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

Concentration, Absorbtion and Meditation

Expand Messages
  • asimpjoy
    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
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 exclude
      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 the
      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
    • G
      ... object. ... And when I concentrate on something in this way I must exclude other things, because I have the motive of achieving a desired result. This
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 exclude 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
        the
        > 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


        G: you want to enter into relaxed awareness and not a
        concentration that seeks to supress thoughts... that is a
        robot..... this is not about becoming a mindless zombie... but a
        vibrant and aware Being that is totally within the Now........

        one is walking death with misery and the other is total Life
        which is spontaneous and free........
      • dan330033
        ... object. ... result. ... trying ... my ... object, ... totally ... can ... Thanks, Tony, for these thoughtful, clear explanations. It makes sense that if
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 exclude
          > 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 the
          > 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.

          Unless that in which I'm being absorbed isn't an object,
          is what has been called Self or God.

          Yet, to the extent that absorption is an experience, it begins
          at some point -- and what has a beginning, has an ending.

          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.

          For example, it could end with the experience of active
          awareness.

          Or you may mean by "passive awareness" that awareness which
          begins and ends not, in and through which all that is, is known.

          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.

          Recognizing this, we can differentiate experiential
          meditational states, from nonexperiential truth,
          meditation as the very awareness in which all arises
          now, subsides, now.

          Still, there is the relationship of "this" to experience,
          to phenomena to comprehend.

          One is this relationship, which is at once the totality
          of all relationship possibilities, and no relationship
          at all.

          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.

          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.

          This is timeless meditation, beyond passive awareness or
          active awareness, even beyond any such quality as
          awareness which could be contrasted with nonawareness.

          Peace,
          Dan
        • asimpjoy
          ... exclude ... the ... **** T: Yes, absorption has a beginning and an ending, ... **** T: I would not call that absorption , because there is no particular
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            ---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
            exclude
            > > 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
            the
            > > 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
            present.

            >
            > 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
            about.
            >
            > Peace,
            > Dan
            **** T: Thank you for your reply. :-)
          • dan330033
            ... that ... absorbs ... again, ... observation ... can ... on ... object ... meditation ... a ... call concentration . ... would ... remembers ... and ...
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, asimpjoy
              <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > ---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
              > exclude
              > > > 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
              > the
              > > > 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
              > present.
              >
              > >
              > > 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
              > about.
              > >
              > > Peace,
              > > Dan
              > **** T: Thank you for your reply. :-)


              You're welcome Tony.

              And thanks for yours.

              I enjoyed reading what you had to say.

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