Bring4th

I remember reading a Bhagavad Gita translation many years ago.  This would have been back in the late 1990's/early 2000's.  It was the Paramahansa Yogananda translation; a very good one (the dude of Autobiography of a Yogi fame).

Anyway, one of the themes that was raised, was a collection of concepts grouped under the label of 'Gunas'.  The words themselves are from the original Sanskrit, and so they are kind of hard to relate to; and that was the case here.  Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.  But I could 'grasp' the concepts underlying each.  In the most abbreviated format:

Sattva: positive, virtuous quality
Rajas: selfish, small-minded, attachment
Tamas: sleep, sloth indolence

Anyway, long story short, these 3 'Gunas' I sort of appreciated at the time, but didn't think they were truly 'cosmic' in significance.  As I said, the word itself (foreign sounding, unfamiliar) was a bit of a barrier; and I wasn't particularly struck by any depth of profundity in grouping these 3 contrasting qualities.

/ /

Fast forward to late 2016, and last night, I'm contemplating the nature of unity/the Creator, and how it relates to aspects of itself.  After all, the Creator is infinite in nature, and as the individual Experiencers of the Creation, we can form manifold types of relationships to each individualised quality of that Infinity.

And so I was trying to condense some basic understandings.

These, of course, were predicated heavily on Ra's understanding/conceptualising of polarity, but I was just repatterning these ideas, relative to my current level of seeking.  And so I boiled things down to this (in my own parsive language):

bridging: attempting to move towards equal sympathy, from one portion to another.  Principle of equality.

severing: controlling; prioritizing one's own quality of experience, by downplaying or negating the impact of one's choices on other portions of creation.

amortizing: trying to put stimulus to sleep, by dulling it or crushing it.  Avoidant.

/ /

And you can imagine my surprise (this morning) when I suddenly realised that there is some strong conceptual overlap with my 3 Relationships with the 3 Gunas that were outlined in the Bhagavad Gita.  In fact, more than just a passing similiarity, but the structural foundations of each set are pretty much the same.

So in a way, part of learning/integration is in making sense of an external principle, and then translating it into one's own internal language/framework, where it has a firmer footing.

So yeah, very happy with that

I would agree. Its like we're living in mind/optical illusions, and through experience/growth. We actually come to understand what that something actually is.

Just a little comment here from the cheap seat section of the house........


It strikes me that you are translating an higher dimensional concept into 3d.  There's nothing wrong with that, mind you, I'm just pointing it out.  Equality, avoidance and sorting out the difference are pretty well 2nd & 3rd energy center responses to catalyst which may help us all see the world more clearly.

Triguna (the 3 gunas) are a doctrinal concept aimed at offering a simple template for sorting out inclinations towards (or away from) Transcendence.  Tamas (pron. TUH-muhs, like hummus) is often referred to as inertia and is associated with a dragging, downward drooping energy which would have a great deal of connection to what Ra calls "the sinkhole of indifference."  As a state of affect, it has to do with lethargy, small-mindedness and having not much interest in anything beyond one's immediate concerns.

The root sat (pron. suht, as in Sutter) is often translated as something like infinite truth.  To translate a sattvic affect into Ra verbiage, it would be as that state of pure tuning of the energy centers and waiting for the Creator to use them to play a little tune now and again.  It's a state deep peace that comes through attunement to Transcendent the aspects of self.

Rajas (pron. Ruh-juhs) comes from a root implying obscuration, like the when the dry winds kick up tons of dust into the air and the sun and landscape become fuzzy.  The affect tends to be overcharged and restive, that is, neither inert nor peaceable.  It's more of a nervous, unpoised response to catalyst.

Beyond the mere labeling of these things, the concept is that all acts of objects--all phenomena--is/are composed of some or other proportion of these elements.  For example, I might suggest that the L/L Research channelings are a notable sattvic body of work, whereas some other titles in that genre might have a more depressing (tamasic) or going-nowhere-in-a-hurry (rajasic) feel to them.  The same can be said about foods or, alternatively, the quality of a particular day's meditation.  It might have been especially tamasic or sattvic or whatever.

On the most basic level, as it I view it, the simplest use for such a concept is to provide more confusing vocabulary to "help" talk about abstruse concepts.  Oops!  No, I meant to say, it offers a person a simple conceptual framework for viewing how the ark of their time spent here is bending: perhaps towards Divinity or towards stuckness or mainly going around in circles.

Again, there's nothing wrong with your framework above for sorting out one's reaction to catalyst.  It's just that, since you invoked triguna, I thought I should offer some respectful perspective.
 

yeah - good thoughts there peregrine.

Cheers.

it's good to take ideas deeper - for the sake of Clarity.