On Meditation

[neti neti]

 

I enjoy Alan Watts, he's like an old uncle who starts drinking and can't stop talking.  Anyway, this quick portion of one of his lectures reminded me of Sri Sankara:

 

Quote

"The Knowledge of the non-existence of anything upon which to meditate, is the profound meditation on the Self. Abidance in the Self, is to be free of all errors and all misconceptions."

 

And with that, I'll share another quote from Ranjit Maharaj's 'The Way of the Bird', commentary by Andrew Vernon.

 

Quote

"When emotion or thought come in your mind, understand that you do nothing and the "I" doesn't exist."

 

Quote

The dream character cannot do anything, neither does the "I" that appears to be the doer really exist. No one can have any idea what thought or emotion is going to pop up next. In the end, you find that you cannot take such a dream-life seriously.

 

For the aspirant, however, separating from the thoughts and emotions that arise becomes a way of life. The thoughts and emotions that it is most important to separate from are the ones that cause emotional disturbance, for example, negative emotions such as anger or fear. When there is an emotional disturbance, the mind cannot reflect the Self clearly.

 

In its natural state, the mind has no thoughts in particular, and no violent attractions or repulsions disturb its equilibrium. Consequently, the Self is felt clearly, like sunlight on still water.

 

As an aspirant, it is still possible to have a relatively peaceful mind by avoiding strong desires and emotions and separating the real existence, as pure being, from the false idea that "I" exist as the "doer."

 

I thought this was also appropriate...

Quote

“The perfect man uses his mind as a mirror. It grasps nothing. It regrets nothing. It receives but does not keep." ~Zhuangzi

 

[3bob]

"one hand clapping" wafts farts away... 

[neti neti]

What is the sound of one hand wafting?

[rideforever]

Thoughts are of different types.   

 

For instance if you daydream things churn around in the mind, maybe some things from last weeks events.
If you get your tax return out and open Excel and start constructing your finances for next year, you certainly know what is happening, otherwise you would not be able to do it.
Likewise when an engineer designs a bridge the thoughts don't "just happen".  
The thoughts are clear, conclusive, based on concepts that are based on experimentation with reality.

 

So these are two types of thoughts.
If you are a bum and spend your life wafting about in your head, then you can tell yourself that thoughts "just happen". 

In fact it is only so because you have not been inspired to think and to learn how to think.   To wield your faculties.

 

And all the other errors that Alan Watts makes (and Shankara as well) follow on from not recognizing the difference.   

 

But it is also true that Alan Watts and Shankara were in touch with the divine and communicate it beautifully in their sentiment and feeling tone .... but their explanations are not intelligent and are lazily borrowed from the past without any courage to consider things carefully.

 

[Mudfoot]

7 hours ago, 3bob said:

"one hand clapping"

An unstruck sound 😁

Fitting in the hindu section. 

[3bob]

3 hours ago, neti neti said:

What is the sound of one hand wafting?

 

 your dog barking at you in disgust?

[dwai]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

 

 your dog barking at you in disgust?

What if it was the dog and one tail instead? 

[neti neti]

On 4/9/2019 at 6:10 AM, rideforever said:

Thoughts are of different types.   

 

For instance if you daydream things churn around in the mind, maybe some things from last weeks events.
If you get your tax return out and open Excel and start constructing your finances for next year, you certainly know what is happening, otherwise you would not be able to do it.
Likewise when an engineer designs a bridge the thoughts don't "just happen".  
The thoughts are clear, conclusive, based on concepts that are based on experimentation with reality.

 

So these are two types of thoughts.
If you are a bum and spend your life wafting about in your head, then you can tell yourself that thoughts "just happen". 

In fact it is only so because you have not been inspired to think and to learn how to think.   To wield your faculties.

 

And all the other errors that Alan Watts makes (and Shankara as well) follow on from not recognizing the difference.   

 

But it is also true that Alan Watts and Shankara were in touch with the divine and communicate it beautifully in their sentiment and feeling tone .... but their explanations are not intelligent and are lazily borrowed from the past without any courage to consider things carefully.

 

 

And yet the thinker is taken at face value as if it were anything but another thought. There appears to be thinkers of different types, but the thinker is one, just as each thought and the mind to which they seem to appear in, are inseparable.

 

Is the idea here not clear and conclusive enough once having identified that the reality with which one experiments... Is oneself? Or must one continually need to be learning how to learn, refining the process of how concepts are constructed? Is not the arising of a thinker itself a concept?

 

Can not the engineer both have thoughts seemingly happening to him, and simultaneously be engrossed in applying concepts derived from thoughts to apply his craft?

And what is to say that his process of designing could not be considered as... daydreaming?

 

Can both not be simultaneously true as Alan suggests? Could one ever be able to distinguish that which is productive thought by a learned mind, without the perceived laziness in haphazard chaos as the mind is left to wander aimlessly?

 

This is the essence of what's shared here, knowledge beyond objectification of what "mind" can feebly gauge on any presumed scale of intelligence, for in reality, pure self-shining genius is what "mind" arises in. 

 

Quote

 

"If what you define as you, is inseparable from everything you define as not you... just as front is inseparable from back; then you may realize that deep down between self and other there is some sort of conspiracy.

These things always occur in combination, and look very different from each other and feel quite different, but nevertheless the feeling of difference between them allows each one to exist.

 

And so underneath the opposition or the polarity, between self and other or between any other pair of opposites you can think of, there is something in common.

 

As there is for example between figure and background. You can't see a figure without a background. You can't have an organism without an environment. Equally you can't have a background without a figure, or an environment without organisms in it. You can't have space unoccupied by solids, and you can't have solids not occupying some space.

 

This is absolutely elementary, and yet we don't realize it. This is because, for example, the average person thinks that space is nothing. That it's just a sort of not-there-ness, in which there are things. And we are slightly afraid of that not-there-ness, that nothingness, that darkness... that the negative poles of all these opposites, will win. That they can eventually swallow up any kind of being or there-ness.

 

But once one catches on to the game, one realizes that will never happen. Because what's called not-existing is quite incapable of being there without the contrast of what's called existing. It's like the crest and the trough of a wave. You can't have a wave that's all trough and no cresting, just as you can't have a wave that's all cresting and no troughs. They go together." ~Alan Watts

 

 

This topic isn't about the nature of thoughts and their thinker. Its about realizing that the nature of meditation is non-different from the meditator, thereby exposing the ghost who's learned as a habit that which runs contrary to the obvious.

 

I believe great thinkers, like Alan or Sankara, have indeed considered these things quite carefully as is evidenced by their learned expositions. This is not to stand on the shoulders of giants to make oneself seem taller. Rather it is recognition of a singular truth while highlighting the nuances discovered by great minds before them, having navigated and mapped out their particular frontiers of consciousness.

Edited April 11, 2019 by neti neti

[rideforever]

The "thinker" is not taken at face value.
By using your thinking with direction (i.e. by thinking actively) your thoughts are very different and your "presence" as well, then from daydreaming.
If you are lazy and daydream your thoughts are rubbish and meaningless, they are like static radio.
If you are present and active then your thoughts are clear coherent, intelligent and capable of building bridges.

 

Is that not obvious ?
Can you not tell the difference between being asleep at night, and being awake during the day ?

 

So, through thinking and learning to think you develop competence in thought.
Your thinking becomes intelligent and meaningful.
Not only that but you notice that you are "more awake" when you think clearly.
And more asleep when you daydream.

Also, my own thoughts are different from your yours.
That's obvious.
Therefore I am a centre of thinking and you are a separate centre.
In other words I am a unique intelligence, I am not the background.
I am me, and my thoughts are mine ... at least if I make the effort.

If I drift in a daydream then I become the background.
if I allow myself to daydream then not only do my thoughts lose coherence and cease to work in real life (i.e. flying a plane is not a good idea) ... and my mind becomes full of collective rubbish.

So, what can we conclude from these basic facts that we all experience ?

Simply that if we are lazy we cease to exist in any meaningful capacity, and our thoughts disintegrate into the background, and our identity disintegrates as well.
However if we think actively we become more present, our thinking becomes unique and individuated, and starts to be productive in the material world, our individuality becomes meaningful.

 

As Shankara/ Watts etc... did not differentiate such simple things ... well it's quite pathetic.
How can you be a great teacher when you discuss the thoughts of humans, without differentiating between daydreaming and active thinking ?
Incomprehensibly ignorant rather than "great teachers".
In fact in order to be a "great teacher", it's quite simple.  You simply repeat the obviously wrong ideas of the previous "great teachers", and then you will be respected by the men-monkeys of the Earth.

Well, I am sure somebody finds it funny !!!




 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by rideforever

[neti neti]

The thinker, thinking itself to self-improvement by thought, is a scandalous ruse put on in the incessant quest of that identity's survival.

 

Having known the thinker to be a contrived proxy for the experience of which it is identical with, it loses its hold as that which thinks "other" thoughts. Then the mind and its contents, and the experiences which it reflects, are revealed as universal in nature.

[neti neti]

 

[rideforever]

20 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

 

Again, you don't differentiate between daydreaming and thinking actively.
Which means only one thing.
You only have daydreaming.

[dwai]

 

1 hour ago, neti neti said:

This topic isn't about the nature of thoughts and their thinker. Its about realizing that the nature of meditation is non-different from the meditator, thereby exposing that ghost which has learned as a habit that which runs contrary to the obvious.

This! There is no separate 'meditation'. What most people call meditation is only preparing to meditate. Real meditation is what is called "samādhī" and it is not a state, but the true nature of the Self. 

1 hour ago, neti neti said:

 

I believe great thinkers, like Alan or Sankara, have indeed considered these things quite carefully as is evidenced by their learned expositions. This is not to stand on the shoulders of giants to make oneself seem taller. Rather it is recognition of a singular truth while highlighting the nuances discovered by great minds before them, having navigated and mapped out their particular frontiers of consciousness.

Yes! In realization, there is no duality, there is no separation and there is no competition. 

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

Again, you don't differentiate between daydreaming and thinking actively.
Which means only one thing.
You only have daydreaming.

Where is active thinking happening? Where is day-dreaming happening? And to whom? That is the main question. Only by letting go of the intellect can meditation happen  

 

 

[3bob]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

What if it was the dog and one tail instead? 

 

well the sound of one dog barking turns more or less instantly into two dogs and then three dogs barking, and from there to ten thousand dogs carrying on...but if those ten thousand dogs are wafting their tails after farting then it would be wise to return to non-form and its non-smell.  (asap)

Edited April 9, 2019 by 3bob

[rideforever]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

Where is active thinking happening? Where is day-dreaming happening? And to whom? That is the main question. Only by letting go of the intellect can meditation happen

 

To whom?  Well when a pilot is landing the plane and the passengers are sleeping - who is thinking actively ?   
The pilot, obviously.
Isn't that obvious.

Meditation is taught variously by different schools, in Advaita for instance and also many Indian traditions, the teaching is extremely intellectual detailing the various inner processes in unending technical detail.
How do you know what to do when you sit ?   
You know because you have been taught what to do, i.e. you now hold in your intelligence concepts with which to guide yourself.
For instance in Vipassana you have details of how to assess the reality of your structure, and also a reasoning for that, based on the metaphysics of existence.
In other traditions like in Zen they have the concept of non-doing.   But how do you know you are non-doing ?   You have to asses your inner state whilst sitting, and assess whether it is non-doing - if it is not then you must let go of the last piece of doing.

So it is clear that meditation is taught with a heavy degree of conceptualisation.   

During sitting practice this allows you to practice correctly and identify a higher reality.

 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, rideforever said:

 

To whom?  Well when a pilot is landing the plane and the passengers are sleeping - who is thinking actively ?   
The pilot, obviously.
Isn't that obvious.

 Let's take a scenario where you are "actively thinking" and then "drift into day-dreaming", to whom do both of these activities happen? And where do these activities take place?

 

 

[neti neti]

2 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

Again, you don't differentiate between daydreaming and thinking actively.
Which means only one thing.
You only have daydreaming.

 

How can I? One cannot be without the other, making the differentiation itself one and the same. Again, your entire proposed dilemma cannot arise apart from the thinker/daydreamer, making them indivisible, and therefore indistinguishable.

 

Which means only one thing.

How easily we unquestioningly identify with the thinker to the exclusion of all else. Talk about daydreaming!

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by neti neti

[rideforever]

49 minutes ago, dwai said:

Let's take a scenario where you are "actively thinking" and then "drift into day-dreaming", to whom do both of these activities happen? And where do these activities take place?

 

Well ... active thinking is not taking place inside you, that's for sure !!!

 

Anyway, I have sympathy for the views you put forward which are traditional, but wrong. 

Nevertheless like Alan Watts you might still be in the right place even as you repeat nonsense from the past.

Let's hope you are.

 

[dwai]

Just now, rideforever said:

 

Well ... active thinking is not taking place inside you, that's for sure !!!

Do you mean that "active thinking" happens "outside" us? Where is this "us"? 

 

 

 

 

[3bob]

Rideforever,  It sounds like you want to or need to be some kind of alternate know it all,  but I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree in this sub-forum,... whereas you can probably find some young, impressionable  wanna-be masters of the universe types in other forums or sites who are more likely to go along with your  half-hidden and half baked repackaging of Mr. G ramblings and slants. 

[neti neti]

16 minutes ago, 3bob said:

Rideforever,  It sounds like you want to or need to be some kind of alternate know it all,  but I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree in this sub-forum,... whereas you can probably find some young, impressionable  wanna-be masters of the universe types in other forums or sites who are more likely to go along with your  half-hidden and half baked repackaging of Mr. G ramblings and slants. 

 Lol, oh but he does know all, he just pretends not to. We're onto him though so no worries. This predicament of enormous proportions Shiva's gotten himself into is one we're intimately familiar with! So enormous in fact, he's even managed to stumble into this forum to prove himself wrong! 

Edited April 9, 2019 by neti neti

[dwai]

17 minutes ago, 3bob said:

Rideforever,  It sounds like you want to or need to be some kind of alternate know it all,  but I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree in this sub-forum,... whereas you can probably find some young, impressionable  wanna-be masters of the universe types in other forums or sites who are more likely to go along with your  half-hidden and half baked repackaging of Mr. G ramblings and slants. 

Lets be kind brother  

Though I do echo your expression in that we'd rather explore and investigate with clarity than kowtow to assumed authority and wade in a swamp of complicated words and concepts...  

 

BTW, who is Mr G? Anyone I know (of)?

Edited April 9, 2019 by dwai

[neti neti]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

Lets be kind brother  

Though I do echo your expression in that we'd rather explore and investigate with clarity than kowtow to assumed authority and wade in a swamp of complicated words and concepts...  

 

BTW, who is Mr G? Anyone I know (of)?

 

It seems 3bob senses that of Gurdieff's "4th way" teachings.

[dwai]

10 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

It seems 3bob senses that of Gurdieff's "4th way" teachings.

Didn't Gurdjieff's stuff feed into the theosophical society of Madame Blavatsky?