Richo akshare

14 February 2011 22:07:56

@ anthariksh 14 February 2011 09:37:22

Pleasantly and surprisingly, your posts appear to shed SOME light. However, here, there is a genuine problem to solve. In the posting of 14 February, you remark as a numbered item, “3 if given the right direction, it reaches the goal easily and fast”

Who is to direct right (and wrong) ? If it is a 'person' or 'kithab', how do we ascertain their genuineness?...

My understanding depends on my senses. And they are biased as long as I have a desire to live. If that desire ends, then "I" end...

Even the best of my understanding goes only 'so little beyond my person'. In this situation of limited (imperfect) understanding I am in the dark, at least almost. How do I find the track I have to take? Which way is forward and which way backward?...???? Questions are aplenty. But never the answers!

15 February 2011 08:02:43

alpha..namasthe, you inspire me by your query.

fast and easy is the approach of meditation, not person, not kithab, but a tradition preserved in its pristine purity.

genuineness ascertained by its effectiveness in producing the results fast and easily.

understanding depends on mind experiencing the perceptions thru senses--of the objects, on surface level, only a part of the f_u_ll story, --the f_u_ll story revealing in proportion to the depth of inner experience.

bias is a result of conditioned mind, cause of distorted understanding.

desire is not to be curbed, every f_u_lfilment of desire is a step of progress.

desirelessness is not an aspect to cultivate, but a natural result of the experience of bliss, consequent to non existence of i, --i, having merged in the bigger i o_f_ _u_niverse,

best o_f_-u_nderstanding is not sufficient , experience, provides the f_u_ll. hence its necessity, and emphasis on it by all wise .

you are right, ignorance is darkness.

inward is the way forward, withou_t _i_t, all ways are wayward.

in the light of experience all questions vanish, like the darkness disappearing once the light is lit .

it is instantaneous.

traditions provide the guidance. fortunately, we have innumerable traditions , handed over from generations to generations in their purity, starting from ''narayanam padma bhavam vasistham......shri sankaracharya .....maharishi maheshyogi'', one among .

whi_c_h_ i_s_ the best? big question

explore,experiment,find the best suited and liked by you

readers and sir may tolerate my impudence if. i stand to get corrected

16 February 2011 02:29:38

@ anthariksh 15 February 2011 08:02:43

Somehow, I remain sceptical. How can the ignorant, get light through meditation?... Can a child, without any previous experience of any light, meditate and gain light?... If so, what is meditation? ...Is it concentrated thinking?...Deep thinking?...Meditate on what?...Can an animal, that doesn't have some of the "abilities" of a man meditate?...I feel like "coming out through the same gate as in I went!"iota kappa lambda

16 February 2011 09:44:23

@ anthariksh Who you are I am not sure. My guess: one who keeps Mahesh Yogi and ancient Indian wisdom high. When I present my questions, it is not to glorify my view; neither to belittle yours. Only a kind of search; that is all...Perhaps, a joint effort, if you permit me.

“...a child more than 6...” That “six”, possibly means one with “some” experience. The implication may be: Meditation depends on previous experience. (that is why I included in my doubt, “what of animals who don't have some of the 'abilities' of man. Admitted, they too have experience) I may conclude, meditation is ON some 'previously acquired knowledge'. That may mean, meditation 'refines' our earlier 'knowledge'. Am I far from what you want me to understand?

Again, you say “...deepest and beyond”. That, to my mind means, beyond “thought” to some other area. For in the depth of thought there couldn't be, logically, anything beyond “deepest”. Possibly, you may be hinting at something beyond "senses”. If so I am sceptical. For senses appear to me, the only means of knowledge possible for man. If there is sometning beyond senses, ONLY throuhg our senses we can realize that possibility of the existence of that knowledge beyond senses.

16 February 2011 10:38:55

alpha.. welcome, dear sir

Who you are I am not sure. My guess: one who keeps Mahesh Yogi and ancient Indian wisdom high.

you are right, thru tm i gained high ancient Indian wisdom in simplest way., not claiming my any thing, but tm has clarified a lot.

When I present my questions, it is not to glorify my view **** belittle yours. Only a kind of search; that is all.

most fair, we are one, sharing refines.

sear_c_h_ is valuable, ''knock, it shall be opened to you''

“...a child more than 6...” That “six”, possibly means one with “some” experience.

any one who can think, can meditate, nothing more required, even child

The implication may be: Meditation depends on previous experience. (that is why I included in my doubt, “what ****ut animals who don't have some of the 'abilities' of man. Admitted, they too have experience)

animals do not have ability to manipulate thought,whi_c_h- -is a subtle thing, their mind works on gross plane

O****y conclude, meditation is ON some previously acquired 'knowledge'. That may mean, meditation 'refines' our earlier 'knowledge'.

the light of transcendent illumines the field of knowledge{earlier acquired}, which mostly exists in ,patches, [ being not f_u_ll] and bridges the gaps, makes it whole, you may say refines

Am I far from what you want me to understand?

you are almost there but an inch of distance still to be covered

Again, you say “...deepest and beyond”. That, to my mind means, beyond “thought” to some other area.

yes, to the area from where thought sprouts pri_o_r _t_o_ manifesting and becomes perceivable

For in the depth of thought there couldn't be, logically, anything beyond “deepest”.

totally righ_t_ _i_t_ is nothingness, a vacuum, vast, infinite

Possibly, you may be hinting at something beyond "senses”.

senses are gross tools of mind they have their role , as usual

If so I am sceptical.

in thinking process, mind is active , senses not involved .man is much more than senses, mind playing much more role,, a superior state, whi**** a desirable one, not deserving to be sceptical

For senses appear to me, the only means of knowledge possible for man.

definitely, but what is perceived is not total, but partial. to make it _f_u_ll, mind has to process much more and digest .there is ''more than meets the eye''

intellectual analysis/logic are in adequate, being the activities on the surface of mind, having thus limitation to fathom the depths, hence the need for direct experience, and hence the need of traditions.

16 February 2011 19:55:27

@ anthariksh 16 February 2011 10:38:55

My scepticism remains. My gut feeling (result of my previous experience, probably, arriving at some conclusions, which I may not consciously realize as taking place) is that 'senses cause the thinking process'. The possibility of a 'mind' existing outside the area of the senses appears very dim...The 'thought process' that gets refined during meditation appears very much the result of sensory experiences...True there are 'things' which cannot come to the notice of our 5 (or more, perhaps) senses, but we realize their existence through our deductions from our sensory observations. And, perhaps, we call those 'beyond senses' as spiritual, forgetting the fact that we cannot realize its existence without our senses.In other words, the word 'spiritual' is caused by our ignorance of the reality.

If it is acceptable a view, can't we reduce tm to a sensory feature?

16 February 2011 21:16:56

alpha.. senses are gross extension of mind---film has to exist to receive image thru lens

'senses cause the thinking process'

yes, but thinking process continues too when senses are conveying

this proves existence of mind, a blind also thinks

''The 'thought process' that gets refined during meditation appears very much the result of sensory experiences''

no, refining happens due to in-march of, rather, in march happens in perceiving the thought in its earlier and earlier states of development, in this process senses turn inward, the activity of them reduces ,coming to 0 at the end

''True there are 'things' which cannot come to the notice of our 5 (or more, perhaps) senses, but we realize their existence through our deductions from our sensory observations''

yes but due to existence of mind in addition to senses, and happens in and by mind

senses are 5 of perception and 5 of action=10

again, senses are gross tools, processor is mind, whi****-is- subtle

''we call those 'beyond senses' as spiritual, forgetting the fact that we cannot realize its existence without our senses''

exactly! some unvisible are mental like our ability to store/recall/calculate

some -----much more unvisible are spiritual

''the word 'spiritual' is caused by our ignorance of the reality.''

rather by our cognition that some thing exists other than our familiar mind

''can't we reduce tm to a sensory feature?''

tm is not at a sensory level, it is a mental technique, unique.

there are other approaches to realization 1 on sensorylevel -- karma pranayaam /bhajan/physical practicesetc 2 on intellectual level--gnyana --our discusion/swamijis discourses/books on philosophy 3 feeling level--bhakthi/poo****rayer etc

each has its suitability/effectiveness to suit different cons****utions/levels of individuals

explore experience select---is what is required

let me state, my suggestion is for going inward --by any approach--me not necessarily to stick to a system, nor me propagating any

tm is incidental in our discussion, and purely my personal choice out of many.

still if you ask me what is best , i have to say tm is the bes**** has satisfied my all needs, simple, fast,easy, natural, just fits, no need of changing any aspect of life, universal

just 20 minutes morning and evening daily --but ,i repeat, to be learnt from a qualified instructor at centers.iota kappa lambda

17 February 2011 00:47:50

@ anthariksh 16 February 2011 21:16:56

In all humility, let me say, my scepticism doesn't disappear...At some level your view appears to move to the vague to establish the superiority of the 'beyond senses' over the senses. You appear to go to the analogy of the 'blind' to tell me something ****ut the senses. But the blind man has other senses and through them he realizes his surroundings. Doesn't he?

We humans, realize what you hint as the 'beyond senses' too, possibly, through our senses. Do we have any other 'window of knowledge'?

17 February 2011 19:52:54

@ anthariksh 17 February 2011 09:59:09

You display many qualities, a teacher is likely to aspire to have. Perhaps you are a teacher. A goodly one at that; could even be godly. Thanks for the patience and care you showed.

For a learned discourse, I have neither any serious knowledge of modern psychology nor a deep understanding of the wisdom of the ancient. However, my gut feeling is this: “Life is a property of matter. When 'suitable conditions' are met, life evolves and continues to do so. Perhaps those conditions are set 'intentionally' by something transcendent. Perhaps it happens as an accident.... The senses are our (only?) windows through which we “see” (realize) reality. That something some say'knowledge beyond senses' is probably the result of previous sensory knowledge remaining submerged, but surfaces ocasionally, probably, unconsciously”... Of course this is not at all a 'profession-evaluated' view; neither is it 'original'.

I like to fix the ancient wisdom of India into this view of reality, if possible. For there is some significance for Indian rational thought and it can be of some use to mankind in the present-world turmoil. Can we give a rooting to it, in the 21st century soil?

For example, what does transcendental mean? That transcends beyond senses? If so what is it? What evidence is there for its existence? Or, is it something moving towards the ultimate?... Or, if it is something else, the proponents would prefer to keep vague, it is a different matter? Some kind of Indian Rope Trick at the thought level, that is not to be taken seriously...

Your rising up on the wings of imagination and giving an ethereal aura to the word'vague' touched me... Where is it mentioned, “Forsooth only the gods may know. Forsooth even they may not”?...True, the 'vague' is, perhaps, related to the sublime.

However in a search for the 'true', perhaps, a precise defining of terms may be more suitable. Now permit me to meditate (not in a void or tending to the void) over the ideas you have supplied and come back to you after a while... But then, how to get in touch with you again, I wonder. On MSN space itself? After a month or so?... My respects.