Spiritual Gymnastics

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Ramasta9 said:

@Carl-Richard Nor is meditating for 13 days straight anything to be impressed out

You can't deny there is a correlation between how long you can meditate for and how deep you can meditate. If you can enter deep meditation after 5 minutes, you can also very likely meditate for a very long time after that without problems. But if you cannot meditate for more than 5 minutes, you probably can't meditate very deeply in any case.

Edited 11 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

I can never know the experience of others. I can only judge based off of my experience. Unless Wim Hof has demonstrated he has realized God, I remain unconvinced.

Leo has expressed resistance to letting go of his identity, as have @Inliytened1 for example. That means you're not enlightened. If you are still hanging on to your identity, you are still identified, you are still suffering. And when you let go, you're free from suffering. So enlightenment is about suffering just as much as it's about truth, because seeing the truth means you stop suffering. Seeing illusion and delusion means you suffer. Suffering is tied to ignorance. You should read more Buddhism.

Edited 8 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

In my experience the effects of meditation and the ability to enter a state of single pointed focus are cumulative; when my practice wanes for a week I find the effects also decline. The ease to which I can also slip into single pointed focus also declines.

Which is why I recommend consistent long term practice. 

The effects accumulate. I haven't met anyone who has not had this experience... 

[zurew]

I think the inferences you made are a bit loose, and I dont think that you need to have a clear answer to your question.

 

So lets just grant that most of those hardcore monks are not enlightened, from that doesnt follow that the practice doesnt help in any way at all to get enlightened. (similar argument can be made for any other practice or for psychedelics)

The other thing is that , you probably have other goals (other than just enlightenment - like having a peace of mind, elevating your concentration ability  that are all practical and useful and cool in other domains), so what do you really have to lose with doing the practice?

If it is the case, that it doesnt help with enlightenment in any way at all, then still ,you gained a lot from it, and if it helps with enlightenment ,then you have enlightenment + other bonuses.

 

If your view is that psychedelics lead to enlightenment - then do psychedelics, but that doesnt prevent you from doing these practices.

If your view is that no practice is needed for enlightenment , and that it is avalaible in all mental states, then doing the practices wont prevent you from grasping the truth.

 

No matter which line we go down, neither one provides an argument against doing the practices.

[Ramasta9]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can't deny there is a correlation between how long you can meditate for and how deep you can meditate. If you can enter deep meditation after 5 minutes, you can also very likely meditate for a very long time after that without problems. But if you cannot meditate for more than 5 minutes, you probably can't meditate very deeply in any case.

Indeed, that i can understand. What i aim pointing too is that while this is true, at the same time there are layers or levels unto which length becomes no longer needed as much as depth, and as you perfect the state of 'presence' or purely 'being', less becomes more and it can become counter-intuitive to meditate longer than a few moments, unless of course you need to take that path, but how i see it these days is we need to master the art of bringing our 'meditativeness' into the world and day to day life, cause if we are too caught up in one aspect or side of things, we miss the greater point.

The teachings of Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are great examples of this, and in Osho's book: When the Shoe Fits, he goes very deep into this.

Hope this helps

[Malkom]

Why not engage in spiritual gymnastics? You already experience "Truth." Let it be known from this perspective. Feel the fullness and savor of Life.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Ramasta9 said:

Indeed, that i can understand. What i aim pointing too is that while this is true, at the same time there are layers or levels unto which length becomes no longer needed as much as depth, and as you perfect the state of 'presence' or purely 'being', less becomes more and it can become counter-intuitive to meditate longer than a few moments, unless of course you need to take that path, but how i see it these days is we need to master the art of bringing our 'meditativeness' into the world and day to day life, cause if we are too caught up in one aspect or side of things, we miss the greater point.

The teachings of Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are great examples of this, and in Osho's book: When the Shoe Fits, he goes very deep into this.

Hope this helps

Yep. Different things work at different points of the path. At some point, for example focusing on the breath can seem counterproductive and simply resting in awareness is more productive. And sometimes resting in awareness is counterproductive because whenever you encounter samadhi, you recoil in fear. Then letting go of the resistance becomes more productive. And if you don't feel you can let go of the resistance, then finding out why you can't let go is more productive.

At some point, meditating every living moment of your life and obsessing constantly about enlightenment can be more productive. And at some point, letting go of the practice, letting go of the obsession can be more productive. That's the tension between Neo-Advaita telling you "you're already it, stop, relax" or "experiences don't matter" and the progressive path telling you to meditate or take psychedelics, or more Integral people telling you to work on your shadow and integrate your psyche before self-transcending. It's not a tension when you recognize that different things work at different points on the path.

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Ishanga]

You cannot be intouch with Truth/Reality and be in a Suffering state, so that is the logic I believe..  Just imagine if You did not suffer at all?  I would imagine Enlightenment would happen pretty naturally for You!!

Pain is different from Suffering, especially Self Suffering as is the case with the majority of ppl, they do it too themselves, reacting to life, not living life!

[gettoefl]

8 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

One thing that stood out to me from Om Swami is that he illustrated the point of why intention is important. Without true intention to meditate for the purposes of truth, you will end up doing gymnastics instead. One guru claimed to do many sadhanas of ice plunges, fasting, intense mystical experiences, etc. but he was not enlightened. He was focused on transcending suffering rather than on truth. If you had to choose between transcending suffering or truth, I think most monks would choose the former. Thats mainly what Buddhism is about. A big flaw of Buddhism is their conflation of transcendence of suffering with truth. They aren’t the same.

You treat transcending pain either as an end in itself or as means to realize I am not a body. First is ego second is spirit. Pain is a useful tool. To be awake is to be beyond pain. It is a gradual transformation. Best way is relationships. Make them pain free. Body isn't such a big deal.