--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Great Post, Thanks... R.G. > > > > It was thinking the mantra in a certain area of the > > > body. It is one of the last advanced techniques. I can > > > see why the term "chakra" was not used because chakra > > > for most people is just a concept that could confuse > > > things. > > > > I also got it that way. There is certainly an advanced technique were > > you have to have your attention at a certain area. If it's the exact > > location of the (heart)-chakra is another question. I was pointed to > > an anatomical spot, that is not normally considered to be the heart > > center, but its close enough.Kunyaka > > > "Just be innocent with it. Take it as it comes." I have found these > useful guides in life as well as meditation. > > And with TM and other spiritual practices comes "innocence" -- which > is to me, a looking at every new situation and occurence without > preconceptions, without the boundaries of past mental structures, > models, preferences and inclination. Just see what is. > > Later, as appropriate, one can apply all past learning, models, > insights etc. to evaluate the new "perception". But in the first > moment or each new "instance" -- just be innocent, take it as it comes. > > I mention this, because of Trinity's statement, "I was pointed to > > an anatomical spot, that is not normally considered to be the heart > > center, but its close enough." > > I may have had similiar inpterpretations as Trinity at one point, and > thus I am as much an example of "loss of innonence" as this current > example. > > While I like Trinity and his posts, -- and we appear to have similar > views and experience on some key things (like the non-ownership of > action, the self-sufficent domains of mind, memory and intellect) -- > the above statement appears to me as symptomatic of something "odd" -- > though quite pervasive amongst posters -- and most people I know, and > commentators i read or hear. It is pervassive in modern life. > > (And I am probably misunderstanding Trinity's point and his statement > above may not even apply.) However, the statements "apparent" meaning > is a great example of what I am referring to -- and is such a huge key > to things, IMO. > > Let me explain. > > I know there is a looseness of understanding about this particular > advanced technique. (And perhaps different teachers were given > instructions to teach different things -- but that doesn't seem to > "fit" in this example.) I received a technique some stages beyond the > one in question. The teacher asked about my prior techniques, my > instructions, etc. I mentioned, perhaps in fuzzy ways, the location. > And talked a lot about it. I kept raising the point in various ways, > subtle and explicit about the region being near the heart and "isn't > it really the heart we are talking about". He was very explicit and > literally punched me in the correct spot. Which is not a chakra > location (unless they move, :)). I "got" it. I had not been totally > innocent about the original instruction and had superimposed "my > knowledge" of what MMY (via Satynand) MUST have meant in the oringinal > instruction. I realized the actual instruction had nothing (explicit) > to do with chakras -- I just let my preconceptions enter into it. > > This example is insightful, to me, because we live in a sea of > preconceptions -- ours and others -- internal models, KNOWING what > must be, knowing what MMY "really" meant, etc. And such "insights" are > quite compelling. Often stemming from a deep level -- and with it an > unshakeable "truth" "signiture" -- and an assurance that "this is > correct". All the pieces fall together. An energy is created. Its like > a light goes on (the perverbial "light bulb in the head" of cartoons). > And yet, per this example, its all wrong. Its just some preconception, > perhaps feed by the awesome energy of suble ego, that makes it so > compelling and a "self-explanatory" truth. Which is ultimately false. > A powerful illusion. > > I see so many exchanges in posts where people simply are not reading > whats on the page. Particular words or concepts appear to trigger deep > impressions or models of "something else" and they start to respond to > that "something else" -- not what has been said to them. And I recall > so many conversations and exchanges in social life -- and corporate > life, where the same phenomenon occurs. > > What is interesting, noteworthy -- IMO, if not odd, is that this > apparent lack of innocence, this reacting to things in their minds, > not what has been said or written, is as prevelant, sometimes more, > among those who interpret their experiences as being enlightened, > sometimes being in "Brahman Consciousness" -- whether the type defined > by MMY or by themselves -- still something high and glorious. > > In my, perhaps quite naive and limited view, what good are these > exaulted states if there is no (sweet, simple) innocence in their > lives, in their views, in at least their "first glances" or first > reads of things? That "thing" -- that sweet innocence, freshness of > view, freedom from past boundaries, apparent from the first > meditation, seems lacking from these "high" states. > > Though not for all. I do find that Supreme innocence in various > "saints". SSRS is a good example, in my experience (though I am not a > SSRS "follower"). When ever I have talked to him, or seen him interact > with others, and each new event, it is with the freshness of childhood > awe, wonder, innocence and freshness. > > Not to imply that intellect,memory and all are not there to support > the "innocent view". He, and other saints, have not regressed to the > "silliness" and "dumbness" of childhood. (Though silliness is abundant > at appropriate times.) Its a smart and informed innocence. > > I have experienced the same with Sri Karunyamayi. And what I feel when > I put my attention on other saints, Amma or Mother Meera for example. > Or past "entities" -- Sankara, Christ, Buddha. (For Barry's sake, I > don't profess to be contacting saints who have dropped their bodies -- > but there appears to be somethng awesomely pure "there" -- perhaps the > result of their past presence. Like meditating in Shankara's cave.) > Or even puja. > > Associated with supreme innocence and ever freshness of view, its the > willingness and joy in acknowledging the mystery of things. As a > roughly parallel example, my grandneice recently went to the beach for > the first time, age 2. She just stared at the waves and repeated, > "WOW!" with each wave. She had no explanation for what was happening, > but totally appreciated it right here and now. > > I was shocked when I first heard SSRS say, "I don't know". More, it > was "I DON"T KNOW!" With a sweetness, innocence, laughter and > freshness of a child. My first reaction: "WHAT! What do you mean you > don't know!!?? You are are friggin saint, you BETTER Know!!!" > > Over time, I began to appreciate the innocence of "I don't know". At a > minimum, to start each moment with that innocent stance, "I don't > know" -- no preconceptions about how things should be. Just innocent > looking at how things are. Innocently in awe of the wonder of it all. > And willng and eager to then "figure it out" any specific thing, when > apporiate. Using past knoweldge and learning etc. But always from that > new and fresh perspective. > > And I am not referring to a "trained" perspective, not an"atitude" one > cultivates. Its the freshness and innocence that ALREADY is abundantly > there aftereach meditation. And in time, always there. Its simply a > matter of letting THAT be. > > The "I Don't Know" innocence of saints I have known contrasts sharply > with some posts that are quite ABSOLUTLEY cock-sure of themselves -- > "this is absolutely what IS, what I pereceive is absolutely the way I > interpret it, what I say is absolutely true." Again, for me, what is > missing in such posts, and posters, is a that lack of supreme > innocence I see in "saints" -- a breathtaking freshness, infinite > flexibility, no ties to anything, nothing sticks, total teflon, line > through air, type of simplicity (and joy). > > But then, I don't know. I am happy with that. With innocence. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
