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

Re: Concentration, Absorbtion and Meditation / Tony

Expand Messages
  • dan330033
    ... object. ... result. ... trying ... my ... object, ... totally ... can ... Thanks, Tony, for these thoughtful, clear explanations. It makes sense that if
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 1 9:13 AM
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 5 , Apr 1 11:39 AM
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 5 , Apr 1 1:35 PM
        View Source
        • 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.