Yoga - Don't forget to meditate

Author

Don't forget to meditate

willytex@yahoo.com

2006-03-24, 6:31 pm

You've probably heard that regular meditation can help reduce stress
and anxiety. In fact, we reccomend practicing the skill exactly one
year ago. Now there's even more reason to give it a try: It might also
make you smarter.

A fall 2005 study found that the brains of people who meditate were
about 5 percent thicker in the areas that deal with focus and memory
than the brains of nonmeditators. The more time someone had spent
meditating in the past, the thicker their brains were in those spots.

Though the study doesn't prove it, "the implication is that meditation
may actually improve attention and memory," says Sara Lazar, a research
scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Source:

'Why You Shouldn't Forget to Meditate'
U.S. News & World Report, Dec 26, 2005 pg. 68

LawsonE

2006-03-25, 1:32 am

<willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143246332.840008.64690@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You've probably heard that regular meditation can help reduce stress
> and anxiety. In fact, we reccomend practicing the skill exactly one
> year ago. Now there's even more reason to give it a try: It might also
> make you smarter.
>
> A fall 2005 study found that the brains of people who meditate were
> about 5 percent thicker in the areas that deal with focus and memory
> than the brains of nonmeditators. The more time someone had spent
> meditating in the past, the thicker their brains were in those spots.
>
> Though the study doesn't prove it, "the implication is that meditation
> may actually improve attention and memory," says Sara Lazar, a research
> scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
>
> Source:
>
> 'Why You Shouldn't Forget to Meditate'
> U.S. News & World Report, Dec 26, 2005 pg. 68
>

The particular style of meditation studied in that research results in
higher brain activity in those spots during the meditation practice itself,
so the finding is not exactly unexpected: greater levels of activity over a
period of time in a given part of the brain are known to lead to more
connections in that part of the brain over a period of time.

It's called "training" in layman's terms.

However, its not certain that the finding translates into greater
brain-tissue gains from that form of meditation over some other practice,
such as practicing word-games and crossword puzzles.

There's also the question of whether or not its of genuine long-term benefit
to spend would would otherwise be considered "resting time" indulging in a
practice that *increases* brain activity as opposed to actually resting
during that period.

Stephen K Anderson

2006-03-25, 1:32 am

this wasn't a study on TM was it?
<willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143246332.840008.64690@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You've probably heard that regular meditation can help reduce stress
> and anxiety. In fact, we reccomend practicing the skill exactly one
> year ago. Now there's even more reason to give it a try: It might also
> make you smarter.
>
> A fall 2005 study found that the brains of people who meditate were
> about 5 percent thicker in the areas that deal with focus and memory
> than the brains of nonmeditators. The more time someone had spent
> meditating in the past, the thicker their brains were in those spots.
>
> Though the study doesn't prove it, "the implication is that meditation
> may actually improve attention and memory," says Sara Lazar, a research
> scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
>
> Source:
>
> 'Why You Shouldn't Forget to Meditate'
> U.S. News & World Report, Dec 26, 2005 pg. 68
>

LawsonE

2006-03-25, 1:32 am

"Stephen K Anderson" <nostephen4359@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:sR2Vf.10755$ji6.644375@news20.bellglobal.com...
> this wasn't a study on TM was it?

Nope, a form of buddhist mindfulness meditation.

> <willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1143246332.840008.64690@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>

Dan Barkye

2006-03-26, 12:41 am

<willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143246332.840008.64690@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You've probably heard that regular meditation can help reduce stress
> and anxiety. In fact, we reccomend practicing the skill exactly one
> year ago. Now there's even more reason to give it a try: It might also
> make you smarter.
>
> A fall 2005 study found that the brains of people who meditate were
> about 5 percent thicker in the areas that deal with focus and memory
> than the brains of nonmeditators. The more time someone had spent
> meditating in the past, the thicker their brains were in those spots.
>
> Though the study doesn't prove it, "the implication is that meditation
> may actually improve attention and memory," says Sara Lazar, a
> research
> scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
>
> Source:
>
> 'Why You Shouldn't Forget to Meditate'
> U.S. News & World Report, Dec 26, 2005 pg. 68
>

-- Experience - long - tells me, intuitively, that the reason for this
increment in brain mass in the memory and focus centers following
meditation, is the high concentration level achieved.

This should be true in "practicing word-games and crossword puzzles"
(Lawson), but in the case of meditation, if the meditator is
concentrating with his attention focused specifically on the brain
(gazing at the 3rd eye, frex), then the measure of the bodily
desensitization is much greater, and so, correspondingly, the
concentration.

Then, the brain centers of memory and focusing are increasing in mass,
too, to accommodate the greater concentration demanded of them.

Dan

LawsonE

2006-03-26, 12:41 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mplVf.6904$x94.4230@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1143246332.840008.64690@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> -- Experience - long - tells me, intuitively, that the reason for this
> increment in brain mass in the memory and focus centers following
> meditation, is the high concentration level achieved.
>
> This should be true in "practicing word-games and crossword puzzles"
> (Lawson), but in the case of meditation, if the meditator is concentrating
> with his attention focused specifically on the brain (gazing at the 3rd
> eye, frex), then the measure of the bodily desensitization is much
> greater, and so, correspondingly, the concentration.
>
> Then, the brain centers of memory and focusing are increasing in mass,
> too, to accommodate the greater concentration demanded of them.

That may be the case for concentrative meditation techniques. For TM, the
activation pattern of the brain is entirely different than with
concentrative techniques OR with mindfulness techniques.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-26, 12:26 pm

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PpnVf.279$CL6.94@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mplVf.6904$x94.4230@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> That may be the case for concentrative meditation techniques. For TM,
> the activation pattern of the brain is entirely different

-- Pls, tell me about it.

> than with concentrative techniques OR with mindfulness techniques.

Dan

Dan Barkye

2006-03-27, 12:31 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PpnVf.279$CL6.94@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mplVf.6904$x94.4230@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> That may be the case for concentrative meditation techniques. For TM,
> the activation pattern of the brain is entirely different than with
> concentrative techniques OR with mindfulness techniques.

-- In any case, any fixation of the mind and the attention, short of
trance and/or self-hypnosis, is concentration. This focused attention of
the mind includes the repetition of mantras.

Dan

John Manning

2006-03-27, 12:31 am

Dan Barkye wrote:
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:PpnVf.279$CL6.94@fed1read11...
>
> -- In any case, any fixation of the mind and the attention, short of
> trance and/or self-hypnosis, is concentration. This focused attention of
> the mind includes the repetition of mantras.

You clearly don't have a clue about Transcendental Meditation.

> Dan

Dan Barkye

2006-03-27, 12:31 am

LawsonE

2006-03-27, 12:31 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TQGVf.5371$HW2.1506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:54qdnddeBOppsrrZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> -- Tell me what do I need to know, pls, in case there's no concentration
> aspect in TM, which I doubt very much.

TM isn't concentration in the usual sense, but only in the sense of the
Sanskrit word "dyhan," which means the merging of rishi (knower), devata
(process of observation) and chhandas (object of attention), which is often
improperly translated as the English word "concentration." "Convergence of
attention" might be a better translation for dyhan. Notice my translation
isn't "*converge* attention," but "*convergence of* attention" in order to
give a sense of the effortlessness involved (or not-involved, as the case
may be).

LawsonE

2006-03-27, 12:31 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e3HVf.7286$x94.1454@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1143246332.840008.64690@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> -- "meditation can help reduce stress and anxiety"
>
> This is a gross understatement, though it states "meditation", not TM.
>
> In a TM publication, a small booklet named "Fundamentals of Progress"
> (1975), there are listed all the benefits of TM, from the metabolic
> through the athletic, accompanied by graphs showing the results of the
> corresponding scientifically conducted researches.
>
> It should be clear that any and all kinds of meditation are conducive to
> the same personal improvements, from obvious reasons: Slowing of the
> metabolism, and pronounced concentration, bringing a sharpening of the
> mind and wellness of physical being.

Sure, many techniques reduce metabolism, and the benefits that specifically
result from reduced metabolism will likely be the same across these various
techniques. However, scientific research on meditation techniques has
progressed slightly in the past 30 years and different techniques have
different effects, both short-term and long-term, on a wide variety of
physiological and psychological measures.

TM is NOT pronounced concentration, as I said earlier, save in the dyhan
sense. Calling "dyhan" concentration, is like translating various biblical
terms into the English term "faith," as in "belief without proof." It causes
GREAT confusion, and results in very primitive interpretations of
Judeo-Christian traditions.

jstein@panix.com

2006-03-27, 12:31 am

Dan Barkye wrote:
<snip>
> -- In any case, any fixation of the mind and the attention, short of
> trance and/or self-hypnosis, is concentration. This focused attention of
> the mind includes the repetition of mantras.

Not with TM it doesn't. But then TM doesn't involve focused attention,
or fixation of the mind and/or attention, either.

Stu

2006-03-27, 12:31 am

On 2006-03-26 18:23:24 -0800, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> said:

>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:TQGVf.5371$HW2.1506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> TM isn't concentration in the usual sense, but only in the sense of the
> Sanskrit word "dyhan," which means the merging of rishi (knower),
> devata (process of observation) and chhandas (object of attention),
> which is often improperly translated as the English word
> "concentration." "Convergence of attention" might be a better
> translation for dyhan. Notice my translation isn't "*converge*
> attention," but "*convergence of* attention" in order to give a sense
> of the effortlessness involved (or not-involved, as the case may be).

I am not as conversant with TM theory as Lawson or John. But from my
experience of practicing TM for the last 30 some years I can attest
that concentration is not involved. In my words, it is more of a
letting go until subject and object merge or disappear. After that
words don't really do justice to what one "experiences". And
experience isn't really the right verb to describe this non-activity.

I have taken time to experiment with other techniques. In the end they
generally bring me back to the supreme stillness I found in TM. So it
is very difficult for me to compare competing techniques. I suspect
everyone will find different meditation techniques to be more or less
value to their life journey. Different strokes.

In the end, the measure of a particular yogic technique is how it
influences one's regular waking life. The actual meditation experience
means nothing - it can be boring or an epiphany. We look at our life
and notice if there is calm in a sea of stress, concentration where
there was distraction, equanimity where there was imbalance.

Concentration, trance and self hypnosis are not TM. Though I suspect
there are yogic traditions that use concentration, trance and self
hypnosis for positive effect, and may very well be the techniques that
someone needs to wake up.

--
~Stu

John Manning

2006-03-27, 10:33 am

Dan Barkye wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:54qdnddeBOppsrrZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> -- Tell me what do I need to know, pls, in case there's no concentration
> aspect in TM, which I doubt very much.

There's no concentration involved with Transcendental Meditation. It
goes by the natural tendency of the mind to move from one level of
happiness to a greater level of happiness without effort.

For example, if one is listening to music, and another, much more
pleasing song is heard, the attention 'effortlessly' moves toward the
more pleasing sound. This tendency of the mind is what takes place
during Transcendental Meditation.

The instruction itself, although specific, simple and easy, is at the
same time most subtle and abstract and requires a qualified, trained
teacher to impart. Learning Transcendental Meditation is like learning
how to ride a bicycle. It's experiential. It has to be experienced. Just
telling someone how to do it, doesn't accomplish it. The teacher is
there to guide the experience. Once you 'get the hang of it', you're on
your own.

>
> Dan
>
>

Dan Barkye

2006-03-27, 12:27 pm

To all who had the kind disposition to answer me. (see the --, below)
------------------------------------------------------
"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:q%HVf.331$CL6.293@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:TQGVf.5371$HW2.1506@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> TM isn't concentration in the usual sense, but only in the sense of
> the Sanskrit word "dyhan," which means the merging of rishi (knower),
> devata (process of observation) and chhandas (object of attention),
> which is often improperly translated as the English word
> "concentration." "Convergence of attention" might be a better
> translation for dyhan. Notice my translation isn't "*converge*
> attention," but "*convergence of* attention" in order to give a sense
> of the effortlessness involved (or not-involved, as the case may be).

-- I think that we'll all agree on the definition of "contemplation" to
what you try to explain as non-concentration tech in TM.

And this is what the "dhyan-chohan" (not 'dyhan') do when they "make"
the Universe: They contemplate to the pt of "making it grow". But that's
another story, Theosophy.

Contemplation, though, is an inherent phase in *any* type of med tech,
if one carries it to its finish line thru its distinct diff phases:
Relaxation, Concentration (easier when relaxed), Meditation (thinking
reflectively, while being concentrated deeply) and Contemplation (the
transcendental phase of the concentrated mind, (hopefully) to the point
where there is an effortless convergence (as you say, of course, since
it's 'contemplation', not a "from me to/on it" stage of being
concentrated) of the observer with the observed, and the duality is
"smashed", transcended, into the unity.

But, to reach that pt, even in TM, one needs to be concentrated, there
is no doubt in my mind about it. You cannot contemplate (this is the
state that you describe) w/o being concentrated, this is the sequence of
actions in any kind of med carried to the pt of contemplation. I think
that we can agree on that.

Dan

John Manning

2006-03-27, 12:27 pm

Dan Barkye wrote:
> To all who had the kind disposition to answer me. (see the --, below)
> ------------------------------------------------------
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:q%HVf.331$CL6.293@fed1read11...
>
> -- I think that we'll all agree on the definition of "contemplation" to
> what you try to explain as non-concentration tech in TM.
>
> And this is what the "dhyan-chohan" (not 'dyhan') do when they "make"
> the Universe: They contemplate to the pt of "making it grow". But that's
> another story, Theosophy.
>
> Contemplation, though, is an inherent phase in *any* type of med tech,
> if one carries it to its finish line thru its distinct diff phases:
> Relaxation, Concentration (easier when relaxed), Meditation (thinking
> reflectively, while being concentrated deeply) and Contemplation (the
> transcendental phase of the concentrated mind, (hopefully) to the point
> where there is an effortless convergence (as you say, of course, since
> it's 'contemplation', not a "from me to/on it" stage of being
> concentrated) of the observer with the observed, and the duality is
> "smashed", transcended, into the unity.
>
> But, to reach that pt, even in TM, one needs to be concentrated, there
> is no doubt in my mind about it. You cannot contemplate (this is the
> state that you describe) w/o being concentrated, this is the sequence of
> actions in any kind of med carried to the pt of contemplation. I think
> that we can agree on that.

Sorry, Dan. We cannot. Transcendental Meditation is NOT contemplation.

>
> Dan
>
>

jstein@panix.com

2006-03-27, 5:29 pm

John Manning wrote:
> Dan Barkye wrote:
<snip>
>
> Sorry, Dan. We cannot. Transcendental Meditation is NOT contemplation.

I think he's defining contemplation as transcendental consciousness,
which is not the traditional definition of contemplation, and certainly
not what we mean when we say TM does not involve contemplation.

We might agree, for the sake of argument, that "concentrated mind"
could be used to refer to the state of mind necessary to achieve
transcendence/contemplation, as long as we realize that
"concentrating" in the standard sense of intentionally focusing the
mind is not what occurs in TM. In this sense "concentrated mind"
is something that *happens* to the mind, spontaneously and without
effort or intention, rather than something the mind *does*.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-27, 5:30 pm

<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1143484406.491993.215770@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> John Manning wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I think he's defining contemplation as transcendental consciousness,

-- definitely!

> which is not the traditional definition of contemplation,

-- of course!

and certainly
> not what we mean when we say TM does not involve contemplation.

-- then we have a 3rd type of contemplation?

> We might agree, for the sake of argument, that "concentrated mind"
> could be used to refer to the state of mind necessary to achieve
> transcendence/contemplation, as long as we realize that
> "concentrating" in the standard sense of intentionally focusing the
> mind

-- "focusing the mind" wouldn't be 'attention' to the pt of 'deep
attention' which equals 'concentration'?

is not what occurs in TM.

-- if my above definition is correct, then it occurs in TM by
definition.

In this sense "concentrated mind"
> is something that *happens* to the mind, spontaneously and without
> effort or intention, rather than something the mind *does*.

-- You describe something alike to the 3-dimensional pictures when in a
snap of the way of looking at it, it transforms itself into the 3-dim
pic.
Then, in TM, you just transcend very rapidly the preliminary phases of
'relaxation' and 'concentration' into the transcendental contemplation
phase.

Dan

John Manning

2006-03-27, 5:30 pm

jstein@panix.com wrote:
> John Manning wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I think he's defining contemplation as transcendental consciousness,
> which is not the traditional definition of contemplation, and certainly
> not what we mean when we say TM does not involve contemplation.
>
> We might agree, for the sake of argument, that "concentrated mind"
> could be used to refer to the state of mind necessary to achieve
> transcendence/contemplation, as long as we realize that
> "concentrating" in the standard sense of intentionally focusing the
> mind is not what occurs in TM. In this sense "concentrated mind"
> is something that *happens* to the mind, spontaneously and without
> effort or intention, rather than something the mind *does*.

Exactly! I don't wish to alienate Dan [I'm sure he's a genuine and
sincere, and perhaps advanced person], but I can't allow misconceptions
to be assumed as final conclusions, particularly when it comes to the
practise of Transcendental Meditation. Maybe our exchange here will give
him more clarity.

jstein@panix.com

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

Dan Barkye wrote:
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1143484406.491993.215770@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> -- definitely!
>
>
> -- of course!
>
> and certainly
>
> -- then we have a 3rd type of contemplation?

No, we're using the standard definition.

>
> -- "focusing the mind" wouldn't be 'attention' to the pt of 'deep
> attention' which equals 'concentration'?

I'm not sure what "attention to the pt of deep attention" means.

I went on to explain that while it might be said that during TM
the mind becomes concentrated, it cannot be said that the
mind concentrates.

> is not what occurs in TM.
>
> -- if my above definition is correct, then it occurs in TM by
> definition.

See above, and below. Concentration of the mind *occurs*,
but spontaneously, without any effort to concentrate.

The problem here is the association of concentration with
*effort*. It's only in the sense of something that *happens*,
as opposed to something one *does*, that one can use the
term "concentration" with regard to TM.

> In this sense "concentrated mind"
>
> -- You describe something alike to the 3-dimensional pictures when in a
> snap of the way of looking at it, it transforms itself into the 3-dim
> pic.

No idea what you're talking about here.

> Then, in TM, you just transcend very rapidly the preliminary phases of
> 'relaxation' and 'concentration' into the transcendental contemplation
> phase.

Again, only if you understand "concentration" to be something that
*happens* rather than something you *do*.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:VPidndRMTMAepbXZRVn-hg@giganews.com...
> jstein@panix.com wrote:
>
> Exactly! I don't wish to alienate Dan [I'm sure he's a genuine and
> sincere, and perhaps advanced person], but I can't allow
> misconceptions to be assumed as final conclusions, particularly when
> it comes to the practise of Transcendental Meditation. Maybe our
> exchange here will give him more clarity.

-- I understand that I'm not alone in classifying TM in the
concentrational systems of med, but since I never did TM, I cannot vow
for what I intuitively know, i.e. that there cannot be a med session w/o
a concentration phase. Even if it's quantum-like phase, it's still there
to make for the preparation of the mind for the reflective thinking of
the meditative state.

Tell me if this is correct: What is described is a stupor-like state in
which one retains his awareness (and shifts it effortlessly to the next
object of attention, if it so happens) and this is a high state of
contemplation.

Dan

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1143506382.489612.219360@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Barkye wrote:
>
> No, we're using the standard definition.
>
>
> I'm not sure what "attention to the pt of deep attention" means.
>
> I went on to explain that while it might be said that during TM
> the mind becomes concentrated, it cannot be said that the
> mind concentrates.
>
>
> See above, and below. Concentration of the mind *occurs*,
> but spontaneously, without any effort to concentrate.
>
> The problem here is the association of concentration with
> *effort*. It's only in the sense of something that *happens*,
> as opposed to something one *does*, that one can use the
> term "concentration" with regard to TM.
>
>
> No idea what you're talking about here.
>
>
> Again, only if you understand "concentration" to be something that
> *happens* rather than something you *do*.

-- Of course!! How can it be otherwise? Effortless is the word here -)

Dan

John Manning

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

Dan Barkye wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:VPidndRMTMAepbXZRVn-hg@giganews.com...
>
> -- I understand that I'm not alone in classifying TM in the
> concentrational systems of med, but since I never did TM, I cannot vow
> for what I intuitively know, i.e. that there cannot be a med session w/o
> a concentration phase. Even if it's quantum-like phase, it's still there
> to make for the preparation of the mind for the reflective thinking of
> the meditative state.
>
> Tell me if this is correct: What is described is a stupor-like state in
> which one retains his awareness (and shifts it effortlessly to the next
> object of attention, if it so happens) and this is a high state of
> contemplation.

Transcendental conscience doesn't involve thought [contemplation]. It's
beyond thought.

>
> Dan
>
>

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:KsOdnduzUsGMEbXZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Dan Barkye wrote:
>
> Transcendental conscience doesn't involve thought [contemplation].

-- Thought is not contemplation! Contemplation is the phase after the
med one (which involves thought).

It's
> beyond thought.

-- Of course it's beyond thought, as I said before re contemplation in
other posts.
This is where one attains "Transcendental conscience" w/o the duality.

Dan

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E70Wf.8783$Bj7.5039@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:KsOdnduzUsGMEbXZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> -- Thought is not contemplation! Contemplation is the phase after the med
> one (which involves thought).
>
> It's
>
> -- Of course it's beyond thought, as I said before re contemplation in
> other posts.
> This is where one attains "Transcendental conscience" w/o the duality.

Attainment is a lousy word to use, just as concentration/contemplation are.

And what do you mean by "'transcendental consciouce" w/o theduality?'

John Manning

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

Dan Barkye wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:KsOdnduzUsGMEbXZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> -- Thought is not contemplation! Contemplation is the phase after the
> med one (which involves thought).

That phase is not part of the Transcendental Meditation instruction. But
yes, *after* the practise you can think about anything you wish.

>
> It's
>
> -- Of course it's beyond thought, as I said before re contemplation in
> other posts.
> This is where one attains "Transcendental conscience" w/o the duality.
>
> Dan
>
>

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mf0Wf.393$CL6.205@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:E70Wf.8783$Bj7.5039@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Attainment is a lousy word to use,

-- Not at all, I know what you mean, but no, it's not.

just as concentration/contemplation are.
>
> And what do you mean by "'transcendental consciouce" w/o theduality?'

-- Just what I say: discarding the duality in the process and so to
attain (reach, if you want)unity.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:BfidnQjwZte8DLXZnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Dan Barkye wrote:
>
> That phase is not part of the Transcendental Meditation instruction.
> But yes, *after* the practise you can think about anything you wish.

[...]

-- Okay, just for the sake of the friendly conversation, you all say
that TM is not about concentration, but, as I understand, it skips it
right to the contemplation stage.

What I say, and there are others who say so, too, generally, is that
there cannot be a med session w/o concentration, even if it's of a
quantumlike nature, even if it's subconscious.

Dan

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jt0Wf.7641$x94.5834@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:mf0Wf.393$CL6.205@fed1read11...
>
> -- Not at all, I know what you mean, but no, it's not.
>
> just as concentration/contemplation are.
>
> -- Just what I say: discarding the duality in the process and so to
> attain (reach, if you want)unity.
>

Discard implies duality. Samadhi doesn't mean to discard anything.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Tx0Wf.395$CL6.276@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:jt0Wf.7641$x94.5834@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Discard implies duality.

-- Of course! Until the moment of discarding, it's the duality that
rules, From then on, it's oneness.

>Samadhi doesn't mean to discard anything.

-- And what happens until you reach samadhi?

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JA0Wf.7643$x94.4179@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Tx0Wf.395$CL6.276@fed1read11...
>
> -- Of course! Until the moment of discarding, it's the duality that rules,
> From then on, it's oneness.
>
>
> -- And what happens until you reach samadhi?
>
>

You have a different definition of terms I think. Why don't you give us your
definition of "samadhi" and "duality" and "unity?"

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Qx0Wf.7642$x94.3556@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:BfidnQjwZte8DLXZnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> [...]
>
> -- Okay, just for the sake of the friendly conversation, you all say that
> TM is not about concentration, but, as I understand, it skips it right to
> the contemplation stage.
>
> What I say, and there are others who say so, too, generally, is that there
> cannot be a med session w/o concentration, even if it's of a quantumlike
> nature, even if it's subconscious.

You seem to be using the terms differently than most do. What is meditation,
what is concentration, what is "subconscious" and what is contemplation?

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZL0Wf.398$CL6.34@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:JA0Wf.7643$x94.4179@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> You have a different definition of terms I think. Why don't you give
> us your definition of "samadhi" and "duality" and "unity?"

-- There's only the correct one: Observer and observed, and transcending
this state into the fusing of them into unity.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OM0Wf.399$CL6.204@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Qx0Wf.7642$x94.3556@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> You seem to be using the terms differently than most do.

-- It may be so. One of us should be correct.

What is meditation,
> what is concentration, what is "subconscious" and what is
> contemplation?

-- Concentration, Meditation, and Contemplation, in this order, w
Relaxation preceding them, are the natural phases of the med session, if
one uses them to reach unity.

Yes, there's a mess out there re meditation definition.

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jQ0Wf.7656$x94.3417@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ZL0Wf.398$CL6.34@fed1read11...
>
> -- There's only the correct one: Observer and observed, and transcending
> this state into the fusing of them into unity.

No devatas (process of observation) for you?

And how does one fuse what is already one and can never be more than one?
Unity isn't an action. Unity is what is already present anyway, just that
you dont note it to talk about as a first-hand situation.
>
>

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RT0Wf.7659$x94.6344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OM0Wf.399$CL6.204@fed1read11...
>
> -- It may be so. One of us should be correct.
>
> What is meditation,
>
> -- Concentration, Meditation, and Contemplation, in this order, w
> Relaxation preceding them, are the natural phases of the med session, if
> one uses them to reach unity.
>

Ah, dyhana, dhrana and samadhi, pardon my spelling.

> Yes, there's a mess out there re meditation definition.
>

Meditation means "thinking." We TMers (either with knowledge of the sanskrit
terms, or simply by virtue of our first-hand experience with TM) use the
term "Transcendental Meditation" as one example of what Patanjali refers to
as Dhyana. It's better not to try to define these terms TOO precisely
without the experience of the "thing" referred to by the terms since that
only leads to confusion and expectations which, by definition, are limited
and limiting.

However, its possible to step back and look at things from a physiological
point of view even if one is NOT familiar with either the terms, however
imprecise, OR the experience (however imprecise the use of the term
"experience" is in this case).

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HX0Wf.403$CL6.258@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:jQ0Wf.7656$x94.3417@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> No devatas (process of observation) for you?

-- Lawson, if I said "Observer and observed, and transcending this state
into ..." isn't it a recognition of the process of observation?

> And how does one fuse what is already one and can never be more than
> one?

-- By unity of the observer and the observed.

> Unity isn't an action.

-- Correct! It's a situation.

Unity is what is already present anyway,

-- but yours only after reaching it.

just that
> you dont note it to talk about as a first-hand situation.

-- If I understand you correctly, yes, only as an outcome, so it's
second-hand-like, if you so define it.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z21Wf.404$CL6.338@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:RT0Wf.7659$x94.6344@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Ah, dyhana, dhrana and samadhi, pardon my spelling.

-- Whatever, there are so many systems and definitions and
classifications that one can get lost in them.

>
> Meditation means "thinking."

-- I said so; reflecting thinking, actually, would be more to the pt.

We TMers

-- I'm confused, now!... Isn't this "alt.meditation" only, so any type
of med can be discussed here, or I miss something?

(either with knowledge of the sanskrit
> terms, or simply by virtue of our first-hand experience with TM) use
> the term "Transcendental Meditation" as one example of what Patanjali
> refers to as Dhyana.

-- Fine! Who am I to object? But there are some phases that cannot be
bypassed, in my understanding and experience.

>It's better not to try to define these terms TOO precisely without the
>experience of the "thing" referred to by the terms since that only
>leads to confusion and expectations which, by definition, are limited
>and limiting.

-- Agree. Experience is important, very. But, as I said, I meditate
daily for yrs and this is my preception of it, this classififcation that
I mentioned.

> However, its possible to step back and look at things from a
> physiological point of view even if one is NOT familiar with either
> the terms, however imprecise, OR the experience (however imprecise the
> use of the term "experience" is in this case).

You mean for you and for TM, if we talk TM, since I don't do it. I can
only interpolate.

jstein@panix.com

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

LawsonE wrote:
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:E70Wf.8783$Bj7.5039@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
<snip>[vbcol=seagreen]
<snip>[vbcol=seagreen]
> And what do you mean by "'transcendental consciouce" w/o theduality?'

PSSST, guys, it's "consciousness," not "conscience." ("Conscience"
is what makes you feel bad after you've done something wrong, or
keeps you from doing it in the first place.)

jstein@panix.com

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

Dan Barkye wrote:
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Z21Wf.404$CL6.338@fed1read11...
<snip>[vbcol=seagreen]
> We TMers
>
> -- I'm confused, now!... Isn't this "alt.meditation" only, so any type
> of med can be discussed here, or I miss something?

You're posting *to* both alt.meditation and
alt.meditation.transcendental.
John and Lawson and I are all posting *from*
alt.meditation.transcendental,
and we're all TMers.

<snip>
>
> -- Agree. Experience is important, very. But, as I said, I meditate
> daily for yrs and this is my preception of it, this classififcation that
> I mentioned.

But you aren't practicing TM.

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1143514061.802444.251980@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Barkye wrote:
> <snip>
>
> You're posting *to* both alt.meditation and
> alt.meditation.transcendental.
> John and Lawson and I are all posting *from*
> alt.meditation.transcendental,
> and we're all TMers.
>
> <snip>
>
> But you aren't practicing TM.
>

And some of us have meditated daily for decades (3+ decades in my case and
yours, IIRC) and we have different perceptions, or at least use different
terms than Dan does. I can certainly understand that using different terms
for things might lead to confusion in a discussion, even if it turns out
that everyone is talking about the same thing. However, I get the distinct
impression that there's more (or less) going on here than merely a confusion
of terms.

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1143513798.751929.230930@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> LawsonE wrote:
> <snip>
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
> PSSST, guys, it's "consciousness," not "conscience." ("Conscience"
> is what makes you feel bad after you've done something wrong, or
> keeps you from doing it in the first place.)
>

My bad spelling aside, I'm aware of that. I suspect Dan is also.

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Na1Wf.7671$x94.1726@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:HX0Wf.403$CL6.258@fed1read11...
>
> -- Lawson, if I said "Observer and observed, and transcending this state
> into ..." isn't it a recognition of the process of observation?

Transcending isn't the process of observation. Transcending is the process
of the 3 becoming less distinct until no differences can be observed.

>
>
> -- By unity of the observer and the observed.
>
>
> -- Correct! It's a situation.
>
> Unity is what is already present anyway,
>
> -- but yours only after reaching it.

Who does the "reaching?"

>
> just that
>
> -- If I understand you correctly, yes, only as an outcome, so it's
> second-hand-like, if you so define it.
>

If you define it, its "second-hand." If you live it, on the other hand...

Of course, I'm not "living it" that I can tell, so this is certainly a
second-hand situation for me.

jstein@panix.com

2006-03-28, 12:34 am

LawsonE wrote:
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1143513798.751929.230930@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> My bad spelling aside, I'm aware of that. I suspect Dan is also.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you didn't know what the word
"conscience" meant, I was just pointing out that there's a huge
difference in meaning between the two words, and we're already
fouled up enough with different definitions of the *same* word.

I had visions of a lengthy argument in which one of yez was
arguing about conscience and the other was arguing about
consciousness, but without realizing you had different things
in mind because you were spelling both words the same way!

I see this error all the time; I once saw it in a movie review
in the New York Times, even.

John Manning

2006-03-28, 10:33 am

Dan Barkye wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:BfidnQjwZte8DLXZnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> [...]
>
> -- Okay, just for the sake of the friendly conversation, you all say
> that TM is not about concentration, but, as I understand, it skips it
> right to the contemplation stage.

To keep me happy let's call it the Transcendental consciousness stage.
Contemplation which is not part of Transcendental consciousness or the
TM practise, is different.

>
> What I say, and there are others who say so, too, generally, is that
> there cannot be a med session w/o concentration, even if it's of a
> quantumlike nature, even if it's subconscious.

Whether people say that or not has nothing to do with the fact that
whatever concentration occurs during TM, it is spontaneous and effortless.

>
> Dan
>
>

LawsonE

2006-03-28, 10:33 am

"John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3s-dnYQhSr-bqrTZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Dan Barkye wrote:
>
> To keep me happy let's call it the Transcendental consciousness stage.
> Contemplation which is not part of Transcendental consciousness or the TM
> practise, is different.
>
>
> Whether people say that or not has nothing to do with the fact that
> whatever concentration occurs during TM, it is spontaneous and effortless.

Part of the problem is that Dan is using a traditional English translation
of Patanjali's terms that is very misleading, IMHO. For him, dhyan (TM and
related practices) is concentration and samadhi is contemplation. He may
well know what dhyan is in the sense that we TMers might use the term, but
he's used to the "concentration" translation, so he uses it consistently.

John Manning

2006-03-28, 10:33 am

LawsonE wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:3s-dnYQhSr-bqrTZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> Part of the problem is that Dan is using a traditional English translation
> of Patanjali's terms that is very misleading, IMHO. For him, dhyan (TM and
> related practices) is concentration and samadhi is contemplation. He may
> well know what dhyan is in the sense that we TMers might use the term, but
> he's used to the "concentration" translation, so he uses it consistently.

Yeah. He's even said himself that the various use of terms and their
different meanings to different people have led to a mess of
understanding. He sure is right about that.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NY1Wf.416$CL6.151@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Na1Wf.7671$x94.1726@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Transcending isn't the process of observation. Transcending is the
> process of the 3 becoming less distinct until no differences can be
> observed.

-- Lawson, time and again you miss what I say, so, again:

- There is the observer observing the observed (X vs Y, if you will) =
Duality (two distinct entities dwelling in the same spot of space - time
and material dimensions).

- The observer, hopefully, reaches a state in which he transcends this
dual state. This is the only goal of spirituality, very hard to achieve
for us, humans, otherwise we would all be angels, and would not be here,
hehe. This is what many would call (ultimate) enlightenment.

>
> Who does the "reaching?"

-- The observer, obviously, not the observed.

>
> If you define it, its "second-hand." If you live it, on the other
> hand...

-- For me it'll always be a direct outcome of my action of transcending
the here and the now into an eternal present in which I am one w the
observed, whatever would that be, idea, object or person.

> Of course, I'm not "living it" that I can tell, so this is certainly a
> second-hand situation for me.

-- Your decision.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:oU1Wf.415$CL6.405@fed1read11...
>
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1143513798.751929.230930@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> My bad spelling aside, I'm aware of that.

-- So I thought.

I suspect Dan is also.

-- Correct. Thank you!

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

<jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1143514061.802444.251980@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Barkye wrote:
> <snip>
>
> You're posting *to* both alt.meditation and
> alt.meditation.transcendental.
> John and Lawson and I are all posting *from*
> alt.meditation.transcendental,
> and we're all TMers.

-- Oh, so sorry, I wasn't aware of the cross-posting fully. Okay, I get
it, now, TMers -))

<snip>
>
> But you aren't practicing TM.

-- No, I'm not, though I'm acquainted w it a bit, just a bit.

I don't know if you know this, but in Israel there is one, or even two,
villages inhabited and run by TMers. They keep their way of life there.
People visit the villages as a matter of curiosity for them, b/c after
all, the majority don't do it, even simple meditation.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DT1Wf.414$CL6.206@fed1read11...
>
> <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:1143514061.802444.251980@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> And some of us have meditated daily for decades (3+ decades in my case
> and yours, IIRC) and we have different perceptions, or at least use
> different terms than Dan does. I can certainly understand that using
> different terms for things might lead to confusion in a discussion,
> even if it turns out that everyone is talking about the same thing.
> However, I get the distinct impression that there's more (or less)
> going on here than merely a confusion of terms.

-- I'm fully aware of the (mis)perception of TM as a concentrating
system of med, to which you object.

I will never argue w experience and I will never try to impose my stand,
esp when I don't practice it, but, as others, too, I must say that I
find it hard to believe that there is no concentration stage in TM.

Maybe it's disguised in some other form of state of mind, maybe
subconscious, maybe quantum-like (one object in two places/situations
simultaneously, when one place/situation is more dominant than the
other, and the two places/situations switch dominance).

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

"John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3s-dnYQhSr-bqrTZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Dan Barkye wrote:
>
> To keep me happy let's call it the Transcendental consciousness stage.
> Contemplation which is not part of Transcendental consciousness or the
> TM practise, is different.
>
>
> Whether people say that or not has nothing to do with the fact that
> whatever concentration occurs during TM, it is spontaneous and
> effortless.

-- OKAY, so there IS concentration, though of an effortless type, which
I understood from the beginning (read my msgs), and even in small
quantity, the type of fixation of the mind that enables you to apply its
faculties to one object at one time in one place.

So now we talk about what "kind of concentration" is there, right?

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rybWf.439$CL6.409@fed1read11...
>
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:3s-dnYQhSr-bqrTZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> Part of the problem is that Dan is using a traditional English
> translation of Patanjali's terms that is very misleading, IMHO. For
> him, dhyan (TM and related practices) is concentration and samadhi is
> contemplation. He may well know what dhyan is in the sense that we
> TMers might use the term, but he's used to the "concentration"
> translation, so he uses it consistently.

-- That would be about it -)

LawsonE

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tfyWf.8027$x94.6515@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:NY1Wf.416$CL6.151@fed1read11...
>
> -- Lawson, time and again you miss what I say, so, again:
>
> - There is the observer observing the observed (X vs Y, if you will) =
> Duality (two distinct entities dwelling in the same spot of space - time
> and material dimensions).

There is process involved in observing: rishi (observer), devatas (process)
and chhandas (that which 'covers' the observer -- the observed).

>
> - The observer, hopefully, reaches a state in which he transcends this
> dual state. This is the only goal of spirituality, very hard to achieve
> for us, humans, otherwise we would all be angels, and would not be here,
> hehe. This is what many would call (ultimate) enlightenment.

No hope involved, and it is literally the easiest thing in the world to
transcend. In fact as one approaches the state of samadhi, it becomes ever
easier since samadhi is the deepest form of rest possible for the human
nervous system. However, the flipside of this deep rest is that rest
activates repair mechanisms in the nervous system, which are perceived in
our awareness as mental activity. Because of this, meditation is perceived
as a cyclical thing decreasing mental activity followed by increased mental
activity. The closer one gets to samadhi, the deeper the rest, and hence the
more profound the repair of the nervous system, corresponding to greater
mental activity. Should samadhi be attained, the resultant repair activity
would be greatest and the corresponding mental activity greatest also.

Meditation brings about repair in the nervous system that makes it more
efficient. Following a period of meditation, a period of activity serves to
stabilize the healing that has resulted from meditation. Shankara referred
to this process as analogous to dying a piece of cloth wool: you dip it in
the dye (meditation) and let it gain the color desired and then let it fade
inthe sunlight (activity). You repeat the process until the dye never fades
(enlightenment).

>
>
> -- The observer, obviously, not the observed.

In samadhi, they are the same.

>
>
> -- For me it'll always be a direct outcome of my action of transcending
> the here and the now into an eternal present in which I am one w the
> observed, whatever would that be, idea, object or person.

One interesting correlation of Unity is that it turns out if one's
perception of reality really is at that level, one's desires are always
life-supporting. Also, the universe works to fulfill one's desires. The YOga
sutras of Patanjali contain the "siddhis" -- the so-called superpowers. For
someone to be in Unity means that, should desire arise, the outcome of the
siddhis would occur spontaneously, merely by intent. For example, deciding
to float would lead to one physically floating. Desiring to feed the masses
with a basket of fish would lead to the creation of a lot of extra fish.
Always something to recall when you start assuming that you've "got it." The
Buddhists remind us to kill that Buddha we meet on the road...

>
>
> -- Your decision.

Decisions are a relative thing and not part of Unity. In fact, the first
mistake of the intellect is the recognition of Being that Being exists, so
even the primordial act of creation isn't Unity from the divine perspective.

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 10:34 am

"John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:Y_2dnWGIuOyF27TZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> LawsonE wrote:
>
> Yeah. He's even said himself that the various use of terms and their
> different meanings to different people have led to a mess of
> understanding. He sure is right about that.

-- Yup, I'm wary of all the classifications and sub-classifications and
sub-sub-classifications, and of all the schools that look at the very
same things and call and define them differently and even inversely.

I'm really tired of the "four" things, and "five" types and "six"
principles, even coming from the Buddha.

For me it's simple: Try to reach unity thru the right means, the Law of
Universal Love ("love your neighbor as thyself") and meditation, being
the most potent, maybe. Straight, direct, simple.

Now, I'm not an angel, certainly not, but I try
-)))

Dan Barkye

2006-03-29, 12:31 pm

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:syyWf.585$CL6.81@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tfyWf.8027$x94.6515@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> There is process involved in observing: rishi (observer), devatas
> (process) and chhandas (that which 'covers' the observer -- the
> observed).
>
>
> No hope involved, and it is literally the easiest thing in the world
> to transcend. In fact as one approaches the state of samadhi, it
> becomes ever easier since samadhi is the deepest form of rest possible
> for the human nervous system. However, the flipside of this deep rest
> is that rest activates repair mechanisms in the nervous system, which
> are perceived in our awareness as mental activity. Because of this,
> meditation is perceived as a cyclical thing decreasing mental activity
> followed by increased mental activity. The closer one gets to samadhi,
> the deeper the rest, and hence the more profound the repair of the
> nervous system, corresponding to greater mental activity. Should
> samadhi be attained, the resultant repair activity would be greatest
> and the corresponding mental activity greatest also.
>
> Meditation brings about repair in the nervous system that makes it
> more efficient. Following a period of meditation, a period of activity
> serves to stabilize the healing that has resulted from meditation.
> Shankara referred to this process as analogous to dying a piece of
> cloth wool: you dip it in the dye (meditation) and let it gain the
> color desired and then let it fade inthe sunlight (activity). You
> repeat the process until the dye never fades (enlightenment).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In samadhi, they are the same.

-- Indeed. This is what I say all the time.

>
> One interesting correlation of Unity is that it turns out if one's
> perception of reality really is at that level, one's desires are
> always life-supporting. Also, the universe works to fulfill one's
> desires. The YOga sutras of Patanjali contain the "siddhis" -- the
> so-called superpowers. For someone to be in Unity means that, should
> desire arise, the outcome of the siddhis would occur spontaneously,
> merely by intent. For example, deciding to float would lead to one
> physically floating. Desiring to feed the masses with a basket of fish
> would lead to the creation of a lot of extra fish. Always something to
> recall when you start assuming that you've "got it." The Buddhists
> remind us to kill that Buddha we meet on the road...

-- Of course, sidhis are something not to be wished, b/c of the
attachment, yet they are a natural outcome of the elevated and developed
state of mind and body of an adept.

>
> Decisions are a relative thing and not part of Unity. In fact, the
> first mistake of the intellect is the recognition of Being that Being
> exists, so even the primordial act of creation isn't Unity from the
> divine perspective.

-- All true!

This is why there's the "primordial egg" first and then the "mother and
father" who create, derived from it.

John Manning

2006-03-29, 12:31 pm

Dan Barkye wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:Y_2dnWGIuOyF27TZnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> -- Yup, I'm wary of all the classifications and sub-classifications and
> sub-sub-classifications, and of all the schools that look at the very
> same things and call and define them differently and even inversely.
>
> I'm really tired of the "four" things, and "five" types and "six"
> principles, even coming from the Buddha.
>
> For me it's simple: Try to reach unity thru the right means, the Law of
> Universal Love ("love your neighbor as thyself") and meditation, being
> the most potent, maybe. Straight, direct, simple.
>
> Now, I'm not an angel, certainly not, but I try
> -)))

Sounds good to me.

LawsonE

2006-03-29, 12:31 pm

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BtyWf.6015$HW2.1564@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:DT1Wf.414$CL6.206@fed1read11...
>
> -- I'm fully aware of the (mis)perception of TM as a concentrating system
> of med, to which you object.
>
> I will never argue w experience and I will never try to impose my stand,
> esp when I don't practice it, but, as others, too, I must say that I find
> it hard to believe that there is no concentration stage in TM.
>
> Maybe it's disguised in some other form of state of mind, maybe
> subconscious, maybe quantum-like (one object in two places/situations
> simultaneously, when one place/situation is more dominant than the other,
> and the two places/situations switch dominance).
>

In TM we introduce a mantra, which is simply a meaningless sound, into our
thinking process. Sometimes this requires a deliberate intent, and sometimes
it happens on its own simply by closing our eyes. Insomuch as any object of
attention is a focus of awareness, you can say that there is "concentration"
involved in TM, but its the concentration of suddenly noting a beautiful
woman walking by or glancing out the door and seeing the sunset, not the
concentration of trying to study for that math exam, or trying to say "one"
every time you exhale or trying to hold the mind steady on some mantra or
yantra or deity or prayer.

The process of TM is that of allowing the mind to stay alert while
experiencing an interesting thought (the mantra) at more and more subtle
levels of its manifestation in your mind. The process is natural and
effortless because the mantra, according to tradition, is always interesting
and nourishing and the interesting/nourishing aspect of the mantra grows,
the more subtle it becomes. This "subtlety" is the merging of rishi, devata
and chhandas. Eventually we transcend thought entirely (rishi, devata and
chhandas completely merge) and are in samadhi.

The process of TM itself, I've already described as the cycle of rest and
activity during meditation: the mantra attracts our attention inward (we
rest) and then repair mechanisms kick in and we start thinking random (more
or less) thoughts. One or more such cycles occur during any given TM period.
Occassionally, some people have periods of samadhi that last long enough for
them to notice some kind of "change" as they are brought back out into the
repair cycle of mental activity. Research on such people has been published
over the past 20 years in various scientific journals. The record holder is
a woman who showed periods of breath suspension (often associated with
longer periods of samadhi) for up to 72 seconds at a time, for numerous
periods during her meditation, totalling about 60% of her entire meditation
period.

An interesting aspect of this reserach shows why there's the tradition that
you can't "hold onto" samadhi: the test subjects were asked to press a
button whenever they noticed they were in samadhi. What the researchers
found is that there was a period distinctly different than most of the
meditation, often accompanied by breath suspension, but that the brain and
breathing activity returned to normal some seconds BEFORE the meditator
pushed the button.

In other words, by the time they noticed they were "in" samadhi, they were
actually not in samadhi. You can't hold onto the state because you can't
notice you're in the state -- only that you've come out of it, so any
attempt to force yourself to be in samadhi or to stay in samadhi is an
illusion and counter-productive.

Now, there's been a few studies published on people who report 24 hour per
day/ 7 days a week "witnessing" for months and years at a stretch, and one
could call them "enlightened," but even these people still have thoughts and
other mental/emotional activity during TM practice and one of the
traditional descriptions of someone fully enlightened is that they enter the
state of samadhi during meditation and "never return." I know of no research
on such a "never return" subject. Presumably they'd show the "breath
suspension" state the entire meditation period. This is likely physically
possible since samadhi, ala TM, isn't holding your breath but a period
where your diaphragm (sp) is no longer forcing air in and out of the lungs.
However, since the airways are still unblocked, there's minute circulation
taking place, apparently due to the beating of the heart against the lungs.

It seems conceivable that someone "fully enlightened" could remain in this
apparent breath-suspension state indefinitely, or at least for a full 20
minute period. Like I said, no-one has been observed in that state.

LawsonE

2006-03-29, 12:31 pm

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message news:UwyWf.6017
[...]
> -- OKAY, so there IS concentration, though of an effortless type, which I
> understood from the beginning (read my msgs), and even in small quantity,
> the type of fixation of the mind that enables you to apply its faculties
> to one object at one time in one place.

Focus of attention can only be on one thing at a time anyway. In so much as
there is thinking during TM (with or without a mantra), then you can say
that TM involves "focus of attention," but that is the case for anyone, even
someone fully enlightened, if they are doing something other than sitting in
meditation or at least actively engaged in thinking *about* something, one
assumes.

>
> So now we talk about what "kind of concentration" is there, right?
>

It's still misleading, IMHO, since the mantra *attracts* the attention, at
least after the initial introduction (if even that is required). Our minds
go where they want. TM is the process of introducing an attractive,
soothing, beneficial thought that triggers the meditation cycle. Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi likens it to diving into a pool: you take the correct angle (the
mantra, at whatever level it appears in your mind) and let go.

LawsonE

2006-03-29, 12:31 pm

"Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CVyWf.8084$x94.3804@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:syyWf.585$CL6.81@fed1read11...
>
> -- Indeed. This is what I say all the time.

Then why did you say the observer and not the observed? In samadhi, they are
one and the same. Or did you mean that the qualityof observer or "Self" is
the only thing to talk about in samadhi?

>
>
> -- Of course, sidhis are something not to be wished, b/c of the
> attachment, yet they are a natural outcome of the elevated and developed
> state of mind and body of an adept.

What wishing? A practice of the siddhis is no more something to be wished or
not wished than doing pushups and situps. Attachment, as Judy pointed out,
is on the level of conscioiusness. I practice yogic flying every day. Its an
amusing experience of bouncing on my XXX, at least for me. At my level of
attainment, it's apparenlty a purely muscular, sponetaneous physical
activity, though in theory, it eventually becomes something more "psychic."
No matter: the practice is for stabilizing samadhi in activity, whether the
gross activity of "hopping like a frog," or the "psychic" acitivity of
"sitting in the air."

>
>
> -- All true!
>
> This is why there's the "primordial egg" first and then the "mother and
> father" who create, derived from it.
>

John Manning

2006-03-29, 12:31 pm

Dan Barkye wrote:
> "John Manning" <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:3s-dnYQhSr-bqrTZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> -- OKAY, so there IS concentration, though of an effortless type, which
> I understood from the beginning (read my msgs), and even in small
> quantity, the type of fixation of the mind that enables you to apply its
> faculties to one object at one time in one place.
>
> So now we talk about what "kind of concentration" is there, right?

The attention 'automatically' and 'effortlessly' goes to the
Transcendent Absolute Being during Transcendental Meditation.

The word 'concentration' is usually assumed by most people to mean an
effort has to be made. That isn't the case at all during Transcendental
Meditation.

Forcing the mind in any way keeps the attention of the mind in the
relative field of mental activity.

Transcendence occurs in Transcendental Meditation without any effort of
manipulating the mind. I've already suggested to you that the natural
tendency of the mind is to automatically go to greater levels of
happiness. In this case, it's *within* - to the infinite bliss of the
Transcendent Divine. The *technique of Transcendental Meditation allows
this to happen spontaneously.

And as Lawson has beautifully explained, this deep experience causes
'repairs' in the nervous system that once again trigger mental activity.

These 'repairs' are a prerequisite to coming to Divine Mind rather than
human mind. The human mind has to transform. Again this happens
spontaneously with Transcendental Meditation.

So, during TM you go inward to the Transcendent Absolute and outward,
back into mental activity.

The main point here is that it's 'automatic' and requires no effort.

Another note: TM isn't a religion and doesn't have a dos and don'ts
ideology for peoples lives. When one comes to God within, one
automatically begins to do the right thing based on their own experience
of Divinity - not anyone else's dogma.

However,

As one continues with the practise and the mind begins to expand in
subtle awareness, the recognition of the precepts of great teachers
becomes much deeper and much more meaningful AND can translate into
ones' own personal lives in their behavior.

It's all very personal and based on the direct experience of the
Divinity for the individual. It doesn't come from outside, it comes from
*within* one's usually obscured Divine Self.

Doing the 'right thing' is not the cause to reach the Divine. Coming to
the Divine is the cause of doing the right thing.

Here are a couple of interesting quotes attributed to Christ:

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God
should come, he answered them and said, “The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,
behold, the kingdom of God is within you”.
Luke 17:20-21 [KJV]

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all
these things shall be added unto you."
Matthew 6:33 [KJV]

"Everyone just wants to be happy."
~~ Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Dan Barkye

2006-03-31, 12:38 am

"LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_2zWf.587$CL6.127@fed1read11...
>
> "Dan Barkye" <dbjes@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:UwyWf.6017
> [...]
>
> Focus of attention can only be on one thing at a time anyway. In so
> much as there is thinking during TM (with or without a mantra), then
> you can say that TM involves "focus of attention," but that is the
> case for anyone, even someone fully enlightened, if they are doing
> something other than sitting in meditation or at least actively
> engaged in thinking *about* something, one assumes.
>
>
> It's still misleading, IMHO, since the mantra *attracts* the
> attention, at least after the initial introduction (if even that is
> required). Our minds go where they want. TM is the process of
> introducing an attractive, soothing, beneficial thought that triggers
> the meditation cycle. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi likens it to diving into a
> pool: you take the correct angle (the mantra, at whatever level it
> appears in your mind) and let go.

-- I think I understand what you're talking about, guys.