Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5701Re: Concentration, Absorbtion and Meditation / Dan

Expand Messages
  • asimpjoy
    Apr 1, 2003
      ---In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033"
      <dan330033@y...> wrote:
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, asimpjoy
      > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Popular methods for quieting the mind.
      > >
      > > Concentration:
      > > This is when I force myself to pay attention to a particular
      > object.
      > > ... And when I concentrate on something in this way I must
      > > other things, because I have the motive of achieving a desired
      > result.
      > > This means I must suppress whatever interferes with what I am
      > trying
      > > to concentrate on.
      > >
      > > Absorption:
      > > This is when my mind is absorbed by an object so completely that
      > > it consumes my total attention, and as long as the object absorbs
      > my
      > > attention I will have forgotten myself.
      > > ... But, like the child who is temporarily pacified with a toy,
      > > when the toy is taken away it is thrown back on to itself again,
      > > and so it then returns to its same old mischief.
      > >
      > > Meditation:
      > > Here the mind is only passively aware. There is no motive, no
      > object,
      > > no exclusion. It simply observes whatever is present - it is
      > totally
      > > inclusive!
      > > It seems that only the passive awareness of selfless observation
      > can
      > > actually eliminate the egotistical observer, and thereby allow
      > > mind to enter a dimension of unselfconscious Silence.
      > > ... And it appears that only the dimension of pure Awareness can
      > > bring about an authentic action of spontaneous Compassion.
      > >
      > > With love and affection,
      > > Tony


      > Thanks, Tony, for these thoughtful, clear explanations.
      > It makes sense that if I'm absorbed in something,
      > I can lose that absorption if I lose that something.
      **** T: Yes, absorption has a beginning and an ending,
      ... And depends on a particular object.
      > Unless that in which I'm being absorbed isn't an object,
      > is what has been called Self or God.
      **** T: I would not call that "absorption", because there is no
      particular object to be absorbed into and no entity who is fixated on
      a particular object, and I do not think of God as a particular object
      because I imagine God to be both the totality of all things and the
      pregnant void of nothingness - simultaneously.
      ... Absorption into God I would call meditation, because meditation
      does not require the obsession with a particul object, and in
      meditation there is no entity left to be absorbed - it seems rather
      like a spontaneous dimantaling - until the entitiy is no longer

      > Yet, to the extent that absorption is an experience, it begins
      > at some point -- and what has a beginning, has an ending.
      **** T: Yes. Absorption has a beginning and an ending,
      ... But, in the definition I am using, it also depends on a
      particular object.

      > The same recognition can be applied to meditation -- if I
      > begin at some point to experience the passive awareness
      > you describe, then that experience will have an end.
      **** T: Yes I suppose it could be, but I think it would have to
      depend on how you view time, and how time relates to meditation.
      Meditation is timeless and eternal process of Pure Awareness, which
      is on-going - outside of time!
      ... And therefore it has no beginning and no ending.

      > For example, it could end with the experience of active
      > awareness.
      **** T: I would describe "passive awareness" as being the most
      active, because it includes the whole, whereas active awareness I
      would consider to be motivated by some influence, and so driven in a
      particular direction.
      "Active awareness" would be more akin to what I call "concentration".

      > Or you may mean by "passive awareness" that awareness which
      > begins and ends not, in and through which all that is, is known.
      **** T: Yes, this is more what I mean by "passive awareness".

      > Beginning not would mean not having a recognizable experience
      > of some sort associated, as all experiences equally
      > arise and fall within "this" which is never itself
      > experienced.
      **** T: Meditation itself I define as Pure Awareness, and that would
      then mean that the one who has experiences, and the one who remembers
      these experiences, is actually the same entity that creates time and
      all the beginnings and endings in time.
      ... Time is then only a construct of a story-line, which is composed
      by thought, and which then creates the illusion of an identity. In
      this way only the particular has a beginning or an ending - the
      transient, but not the whole or the Constant.

      > Recognizing this, we can differentiate experiential
      > meditational states, from nonexperiential truth,
      > meditation as the very awareness in which all arises
      > now, subsides, now.
      **** T: Yes. I think there is a difference between self-
      conscious "meditation", where one has the sense that "I am doing it",
      and recalls all the experiences that one has had,
      and "unselfconscious meditation", wherein there is no entity present.
      Yes, Pure Meditation is like the direct Awareness of total unity, and
      the miracle that is Life.
      ... Like form coming out of the formless, and back again, while
      the Constant always IS - embedded in the transient.

      > Still, there is the relationship of "this" to experience,
      > to phenomena to comprehend.
      **** T: I think that there is relationship only in the relative - in
      the expression, but there is no relationship in the Absolute, because
      it is the pregnant void of nothingness - it simply IS.

      > One is this relationship, which is at once the totality
      > of all relationship possibilities, and no relationship
      > at all.
      **** T: Yes - somehow both exist at once? It is a great mystery???!

      > As nonseparable awareness, I include all relationship,
      > all phenomena. And yet, I am not in relationship,
      > as there is no separable beings or things with which
      > I could be in relationship, or which could be
      > in relationship with me.
      **** T: Out of nothingness and complete oneness comes an infinite
      variety of expression! It is the celebration of diversity!
      ... So that in the relative there is infinite play, and in the
      absolute there is only being, which is always pregnant with
      unfathomable potential.

      > When beings speak of a "relationship with God," they
      > are then speaking of separable qualities and beings,
      > all arising and subsiding in "this" which therefore
      > is beyond a God of relationship,
      > beyond being, and beyond beings --
      > yet from which no being is ever apart -- even
      > for a second.
      **** T: No! Never - "not even for a second",
      The difficulty lies in coming to the full realization of that truth -
      we can't just have an idea that it is true, because then we only
      remain identified and attached to an identity - one with a lot big
      ideas in its head and no heart, because there hasn't been the real
      first-hand realization to understand that it is factually so.
      ... So can one enjoy the play of the relative without the enormous
      suffering that results from this attachment to a particular
      identity, which makes one incapable directly knowing the full nature
      of one's own being???

      > This is timeless meditation, beyond passive awareness or
      > active awareness, even beyond any such quality as
      > awareness which could be contrasted with nonawareness.
      **** T: Yes, the word is not the thing, and the description is not
      the described. So apparently one must have a direct experience of the
      real thing - one cannot just have a concept about it and then be
      deluded into believing that one really knows what they are talking
      > Peace,
      > Dan
      **** T: Thank you for your reply. :-)
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic