There seems to have been a recognition recently that meditation needs to be reconsidered. We’ve had new meditation material on a regular basis, and been offered meditation retreats, which have been, by all accounts, successful.
Probably this needs to go further. There’s no doubt that meditation is a powerful aid on a spiritual path. Even had the Shankaracharya not recommended it, scientific research has found it to be one of the few activities that make a measurable difference to one’s life. Buddhists do it, even educated fleas do it. When the then Tory party leader William Hague said that he repeated a mantra for an hour daily, it was a bit of a surprise, but it still didn’t make him interesting.
How odd then that, as a body, we seem to have learned so little about it in 40 years.
We ‘know’ what His Holiness has to say about meditation, but our tutors often give the impression that they have never actually meditated themselves. If a History teacher taught exclusively by reading from a textbook, a child might quickly conclude that the teacher knew no history. A tutor who reads and re-reads the words of His Holiness to his group is just like that teacher – living off the words of the wise, but not living them. (Possibly this is one reason why I have quoted His Holiness so infrequently on this blog – it seems necessary to make the point that we can all make our own words. If we can’t, we haven’t listened). I long for the day when my tutor can just tell me what he knows about meditation, from experience. Even if it’s just a little piece of knowledge - his own knowledge - I will receive it gratefully. It's occasionally happened.
I’ve spoken to quite a few people recently about meditation, and I must say that the impression one often gets – from those who meditate regularly – is of someone who twice daily disappears behind a rich, black velvet curtain. What was it like? It was still, calm, ‘and one comes out refreshed’. Wow …
Such descriptions are neither like what His Holiness says about meditation, nor I must say very much like what I experience myself. One thing that rings true in his descriptions is the sense of meditation as a dynamic event. His Holiness says that a point of vibration begins behind the lips … that the mantra harmonizes with the prana – the life-force within the body … that one dips into stillness and then rises again, several times perhaps. No velvet curtains, no non-specific generalizations. He’s telling us about something he actually experiences.
And let me say here, I don't think that alone makes him a wise man. We all experience meditation - or used to - all we need do is admit it. And if we can admit it, and look at what actually happens, the funny thing is that it seems to tell us a lot about ourselves. It turns out that meditation helps with self-realization, not always mystically, but often in very simple ways. We need to have the courage to accept what it is telling us.
Perhaps this post might be a place for people to record the experiences - good, bad or appalling - that they are having in meditation.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
What Happens Backstage, Again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I'm not entirely convinced that it's useful to speak about meditation in open audience - but I could well be wrong, so let's see.
The reason for caution is that, a few years ago, some groups introduced discussion on meditation and it was a generally discouraging experience. Complaints, frustrations, it all bubbled to the surface - and I certainly found it very dismaying. After a few weeks discussion stopped.
On looking at this at the time - and later - the reason for the dismay became clearer. It was the sheer mundaneness of the discussion that was so depressing. Whereas with one's checker the aim is to clear away obstacles, once the lid is off and everyone is chipping in, then all the magic disappears.
It's not that my own meditation experiences are always magic by any means, but the joining of the mantra with the prana is by no means uncommon and, if that does occur, one emerges from meditation with a sense not only of refreshment but also of integrity - it's the best word I can find to describe the feeling of wholeness and completeness.
Opening up the experience to the light of common day seems like a violation by comparison.
So - although in favour of discussion on just about anything - where meditation is concerned I feel tenderly protective.
Laura, thanks for the remark about the prana. I've never heard anyone say that before - although I notice you don't say what it's like.
"Complaints, frustrations, it all bubbled to the surface - and I certainly found it very dismaying. After a few weeks discussion stopped."
According to William Isaacs, in Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together, this is what ought to happen. When people start to talk, the first stage is of shallow politeness, which is shattered when someone points out that there is a problem that is not being looked at. This usually results in a response of horror from most of the group.
What happens next can either be (a) we find a way back to the polite, either by ostracizing or punishing the awkward person, or by giving up; or (b) we struggle on, being 'at ease with dis-ease' and continue to explore the question, taking the question deeper.
Maybe the problem was that your tutor didn't know how to deal with the situation - didn't recognise the value that was in the 'mundane discussion'?
Of course, I'm just guessing - but I have not found meditation checks to be helpful, in general. Nor have I found conversations about meditation useful, it must be said, until recently.
Your original post pointed up 'prana' as used by HH and my response was, 'Oh, so that's what it is!' In other words, I had experienced this without putting a name to it. As soon as the word appeared I knew it for what it was.
To some extent I have said what it is - integrity. Not a word I've used before in this context, but you have to trust the word of the moment. In other words, all the elements of the being come together, nothing quarrels with anything else, on the contrary there is superb energy combined with wholeness.
Beyond that, I don't wish to say, perhaps because formulation might 'cut and dry' the experience, perhaps because meditation demands truthfulness, and perhaps because some things are best not put on display.
The William Isaacs' comment is, I feel sure, pertinent.
I agree that there are things that are best not put on display.
But maybe one of the things that we need to learn is the difference between the sacred and the sacred cow. If a conversation about meditation brings up division and complaint, maybe that is "what the meditation is revealing" - ie the truth of what is there. The recent trauma of the School is not due to recent events, but due to the recognition that there were problems there all the time, unacknowledged.
We have to learn to love the problems.
Yes, love without obsession, even the problems. Meditation, however, is not a problem, it's a solution.
It's worth remembering that the meditation we have been given is not the preserve of the School. I was initiated by Dr Roles at the Study Society, and nowadays people go to the School of Meditation.
Therefore, meditation does not come within the bailiwick of the School, it acts only as an agent.
During the years I was not in the School I received checks on request from SoM (for which much gratitude).
'It acts only as an agent' ... au contraire, the SoM acts as an agent to deliver the initiation. The actual practice of meditation, and the checking (normally) happens within the School. 'Meditation not a problem but a solution' ... well, I can see you have the tin hat on. Or is it a mortar board?
Plainly nobody else is up for this one either. Peace out. V.
I bow to your knowledge on the administrative and other lines between the School and SoM. However, I understand that Dr Roles was empowered to initiate and Mr Maclaren was not. So, it would seem that Dr R had chief role at that time.
Also, there is a distinction between 'receiving the teaching' within the School and meditation. Once initiated, meditation cannot be taken away from you and SoM will - if asked - always offer checks whatever one's status in - or out - of the School. No question.
Does Donald Lambie initiate students? Not that I've heard.
Does SoM initiate people who have nothing to do with the School? Certainly.
So - as far as meditation is concerned - is not SoM's function to make meditation available to all comers? A function which the School makes use of?
By the way, I think this may be a strength rather than otherwise.
I've heard arguments for merging the School, the Study Society and the School of Meditation. Now that would make a great debate!
I've just read your previous post but one - and may now understand what you're driving at. If what you're saying is that a conversation about meditation reveals division and complaint and this may be the truth of the underlying problems never properly acknowledged by the School - well, it's an interesting question, but to the extent that division is always a problem.
At the root of all problems lies division, tucked away somewhere. If there remains in any SES soul the tiniest hint of superiority - there is division. And there will then be trouble. QED
I agree with Laura in not wanting to speak of meditation experiences here. All I would like to say is: it used to be simpler. We get so much information on this it confuses me and the net effect is I can spend the time I should be meditating worrying about whether I'm doing it properly in line with the most recent advice. What came out of my last meditation check which was v.helpful was agreement between my intuitive feeling on how to proceed and the tutor's advice. But then in a group situation there is yet more "blanket" advice which, if you're not vigilant, confuses again. The most useful pre-meditation thought for me is simply "surrender everything".
Yes, 'surrender' is the word - and the action.
Underlying the practice of meditation must be an understanding that no experience can be expected or worked for, no one else's experience has any bearing on one's own - and should not be given space to colour it - and that discussion, if there is to be discussion, should be kept within the bounds of due process.
So, if there is difficulty in surrender(not uncommon for all of us), there may be a useful discussion about techniques to make it easier, but any discussion about 'what it feels like' is a waste of time and possibly harmful.
How can one person tell another 'what it feels like' and expect the meditation to remain fresh and alive?
It would be like saying to someone who has never eaten fish that it tastes salty. 'What is salty?' asks the questioner.
This circular discussion is pointless. All one has to do is cut to the chase and taste the fish!
One or two meditations having passed I'm more than ever convinced that surrender is the key here.
Now where can I get a black velvet curtain?
What I'm finding is that I live in a world of thought. When I listen to the mantra - just the sound of it - it's as if the mantra covers all of that over. It's like looking on a vast scene full of interesting details, and then each repetition is like a white piece of paper that covers up a part of the scene, until gradually it's all gone, and all there is is whiteness.
I lose the thoughts, but I also lose the attachment to them. And of course they come back.
Naturally, this description is not very much like the actual experience.
When I heard Muktananda -- whose chief themes were meditation and love -- say
'Meditation will teach you meditation'
it was a huge relief ! So all we had to do was practise it, and...bingo, no need to have theories, definitions, FAILURE !
So now ? I feel much like Laura describes, 'better for it' and more 'myself' in every sense. So no advice to others ha ha !
Post a Comment