Meditation

[charley]

Firstly, as a small child, you were taught mathematics. The first thing you were taught was simple arithmetic - what numbers are. You were told that the number 1 was called an “integer”. You were also told (and probably don’t remember) that the number 1 was a whole number. You were also told that the number 1 was to be referred to as a rational number. So, this was your first introduction to the word “integer”, meaning whole, rational. From this word “integer” is associated the word “integrity”, which means wholeness, rationality, sanity.

Secondly, and further, there is a secondary meaning implied in integrity - the understanding that the means are the ends. I will explain. As I have read elsewhere, when you take a bucket to the well to fill it with water: if the bucket is dirty, the water you draw from the well will end up becoming dirty - the water you draw will be unfit to drink, it will be toxic. This means that when you use untoward means to get something, the means affect the ends, the end result. Therefore, it is clearly seen that the means define the ends; in other words, the means are the ends.

Now, there are always those kinds of people who have an agenda; and, of course, having an agenda, they would be very fearful of revealing what that agenda is or of anyone discovering what that agenda is. (You may all know the old story of the young kid who saw that the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes.) Having an agenda that they hide/conceal from others is usually the trademark of someone who knows perfectly well that if others were aware of what their agenda really was, they would be unmasked as the most charming and disreputable people for who they are. Usually full of clever words, such people lie; and, later, when found out, they rationalize, justify, and make endless excuses regarding their progress as they move to get what they want. Moreover, such people never apologize for whatever they get caught with. Their behaviour is akin to the dirty bucket, and constitute the means. It is always interesting to see that such people always think that they can get what they want “by any and all means”. Of course, what they think/feel that they want to achieve is the ends.

And, so, as they progress to their desired goal, they cause a lot of damage, because when using untoward means, they ignore the consequences of their means. In other words, they always cause conflict. And, that is why a person who uses dirty means to get their ends met always causes conflict among others. In other words, they are inherently destructive.

[Please note that the word “progress” actually means - what it originally meant (before those in power altered the word so as to be more palatable to the masses) - entering into the enemy’s camp fully armed, whence its associated word “aggression”.]

It is always interesting that such people - by their cleverness with words - usually attract followers (especially followers who are messed up and needy), who will unwittingly (that is, unwisely) support them because of their conditioning - of their original damage which they had suffered in childhood. Please note that without support, such disreputable people would be found out much earlier. (Remember the old story of the emperor who wasn’t wearing any clothes, and the kid who spoke out the truth - speaking truth to power.)

Most criminals require accomplices. The thing which happens when the gang of criminals is caught is that accomplices (even though their actions in the crime may have been found to be minimal) can be sentenced almost as heavily as the perpetrator of the crime. So, even though the accomplice may protest that they themselves didn’t use untoward means themselves, justice doesn’t see it that way; because, had it not been for their support (however minimal), it is highly unlikely that any crime may have been committed. Insofar as I am concerned, any person who supports anyone who acts in an untoward way is as culpable and as toxic as the perpetrator.

To summarize, such a toxic person will use any and all means to achieve their result; they will slander people, use ad hominem attacks (calling people names), they will try and usually succeed at sabotaging discussions, by using the classic straw man argument (bringing up ideas that have nothing to do with the main subject of the discussion, just to distract others). They will use manipulation, domination, and influence to try and modify another’s understanding of any situation.

Moreover, they consistently draw on opinions to form conclusions. Instead of relying of facts, they prefer opinions, and using the fear that others have of being insecure, of losing security. Moreover, they can even misinterpret facts.

Such people have no problem in muddying the waters (obfuscation), making the issue so complicated as to make others feel inferior and feeling unable or unsure about how to respond, and thus engendering confusion and conflict wherever they find themselves.

It is their pleasure to bait others, to bully them, all to puff up their big ego. Curiously, it naturally follows that they are incapable of restraining themselves.

In general, they always leave a large number of broken people and considerable damage in their wake.

In other words, such people have no integrity whatsoever. They are the toxic people your mama warned you about (or should have warned you about).

Thirdly, integrity also has another rather significant meaning, which derives from the above - that of saying what you mean, and meaning what you say.

Well, trust you have enough for now as to what to think about, to ponder about, to reflect on (all derived from the word "ma", which means to meditate). The word "ma" also provided the English language with another word "measure", which I will discuss in a later post.

Namaste

[charley]

Most people in the West who have access to the internet and who know nothing of meditation will google. Now, considering that such people (especially in the West) have already been “conditioned” to have a mindset that accepts authority as to “how to do” anything. The number of books and ideas disseminated in the West is mind-boggling. So, most people in the West will take knowledge as the means to find out “how to do” any and everything. So, what most people will do is either go to a bookstore, a library, or google information as to “how to meditate”, or even ask someone they know “how to meditate”.

It is a tradition in the East to be skeptical, to doubt, and to question authority. While in the West, the opposite has been inculcated from generation to generation - to accept authority, to put one’s dreams in a “leader”, and to accept what authority dictates.

I must state here that one should never accept anything that anyone states regarding meditation, including myself, unless one has experimented and tried it for oneself. Please always remember that meditation has originated from the Sanskrit word “ma”, which means to think about, to consider, to reflect upon, etc.

Now, one has recently googled the phrase: “how to meditate”, and this is one result:

First, from an online site:

that most impressive word: “mindfulness”

One heck of a word, enough to stun someone who has never heard of that word, and make them think: “Wow, they must know something that I don’t!” Impressive, right?

As an aside, this word/idea comes directly from the Buddha, who is supposed to have said: “Be aware, cultivate awareness, mindfulness.”

Now, mindfulness is nothing more than “the presence of awareness”, and is not something that one can cultivate. So, from now on, I will not use that all too impressive word, “mindfulness”, and will only use the words “awareness” and “aware”. Awareness itself is not a method, in the same way that your heart beat is not a technique to be manipulated, learned, etc.; in the same way, that breathing is not something that an infant must learn, etc.; in the same way that one is aware of some noise, some event, something happening outside of you, and is not something that one can learn. Awareness, like many aspects of being human, is a natural aspect of what it means to be alive. So, I am saying that meditation must of itself be a natural occurrence that cannot be taught or learned.

Second, I also saw the following statement online:

“...we’re learning how to pay attention to the breath as it goes in and out, and notice when the mind wanders from this task”

As you can see, the emphasis in that above statement which I took at random from an online site is on the breathing exercise, and not specifically on the thoughts. Moreover, as you can see from the above, in this technique, one divides one’s attention into two aspects: the breathing exercise and thoughts.

The problem is that all modern systems of meditation try and teach their students “how to” cultivate awareness - as a technique, a method, a system - and therefore, because it is a technique, they must use “concentration” to facilitate such awareness.

I must say here that when there is concentration per se, there is always exclusion, and as I have written about this previously, I won’t necessarily go into it again here at this moment.

Third, from an online site:

“When we pay attention to our breath, we are learning how to return to, and remain in, the present moment—to anchor ourselves in the here and now on purpose...”

The issue that I have here is the idea of the "I" living in the present. This notion has come about from the Sanskrit word “satyabhatana”, which means to live in the present, and it means a mind that is free from the idea of self, either of the past or the future. In other words, a timeless field.

The thing is when a person has an idea of self, that self has originated from the past, and is also imagining some future. Please note that when a person says “I am free” (psychologically), they are lying to themselves, since the “I” contains both the past and the future.

[As an aside, I will state here that the “I” is the self, also known as the “me”, the “i”, the Atman, the big or higher self, the little or lower self, the ego. Unfortunately, in the East and the West, people imagine that all these different words mean different things. The fact is that they all refer to the “i”, words themselves just being referents, and not the thing in itself.]

As you can see, all these techniques have the purpose and goal of not allowing thoughts to prevent the “meditator” from reaching some higher sense of consciousness which is supposedly to be in the “present”, the “here and the now”. That is why most of these techniques suggest some form of “letting these thoughts go”, and passing them by as one is progressing in these methods. So, as you can see and understand, the meditator has a future-projected goal. And, the moment one has a goal in the future, it is the activity of the self. You must understand that as long as the self is actively engaged in progressing along a certain method or technique in order to create some future self that can exist without a trace of the past and the future that there is something inherently flawed and fallacious in this attempt, because wherever you go, you take your past and future with you.

Which brings me to the awful and most dreadful subject of “becoming”, which is part and parcel of the “why” of all these techniques. For the purposes of this particular post, I won’t be going into the subject of “becoming” now in this post, but it will treat it separately in an entire later post relating to having an true insight into it as seeing “what is” false or true in it - in other words having an insight into the truth or falseness of “becoming”.

Fourth, as seen online:

“thoughts” as “distractions”

The main issue that I see with the above approach is that all the thoughts are originating from some part of one’s self, which most techniques ignore, or do not fully understand, or suggest that by separation from these thoughts (which, in the main, are also considered to be “distractions”), one can reach some goal, and in the same way as if one were running some business. Obviously, these thoughts are not from another planet, another person, some alien. They are from you. They are “you”.

Fifth, another ridiculous promise from another site states:

“Eventually, we will be able to stay happy all the time, even in the most difficult circumstances.”

This is an odd statement at best, since it is impossible to be happy at all times, unless you are taking happy pills - the dosage of which usually has to increased over time. But, the fact is that life happens, right? Tragedy can strike. On the other hand, when you are aware of being happy, the happiness ends. To understand this statement, you are well aware that when you are aware that you are angry, the anger ceases. So, what I am saying is that it is impossible to be happy all the time.

Sixth, a I have seen online:

"focus on your breathing and begin chanting your mantra"

Now, the Sanskrit word "mantra" literally means “reflect on not being, meditate on not being or becoming, and wipe away all self-centred activity". So, it is ludicrous to repeat some word, the meaning of which contradicts the very activity of chanting that very word. The repetition of such a word is an activity of the self, the self that chooses to use a word and repeat it, in the hope that the "i" can reach some goal... of oblivion!!! Really!!!????

Seventh, as I have seen online:

“set a timer” when one is to meditate or having a fixed time for meditation...

Now, most techniques suggest a daily routine of x number of minutes, a certain time-frame for meditation, in other words, a routine. This is ludicrous because it suggests that one uses time in order to reach some “timeless” state.

Insofar as I am concerned, the best moment to meditate is when there is a shock, a trigger, something that disturbs you, an important decision that is bothering you, etc. When one uses these opportunities to see “what is” happening inside of you at the same moment of the disturbance, you are using others as a mirror to see yourself, which is the only way to use another human being in a healthy, wholesome way.

So, I am saying that one can be aware of “what is” happening inside of yourself, at that very moment. And, the most that one needs is to be attentive. I have read that attention is considered to be the only virtue. So, what I am saying is: the seeing of these thoughts and attending to these thoughts, and then the following of these thoughts until these thoughts reach their source. In discovering and uncovering the source, which is always connected to some memory that resides within due to some conditioning, one is in a state of meditation. It would be like reading a map, or like reading a book that contains all the pages. Please understand that all the chapters of one’s self are interconnected.

The following of these thoughts to the source is of primary importance. Please understand that the word “discipline” is related to the word “disciple”, which literally means the one who follows. So, what I am saying is to be one’s one disciple, which, of course, completely eliminates the whole idea of needing someone else to tell you “how to meditate”.

Please note that there is no recorded case of anyone practising any technique of meditation that has led to enlightenment, which literally means “to be one’s own light within”.

There is an old saying in the East which says: “be a light to yourself”. The reason that it is so stated is that when one follows the “light” of another, it will only lead to darkness. So, be your own disciple and your own guru, and never follow another, psychologically.
___

Obviously, there are other ridiculous and illogical online statements made by so-called "gurus" that will tell you "how to meditate". And, what I trust you will get/understand/grasp from the above statements is that I am using the idea behind "nirodha" (that is: "negative thinking") to debunk the self-styled gurus that are trying to teach meditation as a method, a system, a path to achieve some goal - as if you are learning to succeed at running some business.

[C0LLETTE]

I am very interested in the writings and teachings of the fine eco-feminist, Vandana Shiva. I find she triggers reflection on deep-rooted beliefs.

[charley]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

I am very interested in the writings and teachings of the fine eco-feminist, Vandana Shiva. I find she triggers reflection on deep-rooted beliefs.

Please understand that the above-mentioned person has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Her cast identifies her as a Brahmin and reflects a deeply-held rooted belief which has caused enormous damage to those in India who are not Brahmin. She has never turned her back on those beliefs, and wears her cast symbol proudly on her forehead. The Brahmin cast reflects deep conditioning which she obviously has not put aside, as the Hindu variety of meditation does not question its own beliefs. Brahmins in general believe they are the chosen ones, the elite. Moreover, Brahmins support the false deeply-held and rooted belief in the ultimate paramatman or Brahman, or in the higher self and the lower self - which, because it is created by thought, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Because these beliefs are created by thought, by themselves, worshiping and supporting such beliefs are nothing but sensory projections, which because they are created by the believers, means they are only worshiping themselves. In other words, such beliefs are self-projected, and are narcissist in essence, yielding entitlement, and power over others. If these Brahmins would see the falseness of such beliefs, it would mean the entire collapse of the cast system and the Hindu Brahmin religious society, and then the Brahmins would have to shovel their own shit instead of allocating that job to those whose cast says that it is the only thing they are entitled to do - and remember the majority of those who shovel shit are women.

If you are really interested in this person as you say you are, please feel free to write your own thread on this Brahmin.

[nycfem]

Colette, Charley, and Martina- maybe best Colette takes a break from Charley and Martina, and Martina and Charley takes a break from Collette. Just kind of give each other some space since it's not really working out so well.

[kittygrrl]

i find meditating relaxing..quieting my mind helps me with anxiety..you mentioned cliques earlier...when i first came to the mainland i was bullied for the first six years i lived here until i hit puberty...to me a clique is another word for mob..yes, i know all about them from the receiving end..i felt very sorry for myself at the time...no one wanted to hang out with me because they were too afraid whatever was wrong with me would rub off on them and then they would suffer my fate...i had no choice but to be my own best friend and today i'm so grateful for the experience..a lot of my anxiety i feel is when i see people around me in pain..some of it you can help them overcome but a lot of it has to come from a decision to try something different..even scary...i love meditating with a group i feel comfortable with..the vibe can become unbelievably peaceful and full of a brightness i can't explain.

[charley]

To summarize my above post on “how to meditate”, all forms of conscious meditation are organised by the self, either by oneself or by someone else - especially when organized into a group. They are, in effect, practised, deliberate, determined, thought out, calculated, intended, studied, preconceived, guided, directed (by oneself or by another), and so on; in other words, they are premeditated. Obviously, anything that is premeditated is not meditation, because it is in essence, get this.... premeditation! So, I am saying that premeditation is not meditation. As long as the ego is trying to “become” something, to attain some goal or end result, whatever form of meditation that the ego is involved in is not meditation, but is in effect a form of premeditation.

Moreover, all forms of meditation, all the different kinds of so-called meditation, whether it is called Zen meditation, or Buddhist meditation, or Hindu meditation, Transcendental meditation, etc. are all forms of premeditation. Any system or method of meditation must of itself be premeditated. And, behind all of these meditations, there is the idea of controlling one’s thought, so that it doesn’t wander or drift. And that is why, all these forms of meditation have to - at one time or another - stress concentration.

A mind that practises any form of a system becomes mechanical, like a machine. So, the moment you practice awareness - becoming aware of the different parts of your body, of any movement of your body, or your breath, you are practising a method, a system - and that isn’t meditation. That is just a way in which you are being unwittingly brainwashed into becoming a machine - being pacified, being put to sleep by the very method that says it will lead to freedom. Even the idea of saying that doing something that will lead to freedom is entirely false. Imitation and following some tradition is always mechanical, machine-like, and has nothing to do with true meditation. Inherent in all these approaches is that psychological freedom is seen as a goal; but, how can freedom be seen as a goal, when one is a stuck to beliefs that maintain one in a state of slavery to whatever belief that one may be attached to? That is also why it is important to drop all that beliefs prior to the natural occurrence of meditation.

The central issue of all of these formulations of so-called meditation is that therein there is one fragment of the self trying to control thought, which is in effect one fragment of the ego trying to control another fragment of the ego. So, what happens is that all these different forms of meditation actually encourage separation, increase the division between various fragments, and maintain self-enclosure and, therefore, create duality, and end up strengthening each of the different fragments - all of which is the complete opposite of what it means to whole, to be one.

Someone who has not laid a proper and correct foundation in their life (which I will discuss in the next post) can only do the meditation that you see online on various sites, which may even be referred to as “fake meditation”.

In true meditation, you are not acquiring knowledge about how you function. You are not adding information and psychological knowledge about your behaviour to your ego. You are not accumulating more experiences. You are not translating some knowledge of yourself into a pattern that you can recognize intellectually. You are not a computer program! This is true meditation.

Meditation must of itself be natural, spontaneous, free. It must be a natural occurrence. So, what I am saying is that it has to be unconscious. That is also why it is incorrect to even try and teach meditation, because there is a goal, motive, purpose, etc. involved in such a process - a method. No one can teach you about yourself; that is one thing to do and discover by yourself (as I will discuss more fully in the next post). And, as long as there is that motive or purpose or effort involved in that process - as I have observed online (and also have seen when interacting with those who even teach meditation here in real life and their students/victims), what one is teaching is premeditated - that is, it is only premeditation. In true meditation, there is no concentration involved, no effort. In essence, meditation is a natural occurrence.