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

Re: Concentration, Absorbtion and Meditation / Dan

Expand Messages
  • dan330033
    ... that ... absorbs ... again, ... observation ... can ... on ... object ... meditation ... a ... call concentration . ... would ... remembers ... and ...
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 1 1:35 PM
    • 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.