Guest guest Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 In my mind's eye the edges blur, shift a precarious balance-- my intrinsic nature disappears into the darkness, leaving my heart to feel its memories door upon doors open and close their sound takes me out from the awkward silence like a thirsty giraffe, precious, like a newborn life, In my mind's eye, the silence breaks, shatters into images, the cosmic dance begins with oceans and seas of realities, other worlds and netherworlds, coalesce, annexed to far-reaching dark stars I travel through vortex after vortex of Light and create worlds upon worlds of distinctions, heavy with the sounds of a subtle dissolution where nothing happens, faceless mirrors of every incarnation shedding skin upon skin with a serpent's ease, In my mind's eye, these bare bones of infinity, precise vultures break all bonds, break all ties, fly away with the blood of ancestors on their terrible claws In my mind's eye nothing remains, twinkling like a sky, full of stars in a deep purple night. ~ 2007 ~Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Upon Shri Ged-s request I am forwarding my pvt email to him to the group as well, in case it is of some help to others as well.  Hari OM Shyam --- On Fri, 10/9/09, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: Shyam <shyam_md Re: Meditation " Gede Dean " <atma-vichara Friday, October 9, 2009, 12:50 PM Dear Ged Pranams I think this is the crux of your question:  " > Isn't this a contradiction with Sri > Ramana who said to not meditate on a thought, even the > " I Am Brahman's " > thought? " Let me offer you my perspective on this. Meditation can either be upasana or dhyana - which is a mental activity, or nidhidhyasana, or an abidance in Self.  There is a school of thought(many even in traditional advaita who to this) that feels one must meditate - i.e. dhyana - on this thought " aham brahmasmi "  and it is this meditation, and not the mahavakya itself, that enables the transforming liberation to unfold.  This view is summarily rejected by Shankara and I think this is also what Bhagwan Ramana is pointing to.  The difference between this kind of upasana and nidhidhyasana is that the former is purusha tantra and the latter is vastu tantra.  In upasana meditation - there is effort on the part of the seeker to train his mind exclusively on the object of the meditation - the object may be a symbol like a cross, a personal God like Krishna or Mother Mary, etc or a concept - like " I am Brahman " - the effort of that meditation itself determines the efficacy. Hence it is called purusha tantra. It is an attempt to achieve something not yet in hand.  In vastu tantra meditation - which is nidhidhyasana - the " vastu " i.e. the Self is ever-present, ever-available, ever- " seen "  - no effort is needed to achieve it - if there are no distractions the Self shines forth on its own accord. It is like opening your eyes and seeing a flower - knowledge of the flower is not based on your effort but is a consequence of the eye, the organ of vision, interacting with the object flower - no effort is needed. Similarly knowledge of the Self will accrue when the words of the Guru fall on the Ego - IF there are no obstrcutions. If the flower is not seen it could be because the eye is distracted by a snake lying next to the flower and the vision is focussed elsewhere as a result. So in order to see the flower the eye needs to be directed away from the snake - until when - until the flower alone is seen to the exclusion of everything else. The effort made here is not to make an unseen flower seen, but in focussing the attention to be on the ever-seen flower alone.  And so it is with Self-contemplation. This is what Bhagwan Ramana talsk about - see his words from the RIbhu Gita:  45. The bhavana ‘aham brahmasmi’ swiftly takes one to mukti. 46. The illusion that one is the body and that the world is the basic reality has remained soaked over a long, long time, and cannot be got rid of by a mere understanding of the truth. The basic illusion can be effaced only by a long and unremitting practice of the bhavana that all this is ‘aham brahmasmi'. 50. One should abide in the rock-firm bhavana that‘Everything is only Brahman-Self and I am that Brahman-Self’. By this bhavana all thought movements and nescience will disappear, resulting in the eternal abidance in the sole Sat-Chit-Ananda-Self. 59. In the conviction that ‘aham brahmasmi’ in which no thought, ego, desire, mind or confusion can exist one should abide still, free from trace of thought. 60. The firm faith of being the Self is sufficient to dispel all thought and establish one in Brahman. In due course of this practice, even the thought involved in that faith fades away leading to the spontaneous effulgence of the Self. 69. By the persistent and continued bhavana of ‘aham brahmasmi’ all thoughts and feelings of differentiation of Self and non-Self will drop off and permanent abidance in Brahman will be achieved. I hope my understanding of your question was correct and this offers you a perspective on the same.  Hari OM Shyam  --- On Thu, 10/8/09, Gede Dean <atma-vichara wrote: > Gede Dean <atma-vichara > Meditation > " Shyam " <shyam_md > Thursday, October 8, 2009, 12:04 PM > > > > > > Dear > Shyam, > Pranams > Thank > you. >  >  > " Steadfastness " >  > Quote: " Knowledge-continues in the form of > the conviction that one's own > Self has been realized, then THAT CONTINUANCE is called the > Supreme > steadfastness (nistha) in > Knowledge. " >  > My comprehension: > The utter conviction (Rhibu Gita > " Bhavana " ) that one's own Self has realized is > the understanding of Steadfastness and I would tend to > understand that it is also the " one-pointedness " > mentionned by Sri Ramana. Then vichara is abiding in the > self, keeping the attention on the self or as Sri > Nisargadatta said on the I Am, the > beingness. >  > Quote: > " So the question > remains as to whether after the dawn of doubtless knowledge, > is there anything more that needs to be done? The answer is > no. > There > is nothing that needs to be DONE once knowledge has been > gained, but there may be something that needs to be > UNDONE " >  > Thus it is just continuing in the conviction > of one's own Self has been realized. Not accepting any > thoughts about attaining realisation, jivan mukti, convinced > that one is already Brahman. >  > Quotes: > > " Be ever > established in the conviction I am > Brahman " >  > " The > “having known†here refers to aparoksha jnana – in > other words aham brahmasmi - alone > – but this knowledge now needs to be constantly and > incessantly contemplated upon by directing one’s thoughts > exclusively towards it. " >  > Isn't this a contradiction with Sri > Ramana who said to not meditate on a thought, even the > " I Am Brahman's " > thought? >  > My gratitude, >  > Ged >  > P.S. My mother tongue is French and although > my English is good, sometime the subtle language differences > are difficult to grasp for me. Consequently I might ask > basic questions after your replies. Please bear with > me. > Nouveau : > connexion à Hotmail par MSN! > 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.