|
|
Post by steven on Sept 15, 2014 14:18:02 GMT -5
So regardless of the method, or means of arriving at the experience of a meditative state, the actual experience is the same. One thing to understand, is that meditation is more like a state, than it is a practice. Various practices like sitting ZaZen, or many of the 112 methods in the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra, or in the vedic traditions etc. can lead to meditation, but are not meditation. The way you get up the hill, is not the same as sitting on the hilltop....So be careful not to confuse the legion of methods for arriving at meditation with meditation. There is no 'meditating', only a state of meditation, what most people call 'meditating' is actually a practice for arriving at meditation. Contemplation, sitting ZaZen, breath following, TM, ATA, these are not meditation, they are means to arrive at meditation, and the means have their own benefits besides helping one open into a meditative state. For a method to open into a state of meditation, one needs to apply three things within their method....Increasing Alertness, Increasing Focus, and Increasing Concentration. I say 'increasing' because all three of these; Alertness, Focus, Concentration, have to be exercised and developed over time by repeated and consistent use, like a muscle...with a low capacity for sustained alertness, focus, and concentration, no method or practice used to arrive at meditation will work. You must have or develop the capacity to be alert, focus on a specific action, sense, or object, and be able to concentrate, or hold your focus on your means of getting to a meditative state WITH ALERTNESS. This can be difficult for some at first, because people like sleeping so to speak, they like distraction and wandering, and oft prefer a kind of subtle lethargy rather than alertness....perseverance is needed to develop the capacity for alertness, focus, and concentration, all three of which provide many benefits besides being able to open into meditation. The state of meditation itself, occurs when one focuses on an activity, sense, or object with such sustained alertness, focus, and concentration that all sense of doership suddenly drops away, even while one is very alert....this state of alert stillness, or non-doing in the midst of the happening of this moment is the entry point to meditation...on deeper levels of meditation, like relative or absolute Samadhi, both the sense of 'doing' and the sense of seperation of observer and observed disappear completely. It happens frequently that we get so absorbed into something that the sense of doing and being a separate observer disappears, but what separates this from meditation, is alertness, consciousness, and intention. And therein is all the difference. Does that answer your Question Max and '.' ? Is this meditative state the natural state? Who cares? Your search for a 'natural state' is misconceived, a fool's errand....all states are natural, only your judgement calls makes it appear as though some states are natural, while others are supposedly not so. You are chasing a 'natural state' that you are already in...forever. None of that effects the OP though ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 15:26:04 GMT -5
Is this meditative state the natural state? Who cares? Your search for a 'natural state' is misconceived, a fool's errand.... all states are natural, only your judgement calls makes it appear as though some states are natural, while others are supposedly not so. You are chasing a 'natural state' that you are already in...forever. None of that effects the OP though ;-) Nonsense. States of suffering are not natural states, and if one is not interested in the absence of those unnatural states, what IS one interested in? (I suspect the answer is woo woo states, which is a fool's errand.) |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 15, 2014 18:04:58 GMT -5
Who cares? Your search for a 'natural state' is misconceived, a fool's errand.... all states are natural, only your judgement calls makes it appear as though some states are natural, while others are supposedly not so. You are chasing a 'natural state' that you are already in...forever. None of that effects the OP though ;-) Nonsense. States of suffering are not natural states, and if one is not interested in the absence of those unnatural states, what IS one interested in? (I suspect the answer is woo woo states, which is a fool's errand.equanimity What I take from Steves message is that whatever state is present before the Witness is an unbidden and unvolitional state, one that one could say is a natural and spontaneous expression of duality that happens, and as such it is neither good or bad - until it is judged to be so. My view is that mentally judging a state tends to perpetuate the state, most particularly the suffering states. And where states are left un-judged, they tend to move on quickly or, if staying for a longer term, do not turn into mental suffering because it's been fully accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 15, 2014 18:35:09 GMT -5
The moment I log off here, it's gone Silver. The only reason I said you should 'let it go' is because you mentioned being disturbed. If that's not the case, then I'm glad and if it is, then I hope you are able to let it go. Take care.  Hey...nice parting shot.  That was a shot?....about the intensity of a sponge ball tossed by a toddler...  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 18:47:26 GMT -5
Nonsense. States of suffering are not natural states, and if one is not interested in the absence of those unnatural states, what IS one interested in? (I suspect the answer is woo woo states, which is a fool's errand.equanimity What I take from Steves message is that whatever state is present before the Witness is an unbidden and unvolitional state, one that one could say is a natural and spontaneous expression of duality that happens, and as such it is neither good or bad - until it is judged to be so. I know, but there have been enough assassinations this week and I'm trying to save 'natural state' from oblivion. It's a good term that points to the condition of freedom that is less clearly referred to as enlightenment. The really sophisticated seekers have learned to dismiss that as well, which is unfortunate. There's much to be said for allowing all movements to move along, but if there is a suffering state, it's because one has already made negative judgment on the conditions present. You've also already distinguished between states you want to perpetuate and those you don't. I'm just doing the same with the natural state. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 15, 2014 19:04:15 GMT -5
What I take from Steves message is that whatever state is present before the Witness is an unbidden and unvolitional state, one that one could say is a natural and spontaneous expression of duality that happens, and as such it is neither good or bad - until it is judged to be so. I know, but there have been enough assassinations this week and I'm trying to save 'natural state' from oblivion. It's a good term that points to the condition of freedom that is less clearly referred to as enlightenment. The really sophisticated seekers have learned to dismiss that as well, which is unfortunate. There's much to be said for allowing all movements to move along, but if there is a suffering state, it's because one has already made negative judgment on the conditions present. You've also already distinguished between states you want to perpetuate and those you don't. I'm just doing the same with the natural state. I hear your concerns, and I will give them consideration, but in regards to the bolded I mean to distinguish the difference between "naturally occurring painful happenings", i.e. getting a broken knee cap, emergency open heart surgery, the loss of a very close loved one, being nailed and hung from a cross for no good reason, etc, and "unnecessary mental suffering" created by identification with thoughts about the painful happening. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 15, 2014 19:32:37 GMT -5
Hey...nice parting shot. That was a shot?....about the intensity of a sponge ball tossed by a toddler... I said nothing about intensity. ...and again...  |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Sept 15, 2014 20:50:20 GMT -5
What I take from Steves message is that whatever state is present before the Witness is an unbidden and unvolitional state, one that one could say is a natural and spontaneous expression of duality that happens, and as such it is neither good or bad - until it is judged to be so. I know, but there have been enough assassinations this week and I'm trying to save 'natural state' from oblivion. It's a good term that points to the condition of freedom that is less clearly referred to as enlightenment. The really sophisticated seekers have learned to dismiss that as well, which is unfortunate. There's much to be said for allowing all movements to move along, but if there is a suffering state, it's because one has already made negative judgment on the conditions present. You've also already distinguished between states you want to perpetuate and those you don't. I'm just doing the same with the natural state. Suffering is the result of attachment, clinging....or the opposite side of the same coin, avoidance. Seeking an invented or imagined natural state, while trying to avoid an imagined un-natural state, helps to cause suffering, not alleviate it. Also, what does any seeker need to do in order to 'find'? Answer: Stop Seeking When you set up the proposition of imagined natural versus un-natural states, you delude yourself into seeking other than whats right in front of you, closer than your own skin... You also support the illusion of both feared and desired permanence. Humans imagine the illusion of permanence, then crave permanent pleasure and fear permanent pain or dis-pleasure....then they set up a whole life around seeking permanent pleasure, while avoiding imagined permanent dis-pleasure....its a lifetime of activity based on a self created illusion. 'Seek the [imagined] natural state, and avoid the [imagined] un-natural state'....now thats a fool's errand ;-) Well, maybe not a fool, but certainly an idiot's errand. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 21:01:23 GMT -5
Is this meditative state the natural state? Who cares? Your search for a 'natural state' is misconceived, a fool's errand.... What I said about the natural state is that it does not come or go as opposed to your meditative states and that there is no one going in or out as opposed to your meditative states and that you can't do anything about it, it's not in your hands and that the seeker is the wrong one to talk about the natural state because it will be forever out of reach for the seeker. Now how did you conclude from that that I would be searching for a natural state? I see you've changed your mind again. You started with your OP suggesting that we should spend at least a certain amount of time in one of your preferred states. After some flak, you changed your mind and suggested that there's nothing that could be called an unnatural state. Then you changed your mind again and suggested again that we should spend more time in one of your preferred states or else we should better fork off to a philosophy forum. And now you've changed your mind again and suggest again that all states are natural states. I guess your next comment will be about how we should spend more time in one of your preferred states again. Both of your extreme positions are a nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 21:08:28 GMT -5
Who cares? Your search for a 'natural state' is misconceived, a fool's errand.... all states are natural, only your judgement calls makes it appear as though some states are natural, while others are supposedly not so. You are chasing a 'natural state' that you are already in...forever. None of that effects the OP though ;-) Nonsense. States of suffering are not natural states, and if one is not interested in the absence of those unnatural states, what IS one interested in? (I suspect the answer is woo woo states, which is a fool's errand.) Notice the similarity to Andrew's love concept. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Sept 15, 2014 22:47:03 GMT -5
Nonsense. States of suffering are not natural states, and if one is not interested in the absence of those unnatural states, what IS one interested in? (I suspect the answer is woo woo states, which is a fool's errand.) Notice the similarity to Andrew's love concept. You don't seem to think very clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 22:53:56 GMT -5
So the aphorism goes "wanting is a better thing than having", which seems to me another form of "the journey is the reward. Yeah, it's just more awareness of why we do stuff. The frequency of the intention always informs us whether completion is probable or not. Sometimes plans are imagined so that, the time before their non-completion is felt in a much more vibrant and immediate way. It's not about the plan, or it's completion. The apparent delaying will set-up a psychological dynamic of perceived control. The idea that control is an illusion was one that I was exposed to soooo long ago it was pretty much part of conditioning ..  .. the reality of it is soooo much more .. open. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 22:59:02 GMT -5
Figgles, I haven't talked to you since that post where you told me in so many words to buzz off because that post finally made me realize that you've become more and more unreachable. What I see is that that post where I told you that "if you were not enjoying the conversation you could always go elsewhere," angered you, "What you see"? And yet, when anyone else shows your your own bile, in your own words, what comes spewing out of you like a fountain of vomit is some of the most prolific, intricate and self-deluded rationalization ever written in the history of mankind.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 23:01:58 GMT -5
What I see is that that post where I told you that "if you were not enjoying the conversation you could always go elsewhere," angered you, and now you are enjoying a sense of being aligned with those who have ongoing issues with me. That's cool, but, Just don't make the mistake of believing your re-direction of disdain is an indication of a greater level of clarity. All you've done is switched up the target of your judgments. You say you no longer have interest in getting embroiled in the arguments here, but its' pretty clear that interest is still active. You steered clear for a bit, but now it seems, you've resumed with new targets in mind...? If you were really interested in steering clear of 'the nonsense' you wouldn't have approached me with this. First off, I'd like to make it clear that there are pa-lenty of things that Enigma, Reefs and Laughter talk of that goes waay over my head to this day, but what in the beginning I saw as insult and playing around at the expense of my feelings, wasn't that at all - well, maybe a little - but we have to have fun sometime.....anyway, I had to swallow my pride so that I could learn what I most definitely sensed was something very important. Of course I was hurt because it couldn't be clearer that you said any number of things - all in that one post - designed specifically for that purpose - because that's how you operate. It's clear that you can't separate the wheat from the chaff when anybody is talking to you, and you seem to think that you should just go through life without anyone making a thoughtful observation about you/your behavior that isn't complimentary. What makes you so special, huh? So, for you to say that: "You say you no longer have interest in getting embroiled in the arguments here, but its' pretty clear that interest is still active. You steered clear for a bit, but now it seems, you've resume..." you're at least being contrite about being at the center of these arguments that peeps get embroiled in. Do you not see how defensive that is, even though it was especially designed to paint me at a certain angle to benefit you? The action starts at 1:15 and a few seconds later, notice how he's putting on a heavy duty gas mask and already is dressed in clothes to protect him from the toxic fumes of the paint. fwiw, I saw the original Tron, and I really liked it. Has anybody seen the sequel(s)? Do you want some advice on how to deal with this stain on the face of humanity? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 23:07:05 GMT -5
Regardless, It still seems odd to me for folks to enter into conversations they are not a part of, to tell those conversing that the conversation is annoying, stupid or pointless and that they should therefore, stop conversing. Oh, the brushstrokes. This is your imagination running wild, and when you do this, when you write something that ascribes words to someone else that they didn't write, it is a form of libel. |
|
.. the reality of it is soooo much more .. open.