|
|
Post by runstill on Oct 9, 2016 16:19:53 GMT -5
The bolded is an important idea to talk about, if one starts with the easy realization that reality can only be an appearance to awareness could be the first step, but Sdp may not agree ?  Well, before that "easy realization", you'd have to decide if awareness is the only actual reality. I believe that's what a lot of back-and-forth is here. If awareness is all that's truly real, then anything that appears to it is not real. And that goes counter to the experience of living life. Conversely, if life/existence is real, then awareness is not related in any way to real/not real. It's just...aware. And then it WOULD be an easy realization, and further - the true question of what's-real-what's-not relates to experience only. Which is where, imo, it belongs. Au contraire my dear Quinn, its impossible to show any,,place, thing, thought, emotion , feeling or experience other than that its only reality is in and of as appearance to awareness.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 23:18:54 GMT -5
What's left out, though, is the key part of how the cessation of reactivity comes about. We can consider reactivity to be mental activity just like any other mental activity such as thoughts, feelings and mental imagery. Cessation comes about simply because it is the natural tendency of the mind to become quiet. We don't notice this normally because we are continually distracted by outside events. Meditation is a way of giving the mind an opportunity to do what it wants to do which is to experience the least excitable state of mental activity. We cannot stop thoughts appearing because by the time we realize we have a thought it is too late. It has already arrived in consciousness. So most meditation practices take just one thought or object of attention such as breath or mantra and present this to the minds attention. Because the mind has a natural tendency to become quiet, this object of attention will become experienced at finer and finer levels. When it becomes so subtle the object of attention will occasionally completely disappear leaving only awareness. This is letting go which is NOT volitional. it is spontaneous and requires no effort. This practice of attending to only one thought has the effect of subduing all other thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 10, 2016 2:40:00 GMT -5
The thing with 'the object' of sensation is it has no objectivity or substance as it transforms momentarily. This is where the concept of 'letting go' can become misconstrued as 'becoming unaware of'. 'Letting go' is better expressed as 'letting be', but even then, 'letting' still implies a permissive subject who decides to allow. The best way, I think, to express it is to say 'it is' and remove the subject who allows, lets, resists, clings and what have you, then we can say you are 'aware of what is'. This is important in terms of the purification project because to to bring the conscious awareness to 'what is' without allowing and disallowing and accepting or resisting is describable as 'pure awareness' or to 'see'. The purity of seeing is the 'purifying agent'. In common terms this means to be present with what's going on without the judgment of like/dislike and so forth. Then impurity, defilement, blocks, obstacles or whatever word, can be simply recognised, and because there is no longer some adverse reaction to them, they can just be. Since the fundamental nature of everything is change, this ability of 'it is', is, in fact, the ability of transformation. Because the reaction defenses have ceased, the production of impurity has ended, and by that same cessation of reactivity, the old stuck impurities are enabled fluid transformation. I agree with all this and it's pretty much a description of meditation, my type anyway. What's left out, though, is the key part of how the cessation of reactivity comes about. I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm curious what yours are in the context of what you wrote. What it seems to me you're saying (and you can correct me if needed) is that reactivity is the impurity. So to be aware without reactivity is the process but then also the final outcome/transformation. Almost like a 'fake it till you make it' thing. Yes, no? In essence, reactivity is the impurity, though that's overly simplistic. It's just that a person can quite easily notice their reactive nature, and it is practical to speak of identifiable things. I think the Buddhist discourse describes it quite well by saying this reactions (craving/aversion) create a mark or an impression on the mind (called a 'sankara'), which in Tolle's terminology, collectively construct 'the pain body'. I'm mixing metaphors there, but you can tell, the reaction is to sensation, implying it comes after the experience itself, an therefore is chronologically productive, which implies movement through time, which implies karma. Simply put, the entity 'me' which has duration is the illusion endemic to reactivity, and every blind reaction serves to affirm this self oriented entity. When reaction ceases, this entity is not gone, as it were, it just stops being constructed and the old psychic energy which forms it burns off. This can be felt through in body as its tensions and aches and pains dissolve and melt away. This pleasure of 'dissolving' (I'll call it) usually results in some clingy desire reactivity, and that whole issue of 'wanting more' then also affirms the ego. Any person beginning meditation can start to see this habitual reaction in their first 5 minutes, but because most meditation teaching incorporate some sort of volitional element such as counting breath, mantra, visualisations or whatever, the person, begins to use these sorts of distractions purposely, which is what they are doing anyway in day to day life unconsciously. The cessation occurs because you become consciously aware of what you have been doing. It's like, 'wow, now I see what I've been doing all this time'. This we refer to as 'insight', to realise this cause of unrest, which is self generated, that we know as misery. Of course, once realised, it can't occur unnoticed anymore, so you stop doing it. Who would knowingly create their own misery? The process of sitting isn't altogether pleasant, and within a short time discomfort or an itch or a bead of sweat will come up, and the meditator gets 'distracted'. This is really reaction occurring. They lose the peace of mind, call it 'distracting', and blame it on the sensation, but in fact, that person is generating their own unrest, but they don't know it is not the itch that is distraction, but their reaction to it. Such sensations are of marginal interest as curiosities to me, like, 'this is intense', and because I have no reaction, I don't mind if it is there or not there, I am not distracted or disturbed. It soon goes away as something else arises. This is a mild feeling, so it's easy peasy, but there are more extreme sensations, and at some stage reactivity starts to become very pronounced and it won't let up just because you notice it, and a kind of egomania is experienced as deeper distress - the person reached their limitation and loses the balance of mind - so we see the link between the physical phenomena and the psychological dilemma, and that is good insight. Still, since this is realised, that person became aware, and the balance of mind thereby becomes a little more stable. By being more stable it can endure more extremes without being disturbed, and the meditator becomes aware on a yet deeper level. The emotional dimension is playing out simultaneously, as it is behind the sensational manifestation. One starts to learn how to be in peace while severe emotional storms blow all around them in the mind. They cannot affect you anymore, you no longer react, and the psychic energy that has maintained that trauma all this time is no longer given, the issue passes finally, and is resolved completely and forever! This frees things up. The emotional content is resolved, so the (manifestation in the) body loosens up, and the previously solid, hard, painful things become subtle and dynamic - but that's not the purpose. This usually brings up the other side of the balance coin which deals in issues not of aversion, but clinging and desire. To get past this issue of wanting it to last and wanting more is a doozy... but I think if we understand the fundamental nature of our awareness as this pure equanimity, we can be at least somewhat conscious of more subtle craven reactions and not fall into abject lust for some sorts of 'special experiences'. If the attention is to balance, presence or whatever you like to call it, and not to the experiential pursuit, you get a thing, like E' man mentions, 'it's not an experience'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 5:46:03 GMT -5
I agree with all this and it's pretty much a description of meditation, my type anyway. What's left out, though, is the key part of how the cessation of reactivity comes about. I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm curious what yours are in the context of what you wrote. What it seems to me you're saying (and you can correct me if needed) is that reactivity is the impurity. So to be aware without reactivity is the process but then also the final outcome/transformation. Almost like a 'fake it till you make it' thing. Yes, no? In essence, reactivity is the impurity, though that's overly simplistic. It's just that a person can quite easily notice their reactive nature, and it is practical to speak of identifiable things. I think the Buddhist discourse describes it quite well by saying this reactions (craving/aversion) create a mark or an impression on the mind (called a 'sankara'), which in Tolle's terminology, collectively construct 'the pain body'. I'm mixing metaphors there, but you can tell, the reaction is to sensation, implying it comes after the experience itself, an therefore is chronologically productive, which implies movement through time, which implies karma. Simply put, the entity 'me' which has duration is the illusion endemic to reactivity, and every blind reaction serves to affirm this self oriented entity. When reaction ceases, this entity is not gone, as it were, it just stops being constructed and the old psychic energy which forms it burns off. This can be felt through in body as its tensions and aches and pains dissolve and melt away. This pleasure of 'dissolving' (I'll call it) usually results in some clingy desire reactivity, and that whole issue of 'wanting more' then also affirms the ego. Any person beginning meditation can start to see this habitual reaction in their first 5 minutes, but because most meditation teaching incorporate some sort of volitional element such as counting breath, mantra, visualisations or whatever, the person, begins to use these sorts of distractions purposely, which is what they are doing anyway in day to day life unconsciously. The cessation occurs because you become consciously aware of what you have been doing. It's like, 'wow, now I see what I've been doing all this time'. This we refer to as 'insight', to realise this cause of unrest, which is self generated, that we know as misery. Of course, once realised, it can't occur unnoticed anymore, so you stop doing it. Who would knowingly create their own misery? The process of sitting isn't altogether pleasant, and within a short time discomfort or an itch or a bead of sweat will come up, and the meditator gets 'distracted'. This is really reaction occurring. They lose the peace of mind, call it 'distracting', and blame it on the sensation, but in fact, that person is generating their own unrest, but they don't know it is not the itch that is distraction, but their reaction to it. Such sensations are of marginal interest as curiosities to me, like, 'this is intense', and because I have no reaction, I don't mind if it is there or not there, I am not distracted or disturbed. It soon goes away as something else arises. This is a mild feeling, so it's easy peasy, but there are more extreme sensations, and at some stage reactivity starts to become very pronounced and it won't let up just because you notice it, and a kind of egomania is experienced as deeper distress - the person reached their limitation and loses the balance of mind - so we see the link between the physical phenomena and the psychological dilemma, and that is good insight. Still, since this is realised, that person became aware, and the balance of mind thereby becomes a little more stable. By being more stable it can endure more extremes without being disturbed, and the meditator becomes aware on a yet deeper level. The emotional dimension is playing out simultaneously, as it is behind the sensational manifestation. One starts to learn how to be in peace while severe emotional storms blow all around them in the mind. They cannot affect you anymore, you no longer react, and the psychic energy that has maintained that trauma all this time is no longer given, the issue passes finally, and is resolved completely and forever! This frees things up. The emotional content is resolved, so the (manifestation in the) body loosens up, and the previously solid, hard, painful things become subtle and dynamic - but that's not the purpose. This usually brings up the other side of the balance coin which deals in issues not of aversion, but clinging and desire. To get past this issue of wanting it to last and wanting more is a doozy... but I think if we understand the fundamental nature of our awareness as this pure equanimity, we can be at least somewhat conscious of more subtle craven reactions and not fall into abject lust for some sorts of 'special experiences'. If the attention is to balance, presence or whatever you like to call it, and not to the experiential pursuit, you get a thing, like E' man mentions, 'it's not an experience'. The emotional dimension that is behind sensational manifestations is the exploration and probing of the mind's imagination. The deeper stillness, where nothing is happening is also imagination. Though it isn't the mind's. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 10, 2016 6:26:39 GMT -5
Well, before that "easy realization", you'd have to decide if awareness is the only actual reality. I believe that's what a lot of back-and-forth is here. If awareness is all that's truly real, then anything that appears to it is not real. And that goes counter to the experience of living life. Conversely, if life/existence is real, then awareness is not related in any way to real/not real. It's just...aware. And then it WOULD be an easy realization, and further - the true question of what's-real-what's-not relates to experience only. Which is where, imo, it belongs. Au contraire my dear Quinn, its impossible to show any,,place, thing, thought, emotion , feeling or experience other than that its only reality is in and of as appearance to awareness. Ha, interesting. And how is that different from the second scenario I described? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 10, 2016 7:06:37 GMT -5
What's left out, though, is the key part of how the cessation of reactivity comes about. We can consider reactivity to be mental activity just like any other mental activity such as thoughts, feelings and mental imagery. Cessation comes about simply because it is the natural tendency of the mind to become quiet. We don't notice this normally because we are continually distracted by outside events. Meditation is a way of giving the mind an opportunity to do what it wants to do which is to experience the least excitable state of mental activity. We cannot stop thoughts appearing because by the time we realize we have a thought it is too late. It has already arrived in consciousness. So most meditation practices take just one thought or object of attention such as breath or mantra and present this to the minds attention. Because the mind has a natural tendency to become quiet, this object of attention will become experienced at finer and finer levels. When it becomes so subtle the object of attention will occasionally completely disappear leaving only awareness. This is letting go which is NOT volitional. it is spontaneous and requires no effort. This practice of attending to only one thought has the effect of subduing all other thoughts. I disagree that mind's natural tendency is to become quiet. Mind is movement, mind is activity. Just like the body needs sleep, the mind needs rest to be useful, but it's in no way interested in total quiet. As the world becomes more complex and full of distractions, people are longing for that rest. One-pointed concentration (like mantra or attending to breath/sensation) is closer to the resting state than the usual monkey mind, and because it's some sort of activity, it's doable for most. Games and sports that require a lot of concentration can do the same thing. What happens with those, though, is when they stop, the tendency is to fall right back into monkey-mind, whereas there's a 'carry-over' with meditation as the mind begins to realize the crazy ride it was previously on. Not sure what you mean by the object "will become experienced at finer and finer levels". What seems to me to be happening is that the mind begins to quiet as the source of all that activity becomes exposed (i.e., becomes conscious). What you describe in your last few sentences is the same as my experience with Vipassana meditation. These gifts of pure awareness appear as thoughts finally die down, and that's where the non-volitional alchemy happens that defies description. Vipassana also has an inquiry branch (in addition to breath concentration), and this is where my curiosity with Lolly's approach comes in. I hadn't thought about inquiring into sensation before. Where, if at all, is inquiry in mantra meditation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 7:37:33 GMT -5
We can consider reactivity to be mental activity just like any other mental activity such as thoughts, feelings and mental imagery. Cessation comes about simply because it is the natural tendency of the mind to become quiet. We don't notice this normally because we are continually distracted by outside events. Meditation is a way of giving the mind an opportunity to do what it wants to do which is to experience the least excitable state of mental activity. We cannot stop thoughts appearing because by the time we realize we have a thought it is too late. It has already arrived in consciousness. So most meditation practices take just one thought or object of attention such as breath or mantra and present this to the minds attention. Because the mind has a natural tendency to become quiet, this object of attention will become experienced at finer and finer levels. When it becomes so subtle the object of attention will occasionally completely disappear leaving only awareness. This is letting go which is NOT volitional. it is spontaneous and requires no effort. This practice of attending to only one thought has the effect of subduing all other thoughts. I disagree that mind's natural tendency is to become quiet. Mind is movement, mind is activity. Just like the body needs sleep, the mind needs rest to be useful, but it's in no way interested in total quiet. As the world becomes more complex and full of distractions, people are longing for that rest. One-pointed concentration (like mantra or attending to breath/sensation) is closer to the resting state than the usual monkey mind, and because it's some sort of activity, it's doable for most. Games and sports that require a lot of concentration can do the same thing. What happens with those, though, is when they stop, the tendency is to fall right back into monkey-mind, whereas there's a 'carry-over' with meditation as the mind begins to realize the crazy ride it was previously on. Not sure what you mean by the object "will become experienced at finer and finer levels". What seems to me to be happening is that the mind begins to quiet as the source of all that activity becomes exposed (i.e., becomes conscious). What you describe in your last few sentences is the same as my experience with Vipassana meditation. These gifts of pure awareness appear as thoughts finally die down, and that's where the non-volitional alchemy happens that defies description. Vipassana also has an inquiry branch (in addition to breath concentration), and this is where my curiosity with Lolly's approach comes in. I hadn't thought about inquiring into sensation before. Where, if at all, is inquiry in mantra meditation? What do you mean by inquiry? What I mean by it is the same as Ramana Maharshi meant which is going back to awareness, the source. Vipassana is also a well established practice. I don't like to say that one method is better than another but nevertheless I do have a personal view that mantra meditation is the most effective and here's why. First of all I just want to correct what you said about concentration. Neither breath nor mantra should be used to concentrate on. That would be mind control and involves strain. In both practices the attention should be put on these objects in an effortless way in the same way any spontaneous thought arises. The body senses are more gross than the mind. Or we could say that thought is more subtle than senses. If we use the breath or body sensations this is already more gross than a mantra which is a thought and therefore more subtle. As the goal is to experience finer levels of thought, we already have a head start so to speak by using a mantra which is already at a more subtle level than bodily sensations. Having said that it is possible to go within without using any object of attention as Ramana advocated and as Nisargadatta did when he advised putting the attention on the "I am" sense. Many people find this awareness difficult to locate and the mind will wander. Tools like breath and mantra just help to facilitate that quietening of the mind to reveal what is already there which is pure awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 10, 2016 7:46:10 GMT -5
I agree with all this and it's pretty much a description of meditation, my type anyway. What's left out, though, is the key part of how the cessation of reactivity comes about. I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm curious what yours are in the context of what you wrote. What it seems to me you're saying (and you can correct me if needed) is that reactivity is the impurity. So to be aware without reactivity is the process but then also the final outcome/transformation. Almost like a 'fake it till you make it' thing. Yes, no? In essence, reactivity is the impurity, though that's overly simplistic. It's just that a person can quite easily notice their reactive nature, and it is practical to speak of identifiable things. I think the Buddhist discourse describes it quite well by saying this reactions (craving/aversion) create a mark or an impression on the mind (called a 'sankara'), which in Tolle's terminology, collectively construct 'the pain body'. I'm mixing metaphors there, but you can tell, the reaction is to sensation, implying it comes after the experience itself, an therefore is chronologically productive, which implies movement through time, which implies karma. Simply put, the entity 'me' which has duration is the illusion endemic to reactivity, and every blind reaction serves to affirm this self oriented entity. When reaction ceases, this entity is not gone, as it were, it just stops being constructed and the old psychic energy which forms it burns off. This can be felt through in body as its tensions and aches and pains dissolve and melt away. This pleasure of 'dissolving' (I'll call it) usually results in some clingy desire reactivity, and that whole issue of 'wanting more' then also affirms the ego. Any person beginning meditation can start to see this habitual reaction in their first 5 minutes, but because most meditation teaching incorporate some sort of volitional element such as counting breath, mantra, visualisations or whatever, the person, begins to use these sorts of distractions purposely, which is what they are doing anyway in day to day life unconsciously. The cessation occurs because you become consciously aware of what you have been doing. It's like, 'wow, now I see what I've been doing all this time'. This we refer to as 'insight', to realise this cause of unrest, which is self generated, that we know as misery. Of course, once realised, it can't occur unnoticed anymore, so you stop doing it. Who would knowingly create their own misery? The process of sitting isn't altogether pleasant, and within a short time discomfort or an itch or a bead of sweat will come up, and the meditator gets 'distracted'. This is really reaction occurring. They lose the peace of mind, call it 'distracting', and blame it on the sensation, but in fact, that person is generating their own unrest, but they don't know it is not the itch that is distraction, but their reaction to it. Such sensations are of marginal interest as curiosities to me, like, 'this is intense', and because I have no reaction, I don't mind if it is there or not there, I am not distracted or disturbed. It soon goes away as something else arises. This is a mild feeling, so it's easy peasy, but there are more extreme sensations, and at some stage reactivity starts to become very pronounced and it won't let up just because you notice it, and a kind of egomania is experienced as deeper distress - the person reached their limitation and loses the balance of mind - so we see the link between the physical phenomena and the psychological dilemma, and that is good insight. Still, since this is realised, that person became aware, and the balance of mind thereby becomes a little more stable. By being more stable it can endure more extremes without being disturbed, and the meditator becomes aware on a yet deeper level. The emotional dimension is playing out simultaneously, as it is behind the sensational manifestation. One starts to learn how to be in peace while severe emotional storms blow all around them in the mind. They cannot affect you anymore, you no longer react, and the psychic energy that has maintained that trauma all this time is no longer given, the issue passes finally, and is resolved completely and forever! This frees things up. The emotional content is resolved, so the (manifestation in the) body loosens up, and the previously solid, hard, painful things become subtle and dynamic - but that's not the purpose. This usually brings up the other side of the balance coin which deals in issues not of aversion, but clinging and desire. To get past this issue of wanting it to last and wanting more is a doozy... but I think if we understand the fundamental nature of our awareness as this pure equanimity, we can be at least somewhat conscious of more subtle craven reactions and not fall into abject lust for some sorts of 'special experiences'. If the attention is to balance, presence or whatever you like to call it, and not to the experiential pursuit, you get a thing, like E' man mentions, 'it's not an experience'. Ok, thanks - an unfolding process of stabilizing into equanimity. I see a lot of value in the 'sensation' approach. My inquiry process was more mind-centered. I can come to the same realization (that I generate my own unrest), but through a logical or common-sense route, by noticing that the same experience brings one person pain while another is neutral about it, so the experience itself cannot be the culprit. What this mind-centered inquiry misses, though, is the entanglement of emotions and thoughts and the effect they have on each other (body/mind). A stuck place. The mind might get it while the body's still in the dark ages. So one way of looking at Awareness is as pure equanimity, while another way is as pure emptiness. One asks for balance and the other for 'nakedness'. Both are a stripping away, though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 8:02:20 GMT -5
In essence, reactivity is the impurity, though that's overly simplistic. It's just that a person can quite easily notice their reactive nature, and it is practical to speak of identifiable things. I think the Buddhist discourse describes it quite well by saying this reactions (craving/aversion) create a mark or an impression on the mind (called a 'sankara'), which in Tolle's terminology, collectively construct 'the pain body'. I'm mixing metaphors there, but you can tell, the reaction is to sensation, implying it comes after the experience itself, an therefore is chronologically productive, which implies movement through time, which implies karma. Simply put, the entity 'me' which has duration is the illusion endemic to reactivity, and every blind reaction serves to affirm this self oriented entity. When reaction ceases, this entity is not gone, as it were, it just stops being constructed and the old psychic energy which forms it burns off. This can be felt through in body as its tensions and aches and pains dissolve and melt away. This pleasure of 'dissolving' (I'll call it) usually results in some clingy desire reactivity, and that whole issue of 'wanting more' then also affirms the ego. Any person beginning meditation can start to see this habitual reaction in their first 5 minutes, but because most meditation teaching incorporate some sort of volitional element such as counting breath, mantra, visualisations or whatever, the person, begins to use these sorts of distractions purposely, which is what they are doing anyway in day to day life unconsciously. The cessation occurs because you become consciously aware of what you have been doing. It's like, 'wow, now I see what I've been doing all this time'. This we refer to as 'insight', to realise this cause of unrest, which is self generated, that we know as misery. Of course, once realised, it can't occur unnoticed anymore, so you stop doing it. Who would knowingly create their own misery? The process of sitting isn't altogether pleasant, and within a short time discomfort or an itch or a bead of sweat will come up, and the meditator gets 'distracted'. This is really reaction occurring. They lose the peace of mind, call it 'distracting', and blame it on the sensation, but in fact, that person is generating their own unrest, but they don't know it is not the itch that is distraction, but their reaction to it. Such sensations are of marginal interest as curiosities to me, like, 'this is intense', and because I have no reaction, I don't mind if it is there or not there, I am not distracted or disturbed. It soon goes away as something else arises. This is a mild feeling, so it's easy peasy, but there are more extreme sensations, and at some stage reactivity starts to become very pronounced and it won't let up just because you notice it, and a kind of egomania is experienced as deeper distress - the person reached their limitation and loses the balance of mind - so we see the link between the physical phenomena and the psychological dilemma, and that is good insight. Still, since this is realised, that person became aware, and the balance of mind thereby becomes a little more stable. By being more stable it can endure more extremes without being disturbed, and the meditator becomes aware on a yet deeper level. The emotional dimension is playing out simultaneously, as it is behind the sensational manifestation. One starts to learn how to be in peace while severe emotional storms blow all around them in the mind. They cannot affect you anymore, you no longer react, and the psychic energy that has maintained that trauma all this time is no longer given, the issue passes finally, and is resolved completely and forever! This frees things up. The emotional content is resolved, so the (manifestation in the) body loosens up, and the previously solid, hard, painful things become subtle and dynamic - but that's not the purpose. This usually brings up the other side of the balance coin which deals in issues not of aversion, but clinging and desire. To get past this issue of wanting it to last and wanting more is a doozy... but I think if we understand the fundamental nature of our awareness as this pure equanimity, we can be at least somewhat conscious of more subtle craven reactions and not fall into abject lust for some sorts of 'special experiences'. If the attention is to balance, presence or whatever you like to call it, and not to the experiential pursuit, you get a thing, like E' man mentions, 'it's not an experience'. Ok, thanks - an unfolding process of stabilizing into equanimity. I see a lot of value in the 'sensation' approach. My inquiry process was more mind-centered. I can come to the same realization (that I generate my own unrest), but through a logical or common-sense route, by noticing that the same experience brings one person pain while another is neutral about it, so the experience itself cannot be the culprit. What this mind-centered inquiry misses, though, is the entanglement of emotions and thoughts and the effect they have on each other (body/mind). A stuck place. The mind might get it while the body's still in the dark ages. So one way of looking at Awareness is as pure equanimity, while another way is as pure emptiness. One asks for balance and the other for 'nakedness'. Both are a stripping away, though. Too much analysis quinn. It won't help but hinder what is essentially a simple process of revealing what you already know without having to think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 10, 2016 8:12:29 GMT -5
I disagree that mind's natural tendency is to become quiet. Mind is movement, mind is activity. Just like the body needs sleep, the mind needs rest to be useful, but it's in no way interested in total quiet. As the world becomes more complex and full of distractions, people are longing for that rest. One-pointed concentration (like mantra or attending to breath/sensation) is closer to the resting state than the usual monkey mind, and because it's some sort of activity, it's doable for most. Games and sports that require a lot of concentration can do the same thing. What happens with those, though, is when they stop, the tendency is to fall right back into monkey-mind, whereas there's a 'carry-over' with meditation as the mind begins to realize the crazy ride it was previously on. Not sure what you mean by the object "will become experienced at finer and finer levels". What seems to me to be happening is that the mind begins to quiet as the source of all that activity becomes exposed (i.e., becomes conscious). What you describe in your last few sentences is the same as my experience with Vipassana meditation. These gifts of pure awareness appear as thoughts finally die down, and that's where the non-volitional alchemy happens that defies description. Vipassana also has an inquiry branch (in addition to breath concentration), and this is where my curiosity with Lolly's approach comes in. I hadn't thought about inquiring into sensation before. Where, if at all, is inquiry in mantra meditation? What do you mean by inquiry? What I mean by it is the same as Ramana Maharshi meant which is going back to awareness, the source. Vipassana is also a well established practice. I don't like to say that one method is better than another but nevertheless I do have a personal view that mantra meditation is the most effective and here's why. First of all I just want to correct what you said about concentration. Neither breath nor mantra should be used to concentrate on. That would be mind control and involves strain. In both practices the attention should be put on these objects in an effortless way in the same way any spontaneous thought arises. The body senses are more gross than the mind. Or we could say that thought is more subtle than senses. If we use the breath or body sensations this is already more gross than a mantra which is a thought and therefore more subtle. As the goal is to experience finer levels of thought, we already have a head start so to speak by using a mantra which is already at a more subtle level than bodily sensations. Having said that it is possible to go within without using any object of attention as Ramana advocated and as Nisargadatta did when he advised putting the attention on the "I am" sense. Many people find this awareness difficult to locate and the mind will wander. Tools like breath and mantra just help to facilitate that quietening of the mind to reveal what is already there which is pure awareness. I mean something slightly different by inquiry. Yes, the ultimate question is Who Am I? (or What am I?) but as you say, that's a difficult place to jump right to. So we can inquire into the source and nature of thoughts. It can start out as "Why do I believe this particular thing"? Or "Why does this upset me"?. It's bringing attention to what was previously running under the surface. Eventually, there's a kind of 'structure' that's seen, that all of these thoughts are creating a subjective reality that may or may not be true. That this 'reality' only appears when those thoughts are active. So now the nature of thought is seen and the question becomes, "What is true if I have no thought about it?" or some such. Now we can look at the I Am sense since the reality of thoughts is mortally wounded, if not dead. I've laid that out in a sequence that parallels my experience, but I'm sure it can follow lots of different paths. But basically, I'm saying inquire into everything until you see its nature. Your description of why mantra is a good approach is fascinating - focusing on something more subtle as opposed to gross. I have always used sensation (breath or sound) because it's not located anywhere but the present, whereas mind can drift off easily into past or future. But, as you say, they're all tools. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 10, 2016 8:17:22 GMT -5
Ok, thanks - an unfolding process of stabilizing into equanimity. I see a lot of value in the 'sensation' approach. My inquiry process was more mind-centered. I can come to the same realization (that I generate my own unrest), but through a logical or common-sense route, by noticing that the same experience brings one person pain while another is neutral about it, so the experience itself cannot be the culprit. What this mind-centered inquiry misses, though, is the entanglement of emotions and thoughts and the effect they have on each other (body/mind). A stuck place. The mind might get it while the body's still in the dark ages. So one way of looking at Awareness is as pure equanimity, while another way is as pure emptiness. One asks for balance and the other for 'nakedness'. Both are a stripping away, though. Too much analysis quinn. It won't help but hinder what is essentially a simple process of revealing what you already know without having to think about it. You can't possibly know that. Besides, noticing that the body is still in a reactive mode even after mind has insights is a very very common question from seekers. No problem here with addressing it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 8:42:56 GMT -5
What do you mean by inquiry? What I mean by it is the same as Ramana Maharshi meant which is going back to awareness, the source. Vipassana is also a well established practice. I don't like to say that one method is better than another but nevertheless I do have a personal view that mantra meditation is the most effective and here's why. First of all I just want to correct what you said about concentration. Neither breath nor mantra should be used to concentrate on. That would be mind control and involves strain. In both practices the attention should be put on these objects in an effortless way in the same way any spontaneous thought arises. The body senses are more gross than the mind. Or we could say that thought is more subtle than senses. If we use the breath or body sensations this is already more gross than a mantra which is a thought and therefore more subtle. As the goal is to experience finer levels of thought, we already have a head start so to speak by using a mantra which is already at a more subtle level than bodily sensations. Having said that it is possible to go within without using any object of attention as Ramana advocated and as Nisargadatta did when he advised putting the attention on the "I am" sense. Many people find this awareness difficult to locate and the mind will wander. Tools like breath and mantra just help to facilitate that quietening of the mind to reveal what is already there which is pure awareness. I mean something slightly different by inquiry. Yes, the ultimate question is Who Am I? (or What am I?) but as you say, that's a difficult place to jump right to. So we can inquire into the source and nature of thoughts. It can start out as "Why do I believe this particular thing"? Or "Why does this upset me"?. It's bringing attention to what was previously running under the surface. Eventually, there's a kind of 'structure' that's seen, that all of these thoughts are creating a subjective reality that may or may not be true. That this 'reality' only appears when those thoughts are active. So now the nature of thought is seen and the question becomes, "What is true if I have no thought about it?" or some such. Now we can look at the I Am sense since the reality of thoughts is mortally wounded, if not dead. I've laid that out in a sequence that parallels my experience, but I'm sure it can follow lots of different paths. But basically, I'm saying inquire into everything until you see its nature. Your description of why mantra is a good approach is fascinating - focusing on something more subtle as opposed to gross. I have always used sensation (breath or sound) because it's not located anywhere but the present, whereas mind can drift off easily into past or future. But, as you say, they're all tools. I understand what you are describing as inquiry but it's not at all what Ramana meant. It's worth making what I think is an important point. In Nam Yar (tamil for Who am I) Ramana described inquiry as going to the source and he put it within the context of a question and answer format. He said that when a thought arises it arises to whom? The answer must be that it arises to me. That then poses the question who am I? There is no answer except to return to the source of the thought. Now this has been widely misunderstood to the extent that many take this question, who am I, and subject it to the kind of analysis you speak of here. I don't know if you appreciate the difference, perhaps you can clarify, but what Ramana meant was that by determining a thought arises and then asking who am I, it was not meant to be actually phrased as a question and thought about mentally but he put it like that to demonstrate in the best way he thought it could be articulated that this question who am I was a turning back to awareness. THAT IS ALL. He had to describe this turning back so he did it in the form of an unanswerable question which creates a gap of silence. But because who am I can also be interepreted as something conceptual this is where the confusion can creep in. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 10, 2016 8:47:54 GMT -5
Was just out on the deck. The sky is a vivid blue after several days of clouds, and the weather's turned very cold and blustery. As I looked up, three geese in a tight V formation were flying from left to right, headed for warmer weather. Below them, a mass of leaves was swirling and dancing from right to left on their way to whatever random spot they will end up. Both arrive where they need to be, but taking very different paths.
What do they have in common? I would say, no obstruction to following what is natural for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 8:59:21 GMT -5
Ashtavakra Gita Janaka said: 1: Instruction on Self-Realization 1.1 Master, how is Knowledge to be achieved, detachment acquired, liberation attained? Ashtavakra said: 1.2 To be free, shun the experiences of the senses like poison. Turn your attention to forgiveness, sincerity, kindness, simplicity, truth. 1.3 You are not earth, water, fire or air. Nor are you empty space. Liberation is to know yourself as Awareness alone— the Witness of these. 1.4 Abide in Awareness with no illusion of person. You will be instantly free and at peace. 1.5 You have no caste or duties. You are invisible, unattached, formless. You are the Witness of all things. Be happy. 1.6 Right and wrong, pleasure and pain, exist in mind only. They are not your concern. You neither do nor enjoy. You are free. 1.7 You are the Solitary Witness of All That Is, forever free. Your only bondage is not seeing This. 1.8 The thought: “I am the doer” is the bite of a poisonous snake. To know: “I do nothing” is the wisdom of faith. Be happy. 1.9 A single understanding: “I am the One Awareness,” consumes all suffering in the fire of an instant. Be happy. 1.10 You are unbounded Awareness— Bliss, Supreme Bliss-- in which the universe appears like the mirage of a snake in a rope. Be happy. 1.11 It is true what they say: “You are what you think.” If you think you are bound you are bound. If you think you are free you are free. 1.12 You are Self—the Solitary Witness. You are perfect, all-pervading, One. You are free, desireless, forever still. The universe is but a seeming in You. 1.13 Meditate on this: “I am Awareness alone--Unity itself.” Give up the idea that you are separate, a person, that there is within and without. 1.14 You have long been bound thinking: “I am a person.” Let the knowledge: “I am Awareness alone” be the sword that frees you. 1.15 You are now and forever free, luminous, transparent, still. The practice of meditation keeps one in bondage. 1.16 You are pure Consciousness— the substance of the universe. The universe exists within you. Don’t be small-minded. 1.17 You are unconditioned, changeless, formless. You are solid, unfathomable, cool. Desire nothing. You are Consciousness. 1.18 That which has form is not real. Only the formless is permanent. Once this is known, you will not return to illusion. 1.19 Just as a mirror exists both within and without the image reflected, the Supreme Self exists both within and without the body. 1.20 Just as the same space exists both within and without a jar, the timeless, all-pervasive One exists as Totality. This free e-book was downloaded from http://www.holybooks.com; www.holybooks.com/ashtavakra-gita/Om |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 10, 2016 9:04:25 GMT -5
I mean something slightly different by inquiry. Yes, the ultimate question is Who Am I? (or What am I?) but as you say, that's a difficult place to jump right to. So we can inquire into the source and nature of thoughts. It can start out as "Why do I believe this particular thing"? Or "Why does this upset me"?. It's bringing attention to what was previously running under the surface. Eventually, there's a kind of 'structure' that's seen, that all of these thoughts are creating a subjective reality that may or may not be true. That this 'reality' only appears when those thoughts are active. So now the nature of thought is seen and the question becomes, "What is true if I have no thought about it?" or some such. Now we can look at the I Am sense since the reality of thoughts is mortally wounded, if not dead. I've laid that out in a sequence that parallels my experience, but I'm sure it can follow lots of different paths. But basically, I'm saying inquire into everything until you see its nature. Your description of why mantra is a good approach is fascinating - focusing on something more subtle as opposed to gross. I have always used sensation (breath or sound) because it's not located anywhere but the present, whereas mind can drift off easily into past or future. But, as you say, they're all tools. I understand what you are describing as inquiry but it's not at all what Ramana meant. It's worth making what I think is an important point. In Nam Yar (tamil for Who am I) Ramana described inquiry as going to the source and he put it within the context of a question and answer format. He said that when a thought arises it arises to whom? The answer must be that it arises to me. That then poses the question who am I? There is no answer except to return to the source of the thought. Now this has been widely misunderstood to the extent that many take this question, who am I, and subject it to the kind of analysis you speak of here. I don't know if you appreciate the difference, perhaps you can clarify, but what Ramana meant was that by determining a thought arises and then asking who am I, it was not meant to be actually phrased as a question and thought about mentally but he put it like that to demonstrate in the best way he thought it could be articulated that this question who am I was a turning back to awareness. THAT IS ALL. He had to describe this turning back so he did it in the form of an unanswerable question which creates a gap of silence. But because who am I can also be interepreted as something conceptual this is where the confusion can creep in. Yes, I agree confusion can creep in and people can spend a lifetime mired in the kind of inquiry I described. Or it can facilitate uncovering enough space to move into the deeper inquiry Ramana refers to. Either is possible, which is why it's good to have a clear teacher. The flip side is that when mind is still dominant, the unanswerable question of Who Am I? can be usurped by it and get answered. Mind can create whole universes, it's quite easy for it to create the illusion of 'emptiness' or 'enlightenment'. For me, it was very important to realize the nature of thoughts before sitting down to the type of inquiry Ramana describes. Not just intellectually, but completely and thoroughly. That's when a true silence is accessible. To quote Max, "your mileage may vary". |
|
