Loading…

Meditation - We are already in state of meditation....

UnknownMind
Public 56 conversations 72 thoughts 50 upvotes 0 downvotes 0 series

We are always in meditation.

In groups

Thought

Thought

BereanBrandon

Coming from a tradition where prayer is addressed to someone, this sounds like it has no object at all. Is the attending itself the whole thing for you?

Coming from a tradition where prayer is addressed to someone, this sounds like it has no object at all. Is the attending itself the whole thing for you?

Post content

We are always in meditation.

The universal definition of meditation is giving importance to experiences.

There are two types of meditation. Mainly, people know about only one type of meditation: concentration on a single thing. For example, concentrating on breathing, concentrating on the center of the eyes, or concentrating on thoughts, etc. From this, we can clearly see that we are giving importance to one experience, due to which we become more and more aware of that particular experience. This type of meditation is known as "dot meditation." So, our universal definition applies here.

Now let's talk about unheard meditation—probably the majority of you have never heard about it. It is the most uncommon and toughest meditation. In this meditation, you give importance to all experiences. For example, you sum up all experiences—from breathing to the center of the eyes, thoughts, etc.—and by doing this, your awareness becomes significant. From this, we can clearly see that we are now giving importance to many experiences at one time. This is called "whole" or "completeness meditation."

We can also clearly see that we are already in meditation, especially this completeness meditation. Then the question arises: why are we not that much aware? The answer is simple: because our concentration jumps from one thing to another, and we don't sum up our experiences at one time. For example, we don't completely give importance to many experiences simultaneously; we jump from one to another. We don't continuously watch all of them at the same time. This is the reason why we aren't aware. But truth be told, it's not like we are completely unaware. We are pretty much aware of every experience—from breathing to thoughts—it's just that we jump from one to the other and do not stay completely on every experience at the same time.

This meditation is helpful for boosting awareness. The yogi and a disciple of the path of knowledge use this to gain knowledge of oneness or remain in oneness. So, normal people can use it to increase their awareness, and a student of the path of knowledge or the path of spirituality can use this to gain knowledge of oneness or stay in oneness.

We can clearly see one thing for sure: it's just that where we place our importance changes here—nothing else. The rest of the things will automatically follow. So, my suggestion will be: if you want to experience oneness, you can practice this meditation, which is known as the "meditation of completeness" or "sum-up meditation." It has other names too, like the "meditation of beauty." Note that here, beauty and completeness are the same.

Thoughts

  • BereanBrandon

    Coming from a tradition where prayer is addressed to someone, this sounds like it has no object at all. Is the attending itself the whole thing for you?

    Permalink
  • fultonsheen_fan

    Oneness carries a lot of weight in the last section. Experiencing your own faculties as unified and being one with everything are different claims. Do you hold the second literally?

    Permalink
  • exhausted_centrist

    Every theory of attention eventually lands on the finding that we should pay more attention. Yours at least concedes we already are.

    Permalink
  • nietzsche_at_brunch

    Something very modern about a meditation whose product is awareness rather than surrender. The older traditions wanted the watcher dissolved, we want it running at higher resolution.

    Permalink
  • praxis_makes_perfect

    The scatter you describe is also what the attention economy is paid to produce. Then the cure gets sold back to us as a practice.

    Permalink
  • exvangelical_em

    We had a version of this at worship nights, be aware of everything in the room at once. Mostly it made me aware of how hard I was trying.

    Permalink
  • primary_sources_only

    Dot meditation and completeness meditation are not terms I have met in the Pali or Sanskrit material, though the split resembles samatha and vipassana. Are these your own coinages?

    Permalink
  • athonite_lurker

    The Fathers had a word for the narrow kind, prosoche, watchfulness, and the hesychasts stayed with it rather than widening. Evagrius treated the scatter you describe as a symptom of something else.

    Permalink
  • spicy_takes_only

    congrats to all of us, apparently we have been meditating this whole time. i would like my certificate

    Permalink
  • tarot_and_therapy

    I do a slow scan most mornings, breath then hands then whatever is going on outside, and it always stays a sequence. When you hold them all at once, does it feel wide or does it feel loud?

    Permalink

Related posts

  • Between Silence and You

    The loudest battles are often fought in silence, where love fears being misunderstood.

  • Holding on

    It wasn't about two months; I just wished you'd be beside me, if only for that one day.

  • Did Catholic monotheism make the universe safe to study?

    It is easy to tell the story of science as a clean break from religion. Enlightenment replaces superstition, observation replaces faith, reason replaces authority. It sounds tidy, and it flatters modern assumptions. But it misses something more interesting and, honestly, more uncomfortable for that narrative: the idea that the universe is intelligible in the first place is not self-evident. It is a metaphysical claim. And Catholic monotheism is one of the major historical reasons that claim…

  • Does Christianity actually fear knowledge?

    One of the most persistent stereotypes about Christianity is that it fears knowledge. The story is familiar. Religion relies on faith. Science relies on evidence. One asks questions, the other suppresses them. The heroes are the people who challenged religious authority, while the Church stands as the institution that tried to hold them back. There are moments in history that support parts of that story. The Church has made mistakes. It has sometimes resisted new ideas. The Galileo affair…

  • Why does Silicon Valley talk about death like it's a software bug?

    One of the clearest signs that modern secular elite culture is uneasy about death is how Silicon Valley talks about it. The human body is treated like legacy hardware waiting for an upgrade. In place of acceptance, you get optimization: longevity startups, cryonics, extreme biohacking, and constant speculation about whether enough computation and biotech might eventually defeat death itself. Tech billionaires talk with pride about potentially transferring their consciousness to a computer, as…

  • Does being entertained all the time make ordinary life feel dead?

    I do not think most people are fantasizing about free time in any serious sense. They are fantasizing about free time available for consumption. That is a different thing. The imagined good life is not a quiet afternoon, a long walk, a repaired fence, a cleaned kitchen, a conversation, prayer, reading, or even staring into space. It is a day with no obligations and an endless menu of things to watch, hear, scroll, buy, or "learn" from.

  • Is there any conservative ideology left to recognize in the Republican party?

    I used to think I understood what I was part of. Not in a blind, devotional way, but in the sense that there was a rough consistency to it. Free markets, free trade, small government. Respect for institutions, personal responsibility, suspicion of concentrated power, especially when it showed up in Washington. Remember that? You didn’t have to agree with every position, but you could at least recognize the shape of the ideology.

  • Does secular society still believe in original sin?

    One of the funniest things about modern secular culture is that it absolutely still believes in original sin. It just refuses to call it that because theological language makes educated people uncomfortable. Listen to how modern institutions describe human beings. We are governed by unconscious bias, shaped by childhood conditioning, manipulated by algorithms, trapped in dopamine loops, distorted by social incentives, blinded by ideology, and mostly incapable of seeing our own motivations…