Guest guest Posted December 26, 1999 Report Share Posted December 26, 1999 Robert wrote: >There is no chosen object of >meditation because the act of choosing itself >brings the mind back into the >process. I understand that it is possible in >principle to use the mind to go >beyond the mind, but in my case I find that if >I give mind any role at all, >it tends to take over and choke everything >else out. I share this sentiment. I too find it impossible to work with anything else but a passive watching of the mind processes and a slight exploration of the witness state itself. >I would be fascinated to hear the comments of >the more advanced members on >various meditation techniques (or lack >thereof) and how they relate to >so-called one-pointedness and self inquiry. I'm far from an advanced member, but in the hope that you would be interested in hearing other ppl's experiences too: By meditating on, or really, by simply witnessing the movements and impressions and thought dissolutions that Kundalini performs in the mind-body, I have experienced increase in one-pointedness prior to the "unmeditating state". Many traditions do not regard movements of the Kundalini energy to be conducive to meditation, but I found that it kept the mind alert and calm at the same time. The witness state seemed to appear for free and since the energy is easier to carry around than an altar or a meditation cushion, it was something that was easy and practical to use. This way, nightly dreaming also became meditation, which is a good time saver. Breathing could also be "made into" a puja by trying to make every breath into a prayer of reverence to god. I regard the witness state a pole onto which one can hang emotions such as love and reverence to deities like one would hang prayer flags on a real pole. Some ppl do not regard keeping an eye on the witness any advanced meditation "technique", but at least it's relaxing and convenient. Best regards, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 1999 Report Share Posted December 28, 1999 Message: 3 (From digest 441) Sun, 26 Dec 1999 21:14:32 0000 "winter mute" <mumblecat Meditation experiences Greetings, Amanda and Robert, Robert wrote: «There is no chosen object of meditation because the act of choosing itself brings the mind back into the process. I understand that it is possible in principle to use the mind to go beyond the mind, but in my case I find that if I give mind any role at all, it tends to take over and choke everything else out. » Amanda wrote back: «I share this sentiment.» Antoine: I find interesting this word "sentiment", you use, Amanda, to describe the "process" mentioned here by Robert. To bad I do not have the proper Sanskrit term to pin point to those possible "way of Being". I have confidence that they will come to my mind, in time as it should. Amanda: « I too find it impossible to work with anything else but a passive watching of the mind processes and a slight exploration of the witness state itself. » Antoine: When there is no watcher, how can there be an object or a sentiment of a relation object/subject? I also find interesting those words from Robert : "There is no chosen object of meditation because the act of choosing itself brings the mind back into the process." One way of reading this sentence, or an "emotion", that I may have, is to say: It comes to saying a choice being made creates a subject. It makes me, as subject, associated to the mind. Is calming the mind necessary to "see", "become" or "be" what is behind it? To Realize oneself, some could say... Does the mind needs to be dragged, "dissolved out of personal choices into the substance of peace", for us to meditate? In other words, does meditating require any form of action? or sentiment? would it be the most noble of them: witnessing the mind into peace. Thank you for this possibility of exploration that is brought, And may this day be as it Is. Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 1999 Report Share Posted December 28, 1999 >Antoine <carrea <snip> >I also find interesting those words from Robert : "There is no chosen >object of meditation because the act of choosing itself brings the mind >back into the process." One way of reading this sentence, or an >"emotion", that I may have, is to say: It comes to saying a choice being >made creates a subject. It makes me, as subject, associated to the mind. > >Is calming the mind necessary to "see", "become" or "be" what is behind >it? To Realize oneself, some could say... Does the mind needs to be >dragged, "dissolved out of personal choices into the substance of >peace", for us to meditate? In other words, does meditating require any >form of action? or sentiment? would it be the most noble of them: >witnessing the mind into peace. If any calming of the mind occurs during the process that I described, then it must be strictly indirect and incidental, because any purpose or intention to make any change or choice of any kind, to prefer anything or to avoid or suppress anything, sabotages the process of pure, passive, non-identifying, non-participating, non-reacting witness. There is nothing to do, since the entire emphasis is on _not_ doing any of the things that I just mentioned, in addition to not pursuing any interesting or anxious thoughts that may arise. Whatever arises is merely noted, and then let go. All thoughts, sensations, and so on are viewed as if on a screen that is external to the viewer, and which can be watched with total dispassion. When practiced in this way, witnessing does imply duality, since there is the witness which is subject only, and everything else which is object. But by systematically excluding all objects of perception from the 'I,' including (especially!) one's own mind, the 'I-thought' is brought into sharp focus, and then can itself be inquired into. My earlier question was about how to make this next step from neti neti to Atma Vichara, and what the proper relationship is between Atma Vichara and passive, choiceless witnessing. Robert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 1999 Report Share Posted December 29, 1999 Hi! <My earlier question was about how to make this next step from neti neti to Atma Vichara, and what the proper relationship is between Atma Vichara and passive, choiceless witnessing.> It is an interesting question. Let me see whether it can be understood through an example. A pot (full or not full) of water makes sloshing noices as the pot is moved. The "I" is like the water and it sloshes in our lives with all kinds of movements (questions). The 'neti, neti' is the resultant response noice. If we pour the water out, the pot gets filled with the 'invisible' air, automatically . When there are no more (movements of "I") questions to know Atma Vichara, the passive and choiceless witnessing (the "Being") occurs. The next step occurs without effort! -- Vis Parisi & Watson wrote: > "Parisi & Watson" <niche > > >Antoine <carrea > <snip> > >I also find interesting those words from Robert : "There is no chosen > >object of meditation because the act of choosing itself brings the mind > >back into the process." One way of reading this sentence, or an > >"emotion", that I may have, is to say: It comes to saying a choice being > >made creates a subject. It makes me, as subject, associated to the mind. > > > >Is calming the mind necessary to "see", "become" or "be" what is behind > >it? To Realize oneself, some could say... Does the mind needs to be > >dragged, "dissolved out of personal choices into the substance of > >peace", for us to meditate? In other words, does meditating require any > >form of action? or sentiment? would it be the most noble of them: > >witnessing the mind into peace. > > If any calming of the mind occurs during the process that I described, then > it must be strictly indirect and incidental, because any purpose or > intention to make any change or choice of any kind, to prefer anything or to > avoid or suppress anything, sabotages the process of pure, passive, > non-identifying, non-participating, non-reacting witness. There is nothing > to do, since the entire emphasis is on _not_ doing any of the things that I > just mentioned, in addition to not pursuing any interesting or anxious > thoughts that may arise. Whatever arises is merely noted, and then let go. > All thoughts, sensations, and so on are viewed as if on a screen that is > external to the viewer, and which can be watched with total dispassion. When > practiced in this way, witnessing does imply duality, since there is the > witness which is subject only, and everything else which is object. But by > systematically excluding all objects of perception from the 'I,' including > (especially!) one's own mind, the 'I-thought' is brought into sharp focus, > and then can itself be inquired into. My earlier question was about how to > make this next step from neti neti to Atma Vichara, and what the proper > relationship is between Atma Vichara and passive, choiceless witnessing. > > Robert. > > > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email Address: advaitins > 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.