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

Re: Concentration, Absorbtion and Meditation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.