Doctoral Research Request

A formal teacher is not necessary to learn how to meditate.

The key here is to not loose sight of your Intent. Take responsibility for where you go, and what you are trying to accomplish by meditating. Simply put, Meditation is a discipline that centers you and opens you to a greater wholeness within you. What you do with that information is Yours.

 

This statement has no meaning for me. What other side? What consequences are there "here", as opposed to "there"? There is no akashic record in my language, that is, no embodied sensation for the word symbol "akashic" to represent.

My direction in meditation is beyond form. I contend with no spirits of any kind. No levels or planes of existence, yet time spent cultivating this open space without prejudice somehow informs me on a practical basis. I find myself in possession of a creative faculty, the mind, a creative engine
directed by an inviolate will. You say spirits in the astral fields only have the power we give them, you could also say we make them all up.

,
I do not comprehend the growth of divine sacredness. To me all is holy and discussion of "degrees" of holiness or wholeness, makes the term meaningless. I understand learning to tie your shoes. I understand learning to use time.
I don't see where we are ever not in a space of vibrational energy, all being spectrally expressed. The colors of the rainbow, the notes of a musical scale, or the days of the week.

 

Hi thedope

The other side is about what the opposite side we are on is. When here in this physical form we are, or our awareness is born into the shell of the flesh. When we die in the physical form we return to energy, essence, Spirit awareness. Much like the yin and yang or the breath we breathe. When in the flesh our actions and thoughts play out the consequences of out action so what ever we choose to do we will face the results of the doing.

When in Spirit Awareness or Collective Awareness what we think or choose to do has no results, understanding, knowing, ramifications or consequences as the flesh does. Here if you shoot someone they feel the bullet. If someone dies they cross over. On the other side there is no physical evidence to back up our actions and choices so we do not grow there as we do here.

The Akashic Records is a place where all information is stored and recorded. In our comings and goings we pass through this hall of records or place of information to review what we did, and our choices. One can tap into the Akashic Records from either side as all things are one, much like an egg embraces three parts.

Many while meditating do face Spirits who are clinging to this world or in transition from here to there, or there to here. When one comes from a place of Being Love when entering meditation they do not get lost or attached to the separations. Meditation can be a tool used to travel to specific destination or to return to our essence and much in-between.

As to growth of the Divine, even the Divine understands that which does not grow becomes stagnate. There are no degrees of greatness as in levels of holiness or wholeness for each aspect embraces its own completion and understanding. Much like moments grow and expand time, so does the divine add to the eternal awareness.

Everything is created in vibrational energy, and each vibration embraces its own signature imprint, much like many fiber optic threads in one fiber optic cable or notes in a song. Every song is unique unto its one creation. So as much as each individual will not understand or experience meditation as you or I do this does not negate their experiences because we do not understand them or relate to their experiences.

Kind of reminds me of the child who learned how to shape shift into a bird and often flew. Missionaries came and one day the child asked the minister if he could fly. The minister replied yes. The child and the missionary were shocked to find their individual definitions of flying were not comprehended by the other.

Forgive me for my poor way of explaining these things.

Why not explain how you started meditation, why, and your experiences. This information would add to the intent and reason for this research project, and I would like to understand your point of view. I found years ago that just because I did not grok something did not mean something did not exist or was not real for someone. Who is to say which is made up or which is the dream.

 

I started meditation the moment I became self aware. I was immediately aware of my own, "causes and effects". I dispelled a blinding rage at the age of perhaps 4. I learned that the lion lays down with the lamb at age six. I became indoctrinated of the world and as a result I only rediscovered that I was real at age 40. I am 13 years into sincere effort and have learned that I am prohibited only by the self organizing principle of life and in that single prohibition, I may find grace.

 

I am having trouble understanding, the other side of what?

I have seen all things simultaneously existing in my living tissues, is this what you mean?

I don't see that awareness is particularly related to growth. It appears to me that we grow vegetatively, from a seed. I do see that we become familiar with our own contents. Understand, I am not objecting to your conceptions I am simply juxtaposing them to mine as illustration of what they are.

As such our vibrational nature is always in broadcast mode. Like calls unto like. Our vibrational nature responds to intent, or intonation, a type of environmental tension. Conception being the wave and temporal circumstance being the particle aspect of that wave.

You explain things eloquently. I have heard these things before, have of occasion looked for them but have been persuaded that there is always more to learn and in the process every formulaic structure is disassembled.

We see ourselves a figure in a dream, then we discover that we are the dreamer.

 

If I may jump in for a question...You said you started meditation when you became self aware. How does this happen? You were aware of your own causes and effects but how? This is a mystery to me.

 

med·i·tate [méddi tàyt]
(past and past participle med·i·tat·ed, present participle med·i·tat·ing, 3rd person present singular med·i·tates)
v
1. empty or concentrate mind: to empty the mind of thoughts, or concentrate the mind on one thing, in order to aid mental or spiritual development, contemplation, or relaxation
2. think carefully about something: to think about something carefully, calmly, seriously, and for some time
3. plan something: to plan or consider doing something

[Mid-16th century. Either < Latin meditat- , past participle of meditare "keep on measuring," related to mederi "to cure"; or back-formation < meditation ]

I included the definition so that I may better focus on what I am talking about. The meditation I am talking about would be definition numbers 2 and 3.
All over I would called the phenomena "mindfulness".

I hit the ground running so I would say it was predisposed. What got me to that place, I would have to say experience. Something occurred before that dawn of what we would consensually consider to be self awareness.

I have a few ideas of what it could be. Encoded information, (genes), or learning. I discussed with my father what my life was like before my earliest memories, probably age 3 although I have a powerful memory of a singular sensation that I cannot affix to age, only to say it predates age 3. That singular sensation is of strong light hurting my eyes.

My dad said a peculiar thing, he said by the time I was 6 months old if he told me to stop crying, I would. He said he trained me to do it using corporal inducements. With this information I would speculate that my proclivity was a measure of self preservation. I was looking out for my own skin.

 

Are you saying then that one must be predisposed to meditate or to get to the point of self awareness?

 

The self and the ego are considered to be what makes us 'self-aware' and are defined precisely in the yoga texts. I will re-read Freuds Ego again before commenting. To me it is the spark that makes us a person. I decline to use the word divine spark since I do not have a religious agenda. I feel that meditation allows us to self-study our mind/ body and spirit and feel it is the science of self-study and that by knowledge we gain power. Since it is knowledge only it has no capacity to be good or bad. We decide how to use that power. The yogic way is the power to do good. There is the power to do bad as well. Every yoga thought could be turned into a negative thought which has the potential to do harm. The idea of 'curses' comes to mind here. If I have evil thoughts and force them on another that person may get ill. Anger causes more anger. If we accept we can do good we must accept that we can do bad.

I think I recall that Hitler was a student of meditation skills and his power in mass hysteria is well documented. He certainly empowered his 'students' by charisma. His inner force. Some of his chanting is very mantra like. The black witch (Wicca is a respectable religion) was well documented for using energy to bring about evil acts in the way of curses and spells. Life-style coaches and 'cults' have been accused of using their power to influence others not always for the good.

Like any knowledge a teacher is helpful but not essential. As a teacher I am biased towards the need for a teacher to act as a guide and ease the journey but accept that the journey can be made without (it may be harder). I personally needed teachers.

Edit:-
Freud-Defines Id = instinct Ego = realistic Super-ego = moralising
Yoga-Defines Ego = self (conscious part that controls)
The definition is slightly different. The yoga story of the Chariot
http://www.swamij.com/chariot-yoga.htm
defines the yoga idea of the mind. Freud was attempting to limit the definition wheras yoga uses it as an umbrella term perhaps?

 

Mediation by self-study gives one inner power. It is the power one gains by the results of meditation that is the purpose of meditation. The power of self-knowledge. That power has no capacity for good or evil but just exists. The ego is now permitted to act on that power and does have the capacity to use said power for good or evil.

I tend to sign off with my Love and light blessing using the power of my words to infer good. If I changed my greeting to you to say " you miserable shrimp, I hope you dehydrate in the sun" would this not hurt you? If you had a weak spirit this could induce self-loathing. Incidentally no shrimps were harmed in my anti-blessing and of course I did not mean it

Love and light (repeated in compensation)
I also like this:
rettyplease:

 

Balance:
Define blue-tits. What is their purpose in the circle of life?
Nature suggests balance as the need for a mother and father to produce another mother and father as a balance. To grow a population you need some spares and to decline a population you have less than two children of the opposite sex. Nature charges a couple to produce replacements. The loss could be childless couples and the gain multiparious couples. So why do blue tits have so many children? The answer is that most blue tits grow up into food for other animals. The purpose of most blue tits is to be eaten not replace blue tits. A natural balance is the outcome. The number of blue tits is designed to produce 'spares'.

If you google balance I am sure you will find the research you seek. The above is an example of balance in the biological sciences. We are talking about philosophical balance. The term balance is an unbrella term again that defies an exact definition. In biology another balance is the predator-prey balance well researched. For every Pope there is also a mass-murderer. I have answered your question in my previous post. Hitler. Many other examples.

Perhaps balance is a poor word. Opposites may be better. Male:female, sun:moon, hot:cold, love:hate, good:evil, healthy:sick, positive:negative.
If one can move forwards one can also move backwards. Of course the other option is to stay still!

PS: Never say "... in my limited experience" you ask the right questions so you have great insight.

 

No, I am saying that I personally seemed to be predisposed. Some people want to be firemen, I wanted to be free.

 

I like your description there.

 

I understand what you're saying but I'm still slightly unsatisfied.

Male is not the opposite of female, it just happened throught evolution that it takes both of them to reproduce humans. There are other ways. There are also non-sexuals. Etc. The sun is not the opposite of the moon, it is yet another huge object in this huge universe. Etc. Healthy and sick are also very relative and intercrossed.

I get from your explanation that you are saying : OK, here is the world as it is. Now let's arrange everything on a strait line, and put a flag right in the middle of the line. The flag will be called ''balance''. Now you are saying that the world is ''balanced'' yet the way you decided what was one side and what was on the other is totally arbitrary and dualist.

In my opinion, what you described was our language. Our language is somewhat dualist, but reality is far more complicated.

Peace

 

I think the word you use dualistic is perhaps better than opposites. Male is defined as strong and sun (fire) like and female as cool (moon) like. I know some very fiery women!! The Ajna chakra is often quoted as recognising the dualistic nature of life. Balance can then be defined as acknowledging the dualistic nature of life and attempting a mid-point. Akin to the balancing the chakras idea.

Moving towards the light and moving away from the dark is an English translation of a Sanskrit idea. It defies definition but I feel light is good and dark is bad. Concepts and language do not work. The mind has a concept that the physical body (speech centre) expresses as language; often ineffectively.

:coffee:
From Wiki on Dualism

 

Running Bear I enjoy your insights, and as you say the words are often lacking.

For me this duality was never about positive and negative or polar opposites. When I tried to see things this way I ended up confused.

When I came through this time I knew within in me that Purusha and Prakrti felt more like breath. One was not the other side as much as they were joined by a pause, a world named life that hung in the balances, within the comings and goings of transformation.

I understood that for me this is like standing between the choice to do and the action of doing. Each place embraced a power that shifted the awareness within.

For example; When the Intent shape shifts, the energy body flows through a mobius strip awareness within the purity of being, and the form taken is part of the life and world within.... creating the energy body for the path to growth and greater understanding. Thus the breath in, is as the breath out, as the world between them breathes harmony and a Being-ness or wholeness.

I find I do not know how to explain this.

Just wondering if you had a book, or author you would recommend for reading.

 

I have a different model.

Creation is a law without opposite.

Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so.

All conditions are agreements. It takes two to enter the ark of condition, male and female each according to their kind.

There are no idle thoughts, all are equal in their power to create. ("balance" then, is consistency)

 

There is an incalculable amount of forces working upon this very instant. Our universe is not dualist, it is pluralist.

 

The Dru Bhagavad Gita (Three volumes) 1998 (reprint 2004) Patel,Barrington,MacCuish,Jones (any translation of the B.G will do but I find this the best.
Patanjalis yoga sutras.

The BG is a story of the human psyche told like a parable. Life is defined within the story of a battle. Mahatma Gandhi recommended and so will I
Edit: Points of Balance - Mansukh Patel/Chris Barrington 2002
This describes the yamas and niyamas and the checks or points of balance that control our lives-good read

 

On reflection I feel "attempting to find a midpoint" is wrong. I would like to change that to "attempting to find a point where neither 'force' is dominant but appropriate for the activity in hand".

Balance can be the mid-point but if you need to fight then you need more 'fire' and if you need to read a book you need more 'serenity'. In this case the 'balance' would be skewed towards the actual state needed. One can read a book with fire and fight a war with serenity so it can get quite complex.

Might we replace the word balance with harmony?