|
Home > Archive > Yoga > January 2006 > SUBJECTIVE meditation
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
SUBJECTIVE meditation
|
|
| howdydave 2005-12-19, 1:04 am |
|
Howdy!
It appears to me as if just about every yoga class incorporates
OBJECTIVE meditation in one form or another as the "generally accepted
method."
Personally, I use silent, subjective meditation. This method works best
for me on my personal path.
Anybody else out there use this method?
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
|
| Howdy Dave,
It all depends how you accept concentration... If you take it as a
point,everything has to change... If you are watching any object, it
has a different pose...If you are trying to find a solution on a
problem,then things again change...
So which concentration you are trying to do?
If it is mindfulness, then you have to watch every point on,in your
body even within your brain... So this is completely different aspect
of concentration...
If you care about any big shot say, ABYANANDA, HARWANANDA or SWAMI
ISODORA, then it again becomes their concentration not yours...Most of
the big shots suggest concentration right after the PRANAYAMA...
So, to me the best way, you have to find your own concentration method
or way or
practices.Just trying different styles one can find his/her best way I
suppose...
With compassion,
Puma
Reply
Thats it Dave, it has to be your own experience not others...
With compassion,
Puma
| |
| Dave K 2005-12-19, 12:54 pm |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> It appears to me as if just about every yoga class incorporates
> OBJECTIVE meditation in one form or another as the "generally accepted
> method."
>
> Personally, I use silent, subjective meditation. This method works best
> for me on my personal path.
>
> Anybody else out there use this method?
>
>
> --
> howdydave
> This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
In the terminology I'm familar with, (Buddhist) it sounds like you're
talking about the difference between Concentration/Samatha, where you
focus on somethign such as the breath, and Insight/Vipassana
meditation, (also Shikantaza in zen) where you simply observe the flow
of thoughts, not really concentrating on anything. In a sense the mind
is your object of meditation, but the mind is vast and spacious, so
you're not really focusing on a single point. Does that sound right?
How are you defining the difference?
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-19, 6:02 pm |
|
Howdy!
In the terminology I'm familier with, "meditation" and "concentration"
are different. (The third term in my frame of reference is
"contemplation.")
"Subjective silent meditation" is not associated with a form-symbol
focus. The yogi withdraws into him/herself and focuses on
Self/Atman/Brahman.
I'm not sure -- but this might not be possible until the meditator has
achieved Self-awareness. Since this is all "outside the box" of the
superimposed categorical framework, explination is not really possible
due to the fact that all linguistic connotations and references are
"inside the box."
Dave:
It's not "Concentration"... sounds like we agree that that is
"objective."
It's not "Insight" because I turn off the thought process.
It's not the mind because without a train of thought, there is no
perceivable "mind."
It's not "the void" because, although there are no forms or symbols,
there IS "something" there (Brahmen?)
Guess I'm introducing you to my "neti-neti" search which has been going
on for quite some time...
I can't say what it is. All I can say is that it's "not this and not
that" ("neti-neti.")
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| mazlov@yahoo.com 2005-12-21, 11:08 am |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
Good posting, Dave 
Your play with words will lead you to nowhere (neti-neti?), your
self-awareness or anyone's Self-observation need also stabilisation,
which has to become automatic to sustain your focus, concentration and
"contemplation" on ONE GOAL only - BECOMING a SPIRITUAL ENTITY
- Bliss itself. Basically, leaving your body and sustain your
awareness in different state of existence.
The clarity of that merge does not happen very often, but it does. Our
identification with the body will be always there like a chain of
clouds in the sky. To overcome that obstruction, we need an automatic
process of Dereflexation* to neutralise our reflexes... as you know
from my page...
ref: http://www.anandamayi.org/om/
With compassion,
Narayana.
| |
| penguinsare@gmail.com 2005-12-21, 11:08 am |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> It appears to me as if just about every yoga class incorporates
> OBJECTIVE meditation in one form or another as the "generally accepted
> method."
>
> Personally, I use silent, subjective meditation. This method works best
> for me on my personal path.
>
> Anybody else out there use this method?
>
>
> --
> howdydave
> This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-21, 12:58 pm |
|
Howdy Narayana!
Play with words???
If you are talking about "neti-neti"... that is a very old, orthodox
yogic method.
It is also a sound logical/scientific method. One way to determine
what something IS is to determine what it IS NOT and eleminate those
alternatives. aka: "the process of elemination"
re: "Lead you to nowhere"... That sounds to me as if it could be the
elemination of maya. Isn't that the whole point?
re: "Self-observation"... Self observes everything else (gross self,
subtle self, everything external to the gross self) but not itSelf.
Self just IS.
re: "To overcome that obstruction, WE need..." I have serious issues
with that "WE need" bit. You can determine what YOU need, I can
determine what I need but I am in no position to determine what YOU
need (and vice versa) do to the fact that each of us is on a unique
path.
re: "becoming a spiritual entity" Each of us is ALREADY a spiritual
entity. All we have to do is to REDISCOVER that fact.
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-21, 6:01 pm |
|
puma Wrote:
> Howdy Dave,
>
> It all depends how you accept concentration... If you take it as a
> point,everything has to change... If you are watching any object, it
> has a different pose...If you are trying to find a solution on a
> problem,then things again change...
>
> So which concentration you are trying to do?
>
> If it is mindfulness, then you have to watch every point on,in your
> body even within your brain... So this is completely different aspect
> of concentration...
>
> If you care about any big shot say, ABYANANDA, HARWANANDA or SWAMI
> ISODORA, then it again becomes their concentration not yours...Most
> of
> the big shots suggest concentration right after the PRANAYAMA...
>
> So, to me the best way, you have to find your own concentration
> method
> or way or
> practices.Just trying different styles one can find his/her best way I
> suppose...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
>
> Reply
>
>
> Thats it Dave, it has to be your own experience not others...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
Howdy Puma!
All of the methods that you are talking about appear to be OBJECTIVE
meditation methods.
Concentration (if I understand the concept as you use it) involves an
object.
You concentrate ON (whatever.)
It appears as if the "object" of Mindfulness is some part of the body
or your own thought process.
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
|
| Howdy dave,
If there is no object there is no concentration...that is so
simple...If you claim other way around ,you have to explain it to
us...And furthermore I have not talked about any method about ___ I
said IF YOU TAKE IT AS A POINT EVERTHING HAS TO CHANGE..._______
A point has no dimention and therefore is not an object... So please
note carefully what I am saying...
With compassion,
Puma
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-21, 6:01 pm |
|
puma Wrote:
> Howdy dave,
>
> If there is no object there is no concentration...that is so
> simple...If you claim other way around ,you have to explain it to
> us...And furthermore I have not talked about any method about ___ I
> said IF YOU TAKE IT AS A POINT EVERTHING HAS TO CHANGE..._______
>
> A point has no dimention and therefore is not an object... So please
> note carefully what I am saying...
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
Howdy Puma!
Guess my math background is rearing it's ugly head!
While a point has no dimention, it does have a specific location.
If something has a specific location...
Well -- we won't get into that vicious circle!
I guess it was your first sentence that threw me:
"It all depends HOW you accept concentration..."
As I read that: "HOW you accept" presupposes concentration.
If that is not the case then the explination becomes simple: There is
no concentration!
That better?
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
|
| Howdy Dave,
Forget about Math. But you should explain your style in detail so that
we all get our information on a larger basis.Otherwise mere discussion
does not help much.
What is YOUR TYPE OF concentration (SUBJECTIVE ONE)
thanking in advance,
Puma
| |
|
| You like mathematics....
Me too...
An I meditate a lot about it....
When you're talking about subjective meditation, means your OWN
meditation?
Without any pretention....
| |
|
| I find yoga classes diminish the role of pranayama and dhyanna so the
"objective" is done in a manner to pay symbolic homage to the idea of
meditation but in fact, is as much a dismissal of it as we find
mysticism dismissed during the Christmas holidays. Empty gesture passed
off as ritual.
There are many explanations for the lack of contemplation -- but as far
as silence goes, I'm with you. The question is, how do we teach
students to experience silence? My thought is that that ritual of
becoming quiet -- pranayama and dhyanna -- have to be put back into
yogic practice, but will the body culture that craves the routines and
sweat put up with contemplative practice? The jury is out on that one.
namaste
Dr. G.
| |
| Wade Humeniuk 2005-12-23, 1:04 am |
| Dr.G wrote:
> I find yoga classes diminish the role of pranayama and dhyanna so the
> "objective" is done in a manner to pay symbolic homage to the idea of
> meditation but in fact, is as much a dismissal of it as we find
> mysticism dismissed during the Christmas holidays. Empty gesture passed
> off as ritual.
>
> There are many explanations for the lack of contemplation -- but as far
> as silence goes, I'm with you. The question is, how do we teach
> students to experience silence? My thought is that that ritual of
> becoming quiet -- pranayama and dhyanna -- have to be put back into
> yogic practice, but will the body culture that craves the routines and
> sweat put up with contemplative practice? The jury is out on that one.
>
In a attempt to teach students about silence there is a problem. You
are making "noise" when trying to have them experience silence. A
teacher's expectations, jugdements, desires prevents silence from
happening. What is do be done? Its simple, be silent. This means
putting and not-putting silence practice into a class.
Wade
| |
|
| Noise yes, if one takes a thoroughly nihilistic and paradoxical
approach to the question of pedagogy. However, I think it is possible
to put forward a frame of reference with full disclaimer, even with a
Zen wry smile!
The issue of passing on practice, knowledge, points of view, experience
what have you involves integrity, compassion, humor and kindness. I
would rather err on the side of presenting the practice to give
students a chance to experience noise as silence or silence as noise.
(This google discussion is starting to sound like an old Hinayana
argument.)
Namaste.
Dr. G.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2005-12-23, 6:01 pm |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> In the terminology I'm familier with, "meditation" and "concentration"
> are different. (The third term in my frame of reference is
> "contemplation.")
>
> "Subjective silent meditation" is not associated with a form-symbol
> focus. The yogi withdraws into him/herself and focuses on
> Self/Atman/Brahman.
>
> I'm not sure -- but this might not be possible until the meditator has
> achieved Self-awareness. Since this is all "outside the box" of the
> superimposed categorical framework, explination is not really possible
> due to the fact that all linguistic connotations and references are
> "inside the box."
>
> Dave:
>
> It's not "Concentration"... sounds like we agree that that is
> "objective."
>
> It's not "Insight" because I turn off the thought process.
>
> It's not the mind because without a train of thought, there is no
> perceivable "mind."
>
> It's not "the void" because, although there are no forms or symbols,
> there IS "something" there (Brahmen?)
just some thoughts...
If there is "something" there, whatever it is IS an "object", since it
would seem you are percieving that "something.
the simple act of perception involves thought processes, if thought
processes are there mind is also.
>
> Guess I'm introducing you to my "neti-neti" search which has been going
> on for quite some time...
>
> I can't say what it is. All I can say is that it's "not this and not
> that" ("neti-neti.")
>
>
> --
> howdydave
> This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-27, 6:01 pm |
|
puma Wrote:
> Howdy Dave,
>
> Forget about Math. But you should explain your style in detail so that
> we all get our information on a larger basis.Otherwise mere discussion
> does not help much.
>
> What is YOUR TYPE OF concentration (SUBJECTIVE ONE)
>
> thanking in advance,
>
> Puma
Howdy Puma!
My "type" of meditation is, to the best of my knowledge, inexplicable.
The best I can do is to say that it is a steady progression inwards.
First I stop the thought process.
Next I stop the receiption of external stimuli.
The deeper I go within myself the more I find.
When I'm lucky enough I will get deep enough to have reached an
apparant infinity within myself. (It's only happened 3 times in 15
years.)
i.e.; Start with self --> Self/Atman --> Infinate (for want of a better
word) unity.
It may not be comprehensible (maybe even not rational!) to anybody who
is a dualist.
My own personal understanding/comprehension of language does not allow
me to adequately put it into words for myself. (I'm a technical writer
by profession.)
If I can not define it to myself, any attempt to explain it to another
person will only heap my own inaccuracies upon another persons
different conception of the exact meanings and implications of the
words I use to explain it.
My whole objective with my first post was to say: "Hey... I seem to be
doing this in a way that I've yet to find documented in my studies!
Does anybody else do something along the same lines?"
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-27, 6:01 pm |
|
moon Wrote:
> You like mathematics....
> Me too...
>
> An I meditate a lot about it....
>
> When you're talking about subjective meditation, means your OWN
> meditation?
> Without any pretention....
Howdy moon!
"Without any pretention" says it quite well.
Don't focus on anything.
Don't have a set objective.
Don't have a structured routine.
Just go inside of yourself and discover a whole new universe!
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
|
|
howdydave wrote:
> moon Wrote:
>
> Howdy moon!
>
> "Without any pretention" says it quite well.
>
> Don't focus on anything.
> Don't have a set objective.
> Don't have a structured routine.
> Just go inside of yourself and discover a whole new universe!
>
>
> --
> howdydave
> This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
Howdy Dave!
So you agree with me....
Just a few details, how it works with me
Think about mathematics, statistics, etc. Instead of visualising
formulas, try to visualize the graphics of it......How could be applied
in practical life, abstract, etc. How works the imagery....
After thinking a LOT about it. Suddenly, close the eyes, enjoy silence,
STILL the mind.........
That's MEDITATION....
Any mathematics topic, will do..... So no pretention , no goal, we
don't need to go anywhere....
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-28, 10:58 am |
|
Dr.G Wrote:
> Noise yes, if one takes a thoroughly nihilistic and paradoxical
> approach to the question of pedagogy. However, I think it is possible
> to put forward a frame of reference with full disclaimer, even with a
> Zen wry smile!
>
> The issue of passing on practice, knowledge, points of view,
> experience
> what have you involves integrity, compassion, humor and kindness. I
> would rather err on the side of presenting the practice to give
> students a chance to experience noise as silence or silence as noise.
>
> (This google discussion is starting to sound like an old Hinayana
> argument.)
>
> Namaste.
>
> Dr. G.
Howdy Dr. G!
Haven't I read someplace about one of the standard lessons being a
session in which the teacher and the student sit there for an entire
session without either one saying a word or moving a muscle?
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-28, 10:58 am |
|
moon Wrote:
> howdydave wrote:
>
>
> Howdy Dave!
>
> So you agree with me....
>
> Just a few details, how it works with me
>
> Think about mathematics, statistics, etc. Instead of visualising
> formulas, try to visualize the graphics of it......How could be
> applied
> in practical life, abstract, etc. How works the imagery....
> After thinking a LOT about it. Suddenly, close the eyes, enjoy
> silence,
> STILL the mind.........
> That's MEDITATION....
>
> Any mathematics topic, will do..... So no pretention , no goal, we
> don't need to go anywhere....
I've also noted that if I attempt to DIRECT or ANTICIPATE the "natural
flow" it has (what I imagine to be) the same effect as "breaking one's
concentration."
--
howdydave
This message originated from http://www.yoga-meditation.org
| |
|
|
>
> I've also noted that if I attempt to DIRECT or ANTICIPATE the "natural
> flow" it has (what I imagine to be) the same effect as "breaking one's
> concentration."
>
yes, indeed.
By directing or anticipating there is the PRETENTION to control
consciousness and the universe.
Nonsense... We are just a little cell in the midst of Universe...
We have to let the Universe to enter inside us. Opening the door....We
have just to be AWARE, nothing more... Without pretention....
| |
|
|
Howdy Dave,
What you are trying to convey is not a normal meditation. This is
mostly a TRANS STATE, and many people think that by doing it but only
a few times..No more!
This TRANS STATE can be reached by trying to stop all the THOUGHTS...
Actually this happens in a JUMPING STUATION INTO THE LOWER
BRAIN...People mostly feel INFINITY...a sort of DREAM ACT...
But in a real meditation, person always stay on CONSCIOUSNESS..when one
is on this state,THOUGHTS and feeling will be passing on...NO JUMPING
DOWN.
That is why you have dificulty in explaining this TRANS STATE..
TRANS STATES can only be experiences a few times...That is
because,conscious state does not permit to happen again it.
So simple, I had the samething many years ago....But this is a fake
state of meditation...IF NO conscious, no value....If you can not
expalin it,it is because there is no conscious recording on the
memory...
With compassion,
Puma
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-29, 11:00 am |
| Howdy Puma!
Sounds to me as if, by putting the limitation of "stay on
consciousness," you are automatically prohibiting yourself from
penetrating the 2 inner sheaths and encountering Self/Atman!
You use terms like "not NORMAL meditation" and "REAL meditation."
My immediate questions would be:
"Not normal for whom?"
and
"How, as a yogi, can you specify what 'REAL meditation' is?"
At best one might be able to say: "This is not 'real meditation' FOR
ME."
BTW: Are you a dualist or a non-dualist? I'm a non-dualist (obviously.)
If we are starting our discussion with that basic difference in
perception, then the difference is elemental and neither one of us is
going to pursuade the other because we are "both right."
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-29, 11:00 am |
| Howdy Puma!
What you are describing as "meditation" sounds suspiciously like what I
call "contemplation."
Could be that we're talking about apples & oranges!!
If we are defining our terminology differently, then we're merely
talking past each other.
| |
|
| Howdy Dave,
You are saying that you are a non-dualist,on the other hand you are
talking about penetrating the 2 inner sheaths and encountering
SELF/ATMAN.
For me it is very hard to see that you are a non-dualist...
When I talk about reality, I talk about the GENERAL UNDERSTANDING...If
I say FOR ME, it shall not reflect the reality. We call real, I we all
see the same fact...The sun is a reality for everybody . If a few does
not accept it it becames not normal, it becomes ANORMAL..
I do not put any limitation on anything. All i say is about reality...
If you have dealt with any sort of HYPNOSE phenomenon, you will see
what I am saying...SELF HYPNOSE is a TRANS STATE... But a person is
within the LOWER PART of his/her brain when he/she is on a tarns state.
If a meditation is made on the cortex (ON CONSCIOUSNESS) then this is
the meditaion almost all schools accept it....
If you do not accept these,it is O. K.
What you are calling sunjective meditation actually is a hypnotic TRANS
STATE... You may check on this thru scientific media...
With compassion,
Puma
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy Puma!
>
> Sounds to me as if, by putting the limitation of "stay on
> consciousness," you are automatically prohibiting yourself from
> penetrating the 2 inner sheaths and encountering Self/Atman!
>
> You use terms like "not NORMAL meditation" and "REAL meditation."
>
> My immediate questions would be:
> "Not normal for whom?"
> and
> "How, as a yogi, can you specify what 'REAL meditation' is?"
>
> At best one might be able to say: "This is not 'real meditation' FOR
> ME."
>
> BTW: Are you a dualist or a non-dualist? I'm a non-dualist (obviously.)
> If we are starting our discussion with that basic difference in
> perception, then the difference is elemental and neither one of us is
> going to pursuade the other because we are "both right."
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-29, 6:04 pm |
| Howdy Puma!
"Subjective meditation" is not my own term.
I got that term/category of meditation from:
"Self-Knowledge
Atmabodha"
By: Sankaracharya
Translation, notes, comments & intro by Swami Nikhilananda
ISBN: 0911206116
This leads me to believe that it is a recognized method of meditation
and has been so since AT LEAST the time of Sankaracharya (A.D. 788-820)
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-29, 6:04 pm |
| Although I had been using the method for quite some time, Sankaracharya
allowed me to get a handle on it by showing me that it is a recognized
method and that there is a term for it.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-12-29, 6:04 pm |
| howdydave wrote:
> Howdy Puma!
>
> "Subjective meditation" is not my own term.
>
> I got that term/category of meditation from:
>
> "Self-Knowledge
> Atmabodha"
> By: Sankaracharya
>
> Translation, notes, comments & intro by Swami Nikhilananda
> ISBN: 0911206116
>
> This leads me to believe that it is a recognized method of meditation
> and has been so since AT LEAST the time of Sankaracharya (A.D. 788-820)
>
I found some information on the web that may help make it clear what you
mean.
http://www.vedanta.org/reading/mont...sMed_part1.html
I practice it too, but I usually don't call it "subjective meditation",
I think of it as "looking within" or "self-inquiry". The Sanskrit term
is Nididhyasana, it seems. I wonder if it isn't closely related to the
Vipassana that so many Buddhists practice.
S.
| |
| howdydave 2005-12-30, 1:06 am |
| Howdy Sevenhundred Elves!
Thanks!
That's the clearest description I've seen to date.
I bookmarked the site for future reference.
| |
| howdydave 2006-01-02, 6:06 pm |
| Howdy!
re: "since it would seem you are perceiving..." There is no "I" in
this process.
Perception only involves the thought process if there is any cogitation
or decision making associated with it. If it just flows by without any
recognition/acknowledgement there is no thought process. (According to
my definition anyway.)
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-01-08, 11:42 am |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> re: "since it would seem you are perceiving..." There is no "I" in
> this process.
>
> Perception only involves the thought process if there is any cogitation
> or decision making associated with it.
I did get the idea that we were using slightly different definitions
here. the frame of reference I am using classifies perception as a
thought process, decision making and cogitation would be other levels
of thought process. perception involves a rippling of the mind stuff.
I suggest that for perception to occur there must be an "I", no matter
how nebulous, which percieves. ... who? "saw" what? ... the experience
was had by "something" intimately connected to that localized conscious
awareness which identifies itself as "howdy dave"
> If it just flows by without any
> recognition/acknowledgement there is no thought process. (According to
> my definition anyway.)
What flows by ?
flows by where? flows by who?
how do you know what if anything flows by?
.... perhaps "you" were there.
| |
| howdydave 2006-01-09, 1:01 am |
| Howdy h...!
(sorry if this is a duplicate!)
re: "... perhaps "you" were there."
Ahhh... here is the whole crux of the discussion.
When you say: "you" is that:
self, n.b.: lower case "s"
perceived-Self, n.b.: upper case "S"
Self,
Atman,
Brahman?
Which "you" are we talking about here?
| |
| howdydave 2006-01-09, 1:01 am |
| Howdy h...!
re: 'I suggest that for perception to occur there must be an "I"...'
WHY? I would guess that the only reason is because a person who has
never gotten past the "I" frame of reference assumes that their own
personal experience must include the entire range of possibilities.
Before I experienced it, my arguments were almost word-for-word the
same as yours.
Once you experience it, you discover that there are no words in the
English language adequate to describe the experience.
The same goes for the word "flows" as used in this context. As
inadequate as the word is, "flow" comes closest in spite of the
physical connotations.
"Flows BY" indicates the assumption that there must be a subject and an
object (or 2 objects.) This is not the case.
| |
| howdydave 2006-01-09, 1:01 am |
| Howdy h...!
re: "... perhaps "you" were there."
Ahhh... here is the whole crux of the argument!
In this case does "you" mean:
self, n.b.: lower case "s"
perceived-Self, n.b.: upper case "S"
Self,
Atman,
Brahman?
Which "you" are we talking about here?
| |
| howdydave 2006-01-09, 11:07 am |
| Howdy h...!
"FLOWS" (in my context) is related to the steady progress over which I
have no control (neither direction nor destination.)
SORT OF LIKE A LEAF IN A RIVER:
No control over where you're going,
Just going along for the ride and seeing the sights along the way.
You know that if you stay in the river long enough you will eventually
get to the ocean but you're totally ignorant of what you might
encounter along the way.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-01-09, 6:00 pm |
| howdydave wrote:
> Howdy h...!
>
> re: "... perhaps "you" were there."
>
> Ahhh... here is the whole crux of the argument!
>
> In this case does "you" mean:
>
> self, n.b.: lower case "s"
> perceived-Self, n.b.: upper case "S"
> Self,
> Atman,
> Brahman?
>
> Which "you" are we talking about here?
the one who perceives.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-01-10, 6:01 pm |
|
hbkta@aol.com wrote:
> howdydave wrote:
>
> the one who perceives.
well that was a little on the brief side.
[vbcol=seagreen]
I am this.
I am that.
I am the other thing.
let's not confuse the subject with the object.
"you" or "I" remains the same throughout all the levels your model.
only the sphere of activity, level of identification and entanglement
differ.
and more exactly what I mean by "you" is "you". You, the guy who sat
down for his meditation and who had the experience that you were
sharing with us here on Alt Yoga.
if you did not have the experience how do you know anything about it?
If it ws not you who had the experience, who did? If it was not you,
get the other guy in here to tell us about it?
| |
| howdydave 2006-01-11, 5:59 pm |
| Howdy h...!
You appear to be missing the whole point...
There IS no subject/object (self/other) in subjective meditation.
In my model, "I" no longer exists once you get past the
"perceived-Self" stage. (Some might argue that "I" is no longer a valid
reference point once you get past the "self" stage.)
This is an excellent demonstration of the difference between dualism
and non-dualism and the communication breakdown that often occurs.
See the site Sevenhundred Elves cited:
TYPES OF MEDITATION
http://www.vedanta.org/reading/mont...sMed_part1.html
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2006-01-11, 5:59 pm |
|
howdydave wrote:
> Howdy h...!
>
> You appear to be missing the whole point...
>
> There IS no subject/object (self/other) in subjective meditation.
>
I get that piont.
my point is that if you or whatever you want to call yourself at that
moment are having some perception, are sensing in any manner that
something is there, are doing anything, however passive it may seem at
the moment, "you" are there and mind exists, and "I" also. if as you
say there is no subject/object in subjective meditation, as per my
usage of the words, then there is no mediation,... you would sit down,
then there would be no-thing. and some time later, as per external
clocks, you would be observed opening eyes and ending the "meditation"
> In my model, "I" no longer exists once you get past the
> "perceived-Self" stage. (Some might argue that "I" is no longer a valid
> reference point once you get past the "self" stage.)
>
and just as many would argue that "I", and mind, exists all the way up
to Brahman and only dissappear upon dissolution into the void, into
nirgunabrahma.
> This is an excellent demonstration of the difference between dualism
> and non-dualism and the communication breakdown that often occurs.
>
with you being the dualist? or would that be a pentangaist, as per your
5 stage model.
to me it seems a good example of the intellectual-gymnastics some
people do, rather than just say, I did such and such meditation and I
experienced such and such.
> See the site Sevenhundred Elves cited:
I did the first time.
>
> TYPES OF MEDITATION
> http://www.vedanta.org/reading/mont...sMed_part1.html
|
| |
|
|