Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Kenneth, Apr 24, 2011.
Thanks for the meditation exercises.
They are contemplation's not meditations, but you're quite welcome!
My first satori was arrived at through something close to the first, the second I cannot really vouch for as useful as when I encountered it myself I stopped it fairly quickly because I didn't know what was going on, but it should.
It is most important to arrive at nothing, know it is nothing, and understand what it actually is. It is this realization that triggers it, just like any Zen koan it ceases mind function because it is impossible to intellectualize - and yet it is the culmination of the intellectual pursuit of religion.
I hope you have some success with them
My words are used to convey an idea which is impossible to convey accurately using them, truth is found once words cease because words are not natural to our human state. The point, for instance, of the contemplative exercises I have explained above is that you arrive eventually at a point where mind can no longer logically continue, in this moment something happens, thought entirely ceases and you are aware. I know that you are closed to such instances, I have known this is the nature of your dispute with me since the start of this thread - that you think I am delusional. These exercises cannot be done through interaction, in interaction you remain rational and the experience is not possible through the rational mind.
You are actually wrong about the different understandings of soul and spirit through the world, I have studied many faiths and they are essentially all in agreement, although Christianity seems confused on the matter. Christianity is the only faith I know of that seems to use them interchangeably, they have forgotten what they actually mean. Yet, even in this faith, what is the "Holy Spirit"? They understand the soul is inside you, but what is the Holy Spirit? It is the Spirit of God, the oneness, the whole expression of their mysteries.
As for ego, I am not particularly interested in debating what you think this word means, so I will just tell you how I use it. I use it as a more recognizable form of the concept of atman - the false self. Brahman is synonymous with the Holy Spirit in Christian thought, and in Hindu thought we are told to realize that our true nature is Brahman not atman. Christians have a similar concept, for they say that you must accept the Holy Spirit and do God's will rather than your own. You can dispute based on semantics if you'd like, but as I've quoted earlier, the Bible states you can enter the Kingdom of God before you taste death, this is when you truly accept the Holy Spirit, not when you are still fighting for self, seeing yourself as this impermanent state - this is all I describe, although through a more broad description as I am not Christian.
In Buddhist thought, there is still the concept of atman I believe, however Brahman is not really named, only referred to as the interconnectedness. There is Buddhakaya in Buddhism which is perhaps the conscious of the interconnectedness, the originator of the Dharma, but most Buddhists would not speak of it in this way. The concept is there in Sufism also, they talk often about losing yourself, finding the true self and becoming one with God.
All the religions essentially agree this is religion, nothing else. Every faith talks about how to drop our common delusions of self, the wall we build between us and God because it seems rational due to our senses. We can never find God when this wall is present though, the more we move into egotistical thought, the further we go from our nature, we see this with the modern atheist movement. You are the only thing which is between yourself and God, and yet we are on an interfaith site so you'd think people here would avoid fortifying their wall.
I want to address this directly... what exactly do you think the Golden Rule means? Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
I am not here to tell others what to believe, in fact I am here to mutually discuss spiritual matters. Forums such as this can assist in this, we can compare notes - so to speak. This is very much correlated with the Golden Rule, for I only donate my experience so others are more free to share their own without believing they will be mocked. The only thing I am not prepared to waver on is my personal realization, that of oneness. Anything else we are free to discuss and I will learn from others as I'd hope they'll learn from me.
I would say it is you that should consider the Golden Rule while on this site, for you have proclaimed my experience to be delusional merely because you do not comprehend it and have not experienced it yourself. You state as your display message "conscientious objector" but you are anything but. You have no desire to understand others it seems, and more than this, it seems you are ignorant to most of the scriptures of the world. How can you object to something you plainly do not comprehend? You mistake mind for conscience, this is your error - I only discuss how to realize this delusion.
You have your motivations for being on this site as do I, if your purpose here is to simply dispute anything that doesn't fit your perception of reality I would say you have missed the entire point of religion and faith. We take things on faith because they are outside our perception, meditation is used to perceive without need of faith what is real. Religion is the result, the merging of oneself into the whole - the re-binding of plurality into singularity.
This is an awesome site I wish to share with you all, it has quotes from many of the scriptures of the world, many enlightened masters.
Great definition of religion! It reminds me of the Bab calling himself the "Primal Point," which brings to mind the big bang and a singularity!
Also, in what ways do you see contemplation and meditation as different?
Great definition of religion! It reminds me of the Bab calling himself the "Primal Point," which brings to mind the big bang and a singularity.
Also, in what ways do you see contemplation and meditation as different?
I fail to see where a spiritual person has to be tethered to a religious behavior (unless it is the taking care of orphans and widows, that is a religious behavior I can applaud).
Me thinks we are losing sight of the original purpose of this thread.
Daniel (of Karate Kid fame), was "religious", but it took Mister Myagi to teach "Daniel san", what it meant to be spiritual...does that make sense?
Contemplation is a thought process, meditation is a conscious process. In meditation, there is no thought, for you are attempting to go beyond body, mind and emotions. The focus of meditation is to discover what consciousness is, to watch consciousness itself at work. To do this, for instance in the Buddhist school, we are taught to direct our watching towards our body, is this us? If we can watch it it is not us. Then we can watch the mind, if we can watch it, again, it cannot be us. Emotions, where are they stemming from, is this us? It cannot be for we can watch it. We must go deeper, what is deeper? Enlightenment is explained by many as exactly this, the watcher watching itself. Your consciousness itself has cycled - as every particle in existence is in cyclical motion - through to itself. The is meditation to me, contemplation is merely considering an idea and taking it to its threshold, they arrive at the same place if completed, but most of the time contemplation starts and ends with mind alone.
There is a difference between meditation and "emptying one's mind". One focusses on a specific issue, and the other, focusses on the nothingness...
Man does not do well with nothing in his mind...a vacuum abhores emptyness, and will allow anything to come in to make home keep...
This whole thread is about religiousness, about spirituality. That is all it is about, so I do not see how it can be said we are going off topic. If you do not wish to discuss the depths of religiousness, of spirituality, that is fine, but to limit it to the conceptions of organized householder traditions is wrong I think. To limit it merely to morals and ethics misses the point, these are taught based on the results of certain figures upon spiritual realizations. They are given for those that do not understand the true nature of religion so they might still treat each other with compassion and respect.
I simply asked a question...and followed it with an observation...
I stated meditation is a function of conscious, but mind distracts from conscious. It is certainly true that just sitting quietly is not meditation, sitting without thought is not meditation. Meditation is purposeful, and I have described this purpose - although in the yoga tradition alone there are over 100 different techniques just based on what I have described.
To focus your consciousness on nothingness, do you not feel it is necessary to first discover nothingness? Do you think space is nothingness? No, it is filled with particles and different types of atoms, so this is not nothingness, this is very much a something, an evidence of another plurality.
To become fully self-aware, to truly find the nothingness that is you, you must look deep within. You must discover what isn't you and then after digging deep enough you can find your true self. This is meditation as I understand it.
And I am addressing the observation, please do not see my reply as an attack. I would like to see what you have to say on the subject, else I wouldn't have replied to your statement at all
You must be new here. Threads don't stay on topic.
I do not see your statements (nor anyone elses), as an attack...forgive me if you perceived such).
Ha ha Snoop...
It seemed somewhat defensive, no need to apologize though
Me? I'm the embodiment of defensive.
Much better than being offensive...
Separate names with a comma.