|
|
Post by runstill on Oct 19, 2016 0:56:17 GMT -5
Hume's relevance is he speaks of his own inquiry. I just point out, the notions that seem to frame him as wrong or just a philosopher are nothing to do with meditation. Meditation would be more like noticing the occurrence the notions themselves. Hume merely brings in a cartload of bananas and the monkeys go wild over it, like, "he be wrong" "philosophers are so and such". Meditation would be in full recognition of that, and what is really going on in regards to oneself. It isn't some supersonic thing. It's self awareness in the most mundane sense. Kant said: Enlightenment is the liberation of man from his self-caused state of minority. Minority is the incapacity of using one’s understanding without the direction of another. This state of minority is self-caused when its source lies not in a lack of understanding but in a lack of determination to use it without the assistance of another.My interpretation is: Kant, Hume, Me or the 'meditation masters' can't give anyone the truth. Kant merely alludes to this great responsibility we have to ourselves to employ completely the totality of our faculties in the truth. By truth I mean, that which is honest to a fault - monstrously, brutally, ruthlessly and totally so. It's a very difficult thing as it's always lapsing as we believe our own bushwa. Obviously there are those who can't see past the bushwa, but they also know they are confused and unsettled, which is the return to the truth. It doesn't have to be rectified, it just as to be truthfully acknowledged as the fact it is. It's not hard to see that 'rectifying it' is in adverse reaction to it, so that's recognised as part of the dilemma itself, isn't it? That's what we really need to be doing here if this is a meaningful conversation about meditation. Not learning something a teacher can tell us but being conscious of all the minds movement - what is actually going on. I'm already saying that I'm just saying and it isn't 'true' so if what I'm saying appears like a cart load of bananas, then watch the monkey go wild. It's really nothing to do with what I say, Hume says, Kant says, and so on, see? Well in a very literal sense it is about what Hume and Kant have said because you've said what you've said using their quotes to say it. Have you ever considered how conversations are related in the sense of six degrees of separation? Unless and until someone is going to start from scratch with a new species created in the lab designed to evolve language independently, whatever we say or write is inextricably intertwined and in some sense a product of all of the human culture that preceded it. The only choice that is other than that dependence and further contribution is to stay silent. I like your comment about honesty. But the conversation isn't just about the meditation. Putting Kant's statement about minority in cultural context, I could easily cast it in terms of the differences between meditation and prayer, but elaborating on that might push the wonk-o-meter on what I'm writing over an unacceptable threshold.  I'm not gonna' comment on the dynamics of the current dialog here. I'll send you a nasty bullying PM instead, but it will at least take the high ground of being completely free of gossip. That is profound on more than one level, in not only a cultural sense but also aren't we a culmination spiritually on what preceded us. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 19, 2016 1:06:55 GMT -5
Well in a very literal sense it is about what Hume and Kant have said because you've said what you've said using their quotes to say it. Have you ever considered how conversations are related in the sense of six degrees of separation? Unless and until someone is going to start from scratch with a new species created in the lab designed to evolve language independently, whatever we say or write is inextricably intertwined and in some sense a product of all of the human culture that preceded it. The only choice that is other than that dependence and further contribution is to stay silent. I like your comment about honesty. But the conversation isn't just about the meditation. Putting Kant's statement about minority in cultural context, I could easily cast it in terms of the differences between meditation and prayer, but elaborating on that might push the wonk-o-meter on what I'm writing over an unacceptable threshold. I'm not gonna' comment on the dynamics of the current dialog here. I'll send you a nasty bullying PM instead, but it will at least take the high ground of being completely free of gossip. I didn't say these ones are great masters bringing a wonderful truth, and it's not my idea at all (I already said my interpretation of it). The way 'enlightenment' is used seem to me to be in cultural context with 'the age of reason', which yes, was somewhat counter-political to the church. The quote doesn't appear to have any especially spiritual undertone. I would go further in interpreting Kant to highlight how the 'meditation master' relates to "the incapacity of using one’s understanding without the direction of another" with regard to the student. Well my experience with meditation seems to me pretty common: I read something that piqued my interest and acted on it. Based on the results the interest mushroomed and I read some more stuff, tried some of it, incorporated some things, others didn't take. That's a process I see as ongoing, and if someone's got something to say that I find interesting and I try it I might be grateful, but it doesn't necessarily establish that kind of relationship. Maybe some people need or want a more intimate version of that interaction, and as long as it's not abused I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd opine that any meditation teacher who doesn't echo Kant and guide the student to trusting themselves isn't one to recommend, and most of the material I've read on it makes that very point. While Kant's idea of enlightenment can be interpreted as secular, it can also be related directly to some of the spiritual sources that encourage a sincere seeker to learn how to use the mind instead of being used by it. Simple sane logic isn't enough to discover what is sought, but an ordered mind is in some aspects better positioned both to apply the different techniques and to be informed by the results of them. Also, the cultural artifact of secular humanism could well be interpreted as having incorporated several aspects of a spiritual nature in the last half century, and the roots of secular humanism are firmly planted back in the Age of Reason. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 19, 2016 3:05:11 GMT -5
I didn't say these ones are great masters bringing a wonderful truth, and it's not my idea at all (I already said my interpretation of it). The way 'enlightenment' is used seem to me to be in cultural context with 'the age of reason', which yes, was somewhat counter-political to the church. The quote doesn't appear to have any especially spiritual undertone. I would go further in interpreting Kant to highlight how the 'meditation master' relates to "the incapacity of using one’s understanding without the direction of another" with regard to the student. Well my experience with meditation seems to me pretty common: I read something that piqued my interest and acted on it. Based on the results the interest mushroomed and I read some more stuff, tried some of it, incorporated some things, others didn't take. That's a process I see as ongoing, and if someone's got something to say that I find interesting and I try it I might be grateful, but it doesn't necessarily establish that kind of relationship. Maybe some people need or want a more intimate version of that interaction, and as long as it's not abused I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd opine that any meditation teacher who doesn't echo Kant and guide the student to trusting themselves isn't one to recommend, and most of the material I've read on it makes that very point. While Kant's idea of enlightenment can be interpreted as secular, it can also be related directly to some of the spiritual sources that encourage a sincere seeker to learn how to use the mind instead of being used by it. Simple sane logic isn't enough to discover what is sought, but an ordered mind is in some aspects better positioned both to apply the different techniques and to be informed by the results of them. Also, the cultural artifact of secular humanism could well be interpreted as having incorporated several aspects of a spiritual nature in the last half century, and the roots of secular humanism are firmly planted back in the Age of Reason. Sure. I think its best to see meditation as ongoing, and as a constant observation (Constant observation is already the case, so 'as it is'). Personally, I sat around for a long time and refined my mode of practice, and came to understand the fundamental stuff quite well, so that's what I talk about. If it doesn't sound sensible, then screw it . It'd be fantastic if someone actually pointing out the reason as to why it's not sensible. My second interpretation of Kant is very relevant to teaching. Totally - what you said. That's what I mean when saying the person needs to understand what they do - not obey the teacher. Same reason I try to explain things, and completely reject the authoritative position in myself and everyone else. I strongly suggest to everyone to do that. Main thing is not to be led or follow, and never become positioned so that you are not making your own informed decisions. This is what trust is. Not blind obedience to teacher, but trust in own self determination - and deeper - complete uncertainty and trusting the unknown. Brilliant interpretation of Kant there. As far as techniques go, that's a dicey area, and in function meditation isn't formalised, repetitive, mechanical or ritualistic. To me, I have a mode of observation through the body, which brings about awareness of mind/body egomania as recogised psychological reactivity, but it is a very free styled movement as well, like I don't make anything move or prevent for moving - just watch it - and the entire thing is felt out rather than prescribed. Tolle wrote some interesting things about going through the body, the pain body, and probably more, which are meaningful in reflection of this way. The formal of practice is more like a time without interruption more concentrated and intense than the continual self-awareness that characterises daily mindfulness. The art of self awareness is within all experiences all the time, so basically, the discussion on meditation is about 'life'. 'Life itself' - whatever that is. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 19, 2016 8:08:36 GMT -5
Laughter wrote: "Well my experience with meditation seems to me pretty common: I read something that piqued my interest and acted on it. Based on the results the interest mushroomed and I read some more stuff, tried some of it, incorporated some things, others didn't take."
That was my experience as well. Although I experimented with dozens of different meditation exercises that I read about or heard about, I sought the simplest common denominator underlying all of them. I had no interest in putting anything INTO the mind, or CREATING SOMETHING with mind; I was much more interested in becoming free of the mind. That's the main reason I never pursued mantras or visualization exercises, and eventually settled on direct sensory perception (ATA-MT) as a focus of attention. By the time I was 40, I had had enough thinking to last a lifetime (LOL), and simply wanted to be able to look at, and interact with, what was happening free of thoughts. Initially, counting breaths seemed helpful, because the mind was so frenetic that it seemed unable to focus on anything other than breath-counting (due to incessant thinking), but perhaps if someone had explained ATA-MT at that time, curiosity might have been sufficient to cause me to pursue that approach. Who knows? As it turned out, I soon became interested in looking and listening in mental silence, and within a few years that became a way of life. As the mind became silent, realizations occurred, and those realizations led to understanding and ultimately freedom and peace.
Along the way I met several sages whose lives and actions confirmed for me that it was possible to use the mind like a servant rather than allowing it to be a master. They were like light bulbs illuminating the path and pointing to what is possible, but I always trusted my own intuition above all else. That's why I always enjoy telling seekers to trust themselves 100%. They are their own best authority.
Meister Eckhart once said, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I would hold to the truth and let God go." Fortunately, that choice is never necessary because the living truth and the Infinite are one and the same. May all seekers discover THAT.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 19, 2016 12:59:20 GMT -5
Laughter wrote: "Well my experience with meditation seems to me pretty common: I read something that piqued my interest and acted on it. Based on the results the interest mushroomed and I read some more stuff, tried some of it, incorporated some things, others didn't take." That was my experience as well. Although I experimented with dozens of different meditation exercises that I read about or heard about, I sought the simplest common denominator underlying all of them. I had no interest in putting anything INTO the mind, or CREATING SOMETHING with mind; I was much more interested in becoming free of the mind. That's the main reason I never pursued mantras or visualization exercises, and eventually settled on direct sensory perception (ATA-MT) as a focus of attention. By the time I was 40, I had had enough thinking to last a lifetime (LOL), and simply wanted to be able to look at, and interact with, what was happening free of thoughts. Initially, counting breaths seemed helpful, because the mind was so frenetic that it seemed unable to focus on anything other than breath-counting (due to incessant thinking), but perhaps if someone had explained ATA-MT at that time, curiosity might have been sufficient to cause me to pursue that approach. Who knows? As it turned out, I soon became interested in looking and listening in mental silence, and within a few years that became a way of life. As the mind became silent, realizations occurred, and those realizations led to understanding and ultimately freedom and peace. Along the way I met several sages whose lives and actions confirmed for me that it was possible to use the mind like a servant rather than allowing it to be a master. They were like light bulbs illuminating the path and pointing to what is possible, but I always trusted my own intuition above all else. That's why I always enjoy telling seekers to trust themselves 100%. They are their own best authority.Meister Eckhart once said, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I would hold to the truth and let God go." Fortunately, that choice is never necessary because the living truth and the Infinite are one and the same. May all seekers discover THAT. If you'll indulge me with just one analytical thought about ATA and the way you offer it in accordance with non-abidance in mind: this advice seems to me to be part of the structure of the prescription itself, and almost always comes through loud and clear - at least implicitly, if not often explicitly and literally - when you offer it. The objection that a meditation teacher might mislead a student with respect to the expected results of the meditation strikes me as valid, as does the general point that a student/teacher relationship has a dynamic to it that can leave some people who assume the student role in a vulnerable position. In terms of Kant's point about a human adult mind, someone past that point is inherently less vulnerable and has nothing to lose or fear by considering varied perspectives about those expected results. It seems obvious to me that the first thing any good meditation teacher will discern about a given student is whether they're still in that state of minority or not. The best of them will have an acute sense of the responsibility that comes with that vulnerability of a student still in that state. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 17:36:23 GMT -5
Laughter wrote: "Well my experience with meditation seems to me pretty common: I read something that piqued my interest and acted on it. Based on the results the interest mushroomed and I read some more stuff, tried some of it, incorporated some things, others didn't take." That was my experience as well. Although I experimented with dozens of different meditation exercises that I read about or heard about, I sought the simplest common denominator underlying all of them. I had no interest in putting anything INTO the mind, or CREATING SOMETHING with mind; I was much more interested in becoming free of the mind. That's the main reason I never pursued mantras or visualization exercises, and eventually settled on direct sensory perception (ATA-MT) as a focus of attention. By the time I was 40, I had had enough thinking to last a lifetime (LOL), and simply wanted to be able to look at, and interact with, what was happening free of thoughts. Initially, counting breaths seemed helpful, because the mind was so frenetic that it seemed unable to focus on anything other than breath-counting (due to incessant thinking), but perhaps if someone had explained ATA-MT at that time, curiosity might have been sufficient to cause me to pursue that approach. Who knows? As it turned out, I soon became interested in looking and listening in mental silence, and within a few years that became a way of life. As the mind became silent, realizations occurred, and those realizations led to understanding and ultimately freedom and peace. Along the way I met several sages whose lives and actions confirmed for me that it was possible to use the mind like a servant rather than allowing it to be a master. They were like light bulbs illuminating the path and pointing to what is possible, but I always trusted my own intuition above all else. That's why I always enjoy telling seekers to trust themselves 100%. They are their own best authority.Meister Eckhart once said, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I would hold to the truth and let God go." Fortunately, that choice is never necessary because the living truth and the Infinite are one and the same. May all seekers discover THAT. If you'll indulge me with just one analytical thought about ATA and the way you offer it in accordance with non-abidance in mind: this advice seems to me to be part of the structure of the prescription itself, and almost always comes through loud and clear - at least implicitly, if not often explicitly and literally - when you offer it. The objection that a meditation teacher might mislead a student with respect to the expected results of the meditation strikes me as valid, as does the general point that a student/teacher relationship has a dynamic to it that can leave some people who assume the student role in a vulnerable position. In terms of Kant's point about a human adult mind, someone past that point is inherently less vulnerable and has nothing to lose or fear by considering varied perspectives about those expected results. It seems obvious to me that the first thing any good meditation teacher will discern about a given student is whether they're still in that state of minority or not. The best of them will have an acute sense of the responsibility that comes with that vulnerability of a student still in that state. Good inclusion of the most recent understandings.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2016 2:26:33 GMT -5
Well my experience with meditation seems to me pretty common: I read something that piqued my interest and acted on it. Based on the results the interest mushroomed and I read some more stuff, tried some of it, incorporated some things, others didn't take. That's a process I see as ongoing, and if someone's got something to say that I find interesting and I try it I might be grateful, but it doesn't necessarily establish that kind of relationship. Maybe some people need or want a more intimate version of that interaction, and as long as it's not abused I don't see anything wrong with that. I'd opine that any meditation teacher who doesn't echo Kant and guide the student to trusting themselves isn't one to recommend, and most of the material I've read on it makes that very point. While Kant's idea of enlightenment can be interpreted as secular, it can also be related directly to some of the spiritual sources that encourage a sincere seeker to learn how to use the mind instead of being used by it. Simple sane logic isn't enough to discover what is sought, but an ordered mind is in some aspects better positioned both to apply the different techniques and to be informed by the results of them. Also, the cultural artifact of secular humanism could well be interpreted as having incorporated several aspects of a spiritual nature in the last half century, and the roots of secular humanism are firmly planted back in the Age of Reason. Sure. I think its best to see meditation as ongoing, and as a constant observation (Constant observation is already the case, so 'as it is'). Personally, I sat around for a long time and refined my mode of practice, and came to understand the fundamental stuff quite well, so that's what I talk about. If it doesn't sound sensible, then screw it . It'd be fantastic if someone actually pointing out the reason as to why it's not sensible. My second interpretation of Kant is very relevant to teaching. Totally - what you said. That's what I mean when saying the person needs to understand what they do - not obey the teacher. Same reason I try to explain things, and completely reject the authoritative position in myself and everyone else. I strongly suggest to everyone to do that. Main thing is not to be led or follow, and never become positioned so that you are not making your own informed decisions. This is what trust is. Not blind obedience to teacher, but trust in own self determination - and deeper - complete uncertainty and trusting the unknown. Brilliant interpretation of Kant there. As far as techniques go, that's a dicey area, and in function meditation isn't formalised, repetitive, mechanical or ritualistic. To me, I have a mode of observation through the body, which brings about awareness of mind/body egomania as recogised psychological reactivity, but it is a very free styled movement as well, like I don't make anything move or prevent for moving - just watch it - and the entire thing is felt out rather than prescribed. Tolle wrote some interesting things about going through the body, the pain body, and probably more, which are meaningful in reflection of this way. The formal of practice is more like a time without interruption more concentrated and intense than the continual self-awareness that characterises daily mindfulness. The art of self awareness is within all experiences all the time, so basically, the discussion on meditation is about 'life'. 'Life itself' - whatever that is. That trust in the unknown is a great way to describe the questioning of our own inner authority, and it's what I've tried to express with the poetry about free fall, wandering, open sky, expansive space, etc.. A common theme of the people I've corresponded with here is a rebellious streak a mile wide. If one's process is to involve looking within with that ruthlessly honest gaze, it of course first has to go through the path of cutting off and foreclosing any source of outside affirmation or support. The potential benefit of that support is the flip side to obedience. Inner observation while n motion out in the world with the eyes open affords superb opportunity to suddenly collapse the scaffold of bushwa that maintains the link to our cultural self. Tolle's methods are as incisive as they are simple, and by necessity, he concentrated his writing on the negative aspects of that cultural complex. No doubt that the sitting practice can reinforce the 16/7 walking talking version, but of course, there's really no wrong way to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 20, 2016 9:24:30 GMT -5
Sure. I think its best to see meditation as ongoing, and as a constant observation (Constant observation is already the case, so 'as it is'). Personally, I sat around for a long time and refined my mode of practice, and came to understand the fundamental stuff quite well, so that's what I talk about. If it doesn't sound sensible, then screw it . It'd be fantastic if someone actually pointing out the reason as to why it's not sensible. My second interpretation of Kant is very relevant to teaching. Totally - what you said. That's what I mean when saying the person needs to understand what they do - not obey the teacher. Same reason I try to explain things, and completely reject the authoritative position in myself and everyone else. I strongly suggest to everyone to do that. Main thing is not to be led or follow, and never become positioned so that you are not making your own informed decisions. This is what trust is. Not blind obedience to teacher, but trust in own self determination - and deeper - complete uncertainty and trusting the unknown. Brilliant interpretation of Kant there. As far as techniques go, that's a dicey area, and in function meditation isn't formalised, repetitive, mechanical or ritualistic. To me, I have a mode of observation through the body, which brings about awareness of mind/body egomania as recogised psychological reactivity, but it is a very free styled movement as well, like I don't make anything move or prevent for moving - just watch it - and the entire thing is felt out rather than prescribed. Tolle wrote some interesting things about going through the body, the pain body, and probably more, which are meaningful in reflection of this way. The formal of practice is more like a time without interruption more concentrated and intense than the continual self-awareness that characterises daily mindfulness. The art of self awareness is within all experiences all the time, so basically, the discussion on meditation is about 'life'. 'Life itself' - whatever that is. That trust in the unknown is a great way to describe the questioning of our own inner authority, and it's what I've tried to express with the poetry about free fall, wandering, open sky, expansive space, etc.. A common theme of the people I've corresponded with here is a rebellious streak a mile wide. If one's process is to involve looking within with that ruthlessly honest gaze, it of course first has to go through the path of cutting off and foreclosing any source of outside affirmation or support. The potential benefit of that support is the flip side to obedience. Inner observation while n motion out in the world with the eyes open affords superb opportunity to suddenly collapse the scaffold of bushwa that maintains the link to our cultural self. Tolle's methods are as incisive as they are simple, and by necessity, he concentrated his writing on the negative aspects of that cultural complex. No doubt that the sitting practice can reinforce the 16/7 walking talking version, but of course, there's really no wrong way to do this. :) Cool poetry. The rebellion is awesome. Totally. No ones going to give anyone anything one has be completely alone in their enquiry. The authority figure merely becomes internalised as ones 'daddy voice'. It absolutely to be completely disregarded. Guidance is merely a crutch and all one can do is acknowledge their reliance. The support element isn't leading in any way and the very notion. anyone knows the way is utterly misconceived. Like, the way is it, and to me, it's that ruthlessly honest gaze, which is actually not ruthless as we'd usually uderstand that word, but complete unabashed acknowledgment with no inkling it be otherwise. I have this deep frustration that I'm so similar to Tolle, and I'm sooo not a fan! It's annoying that a guy like that speaks my truths. Why can't he be cool? Hahahaha. The issue is suffering so the spiritual discourse is largely abject, and Tolle's painbody narrative frames so meaningfully in reference to my body work. Sitting is actually quite a precise thing and I don't really agree that there isn't a wrong approach because I've see people run into complications. There are also prescribed practices where one element contradicts another, and others that are really only a practicing of desire, others are like escapes. My view is, the 'just do it' approach is better, or the Ramana inquiry is good, and other than that, there's more nonsense being peddled than not. People might not like this, and it 'should be' 'oh whatever makes you feel best' but then we end up back at the beginning, which is the end - the continual gaze of honest truth - which is really the most arduous thing. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 20, 2016 10:08:51 GMT -5
I have the utmost gratitude for people who point the way and offer guidance. I had read about sages for nearly ten years, but never understood how they accessed the world they wrote about. It was clear from reading their words that they understood everything I wanted to know, but none of the books and stories about them explained how they acquired their understanding, wisdom, equanimity, etc.
Fortunately, after ten years, I finally came across a small book that described some basic meditation exercises along with the claim that doing such exercises could calm a chattering mind and lead to peace. I started with breath counting, and then spent time doing other breath awareness exercises (like the one Lolly has described). Like Laughter, those initial exercises triggered some insights, and made me realize that I had been living almost totally in my head for almost twenty years.
Those exercises showed me that I had been so focused on thoughts that I had failed to consciously look at the world around me, and that led to the practice of trying to look at the physical world without commenting on it, naming it, judging it, imagining things about it, etc. I quickly realized that the informal practice of looking at the external world non-conceptually had the same effect as watching the breath or doing other meditative exercises that focused attention upon whatever is happening in the present moment.
Later, I met living sages who were clearly not living in the same kind of consensus trance (caused by cultural conditioning and the internal dialogue) as most of the people around me. Their words were alive, and they always seemed to be present. They were grounded in some way that allowed them to remain true to themselves regardless of what other people said, thought, or did. They exhibited an internal stability that gave them peace of mind in all external circumstances.
Looking back, I'm grateful to all of the people who wrote books that provided signposts pointing beyond conceptual thought. Each person must walk the pathless path alone, but IMO it's wonderful that so many people who have walked that path have explained where the path is located and how to set foot upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2016 18:52:23 GMT -5
I have the utmost gratitude for people who point the way and offer guidance. I had read about sages for nearly ten years, but never understood how they accessed the world they wrote about. It was clear from reading their words that they understood everything I wanted to know, but none of the books and stories about them explained how they acquired their understanding, wisdom, equanimity, etc. Fortunately, after ten years, I finally came across a small book that described some basic meditation exercises along with the claim that doing such exercises could calm a chattering mind and lead to peace. I started with breath counting, and then spent time doing other breath awareness exercises (like the one Lolly has described). Like Laughter, those initial exercises triggered some insights, and made me realize that I had been living almost totally in my head for almost twenty years. Those exercises showed me that I had been so focused on thoughts that I had failed to consciously look at the world around me, and that led to the practice of trying to look at the physical world without commenting on it, naming it, judging it, imagining things about it, etc. I quickly realized that the informal practice of looking at the external world non-conceptually had the same effect as watching the breath or doing other meditative exercises that focused attention upon whatever is happening in the present moment. Later, I met living sages who were clearly not living in the same kind of consensus trance (caused by cultural conditioning and the internal dialogue) as most of the people around me. Their words were alive, and they always seemed to be present. They were grounded in some way that allowed them to remain true to themselves regardless of what other people said, thought, or did. They exhibited an internal stability that gave them peace of mind in all external circumstances. Looking back, I'm grateful to all of the people who wrote books that provided signposts pointing beyond conceptual thought. Each person must walk the pathless path alone, but IMO it's wonderful that so many people who have walked that path have explained where the path is located and how to set foot upon it. Thanks for that Bob. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 19:53:25 GMT -5
I have the utmost gratitude for people who point the way and offer guidance. I had read about sages for nearly ten years, but never understood how they accessed the world they wrote about. It was clear from reading their words that they understood everything I wanted to know, but none of the books and stories about them explained how they acquired their understanding, wisdom, equanimity, etc. Fortunately, after ten years, I finally came across a small book that described some basic meditation exercises along with the claim that doing such exercises could calm a chattering mind and lead to peace. I started with breath counting, and then spent time doing other breath awareness exercises (like the one Lolly has described). Like Laughter, those initial exercises triggered some insights, and made me realize that I had been living almost totally in my head for almost twenty years. Those exercises showed me that I had been so focused on thoughts that I had failed to consciously look at the world around me, and that led to the practice of trying to look at the physical world without commenting on it, naming it, judging it, imagining things about it, etc. I quickly realized that the informal practice of looking at the external world non-conceptually had the same effect as watching the breath or doing other meditative exercises that focused attention upon whatever is happening in the present moment. Later, I met living sages who were clearly not living in the same kind of consensus trance (caused by cultural conditioning and the internal dialogue) as most of the people around me. Their words were alive, and they always seemed to be present. They were grounded in some way that allowed them to remain true to themselves regardless of what other people said, thought, or did. They exhibited an internal stability that gave them peace of mind in all external circumstances. Looking back, I'm grateful to all of the people who wrote books that provided signposts pointing beyond conceptual thought. Each person must walk the pathless path alone, but IMO it's wonderful that so many people who have walked that path have explained where the path is located and how to set foot upon it. What you are describing is an experience of metamorphosis. An awakening from conceptual objective self-identity to eternity, an evolution of your mind. Obviously you are aware of that evolution as you have described it so poignantly. The question is what are you going to evolve to? Death? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 21, 2016 8:45:31 GMT -5
I have the utmost gratitude for people who point the way and offer guidance. I had read about sages for nearly ten years, but never understood how they accessed the world they wrote about. It was clear from reading their words that they understood everything I wanted to know, but none of the books and stories about them explained how they acquired their understanding, wisdom, equanimity, etc. Fortunately, after ten years, I finally came across a small book that described some basic meditation exercises along with the claim that doing such exercises could calm a chattering mind and lead to peace. I started with breath counting, and then spent time doing other breath awareness exercises (like the one Lolly has described). Like Laughter, those initial exercises triggered some insights, and made me realize that I had been living almost totally in my head for almost twenty years. Those exercises showed me that I had been so focused on thoughts that I had failed to consciously look at the world around me, and that led to the practice of trying to look at the physical world without commenting on it, naming it, judging it, imagining things about it, etc. I quickly realized that the informal practice of looking at the external world non-conceptually had the same effect as watching the breath or doing other meditative exercises that focused attention upon whatever is happening in the present moment. Later, I met living sages who were clearly not living in the same kind of consensus trance (caused by cultural conditioning and the internal dialogue) as most of the people around me. Their words were alive, and they always seemed to be present. They were grounded in some way that allowed them to remain true to themselves regardless of what other people said, thought, or did. They exhibited an internal stability that gave them peace of mind in all external circumstances. Looking back, I'm grateful to all of the people who wrote books that provided signposts pointing beyond conceptual thought. Each person must walk the pathless path alone, but IMO it's wonderful that so many people who have walked that path have explained where the path is located and how to set foot upon it. What you are describing is an experience of metamorphosis. An awakening from conceptual objective self-identity to eternity, an evolution of your mind. Obviously you are aware of that evolution as you have described it so poignantly. The question is what are you going to evolve to? Death? Good question. The only evolution is from an imaginative identification with what changes to the realization of that which is infinite. If there were entities that had independent existence separate from that which is infinite, then actual evolution and change would be possible, but independent existence is only imaginary. Discovering the Infinite, and one's unity with the Infinite, leads to freedom from the idea that what one IS can evolve or die. Bodies are born and die, but that which is aware of bodies, and looks out of the eyes of all bodies, is both birthless and deathless. Discovering the Infinite is like suddenly seeing the ocean that gives rise to waves, and realizing that waves and the ocean are One. Waves come and go, but the ocean of their being does not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 13:22:44 GMT -5
What you are describing is an experience of metamorphosis. An awakening from conceptual objective self-identity to eternity, an evolution of your mind. Obviously you are aware of that evolution as you have described it so poignantly. The question is what are you going to evolve to? Death? Good question. The only evolution is from an imaginative identification with what changes to the realization of that which is infinite. If there were entities that had independent existence separate from that which is infinite, then actual evolution and change would be possible, but independent existence is only imaginary. Discovering the Infinite, and one's unity with the Infinite, leads to freedom from the idea that what one IS can evolve or die. Bodies are born and die, but that which is aware of bodies, and looks out of the eyes of all bodies, is both birthless and deathless. Discovering the Infinite is like suddenly seeing the ocean that gives rise to waves, and realizing that waves and the ocean are One. Waves come and go, but the ocean of their being does not. So Death is never true. Obliviation is never true. It never was and it never will be. And however acceptance about that in our own mind occurs, it will be our salvation. The acceptance is a confrontation that takes place within the very same mind that has established ones conceptual objective self-identity. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 21, 2016 14:16:54 GMT -5
Good question. The only evolution is from an imaginative identification with what changes to the realization of that which is infinite. If there were entities that had independent existence separate from that which is infinite, then actual evolution and change would be possible, but independent existence is only imaginary. Discovering the Infinite, and one's unity with the Infinite, leads to freedom from the idea that what one IS can evolve or die. Bodies are born and die, but that which is aware of bodies, and looks out of the eyes of all bodies, is both birthless and deathless. Discovering the Infinite is like suddenly seeing the ocean that gives rise to waves, and realizing that waves and the ocean are One. Waves come and go, but the ocean of their being does not. So Death is never true. Obliviation is never true. It never was and it never will be. And however acceptance about that in our own mind occurs, it will be our salvation. The acceptance is a confrontation that takes place within the very same mind that has established ones conceptual objective self-identity. Actually, it doesn't take place within mind. The realization is non-conceptual and direct. The mind is then informed by the non-conceptual seeing and conceptual understanding then occurs. The Infinite will always remain incomprehensible to mind, but mind can understand and accept the nature of its limitations. I think it was Socrates who said, "I don't understand, but I understand this not-understanding." The mind, because of how it functions dualistically, can never apprehend the Infinite. This is why people who have CC experiences say, "I wasn't there when it happened." When the Infinite apprehends Itself, there is no separation, limitation, or identity. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 22, 2016 7:35:36 GMT -5
The meditation functionally brings the spirit of pure awareness through the mind and body by way of dissolution of obstacles to the same, and the 'success' may be understood by the arising of love, as felt by the body through the heart, and perhaps the touch of light upon the top of ones head, to spread throughout, and thereafter emanate and extend to all living things.
|
|
