Patanjali, was Samatha

[Guest guest]

Hi Dharma:

Your note on Patanjali has a lot of useful info in it. There is only

one thing in that I wanted to comment on. >"At the performance level,

the lists and categories ARE distractions. :)"

 

I think this brings up the idea of Self; Not-Self discrimination.

 

In context I was writing about>The thing most impressive to me about

Patanjali is his

>comprehensivity. When he mentioned fluctuations of consciousness he

>included them all. Sleep, memory, valid cognition, misconception,

>and conceptualization. In other words if you have a thought it will

>be in one of these categories. What a great aid to meditation to be

>able reduce the confusion of a jumble of thoughts and to see arising

>thoughts in a category.

 

Yes, for a teacher - and a learner too - categories are immensely

helpful.

But to always work to see things in categories is counter-productive -

I

think it will tie you to the mental plane.

 

Reminds me of the process of learning and performing a piece of

music. You

have to learn every note, every fingering... you have to practice

each

little thing over and over, perhaps at different rates of speed. But

finally, when you perform, you have to forget all of that... you

have to

let it sink from your awareness and operate automatically. Then you

are

free to really play the music, to express yourself freely in the

music.

 

 

When I read about the fluctuations: vs.1:5 and 6 with the belief that

Patanjali is comprehensive it dawned on me that all thoughts would be

in one of these categories. What was left was not thought. What was

left was simply knowing. Knowing looks like a thought without this

discrimination between knowing and thinking. The distinction

gradually became clearer.

I started categorizing each thought as valid cognition or memory or

conceptualization or misconception as it arose or later when I

remembered it. This is like your excellent metaphor on learning

music. The act of knowing the thought became automatic from

practice. The simple examination of each thought broke the tendency

of one thought to lead to another. For me this made Pranayama

possible. I could concentrate on restraint of the breath.

Practising pranayama prepared me for atma vichara. That is my

practice at present.

 

Thus for me the categories do not bind me to the mental world, or

just simply world. My deeply seated ignorance does that, except in

those all too brief moments with Ramana.

This discription works for me. Perhaps it doesn't for you or

others. Some people go directly to God and all of what I said is

superfluous. I truly am not trying to be critical of another's

sadhana. I am just explaining what I meant when I said categorising

thoughts is a boon to meditation. A list or category as a thought is

a distraction. If one distinguishes between knowing and thinking, it

is when the thought exists separately as a thought without being

known as a thought that it is a distraction.( i.e. one is

distracted) When it is known (as the self ) and not made separate to

stand alone without being known it passes away and one is not

distracted. This I believe describes Subject (Self) - Object (not-

self) discrimination.

 

Bob G.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

>Your note on Patanjali has a lot of useful info in it. There is only

>one thing in that I wanted to comment on. >"At the performance level,

>the lists and categories ARE distractions. :)"

>

>I think this brings up the idea of Self; Not-Self discrimination.

>snip<

>When I read about the fluctuations: vs.1:5 and 6 with the belief that

>Patanjali is comprehensive it dawned on me that all thoughts would be

>in one of these categories. What was left was not thought. What was

>left was simply knowing. Knowing looks like a thought without this

>discrimination between knowing and thinking. The distinction

>gradually became clearer.

>I started categorizing each thought as valid cognition or memory or

>conceptualization or misconception as it arose or later when I

>remembered it. This is like your excellent metaphor on learning

>music. The act of knowing the thought became automatic from

>practice. The simple examination of each thought broke the tendency

>of one thought to lead to another.

 

It sounds like the kind of thinking you were doing became so automatic that

you can do it and it drops below the level of consciousness - so then you

are above the mental plane? Into the level of intuition or buddhi, at

least at first?

 

Maybe that practice and being able to get onto the buddhic plane was what

opened you for contact with Ramana.

>For me this made Pranayama

>possible. I could concentrate on restraint of the breath.

>Practising pranayama prepared me for atma vichara. That is my

>practice at present.

>

>Thus for me the categories do not bind me to the mental world, or

>just simply world. My deeply seated ignorance does that, except in

>those all too brief moments with Ramana.

>This discription works for me. Perhaps it doesn't for you or

>others.

 

When I begin a new class in meditation/Raja Yoga, my aim is to get everyone

above the mental level and into the plane of intuition in the first

session, at least briefly. Then they have the basic method and know what

it's like to get above personality levels. To me it would seem

unnecessarily slow to sit around examining thoughts - we just want to go

above that.

 

As you say, to each his own. ) I'm not trying to change anyone's sadhana

either, just discussing.

 

I'll send you privately (since it's been on the list a few times) my

introductory material and first lesson/basic method. I wrote it up for an

on-line group of young parents, so the language is pretty simple and

there's no Sanskrit. But it will show you in more detail what I'm talking

about, how I teach.

 

Love,

Dharma