|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 18, 2023 14:22:03 GMT -5
After watching a video of Rupert Spira recently, it dawned on me that most ND sages interpret the word "meditation" in an extremely limited sense, and rather than look at what the activity is that the word is pointing to, they buy into the conventional definition of the word. In order to understand the issue I'm raising in this thread, consider what little children do 95% of the time; they look, listen, feel, taste, and smell what is actual. Most adults, including most ND sages, would NOT say that little children are meditating 95% of the time, but that is exactly what they're doing if by "meditation" we mean "attending the actual."
The only difference between little children and adults who attend the actual is that little children unconsciously attend the actual and adults must consciously shift attention away from thoughts in order to attend the actual. When a Zen student is sitting on a cushion attending the breathing process, s/he is doing exactly the same thing as little children who attend whatever is happening around them, but because the Zen student has become habituated to conceptual thinking, s/he must make a conscious effort to shift attention away from that kind of thinking to direct sensory perception of the actual.
If we look at the word "meditation" in this way, we discover that people who sit in a lotus position focusing attention upon the breathing process comprise a tiny subset of people who attend the actual. IOW, the conventional idea of meditation is that of a formal practice, and the image that arises in the mind is of someone sitting on a cushion with eyes closed, hands held in the lap, and attention focused on something actual. This definition omits all of the little children who are spending 95% of their time attending the actual, and it omits all of the adults who periodically throughout the day are unconsciously shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perceptions.
Understanding the word "meditation" to be a synonym for "attending the actual" helps explain why so many ND sages say that it's impossible to practice one's way to being what one already is. If one is only referring to the formal meditative methodologies that are considered "practices," this would be true. However, if one is referring to the informal activity of looking, listening, feeling, etc, then that argument is seen to be a straw man. When adults shift attention away from thoughts to what is actual, they are, in effect, momentarily "getting out of their heads" and interacting with the world directly in the same way as little children.
Many ND sages have told seekers that after awakening, their whole life is meditative, and what they are pointing to with this kind of statement is exactly what I'm pointing to in this thread. Walking down the street or driving a car while looking and listening is exactly what little children are unconsciously doing all day long. IOW, the conventional definition of meditation and conventional image of meditation is misleading because it ignores the vast majority of children and adults who are doing the same thing that a Buddhist or Hindu meditator is doing when formally engaged in some sort of meditative activity.
The reason that adults are more likely to have existential realizations as a result of attending the actual is that attending the actual is a process that psychologically unifies one with reality rather than keeping one conceptually separated from reality. Anyone who goes on a silent solo retreat and focuses attention upon the actual will discover that each day of silent attentiveness increases the sense of communion and unity with what is commonly imagined as "the external world." By staying focused on what is actual, it becomes more and more likely that one will suddenly realize that all apparent separation is a cognitive illusion sustained only by conceptual thinking.
All there is is a seamless flow of life that is unified and infinite, and attending the actual is the only activity that has been highly correlated with awakening from the consensus paradigm. As Nisargadatta told a seeker, "To find the Absolute one must go beyond the mind." Simple seeing (or hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, etc) is beyond the mind, so any time an adult stops thinking and shifts attention to the direct sensory perception of what is actual that adult is one step closer to penetrating the illusion of separateness.
Many sages who meditate for 20 or 30 years and then wake up often tell people that the meditation they did was not necessary, but when they say that, they are typically referring to a very limited concept of what the word "meditation" is pointing to. If they could let go of the conventional concept that meditation must be a formal practice, they might be able to see that what little children are doing 95% of the time is the same thing that they were doing intermittently when they kept shifting attention again and again to what is actual until the illusion of separation collapsed.
Formal meditative practices have their place, of course, and sitting meditation is far more likely to lead to nirvikalpa samadhi (which seems to function as a mental lubricant), but informal meditative practices are probably more valuable in the long run because they can be pursued throughout ordinary everyday life and thereby increase the amount of time that one stays focused upon whatever is happening in the present moment.
In short, my advice to ND sages would be to stop using the word "meditation" and start using the phrase "attending the actual" because that definition is far more meaningful in the context of waking up from cognitive illusions and discovering that all there is is THIS, undivided, infinite, incomprehensibly intelligent, aware, and in love with Itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Mar 19, 2023 7:01:12 GMT -5
All there is is a seamless flow of life that is unified and infinite, and attending the actual is the only activity that has been highly correlated with awakening from the consensus paradigm. As Nisargadatta told a seeker, "To find the Absolute one must go beyond the mind." Simple seeing (or hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, etc) is beyond the mind, so any time an adult stops thinking and shifts attention to the direct sensory perception of what is actual that adult is one step closer to penetrating the illusion of separateness. Yes, non-duality is simply what remains when abstraction falls away. Then the world - just as it is (no need for any fancy second mountain stuff) is not-two. (It always was.) How does abstraction fall away? By awakening to just THIS. Wake up from the delusion of past and future - from the constructions of memory and imagination - to just THIS. If it’s not in real-time then it’s remembered/imagined. If it’s not LIVE then it’s in the mind. Tiny children have not yet developed the architecture of abstraction so they remain with the actual. Adults have developed chronic bad habits and so meditation (attending to what is) is a glimpse through the (habitual) veil. For the sage the veil has more or less lifted. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 19, 2023 15:43:43 GMT -5
Yes, non-duality is simply what remains when abstraction falls away. ... Isn't this a contradiction? Isn't it like saying "there is just nothing after you take everything away" ...? Besides, duality is a qualitative qualifier rather than quantitative one. Like in "wave-particle duality of light". "Not-two", as non-duality, should mean a non-duality in characteristics, not as in having only one, not two whatevers, which is a quantitative evaluation. There isn't a consciousness-matter duality of reality, matter being created in and by consciousness. It isn't like reality sometimes seems / acts like consciousness, other times as matter. This doesn't mean that consciousness is homogeneous, that it doesn't have a structure, dimension(s), that it doesn't change. I believe that consciousness is a multi-dimensional structure of gestalts of gestalts. EDIT: For example, believing that the position of your body during meditation influences your realization, to me, seems an example of "non non-dual" belief: there is something physical that impacts the non-physical, directly. Matter over mind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 19, 2023 16:53:23 GMT -5
Said before: my understanding is that ATA would be considered a type of tantric practice. This mind become informed very soon after the sudden and sustained and complete (but temporary) cessation of the "I-thought" that there is a thread that connects every moment of appreciating a sunset or shredding a steep or even of just savoring a well-prepared meal .. or any one of many various moments of sensation where the sense of separation suddenly dissolves. Seems to me that some people are lucky enough to be wired for this by conditioning and nature. For me, sitting meditation was a sort of confirmation of curiosity as to how silent awareness is related to these threads. In meditation, attention is first directed "inward". In ATA, attention is directed "outward". Realization is the perspective on this dichotomy: "inward", and "outward". To this day, on solo walks, two thoughts can come to mind, partly out of nostalgia if nothing else (  ) "ATA", and "refuse all thoughts bu 'I AM'". Often correlated with subsequent occurrences of various synchronicity. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 19, 2023 19:40:49 GMT -5
Yes, non-duality is simply what remains when abstraction falls away. ... Isn't this a contradiction? Isn't it like saying "there is just nothing after you take everything away" ...? Besides, duality is a qualitative qualifier rather than quantitative one. Like in "wave-particle duality of light". "Not-two", as non-duality, should mean a non-duality in characteristics, not as in having only one, not two whatevers, which is a quantitative evaluation. There isn't a consciousness-matter duality of reality, matter being created in and by consciousness. It isn't like reality sometimes seems / acts like consciousness, other times as matter. This doesn't mean that consciousness is homogeneous, that it doesn't have a structure, dimension(s), that it doesn't change. I believe that consciousness is a multi-dimensional structure of gestalts of gestalts. EDIT: For example, believing that the position of your body during meditation influences your realization, to me, seems an example of "non non-dual" belief: there is something physical that impacts the non-physical, directly. Matter over mind. Yes, but there is no actual contradiction. When everything (every thing) is taken away (not imagined by the intellect as separately existing), nothing (no thing) is what remains. "No thing" is a synonym for THIS, or "all-that-is" in an undivided state. It bears repeating that reality is non-dual; duality is solely a product of imagination. Separation is the fundamental illusion created by abstract thought. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Mar 20, 2023 6:03:11 GMT -5
Yes, non-duality is simply what remains when abstraction falls away. ... Isn't this a contradiction? Isn't it like saying "there is just nothing after you take everything away" ...? Besides, duality is a qualitative qualifier rather than quantitative one. Like in "wave-particle duality of light". "Not-two", as non-duality, should mean a non-duality in characteristics, not as in having only one, not two whatevers, which is a quantitative evaluation. There isn't a consciousness-matter duality of reality, matter being created in and by consciousness. It isn't like reality sometimes seems / acts like consciousness, other times as matter. This doesn't mean that consciousness is homogeneous, that it doesn't have a structure, dimension(s), that it doesn't change. I believe that consciousness is a multi-dimensional structure of gestalts of gestalts. EDIT: For example, believing that the position of your body during meditation influences your realization, to me, seems an example of "non non-dual" belief: there is something physical that impacts the non-physical, directly. Matter over mind. We really are poles apart Inavalan - it’s unlikely that we would ever reach a resolution on these sorts of matters so best to leave it there. But thanks for the interest. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Mar 20, 2023 6:11:15 GMT -5
Yes, but there is no actual contradiction. When everything (every thing) is taken away (not imagined by the intellect as separately existing), nothing (no thing) is what remains. "No thing" is a synonym for THIS, or "all-that-is" in an undivided state. It bears repeating that reality is non-dual; duality is solely a product of imagination. Separation is the fundamental illusion created by abstract thought. Yes, I feel that non-duality may become easier to grasp when it is understood that separation is strictly an error of perception - a product of the abstracting/re-presenting mind. When this error is undermined, non-duality effortlessly and radiantly shines through. The ‘underlying status’ of ‘everything’, mundane or extraordinary, conventional or transcendent, is not-two. Seeing this, it’s perfectly okay to talk about the world as it appears - this world of mountains and rivers - and be clear that this world (as with any conception of the world) is not-two. The thing that is often overlooked is that no matter how hard we try, we cannot find (actual) two-ness in the relative world. If we could find even a teeny bit of separation then non-duality would be a false notion. So the whole thing can be realised right here - no need for a (supposed) transcendence of the world to realise the non-dual. Once this is deeply realised, ‘third mountain’ simplicity can prevail. We can rest in the realisation that ALL there is is this real-time happening of Existence. Simply THIS - as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 20, 2023 8:42:21 GMT -5
Yes, non-duality is simply what remains when abstraction falls away. ... Isn't this a contradiction? Isn't it like saying "there is just nothing after you take everything away" ...? Besides, duality is a qualitative qualifier rather than quantitative one. Like in "wave-particle duality of light". "Not-two", as non-duality, should mean a non-duality in characteristics, not as in having only one, not two whatevers, which is a quantitative evaluation. There isn't a consciousness-matter duality of reality, matter being created in and by consciousness. It isn't like reality sometimes seems / acts like consciousness, other times as matter. This doesn't mean that consciousness is homogeneous, that it doesn't have a structure, dimension(s), that it doesn't change. I believe that consciousness is a multi-dimensional structure of gestalts of gestalts. EDIT: For example, believing that the position of your body during meditation influences your realization, to me, seems an example of "non non-dual" belief: there is something physical that impacts the non-physical, directly. Matter over mind. There is a someNOTHING in which movement appears to be happening. The perception of change, however subtle, requires mind. What is perceived is more than the sum of its parts, no matter how infinitely the disinctions are made (i.e., the gestalts of gestalts). That doesn't mean that the distinctions, structures, dimensions, gestalts, etc can't/won't be made with the mind, or that they may/not be useful in certain contexts. It's just that they are seen as machinations of the mind. ALL GOOD, and perfectly so. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2023 10:36:13 GMT -5
Yes, but there is no actual contradiction. When everything (every thing) is taken away (not imagined by the intellect as separately existing), nothing (no thing) is what remains. "No thing" is a synonym for THIS, or "all-that-is" in an undivided state. It bears repeating that reality is non-dual; duality is solely a product of imagination. Separation is the fundamental illusion created by abstract thought. Yes, I feel that non-duality may become easier to grasp when it is understood that separation is strictly an error of perception - a product of the abstracting/re-presenting mind. When this error is undermined, non-duality effortlessly and radiantly shines through. The ‘underlying status’ of ‘everything’, mundane or extraordinary, conventional or transcendent, is not-two. Seeing this, it’s perfectly okay to talk about the world as it appears - this world of mountains and rivers - and be clear that this world (as with any conception of the world) is not-two. The thing that is often overlooked is that no matter how hard we try, we cannot find (actual) two-ness in the relative world. If we could find even a teeny bit of separation then non-duality would be a false notion. So the whole thing can be realised right here - no need for a (supposed) transcendence of the world to realise the non-dual. Once this is deeply realised, ‘third mountain’ simplicity can prevail. We can rest in the realisation that ALL there is is this real-time happening of Existence. Simply THIS - as it is. I'd describe this error in perception as including emotion as well as intellect, in a sort of tangled hierarchy. The visceral nature of physical sensation can serve to reinforce the mind-created divide, which is the default mode, the consensus trance. ATA by a child is done innocently: innocent of the mistaken sense of identity, whereas the adult practitioner is exploring something unconventional, thereby allowing physical sensation to offer an existential clue. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 20, 2023 12:56:34 GMT -5
Isn't this a contradiction? Isn't it like saying "there is just nothing after you take everything away" ...? ... We really are poles apart Inavalan - it’s unlikely that we would ever reach a resolution on these sorts of matters so best to leave it there. But thanks for the interest. I wasn't looking for any resolution. I am making comments and reply to honest questions. My question here was mostly rhetorical. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 20, 2023 13:21:50 GMT -5
Isn't this a contradiction? ... There is a someNOTHING in which movement appears to be happening. The perception of change, however subtle, requires mind. What is perceived is more than the sum of its parts, no matter how infinitely the disinctions are made (i.e., the gestalts of gestalts). That doesn't mean that the distinctions, structures, dimensions, gestalts, etc can't/won't be made with the mind, or that they may/not be useful in certain contexts. It's just that they are seen as machinations of the mind. ALL GOOD, and perfectly so. " Machinations of the mind" sounds like something imposes on (poor) us a bad condition. I don't think so. We are on lower rungs on the evolvement ladder, and moving up. It isn't like peeling layers to uncover a jewel, but adding layers on an essence as we mature. A built up not a strip down. ========= EDIT: Adding perception, instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition, ... |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 20, 2023 18:12:14 GMT -5
There is a someNOTHING in which movement appears to be happening. The perception of change, however subtle, requires mind. What is perceived is more than the sum of its parts, no matter how infinitely the disinctions are made (i.e., the gestalts of gestalts). That doesn't mean that the distinctions, structures, dimensions, gestalts, etc can't/won't be made with the mind, or that they may/not be useful in certain contexts. It's just that they are seen as machinations of the mind. ALL GOOD, and perfectly so. " Machinations of the mind" sounds like something imposes on (poor) us a bad condition. I don't think so. We are on lower rungs on the evolvement ladder, and moving up. It isn't like peeling layers to uncover a jewel, but adding layers on an essence as we mature. A built up not a strip down. ========= EDIT: Adding perception, instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition, ... Please explain to me what you mean by ‘essence’ (i.e., as it is KNOWN, realized, or intuited). SDP also referred to essence, and in my haste, I may have assumed I knew what he was referring to. Maybe that would be more fruitful at this point in the discussion. I have nothing ‘against’ thinking, as it is a truly amazing faculty, useful in many contexts, and is indicative of an inexplicable Intelligence. I generally see the mind as being more useful for what is outwardly focused (looking at and manipulating mental and physical phenomena and the concepts for doing so). Such concepts as "perception, instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition, ..." would be included in that, so now I'm wondering if essence is something the mind knows or intuits. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Mar 21, 2023 6:18:03 GMT -5
Yes, I feel that non-duality may become easier to grasp when it is understood that separation is strictly an error of perception - a product of the abstracting/re-presenting mind. When this error is undermined, non-duality effortlessly and radiantly shines through. The ‘underlying status’ of ‘everything’, mundane or extraordinary, conventional or transcendent, is not-two. Seeing this, it’s perfectly okay to talk about the world as it appears - this world of mountains and rivers - and be clear that this world (as with any conception of the world) is not-two. The thing that is often overlooked is that no matter how hard we try, we cannot find (actual) two-ness in the relative world. If we could find even a teeny bit of separation then non-duality would be a false notion. So the whole thing can be realised right here - no need for a (supposed) transcendence of the world to realise the non-dual. Once this is deeply realised, ‘third mountain’ simplicity can prevail. We can rest in the realisation that ALL there is is this real-time happening of Existence. Simply THIS - as it is. I'd describe this error in perception as including emotion as well as intellect, in a sort of tangled hierarchy. The visceral nature of physical sensation can serve to reinforce the mind-created divide, which is the default mode, the consensus trance. ATA by a child is done innocently: innocent of the mistaken sense of identity, whereas the adult practitioner is exploring something unconventional, thereby allowing physical sensation to offer an existential clue. What we are talking about here is a characteristic of mind which enables it to abstract, hold, reify and re-present forms. I would agree that emotion can heighten this process. Even intellectually it’s relatively easy to realise that a wave on the ocean or a leaf on a tree can have no inherent separate existence but much harder to see this with apparent persons - particularly a self. That’s a whole extra layer of stickiness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 21, 2023 11:13:59 GMT -5
" Machinations of the mind" sounds like something imposes on (poor) us a bad condition. I don't think so. We are on lower rungs on the evolvement ladder, and moving up. It isn't like peeling layers to uncover a jewel, but adding layers on an essence as we mature. A built up not a strip down. ========= EDIT: Adding perception, instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition, ... Please explain to me what you mean by ‘essence’ (i.e., as it is KNOWN, realized, or intuited). SDP also referred to essence, and in my haste, I may have assumed I knew what he was referring to. Maybe that would be more fruitful at this point in the discussion. I have nothing ‘against’ thinking, as it is a truly amazing faculty, useful in many contexts, and is indicative of an inexplicable Intelligence. I generally see the mind as being more useful for what is outwardly focused (looking at and manipulating mental and physical phenomena and the concepts for doing so). Such concepts as "perception, instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition, ..." would be included in that, so now I'm wondering if essence is something the mind knows or intuits. I just came back to change my avatar. Great OP and thread ZD (I have been reading in order, I'll probably say that again). I have never defined essence, except, what we are born with or born as. That was maybe the first thing I learned in March 1976. I don't define essence as it was never further defined for me. I was also told, you have to find your essence (meaning, nobody [in the Teaching] will tell you what your essence is). And then I was given some tools to discover my essence, and then 6 months later given the *~real tools~* to discover my essence. I was a poor student, it took me 15 years to discover my essence. Now, I've said more here in the past than I was ever told/taught. In my tradition it's considered sort of being a thief to tell someone something they should discover for themselves, to do so is to rob them of the privilege of self-discovery. And it's also a kind of test, if you don't discover stuff, you won't be given more. So most everything I understand was from blood, sweat and tears, that's not metaphor. So, when I came here, actually before 2009, before there was even a forum, there was just spiritual friends locator, I decided not to describe experiences, only to talk from theory, as that is the way my tradition goes, basically you can ask questions (about your experience). So, all this is why this is a most excellent OP, ZD is absolutely perfectly correct. And I considered this essence definition, what you are born with, a lot during those 15 years, you can learn an immense amount, putting yourself in the position of a newborn baby. Now, I've done whole threads on the following, but I'll say it again, trying to be brief (a somewhat answer to someNOTHING). ZD has said it, precisely, beautifully. A baby does not have a sense of self, that happens about 18 months to 2 years, when a child starts to say I. Joseph Chilton Pearce goes into this a great deal in his wonderful book, Magical Child. A newborn has the most neurons it will ever have in its life, but no connections between neurons, or very few (learning begins in the womb, so it does have some connections upon birth). So info comes in, this info is recorded in the neural structure, mostly associatively ("What fires together, wires together". Donald Hebb). You learned more in the first 2 years of life than you will ever learn in any two-year period, even becoming a doctor or lawyer (Magical Child, Pearce did tons of research for his books). So, as a baby you are your real genuine individuality, your essence, essence is the default mode. But with all this information collected and stored, and a lot of it turns into protection, a kind of hedge around essence, to protect it. But about age six, a flip-flop occurs, all this haphazard information forms a false sense of self, ego/persona/("personality")/small s self/mask. It chokes out essence, covers over essence. So we then live through this false sense of self, the small s self then becomes the default mode of operation. Now, some people realize something is amiss, and so begins a spiritual journey. And so some people can have a flip-flop, back, back to essence. The sages knew all about this, the Zen stories, they're all about the flip-flop, back, as it's all about living in the present moment. Yes, a baby and small child always and only live in the present moment. Slowing, as ZD has pointed out so well over the years, the person lives through the abstraction/concepts/ideas of their own neural structure, the info stored, again, associatively (it helps to consider that also). So, if you are thinking, it's a good chance you are in false-sense-of-self mode. Attending the actual, you are in essence-mode. But to show what you are up against, achieving a flip-flop back to essence, an adult, one person, has more neural connections between neurons than there are stars in the whole universe, those are what constitute the default-mode of most adults, the small s self.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 21, 2023 11:28:58 GMT -5
After watching a video of Rupert Spira recently, it dawned on me that most ND sages interpret the word "meditation" in an extremely limited sense, and rather than look at what the activity is that the word is pointing to, they buy into the conventional definition of the word. In order to understand the issue I'm raising in this thread, consider what little children do 95% of the time; they look, listen, feel, taste, and smell what is actual. Most adults, including most ND sages, would NOT say that little children are meditating 95% of the time, but that is exactly what they're doing if by "meditation" we mean "attending the actual." The only difference between little children and adults who attend the actual is that little children unconsciously attend the actual and adults must consciously shift attention away from thoughts in order to attend the actual. When a Zen student is sitting on a cushion attending the breathing process, s/he is doing exactly the same thing as little children who attend whatever is happening around them, but because the Zen student has become habituated to conceptual thinking, s/he must make a conscious effort to shift attention away from that kind of thinking to direct sensory perception of the actual. If we look at the word "meditation" in this way, we discover that people who sit in a lotus position focusing attention upon the breathing process comprise a tiny subset of people who attend the actual. IOW, the conventional idea of meditation is that of a formal practice, and the image that arises in the mind is of someone sitting on a cushion with eyes closed, hands held in the lap, and attention focused on something actual. This definition omits all of the little children who are spending 95% of their time attending the actual, and it omits all of the adults who periodically throughout the day are unconsciously shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perceptions. Understanding the word "meditation" to be a synonym for "attending the actual" helps explain why so many ND sages say that it's impossible to practice one's way to being what one already is. If one is only referring to the formal meditative methodologies that are considered "practices," this would be true. However, if one is referring to the informal activity of looking, listening, feeling, etc, then that argument is seen to be a straw man. When adults shift attention away from thoughts to what is actual, they are, in effect, momentarily "getting out of their heads" and interacting with the world directly in the same way as little children. Many ND sages have told seekers that after awakening, their whole life is meditative, and what they are pointing to with this kind of statement is exactly what I'm pointing to in this thread. Walking down the street or driving a car while looking and listening is exactly what little children are unconsciously doing all day long. IOW, the conventional definition of meditation and conventional image of meditation is misleading because it ignores the vast majority of children and adults who are doing the same thing that a Buddhist or Hindu meditator is doing when formally engaged in some sort of meditative activity. The reason that adults are more likely to have existential realizations as a result of attending the actual is that attending the actual is a process that psychologically unifies one with reality rather than keeping one conceptually separated from reality. Anyone who goes on a silent solo retreat and focuses attention upon the actual will discover that each day of silent attentiveness increases the sense of communion and unity with what is commonly imagined as "the external world." By staying focused on what is actual, it becomes more and more likely that one will suddenly realize that all apparent separation is a cognitive illusion sustained only by conceptual thinking. All there is is a seamless flow of life that is unified and infinite, and attending the actual is the only activity that has been highly correlated with awakening from the consensus paradigm. As Nisargadatta told a seeker, "To find the Absolute one must go beyond the mind." Simple seeing (or hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting, etc) is beyond the mind, so any time an adult stops thinking and shifts attention to the direct sensory perception of what is actual that adult is one step closer to penetrating the illusion of separateness. Many sages who meditate for 20 or 30 years and then wake up often tell people that the meditation they did was not necessary, but when they say that, they are typically referring to a very limited concept of what the word "meditation" is pointing to. If they could let go of the conventional concept that meditation must be a formal practice, they might be able to see that what little children are doing 95% of the time is the same thing that they were doing intermittently when they kept shifting attention again and again to what is actual until the illusion of separation collapsed. Formal meditative practices have their place, of course, and sitting meditation is far more likely to lead to nirvikalpa samadhi (which seems to function as a mental lubricant), but informal meditative practices are probably more valuable in the long run because they can be pursued throughout ordinary everyday life and thereby increase the amount of time that one stays focused upon whatever is happening in the present moment. In short, my advice to ND sages would be to stop using the word "meditation" and start using the phrase "attending the actual" because that definition is far more meaningful in the context of waking up from cognitive illusions and discovering that all there is is THIS, undivided, infinite, incomprehensibly intelligent, aware, and in love with Itself. Very most excellent wonderful opening post ZD. I will add one thing. Years ago I read the story of Dogen. He has some most excellent quotes (from a most excellent journey). One is: practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice. If you understand the OP then you can understand this. Practice is yes, an effort to live in the manner a newborn baby lives, attending the actual, that's true practice. Doing so you are going-against your acquired default-mode, which only-likes to stay in thought, that's its very "life" (which isn't life). That's "practice is enlightenment" (making the effort to go-against living through the false-acquired default-mode). Once the flip-flop occurs, back to living through "you must become like a little child", that's "enlightenment is practice", IOW, they are one and the same. And this is not metaphorical, it's actual. Dogen is defining practice, after the flip-flop back to essence, as not-"practice", no longer practice, essence-mode becomes again one's default-mode, default means one goes-there easily, naturally. |
|
) "ATA", and "refuse all thoughts bu 'I AM'". Often correlated with subsequent occurrences of various synchronicity. 
