Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
I have heard of the Shiva Puranas from a friend who loves to browse in used bookstores and find long lost copies of Vedic literature. She has metioned the Shiva Puranas a few times. I've been told that Shiva is my ishta devata and that feels right to me. When Poonjaji read the Ribhu Gita at Lucknow did he read it in English or Tamil? What did you experience? It amazes me to think that Ramana found a book that describes his experience. In another thread you wrote: Sahaja Yoga or Shri Mataji is not a very good example, because the lady is really weird and it's really a Hindu cult, BUT, it's free, and it works *very well* - at least for me. I took it, it's a kundalini raising initiation, and what shall I say, it really did it. I dislike the lady, but the initiation gave me a strong kundalini experience that lasted for two weeks. What do you mean when you say that your kundalini experience lasted for two weeks? From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part of the Vedic literature? You could say so. It's part of the Shivarahasya Purana, and is to it, what the Gita is to the Mahabharatam. It's a very fundamental Vedantic scripture, and a favorite of Ramana Maharshi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivarahasya_Purana It seems, that there was a Tamil translation of this book the library of one of the older Ashrams in Tiruvannamalai - the Eshanya Math - http://wikimapia.org/20376193/ESANYA-MADAM and he read it there for the first time - and recognized that he finally found a text which exactly described his experience. It is still being read every day as part of the ceremonies at the Ramana Ashram, but in Tamil. There is another Sadhu near Tiru, who's main teaching is the Ribhu Gita, his name is Thuli Baba. http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/thuli-baba I came across it, when Poonjaji (Guru of Gangaji, disciple of Ramana) read it every day in the lecture hall in Lucknow. http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwCdq More directly giving the quote http://books.google.de/books?id=8XL-bc7TzRwClpg=PA295vq=brahmanpg=PA155#v=snippetq=155f=false I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life. So we might not feel deep, even during TM. And we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together. So I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
Hmmm, I think pure awareness is thrilled with thoughts or no thoughts or even semi thoughts because all it EVER experiences is itself, but from all these different angles, so never bored. I'm thinking that the unmanifest cannot be concentrated upon because there it is, even in what is not being concentrated upon! The proverbial fish looking for the water (-: From: sound of stillness soundofstilln...@ymail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? Can we put our attention on the experiencer? I'm not so sure. Isn't Guru Dev reported to have said it isn't possible to concentrate on the unmanifest? Or is that something else he was talking about. My experience and understanding from Edwin Bryant's YS commentary is that with greater purity pure awareness is reflected back to itself. It doesn't matter whether there are thoughts or no thoughts. My experience in meditation is if I want to think any piece of the mantra, it thrills the experiencer, pure awareness. If I don't want to, pure awareness is thrilled with whatever else the attention is on. Great dialogue. With tradition as a guide, experiencing all things anew . . . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: First of all Lawson, I really appreciate the dialogue we are having. Don't think that I want to dump TM. I think it is a very good technique to start meditation, and I think that at a later stage it is up to everybody to either continue to advance with TM or with something else. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I'm not sure what he means either, but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. The pattern during TM is one of increased alpha EEG coherence, and that starts to level off (but never completely stops changing) after a few months of TM , but the longer one has been practicing the more the EEG outside of TM practice starts to resemble the EEG during TM practice. Now, the EEG found during pure consciousness is the most coherent found in a given TMer and if you look just at the EEG during PC, there's obviously some room for refinement during practice, but the average outside of practice starts to resemble the average during, and that was my point... because, in contrast, the average EEG during mantra-based meditation What do you mean by mantra based meditation? TM IS mantra based. Well, technically, a mantra is used in TM practice, but mantra-based practices are considered focused attention practices, and those tend to show more and more gamma EEG the longer you have been doing them. Okay. shifts from relaxed alpha to concentrative gamma as one becomes more experienced, and the average EEG outside of such practices also shifts towards less alpha and more gamma. And that is bad or worse? How do you know? Well, insomuch as these techniques all tend to fragment the brain as a side-effect of the long-term practice, while PC is a period where the brain is idling in a vary coherent way, showing the EEG associated with relaxation and rest, rather than concentration and effort, I have no way of knowing... In my experience, with higher states there comes a spontaneous concentration, really concentrated awareness, completely focused and without effort. Maharishi might say point value. Well with TM, if you REALLY are in samadhi (pure consciousness), you can't note it until such time as some degree of waking state consciousness reassumes, and by then, you are no longer in the pure state. And this is something that raises question marks for me. How could you say that you experience pure consciousness, when you 'notice' it only afterwards? Does it mean you are not conscious during the experience, or does it mean you are unable to press a button while you are in? What kind of 'purity' is this, when it is *lost* so easily? So whole model of having pure consciousness, as an overlay over normal activity, and also the normally active mind, rests on the assertion, that the purity of PC doesn't get lost, right? I think that the whole contradiction comes about, because of the definitions, how you
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
Very beautiful, navashok, thank you. I love that part about renouncing the renunciation even. I've never before heard of the Ribhu Gita. Is it part of the Vedic literature? I don't think we really have to let go of anything. That which is, is always letting go and holding on, That doesn't need any help from us. But I just walked to the library and the air was so fresh and the sun huge and orange on the western horizon. The branches of trees are still bare against the light blue sky, some birds are singing. At such a time Truth is a sweet companion. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life. So we might not feel deep, even during TM. And we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. Deep is only a word. A concept. Deep also is used in deep sleep. I sometimes say, that I am very high up. But you are right. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together. So I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. You can't try anyway. One has to remember that all these descriptions are concepts, and unless we let go of the concepts, we can't really get there. Here from the Ribhu Gita: All is a built-up structure of words and meanings. The apprehension of all worlds does not exist. All holy waters are, indeed, unreal. All temples of gods, too, are unreal. All being only Consciousness, the name all never is. Renouncing all forms, be of the certitude that all is Brahman. All is Brahman; that is the Truth. The phenomenal world and prakriti (manifestation), verily do not exist. Renounce the remembrance of prakriti and resort to the remembrance of Brahman. Then, renouncing even that, be firm in your own nature. Renouncing further this established nature, remain only as the Self. Renouncing the renunciation even, ever leave off the idea of any difference. Surrounding yourself yourself, abide in yourself yourself. What the finger points out as this is a deceased thought; this is only of words and speech. All is supposition. There is no doubt of this. All is unreal. There is no uncertainty of this. All is insignificant. There is no doubt of this. All is delusion. There is no doubt of this. (Rib.G 18, 24-30) From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble the state during TM. But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will be clearer and more prolonged. And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - transcendence is all
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
dear navashok, if you hold breath for a week, you will probably die. Please don't. Thank you (-: From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: I suspect you are both misreading what Lawson had in mind. Ooopsie, can you say mindreading? This is hilarious, well a priceless jewel of Judean logic. So we shouldn't both respond to what Lawson actually wrote here, but to what he had in mind? Well, right! He isn't stupid, and he knows the TM research better than anyone here. I am sure he knows the TM research better than anyone here, and nobody said he is stupid. I think he is just being honest here, and that the data he gives is open to different interpretations. That's what we did. Three people responded, all very much alike. I had in mind what Barry answered, and then then saw that he had already given the comment. Xeno's approach was slightly different, but he understood it in very much the same way as we did. I'm not sure what he means either, Now that's even more funny. First you say that he doesn't mean what he says, and ask us to read his mind, and then you go on to say that you actually don't know what he means yourself, but it couldn't be what he wrote. Can you say brezel mind? but I'd suggest you wait to draw any conclusions until he can clarify. And you are suggesting he should? Wait he gave us some information about the research and his interpretation already. It's very highly unlikely that either of you would be able to come up with something he had missed or hadn't accounted for. Of course not, by law. So, I'm now holding my breath. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. Wow, same thought I had. If the pattern is the same, and doesn't change with longer TM practice, what happened to the idea that with regular practice you release more and more stress, which in turn leads to more clear transcendence? If the meditation is the same and doesn't change, (or those periods of supposed transcendence / relaxation), why the need to be regular at all? Why learn expensive advanced techniques, who are supposed to deepen or widen the transcendence experience, to have it along with subtle activity? With your argument, Lawson, you also wouldn't trust advanced techniques, because they would alter the original experience, or in case they don't, they are completely worthless.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
A professor at MUM once explained that as one progresses, especially from CC to GC, what happens can be described as the depth coming up to the surface of life. So we might not feel deep, even during TM. And we shouldn't TRY to feel deep. In a similar way it seems, with the TMSP, we more and more experience a mix of silence and liveliness together. So I extrapolate from that that it's counter productive to try and experience PURE silence. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. No progress in the technique... It is easy to start and easy to do and that doesn't change. What DOES change is how closely the state outside of TM comes to resemble the state during TM. But that's not all that is supposed to change. The quality of experience is supposed to change as well *during* meditation - as stress is released. Think of the snowplough analogy - as resistances (stresses) are being removed, the way gets more clear, and the experience of transcendence will be clearer and more prolonged. And for advanced techniques - you will go into transcendence more slowly, so that you are more conscious of the process. The diving angle changes, how is that reflected in your theory? That, being more conscious of the 'transcending' (I still put it in bracelets as it is really a concept - transcendence is all pervading and cannot be isolated, especially if you want to experience it consciously.) So this process of being more conscious in the transcending process, whatever it is, has to be reflected in EEG, for all what it's worth. Initial transcendence is not clear transcendence, it is just a hazy slipping into it and out of it. We know it, as teachers, but it's not what you say to people. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* from learning about any of the others, under pain of banishment. Well, ok bu... Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... Where have I attempted to dispute anything about what is taught to TM teachers? My impression has always been that TM teachers are technicians who have been trained to handle things in a specific situation that has been set up via the 7 steps. Apart from TM teachers just being 'loud-speakers' who parrot the teachings, they have the additional advantage that they saw a lot more tapes of Maharishi during all those courses. There he accidentally let's out sometimes some of his secrets, or he contradicts himself. With that you get a sort of different background on many things. And yes, TM teachers usually have a lot of experience on rounding courses, or later siddhi courses where you meditate a lot more. That *might* be a difference to some plain vanilla sidhas or meditators - it doesn't have to be. Go too far outside that narrow field of expertise, and they're really no better than anyone else, any more than an x-rray tech is competent to be a lorry driver. L
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is it possible for 'aware-ness' to be an object?
On 03/19/2013 11:20 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: It turns out that the EEG pattern of long-term TMers during TM remains the same as the EEG pattern found in short-term TMers: it's simple relaxation, no matter how long you have been doing it. Pure Consciousness is just the same pattern in its most extreme form. In every other meditation technique with published research, you see a shift away from simple relaxation towards something different, as you become more experienced. In other words, I wouldn't trust the words of a non-TM teacher with regards to your TM practice. They literally don't understand where you are at and can only attempt to transform your practice into their practice. Ahem. Isn't another way of interpreting your first two paragraphs that there is no *progress* in TM? *You* are the one interpreting simple relaxation (which never gets deeper or more profound) with Pure Consciousness. I doubt that scientists would. As for not trusing non-TM teachers, I can say that TM teachers don't know diddleysquat except the stuff they were given to memorize and parrot. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it really doesn't go very deep, or have any relevance to the larger field of meditation. They know a little about one tiny technique, and nothing about any of the others. They are actually *prevented* from learning about any of the others, under pain of banishment. Just sayin'... If you dispute this, cite things that were taught to you on your TM Teacher Training course. Oh, that's right, you can't. Again, just sayin'... Some might think of Graham Hancock as being new age woo-woo but one should listen to his rap that Michael Ruppert presented on his March 10th Lifeboat Hour show on the Progressive Radio Network. Hancock presents a pretty good argument about what's wrong with modern day consciousness research. You can download or listen to the show here. http://prn.fm/category/archives/the-lifeboat-hour/
