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

Re: [Meditation Society of America] What is meditation

Expand Messages
  • sandeep chatterjee
    The full Monty is at:       http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871006181947402801&q=chogyam#docid=-634157025514503282 The full Monty is at:
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 13, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
    • medit8ionsociety
      Krishnamurti is awesome. I enjoyed so much of what he said. Like, if there is a me there is separateness and there is no point in listening to anyone who
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 13, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Krishnamurti is awesome. I enjoyed so much of what he said.
        Like, if there is a "me" there is separateness and there
        is no point in listening to anyone who speaks of anything
        that they (their "me") experienced. And that he feels that
        what we usually consider meditation is a "problem". Trungpa
        was very silent, and I knew from reading him and knowing
        somewhat of the meditation tradition he came from that he
        viewed meditation as a solution and not a problem, and
        yet the Rimpoche held his tongue. And when Krishnamurti spoke
        of the total silence and total observance as what meditation
        is, and that being possible only without a "me" involved,
        Trungpa agreed to that being "real" meditation.
        Anyway, that's just "me" and some of my commentary, but
        in any case, this was some of the best Krishnamurti and
        it's great that it's available. Thanks for pointing to
        this classic (one-sided, but all sided) interview.


        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > The full Monty is at:
        >  
        >  
        >  
        > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871006181947402801&q=chogyam#docid=-634157025514503282
        >
      • sandeep chatterjee
        Hi Bob, ... From: medit8ionsociety Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] What is meditation To:
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 13, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Bob,

          --- On Tue, 12/14/10, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          From: medit8ionsociety <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] What is meditation
          To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 5:21 AM

           
          Krishnamurti is awesome. I enjoyed so much of what he said.
          Like, if there is a "me" there is separateness and there
          is no point in listening to anyone who speaks of anything
          that they (their "me") experienced. And that he feels that
          what we usually consider meditation is a "problem".
          -----
          Yes, when seen to be a means to something else, when held to be a ladder to reach somewhere else.
          For that infers the continuance of the same acquisitiveness from which the sought escape.
           
          ----- 
           Trungpa
          was very silent, and I knew from reading him and knowing
          somewhat of the meditation tradition he came from that he
          viewed meditation as a solution and not a problem, and
          yet the Rimpoche held his tongue. And when Krishnamurti spoke
          of the total silence and total observance as what meditation
          is, and that being possible only without a "me" involved,
          Trungpa agreed to that being "real" meditation.
          ------
          Yes, somewhere JK prattles about the resolution to be a real resolution it has to be at the level of totality, not at graded levels.
          Thus, whatever that happens in time and thus via methodology(methodology can only exist in time), cannot be the resoluting ( to use a term).
          -----

          Anyway, that's just "me" and some of my commentary, but
          in any case, this was some of the best Krishnamurti and
          it's great that it's available. Thanks for pointing to
          this classic (one-sided, but all sided) interview.
          -----
          Yes, this was one of the "better" ones.
          How's that for judgement?:-))
          And yet some murmuring......
          JK prattles.......See the disorder, without attempting to seek order, for in the seeking of order all that happens is that the memory of order, the content of which has been gathered from satsanghs, books, Gurus, even esoteric experiences of what say "Divine Order" is all about.....
          ..aka the entirety of the content of "me"....
          ..comes in.
          And that in seeing this disorder, without the "me".....is order.
           
           
          But the very seeing of disorder as disorder.....is the confabulation of the "me".
          Seeing fear as fear, seeing guilt as guilt, seeing acquisitiveness as acquisitiveness, whether in the domain of thingies or personal relationships.....
          .... seeing the absurdity of objects doling out say meditation techniques as solutions ....
          ....seeing such drama ........as absurdity....
           
          ...is once again the frenzy of the "me".
           
           
          When something of the spectacle of phenomenality(aka for example Gurus espousing traditions, rituals, whatever)....
           
          ..is taken to be absurd....
           
          ...then what is really being taken ........is that something else (other than what is held as absurd)....
          ...is not absurd.
           
          That, this is absurd but that is the real deal....
          .....is nothing but the hoopla of the me.
           
          Seeing........ not disorder as disorder ......
          ....but seeing the very process of labelling i.e. disorder as disorder, absurd as absurd, divine as divine, mind as free or not free from acquisitiveness..
          ..a silent vitilized mind versus a dull mind.....(JK was big on the dull mind)
          ....et al....
          ....can such a seeing be itself labeled as a "seeing".
           
           
          IN and AS this unlabelable seeing(which in the very coinage becomes a lable)...
           
          ..what gets to be seen(without the label and connotations of "gets to be seen").....
           
           
          ....is that there has never been an occurrence of  labelling ....
           
           
          ...ever....
           
           
          ....which thus excludes even such a label, as the above one.
           
          :-)
           
           
           
           
          .

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.