Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation: The Dark Side of Non-meditation
On Aug 18, 2009, at 9:09 AM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: Vaj, interesting critique. The science seems to come back again to, 'you do have to do the practice'. As in, have the spiritual discipline to be a practitioner. Hence,non-meditators just don't have a lot of experience to be much worthwhile about these ways, aka their 'dark side' of non-practice. In a parallel anecdote, back when MMY was developing the take-home protocol of the TM-sidhis he initially said, we should do the meditation and sidhis program for as long as possible, in principle. He initially set out really long meditation times for the actual take-home program for everyone on the principle we should be practicing for as long as we can to make progress. Right away some whiners in the room cried out, 'Oh Maharishi, we can't do that, we have to work!'. Maharishi then proceeded to reduce the program down to the standard take-home baby program we have now. But he started out with really long practices of meditation probably for good reason like what you point to below, as the science seems to say. i was there that's the way it was. It was a noteworthy moment. In Hindu and Buddhist yogic instruction, we're taught how to do meditative practice during meditation, during the off-meditation intervals and while sleeping. That way I always get in at least 6 to 8 hours of meditation a day while still being a busy person. Yogis or those trained as lamas actually often sleep sitting up--or as an old teacher of mine, a cave-yogi--in lotus. They never lay down. So the emphasis is less on necessarily trying to extend your basic meditation practice, but to integrate it in to all areas of life and to deepen transcendence to the point of not being limited by time. The example I often recently have given is in the Shamatha Project, where over just a couple months, the meditators were doing 7 to 12 hour sessions...and emerging rejuvenated. As it turns out, the longer and deeper you go, the more profound the relaxation and the more profound the biological changes. see: Unwavering Samadhi: Meditative Achievement and Its Impact in the World http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/236-buddhist-geeks/episodes/ 3663-unwavering-samadhi-meditative LINK
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation: The Dark Side of Non-meditation
On Aug 18, 2009, at 10:45 AM, WillyTex wrote: Vaj wrote: Yogis or those trained as lamas actually often sleep sitting up--or as an old teacher of mine, a cave-yogi--in lotus. They never lay down. Yeah, that would go over like a lead balloon with you wife, Vaj, sitting up 24-7 in a cave. Get real. I actually sleep in a thing called a bedroom. Those who sleep sitting up will often do so on the floor of their bedroom or their shrine, etc. A cave is not a requirement Willy, nor is sitting up for that matter. So the emphasis is less on necessarily trying to extend your basic meditation practice, but to integrate it in to all areas of life and to deepen transcendence to the point of not being limited by time. So, you'd practice TM. No, I wouldn't. The example I often recently have given is in the Shamatha Project, where over just a couple months, the meditators were doing 7 to 12 hour sessions...and emerging rejuvenated. So, enlightenment in 7-12 hours, or a couple of months, or 5-7 years. Where have I heard some promises like that? This isn't a promise, it's just a fact these guys and gals were transcending for a long time. Of course they had techniques for between sessions and sleep as well. As it turns out, the longer and deeper you go, the more profound the relaxation and the more profound the biological changes. Sounds like TM to me. TM only gives a basic relaxation response, as it's called Willy. And that's what you get in shallow diving. Deep dives take longer and require deeper relaxation to sustain them, so that's the difference. But Ruth, a retired MD, says there's no observable sociological changes. Now wouldn't that be something: a mental technique that could cause physical change at will. But not a single observable psychological or social change whatsoever. That is true with TM, but I'm sure with better study design, they would uncover numerous qualities now well-established as concomitants of the relaxation response.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation: The Dark Side
On Aug 16, 2009, at 11:57 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote: Judy mentioned the concept of meditate and act, the old dipping the cloth stuff we all are familiar with. For some reason this concept always bugged me but I didn't think it through. I think it bothers me because act doesn't mean much. What both bothered and amused me about the dipping/dying of the cloth metaphor, was that TMers (like myself) took it at face value: 'wow, it's really true, each time I transcend, I get more dyed by pure consciousness. He said it, so it must be true.' We could even convince ourselves we were experiencing them, based on our own very 'coached' experiences. But, in keeping with TM's watered down presentation of inner yoga, while it is believed in Hindu and Buddhist yoga traditions that repeated samadhi does slowly imbue wakefulness beyond waking, dreaming and sleeping, what they didn't tell us is that the type of samadhi that creates such dyed changes doesn't really happen in TM, if it does, it's probably quite rare. It will produce light trance and thought-free states, along with wonderful relaxation, and some prana- kundalini side effects. But the type of samadhi that dyes' a person's consciousness is deep, willed, long-duration, effortless samadhi. And even then there's no guarantee these deep absorptions will change you, unless some part of your practice is geared specifically towards that. In fact, if some part of your practice is NOT geared towards altruism, you'll just end up getting more and more vain and grandiose. I'm impressed with the recent work by Antoine Lutz and Richie Davidson where they actually demonstrated that those who experience traditional Hindu or Buddhist samadhis not only went into a rather remarkable high power EEG gamma coherence--but the longer they meditated, the more this signature took over the person's everyday, out of meditation EEG. But these type of meditators could go into samadhi, at will, for the desired length of time, they weren't just 2 x 20 occasional transcenders, but masters of it, by their own own will and truly effortless. Indoctrination in TM, esp. for intelligent folks who are attracted to science, can be very pervasive and convincing. Many have been trained to believe that these light relaxation states are more than they are. It turns out, the Lutz and Richardson work (which has been replicated at least 5 times) tells us that the neural dying level of practice is actually miles beyond your typical commercially available, mass- meditation techniques. It could be anything other than meditating. So does the meditating, doing anything, and meditating, and doing anything, end up meaning anything at all? Accomplishing anything worthwhile? If you are a meditating narcissist, your acts may very well continue to express your narcissism. If you are a meditator who is generous and altruistic, your act will reflect that aspect of your personality. So, does the meditation make you a better person and overcome your faults? I haven't seen it in the meditators that I know. They seem, as Curtis has said, mostly like everyone else. The other question that has been addressed here many times is whether that narcissist can still be enlightened, even with his narcissism. I say no, but that doesn't mean much because I don't believe in enlightenment in the sense that MMY talked about it. Certain meditation practices, like Buddhist meditation and traditional, will often contain elements that begins by awakening an attitude of universal empathy, the desire for all sentient being to be free from suffering. Over time, that intention, just becomes a part of you. Recent research shows this style of meditation also awakens the part of the brain for 'taking action.' So we know not only do such people entrain towards an imbred altruism, but they also develop the brain pathways helpful for taking that action into the world. That says a lot for me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation: The Dark Side
On Aug 14, 2009, at 4:29 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: The dark side of FFL draws me back in. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis reavisma...@... wrote: A concession is not the same as a contention, which I believe you understand quite well, or else you would not have segued at the end of your post from arguing that I made a contention to that I had made a concession to Vaj. To concede means to lose, Marek, to admit that you don't know the truth of something. Judy is just kindly pointing out that you are a loser and she has never been because she has never conceded anything. :-) I guess the funny thing is how easy Judy and Raunch fall for the bait. I fully expected naive TM bots to confound the yogic 'closing and opening of the eye of shiva' with MMY's pathetically implemented dye the cloth lie analogy and his inward and outward stroke sales pitch for mantra sales as the same thing. I too once believed it, I have to admit. We all have our romantic sides, I hope. But at a certain point in your development you learn that certain things were correct and other were lies (or deliberate exaggerations, thereby hooking you). In retrospect, it's easy, effortless :-)--to see the folly, really a danse macabre--of what's being parroted. But a macrabre dance- sequence, repeated robot-like, over and over, eventually just becomes sad, as a kind of new-age naivete...despite an enactment with serious affect or even enwrapped in venomous activistic spew.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation: The Dark Side
On Aug 13, 2009, at 12:51 AM, Marek Reavis wrote: Raunchydog, I understand the point you're making in your post re Vaj, but it's an incorrect portrayal of my opinion of him. It did take several readings for me to understand what he was saying in the lines you quoted (below), but that was mostly due to the combination of individual terms that I don't have the occasion to use frequently, and the fact that I don't deal often with philosophical and religious terms. Once I slowed down, however, and put it together word-by-word, it was a very clear and complete expression of his point of view. I may not agree with that view (which doesn't mean that my view is correct), but I have high regard for Vaj's learning and sincerity and it seems apparent to me that he is both well-read in meditation techniques and spiritual practices, and personally experienced in a number of different applications of the spirituality he has pursued. I regard him as an authentic guy. Thanks Marek. It's not unusual (I've found) for people to be unaware of the glitches that can result from introspective meditation, irregardless of whether that's Buddhist or Hindu meditation or whatever. But I've noticed in mostly in TMers and some hardcore Zensters. Hopefully the system of meditation knows and recognizes this propensity and allows for it in it's methods. And of course in Hindu mantra practice not only do they recognize that constant introversion creates a karmic separation by withdrawing from the world, it has an entire vocabulary describing the process and how to awaken an undivided openness, rather than transcending and excluding, one becomes acculturated to transcending and including. As I shared in a previous quote, the habit of withdrawing like a marmot (or groundhog) is non-conducive to complete openness and unity: We should experience everything totally, never withdrawing into ourselves as a marmot hides in its hole. This practice releases tremendous energy which is usually constricted by the process of maintaining fixed reference points. Referentiality is the process by which we retreat from the direct experience of everyday life. (...) Introspected meditation on some thing, what Patanjali would call meditation with props or supports (e.g. a mantra) accultures one to referentiality, it does not necessarily free one from it. We shouldn't make a division in our meditation between perception and field of perception. We shouldn't become like a cat watching a mouse. We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to go deeply into ourselves or withdraw from the world. Practice should be free and non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration. The Hindu tradition has a number of names for this technique of imbuing the inner world of the Self into the outer world. A popular one is bhairavi-mudra, '''the seal of wrathful shiva. It's a lot like the traditional picture of Shiva, absorbed in the deep meditation, while having his eyes still partially open on the external world at the same time. A problem occurs in commercial meditation methods when one's not told or taught this, as people will just end up getting attached to the meditation technique itself and the introspected state in particular. Both are traps long known in the yogic traditions of India and Tibet for many centuries.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation: The Dark Side
On Aug 13, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Vaj wrote: A problem occurs in commercial meditation methods when one's not told or taught this, as people will just end up getting attached to the meditation technique itself and the introspected state in particular. Both are traps long known in the yogic traditions of India and Tibet for many centuries. While the supreme reality can initially be discovered by the introvertive gaze, it's definition as omnipresent assures that it will also eventually be perceived as resident even in the external objects. The initial process for realization involves the practitioner closing the eyes to the finite realities that constitute the external world. In this way the practitioner is open to the inner world of the Self. This technique for realization mirrors and reverses the process by which Shiva first manifests the external world by closing his eye of knowledge. As the practitioner advances, however, he is invited to a higher spiritual posture. Here he must remain open to the inner world of the vibratory Self, and yet at the same time open himself again to the external, finite realities. As his practice of this new and apparently contradictory posture advances, he attains a balanced steadiness and is not shaken from his internal absorption even when fully open again to the external world. The final attainment of this posture, known either as khechari-mudra or bhairavai-mudra, consists of identification of the inner vibrating Self as constituting the visible essence of the external finite realities. -from Paul Muller-Ortega in his commentary on the Paratrisika- laghuvritti, the Triadic Heart of Shiva. It answers an important question because the goddess, supreme vibratory inner consciousness, asks the question, at the very beginning of the text: By what means, as soon as known, does the khechari, moving-in-the- void attain a condition of equality. Basically she's asking 'how does unity consciousness arise?' if there's this separate inner shakti and a separate outer world.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation: The Dark Side
On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:10 PM, raunchydog wrote: Maharishi was very clear that open-eyed meditation divides the mind and makes it weak. Interesting. Then he's totally opposed to nondual Shaivite POV and Advaita meditation. Of course it's also possible he simply didn't know what f*ck he was talking about. He did OK stumbling through the basics of mantra meditation for a while, but eventually, making up as you go along, and relying on external sources for your knowledge lectures, is bound to catch up to you. Good find Raunch, thanks. TM withdraws the senses from activity, the mind settles down, thinking becomes quieter, it's like drawing the arrow back on the bow, one experiences dynamic silence for 20 minutes then one plunges into dynamic activity. TM is rest and activity bringing steps of progress. Eyes-open meditation is activity and activity bringing steps of weak mind and headache. Next time I see Shiva, I'll be sure to tell him. Maybe that's why he has such bloodshot eyes LOL?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditation: The Dark Side
On Aug 12, 2009, at 8:25 PM, scienceofabundance wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: MEDITATION: THE DARK SIDE By Douglas Todd The Vancouver Sun August 7, 2009 http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2009/08/0 7/meditation-the-dark-side.aspx Meditation for many becomes a process of transcend and deny, rather than transcend and include, Wilber writes in his book, Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World. An outstanding description of many (almost everyone?) TBs Also one of the dangers associated with over-reliance on introspected meditation alone. Without some practice of open-eyed meditation and integration, the subtle dualism created by constantly withdrawing into oneself virtually guarantees a transcend and deny type outcome of some sort.
