Being Present = Being

joejo's picture

Average: 3 (1 vote)

This topic is a different perspective on the post

I have been intrigued by the two approaches viz the absorption in the object of meditation & maintain awareness as distinct from everything else. Let us consider the first approach.

In meditation one is asked to bring all ones attention ( concentration) to the object of meditation & it culminates in the subject merging himself in the object or lastly at the very end the triad of observer- observation- observed ( object) is broken or vanishes. This is termed as Samadhi. Patanjali gave detailed exposition of the process & they are practiced as Dharana ( concentration) Dhyan ( meditation) & Samadhi the last three of the Ashtanga Yoga ( eight limb).

In the practice of awareness the emphasis is to keep oneself as a passive observer (witness) to all the phenomena whether external or internal. Often to disassociate from thoughts & observe is known as being present. There is a further refinement of this process when the witness also dissolves and there is only the observation. Even by this method the triad of Seer- seeing- seen is broken.

Now what is the difference between the two. Well one could say that the final result of both is the highest Samadhi & hence there is no difference which is the case.

For those who like a little more detailed information i would like to draw the attention to two aspects of Absolute ( Brahmn). They are the Nirgun ( formless or un-manifest) & Saguna ( with form or manifest). Ramana Maharshi said the two were Achala ( non- movement) & Chala (movement) of the same Absolute. The very same reality looked from a perspective of manifestation appears to be a movement & from the other total transcendence ( non- movement).

Christian mystics were aware of these two aspects & in prayers referred to the two differently.

i conclude by saying that Being Present without the witness or Observer or center, which means that there is no subject but only seeing & Being are the same.