meditation question

May 17, 2009

greetings, advaitins. :-)

i have a question about meditation that i hope you might help me with. i've been

practicing two types of meditation.

in the one, i come to stillness and open myself to the divine (as discussed in

my last posting).

in the other, i come to stillness and explore, with intellect and feeling, an

issue. for example, if an incident during the day aroused feelings of anger, i

reflect on the nature of that anger, how it arose, what caused it, etc. this

usually works better if the incident is still fresh.

my question: is contemplation/analysis meditation (i.e., the second type

mentioned above) useful for one's spiritual growth? or does it just strengthen

the illusion that brain can 'figure everything out?'

thank you very much. :-)

rachMiel

May 17, 2009

nanamste

" if an incident during the day aroused feelings of anger, i reflect on

the nature of that anger, how it arose, what caused it, etc. this

usually works better if the incident is still fresh.

my question: is contemplation/ analysis meditation (i.e., the second

type mentioned above) useful for one's spiritual growth? or does it

just strengthen the illusion that brain can 'figure everything out?'

This second type of meditataion that has been mentioned is very useful in

settling accounts with people.

Anger is either wih oneself or with another for the omissions and commissions.

This meditation is called " value meditation' This helps in gaining composure and

a certain maturity in the transactional world. There is no way Vyavahaara can be

avoided in life. One does not get angry with the mountains or rivers or the sky

or with nature. It is always concerned with people as a reactive response to

certain stimuli without thinking.

values have been listed by Lord Krishna in the 13th and 16th chapter of the

Bhagavad Gita. We can dwell upon each of these valueson an ongoing basis,

understanding the value as it is, then seeing the presence and absence of that

value. Seeking Ishvaras help in the form of a prayer for understanding and

assimilation of the value. This helps the mind to calm down and gives citta

shuddhi.

we must be clear that " Meditation " cannot give mokSha. The practice of any form

of meditataion prepares the mind to recieve the Self-knowledge taught by a Guru.

Pranams

Lakshmi

Own a website.Get an unlimited package.Pay next to nothing.*Go to

http://in.business./

May 17, 2009

thank you for your response, lakshmi. :-)

> we must be clear that " Meditation " cannot give mokSha. The practice

of any form of meditataion prepares the mind to recieve the

Self-knowledge taught by a Guru.

if i understand this correctly, a student of advaita can only approach

realization with the guidance of a guru. there is no other way. yes?

May 17, 2009

rachmiel - PraNAms

As I see,

Actually you yourself proved by asking and with Lakshmiji's answering, thus

gaining the knowledge that all meditations are not the same, and some

meditations help in preparing the mind for higher meditation. What is higher

mediation and what it involves has to be learned too. For that you need a

teacher on whom you have faith.

The major problems in the spiritual pursuit in the realization of the truth

which is self evident and which does not involve any path are the preconceived

notions that are deep rooted in the mind, year after year and life after life.

These notions cannot be easily dropped unless 1) I have a clear vision and 2)

recognize the notions which are very subtle. To redirect the mind properly is

purpose of the teaching which cannot be done easily by self-study. Hence the

need of a teacher, not for advaita, but to negate the dvaita or apparent duality

- or to direct the mind to do proper inquiry.

Hope this answers your question.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--- On Sun, 5/17/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote:

if i understand this correctly, a student of advaita can only approach

realization with the guidance of a guru. there is no other way. yes?

May 17, 2009

> rachmiel - PraNAms

namaste dr. sadananda. :-) thank you for responding to my question.

> As I see,

> Actually you yourself proved by asking and with Lakshmiji's answering, thus

gaining the knowledge that all meditations are not the same, and some

meditations help in preparing the mind for higher meditation. What is higher

mediation and what it involves has to be learned too. For that you need a

teacher on whom you have faith.

i understand. when i studied tabla, i needed to have a tabla teacher. if i had

attempted to learn tabla on my own, i would have learned something, but not

tabla (at least not as it was intended to be played).

> The major problems in the spiritual pursuit in the realization of the truth

which is self evident and which does not involve any path are the preconceived

notions that are deep rooted in the mind, year after year and life after life.

These notions cannot be easily dropped unless 1) I have a clear vision and 2)

recognize the notions which are very subtle. To redirect the mind properly is

purpose of the teaching which cannot be done easily by self-study. Hence the

need of a teacher, not for advaita, but to negate the dvaita or apparent duality

- or to direct the mind to do proper inquiry.

yes. i understand.

must teacher be living? for example, could the writings of shankara (or another

deceased advaita teacher) be one's teacher?

must teacher be someone with whom you meet " in the flesh? " for example, would it

be possible to correspond with a teacher but never meet him/her in person?

thank you. :-)

rachMiel

> Hope this answers your question.

>

> Hari Om!

>

> Sadananda

>

> --- On Sun, 5/17/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote:

>

> if i understand this correctly, a student of advaita can only approach

realization with the guidance of a guru. there is no other way. yes?

>

May 18, 2009

--- On Sun, 5/17/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote:

must teacher be living? for example, could the writings of shankara (or another

deceased advaita teacher) be one's teacher?

must teacher be someone with whom you meet " in the flesh? " for example, would it

be possible to correspond with a teacher but never meet him/her in person?

-------

Rachmiel - PraNAms

Let us pose the same question for getting a Ph.D. that involves investigation or

inquiry in the objective sciences, which we can go to library and learn

ourselves. Every university insists that one should have a guide for doing

Ph.D.; he has to be a living guide, right?. With Ph.D. implies that one is

qualified to investigate on his own from then on, is it not?

Hence the recommendation is that one should have live guru to guide, or more

correctly who is approachable to clarify the doubts and redirect the disciple.

It is the responsibility of the student to ask the questions for clarification

and the teacher responsibility to help him appropriately knowing his background.

The teacher does this out of compassion since he was in the same situation in

the past. This is the student-teacher relationship. This becomes even more

obvious for spiritual which is not objective science and therefore more subtle.

Vedanta insists on a teacher who follow the tradition to insure he knows all the

pitfalls that one should avoid.

Everybody should have a teacher - but there are always exceptions to the rule

but one should not make rule out of exceptions.

There is also a law in spirituality. One will find the appropriate teacher that

can help in the pursuit of truth when the mind is ready - As my teacher used to

say - a flower need not have to go in search of a bee, all it has to do is open

up with all its beauty and bee shall come when it is ready even if it is in

remote non-easily accessible place.

My advice is not look for a teacher - use whatever means of study available and

you will discover the teacher in the process. No teacher will say I am your

teacher. You will find he is your teacher when you find greatest help in the

pursuit of the path. Till then keep your mind and more importantly

discriminative intellect open. Ultimately a teacher is one who directs the

disciple to the scriptures as the authority than to himself. Vedanta is not

centered on individuals - it is like science and centered on facts. It is not

Vyaasa or Shankara or even Krishna - that is the authority - it is ultimately

the Vedas - hence no personality cults or individual philosophies form the

authority. We have some who made cult centered on Krishna too.

At the same time all philosophies and religions are accepted as long as they are

in tune with Vedanta while rejecting those parts that deviate from Vedanta.

Hope this helps

Hari Om!

Sadananda

May 18, 2009

> must teacher be living? for example, could the writings of shankara (or

another deceased advaita teacher) be one's teacher?

> must teacher be someone with whom you meet " in the flesh? " for example, would

it be possible to correspond with a teacher but never meet him/her in person?

> -------

> Rachmiel - PraNAms

> Let us pose the same question for getting a Ph.D. that involves investigation

or inquiry in the objective sciences, which we can go to library and learn

ourselves. Every university insists that one should have a guide for doing

Ph.D.; he has to be a living guide, right?. With Ph.D. implies that one is

qualified to investigate on his own from then on, is it not?

i don't have a ph.d. (i have a 'reifediplom' from germany in music composition).

but i'll take your word for it. :-)

> Hence the recommendation is that one should have live guru to guide, or more

correctly who is approachable to clarify the doubts and redirect the disciple.

It is the responsibility of the student to ask the questions for clarification

and the teacher responsibility to help him appropriately knowing his background.

The teacher does this out of compassion since he was in the same situation in

the past. This is the student-teacher relationship. This becomes even more

obvious for spiritual which is not objective science and therefore more subtle.

Vedanta insists on a teacher who follow the tradition to insure he knows all the

pitfalls that one should avoid.

i understand. i imagine this relationship can be very beautiful. i had a 'guru'

of composition, a european master under whose tutelage i spent five years. i

learned an unfathomable amount during that time. and i'm unfathomably grateful

for this. but the relationship became strained towards the end. he wanted me to

'carry on' in his name, spread his teachings, his compositional style. i wanted

to strike out on my own, find my own voice. thus i rebelled. and, to this day

(nearly 30 years later), the relationship is still strained. sad.

> Everybody should have a teacher - but there are always exceptions to the rule

but one should not make rule out of exceptions.

> There is also a law in spirituality. One will find the appropriate teacher

that can help in the pursuit of truth when the mind is ready - As my teacher

used to say - a flower need not have to go in search of a bee, all it has to do

is open up with all its beauty and bee shall come when it is ready even if it is

in remote non-easily accessible place.

i like this. thank you for sharing it. :-)

> My advice is not look for a teacher - use whatever means of study available

and you will discover the teacher in the process. No teacher will say I am your

teacher. You will find he is your teacher when you find greatest help in the

pursuit of the path. Till then keep your mind and more importantly

discriminative intellect open.

i work hard at this. and it IS hard work.

> Ultimately a teacher is one who directs the disciple to the scriptures as the

authority than to himself. Vedanta is not centered on individuals - it is like

science and centered on facts. It is not Vyaasa or Shankara or even Krishna -

that is the authority - it is ultimately the Vedas - hence no personality cults

or individual philosophies form the authority. We have some who made cult

centered on Krishna too.

should i begin studying the vedas now? if so, how?

> At the same time all philosophies and religions are accepted as long as they

are in tune with Vedanta while rejecting those parts that deviate from Vedanta.

yes.

thank you again, very much, for your help, dr. sadananda. you have been very

generous with your time, and i appreciate this. :-)

rachMiel

>

> Hope this helps

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

May 18, 2009

advaitin , kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> --- On Sun, 5/17/09, rachmiel <rachmiel wrote:

>

> must teacher be living? for example, could the writings of shankara (or

another deceased advaita teacher) be one's teacher?

>

> must teacher be someone with whom you meet " in the flesh? " for example, would

it be possible to correspond with a teacher but never meet him/her in person?

>

I don't think it is impossible, but the psychological aspect of meeting a person

(let alone guru) directly is much different from hearing them on phone or email

or in reading books. This aspect is not quite the same as for getting a PhD; we

are not after some technical expertise on knowledge of something apart from us.

We want to remove the ignorance of 'knowing' the Self as this or that; this

process of removal is probably best done under the guru-sishya relationship

(wherein for ex, the guru's direction is Veda for the sishya).

That said, I don't have such a guru. Those I might want to regard as guru, I

know only from books; many living, of whom I have high regard for, I can sense I

cannot regard as guru. I don't force the issue; if we are sincere, we ought to

find sufficient guidance in written word and put them to practice. The speaker

is our 'manasika guru'; so far as we are concerned, they are not at all dead -

they are quite alive in our consciousness. If we truly work according to their

directions and reach a stage where we really are needing further guidance, then

the need should propel us to a direct-teacher.

{in short, having a direct guru (who we are sure of) will likely cut the

running-around time by a huge amount. But it may be better to have a guru in

books who we are certain fits with the shastras (or our psychology!), than one

in front of us who we are not. If this criterion is satisfied, our shraddha to

their guidance is definite which is of foremost importance; the rest of the

psychological or technical aspects that a direct guru may satisfy is secondary -

the guru is more than a technical aid, he/she is to be regarded as akin to

Ishvara in human form.}

thollmelukaalkizhu

May 18, 2009

Dear sada

Pranams. Absolutely wonderful post!!! I loved to read this post and especially

the one given below many times.

<<< My advice is not look for a teacher - use whatever means of study available