfect interpretations/visions of the astrology and the ways that it can be understood. I don’t happen to think that anything can mean everything, but I do find that the internal coherence of astrology supports more than one level and one approach effortlessly. For myself, I see the Ego in the Chaldean pattern, with whole-sign or Aries rising chart; bring in the big guns – Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the fixed stars, and the higher self, the soul starts emerging. Or, put the chart into motion—the transits and the progressions, for example, and once again the soul begins to shine through. Meanwhile, I’ll have to reflect a bit on your heliocentric model…

As for what I mean by soul, I hope to address that shortly and briefly (for me)—as well as the “mystery of consciousness;’ I’m sorry to be a sluggish correspondent, and appreciate your patience.

[Michael Erlewine]

Thanks for the post. I look forward to hearing about the soul and the “mystery of consciousness,” as you find time.

This most recent post of yours speaks clearly, so I see no reason to go through the whole thing section by section. Instead, let me just point out a couple of examples that, to me, appear as a repetitive theme arising from what you write. They are:

“But is that also true of the tree whose reflection we now see in the water? Of course not: there is a tree it exists elsewhere than in the water, a where that we may not be able to immediately identify. So we can suggest that there are Ideas which reflect into the mind, where they arise and pass away as thoughts; and even as the latter are evanescent and without merit, the former are enduring and continuously illuminate the mind with merit or dharma.”

and

“These principles and powers are exactly the elements of astrology, specifically the zodiac, houses, aspects and planets. They are in the mind—in fact the mind can be largely deconstructed into these components (or so says Sam’khyâ)—but they are not of the mind; rather, the mind is their child. “

When you say things like “there are ideas which reflect into the mind,” etc. You are creating (to my reading here of what you wrote) a simple dualism. And this seems to me to be thematic throughout this last piece.

The most puzzling statement is the second quote above, where the mind itself is said to be the child of the elements of astrology, and not vice versa. That statement seems to go against what we have been talking about up to this point.

In the teachings I have worked with, it is clearly said that that, for example, astrology is one of the limbs of the yoga, but not the root or dharma. In other words, astrology is one of many relative yogas, but not the root yoga or dharma. As I understand it, relative yogas like astrology are (relative) methods to move toward and become aware of the dharma itself – stepping stones only.

It seems that in this post you are relegating the ‘mind” to some kind of subsidiary or mechanism, rather that the all-encompassing ‘Mind” I thought we had been discussing up to now. Suddenly it is a servant or child to something greater than itself. The linkage to that change of view is not clear to me. Where did it come from?

In the vajrayana Buddhist teachings that I have been taught and am studying, nothing of which we are aware can have any true existence. Even awareness cannot be aware of something outside of itself, and it cannot see itself either. In other words “Awareness cannot have an object that is other than itself, and it cannot have itself as an object.” Even awareness itself is just an imputation. The mind itself has no root or basis. There is nothing outside of the mind itself, and the mind cannot be said to absolutely either exist or not to exist.

It is taught that even the omniscient Buddhas have never seen, are not now seeing, and will not ever in the future see their own minds. They will see the ‘nature’ of their own minds, but not the mind itself, because the mind cannot be said to have a true existence.

This is complicated stuff and I am just a student of all this, not fit to explain it to others. In this post, I am just saying a few words about what I understand to be what the teachings convey and don’t want to be mistaken for someone who claims to fully understand everything. I don’t, but I understand enough to see that, at least as far as words go (and to the best of my understanding), vajrayana Buddhists would have trouble with your approach.

Now, when it comes to astrology, one of the relative yogas, I have no trouble discussing that. For example, looking at a single view of a natal chart. A singularity is just that – no reference. This is how I view the standard geocentric natal chart. Nothing wrong with it (it is essential!), but there is no ‘second opinion’ or way to triangulate that birth. Everything we need must be extracted from that single chart.

However, introduce other valid charts for the same birth moment (like the heliocentric and Local Space charts) and suddenly we have triangulation of a kind, some perspective. I love the title of jazz musician Les McCann’s tune “Compared to What?” That is what I am referring to here, the need for a second opinion on who and what we are. I find this through additional charts, alternate ways of looking at a birth that give somewhat of a three-dimensional view of the natal chart, much like the old Stereopticons.

Let’s look at your chart in this regard. If you are willing, send me your birth information and I will present how I would approach looking at a chart.