Saturday, 17 November 2012
  1 Replies
  2.6K Visits
Could someone please explain the process of how to transform an impression?

If you find our resources useful and want others to benefit as well, make a donation to Glorian Publishing. Every donation makes a difference.

9 years ago
·
#2442
Accepted Answer
Here is an answer given by a Gnostic Instructor from the previous forum about this same subject. Please refer to the referenced chapter from "The Revolution of the Dialectic" and the lecture on "The Transformation of Impressions" by Samael Aun Weor below before reading this post. Knowing those primary texts will help orient you in comprehending and applying this instructor's advice.

Let us know if you find this material helpful.

1. Affirmation (emergence of the impression)
2. Negation (reception and reaction to the impression)
3. Synthesis (comprehension of the impression and our reaction)

Affirmation is the first force, whereby we receive impressions of varying kinds.

Negation, in the strict sense of the word, is really our psychological reaction to impressions.

Synthesis (comprehension) is the reconciliation of one's reaction (negation) to a given impression (affirmation).

We have to remember that impressions are impressions. Interpretations belong to the mind, whether something is "good" or "bad," "tall" or "short," "beautiful" or "ugly." These are generally subjective values of the mind, which interpret the phenomena it receives. This is important to remember as we explain some subtle points of this doctrine.

Our reactions of lust are negative, both in the soteriological and dynamic sense, the first in relation with psychic values, and the second in terms of receptivity towards phenomena (impressions). The mind in its mechanicity seeks to react towards impressions (the affirming force); this makes the mind negative, since it relies on the impressions it receives.

To take Abimael's explanation a step further, the antidote to impressions is not merely within negation. The antidote, remedy or conciliatory force is comprehension, synthesis or transformation. It is not enough to negate an impression with its opposite. As he mentioned, one does not achieve comprehension simply by visualizing the opposite of an impression.

This indicates then, that the impression of a beautiful person is the affirming force, whereas the mind's reaction (lust) is the negative force. What needs to occur now is the intervention of the third force, which reconciles these antagonistic elements by understanding the original nature of the impression and how the mind (lust) seeks to subvert it for its purposes.

It is not enough to conjure an image of an old, decaying body when presented with an attractive impression of the opposite sex. To negate things in this way does not guarantee comprehension, because this is a way in which the mind may attempt to cover its mistakes. To merely think of an opposing image to a received impression is not enough; this is not what Samael Aun Weor indicated in that lecture. The analysis he is referring to is not reactionary (negating). It is a response (third force).

It is one thing to react mechanically with an opposite image, out of egos of shame, fear or paranoia that do not like to perceive lust. It is a completely different thing to counteract an ego with comprehension of its opposite. We must come to recognize that the mind cannot comprehend the mind, meaning: the negating force cannot resolve the negating force, nor its relation with the initial impression. It is the consciousness that must apply the antidote, to resolve the mind's craving or aversion to impressions.

What we need is comprehension of the relationship between impressions and mind. To react against an impression with another is just repression of the mind; this does not signify comprehension of their relationship. Synthetic thought (Dianoia)―as taught by Samael Aun Weor―is understanding how the mind (negative force) and impression (positive force) relate. This relationship is the synthesis.

The method of comprehending opposites comes from the synthetic force. The impression of a beautiful person arrives (affirmation), and the mind seeks to react with lust (negation). Now we must apply the antidote, the synthesis, the comprehension of how both of these factors work within ourselves. We can do this by applying understanding of the nature of impressions: that they are impermanent. We can see how beauty is synonymous with ugliness, and vice versa.

This gives no reason for the mind to react with lust. We understand how the impression affects our mind and do not let it react (identify). The impression of beauty (affirmation) arrives; the mind seeks to subvert it (negation); through understanding the emptiness of impressions, how beauty will end in death, etc., we control the mind and prevent it from reacting.

Understanding the relationship between beauty (the attractive impression) and death (beauty's inevitable outcome) is the antidote. This antidote comes about when we are awake as a consciousness, when we take in the impression while controlling the mind's reaction. For example, we have to see how useless lust is, because the object of desire will decay in time. We have to comprehend how this works and apply it to the negating force (the ego). This is how the initial impression is transformed.

Comprehension of the relationship between the two produces the synthesis, comprehension or transformation of the initial impression. However, if we project an image without grasping its relationship to the original impression, we are not developing comprehension, but are merely juggling images in the mind without understanding their value. This is mind negating mind.

You have to understand how impressions relate to the mind. It is the relationship between the two that is synthetic and constitutes comprehension (the transformation of impressions). When you see how the mind misinterprets phenomena, and how impressions in themselves are empty of intrinsic existence, then you are working with synthetic thought. Working with opposite impressions is how the consciousness resolves the conflict between mind (negation) and impression (affirmation).

Otherwise you will just have repression of the mind. If we negate impressions with negative reactions (egotistical interpretations) then we will get nowhere. This constitutes the battle of the antitheses, to struggle between impressions and our mind's reaction. To go beyond this, you have to understand how the two relate.

While there is a relationship between anti-dote and anti-thesis, the real antidote is comprehension (synthesis). It is what resolves the conflict between what we perceive (affirmation) and how we react (negation). The synthesis (antidote) is applied to the conflict between the reactionary mind to a given impression so as to achieve equanimity. It is Understanding (Hebrew: Binah, the third force of reconciliation) that harmonizes the mind. This is the nature of Dianoia: "revision of beliefs."

While we refer to comprehension, synthesis or transformation as the antidote, this is much more subtle and dynamic than the dualistic dictionary definition afforded to us with this term. If we make the distinction that the antidote remedies the conflict between affirmation and negation, we won't be confused. But to make explicit correlations of the term antidote with negation, I think, will lead people to semantic confusion. Therefore, synthesis (comprehension) is the antidote, corrective or catholicon.

Samael Aun Weor mentioned that we must learn to transform impressions in the moment without letting the mind react. This is in reference to how we identify with impressions. We have to see how an impression (the positive force) enters our psyche without letting the mind interfere (to overcome negation, or better said: identification) through comprehension of opposites (synthesis).

We do this through applying comprehensive antidotes about the nature of impressions in relation to how the mind functions (thereby instructing the mind that its attachments and aversions are unjustified).

Therefore: impressions are affirming. The mind is negating. Antidotes are synthetic.

Impressions will always be what they are: it is the mind that places values of "good" or "evil" unto them. Impressions are neither good or bad from the Tantric perspective of ultimate truth. It is the mind that interprets values in accordance with conventional understanding. Visualizing opposites, therefore, does not reside exclusively in the realm of negation, since that is how the mind reacts to impressions, which are really neutral in themselves. Comprehending opposites comes from the consciousness.

How and why would one negate an impression when it is empty of intrinsic existence? Instead, what we seek to overcome is our reaction to impressions, our mind's interpretation of them. An angel who has passed beyond good and evil perceives all impressions for what they are: empty and without independent existence. It is the mind (whether lunar or solar) that attaches value.

It is important to reiterate, due to the behaviour of this thread, that the transformation of impressions is not intellectual. It has nothing to do with the intellect. It is a result of action. Therefore, you will only understand these principles through practice. Explanation generally comes first. But to really understand these explanations, you must practice.

This is an extremely subtle didactic that is only understandable through experience. Perhaps this explanation might be confusing, but if you practice, you will understand these things with time.

See the following references below:

Joyful in hope, suffering in tribulation, be thou constant in thy prayer.

Benedictis, qui venit in nomine Domini. Osanna in excelsis.

"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest!"

9 years ago
·
#2442
Accepted Answer
Here is an answer given by a Gnostic Instructor from the previous forum about this same subject. Please refer to the referenced chapter from "The Revolution of the Dialectic" and the lecture on "The Transformation of Impressions" by Samael Aun Weor below before reading this post. Knowing those primary texts will help orient you in comprehending and applying this instructor's advice.

Let us know if you find this material helpful.

1. Affirmation (emergence of the impression)
2. Negation (reception and reaction to the impression)
3. Synthesis (comprehension of the impression and our reaction)

Affirmation is the first force, whereby we receive impressions of varying kinds.

Negation, in the strict sense of the word, is really our psychological reaction to impressions.

Synthesis (comprehension) is the reconciliation of one's reaction (negation) to a given impression (affirmation).

We have to remember that impressions are impressions. Interpretations belong to the mind, whether something is "good" or "bad," "tall" or "short," "beautiful" or "ugly." These are generally subjective values of the mind, which interpret the phenomena it receives. This is important to remember as we explain some subtle points of this doctrine.

Our reactions of lust are negative, both in the soteriological and dynamic sense, the first in relation with psychic values, and the second in terms of receptivity towards phenomena (impressions). The mind in its mechanicity seeks to react towards impressions (the affirming force); this makes the mind negative, since it relies on the impressions it receives.

To take Abimael's explanation a step further, the antidote to impressions is not merely within negation. The antidote, remedy or conciliatory force is comprehension, synthesis or transformation. It is not enough to negate an impression with its opposite. As he mentioned, one does not achieve comprehension simply by visualizing the opposite of an impression.

This indicates then, that the impression of a beautiful person is the affirming force, whereas the mind's reaction (lust) is the negative force. What needs to occur now is the intervention of the third force, which reconciles these antagonistic elements by understanding the original nature of the impression and how the mind (lust) seeks to subvert it for its purposes.

It is not enough to conjure an image of an old, decaying body when presented with an attractive impression of the opposite sex. To negate things in this way does not guarantee comprehension, because this is a way in which the mind may attempt to cover its mistakes. To merely think of an opposing image to a received impression is not enough; this is not what Samael Aun Weor indicated in that lecture. The analysis he is referring to is not reactionary (negating). It is a response (third force).

It is one thing to react mechanically with an opposite image, out of egos of shame, fear or paranoia that do not like to perceive lust. It is a completely different thing to counteract an ego with comprehension of its opposite. We must come to recognize that the mind cannot comprehend the mind, meaning: the negating force cannot resolve the negating force, nor its relation with the initial impression. It is the consciousness that must apply the antidote, to resolve the mind's craving or aversion to impressions.

What we need is comprehension of the relationship between impressions and mind. To react against an impression with another is just repression of the mind; this does not signify comprehension of their relationship. Synthetic thought (Dianoia)―as taught by Samael Aun Weor―is understanding how the mind (negative force) and impression (positive force) relate. This relationship is the synthesis.

The method of comprehending opposites comes from the synthetic force. The impression of a beautiful person arrives (affirmation), and the mind seeks to react with lust (negation). Now we must apply the antidote, the synthesis, the comprehension of how both of these factors work within ourselves. We can do this by applying understanding of the nature of impressions: that they are impermanent. We can see how beauty is synonymous with ugliness, and vice versa.

This gives no reason for the mind to react with lust. We understand how the impression affects our mind and do not let it react (identify). The impression of beauty (affirmation) arrives; the mind seeks to subvert it (negation); through understanding the emptiness of impressions, how beauty will end in death, etc., we control the mind and prevent it from reacting.

Understanding the relationship between beauty (the attractive impression) and death (beauty's inevitable outcome) is the antidote. This antidote comes about when we are awake as a consciousness, when we take in the impression while controlling the mind's reaction. For example, we have to see how useless lust is, because the object of desire will decay in time. We have to comprehend how this works and apply it to the negating force (the ego). This is how the initial impression is transformed.

Comprehension of the relationship between the two produces the synthesis, comprehension or transformation of the initial impression. However, if we project an image without grasping its relationship to the original impression, we are not developing comprehension, but are merely juggling images in the mind without understanding their value. This is mind negating mind.

You have to understand how impressions relate to the mind. It is the relationship between the two that is synthetic and constitutes comprehension (the transformation of impressions). When you see how the mind misinterprets phenomena, and how impressions in themselves are empty of intrinsic existence, then you are working with synthetic thought. Working with opposite impressions is how the consciousness resolves the conflict between mind (negation) and impression (affirmation).

Otherwise you will just have repression of the mind. If we negate impressions with negative reactions (egotistical interpretations) then we will get nowhere. This constitutes the battle of the antitheses, to struggle between impressions and our mind's reaction. To go beyond this, you have to understand how the two relate.

While there is a relationship between anti-dote and anti-thesis, the real antidote is comprehension (synthesis). It is what resolves the conflict between what we perceive (affirmation) and how we react (negation). The synthesis (antidote) is applied to the conflict between the reactionary mind to a given impression so as to achieve equanimity. It is Understanding (Hebrew: Binah, the third force of reconciliation) that harmonizes the mind. This is the nature of Dianoia: "revision of beliefs."

While we refer to comprehension, synthesis or transformation as the antidote, this is much more subtle and dynamic than the dualistic dictionary definition afforded to us with this term. If we make the distinction that the antidote remedies the conflict between affirmation and negation, we won't be confused. But to make explicit correlations of the term antidote with negation, I think, will lead people to semantic confusion. Therefore, synthesis (comprehension) is the antidote, corrective or catholicon.

Samael Aun Weor mentioned that we must learn to transform impressions in the moment without letting the mind react. This is in reference to how we identify with impressions. We have to see how an impression (the positive force) enters our psyche without letting the mind interfere (to overcome negation, or better said: identification) through comprehension of opposites (synthesis).

We do this through applying comprehensive antidotes about the nature of impressions in relation to how the mind functions (thereby instructing the mind that its attachments and aversions are unjustified).

Therefore: impressions are affirming. The mind is negating. Antidotes are synthetic.

Impressions will always be what they are: it is the mind that places values of "good" or "evil" unto them. Impressions are neither good or bad from the Tantric perspective of ultimate truth. It is the mind that interprets values in accordance with conventional understanding. Visualizing opposites, therefore, does not reside exclusively in the realm of negation, since that is how the mind reacts to impressions, which are really neutral in themselves. Comprehending opposites comes from the consciousness.

How and why would one negate an impression when it is empty of intrinsic existence? Instead, what we seek to overcome is our reaction to impressions, our mind's interpretation of them. An angel who has passed beyond good and evil perceives all impressions for what they are: empty and without independent existence. It is the mind (whether lunar or solar) that attaches value.

It is important to reiterate, due to the behaviour of this thread, that the transformation of impressions is not intellectual. It has nothing to do with the intellect. It is a result of action. Therefore, you will only understand these principles through practice. Explanation generally comes first. But to really understand these explanations, you must practice.

This is an extremely subtle didactic that is only understandable through experience. Perhaps this explanation might be confusing, but if you practice, you will understand these things with time.

See the following references below:

Joyful in hope, suffering in tribulation, be thou constant in thy prayer.

Benedictis, qui venit in nomine Domini. Osanna in excelsis.

"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest!"

There are no replies made for this post yet.