Guest guest Posted September 9, 2002 Report Share Posted September 9, 2002 Dear CJ, Fron the practice taught by Ramana, any form of concentrative meditation is seen as less effective than self-inquiry. For more on this, look in the files section of this newsgroup for "Who am I with comments ..." paragraphs 17 through 21. This approach is one of Knowledge, not any 'state.' If it is a state, it will pass. Ramana was not in any state that passed. This Knowledge is not mental knowledge, but rather the deepest Knowledge, at the same level as you know that you exist. In this was self-inquiry is very different from yoga. Perhaps you might read the "Who am I with comments" for more. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "cj" <d_agenda2000> wrote: > Excerpt from M.Eliade's "Yoga": Samdhi "with support" > > Rather than "knowledge," however, samadhi is a "state," an enstatic modality peculiar to Yoga. We shall presently see that this state makes possible the self-revelation of the Self (purusa), by virtue of an act that does not constitute an "experience." But not any samadhi reveals the Self, not any "stasis" makes final liberation a reality. Patanjali and his commentators distinguish several kinds or stages of supreme concentration. When samadhi is obtained with the help of an object or idea (that is, by fixing one's thought on a point in space or on an idea), the stasis is called samprajnata samadhi ("enstasis with support," or "differentiated enstasis"). When, on the other hand, samadhi is obtained apart from any "relation" (whether external or mental)-- that is, when one obtains a "conjunction" into which no "otherness" enters, but which is simply a full comprehension of being--one has realized asamprajnata samadhi ("undifferentiated stasis"). Vijnanabhiksu adds that samprajnata samadhi is a means of liberation in so far as it makes possible the comprehension of truth and ends every kind of suffering. But asamprajnata samadhi destroys the "impresssions [samskara] of all antecedent mental functions" and even succeeds in arresting the karmic forces already set in motion by the yogin's past activity. During "differentiated stasis", Vijnanabhiksu continues, all the mental functions are "arrested" ("inhibited"), except that which "meditates on the object"; whereas in asamprajnata samadhi all "consciousness" vanishes, the entire series of mental functions are block. "During this stasis, there is no other trace of the mind [citta] save the impressions [samskara] left behind (by ints past functions). If these impressions were not present, there would be no possibility of returning to consciousness." > We are, then, confronted with two sharply differentiated classes of "states." The first class is acquired through the yogic technique of concentration (dharana) and meditation (dhyana); the second class comprises only a single "state"--that is, unprovoted enstasis, "raptus." No doubt, even this asamprajnata samdhi is always owing to prolonged efforts on the yogin's part. It is not a gift or a state of grace. One can hardly reach it before having sufficiently experienced the kinds of samadhi included in the first class. It is the crown of the innumerable "concentrations" and "meditations" that have preceded it. But it comes without being summoned, without being provoked, without special preparations for it.That is why it can be called a "raptus" > Obviously, "differentiated enstasis" samprajnata samadhi, comprises several stages. This is because it is perfectible and does not realize an absolute and irreductible "state." > > What is a Gift of Grace? From whom or what does it come? Does "Luck" (randomness) play a role? > > comments much appreciated, > cornelius > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Hi cornelius, > What is a Gift of Grace? From whom or > what does it come? Does "Luck" > (randomness) play a role? A gift of grace is something that comes to us apart from our efforts. From where does it come? From God, from the Absolute, from the Reality -- whatever you want to call it. Gurus talk about Grace to encourage surrender -- to encourage abandonment of voluntary effort. >From Talks With Ramana Maharshi, article 319: > Ramana: ...Karma, Yoga, Bhakti, and Jnana convey > the same meaning. They are only the single Truth > presented in different aspects. > Devotee: Is Grace necessary for it? > Ramana: Yes. > Devotee: How to gain Divine Grace? > Ramana: By surrender." I suppose the path of bhakti could be described accurately as a path in which a person tries to see everything that happens as gifts of grace. And I suppose Yoga could be seen as the opposite, as a path devoted to maximizing self-control. But in the final stages, they become the same, because both end up in the highest samadhi described by Eliade in which there is nobody present who can make efforts or not make efforts. Eliade is mentioning Grace here simply to make the point that the highest samadhi cannot be brought on deliberately, through effort, but it is more likely to occur to a person who has worked strenuously for years to practice concentration, one-pointed attention, and the "lower" levels of samadhi. Sri Ramana says the same thing. He advises people to make an effort to keep the attention focused on the feeling of "I" until a certain point is reached, when something outside our voluntary efforts takes over and the Self becomes apparent. If you want to read what Sri Ramana says about samadhi, see Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi, articles 391. (Sri Ramana uses the term "nirvikalpa samadhi" to refer to samadhi without objects.) Best regards, Rob - "cj" <d_agenda2000 <RamanaMaharshi> Cc: <Nisargadatta> Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:22 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > Excerpt from M.Eliade's "Yoga": Samdhi "with support" > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Cornelius: I'll save bandwidth and say that I agree with Rob. ;-) Mark Hi cornelius, > What is a Gift of Grace? From whom or > what does it come? Does "Luck" > (randomness) play a role? A gift of grace is something that comes to us apart from our efforts. From where does it come? From God, from the Absolute, from the Reality -- whatever you want to call it. Gurus talk about Grace to encourage surrender -- to encourage abandonment of voluntary effort. From Talks With Ramana Maharshi, article 319: > Ramana: ...Karma, Yoga, Bhakti, and Jnana convey > the same meaning. They are only the single Truth > presented in different aspects. > Devotee: Is Grace necessary for it? > Ramana: Yes. > Devotee: How to gain Divine Grace? > Ramana: By surrender." I suppose the path of bhakti could be described accurately as a path in which a person tries to see everything that happens as gifts of grace. And I suppose Yoga could be seen as the opposite, as a path devoted to maximizing self-control. But in the final stages, they become the same, because both end up in the highest samadhi described by Eliade in which there is nobody present who can make efforts or not make efforts. Eliade is mentioning Grace here simply to make the point that the highest samadhi cannot be brought on deliberately, through effort, but it is more likely to occur to a person who has worked strenuously for years to practice concentration, one-pointed attention, and the "lower" levels of samadhi. Sri Ramana says the same thing. He advises people to make an effort to keep the attention focused on the feeling of "I" until a certain point is reached, when something outside our voluntary efforts takes over and the Self becomes apparent. If you want to read what Sri Ramana says about samadhi, see Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi, articles 391. (Sri Ramana uses the term "nirvikalpa samadhi" to refer to samadhi without objects.) Best regards, Rob - "cj" <d_agenda2000 <RamanaMaharshi> Cc: <Nisargadatta> Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:22 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > Excerpt from M.Eliade's "Yoga": Samdhi "with support" > Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Richard, I would describe Sri Ramana's teachings a little bit differently than you do here. > Fron the practice taught by Ramana, any form > of concentrative meditation is seen as less > effective than self-inquiry. I would say that self-inquiry *is* a form of concentrative meditation. The difference between yoga and self-inquiry is as follows. In yoga, the person concentrates on an image, an idea, a sound, etc. -- on some sort of object. In self-inquiry, the person tries to focus attention on the "me" who is seeing images, thinking ideas, and hearing sounds -- on the subject rather than an object. Both these methods require concentration and one-pointed attention. Both methods aim at stopping thoughts. Both methods, if successful, lead to a samadhi without objects. Sri Ramana criticizes yoga not because it involves concentration, but because he thinks it's not effective. As he says in Talks article 393: > Devotee: How is the mind to be stilled? > > Ramana: Looking at the mind with the mind, > or fixing the mind in the Self, brings the mind > under control of the Self. > > Devotee: Is there any yoga, i.e., a process > for it? > > Ramana: Vichara (investigation) [i.e. self-inquiry] > alone will do. Best regards, Rob - "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke <RamanaMaharshi> Monday, September 09, 2002 10:44 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > Dear CJ, > > Fron the practice taught by Ramana, any form of concentrative > meditation is seen as less effective than self-inquiry.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Rob, I just have a moment. A few comments now. Perhaps more later. (By the way, I sure like to hear your voice in this group.) In all of your comments, you may be right. I certainly do not see myself as a sage, but rather as just another seeker. I speak from what I have absorbed from Nome over that last ten years, and from my own long-standing inquiry practice that comes from Nome's continuingt instruction. First on objective vs. subjective. Recently in satsang, Nome talked about objective and non-obejctive rather than objective and subjective. I followed up with a question and he was careful in this use of language. The language, I think, trys to point past thinking. I think It trys not to use the usual pairs of duality, but rather to point past them (where the perciever, percieving and percieved together make up the one Whole Being). (As you know, trying to discuss this and to not create seeming dualities is a bit tricky). Is it concentrative? Can't say if I can REALLY say. But, is a quiet mind concentration? Is the inquiry "who knows this quiet mind?" concentrative? It sure does not seem so to me in actual practice. Certainly I have seen that concentrative meditation has been a good aide to inquiry, in that after developing better concentration, my inquiry seemed more focused. Nome continues to say that Self-Realization is a matter of knowledge (Self-Knowledge). Inquiry is a means to that Knowledge. While it seems focused, in that one has asked a question and is looking where that question points, and seeking what is lasting and what is changing, and looking in all of this for their own source of reality and identiry. In practice this sometimes seems concentrative, sometimes it seems opening and expanding. Perhaps more later. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Richard, > > I would describe Sri Ramana's teachings a little > bit differently than you do here. > > > Fron the practice taught by Ramana, any form > > of concentrative meditation is seen as less > > effective than self-inquiry. > > I would say that self-inquiry *is* a form of > concentrative meditation. The difference between > yoga and self-inquiry is as follows. > > In yoga, the person concentrates on an image, an > idea, a sound, etc. -- on some sort of object. > > In self-inquiry, the person tries to focus attention > on the "me" who is seeing images, thinking ideas, > and hearing sounds -- on the subject rather than > an object. > > Both these methods require concentration and > one-pointed attention. Both methods aim at stopping > thoughts. Both methods, if successful, lead to > a samadhi without objects. > > Sri Ramana criticizes yoga not because it involves > concentration, but because he thinks it's not effective. > As he says in Talks article 393: > > > Devotee: How is the mind to be stilled? > > > > Ramana: Looking at the mind with the mind, > > or fixing the mind in the Self, brings the mind > > under control of the Self. > > > > Devotee: Is there any yoga, i.e., a process > > for it? > > > > Ramana: Vichara (investigation) [i.e. self-inquiry] > > alone will do. > > Best regards, > > Rob > > > - > "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke@i...> > <RamanaMaharshi> > Monday, September 09, 2002 10:44 PM > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > > > > Dear CJ, > > > > Fron the practice taught by Ramana, any form of concentrative > > meditation is seen as less effective than self-inquiry.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Rob, One more note, (which came to me while doing a bit of inquiry before my afternoon consulting appointment), To me inquiry seems more like a dissolving than a concentration. The experience is one of a (gradual, progressive and long-term in my case, a very short one in Ramana's case) process of eliminating incorrect ideas of who I am. As each idea is eliminated – or even "softened" – the experiences is that one's "space" of being gets a little more expansive. WE are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Richard, > > I would describe Sri Ramana's teachings a little > bit differently than you do here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Rob and Richard: In my own practice, inquiry is both a dissolving and a concentration. It's meditative in the sense that attention is focused and held but and is dissolving because what is focused upon is dissolved and/or penetrated. Inquiry is distinct from meditation because the practice isn't to concentrate with the intent to develop a facility with concentration as with most meditative exercises. On the other hand, concentrative skill is necessary or one's attention wanders into all types of distraction. Interesting paradox isn't it? Mark D ear Rob, One more note, (which came to me while doing a bit of inquiry before my afternoon consulting appointment), To me inquiry seems more like a dissolving than a concentration. The experience is one of a (gradual, progressive and long-term in my case, a very short one in Ramana's case) process of eliminating incorrect ideas of who I am. As each idea is eliminated – or even "softened" – the experiences is that one's "space" of being gets a little more expansive. WE are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Richard, > > I would describe Sri Ramana's teachings a little > bit differently than you do here. Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Vichara - this or that or this and that or so and so? Paradox - no paradox - LOL Isn't it the most simple and natural thing there is? in HIM Gabriele (Please take this comment with some humor!) RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Rob and Richard: > > In my own practice, inquiry is both a dissolving and a concentration. It's > meditative in the sense > that attention is focused and held but and is dissolving because what is > focused upon is dissolved and/or > penetrated. Inquiry is distinct from meditation because the practice isn't > to concentrate with the intent > to develop a facility with concentration as with most meditative exercises. > On the other hand, concentrative > skill is necessary or one's attention wanders into all types of distraction. > > Interesting paradox isn't it? > > Mark > > D ear Rob, > > One more note, (which came to me while doing a bit of inquiry before > my afternoon consulting appointment), > > To me inquiry seems more like a dissolving than a concentration. > > The experience is one of a (gradual, progressive and long-term in my > case, a very short one in Ramana's case) process of eliminating > incorrect ideas of who I am. As each idea is eliminated – or > even "softened" – the experiences is that one's "space" of being gets > a little more expansive. > > WE are Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > > > I would describe Sri Ramana's teachings a little > > bit differently than you do here. > > > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o... > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o... > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 a PS: All what was said about was very fine, indeed. Thank you for all your comments. So why this last comment of mine? Well, this may also only be an experience and personal stuff - but I want to share. More than 20 years I have studied spiritual literature of various traditions and was engaged in all kinds of meditation, the last 12 years in full concentration on Ramana's teaching. Now I find more and more it's all true what Ramana has said about - as far as words can reach - but the whole isn't complicate at all. It is very simple, truth in a nutshell, nothing new but we all know that already from own experience - but we are not aware of it because we are always concentrated on our mind-stuff. To deepen this awareness of our true nature and be concentrated on it more and more exclusively and radical is deepening in vichara. So I would say with own words - but don't hear to me - only Gabriele's rubbish. Ramana explains it most best and from various approaches. His teaching goes in the most depth and in the most wide I ever have found and words can go together with His influence of grace. That's a great wonder! Because of this he is so convincing. So best is to read His teaching and seek Him in the Heart. Best of all is silence as no words are really needed. In HIM Gabriele RamanaMaharshi, "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> wrote: > Vichara - this or that or this and that or so and so? Paradox - no > paradox - LOL > Isn't it the most simple and natural thing there is? > > in HIM > Gabriele > (Please take this comment with some humor!) > > RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > > Rob and Richard: > > > > In my own practice, inquiry is both a dissolving and a > concentration. It's > > meditative in the sense > > that attention is focused and held but and is dissolving because > what is > > focused upon is dissolved and/or > > penetrated. Inquiry is distinct from meditation because the > practice isn't > > to concentrate with the intent > > to develop a facility with concentration as with most meditative > exercises. > > On the other hand, concentrative > > skill is necessary or one's attention wanders into all types of > distraction. > > > > Interesting paradox isn't it? > > > > Mark > > > > D ear Rob, > > > > One more note, (which came to me while doing a bit of inquiry before > > my afternoon consulting appointment), > > > > To me inquiry seems more like a dissolving than a concentration. > > > > The experience is one of a (gradual, progressive and long-term in my > > case, a very short one in Ramana's case) process of eliminating > > incorrect ideas of who I am. As each idea is eliminated – or > > even "softened" – the experiences is that one's "space" of being > gets > > a little more expansive. > > > > WE are Not two, > > Richard > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > > > Dear Richard, > > > > > > I would describe Sri Ramana's teachings a little > > > bit differently than you do here. > > > > > > > > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o... > > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > > Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o... > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Richard, I guess I made a mistake in assuming that the word "concentrative" has a single meaning that would be obvious to all of us in this context. I see from your letter and Mark's that it can be interpreted in more than one way. When I said that self-inquiry is concentrative, I only meant that we are instructed to keep our attention fixed on a particular thought. Here's one of Bhagavan's short descriptions of self-inquiry from the Talks book (article 453): > Meditation differs according to the degree > of advancement of the seeker. If one is fit > for it one might directly hold the thinker; > and the thinker will automatically sink into > his source, namely Pure Consciousness. When I wrote "concentrative" I was thinking of this instruction "hold the thinker." > The language, I think, trys to point past thinking. > Nome continues to say that Self-Realization is > a matter of knowledge (Self-Knowledge). Inquiry > is a means to that Knowledge. While it > seems focused, in that one has asked a question > and is looking where that question points, and seeking > what is lasting and what is changing, and looking in > all of this for their own source of reality and identiry. But is this the method that Bhagavan describes? He says to look for the "I". He says to look for the most obvious thing in the world. He says to fix the attention on it, and hold the attention there, and wait for something to happen automatically. Best regards, Rob - "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:26 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > Dear Rob, > > I just have a moment. A few comments now. Perhaps more later. (By > the way, I sure like to hear your voice in this group.) > > In all of your comments, you may be right. I certainly do not see > myself as a sage, but rather as just another seeker. I speak from > what I have absorbed from Nome over that last ten years, and from my > own long-standing inquiry practice that comes from Nome's continuingt > instruction. > > First on objective vs. subjective. Recently in satsang, Nome talked > about objective and non-obejctive rather than objective and > subjective. I followed up with a question and he was careful in this > use of language. The language, I think, trys to point past thinking. > I think It trys not to use the usual pairs of duality, but rather to > point past them (where the perciever, percieving and percieved > together make up the one Whole Being). (As you know, trying to > discuss this and to not create seeming dualities is a bit tricky). > > Is it concentrative? Can't say if I can REALLY say. But, is a > quiet mind concentration? Is the inquiry "who knows this quiet > mind?" concentrative? It sure does not seem so to me in actual > practice. Certainly I have seen that concentrative meditation has > been a good aide to inquiry, in that after developing better > concentration, my inquiry seemed more focused. > > Nome continues to say that Self-Realization is a matter of knowledge > (Self-Knowledge). Inquiry is a means to that Knowledge. While it > seems focused, in that one has asked a question and is looking where > that question points, and seeking what is lasting and what is > changing, and looking in all of this for their own source of reality > and identiry. > > In practice this sometimes seems concentrative, sometimes it seems > opening and expanding. > > Perhaps more later. > > We are Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > > > I would describe Sri Ramana's teachings a little > > bit differently than you do here. > > > > > Fron the practice taught by Ramana, any form > > > of concentrative meditation is seen as less > > > effective than self-inquiry. > > > > I would say that self-inquiry *is* a form of > > concentrative meditation. The difference between > > yoga and self-inquiry is as follows. > > > > In yoga, the person concentrates on an image, an > > idea, a sound, etc. -- on some sort of object. > > > > In self-inquiry, the person tries to focus attention > > on the "me" who is seeing images, thinking ideas, > > and hearing sounds -- on the subject rather than > > an object. > > > > Both these methods require concentration and > > one-pointed attention. Both methods aim at stopping > > thoughts. Both methods, if successful, lead to > > a samadhi without objects. > > > > Sri Ramana criticizes yoga not because it involves > > concentration, but because he thinks it's not effective. > > As he says in Talks article 393: > > > > > Devotee: How is the mind to be stilled? > > > > > > Ramana: Looking at the mind with the mind, > > > or fixing the mind in the Self, brings the mind > > > under control of the Self. > > > > > > Devotee: Is there any yoga, i.e., a process > > > for it? > > > > > > Ramana: Vichara (investigation) [i.e. self-inquiry] > > > alone will do. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rob > > > > > > - > > "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke@i...> > > <RamanaMaharshi> > > Monday, September 09, 2002 10:44 PM > > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > > > > > > > Dear CJ, > > > > > > Fron the practice taught by Ramana, any form of concentrative > > > meditation is seen as less effective than self-inquiry.... > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Mark, > On the other hand, concentrative skill is necessary > or one's attention wanders into all types of distraction. Yes, that's all i meant when I said "concentrative." As I just wrote to Richard, it wasn't a good choice of wording. > It's meditative in the sense that attention is > focused and held but and is dissolving because > what is focused upon is dissolved and/or > penetrated When the focus of your attention dissolves, is there a sense that you are seeing it dissolve? If so, where is the I-thought, really? Best regards, Rob - "Mark" <milarepa <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:53 PM RE: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) Rob and Richard: In my own practice, inquiry is both a dissolving and a concentration... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 When I enquire who thinks this or who says this there is of course, silence and the obvious answer but when i am deep in concern and an inner voice gives me an answer and I say who is this? I get the reply "Each other"What are thoughts on this? Barb gabriele_ebert [g.ebert] Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:35 PM RamanaMaharshi [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) Vichara - this or that or this and that or so and so? Paradox - no paradox - LOL Isn't it the most simple and natural thing there is? in HIM Gabriele (Please take this comment with some humor!) RamanaMaharshi, "Mark" <milarepa@a...> wrote: > Rob and Richard: > > In my own practice, inquiry is both a dissolving and a concentration. It's > meditative in the sense > that attention is focused and held but and is dissolving because what is > focused upon is dissolved and/or > penetrated. Inquiry is distinct from meditation because the practice isn't > to concentrate with the intent > to develop a facility with concentration as with most meditative exercises. > On the other hand, concentrative > skill is necessary or one's attention wanders into all types of distraction. > > Interesting paradox isn't it? > > Mark > > D ear Rob, > > One more note, (which came to me while doing a bit of inquiry before > my afternoon consulting appointment), > > To me inquiry seems more like a dissolving than a concentration. > > The experience is one of a (gradual, progressive and long-term in my > case, a very short one in Ramana's case) process of eliminating > incorrect ideas of who I am. As each idea is eliminated – or > even "softened" – the experiences is that one's "space" of being gets > a little more expansive. > > WE are Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > > > I would describe Sri Ramana's teachings a little > > bit differently than you do here. > > > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o... > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o... > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Gabriele, > (Please take this comment with some humor!) Why not? Some people say the instruction to look for "I" is really a practical joke. > Isn't it the most simple and natural thing there is? Hmm.... the feeling of "me" seemed simple and natural until I went looking for it... but damn.. I know it's here somewhere .... i saw it out of the corner of my eye yestersday when I wasn't looking for it...... Best regards, Rob - "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:34 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) Vichara - this or that or this and that or so and so? Paradox - no paradox - LOL... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Barbara, I think maybe this comes more easily to you than to most people. > When I enquire who thinks this or who > says this there is of course, silence > and the obvious answer Somebody asked before about grace. Maybe your experience is a good example of grace. You wrote earlier: > Most people think around a thought never > finish a thought, have a completed thoought... I don't understand what it means to think around a thought or finish a thought. My thoughts are mostly daydreams, little movies that get projected for my pleasure. Each one continues to run until it gets boring or it hits a sour note. When that happens, the projectionist switches to a different movie. I don't know how to think around or finish such a thought ... it's just meaningless fantasy. Of course the thought stops when I pay attention to the fact that I'm thinking it ... but that's not what you mean........ or is it? Best regards, Rob - "Barbara Hilal" <barbara <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:18 PM RE: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) When I enquire who thinks this or who says this there is of course, silence and the obvious answer but when i am deep in concern and an inner voice gives me an answer and I say who is this? I get the reply "Each other"What are thoughts on this? Barb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 thinking is the activity thought is a complete thing .the thought emerges than there is this thinking in circles arouund the thought. say a thught I must go to the store.. It never gets accepted (yes I sure must) instead it is rolled over lapped under and youre left worried about going to the store I need to make a list or I dont want to forget milk..If you realize the futility of continualy reminding yourself etc. you'll finish the thought and let go.. this requires trusting yourself to remember or to do the right thing etc.this is dificult to make examples of this sounds trivial but most thinking is trivial. When you think of all the things you do that do not require conciousness (which is focus of the mind)and how we do so well without giving thought to something ..its amazing! A marvelous book is Julian Jaynes book about the emerging of conciousness.."The birth of conciousness in the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind" how the Illiad and the old testaments are written about unconcious civilizations...When conciousness arose, man had to choose before that the gods told him what to do and when the gods began to die away how divination etc was used for deciding,, Barb Rob Sacks [editor] Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:16 PM RamanaMaharshi Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) Dear Barbara, I think maybe this comes more easily to you than to most people. > When I enquire who thinks this or who > says this there is of course, silence > and the obvious answer Somebody asked before about grace. Maybe your experience is a good example of grace. You wrote earlier: > Most people think around a thought never > finish a thought, have a completed thoought... I don't understand what it means to think around a thought or finish a thought. My thoughts are mostly daydreams, little movies that get projected for my pleasure. Each one continues to run until it gets boring or it hits a sour note. When that happens, the projectionist switches to a different movie. I don't know how to think around or finish such a thought ... it's just meaningless fantasy. Of course the thought stops when I pay attention to the fact that I'm thinking it ... but that's not what you mean........ or is it? Best regards, Rob - "Barbara Hilal" <barbara <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:18 PM RE: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) When I enquire who thinks this or who says this there is of course, silence and the obvious answer but when i am deep in concern and an inner voice gives me an answer and I say who is this? I get the reply "Each other"What are thoughts on this? Barb Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Barbara, Okay, thank you, the example about going to the store makes it very clear. A thought originates with some little nugget. Instead of deciding some reasonable thing about the nugget and forgetting it for the time being, we allow the nugget to sprout tendrils. Yes, I understand now. Been there, done that. Can I ask you to clarify something you said earlier? I'm quoting from memory -- you said something like, there really isn't any space in which we find thoughts. Instead, there's just matter and time. I didn't understand very well. Maybe you could amplify? > > A marvelous book is Julian Jaynes book about the emerging of > conciousness.." I read that book many years ago. To tell you the truth I thought the book was ridiculous. Maybe I'll take a look at it again and see whether it seems more reasonable, now that I'm older and more ignorant. Best regards, Rob - "Barbara Hilal" <barbara <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:55 PM RE: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > thinking is the activity thought is a complete thing .the thought emerges > than there is this thinking in circles arouund Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Thought is proven to be composed of matter. the mindless is timeless matter less and space less...All words relating to time cannot describe it excepting it is timeless therefore no matter nor space. .Forever ,infinity etc. still imply time.. It is in our culture difficult to maintain the state of timelessness and no-mind.. Our culture is a slave of time.. with a new orientation by our society we could all be free of this limitation. Geological time has a reality psychological time is delusion. A delusion caused by the sequencing of thought in time creating psychological time. The mind is measure and it measures everything but it is so iwe'll feel safe about things ..be able to predict and manipulate things. in reality multiplicity is an illusion., measure simply a convenience like thought and naming. In reality everything is one. Einstein spoke of the interval I see and and hear an event ..you the same ...like a bullet shot.. one closest hears and sees the shot at a different time than the other ...splitting the interval arrives at the reality of the time not the observers story.. (Same as quantum physics where the observer gets in the way because he influences what is observed is a part of it. ) to ride on the bullet be there on arrival would be the exact time.. Point in space observation has a relative viewpoint. The interval is the closest one can get to the real time or timelessnes, which is" what is". What I am saying is this.. you can only be conscious of what you are conscious of.. which is not nonsensical like a flashlight in the closet ...you point it ONLY at selected images you want to focus on..therefore consciousness and thinking are not awareness awareness is not focused (concentrated) awareness sees as a whole and is not fragmented. I hope this is clearer ..it is words that catch us up when we try to relate a truth . Barb Rob Sacks [editor] Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:02 PM RamanaMaharshi Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) Dear Barbara, Okay, thank you, the example about going to the store makes it very clear. A thought originates with some little nugget. Instead of deciding some reasonable thing about the nugget and forgetting it for the time being, we allow the nugget to sprout tendrils. Yes, I understand now. Been there, done that. Can I ask you to clarify something you said earlier? I'm quoting from memory -- you said something like, there really isn't any space in which we find thoughts. Instead, there's just matter and time. I didn't understand very well. Maybe you could amplify? > > A marvelous book is Julian Jaynes book about the emerging of > conciousness.." I read that book many years ago. To tell you the truth I thought the book was ridiculous. Maybe I'll take a look at it again and see whether it seems more reasonable, now that I'm older and more ignorant. Best regards, Rob - "Barbara Hilal" <barbara <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:55 PM RE: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > thinking is the activity thought is a complete thing .the thought emerges > than there is this thinking in circles arouund Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Hi cornelius, > > > What is a Gift of Grace? From whom or > > what does it come? Does "Luck" > > (randomness) play a role? > > A gift of grace is something that comes to us > apart from our efforts. From where does it > come? From God, from the Absolute, from > the Reality -- whatever you want to call it. > > Gurus talk about Grace to encourage surrender -- > to encourage abandonment of voluntary effort. > From Talks With Ramana Maharshi, article > 319: > > > Ramana: ...Karma, Yoga, Bhakti, and Jnana convey > > the same meaning. They are only the single Truth > > presented in different aspects. > > > Devotee: Is Grace necessary for it? > > > Ramana: Yes. > > > Devotee: How to gain Divine Grace? > > > Ramana: By surrender." > > I suppose the path of bhakti could be > described accurately as a path in which > a person tries to see everything that happens > as gifts of grace. And I suppose Yoga > could be seen as the opposite, as a path > devoted to maximizing self-control. But > in the final stages, they become the same, > because both end up in the highest samadhi > described by Eliade in which there is nobody > present who can make efforts or not make > efforts. > > Eliade is mentioning Grace here simply to > make the point that the highest samadhi > cannot be brought on deliberately, through > effort, but it is more likely to occur to a person > who has worked strenuously for years to > practice concentration, one-pointed attention, > and the "lower" levels of samadhi. > > Sri Ramana says the same thing. He advises > people to make an effort to keep the attention > focused on the feeling of "I" until a certain > point is reached, when something outside our > voluntary efforts takes over and the Self > becomes apparent. > > If you want to read what Sri Ramana says about > samadhi, see Talks With Sri Ramana > Maharshi, articles 391. (Sri Ramana uses the > term "nirvikalpa samadhi" to refer to samadhi > without objects.) > > Best regards, > > Rob brother Rob, yes, regariding the "evacuation of the egoic mind/I-ness" or the "higher" samadhi , I get from the words of your's and other's the importance of the "causelessness". That is such a challenge to my rationalist perspective of my upbringing or acculturation. Many goals were held to be within reach, some were achieved, many were not. I have to wander if the highest samadhi spoken of is illusory only to he who is unwilling. To speak in terms of lowest/highest is a misdirection. Realizing self is a matter of openness. The yoga for me is technique of opening up and stilling the mind. peace, cornelius > - > "cj" <d_agenda2000> > <RamanaMaharshi> > Cc: <Nisargadatta> > Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:22 PM > [RamanaMaharshi] Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > > > > Excerpt from M.Eliade's "Yoga": Samdhi "with support" > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2002 Report Share Posted September 10, 2002 Dear Cornelius, > I get from the words of your's and other's the > importance of the "causelessness". That is > such a challenge to my rationalist perspective of my > upbringing or acculturation. Actually I said nothing about causality. If you go back and look you'll see I was careful to talk only about voluntary efforts. I too was educated in the twentieth century, and I too was skeptical about these sorts of statements. As a result of certain experiences, I now believe these statements are really about volition, not causality. Properly formulated, these statements are about psychology, not metaphysics. If you understand them in this way, they are perfectly compatible with reason and science. Here's how I look at this subject: when you make a deliberate voluntary effort, certain mental activity occurs. This is a tautology; the mental activity *is* the deliberate effort. This sort of mental effort obscures the experience that is desired. So the only way to attain the experience is to find some way of getting it that doesn't involve trying to get it. In fact, to make the experience happen, the precise thing you need to do is find a way to make all efforts stop. Again, this is an assertion about psychology, nothing more. It's as if our eyelids are clenched closed and we are trying to see. Unfortunately, due to the way our brains are wired, all efforts to open the eyes only make them shut more tightly. The only way to make them open is to relax . > I have to wander if the highest samadhi spoken of is > illusory only to he who is unwilling. I think your will is significant only insofar as it determines how much practice you do. There's no God up in heaven giving out samadhi's as a reward for your earnestness. That's allegory or a fairy tale, designed to motivate people. > To speak in terms of lowest/highest is a misdirection. Yes you're right, I shouldn't have said "higher samadhi." I only wrote it because Ramana says "nirvikalpa samadhi" and Eliade says "asamprajnata samadhi" and I didn't want to bother typing the names out. Best regards, Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2002 Report Share Posted September 11, 2002 Rob: We aren't disagreeing. Everything dissolves including attention itself. Mark Dear Mark, > On the other hand, concentrative skill is necessary > or one's attention wanders into all types of distraction. Yes, that's all i meant when I said "concentrative." As I just wrote to Richard, it wasn't a good choice of wording. > It's meditative in the sense that attention is > focused and held but and is dissolving because > what is focused upon is dissolved and/or > penetrated When the focus of your attention dissolves, is there a sense that you are seeing it dissolve? If so, where is the I-thought, really? Best regards, Rob - "Mark" <milarepa <RamanaMaharshi> Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:53 PM RE: [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) Rob and Richard: In my own practice, inquiry is both a dissolving and a concentration... Sponsor Post message: RamanaMaharshi Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- Un: RamanaMaharshi- List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner Shortcut URL to this page: /community/RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2002 Report Share Posted September 11, 2002 Dear Rob, who is interested in yesterday? here and now, now and here, just now! No eye is there to see the eye. - No feeling of "me", no being "here somewhere" - LOL In HIM Gabriele > > > Isn't it the most simple and natural thing there is? > > Hmm.... the feeling of "me" seemed simple and > natural until I went looking for it... but damn.. > I know it's here somewhere .... i saw it out of the > corner of my eye yestersday when I wasn't > looking for it...... > > Best regards, > > Rob > > - > "gabriele_ebert" <g.ebert@g...> > <RamanaMaharshi> > Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:34 PM > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Eliade on Samadhi (an excerpt) > > > Vichara - this or that or this and that or so and so? Paradox - no > paradox - LOL... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2002 Report Share Posted September 11, 2002 Excerpt from M.Eliade's "Yoga": Samdhi "with support" Rather than "knowledge," however, samadhi is a "state," an enstatic modality peculiar to Yoga. We shall presently see that this state makes possible the self-revelation of the Self (purusa), by virtue of an act that does not constitute an "experience." But not any samadhi reveals the Self, not any "stasis" makes final liberation a reality. Patanjali and his commentators distinguish several kinds or stages of supreme concentration. When samadhi is obtained with the help of an object or idea (that is, by fixing one's thought on a point in space or on an idea), the stasis is called samprajnata samadhi ("enstasis with support," or "differentiated enstasis"). When, on the other hand, samadhi is obtained apart from any "relation" (whether external or mental)-- that is, when one obtains a "conjunction" into which no "otherness" enters, but which is simply a full comprehension of being--one has realized asamprajnata samadhi ("undifferentiated stasis"). Vijnanabhiksu adds that samprajnata samadhi is a means of liberation in so far as it makes possible the comprehension of truth and ends every kind of suffering. But asamprajnata samadhi destroys the "impresssions [samskara] of all antecedent mental functions" and even succeeds in arresting the karmic forces already set in motion by the yogin's past activity. During "differentiated stasis", Vijnanabhiksu continues, all the mental functions are "arrested" ("inhibited"), except that which "meditates on the object"; whereas in asamprajnata samadhi all "consciousness" vanishes, the entire series of mental functions are block. "During this stasis, there is no other trace of the mind [citta] save the impressions [samskara] left behind (by ints past functions). If these impressions were not present, there would be no possibility of returning to consciousness." We are, then, confronted with two sharply differentiated classes of "states." The first class is acquired through the yogic technique of concentration (dharana) and meditation (dhyana); the second class comprises only a single "state"--that is, unprovoted enstasis, "raptus." No doubt, even this asamprajnata samdhi is always owing to prolonged efforts on the yogin's part. It is not a gift or a state of grace. One can hardly reach it before having sufficiently experienced the kinds of samadhi included in the first class. It is the crown of the innumerable "concentrations" and "meditations" that have preceded it. But it comes without being summoned, without being provoked, without special preparations for it.That is why it can be called a "raptus" Obviously, "differentiated enstasis" samprajnata samadhi, comprises several stages. This is because it is perfectible and does not realize an absolute and irreductible "state." What is a Gift of Grace? From whom or what does it come? Does "Luck" (randomness) play a role? comments much appreciated, cornelius 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.