Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Hello to everyone here, This is my first post to this group. I hope the content is OK and that it falls within the approved guidelines. If not, please accept my apologies. I am very new to this whole area of Advaita study. I do not consider myself to be an "Advaitist" (if there is such a thing ?) but am definitely interested in finding out more about it. I am reading two of Dennis Waite's books at present and what struck a chord with me was in finding a method of meditation that works for me. After experimenting with a few approaches, I came up with the following method... I do ten minutes a day. I sit in the Burmese position, sitting on a small satchel for support. I begin by doing seven rounds of Nadi Shodhana (alternate nostril breathing) , in order to bring my attention to my breathing. My eyes close during this. I then concentrate on one point right in front of my forehead and keep coming back to that, when my thoughts wander. I aim to feel "self-aware" or "fully present". Afterwards, everything seems very vivid-colours, sounds , movement. I feel rested and centered. The only downside is that sitting in the Burmese position like that does seem to strain my neck . However, this is a problem that I have anyway and am addressing via ergonomics assessment at my place of work. Other than that, I am trying to watch my thoughts and not identify with them or get attached to them. When I can do that, I find that strong emotions in particular-anger, fear etc.-lose their power. I also get some feelings of deep peace, but only once or twice. In other words, I am trying to cultivate a meditative or observing attitude to my own mental phenomena, in daily life, as well as my ten minutes of formal meditation To be honest, I find it difficult to make sense of things without a personal god or being. I have had experiences in my life where a consciousness of some sort(which felt like an energy of some kind) drew me to a certain course of action or encouraged me to say certain things and these have always worked out for the best. I don't know how to square that with "There are not two things". Well, that is all I wanted to write. I am basically looking for a critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things differently or ways in which I could meditate better. Thank you for any help. George For the best free wallpapers from MSN Click here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 Hi George, It sounds as if you are doing very well already. All the things that you mention are excellent for preparing the mind, improving detachment and discrimination etc., all of which are pre-requisites for receiving self-knowledge. Don’t get too hung up on things like position for meditation. The purpose behind suggested positions is to prevent your falling asleep or going into day-dreams. In theory, you can meditate just as well lying down; it’s just that you may find this more conducive to sleep. Also, although I do not say much about personal gods in my books, these are perfectly acceptable and many will attest the value of such beliefs for the seeker. Ultimately it is self-knowledge alone which can remove self-ignorance. And for this, a qualified teacher is invaluable. You should certainly try to find one or a suitable organization. Many will claim that it is not possible to gain enlightenment simply from books, discussion etc. Whilst I might not agree with this, there is no doubt that it is vastly easier with a teacher. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of George Nesbitt Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:04 PM advaitin Critique of meditation method please <<< >>> Well, that is all I wanted to write. I am basically looking for a critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things differently or ways in which I could meditate better. Thank you for any help. George .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 George Nesbitt <nesbittgeorge wrote:> > Well, that is all I wanted to write. I am basically looking for a critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things differently or ways in which I could meditate better.> Hello George,Being a student of Advaita myself, I don't feel I'm very qualified to offer a critique or any suggestions to what it seems to be a healthy approach to meditation, as you explained in your practice recently.But I would like to share my own experience with you, since you asked for different approaches.There is a story connected with Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi where one of his devotees, Ganapati Muni, asked the Maharshi about the true meaning of "tapas" (austerities); one day, in the presence of Ramana, he asked:"All that has to be read I have read. Even Vedanta Sastra I have fully understood. I have performed japa to my heart's content, yet I have not up to this time understood what tapas is. Hence, have I sought refuge at thy feet. Pray enlighten me about the nature of tapas."For fifteen minutes Sri Ramana Maharshi silently gazed at the Muni. He then spoke: "If one watches where the notion of 'I' springs, the mind will be absorbed into that. That is tapas. If a mantra is repeated and attention is directed to the source where the mantra sound is produced, the mind will be absorbed into that. That is tapas."When I read this at the time, a few years ago, my whole world view about meditation (and austerities of many kind) changed its focus. Was a revelation, since for the first time, the meditator itself vanished... and with that, even the observer (that one that you described as the one watching mental phenomena).After a time, due to the strength of various habits, duality again pushed its way through, but that understanding presented by Bhagavan Ramana also started growing. My meditation started to be 'not mine' anymore, there was only meditation, and since in the past the focus was a convergent cone focusing on one point, the present, now meditation was all inclusive, the cone was reversed, it encompassed the whole life, not only the moments of formal sitting (that were very few anyway) but the full spectrum of activities, habits, happiness, sorrow, bliss, even boredom.I noticed that this "technique" of following the notional "I" to its source (ground of awareness, self, pure consciousness, etc.. wherefrom thoughts/emotions/feelings originate) worked in a very strange way, since the movement was initiated by this very same "I", but it had the capacity of dissolving itself! This Enquiry made me understand, that for me, meditation, from then on, was the subtle investigation or switching the light on this Illusionist called I-Thought, or I-Maker, in every corner of reality as presented to... 'me'. Once illumined, it disappears, and what is left is the Un-Named. Needless to say, George, all that I said so far was completely enhanced by the same kind of feeling you so well described in your post, that a "guiding hand of some sort" was "clearing the way"... In time I came to understand it as Grace, another name (if you wish) for the Absolute non-dual. And that Grace is also our intrinsic nature.In a nutshell, my experience is that any kind of meditation is good, and will clarify, purify and focus our mind, but eventually we need to come to the point where the most effective one is when we enquire into the nature of the meditator itself.All the best in your meditation, hoping you get other views on the subject that may enhance your understanding.Yours In Bhagavan,Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Thank you, Mouna. I like the idea of "grace". It hits the nail on the head, as a kind of energy that is somehow directed. It is very hard to put it into words, but it is there if I concentrate on one point in front of my face. I can understand what you write ,but only intellectually and even then only with great difficulty. This is not a criticism of your writing, but rather a reflection of my own lack of understanding. I hope in time that I will learn enough to be as much of a student as you evidently already are. Thank you again, George advaitin From: maunnaDate: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 05:41:25 +0000 Re: Critique of meditation method please George Nesbitt <nesbittgeorge wrote:> > Well, that is all I wanted to write. I am basically looking for a critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things differently or ways in which I could meditate better.> Hello George,Being a student of Advaita myself, I don't feel I'm very qualified to offer a critique or any suggestions to what it seems to be a healthy approach to meditation, as you explained in your practice recently.But I would like to share my own experience with you, since you asked for different approaches.There is a story connected with Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi where one of his devotees, Ganapati Muni, asked the Maharshi about the true meaning of "tapas" (austerities); one day, in the presence of Ramana, he asked:"All that has to be read I have read. Even Vedanta Sastra I have fully understood. I have performed japa to my heart's content, yet I have not up to this time understood what tapas is. Hence, have I sought refuge at thy feet. Pray enlighten me about the nature of tapas."For fifteen minutes Sri Ramana Maharshi silently gazed at the Muni. He then spoke: "If one watches where the notion of 'I' springs, the mind will be absorbed into that. That is tapas. If a mantra is repeated and attention is directed to the source where the mantra sound is produced, the mind will be absorbed into that. That is tapas."When I read this at the time, a few years ago, my whole world view about meditation (and austerities of many kind) changed its focus. Was a revelation, since for the first time, the meditator itself vanished... and with that, even the observer (that one that you described as the one watching mental phenomena).After a time, due to the strength of various habits, duality again pushed its way through, but that understanding presented by Bhagavan Ramana also started growing. My meditation started to be 'not mine' anymore, there was only meditation, and since in the past the focus was a convergent cone focusing on one point, the present, now meditation was all inclusive, the cone was reversed, it encompassed the whole life, not only the moments of formal sitting (that were very few anyway) but the full spectrum of activities, habits, happiness, sorrow, bliss, even boredom.I noticed that this "technique" of following the notional "I" to its source (ground of awareness, self, pure consciousness, etc.. wherefrom thoughts/emotions/feelings originate) worked in a very strange way, since the movement was initiated by this very same "I", but it had the capacity of dissolving itself! This Enquiry made me understand, that for me, meditation, from then on, was the subtle investigation or switching the light on this Illusionist called I-Thought, or I-Maker, in every corner of reality as presented to... 'me'. Once illumined, it disappears, and what is left is the Un-Named. Needless to say, George, all that I said so far was completely enhanced by the same kind of feeling you so well described in your post, that a "guiding hand of some sort" was "clearing the way"... In time I came to understand it as Grace, another name (if you wish) for the Absolute non-dual. And that Grace is also our intrinsic nature.In a nutshell, my experience is that any kind of meditation is good, and will clarify, purify and focus our mind, but eventually we need to come to the point where the most effective one is when we enquire into the nature of the meditator itself.All the best in your meditation, hoping you get other views on the subject that may enhance your understanding.Yours In Bhagavan,Mouna Get the best wallpapers on the Web - FREE. Click here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Hi Dennis, I was very taken aback and pleasantly surprised to read your e-mail-I didn't realise that the author of these two great books responded to people via this list. Please accept my compliments on both the content of your books and your writing style itself. You are a very good writer and really know the subject. I am very grateful to you for having written them. I am saving your e-mail so that I can refer back to it. The biggest thing I have taken out of it for now is that I should not get too hung up on physical positions for meditating (which is a relief on several levels) and also that there is room in this for a personal spirit or deity of some description. Thanks again, George advaitin From: dwaiteDate: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 21:34:29 +0000RE: Critique of meditation method please Hi George, It sounds as if you are doing very well already. All the things that you mention are excellent for preparing the mind, improving detachment and discrimination etc., all of which are pre-requisites for receiving self-knowledge. Don’t get too hung up on things like position for meditation. The purpose behind suggested positions is to prevent your falling asleep or going into day-dreams. In theory, you can meditate just as well lying down; it’s just that you may find this more conducive to sleep. Also, although I do not say much about personal gods in my books, these are perfectly acceptable and many will attest the value of such beliefs for the seeker. Ultimately it is self-knowledge alone which can remove self-ignorance. And for this, a qualified teacher is invaluable. You should certainly try to find one or a suitable organization. Many will claim that it is not possible to gain enlightenment simply from books, discussion etc. Whilst I might not agree with this, there is no doubt that it is vastly easier with a teacher. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of George NesbittTuesday, November 04, 2008 4:04 PMadvaitin Subject: Critique of meditation method please <<>> Well, that is all I wanted to write. I am basically looking for a critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things differently or ways in which I could meditate better. Thank you for any help. George .. Get the best wallpapers on the Web – FREE. Click here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 advaitin , George Nesbitt <nesbittgeorge wrote: > > To be honest, I find it difficult to make sense of things without a personal god or being. I have had experiences in my life where a consciousness of some sort(which felt like an energy of some kind) drew me to a certain course of action or encouraged me to say certain things and these have always worked out for the best. I don't know how to square that with " There are not two things " . > > Well, that is all I wanted to write. I am basically looking for a critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things differently or ways in which I could meditate better. > Dear George, Namaste. May I venture to answer you! How to square that 'consciousness of some sort' with " There are not two things " seems to be your question. If you are really convinced that " there are not two things " then that 'consciousness of some sort' is You Yourself! There is nothing wrong in presuming (in the beginning) that the consciousness of some sort is coming from 'outside'. Go with that 'consciousness'. Try to believe it is You Yourself. This is a bhAvanA -- maybe a forced attitude of thinking; maybe, one is falsely believing so. But this 'false'(!) belief will ultimately lead you to the right belief that it is not any more false. After how long? That depends on your previous samskAras (meaning, earlier training in all your previous janmas). So in Ramana-style, keep telling yourself 'I am that consciousness' and try to discard every other concept about the 'I'. I think you are already on the right path! May God bless you! PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk > _______________ > Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Hi George, Much of what I know is thanks to the various members of this list – we are all honored to be members and you have come to the right place to learn more! Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of George Nesbitt Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:48 AM advaitin RE: Critique of meditation method please Hi Dennis, I was very taken aback and pleasantly surprised to read your e-mail-I didn't realise that the author of these two great books responded to people via this list. ,___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Thank you. That is exactly what I was asking. I will try to keep this in mind. It is so simple, yet at the same time so mind bending. George advaitin From: profvkDate: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:15:51 +0000 Re: Critique of meditation method please advaitin , George Nesbitt <nesbittgeorge wrote:> > To be honest, I find it difficult to make sense of things without a personal god or being. I have had experiences in my life where a consciousness of some sort(which felt like an energy of some kind) drew me to a certain course of action or encouraged me to say certain things and these have always worked out for the best. I don't know how to square that with "There are not two things".> > Well, that is all I wanted to write. I am basically looking for a critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things differently or ways in which I could meditate better.>Dear George, Namaste.May I venture to answer you! How to square that 'consciousness of some sort' with "There are not two things" seems to be your question. If you are really convinced that "there are not two things" then that 'consciousness of some sort' is You Yourself! There is nothing wrong in presuming (in the beginning) that the consciousness of some sort is coming from 'outside'. Go with that 'consciousness'. Try to believe it is You Yourself. This is a bhAvanA -- maybe a forced attitude of thinking; maybe, one is falsely believing so. But this 'false'(!) belief will ultimately lead you to the right belief that it is not any more false. After how long? That depends on your previous samskAras (meaning, earlier training in all your previous janmas). So in Ramana-style, keep telling yourself 'I am that consciousness' and try to discard every other concept about the 'I'. I think you are already on the right path! May God bless you!PraNAms to all advaitins.profvk> ________> Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/> For the best free wallpapers from MSN Click here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 advaitin , George Nesbitt <nesbittgeorge wrote: > > Hello to everyone here, > > > To be honest, I find it difficult to make sense of things without a personal god or being. I have had experiences in my life where a consciousness of some sort(which felt like an energy of some kind) drew me to a certain course of action or encouraged me to say certain things and these have always worked out for the best. I don't know how to square that with " There are not two things " . > > Well, that is all I wanted to write. I am basically looking for a critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things differently or ways in which I could meditate better. > > Thank you for any help. > > George Hi George, I can't really comment on your meditation techniques, but I would say that if you are seeking to study Vedanta, the best thing to do is to try and find a qualified teacher with whom you feel a resonance. If you cannot make sense of things without thinking of a personal god, then why try? My teacher's guru, Swami Dayananda, often says, " Some religions say there is only one God. We say there is only God. " In other words everything is God. But sometimes it is difficult to relate in a personal way to the total manifest reality as God. Sometimes it is easier to pick one form or aspect of God and to relate to. You say you don't know how to square you thoughts about God with the saying 'There are not two things.' In Vedanta we speak of two orders of reality, the relative and the absolute; and there has been a lot of material written about that on this list, as it is one of the biggest topics of the teachings. Within the relative order of reality, there is a me, a you, multiplicity and diversity, and God. Thus one can, from within the relative order of reality, have a personal relationship with God. One can talk to God, express concerns and make requests. How does that square with there not being two things? It squares quite nicely actually. What is not two things is the nondual reality which is you. You that you know as yourself, but not as an object. Recognizing this *you* which is not an object, but which has always been known as yourself, independent, as indeed it is, from the body/mind/sense organs individual that your mind took that self to be one with, is the first step in the teachings. Then from that place of differentiation we can look out and examine all of this creation which appears as many different and distinct objects. Through a process of analysis we see that we can break down all objects into smaller and smaller parts. We come to understand that all objects are infinitely divisible. We see that we cannot really find an object which exists in and of itself. Yet, at the same time as we break down all objects, the one 'thing' which continually exists is existence. Never for any moment does existence go out of existence. If one can see that one never ceases to exist, that one is that unchanging existence, which is consciousness, and has no borders, and that all of duality shares this commonality, i.e. existence, which is known, which has no borders and thus is limitless because there is no second thing, then one has reached the goal which Vedanta has to offer. There are not two things. There is only one thing and that one thing is you, and every existing object is in the final analysis that same one thing, that same being, which exists, which is known because its nature is consciousness, which is limitless because there is nothing else. Still even if one has recognized that fact, from within the relative order of reality, there continue to be objects, a me and a you, and God. And the individual mind can relate to any and all of them now knowing there is in reality only 'one thing.' At this point relating can become quite joyful. Vedanta has a word, " Ascharavat! What a wonder! " The teaching is a wonder, the teacher is a wonder, the creation is a wonder, God is a wonder, I am a wonder. Ascharavat! What a wonder! The path to this understanding can be long, but who knows how far you have come already. The fact that you are interested is quite telling. It is said by the Upanishads that in order to reach the goal without ending up in mental confusion a teacher is necessary and that the student must have a strong desire to know. The good news is that since it is you yourself which you are seeking to know, and you are already present, and the reality which you are is already present, then if you really have the desire to know the truth, you will. You will find the appropriate teacher, who knows how to clear up your doubts, and who can use the Upanishads as a means of self-knowledge. And certainly the Upanishads will tell you that an understanding and a relationship with a personal god is very useful at every stage of the pursuit. Prayer itself is said to be a mental action which will definitely yield a result. So asking god who manifests as every thing for help in this undertaking is indeed highly practical. It is also said that there is nothing the creation likes to support more than a sincere seeker of self-knowledge, nor is there any desire more noble or worthy of fulfillment. All the best, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Namaste: The following message of Swami Chinmayananda may be quite useful for seekers who look for things differently so that they can focus their attention: " To students of Vedanta, the Guru is the embodiment of their goal. The Guru is nothing but pure Consciousness, absolute Bliss, and eternal Wisdom. Anyone who can elicit a continual feeling of faith and devotion in us is our Guru. If we expect a Guru to transform us to Godhood by a touch, we shall wait in vain. Self redemption must come ultimately from ourselves. The external props, such as temples, idols and gurus, are all encouragements and aids.They must be intelligently used to help build up inner perfection. With inner purity, the student comes to be guided more and more by the intellect. In fact, the real guru is the pure intellect within; the purified, deeply aspiring mind is the disciple. When we come to deserve a master, he shall reach us. Stick to spiritual practices. Be good, be kind, be sincere. Refine the motives by building life upon the enduring values of love, mercy, charity and purity. Through constant remembrance of the Lord rise in spirituality. Gurus shall from time to time reach such determined and sincere seekers. This is the eternal law. " Here is another interesting verse (8) from Gita Chapter 12: Mayyeva mana aadhatswa mayi buddhim niveshaya; Nivasishyasi mayyeva ata oordhwam na samshayah. 8. Fix the mind on Me alone; in Me alone rest the intellect. There is no doubt that hereafter you will dwell in Me alone. Meditation is not a physical act but it is a subtle art developed by the inner personality in man. Every seeker must be experiencing that what his intellect accepts, his heart does not appreciate; and what his heart craves for, the intellect laughs at. To bring both the head and the heart to the same Enchanting Form of thrilled satisfaction, would be the secret of harnessing the entire inner man to the spiritual effort. The technique of this art is beautifully explained in this stanza. Our difficulty is the fact that our intellect is instead of directing the mind getting directed by the mind! The divine present within the anthakarna (inner self) will be able to direct the intellect when the mind is pure. As long as the mind is impure, the signals to the intellect from the Divine get distorted just like the untuned radio. Vedanta identifies that the Vasanas (accumulated past karmas) is the cause for this distortion and consequently one has to get rid of the Vasanas thorugh Abhyashayoga (practicing Karma or Bhakti or Jnana). Intellect loses its discriminating faculty and fails to distinguish between transactional and transcendental realities of life. with my warmest regards, Ram Chandran > advaitin , George Nesbitt <nesbittgeorge@> wrote: > > > > > I am basically looking for a > critique, any suggestions, any way in which I could look at things > differently or ways in which I could meditate better. > > > > Thank you for any help. > > > > George > > Hi George, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 >To be honest, I find it difficult to make sense of things without a personal god or being Hi George, The way I look at it there is no conflict between dualism and non- dualism -- both are sides of the same equation, the equation being Einstein e=mc2: energy is basically matter in motion and all matter can be resolved into energy. When you look from the 'point-of-view' of the left hand side of the equation, you are taking the non-dual view of Adviata, and saying that there is no creation, dissolution, individuality, personal god -- all is energy. When you look from the 'point-of-view' of the left hand side of the equation, you are taking the duelists (existentialist) approach of the world and saying that there is creation, dissolution, individuality, personal god -- all is matter. The right-hand-side of the equation also has the constant 'c' which I like to think of as Maya, which, if made Unity, makes both sides equal. Regards Ik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 >To be honest, I find it difficult to make sense of things without a personal god or being In my last post, I said duelists were on the left-hand side of the equation... should have been right-hand side. Corrected Post below: The way I look at it there is no conflict between dualism and non- dualism -- both are sides of the same equation, the equation being Einstein e=mc2: energy is basically matter in motion and all matter can be resolved into energy. When you look from the 'point-of-view' of the left hand side of the equation, you are taking the non-dual view of Adviata, and saying that there is no creation, dissolution, individuality, personal god -- all is energy. When you look from the 'point-of-view' of the right hand side of the equation, you are taking the duelists (existentialist) approach of the world and saying that there is creation, dissolution, individuality, personal god -- all is matter. The right-hand-side of the equation also has the constant 'c' which I like to think of as Maya, which, if made Unity, makes both sides equal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Dear idealistkumar what is the point of this discussion? Does it help a searching soul to find its way? At the end of all discussions we all are tested, if we put in daily practice our inner belief or not with best regards michael - idealistkumar advaitin Monday, November 10, 2008 5:16 PM Re: Critique of meditation method please >To be honest, I find it difficult to make sense of things without a personal god or beingHi George,The way I look at it there is no conflict between dualism and non-dualism -- both are sides of the same equation, the equation being Einstein e=mc2: energy is basically matter in motion and all matter can be resolved into energy.When you look from the 'point-of-view' of the left hand side of the equation, you are taking the non-dual view of Adviata, and saying that there is no creation, dissolution, individuality, personal god --all is energy.When you look from the 'point-of-view' of the left hand side of the equation, you are taking the duelists (existentialist) approach of the world and saying that there is creation, dissolution, individuality, personal god -- all is matter.The right-hand-side of the equation also has the constant 'c' which I like to think of as Maya, which, if made Unity, makes both sides equal.RegardsIk Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1779 - Release 10/11/2008 7.53 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.