Guest guest Posted May 4, 1999 Report Share Posted May 4, 1999 Dear jb, On Tue, 4 May 1999 11:30:20 jb wrote: >If nirvana / moksha would be dependent on, or a result of, meditation, it >would be worthless What Ramana means is that the "so much desired state >of perennial bliss" is ever present; it can not be achieved in any way. From >the perspective of 'ego', many layers have to be removed and ecstatic bliss >is one of them. Now you've recognized it, it will be much easier to >continue 'business as usual', without being distracted by the ecstasies. >Another possibility is to do the things that are thought to be unpleasant >otherwise. In a state of ecstasy it shouldn't matter what one is doing. That is an interesting advice. And one which may lead to a dampening of the seclusion impulse, which you mention here: >I >noticed that the 'pull' of bliss can get so much that some are thinking of >wanting to quit from the job and submit to >long-lasting meditation. Isn't this rather common among new students of meditation / spirituality ? (I do recognize it in myself) >The 'rationale' of 'arriving' at the perennial bliss is always Kundalini; >all that is required is recognizing the obstacles, preferably before they >manifest. Only these events require attentiveness and eventually "seclusion, >work and meditation". The ecstasies can be used in creative activity or just >a good walk. These are good advice. >This will use energy and divert attention. As a coin has two >sides, the eventual depressions will lessen too. If one succumbs to >ecstasies, work and relations will suffer and one will find out the hard way >that ecstasy leads to nothing (the depressions will become extreme too). That is a very good point. I encounter it very often in myself and others the temptation to retreat from the world as much as possible to dedicate as much time to bliss as possible. I do see how that temptation really may be an attachment and a hindrance, as well as counterproductive to work and relations. No man or woman is an island unto themself. >Finally, if one has succeeded in removing all obstacles, one just can enjoy >the 'ride'. Kriyas you mean ? >There is a large difference between 'professional' meditators like >Ramana and someone who doesn't meditate or practices only a little. The >'professional' will get at nirvikalpa samadhi before 'attainment' of moksha >whereas the 'non-meditator' will 'attain' moksha first and then get at >nirvikalpa samadhi but it will soon transform into sahaja samadhi, which >isn't a samadhi in the proper sense. IMO the 'way of the non-meditator' is >preferable as it offers 'reality-check' and one doesn't get trapped in >samadhis. So a non meditator is someone who dedicates them- selves to a service or a practice which may be spiritual or artistic or scientific etc but not primarily focused on meditative activities ? I must say that if I hadn't had a quiet, stable, extremely reality checking and sceptical work environment when I was first experiencing K for real, I would have been in very hot waters. Any spiritual or religious advice or practice then would have caused even more confusion and fear. The stability of the work environment helped calm things down a lot. It still does. Reality checks to avoid being trapped in samadhis are always good. But then, how to work while in bliss ? Thank you for your informative post. 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 May 4, 1999 Report Share Posted May 4, 1999 > "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat [...] > That is an interesting advice. And one which may > lead to a dampening of the seclusion impulse, which you > mention here: > > >I > >noticed that the 'pull' of bliss can get so much that some are > thinking of > >wanting to quit from the job and submit to >long-lasting meditation. > > Isn't this rather common among new students of > meditation / spirituality ? > > (I do recognize it in myself) It is rather common indeed and it can be met as follows: first, understanding that one's 'real nature' is independent of all states, including waking, dreaming and deep, dreamless sleep. Then one can come to the understanding, that everything that arouses resistance, dislike etc., is part of a veil called (learned) interpretation. Instead of becoming a vessel on the waves of emotions, one becomes aware of their arising. This isn't possible so well in seclusion. Thus, being engaged in daily life becomes meditation itself. The exception can be work, requiring full attention; in that case, there is the union of worker and work being done. When the work is done, one will experience a kind of 'aftertaste' of the bliss of that union. Be aware, be mindful. [...] > I encounter it very often in myself and others > the temptation to retreat from the world as much as > possible to dedicate as much time to bliss as > possible. I do see how that temptation really may be an > attachment and a hindrance, as well as counterproductive > to work and relations. > No man or woman is an island unto themself. If one knows the pitfalls, there is nothing against enjoying bliss. However, one should ask oneself, what is the value of bliss so conditioned, that it can only be experienced in retreat? The ideal is the jivan mukta, the enjoyer of perennial bliss, independent of activity. > >Finally, if one has succeeded in removing all obstacles, one > just can enjoy > >the 'ride'. > > Kriyas you mean ? No, I consider kriyas to be preparatory. If the channels are cleaned, the mind is pure, one's motives sincere, Kundalini will rise as an almost invisible, powerful hydrogen-flame; the heat will be immense and one only notices the piercing of knots. Under these conditions, the 'ride with Kundalini' is a great joy. > >There is a large difference between 'professional' meditators like > >Ramana and someone who doesn't meditate or practices only a little. The > >'professional' will get at nirvikalpa samadhi before > 'attainment' of moksha > >whereas the 'non-meditator' will 'attain' moksha first and then get at > >nirvikalpa samadhi but it will soon transform into sahaja samadhi, which > >isn't a samadhi in the proper sense. IMO the 'way of the > non-meditator' is > >preferable as it offers 'reality-check' and one doesn't get trapped in > >samadhis. > > So a non meditator is someone who dedicates them- > selves to a service or a practice which may be spiritual or > artistic or scientific etc > but not primarily focused on meditative activities ? I would define a non-meditator as one who has done what has to be done: cleaned the channels, attained a pure and unwavering mind, rising Kundalini. This is the 'formula for success'; one's activities won't get in the way - it is my experience. The very thought that filling the day with meditation could 'improve' things is a serious impediment On the other hand, I once read in a book by swami Sivananda something like : "Although Sri Aurobindo advocates to realize amidst society, he himself remained in a locked room for twenty years" so it is always important to know if something is based on experience. > I must say that if I hadn't had a quiet, stable, > extremely reality checking and sceptical work > environment when I was first experiencing K for > real, I would have been in very hot waters. Any > spiritual or religious advice or practice then > would have caused even more confusion and fear. The > stability of the work environment helped calm > things down a lot. It still does. The big improvement comes when daily life has become practice of meditation. The way one is experiencing and interpreting experiences depends on oneself; thus, daily life can provide a direct feedback. What seemed to be an obstacle first, becomes a means for progress, when understood. > Reality checks to avoid being trapped in samadhis are > always good. > > But then, how to work while in bliss ? A little reality check first. Suppose, you suddenly hear a child, screaming in agony. What would happen to the bliss and what would you do? The perennial bliss is what one is looking for. It is without beginning or end, independent of activity. > Thank you for your informative post. You're welcome.. > Best regards, > > Amanda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 1999 Report Share Posted May 4, 1999 Message: 6 Mon, 3 May 1999 15:31:25 EDT Druout Re: Digest Number 146 Dear Jan and list, << As one who has been "stuck in bliss" for over 2 years, but without (so far!) experiencing any cycles of depression, I naturally wonder if the downside is inevitable. To the question "so one should not try to perpetuate blissful or ecstatic states?" Sri Ramana Maharshi pretty much concurs with Jan when he answers: "The final obstacle in meditation is ecstasy; you feel great bliss and happiness and want to stay in that ecstasy. Do not yield to it but pass on to the next stage which is great calm. The calm is higher than ecstasy and it merges into samadhi. Successful samadhi causes a waking sleep state to supervene. In that state you know that you are always consciousness, for consciousness is your nature. Actually, one is always in samadhi but one does not know it. To know it all one has to do is to remove the obstacles." >> Just beautiful Hillary, << But because I don't meditate, am not "religious" and the states come to me spontaneously I wonder what, then, should I do. I wonder if there is a point in trying to "escape from it" or to attempt to stay in "that quiet place," or simply trust in the "process" and let it take me where it will. >> If no questions remains to be asked, why should there be a question to ask? And this 'why', is still a question or a wonder... Love, Antoine 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.