Control of mind

[Guest guest]

There was a question as to why it's so difficult

to control the mind during meditation. A similar

question was posed by a devotee to Ramana

Maharshi.<br><br>Q. Why does not the mind sink into the Heart even while

meditating?<br>A. A floating body does not readily sink unless some

means are used for making it do so. Breath-control

makes the mind quiescent. The mind must be alert and

meditation pursued unremittingly even when it is at peace.

Then it sinks into the Heart. Association with the

wise also makes the mind sink into the Heart. Such

association is both mental and physical. The external Guru

pushes the mind inward. The same Guru is also in the

Heart of the seeker, and so he draws the latter's

inward-bent mind into the Heart. <br><br>Note:The mind

doesn't sink into the heart during meditation, because

concentration has not been sufficiently heavy to sink it.

<br><br>On another occasion Bhagavan answers :<br>The mind

does not now sink into the Heart because the latent

tendencies stand as obstacles. They are removed by

breath-control or association with the wise. In fact the mind is

always in the Heart. But it is restive and moves about

on account of latent tendencies. When the tendencies

are made ineffective, it will be restfull and at

peace.<br><br>By breath-control the mind will be only temporarily

quiescent, because the tendencies are still there. If the

mind is transformed into the Self it will no longer

give troubles. That is done by meditation.

[Guest guest]

We must find out an answer to this question: Is

meditation a cause of something higher than that, or is it

an effect (of efforts to meditate), or is it

neither?<br><br>In other words, is meditation a means to achieve

something, or is it an end? <br><br>Should we differentiate

between attempts at meditation (which many supposed

saadhakas do for an hour a day or so) and the thing

itself?<br><br>Let us not quote anyone (I have that habit myself).

Do we know what we mean when we say

meditation?<br><br>Anyone?<br><br>Hare Krishna.<br>Rajeev

[Guest guest]

deshpanderajeev:"In other words, is meditation a

means to achieve something, or is it an end?

<br><br>Should we differentiate between attempts at meditation

(which many supposed saadhakas do for an hour a day or

so) and the thing itself?"<br><br>From a Buddhist

perspective these are very good and important questions.

There is an excellent book by Zen master Shunryu Suzuki

on this very subject called " Zen Mind, Beginners

Mind". However, since you taged a qualifier onto this of

'Let us not quote" I will try and give a responsible

answer on my own.<br><br> <br>The simple answer to

should we "differentiate between attempts at meditation

(which many supposed saadhakas do for an hour a day or

so) and the thing itself?" is no. While we Buddhist

refer to meditation and study of the dharma as

"pratice" no distinction should be seen between the

"attempt" and the "act"( for want of a better word). It

should be mentioned at this point, [that while you

should not meditate without any purpose, you should

meditate without the purpose of gaining ideas, even of

gaining enlightenment]1. To meditate is to be yourself

with yourself and while that may seem to require , for

some of us, a period of "attempting", if you

differentiate between attempting to be yourself and being

yourself you are furthering the growth of concepts there

by defeating the purpose of meditation in the first

place. <br> <br>1. close to a quote from Shunryu

Suzuki<br><br><br>This realy is a long and involved topic of utmost

importance.

[Guest guest]

Blessed Self, deshpanderajeev<br><br>As a method

of discussion, you asked, "In other words, is

meditation a means to achieve something, or is it an

end?"<br><br>My answer is that meditation is both and it is

neither.<br><br>Meditation is both a means and an end. As a means, one

begins a meditation practice to still the mind and so

eventually come to Brahman through discipline,

concentration, devotion and purification of the astral body. As

an end, meditation merges into samadhi, just as

semi-consciousness upon waking up in the morning merges into alert

wakefulness. At some point, there is no distinction, no

boundary between meditation as a process and meditation as

Self-Realization. <br><br>But meditation is also neither means nor

end. To see meditation as an means ensures that one

will never attain Self-Realization. For in

Self-Realization, there is no ego, no desire, not even the desire

for Self-Realization. Nor is meditation an end. The

Realization that one's atman is actually the same atman as

everyone else's atman and that all of those atmans are

manifestations of Brahman is to identify with Brahman, to be

Brahman and to be eternal. There is no end to Brahman, no

non-Brahman -- ever. So, meditation cannot be an end as in

the attainment of a goal, for you already are the

goal you seek. Nor can meditation be an end as in the

end of the journey, the inn at the end of the day,

because Brahman is beyond time and space and all other

limiting adjuncts and so are 'you'. Meditation is just the

Realization of that. Just as Brahman is permanent without

end, so too is meditation on That<br><br>Meditation is

a cause and not a cause. It is the only way to

Self-Realization (as all the Masters have said), so one could say

that it is the cause of Self-Realization. But

meditation is just our constant inner call to stay in tune

to our True Self, with Brahman. So it is not a

cause, but is an innate characteristic of

us.<br><br>Meditation is an effect and not an effect. It is an effect

of our determination to remove the filters of ego,

sensory data and conditioning by others that obscure our

sense of our True Nature, But, as above, that

determination to tune to Brahman is an innate characteristic of

each of us that cannot be considered an

effect.<br><br>Rather than using the rational mind, as exemplified by

your 'either-or' scenarios, to investigate meditation,

why not use a less rigid, less constrictive, less

limited way of acquiring knowledge? It would be better to

turn to the intuitive mind to investigate meditation.

Then one can see past the supposed horns of dilemna

posed by a rational approach to a solution that uses a

wider and more subtle awareness that is not possible

through rationality. <br><br>it is better just to do the

practice, to allow this innate yearning to be connected to

Brahman to proceed and to allow ourselves to be

deconditioned so that our identity as Brahman shines through in

an intimate and undeniable way. Along the way all of

those types of questions you suggested will be

answered.<br><br>Hari Om Tat Sat<br><br>omprem