Re: Concentration, Absorbtion and Meditation / Dan
- --- In email@example.com, asimpjoy
> ---In firstname.lastname@example.org, "dan330033"that
> <dan330033@y...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.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
> > > 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
> > > it consumes my total attention, and as long as the objectabsorbs
> > myagain,
> > > 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
> > > and so it then returns to its same old mischief.observation
> > >
> > > 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
> > cancan
> > > actually eliminate the egotistical observer, and thereby allow
> > > mind to enter a dimension of unselfconscious Silence.
> > > ... And it appears that only the dimension of pure Awareness
> > > bring about an authentic action of spontaneous Compassion.on
> > >
> > > 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
> a particular object, and I do not think of God as a particularobject
> because I imagine God to be both the totality of all things and themeditation
> pregnant void of nothingness - simultaneously.
> ... Absorption into God I would call meditation, because
> does not require the obsession with a particul object, and ina
> meditation there is no entity left to be absorbed - it seems rather
> like a spontaneous dimantaling - until the entitiy is no longer
> > 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
> particular direction.call "concentration".
> "Active awareness" would be more akin to what I
> > 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
> then mean that the one who has experiences, and the one whoremembers
> these experiences, is actually the same entity that creates timeand
> all the beginnings and endings in time.composed
> ... Time is then only a construct of a story-line, which is
> by thought, and which then creates the illusion of an identity. Init",
> 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
> and recalls all the experiences that one has had,present.
> and "unselfconscious meditation", wherein there is no entity
> Yes, Pure Meditation is like the direct Awareness of total unity,and
> the miracle that is Life.in
> ... 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 -
> the expression, but there is no relationship in the Absolute,because
> it is the pregnant void of nothingness - it simply IS.truth -
> > 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
> we can't just have an idea that it is true, because then we onlynature
> 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
> of one's own being???the
> > 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
> real thing - one cannot just have a concept about it and then beYou're welcome Tony.
> deluded into believing that one really knows what they are talking
> > Peace,
> > Dan
> **** T: Thank you for your reply. :-)
And thanks for yours.
I enjoyed reading what you had to say.