Natural vs. Man Made

[Gem]

I was just thinking how I derailed my last thread by dismissing tradition, which I do dismiss, but I'm not against practice methods per-se, because they have been shown to be good for people's health. The reason I dismiss them is I want to talk about the deeper aspects of meditation.

Considering there are 1001 practice methods, and they all go by the name of meditation, it follows that meditation itself is not any method in particular. We even find methods directly contradict each other, so we if we look at that from a pure standpoint of reason we can see that method is not actually meditation.

I often go walking in the bush, and also along the highway, and there are very different vibes going on. The former is not organised purposely for reasons, but it is still extraordinarily highly ordered where everything in it and it's whole movement is precise. The latter is also highly organised, but the vibe from it is chaotic, the movement isn't at all graceful, and when I walk along there in the morning, the rushing, the noise and the aggression is distinctly palpable to me.

How can I apply this metaphor to a practice where the former is wonderful in the fact that it is, and the latter is constructed for intents and purposes of humanity? with this imagery I claim that meditation does not serve the intents and purposes of man's desires, but a method of meditation necessarily does.

There is so much said already, and I feel like elaborating on these aspects, symbolically speaking, how ultimately, nature is sole provider for Man, yet being intrinsically unsatisfied, Man, with desires other than what is, makes these metaphorical highways, which thereafter need to be maintained, and thus he becomes enslaved to this artifice manifest of desire.

I now take it back to what is already there prior to the making of 'highways'. That is, the very existence of conscious awareness and the very essence of acknowledgement - where at that instant of noticing... that's it.

[Light Seeker]

Gem,

You have always been a labrynth to me, and I mean that as a compliment.

Man is natural... So if it's man made .. it too is natural... Dont be knotting yourself all up again.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Light Seeker

Gem,

You have always been a labrynth to me, and I mean that as a compliment.


Man is natural... So if it's man made .. it too is natural... Dont be knotting yourself all up again.

If this is meaningful, in what way is it meaningful?

[GreenGazer]

Originally Posted by Gem

I often go walking in the bush, and also along the highway, and there are very different vibes going on. The former is not organised purposely for reasons, but it is still extraordinarily highly ordered where everything in it and it's whole movement is precise. The latter is also highly organised, but the vibe from it is chaotic, the movement isn't at all graceful, and when I walk along there in the morning, the rushing, the noise and the aggression is distinctly palpable to me.

This reminds me of Walden's pursuit in Thoreau.

I appreciate your analogy about the well worn roads to meditation. These paved highways of self exploration can be exhausting. I think that is why I really appreciated your thread on the application of discipline in meditation because it stayed away from defining it too much (do we really need 1002 ways to meditate?) and focused on developing what the individual was already working with.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by GreenGazer

This reminds me of Walden's pursuit in Thoreau.

I appreciate your analogy about the well worn roads to meditation. These paved highways of self exploration can be exhausting. I think that is why I really appreciated your thread on the application of discipline in meditation because it stayed away from defining it too much (do we really need 1002 ways to meditate?) and focused on developing what the individual was already working with.

Walden's pursuit. I'll look that up tonight.

Well, it's not that I'm against the rote of meditation techniques, although I must say, the larger proportion of these are quite misguided, The reason I don't have the inclination to talk about techniques is, firstly, they are not a momentary exploration, but something I know and I just drag out my memory; it takes no attention or any presence to do that. Secondly, if I do that and a person follows it, then an obedient person is produced, and meditation is entirely disobedient in the sense that it is utterly truthful. Lastly, this is not a blind faith where the monk says so and all the people say so and it's the tradition that says so - this is the gnosis itself.

I have to distinguish between knowledge which is acquired, like all the stuff I know about meditation technique, and the knowledge like I know my coffee is there because that is what I experience right now. I call this 'acknowledgment'. I think that is an important distinction because the acquired knowledge I've memorised is really a thought that occurred in the past - but meditation, acknowledgement, is alive, fully present and utterly undeniable. I need not ponder on if said coffee cup is an illusion of any of that rubbish, as that is not acknowledgment. That is just a story going on, albeit quite an entertaining one. What is undeniably true is, this coffee cup is experienced in this exact way right now. The only question is, is it really being acknowledged? What I mean by that is, am I experiencing the coffee cup as it actually appears to be, or am I looking at it through all I know about coffee cups, through the memory of cup, through the psychological schema which allows you to understand what I mean by 'cup'?

A lot of people a lot of the time aren't experiencing the actual living of the coffee cup, rather, the schematic cup is used as a lens through which to view it. In this case the cup is seen as 'the thought about a cup', which is essentially, the memory of the cup.

In the previous post I concluded with "where at that instant of noticing... that's it". At that instant, I'm sure. There is the undeniable truth of coffee cup. There is no road that leads me to that acknowledgment, or the undeniable fact, 'this is how it is'.

[GreenGazer]

Originally Posted by Gem

Walden's pursuit. I'll look that up tonight.
.

Sorry, I totally butchered the book I was trying to mention. It was Henry David Thoreau's Walden And the pursuit I was speaking would have been better worded as his purpose in writing the book which was, in my opinion, finding commonalities (or lack there of) between society's and nature's structure and flow.

[Melahin]

Are they not one and the same?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by GreenGazer

This reminds me of Walden's pursuit in Thoreau.

I appreciate your analogy about the well worn roads to meditation. These paved highways of self exploration can be exhausting. I think that is why I really appreciated your thread on the application of discipline in meditation because it stayed away from defining it too much (do we really need 1002 ways to meditate?) and focused on developing what the individual was already working with.

Ok I found the book online - looks interesting.

I was thinking, I raved on a bit, but didn't actually respond to you. The thread is a dual purpose thing where it serves a few of my own contemplations and also as a conversation piece - and on this occasion, the former overruled the latter.

I can't remember the thread on discipline, but thank you for mentioning it because I needed a bit of a kick in the behind, as my discipline was lapsing, before you did.

The reason I don't define meditation is, I don't believe there is a 'how to meditate'. I do believe there is 'what meditation is', but if I said it is 'awareness of' ('sati' in the buddhist text), that is not particularly meaningful. People have to touch it directly. I maintain that there is no time when meditation begins, and it is not over and done with when one again arises from their mat. I still advocate a place and a time each day for meditation, because one can ensure themselves an undistracted hour which is for meditation only, which concentrates the practice, and also, habitualises the mind to chillax at that time of day. The overall meditation comes into a persons entire life, even enhances their dreams - and affects their very disposition.

I think my thread on self and society reflects upon the role of self in society - and disparities between the 'natural born person' and society's prescribed human narratives... and I hope to get pretty deep into that, too.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Melahin

Are they not one and the same?

I'm not sure what you mean - what are same?

[Gem]

I'll just continue. First, I have been thinking that I feel like I have something pertinent to say which is directly derived from my foray into meditation. I'm assuming the 'meditation experts' consider me as idiotic because when I speak I so often contradict the rote of tradition. I also notice that people in general do not respond in a meaningful way to what I write - but in my mind there are no references other than what is direct to me, so there is nothing old or repetitive here. You see, when I write I don't reach into my memory for the things that I know about meditation, and for that reason, there is no technique to it. I have to actually be there so I know in the immediate sense what I express. The reader can't take anything from what I say, there is no use remembering it as an acquired knowledge and these words are entirely without value. This writing is not apart from meditation. I have to present to say so and you have be present to hear it - and vice versa.

If your reading an act of attaining knowledge, or otherwise, a dismissal, or a balancing up of what's correct or incorrect, or if you see reflected in the writing a Gem who is this or that sort of person, then there is a judge present trying to convince you of things that aren't real. In my case, I say it as I think it and then I don't think it anymore, and I see none of myself reflected in thought gone by.

On learning. I had a lecturer at university who stood out to me. She was different to my other tutors in a way I could not define. I did the entire semester of that subject, and as a result, I saw the world differently. I had a shift of perspective. That is what I call learning. The knowledge I acquired in that class is largely forgotten, and soon enough it will all be lost. Frankly, I care nothing for that acquisition. There is something more resolute, yet intangible, that I can never forget becuase it was actually formative of me. It changed me and how the world appears to me.

That's what I'm talking abut here, really. There is nothing to know in the sense of acquiring knowledge, but everything about transformation in how one sees. I mean to see truthfully, and be able to distinguish between what is actually perceptible and that judge who tries to convince you of things. It comes down to, if you yourself are seeing or if the judge is.