|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2023 7:13:01 GMT -5
Even though samadhi is often translated as translated as something like 'concentration', I've come to consider that it may simply refer to the effortless alert attention aspect of ATA-T. The 19th century European scholars translated samadhi as concentration and that seems to have stuck. That's how the dictionaries define it, but samadhi is not concentrated effort in order to try and maintain a state. Samadhi is an effortless and choiceless self sustaining state of non-dual awareness brought about by an intention or indeed what you might call effort in the form of attending to the actual or to I or to an object such as a mantra, or to breath which is just another object. But that attending or noticing dissolves into a self sustaining state of silence. It is concentrated one pointedness but without the concentrating. It's like launching a glider. A bit of work but then the air currents just take it away and it remains effortlessly in flight without having to do anything more. The way I've come to think about it is that "attention on attention" can melt into a self-sustaining (phase-locked loop  ) of "awareness of awareness" .. but every practice is likely going to have it's own subjective nuances, per practitioner. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2023 7:37:13 GMT -5
The 19th century European scholars translated samadhi as concentration and that seems to have stuck. That's how the dictionaries define it, but samadhi is not concentrated effort in order to try and maintain a state. Samadhi is an effortless and choiceless self sustaining state of non-dual awareness brought about by an intention or indeed what you might call effort in the form of attending to the actual or to I or to an object such as a mantra, or to breath which is just another object. But that attending or noticing dissolves into a self sustaining state of silence. It is concentrated one pointedness but without the concentrating. It's like launching a glider. A bit of work but then the air currents just take it away and it remains effortlessly in flight without having to do anything more. The way I've come to think about it is that "attention on attention" can melt into a self-sustaining (phase-locked loop ) of "awareness of awareness" .. but every practice is likely going to have it's own subjective nuances, per practitioner. phase-locked loop. I like it. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 21, 2023 14:07:22 GMT -5
.. In a way there is not even the need to pretend you're a person .. it's self evident . For some reason there is the idea that everything mindful & personalised can't possible be real or true . Al this based upon that there is beyond that . For some reason on forums like these after millions of quotes and posts .. there still isn't the understanding of what constitutes the individual self that isn't separated from all that is .If we get rid of the argument of the SVP then there is an individual that exists, that can practice, that can go get a beer and wash the dishes . Beyond all that jazz there isn't an individual, there isn't a beer, nor dishes that require washing . I've never know what separate could mean, it seems a superfluous word. Volition I understand, person I understand. Well separate could mean a sense and knowing of oneself that doesn't reflect the awareness of everything else that is what you are . If one hasn't realised what they are beyond the knowing and sense of oneself then one could feel separate from everything else . I don't believe that in this reality one can feel in union with all that is all of the time but once realised it's realised . |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 22, 2023 5:42:20 GMT -5
The way I've come to think about it is that "attention on attention" can melt into a self-sustaining (phase-locked loop ) of "awareness of awareness" .. but every practice is likely going to have it's own subjective nuances, per practitioner. phase-locked loop. I like it.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 22, 2023 11:10:28 GMT -5
All experience is real, even when its structured on an illusion, or founded on a misunderstanding. The odd thing about suffering, is that it can be intensely awful beyond what any words can convey, in the moment, but with hindsight, it can often seem like....'but all I had to do was see through it'. In truth, I think this ' seeming' is also artificial...if it could have been seen through at that time, it would have been. All experience is subjective. Not only that what each one experiences is subjective, but his recollection of past experiences is also subjective: it isn't what he experienced. EDIT: The suffering that one recalls now, is created in the present (the point-of-power) for current purposes, shaped by current beliefs and expectations. That suffering may have been, or not have been experienced. What matters is only that now it is recalled as such, and it needs to be intuitively interpreted now, as deeply as one's current ability permits. I agree, but I think it's also quite complex. I agree experience is subjective, but out of this subjectivity, we create the impression of objectivity, so that we can have a cohesive seeming experience. And I agree that in the broadest sense, it's true that the 'memory' is created in the present moment, I also believe that in our dimensional reality, we are bound by the rules of our game to create what seems to be a consistent timeline of events. We have chosen linearity as our 'time' experience. Hence we all agree that the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 23, 2023 4:56:31 GMT -5
It's hard to nail down meanings of concentration because it means different things. To concentrate is to look closely, examine without lapse, focus attention, not be distracted, pay attention in detail... and all these ways of defining it go together. The essence that separates meditation from the kind of concentration we are told to do in school is, in school they are trying to make you learn something, so you concentrate on your homework, but that doesn't reveal any detail. Meditation on the other hand is to examine more closely, which depending on sensitivity of sense perception, enables a person to perceive more detail in their experience. Thus a novice experience is on a grosser, denser level of reality compared to that of an adept.
Essentially we can say the mind is actually highly concentrated, but it's scattered about, not so much with distraction per-se, but with psychological reactivity. Hence the wandering mind is not the same thing as a wild mind, and wandering off doesn't actually reduce your depth of meditation or sensitivity of perception. You find that when you remember and get back to the object, your sensitivity is the same as it was when you first drifted off. Reactivity, on the other hand, disrupts the sensitivity, and the depth in meditation is ruined by it. I mean the depth of mind and its sensitivity go hand in hand.
Hence they don't really say just about anything goes. Agitation of mind doesn't go. They just say should you drift off with the mind, it's no problem. You start to notice that more acutely, and over time, wandering away becomes less frequent and the average length of time you're gone for decreases.
This is why I think returning to the present where you really live is good, but inferior as a practice. For practice you return to the present + settle agitations and resume the work of examining your object more closely.
The reasons for this are also multidimensional. 1) Practicing sensitivity improves sensitivity and; 2) conscious awareness at subtler levels of experience is instrumental to a deeper purification process. This is why holding the attention on breath, for example, isn't such a good practice. That's more like telling the mind not to move and stay on task. That's closer to the school conception of concentration, but really closely examining the breath feeling to reveal the finest detail you can possibly perceive is what makes the mind more sensitive, and thereby takes a person from gross reality to the subtler levels of their experience, which deepens the purification.
This is why staring at a candle flame in itself isn't really the thing, but look closely to see what it reveals, or when listening to the inner sound, hearing it is one thing, but really listening to it is another thing altogether. That's the nature of 'concentration' as we define it for meditation.
The other things, like attaching meditation to performance, are good points. That's capitalist meditation, or what he calls materialist meditation. It works because we typically find a frequent meditator is somewhat more clear-minded, decisive and productive that the average bear. It's just that those outcomes are asides and not the purpose. Buddha explained the purpose is purification, overcoming sorrow, walking the path of truth and attaining nirvana, but the practice itself only has two aspects, conscious awareness with mindful equanimity. This is good because we know what to do, what to work on. We know the aim, and all it boils down to to is, looking very closely without reacting to anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 23, 2023 5:35:50 GMT -5
It's hard to nail down meanings of concentration because it means different things. To concentrate is to look closely, examine without lapse, focus attention, not be distracted, pay attention in detail... and all these ways of defining it go together. The essence that separates meditation from the kind of concentration we are told to do in school is, in school they are trying to make you learn something, so you concentrate on your homework, but that doesn't reveal any detail. Meditation on the other hand is to examine more closely, which depending on sensitivity of sense perception, enables a person to perceive more detail in their experience. Thus a novice experience is on a grosser, denser level of reality compared to that of an adept. Essentially we can say the mind is actually highly concentrated, but it's scattered about, not so much with distraction per-se, but with psychological reactivity. Hence the wandering mind is not the same thing as a wild mind, and wandering off doesn't actually reduce your depth of meditation or sensitivity of perception. You find that when you remember and get back to the object, your sensitivity is the same as it was when you first drifted off. Reactivity, on the other hand, disrupts the sensitivity, and the depth in meditation is ruined by it. I mean the depth of mind and its sensitivity go hand in hand. Hence they don't really say just about anything goes. Agitation of mind doesn't go. They just say should you drift off with the mind, it's no problem. You start to notice that more acutely, and over time, wandering away becomes less frequent and the average length of time you're gone for decreases. This is why I think returning to the present where you really live is good, but inferior as a practice. For practice you return to the present + settle agitations and resume the work of examining your object more closely. The reasons for this are also multidimensional. 1) Practicing sensitivity improves sensitivity and; 2) conscious awareness at subtler levels of experience is instrumental to a deeper purification process. This is why holding the attention on breath, for example, isn't such a good practice. That's more like telling the mind not to move and stay on task. That's closer to the school conception of concentration, but really closely examining the breath feeling to reveal the finest detail you can possibly perceive is what makes the mind more sensitive, and thereby takes a person from gross reality to the subtler levels of their experience, which deepens the purification. This is why staring at a candle flame in itself isn't really the thing, but look closely to see what it reveals, or when listening to the inner sound, hearing it is one thing, but really listening to it is another thing altogether. That's the nature of 'concentration' as we define it for meditation. The other things, like attaching meditation to performance, are good points. That's capitalist meditation, or what he calls materialist meditation. It works because we typically find a frequent meditator is somewhat more clear-minded, decisive and productive that the average bear. It's just that those outcomes are asides and not the purpose. Buddha explained the purpose is purification, overcoming sorrow, walking the path of truth and attaining nirvana, but the practice itself only has two aspects, conscious awareness with mindful equanimity. This is good because we know what to do, what to work on. We know the aim, and all it boils down to to is, looking very closely without reacting to anything. Very good, but particularly so. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 15, 2023 22:56:29 GMT -5
Well, no, ZD (and others here) just say this can't be understood unless and until there is Self-Realization (not the best term), or as ZD would rather say, This-Realization. It would be better to say: No-Self Realization. While here, to ZD. As far as I know, Bernadette Roberts is still listed on ST's as a very high teacher, a 3 or a 4 I think it was. This despite she always maintained she was not a nondualist (I can supply quotes), basically for the same reasons as sdp, which I gave up trying to explain, here. I've read her extensively, especially her first 3 books. I learned about her 3rd book, What Is self? through Joseph Chilton Pearce who also held her in high regard. A fourth book which was privately published is now available publicly. The ratings on this site are by Shawn Nevins. 35 years ago I also rated BR highly, but after seeing some videos of BR and reading some things she reportedly said many years after her first two books, I found the level of her clarity in doubt. Unfortunately, these days I don't have sufficient interest in her outlook or pointers to go re-read any of her writings. ZD is right. I am currently reading her book What is Self? and while I don't doubt her realization, her account is a rather convoluted one and her subsequent conclusions are a tad bizarre. If I would want to give her the benefit of the doubt, I'd say in the informing of mind phase there went something wrong, likely due to her rather one-dimensional background and obvious lack of abstract thinking skills as well as lack of knowledge of other traditions. Basically, she claims she's had a realization, the no-self event as she calls it, of which she couldn't find any references in the spiritual literature anywhere. Apparently she did some reading, some rather broad and superficial reading and eventually came to the conclusion that her realization goes even beyond what AV and Zen and Buddhism recognize. So she thinks that there is something important missing in the literature and so all she is trying to do then is to fill in the missing piece and set the record straight. She makes it seem as if these other traditions, all traditions actually, have been somewhat confused about the true nature of reality and the final stage of the path, alluding that essentially these traditions are only half circle. And that's a pretty wild claim. However, when you actually read her account and look at her model/map of reality, you'll see that the confusion lies actually with her own model, especially her vocabulary, the weird labels and definitions of otherwise pretty standard terms, so that in the end, her map seems incomparable to the standard maps of other traditions. But once you've decoded her map, you'll realize that what she is talking about is actually what we call the impersonal perspective and the state of being she is trying to point to with her 'after the no self event' pointer is essentially the natural state exactly the way UG described it, i.e. pure functioning of the body and the senses. So her realization I don't doubt, it's basically what we are talking about here all the time, i.e. a perspective prior to mind, impersonal etc., but her conclusions are obviously wrong, laughable even. Here's a telling quote from her introduction: Now, when you read the book, you'll see that instead of taking the advice and brushing up on her abstract thinking skills and doing some in-depth reading on other traditions, she just doubles down in her ignorant hubris.  Nevertheless, once you've decoded her map and cleaned up her vocabulary and concepts and it becomes clear what she is actually getting at, then the book is actually quite good and you'll see the clarity of her vision. The way she presents it though, is a philosophical and philological atrocity.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 16, 2023 9:07:18 GMT -5
The ratings on this site are by Shawn Nevins. 35 years ago I also rated BR highly, but after seeing some videos of BR and reading some things she reportedly said many years after her first two books, I found the level of her clarity in doubt. Unfortunately, these days I don't have sufficient interest in her outlook or pointers to go re-read any of her writings. ZD is right. I am currently reading her book What is Self? and while I don't doubt her realization, her account is a rather convoluted one and her subsequent conclusions are a tad bizarre. If I would want to give her the benefit of the doubt, I'd say in the informing of mind phase there went something wrong, likely due to her rather one-dimensional background and obvious lack of abstract thinking skills as well as lack of knowledge of other traditions. Basically, she claims she's had a realization, the no-self event as she calls it, of which she couldn't find any references in the spiritual literature anywhere. Apparently she did some reading, some rather broad and superficial reading and eventually came to the conclusion that her realization goes even beyond what AV and Zen and Buddhism recognize. So she thinks that there is something important missing in the literature and so all she is trying to do then is to fill in the missing piece and set the record straight. She makes it seem as if these other traditions, all traditions actually, have been somewhat confused about the true nature of reality and the final stage of the path, alluding that essentially these traditions are only half circle. And that's a pretty wild claim. However, when you actually read her account and look at her model/map of reality, you'll see that the confusion lies actually with her own model, especially her vocabulary, the weird labels and definitions of otherwise pretty standard terms, so that in the end, her map seems incomparable to the standard maps of other traditions. But once you've decoded her map, you'll realize that what she is talking about is actually what we call the impersonal perspective and the state of being she is trying to point to with her 'after the no self event' pointer is essentially the natural state exactly the way UG described it, i.e. pure functioning of the body and the senses. So her realization I don't doubt, it's basically what we are talking about here all the time, i.e. a perspective prior to mind, impersonal etc., but her conclusions are obviously wrong, laughable even. Here's a telling quote from her introduction: Now, when you read the book, you'll see that instead of taking the advice and brushing up on her abstract thinking skills and doing some in-depth reading on other traditions, she just doubles down in her ignorant hubris. Nevertheless, once you've decoded her map and cleaned up her vocabulary and concepts and it becomes clear what she is actually getting at, then the book is actually quite good and you'll see the clarity of her vision. The way she presents it though, is a philosophical and philological atrocity. I can pretty-much agree with you. But, basically, in What Is Self? she is writing a theological thesis on what the life of Jesus Christ was all about. So, yes, she is trying to fit her path into a certain perspective. It actually took me several years to read and digest (I'd read a little, and digest) What Is Self? I found it quite profound. I'll have to look at it again, it's around here somewhere, heavily underlined. ...Also, somewhere, she has this theory that old people come to this loss of self, naturally. I'm not sure what she's getting at here, sounds simply like some old people get dementia, forget who they are. I was about to take a break, will get back to this later. .......I later discovered, about 12 years ago, that Roberts did yearly retreats with ordinary citizens, but limited to about 15 participants, in California (that usually coincided with the limit of interest, some people came multiple years). I seriously considered, but decided no. (I decided she had nothing to add). She is adamant, in other writings, what she experienced is not what you people call nonduality. Of course she died a few years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 16, 2023 22:02:58 GMT -5
ZD is right. I am currently reading her book What is Self? and while I don't doubt her realization, her account is a rather convoluted one and her subsequent conclusions are a tad bizarre. If I would want to give her the benefit of the doubt, I'd say in the informing of mind phase there went something wrong, likely due to her rather one-dimensional background and obvious lack of abstract thinking skills as well as lack of knowledge of other traditions. Basically, she claims she's had a realization, the no-self event as she calls it, of which she couldn't find any references in the spiritual literature anywhere. Apparently she did some reading, some rather broad and superficial reading and eventually came to the conclusion that her realization goes even beyond what AV and Zen and Buddhism recognize. So she thinks that there is something important missing in the literature and so all she is trying to do then is to fill in the missing piece and set the record straight. She makes it seem as if these other traditions, all traditions actually, have been somewhat confused about the true nature of reality and the final stage of the path, alluding that essentially these traditions are only half circle. And that's a pretty wild claim. However, when you actually read her account and look at her model/map of reality, you'll see that the confusion lies actually with her own model, especially her vocabulary, the weird labels and definitions of otherwise pretty standard terms, so that in the end, her map seems incomparable to the standard maps of other traditions. But once you've decoded her map, you'll realize that what she is talking about is actually what we call the impersonal perspective and the state of being she is trying to point to with her 'after the no self event' pointer is essentially the natural state exactly the way UG described it, i.e. pure functioning of the body and the senses. So her realization I don't doubt, it's basically what we are talking about here all the time, i.e. a perspective prior to mind, impersonal etc., but her conclusions are obviously wrong, laughable even. Here's a telling quote from her introduction: Now, when you read the book, you'll see that instead of taking the advice and brushing up on her abstract thinking skills and doing some in-depth reading on other traditions, she just doubles down in her ignorant hubris. Nevertheless, once you've decoded her map and cleaned up her vocabulary and concepts and it becomes clear what she is actually getting at, then the book is actually quite good and you'll see the clarity of her vision. The way she presents it though, is a philosophical and philological atrocity. I can pretty-much agree with you. But, basically, in What Is Self? she is writing a theological thesis on what the life of Jesus Christ was all about. So, yes, she is trying to fit her path into a certain perspective. It actually took me several years to read and digest (I'd read a little, and digest) What Is Self? I found it quite profound. I'll have to look at it again, it's around here somewhere, heavily underlined. ...Also, somewhere, she has this theory that old people come to this loss of self, naturally. I'm not sure what she's getting at here, sounds simply like some old people get dementia, forget who they are. I was about to take a break, will get back to this later. .......I later discovered, about 12 years ago, that Roberts did yearly retreats with ordinary citizens, but limited to about 15 participants, in California (that usually coincided with the limit of interest, some people came multiple years). I seriously considered, but decided no. (I decided she had nothing to add). She is adamant, in other writings, what she experienced is not what you people call nonduality. Of course she died a few years ago. No, that's just Part III of the book. And that would actually be fine, sticking with her Christian vocabulary. But she doesn't do that in Part I & II. There she tries to find a universal theory, using common language and common concepts from psychology and spirituality and it's a hotchpotch of concepts that don't really fit together. She doesn't seem to grasp the actual meaning of those concepts and replaces them with her own, new meanings. That's why, taken at face value, what she says makes no sense and why she had to come to the conclusion that the literature doesn't cover her experience. So on the one hand, it's just a tiny misunderstanding on her part re: established terms and concepts, but on the other, she goes full ESA over that. It's both sad and hilarious at the same time. After all, her realization is valid and also is accounted for in the literature and her description is very clear once you've unscrambled it. Reading her book really feels like listening to Zak the alien speak with his translation device on/off: Apparently, Tenka can relate to the scrambled version of BR. But looking at the unscrambled version, I don't really see any relation. Maybe Tenka can tell us with which parts of BR he resonates and then we can unscramble Tenka, too. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 17, 2023 10:06:22 GMT -5
I can pretty-much agree with you. But, basically, in What Is Self? she is writing a theological thesis on what the life of Jesus Christ was all about. So, yes, she is trying to fit her path into a certain perspective. It actually took me several years to read and digest (I'd read a little, and digest) What Is Self? I found it quite profound. I'll have to look at it again, it's around here somewhere, heavily underlined. ...Also, somewhere, she has this theory that old people come to this loss of self, naturally. I'm not sure what she's getting at here, sounds simply like some old people get dementia, forget who they are. I was about to take a break, will get back to this later. .......I later discovered, about 12 years ago, that Roberts did yearly retreats with ordinary citizens, but limited to about 15 participants, in California (that usually coincided with the limit of interest, some people came multiple years). I seriously considered, but decided no. (I decided she had nothing to add). She is adamant, in other writings, what she experienced is not what you people call nonduality. Of course she died a few years ago. No, that's just Part III of the book. And that would actually be fine, sticking with her Christian vocabulary. But she doesn't do that in Part I & II. There she tries to find a universal theory, using common language and common concepts from psychology and spirituality and it's a hotchpotch of concepts that don't really fit together. She doesn't seem to grasp the actual meaning of those concepts and replaces them with her own, new meanings. That's why, taken at face value, what she says makes no sense and why she had to come to the conclusion that the literature doesn't cover her experience. So on the one hand, it's just a tiny misunderstanding on her part re: established terms and concepts, but on the other, she goes full ESA over that. It's both sad and hilarious at the same time. After all, her realization is valid and also is accounted for in the literature and her description is very clear once you've unscrambled it. Reading her book really feels like listening to Zak the alien speak with his translation device on/off: Apparently, Tenka can relate to the scrambled version of BR. But looking at the unscrambled version, I don't really see any relation. Maybe Tenka can tell us with which parts of BR he resonates and then we can unscramble Tenka, too. I remember trying to understand BR through the Gurdjieff "paradigm". So what she called the loss of self, no-self, was the death of personality (the cultural self, the conditioned self). So she was then functioning through her essence. At this point for most people, probably 99%, essence is still a child, you revert to the point where essence was covered over by the formed personality, usually about age six. Then essence can begin to grown again, and mature. But, basically, this is my signature quote, what she began living after the loss of self: Man is unable to explain what he himself really is. I can relate it all, because Jesus was basically a 4th Way teacher (Gurdjieff said what he taught could also be called esoteric Christianity), all which has virtually nothing to do with what's called Christianity today. No orthodox ("brainwashed") Christian could read very much of BR (or Gurdjieff), they would consider her completely bonkers. So what resonated from BR was her view that the path of Jesus is the path for all humanity, period. That Jesus just showed us what's possible and what the way is. (Essence is our true self, the true individuation, personality is the false sense of self, the imaginary self). One more thing, kind of relates to the other post, didn't reply this there. Everybody born has a proclivity for experiencing life either primarily through the mind (scientist-type), #3; the emotions-feelings (artist-type), #2; or the body (athlete-craftsman-type), #1. Man #4 is a transitional man, begins to experience essence. Man #5 is going further toward living through essence, eventually dies to personality, lives completely through essence. Further "evolution" of consciousness, man #6 and then the fullest possibility for a human, man #7. Gurdjieff called only one person man #8, Jesus. |
|
) of "awareness of awareness" .. but every practice is likely going to have it's own subjective nuances, per practitioner.
