Guest guest Posted April 29, 2001 Report Share Posted April 29, 2001 Hi Vicky, Wim, Tony... One of the difficulties in reading the scriptures or the words of the sages is to see when the subject is the outer life in the world and how to live it, and when the subject is interior meditation and how to accomplish it. I found it illuminating when I began to understand that some of the passages in the _Bhagavad-Gita_ are precise instructions for interior meditation, but they are words that can easily be misunderstood if one assumes that they are about outer-world life. The opposite mistake is also sometimes made, to read words about outer life and assume that they are intended to teach the interior path. In learning interior meditation, the first step is to learn to withdraw attention from the physical body, to in effect put the body to sleep while maintaining the conscious focus. The _Gita_ (translation by Isherwood and Prabhavananda) says: >The tortoise can withdraw his legs; >The sage can withdraw his senses. The word "can" makes it clear to me that this is an ability, it is something the sage does sometimes... NOT the state he lives in all the time. What would happen to the turtle if he withdrew his legs and kept them there permanently? A person who withdraws his senses more or less permanently would be called catatonic or comatose. Or, in India, a Mast... And yet many people read this sort of statement and conclude that the senses are bad and one should try his best to get away from them. In daily, outer-world life, where the senses are our means of perceiving the outer world. It would be more difficult to catch the meaning of this passage if we translated it without the "can": >The sage withdraws his senses. Here's the Winthrop Sergeant translation: >And when he withdraws completely >The senses from the objects of the senses, >As a tortoise its limbs into its shell, >His wisdom stands firm. Here it is more difficult, I think, to see this as a description of interior meditation, rather than a way of life in which the senses are regarded as something to get away from. A temporary withdrawal in the process of meditation, not a shrinking and withdrawal from life. >Daivarata : >What in brief is the means to know one's own real nature ? >What is the effort that can bring about the sublime inner vision? > >Bhagavan : >Strenously withdrawing all thoughts from sense-objects , >one should remain fixed in steady, non-objective enquiry. >This, in brief, is the means of knowing one's own real nature ; >this effort alone brings about the sublime inner vision. ````````````````````````````` Sri Ramana Gita ```````````````````````` Here again, this is not an admonishment to get away from the senses and sensing things in daily life... it's about interior meditation, in which you withdraw the conscious focus from the physical plane entirely. The second line seems to me to go beyond that first step, but its exact meaning doesn't seem quite clear... I'd like to know the words in the original language, or at least see other translations. He seems to be also speaking of withdrawing from the 2d level, of emotions and dreams and illusion, and perhaps from the 3rd level, of lower mind or intellect. Possibly the words "non-objective enquiry" even refer to meditation "without seed." But the point I wanted to make is that there is nothing said in any of these passages about the senses being bad, no admonishment to try not to use the senses in daily life. We can't avoid it, of course, if we are conscious in the usual sense, walking around and talking to people and working. As Wim says: >How many senses come into play, as you sit here scanning this screen, >reading these words, interpreting the meanings, manipulating your mouse >pointer, fiddling your finger, touching the keys, hearing the strokes, >typing with you fingers... But thinking that the senses must be bad can lead to living in a sort of negative, grudging way, always trying to pull in and away from life and the world. >Tony: > The more we indulge them in any way How do we indulge sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell? I have a poor sense of smell, but no amount of "indulging" will make it better. I think your answer, Tony, will get into matters of how we should live, which is to combine two very different issues - 1) sense perception and 2) our ethics and morals. Should we welcome poor eyesight, deafness, etc.? Even if those things happen, it will make no difference to our approach to moral issues of how we should live. >we just strengthen the attachment and descent of >consciousness. Sure, the senses are the means of being conscious in the outer world. What's wrong with that, assuming you want to be here in the outer world, in everyday life? Would you have us pull back from life, shrink back into ourselves, away from the world of sense perception? It seems to me that the senses are appropriate in living in the outer world. Then we switch them off completely for interior meditation. >The senses are what differentiate us from the astral, Certainly. They are what makes it possible for us to be conscious in the outer physical world. >Like a charioteer we have to control the five horses/senses In meditation, Tony, in meditation! Establish control, put them to sleep, rise above them... leave the sensory, physical world behind. >or the chariot goes where we do not know. Sounds like you're afraid of something... but I think you're into the realm of ethics and morals here. I don't think you're afraid of your eyesight or your hearing, etc... The sense can also be used in meditation... a rather different kind of meditation. I remember when Antoine once spent an entire day watching his hibiscus bloom. Was that indulging the senses? Did it lead to anything bad or immoral? Hardly! Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2001 Report Share Posted April 29, 2001 , Dharma <deva@L...> wrote: > Hi Vicky, Wim, Tony... > > One of the difficulties in reading the scriptures or the words of the sages > is to see when the subject is the outer life in the world and how to live > it, and when the subject is interior meditation and how to accomplish it. > I found it illuminating when I began to understand that some of the > passages in the _Bhagavad-Gita_ are precise instructions for interior > meditation, but they are words that can easily be misunderstood if one > assumes that they are about outer-world life. The opposite mistake is also > sometimes made, to read words about outer life and assume that they are > intended to teach the interior path. > > In learning interior meditation, the first step is to learn to withdraw > attention from the physical body, to in effect put the body to sleep while > maintaining the conscious focus. > > The _Gita_ (translation by Isherwood and Prabhavananda) says: > > >The tortoise can withdraw his legs; > >The sage can withdraw his senses. > > The word "can" makes it clear to me that this is an ability, it is > something the sage does sometimes... NOT the state he lives in all the > time. What would happen to the turtle if he withdrew his legs and kept > them there permanently? A person who withdraws his senses more or less > permanently would be called catatonic or comatose. Or, in India, a Mast... > > And yet many people read this sort of statement and conclude that the > senses are bad and one should try his best to get away from them. In > daily, outer-world life, where the senses are our means of perceiving the > outer world. > > It would be more difficult to catch the meaning of this passage if we > translated it without the "can": > > >The sage withdraws his senses. > > > Here's the Winthrop Sergeant translation: > > >And when he withdraws completely > >The senses from the objects of the senses, > >As a tortoise its limbs into its shell, > >His wisdom stands firm. > > Here it is more difficult, I think, to see this as a description of > interior meditation, rather than a way of life in which the senses are > regarded as something to get away from. A temporary withdrawal in the > process of meditation, not a shrinking and withdrawal from life. > > >Daivarata : > >What in brief is the means to know one's own real nature ? > >What is the effort that can bring about the sublime inner vision? > > > >Bhagavan : > >Strenously withdrawing all thoughts from sense-objects , > >one should remain fixed in steady, non-objective enquiry. > >This, in brief, is the means of knowing one's own real nature ; > >this effort alone brings about the sublime inner vision. > ````````````````````````````` Sri Ramana Gita ```````````````````````` > > Here again, this is not an admonishment to get away from the senses and > sensing things in daily life... it's about interior meditation, in which > you withdraw the conscious focus from the physical plane entirely. > > The second line seems to me to go beyond that first step, but its exact > meaning doesn't seem quite clear... I'd like to know the words in the > original language, or at least see other translations. He seems to be also > speaking of withdrawing from the 2d level, of emotions and dreams and > illusion, and perhaps from the 3rd level, of lower mind or intellect. > Possibly the words "non-objective enquiry" even refer to meditation > "without seed." > > But the point I wanted to make is that there is nothing said in any of > these passages about the senses being bad, no admonishment to try not to > use the senses in daily life. We can't avoid it, of course, if we are > conscious in the usual sense, walking around and talking to people and > working. As Wim says: > > >How many senses come into play, as you sit here scanning this screen, > >reading these words, interpreting the meanings, manipulating your mouse > >pointer, fiddling your finger, touching the keys, hearing the strokes, > >typing with you fingers... > > But thinking that the senses must be bad can lead to living in a sort of > negative, grudging way, always trying to pull in and away from life and the > world. > > >Tony: > > The more we indulge them in any way > > How do we indulge sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell? I have a poor sense > of smell, but no amount of "indulging" will make it better. > > I think your answer, Tony, will get into matters of how we should live, > which is to combine two very different issues - 1) sense perception and 2) > our ethics and morals. Should we welcome poor eyesight, deafness, etc.? > Even if those things happen, it will make no difference to our approach to > moral issues of how we should live. > > >we just strengthen the attachment and descent of > >consciousness. > > Sure, the senses are the means of being conscious in the outer world. > What's wrong with that, assuming you want to be here in the outer world, in > everyday life? Would you have us pull back from life, shrink back into > ourselves, away from the world of sense perception? > > It seems to me that the senses are appropriate in living in the outer > world. Then we switch them off completely for interior meditation. > > >The senses are what differentiate us from the astral, > > Certainly. They are what makes it possible for us to be conscious in the > outer physical world. > > >Like a charioteer we have to control the five horses/senses > > In meditation, Tony, in meditation! Establish control, put them to sleep, > rise above them... leave the sensory, physical world behind. > > >or the chariot goes where we do not know. > > Sounds like you're afraid of something... but I think you're into the > realm of ethics and morals here. I don't think you're afraid of your > eyesight or your hearing, etc... > > The sense can also be used in meditation... a rather different kind of > meditation. I remember when Antoine once spent an entire day watching his > hibiscus bloom. Was that indulging the senses? Did it lead to anything > bad or immoral? Hardly! > > Love, > Dharma Namaste Dharma et al, The senses are to be controlled and restrained without attachment in everyday life. Attachment is the key word. Withdrawal or pratyahara is in prepartion for dhyana or meditation. ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2001 Report Share Posted April 29, 2001 , Dharma <deva@L...> wrote: > The sense can also be used in meditation... a rather different kind of > meditation. I remember when Antoine once spent an entire day watching his > hibiscus bloom. Was that indulging the senses? Did it lead to anything > bad or immoral? Hardly! > > Love, > Dharma Namaste Dharma, Antoine may have been in a state of attachment to the prettiness of the plant. It may have been a feeling of achievement to watch a flower open. OR It could have been ekagratha or one pointedness, in preparation for meditation. Most of what we call meditation is really concentration. If he penetrated the true nature of the flower and didn't see it anymore than that may be meditation...ONS Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.