|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 2:16:27 GMT -5
Here are my suggestions for sincere seekers on the topic of meditation the first, primary and last being :  As a comic digression, it is amusing that " Kumare" used this in his fake "invocation sutra", but clichés are clichés for a reason, and corporate and military America know the good stuff when they see it. :D Open your mind as to what meditation might be for you. It's a rather large tent. There's eyes closed sitting still, or eyes open while active. There's suggestions of various approaches: mantra, breath awareness, watching thoughts, body awareness or just remaining alert and yet open and empty, standing/sitting/resting/moving in/as awareness. It can be fun and interesting to trace the roots of the various prescriptions to the cultures that originally sourced them, such as Japanese or Korean or Tibetan Zen or Indian tantra and in the case of some of the modern prescriptions, the influence of various American and European 19th and 20th century personalities and other developments. But meditation is in the doing, not the learning. One facet common to all of the descriptions is the tendency of the mind to wander, for attention to waiver, while the meditation is ongoing. Also common is the advice that in the noticing of this wandering is exactly when you've returned home, and that there is nothing wrong with you, the moment the method or the meditation in the wandering, and it is this returning home, to yourself in the stillness, as it opens, that the mediation is really all about. I've only my own experience with meditation to base this on, but I've been intensely interested in what others have written about it over the years here and elsewhere. From that I'd say that everyone's meditation is ultimately unique, so experimenting with the various cultures, methods and prescriptions might be hit or miss for you along the way. The questions of effort, results, goals and routine can each get quite a bit more interesting in the consideration even than learning about the culture that sourced your meditation prescriptions and methods. These questions ultimately have no mind answers, and it is in the meditation that you'll discover the resolution to them. These questions can be excellent points of focus for some forms of meditation. Whether or not you've found, and whether or not you're open to the nonconceptual resolutions of those questions, is a question of self-honesty. While you can meditate or pray or chant in a group, and while this can have a profound effect on your practice, ultimately, the question of self-honesty is one that you're on your own with. I don't think it's cultural and so on, because meditation has to do with the universals. Self honesty is probably the quintessence of it, I'd say. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 2:27:32 GMT -5
But there is an intention to observe. A volition to observe. This cannot be disputed. Aren't you already observing? That's what I call doing nothing. It's passive observing. But observing where you choose to put the attention on something such as breath, mantra, I am sensation, bodily sensations etc is active observation and involves volition. Read the quote I gave from Nisargadatta. He wasn't just passively observing otherwise everyone on the planet is meditating right now. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 4:10:02 GMT -5
Aren't you already observing? That's what I call doing nothing. It's passive observing. But observing where you choose to put the attention on something such as breath, mantra, I am sensation, bodily sensations etc is active observation and involves volition. Read the quote I gave from Nisargadatta. He wasn't just passively observing otherwise everyone on the planet is meditating right now. The distinction I make is when you just observe breath you simply watch something that is there, but it you do special breathing, you employ the volition to make it do as you will. That's the basic difference between 'as it is' and 'as you want it to be'. I haven't read the quote (I don't know where it is but I will have a look) but I assume Nis would be referring to 'as it is'. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 4:13:10 GMT -5
Aren't you already observing? That's what I call doing nothing. It's passive observing. But observing where you choose to put the attention on something such as breath, mantra, I am sensation, bodily sensations etc is active observation and involves volition. Read the quote I gave from Nisargadatta. He wasn't just passively observing otherwise everyone on the planet is meditating right now. Yep, Nis didn't try and make it 'as I want it to be'. He was only interested in 'what is'. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 4:17:57 GMT -5
Aren't you already observing? That's what I call doing nothing. It's passive observing. But observing where you choose to put the attention on something such as breath, mantra, I am sensation, bodily sensations etc is active observation and involves volition. Read the quote I gave from Nisargadatta. He wasn't just passively observing otherwise everyone on the planet is meditating right now. You see how mantra differs from the other 3 examples you give - because you have to make a mantra be there, but sensation, breath and I-am - you don't have to make it happen. You can just notice it is there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 5:01:13 GMT -5
That's what I call doing nothing. It's passive observing. But observing where you choose to put the attention on something such as breath, mantra, I am sensation, bodily sensations etc is active observation and involves volition. Read the quote I gave from Nisargadatta. He wasn't just passively observing otherwise everyone on the planet is meditating right now. The distinction I make is when you just observe breath you simply watch something that is there, but it you do special breathing, you employ the volition to make it do as you will. That's the basic difference between 'as it is' and 'as you want it to be'. I haven't read the quote (I don't know where it is but I will have a look) but I assume Nis would be referring to 'as it is'. You have the intention to watch breath rather than go shopping. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 5:11:01 GMT -5
That's what I call doing nothing. It's passive observing. But observing where you choose to put the attention on something such as breath, mantra, I am sensation, bodily sensations etc is active observation and involves volition. Read the quote I gave from Nisargadatta. He wasn't just passively observing otherwise everyone on the planet is meditating right now. You see how mantra differs from the other 3 examples you give - because you have to make a mantra be there, but sensation, breath and I-am - you don't have to make it happen. You can just notice it is there. You don't understand mantra. You are getting hung up on the fact that because breath is already there as are sensations in the body and that mantra is introduced where it was not there before that it is somehow artificial, a contrivance. You are missing the point. What mantra, breath and bodily sensations have in common is that they are all objects. The purpose of using an object is to transcend it and experience only awareness. As long as you hold on to the object there is a duality. But through practice one learns to let go of the object. This is true meditation. Nisargadatta was also choosing to put attention on the I am sensation until the I dissolves into unbounded awareness. You cannot say it is already there because unless you are conscious of it by drawing attention to it, it is not there. You have proclaimed you are a deep thinker so I too will proclaim something. I am a meditation master. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 5:57:56 GMT -5
You see how mantra differs from the other 3 examples you give - because you have to make a mantra be there, but sensation, breath and I-am - you don't have to make it happen. You can just notice it is there. You don't understand mantra. You are getting hung up on the fact that because breath is already there as are sensations in the body and that mantra is introduced where it was not there before that it is somehow artificial, a contrivance. You are missing the point. What mantra, breath and bodily sensations have in common is that they are all objects. The purpose of using an object is to transcend it and experience only awareness. As long as you hold on to the object there is a duality. But through practice one learns to let go of the object. This is true meditation. Nisargadatta was also choosing to put attention on the I am sensation until the I dissolves into unbounded awareness. You cannot say it is already there because unless you are conscious of it by drawing attention to it, it is not there. You have proclaimed you are a deep thinker so I too will proclaim something. I am a meditation master. I'm just saying the mantra is different to sensation because you don't have to make sensation happen and you can't make it stop. Another way of saying it is if you look for a mantra it isn't there, but if you look for sensation, it is. As soon as you let go the mantra disappears. The sensation continues, but it never stays the same or repeats itself. Nis wasn't imagining anything. He looked to find out what is. You began your post with the accusation, 'you are hung up', and I have asked you to refrain from subjugating me a few times now. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 7, 2016 6:01:43 GMT -5
The distinction I make is when you just observe breath you simply watch something that is there, but it you do special breathing, you employ the volition to make it do as you will. That's the basic difference between 'as it is' and 'as you want it to be'. I haven't read the quote (I don't know where it is but I will have a look) but I assume Nis would be referring to 'as it is'. You have the intention to watch breath rather than go shopping. Well, I don't personally have that intention. I just use breath as an example to illustrate. The breath is known by sensation though, so sensation is better. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 7, 2016 6:45:49 GMT -5
Focusing upon a mantra, or focusing upon the sense of "I am," or focusing upon whatever can be seen, heard, etc. ultimately results in the same effect--freedom from the mind and the discovery of what is eternal. Some people discover the truth "right out of the blue," without doing any kind of practice, and some people discover the truth as a result of meditating.
I suspect that more people discover the truth via some form of meditation than those who get struck like a bolt of lightning out of the blue. I also suspect that the only people who remain free and remain psychologically unified with the truth are those who "become established in the truth" via sustained internal silence and alert attentiveness to "what is."
Niz found the truth by focusing on the sense of "I am;" Ramana found the truth by asking "who am I?," various Tibetan sages found the truth by using a mantra; and some people have found the truth by pursuing ATA-T, zazen, yoga, etc. There are an infinite number of ways to find the Infinite.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 7, 2016 10:52:22 GMT -5
I don't think it's cultural and so on, because meditation has to do with the universals. Self honesty is probably the quintessence of it, I'd say.
That's the crux of one of those existential questions that's got no answer of mind. No doubt that in the meditation the experience is of the universal, and what is common to everyone, and yet every experience is expressed in terms of the unique human condition that experiences it. The meditator might contemplate that question in terms of their own identity .. are they the universal, the specific, one in terms of the other, some sort of combination of the two? No answer that can be elaborated will ever satisfy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 11:47:52 GMT -5
You don't understand mantra. You are getting hung up on the fact that because breath is already there as are sensations in the body and that mantra is introduced where it was not there before that it is somehow artificial, a contrivance. You are missing the point. What mantra, breath and bodily sensations have in common is that they are all objects. The purpose of using an object is to transcend it and experience only awareness. As long as you hold on to the object there is a duality. But through practice one learns to let go of the object. This is true meditation. Nisargadatta was also choosing to put attention on the I am sensation until the I dissolves into unbounded awareness. You cannot say it is already there because unless you are conscious of it by drawing attention to it, it is not there. You have proclaimed you are a deep thinker so I too will proclaim something. I am a meditation master. I'm just saying the mantra is different to sensation because you don't have to make sensation happen and you can't make it stop. Another way of saying it is if you look for a mantra it isn't there, but if you look for sensation, it is. As soon as you let go the mantra disappears. The sensation continues, but it never stays the same or repeats itself. Nis wasn't imagining anything. He looked to find out what is. You began your post with the accusation, 'you are hung up', and I have asked you to refrain from subjugating me a few times now. Will you stop acting like a child and stop being hung up by any little phrase that "subjugates" you. For heaven's sake man grow up. I said you are hung up on an idea as in preoccupied with something not relevant. It's like walking on eggshells with you. How's that for subjugation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 12:30:57 GMT -5
I don't think it's cultural and so on, because meditation has to do with the universals. Self honesty is probably the quintessence of it, I'd say.
That's the crux of one of those existential questions that's got no answer of mind. No doubt that in the meditation the experience is of the universal, and what is common to everyone, and yet every experience is expressed in terms of the unique human condition that experiences it. The meditator might contemplate that question in terms of their own identity .. are they the universal, the specific, one in terms of the other, some sort of combination of the two? No answer that can be elaborated will ever satisfy. I've found it helpful to recognise The Universal as an archetype with no intrinsic solidity to it other than the humility and inclusivity felt in it's arising. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 7, 2016 13:25:08 GMT -5
But there is an intention to observe. A volition to observe. This cannot be disputed. Aren't you already observing? Thinking isn't observing, feeling isn't observing, bodily doing isn't observing. You never just observe, you aren't observing unless you are observing. (IOW, as sca said, it's intentional, it's voluntary, and unless it's intentional and voluntary, it's merely one thought watching another thought, which isn't meditation). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 7, 2016 13:40:14 GMT -5
You see how mantra differs from the other 3 examples you give - because you have to make a mantra be there, but sensation, breath and I-am - you don't have to make it happen. You can just notice it is there. You don't understand mantra. You are getting hung up on the fact that because breath is already there as are sensations in the body and that mantra is introduced where it was not there before that it is somehow artificial, a contrivance. You are missing the point. What mantra, breath and bodily sensations have in common is that they are all objects. The purpose of using an object is to transcend it and experience only awareness. As long as you hold on to the object there is a duality. But through practice one learns to let go of the object. This is true meditation. Nisargadatta was also choosing to put attention on the I am sensation until the I dissolves into unbounded awareness. You cannot say it is already there because unless you are conscious of it by drawing attention to it, it is not there. You have proclaimed you are a deep thinker so I too will proclaim something. I am a meditation master. Yes. The point is not the mantra, not the breath, not the bodily sensations, the point is the attention. Throughout the day, your ~degree~ of attention can go anywhere from 1% (a lazy Sunday afternoon slumber where you might be subtly aware the TV is on, you are barely this side of unconscious sleep) to 99% ~I just heard on the radio the NYC Trade Center Twin Towers were hit by jets~. But even in both of these examples, the "object" captured your attention (IOW, the object of attention is still primary). In meditation, attention is primary (at least in the beginning, basically, as sca said, some-thing is invisible to you, without your attention present-to-it, this is easily discoverable). And IOOW, you have to come to understand this distinction, for yourself. |
|
