Practice meditating under stress

[lightgigantic]

That's a better way to see it.

My saying

is still tapasvic (is that a word?), right?

Its general.
(It's a definition of what something isn't, rather than what it is ..... more info under neti neti - "not this, not that" philosophy)

Yes, it can. Just as poor, physically ill or depressed people, or people in any kind of hardship, can still maintain an air of haughtiness.
I was quite struck a while back to find that depression and pride/vanity can go hand in hand. I used to think that a person undergoing hardship would be humble - but that is not the case at all; in fact, humiliation (and responding to it with pride) seems to be the likeliest course for many people.
What to speak of the possibility of pride when deliberately undergoing hardship!

basically pride finds its home in the bodily concept of life - when it goes good it usually takes the shape of extroverted arrogance and when it goes bad it takes the shape of bitter grapes.

How did that end well?? For one, I have never seen that a repentant person would really be accepted back. The biblical story is one thing, but daily life is another. For two, there is no evidence given in the story that the prodigal son actually changed his ways. He certainly showed good intentions and made a show of repenting, but the story doesn't say anything about 'and they lived happily ever after' so for me, it's open-ended.

Its just a short didactic.
Basically narrative themes are universal since they stem from our nature (of course finding practical examples of them are not, since society is governed by many trends). The 5 primary and 7 secondary rasas are universal and constant (in liberated and conditioned life) . All that changes is our impression of ourselves and that of others (which might give a predominance of some particular rasa over another - for instance one could compare how ideas of "womanhood" exist in a society that revers "the mother" compared to another that revers "the girlfriend". IOW regardless of what narrative you are dealing with, if you dig deep enough you can find it.

EDIT: Here's a Sunday School question about the parable of the prodigal son: Which one of the two sons will go to heaven, and which one will burn in hell for all eternity? Answer: The prodigal son will go to heaven; the other son who stayed at home will go to hell because he was envious.
Really, from my Christian education, what I remember the most about the parable of the prodigal son is the focus on the other son and how bad he was.

I didn't get that. I got a version something like "no sins too steep to prohibit one from returning to spiritual life"
Regardless, you can see the prodigal son take on a host of different shapes according to the predominant rasas at the helm.
:shrug:

BTW I am using rasa in the general sense of relationship

 

[wise acre]

or alternatively, clear understandings of what is underpinning issues of pride and self disdain can make things easier

Alternatively to 'care'? I don't understand.

Were you aware of the issue of how people might take spiritual criticism of pride that raised earlier before I raised it?

 

[wynn]

Ah, well, since practically no one has that kind of baggage we can use the word without too much care.

or alternatively, clear understandings of what is underpinning issues of pride and self disdain can make things easier

Alternatively to 'care'? I don't understand.

Were you aware of the issue of how people might take spiritual criticism of pride that raised earlier before I raised it?

The way I understood the exchange between the two of you:

WA: The word 'humility' should be used with great precaution, because many people have a lot of bagge about it and are very uncomfortable about the word 'humility' and everything it implies or might imply.

LG: Well, we could be very careful about how we use the word 'humility' (or avoid using it altogether). Or we could make an effort to clearly understand how pride and self-disdain come to be and what they entail. Such an understanding would make things easier for us and we would not be uncomfortable anymore upon hearing the word 'humility'.



Personally, I am well aware of the intense negative reaction some people (including myself) have to the word 'humility'. But I think avoiding the word 'humility' and the concept that ideally comes with it is not the solution.

 

[wynn]

Its general.
(It's a definition of what something isn't, rather than what it is ..... more info under neti neti - "not this, not that" philosophy)

And neti-neti is rather tapasvic, is it not ...
I can just imagine a circle of sankaracaryans, looking all serious in their rags, 'I am not this blade of grass, I am not that blade of grass, I am not this grain of sand, I am not that grain of sand ...'.
Okay, this probably isn't as funny to you as it is to me.

Its just a short didactic.
Basically narrative themes are universal since they stem from our nature (of course finding practical examples of them are not, since society is governed by many trends). The 5 primary and 7 secondary rasas are universal and constant (in liberated and conditioned life) . All that changes is our impression of ourselves and that of others (which might give a predominance of some particular rasa over another - for instance one could compare how ideas of "womanhood" exist in a society that revers "the mother" compared to another that revers "the girlfriend". IOW regardless of what narrative you are dealing with, if you dig deep enough you can find it.

I didn't get that. I got a version something like "no sins too steep to prohibit one from returning to spiritual life"
Regardless, you can see the prodigal son take on a host of different shapes according to the predominant rasas at the helm.

I think I understand a bit what you are saying. But my point was that I know of no Western story where 'learning your lesson' would not be negatively connotated.

 

[wise acre]

WA: The word 'humility' should be used with great precaution, because many people have a lot of bagge about it and are very uncomfortable about the word 'humility' and everything it implies or might imply.

I think this bridging may be helpful.

I would not say that they are uncomfortable, necessarily, but will misapply it, perhaps even comfortably. A person who has a great deal of self-disdain - or to put this more gently, who has trouble liking themselves - consciously or otherwise, may welcome criticism of pride in ways that are counterproductive, even cruel. Likewise a veneration of humility may feed a lack of self-love. I notice in conversations here, but even generally in 'spiritual' environments, these words are spoken about in ways that seem naive to me. As if the ways they will likely be heard by many people do not exist. I have had this experience also with people who were supposed to be masters.

I actually think this may be an area where the West has made important inroads. Of course these things can happen also in the West. There was one popular psychologist who repeatedly in writings and talks used the phrase 'healthy shame' which he contrasted with the unhealthy version. However I would repeatedly point out, once to him at a talk, that finding another word might be better, since what he considered healthy shame was not shame at all, and given that his target audience was likely to have a great deal of shame, it seemed a poor choice. His absolute reluctance to consider another term or acknowledge the problem made me wonder if he cared or knew fully his own intent.

I certainly do think 'humility' can be used. But when sprayed I think it is a problem.

LG: Well, we could be very careful about how we use the word 'humility' (or avoid using it altogether).

I took the 'alternatively' as more rhetorical than you did. But I wasn't sure, so I presented my confusion.

Or we could make an effort to clearly understand how pride and self-disdain come to be and what they entail. Such an understanding would make things easier for us and we would not be uncomfortable anymore upon hearing the word 'humility'.

this helps, though I would say that my concern is not so much with the source or what they entail - causes and effects, past and future - but that the individuals hearing these words understand what they are now, as opposed to healthy feelings or healthy absences of feelings. Of course the study of causes and effects can help with this, but it still feels conspicuous in its absence.

I am reacting to what I have experienced as a fog in relation to these ideas and what seemed a lack of understanding of how a significant portion of listerers/readers take them. Couple that with many master/student dynamics where the pride of the master is in the very furniture of reality - the pride is handled by architecture, ritual, third parties and interior design, iow by proxy - and the dynamic seems really problematic to me.

Personally, I am well aware of the intense negative reaction some people (including myself) have to the word 'humility'. But I think avoiding the word 'humility' and the concept that ideally comes with it is not the solution.

As I said I agree. I think the moment I see awareness of the problem and nuanced individual communication around it, I lose my concern.

One thing any master should realize is that what someone who regularly feels self-disdain thinks of as pride might simply be the absence of self-disdain. So lessons of the dangers of pride can reinforce rather than liberate.

 

[lightgigantic]

And neti-neti is rather tapasvic, is it not ...

only for as long as it doesn't have anything positive to adhere to. For instance neti neti is predominant in the upanisads (except perhaps for brief alternative in the isopanisad). In the hands of the tapasvis, they have a good excuse for giving themselves hell. In the hands of a vaisnava, they have a good excuse for furthering their attachment by giving up the lower taste.

I can just imagine a circle of sankaracaryans, looking all serious in their rags, 'I am not this blade of grass, I am not that blade of grass, I am not this grain of sand, I am not that grain of sand ...'.
Okay, this probably isn't as funny to you as it is to me.

It becomes a bit more horrific when they bring these issues to bear on the mind and senses. For instance, some acharyas clearly point out how their antics of "just don't" result in a lot of illicit activity since, in regards to the senses and desire, water tends to find its own level.






I think I understand a bit what you are saying. But my point was that I know of no Western story where 'learning your lesson' would not be negatively connotated.[/QUOTE]

 

[wynn]

It becomes a bit more horrific when they bring these issues to bear on the mind and senses. For instance, some acharyas clearly point out how their antics of "just don't" result in a lot of illicit activity since, in regards to the senses and desire, water tends to find its own level.

On a somewhat related note - you have probably heard of Zen roshis (especially in the West, whether Westerners of Japanese) who were involved in financial and sexual scandals, and who then when the scandal came out, claimed that they did it to 'teach their students a lesson in non-attachment - namely, non-attachment to one's teacher, to anger, to preconceived notions of right and wrong etc.'. And then when some people criticized this, there were also students and other people who claimed that these criticizers were just 'unenlightened and incapable of recognizing enlightened beings' and that the roshis involved in the scandals 'were actually enlightened'.

In other circles as well, I have seen this attitude of defending some blatant disregard of norms (norms of that same circle) on account of 'you're unenlightened, you're spiritually immature, this is why you perceive advanced behavior as inadvanced'. And I am talking about daily behavior, not about those rare cases where people resort to use of force or lying, for example.
Of course, if oneself would behave disregarding the norms, that would be just disregarding the norms, not enlightened behavior.

How is one supposed to deal with such things - when facing blatant disregard of the norms, defended with 'and if you don't see this behavior as enlightened, this is proof that you are not enlightened'?

 

[nativelady]

I use a method of meditation called 'vippasana' which is from Osho.

It works for me very well and its really simple.

 

[nirakar]

I use a method of meditation called 'vippasana' which is from Osho.

It works for me very well and its really simple.

I learned about a lot of things from Osho.

I vaguely remember that Osho created a particular structure for Vipassana, but it is wrong to say that Vipassana is from Osho.

 

[wynn]

I would not say that they are uncomfortable, necessarily, but will misapply it, perhaps even comfortably. A person who has a great deal of self-disdain - or to put this more gently, who has trouble liking themselves - consciously or otherwise, may welcome criticism of pride in ways that are counterproductive, even cruel. Likewise a veneration of humility may feed a lack of self-love.

Sure.

I notice in conversations here, but even generally in 'spiritual' environments, these words are spoken about in ways that seem naive to me. As if the ways they will likely be heard by many people do not exist. I have had this experience also with people who were supposed to be masters.

I can relate.

I actually think this may be an area where the West has made important inroads. Of course these things can happen also in the West. There was one popular psychologist who repeatedly in writings and talks used the phrase 'healthy shame' which he contrasted with the unhealthy version. However I would repeatedly point out, once to him at a talk, that finding another word might be better, since what he considered healthy shame was not shame at all, and given that his target audience was likely to have a great deal of shame, it seemed a poor choice. His absolute reluctance to consider another term or acknowledge the problem made me wonder if he cared or knew fully his own intent.

Okay, let's try to think outside of the box and actually practice meditating under stress: So what if he didn't know his intent, so what if he used words inappropriately? Who is he that we should take his words seriously?

this helps, though I would say that my concern is not so much with the source or what they entail - causes and effects, past and future - but that the individuals hearing these words understand what they are now, as opposed to healthy feelings or healthy absences of feelings. Of course the study of causes and effects can help with this, but it still feels conspicuous in its absence.

How is such health to be demonstrated and understood - if not by understanding how pride and self-disdain come to be and what they entail?

I am reacting to what I have experienced as a fog in relation to these ideas and what seemed a lack of understanding of how a significant portion of listerers/readers take them. Couple that with many master/student dynamics where the pride of the master is in the very furniture of reality - the pride is handled by architecture, ritual, third parties and interior design, iow by proxy - and the dynamic seems really problematic to me.

I think I understand that. I also think that matters of spirituality are ... well, not for pussies, I can't think of a better way to say it.
I think people who are serious about spiritual practice will not pamper the sensitivities of those who show some interest in spirituality.
I think it's hardcore like that.
If you get stressed out, negatively overwhelmed, scared off or distracted by the architecture or the blunt use of some words - well then perhaps you are not all that interested in what that school of spirituality has to teach - and so why should they bother with you?

I know, this is easier said than actually felt when that well-known overwhelm sets in ... But I have come to think that there is no other way, and that there is no point in doing things half-heartedly or half-way.

 

[wise acre]

Okay, let's try to think outside of the box and actually practice meditating under stress: So what if he didn't know his intent, so what if he used words inappropriately? Who is he that we should take his words seriously?

He was just a guy, but there was a rajasic transition period before I realized I could see his 'expertise' in this light.

How is such health to be demonstrated and understood - if not by understanding how pride and self-disdain come to be and what they entail?

Those are good activities. I think it is very important to go into the past, or allow it to arise, and see how and when certain patterns got started, to have self-forgiveness for the choices made, etc. I primarily want it clear what the words are applied to now. It is easy for someone to think a perfectly fine state of self-relation is bad or wrong or spiritually low or whatever when it is not. They can hear all these ideas, and then misapply them.

I think I understand that. I also think that matters of spirituality are ... well, not for pussies, I can't think of a better way to say it.
I think people who are serious about spiritual practice will not pamper the sensitivities of those who show some interest in spirituality.
I think it's hardcore like that.
If you get stressed out, negatively overwhelmed, scared off or distracted by the architecture or the blunt use of some words - well then perhaps you are not all that interested in what that school of spirituality has to teach - and so why should they bother with you?

I don't experience the world as in separate bundles. The ideas we are talking about here arise in a wide variety of contexts, with followers of many traditions, even the mixed not well thought out everyday person whose focus is on consumerism.

It is true I will not end up in an ashram or temple again, at least not as a devotee or student. But the issues are still ones I find come up in my life.

I get turned off by the misuse of words.

Spirituality is not for pussies?! Sounds sort of military or fratlike. I agree that some spiritualities tend to judge people with strong emotional reactions.

I know, this is easier said than actually felt when that well-known overwhelm sets in ... But I have come to think that there is no other way, and that there is no point in doing things half-heartedly or half-way.

It seems like half a heart to cast out the pussies. Or the pussy in each of us.

And I do see much of what gets called spirituality doing that.

 

[lightgigantic]

On a somewhat related note - you have probably heard of Zen roshis (especially in the West, whether Westerners of Japanese) who were involved in financial and sexual scandals, and who then when the scandal came out, claimed that they did it to 'teach their students a lesson in non-attachment - namely, non-attachment to one's teacher, to anger, to preconceived notions of right and wrong etc.'. And then when some people criticized this, there were also students and other people who claimed that these criticizers were just 'unenlightened and incapable of recognizing enlightened beings' and that the roshis involved in the scandals 'were actually enlightened'.

In other circles as well, I have seen this attitude of defending some blatant disregard of norms (norms of that same circle) on account of 'you're unenlightened, you're spiritually immature, this is why you perceive advanced behavior as inadvanced'. And I am talking about daily behavior, not about those rare cases where people resort to use of force or lying, for example.
Of course, if oneself would behave disregarding the norms, that would be just disregarding the norms, not enlightened behavior.

How is one supposed to deal with such things - when facing blatant disregard of the norms, defended with 'and if you don't see this behavior as enlightened, this is proof that you are not enlightened'?

I guess you're heard of the often mentioned "guru, sadhu, and shastra". Ideally all three should be congruent. Of the three however, shastra is most authoratative. The problem then becomes that it is subject to speculation, hence the practitioner renders its language "doable" according to time, place and circumstance. The problem then becomes that approaching a sadhu that gives no individual recognition to the performer makes the performer run the risk of applying the wrong set of applications for their person. Hence the requirement for guru(s) (actually spoken in the plural sense of many invocations) since just as there are particular times, places and circumstances there are particular combinations of the modes of nature present in particular people. So at the end of the day, there is a real need for all three.

If you examine the history of the movement, even in SP's time, you can see that people were doing crazy things. All because of stepping outside of these instructions. Good seminars/lectures by ravindra svarupa and Hridayanda on being introspective of the "good ol days" in this regard

 

[wynn]

I guess you're heard of the often mentioned "guru, sadhu, and shastra". Ideally all three should be congruent. Of the three however, shastra is most authoratative. The problem then becomes that it is subject to speculation, hence the practitioner renders its language "doable" according to time, place and circumstance. The problem then becomes that approaching a sadhu that gives no individual recognition to the performer makes the performer run the risk of applying the wrong set of applications for their person.

And then there is the vast range of even mutually exclusive interpretations on what 'friendly to every living being' or 'legitimate sex' means, for example?

Or another example:
I read or heard something in the sastras, for example that altruism, keeping to worldly laws or ecology are sub-religious principles.
I read or heard somewhere else that one should practice altruism, keep to worldly laws and have concern for ecology.
I also read or heard that advanced practitioners are beyond sub-religious principles.
I come upon a practitioner who claims to be spiritual. I find him eat meat, or being rude, or using lots of disposable plastic or leather items.
I am confused.
After much mental gymnastics, I explain to myself that this person is advanced and beyond sub-religious principles, therefore it is okay for him to eat meat, or be rude, or use lots of disposable plastic or leather items.
I find it very hard to live with such an explanation that demands me to question my sanity every step of the way.

Hence the requirement for guru(s) (actually spoken in the plural sense of many invocations) since just as there are particular times, places and circumstances there are particular combinations of the modes of nature present in particular people. So at the end of the day, there is a real need for all three.

What do you mean by the plural guru(s) here? That one ought to listen to many different teachers?

Because that is something I have noticed lately - how I feel drawn to different teachers at different times. That I am drawn to read up or listen up on the same topic from different teachers.

If you examine the history of the movement, even in SP's time, you can see that people were doing crazy things. All because of stepping outside of these instructions. Good seminars/lectures by ravindra svarupa and Hridayanda on being introspective of the "good ol days" in this regard

I know HDG's story on how he stole flowers, because back then there was this conviction that devotees are 'beyond morality' so they 'don't have to concern themselves with things like worldly laws'.
He also said that we must bear in mind that God gives people beautiful things such as flowers (so that they can grow them in their gardens) for the purpose of developing the higher taste and coming back to God - so flowers should not be stolen! Stealing flowers is an attempt to interfere with God's efforts to help people.

 

[lightgigantic]

And then there is the vast range of even mutually exclusive interpretations on what 'friendly to every living being' or 'legitimate sex' means, for example?

hehe .... hence varnasrama enters the colourful canvas of kali yuga

Or another example:
I read or heard something in the sastras, for example that altruism, keeping to worldly laws or ecology are sub-religious principles.
I read or heard somewhere else that one should practice altruism, keep to worldly laws and have concern for ecology.
I also read or heard that advanced practitioners are beyond sub-religious principles.
I come upon a practitioner who claims to be spiritual. I find him eat meat, or being rude, or using lots of disposable plastic or leather items.
I am confused.
After much mental gymnastics, I explain to myself that this person is advanced and beyond sub-religious principles, therefore it is okay for him to eat meat, or be rude, or use lots of disposable plastic or leather items.
I find it very hard to live with such an explanation that demands me to question my sanity every step of the way.

In short, a person learned in shastra can distinguish between a principle and a detail. Traditionally these were brahmanas, and being the head of society, they had the responsibility of reconciling all differences.
This learning comes not so much through reading but realization (aka successful application).
Recently it seems to have been a prominent theme in hrdaynanda's work to clear up exactly what being "beyond morality" entails.

What do you mean by the plural guru(s) here? That one ought to listen to many different teachers?

Because that is something I have noticed lately - how I feel drawn to different teachers at different times. That I am drawn to read up or listen up on the same topic from different teachers.

you can see the sanskrit "om ajnana timarandhasya etc " ... its plural.
The idea is that there are many siksa gurus (but only 1 diksa guru). The Gaudiya sampradaya distinguishes itself from many others that may appear quite similar (eg radha kunda babajis) because the parampara travels via siksa, not diksa.

I know HDG's story on how he stole flowers, because back then there was this conviction that devotees are 'beyond morality' so they 'don't have to concern themselves with things like worldly laws'.
He also said that we must bear in mind that God gives people beautiful things such as flowers (so that they can grow them in their gardens) for the purpose of developing the higher taste and coming back to God - so flowers should not be stolen! Stealing flowers is an attempt to interfere with God's efforts to help people.

now the question is to what extent is this a detail or a principle of bhakti?

 

[wynn]

And then there is the vast range of even mutually exclusive interpretations on what 'friendly to every living being' or 'legitimate sex' means, for example?

hehe .... hence varnasrama enters the colourful canvas of kali yuga

I am not sure I understand - does, for example, "friendly to every living being" mean different things, according to each varna, and that each varna has its own standard of "friendly to every living being"?

The idea is that there are many siksa gurus (but only 1 diksa guru). The Gaudiya sampradaya distinguishes itself from many others that may appear quite similar (eg radha kunda babajis) because the parampara travels via siksa, not diksa.

Do let me see if I am understanding you correctly: In the Gaudiya sampradaya, the parampara travels via siksa?
What is the significance of that?

I know HDG's story on how he stole flowers, because back then there was this conviction that devotees are 'beyond morality' so they 'don't have to concern themselves with things like worldly laws'.
He also said that we must bear in mind that God gives people beautiful things such as flowers (so that they can grow them in their gardens) for the purpose of developing the higher taste and coming back to God - so flowers should not be stolen! Stealing flowers is an attempt to interfere with God's efforts to help people.

now the question is to what extent is this a detail or a principle of bhakti?

I would think that the principle is "Do not attempt to interfere with God's efforts to help people", while the detail is "Do not steal flowers".

I would imagine the same principle can be applied differently, dependent on the mode of material nature under which influence a person is (and since each varna is associated with a different mode or combination of modes, this could explain how there are different standards for realizing each principle in detail, dependent on the varna/mode).

Although, since God's will always gets done, it is actually impossible to interfere with God's efforts. One may, however, have the desire to interfere with God's efforts, consciously or in ignorance, and then creates karma according to that desire.

What do you think?

 

[Thoreau]

I can't really speak for everyone else or their philosophy, but I can say that the times when I experienced what I consider to be "pure mind" was in a combat zone in Iraq. Why that is, I have not idea. Though all hell was going on, I was at the utmost peace that I've ever been in throughout my entire life.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am not sure I understand - does, for example, "friendly to every living being" mean different things, according to each varna, and that each varna has its own standard of "friendly to every living being"?

There are some things which may be uniform but there are also some things which are unique to varna and asrama
Due to differences in obligation and capability people perform differently. For instance in many tirthas you can see some rich person making an elaborate arrangement to feed all living entities while a poor pilgrim pours a circle of flour around a tree to feed bugs

Do let me see if I am understanding you correctly: In the Gaudiya sampradaya, the parampara travels via siksa?

Yes
(mind you, there is no reason why being a diksa guru prevents one from being a siksa guru ... even though it may not be the case vice versa)

What is the significance of that?

In short, it means the validity is carried through the vehicle of instruction as opposed to ritual.

I would think that the principle is "Do not attempt to interfere with God's efforts to help people", while the detail is "Do not steal flowers".

Sure

I would imagine the same principle can be applied differently, dependent on the mode of material nature under which influence a person is (and since each varna is associated with a different mode or combination of modes, this could explain how there are different standards for realizing each principle in detail, dependent on the varna/mode).

Although, since God's will always gets done, it is actually impossible to interfere with God's efforts. One may, however, have the desire to interfere with God's efforts, consciously or in ignorance, and then creates karma according to that desire.

What do you think?

It can get complicated when you start introducing conflicting principles and details. For instance, what if one could help a person by stealing their flowers? Or what if flowers (acquired by whatever means) have the ability to help people.

For instance in bali they have a variant hindu culture (they offer a lot of flowers). They also have ornate gates that are considered to house deities (Bhutas at worst, caranas at best I think). One devotee climbed over the gate to steal some flowers. He got caught and the temple was fined, not so much for the flower theft but for desecrating the gate by climbing over it. As a result, the person who owned the flower tree requested that the devotees simply ask if they wanted flowers since he would be happy to provide them (to which he still does to this day).

Just an individual anecdote to illustrate how a detail ("don't steal flowers") doesn't bear an absolute prerogative with a principle ("don't interfere with god helping others").

One of our best texts for establishing principles is Upadesamrta ... which is hardly a thick book ..... but the moment you extrapolate that to issues of detail you have a library.

 

[lightgigantic]

I can't really speak for everyone else or their philosophy, but I can say that the times when I experienced what I consider to be "pure mind" was in a combat zone in Iraq. Why that is, I have not idea. Though all hell was going on, I was at the utmost peace that I've ever been in throughout my entire life.

Actually I have heard many similar accounts from war veterans.
I think it has something to do with the full time presence of (impending) calamity that forces one to transcend standard limitations of ego and its associated values.

 

[swamiralff]

Wow!

This thread has gone much further than intended

For example, there were a lot of comments about being whipped.

I only used it because it was a common phrase. I wanted to compare the discipline required for meditation as the same as lifting barbells or becoming physically fit with another form of exercise.

The more often you practice meditation, the deeper you can go in it and the less will distract you.
I call this mental fitness because it is the same as physical fitness. It requires work to improve. I don't mean mental fitness in the sense as an absence of a mental disorder.

For example. When I first started to meditate even the slightest distraction would prevent me. Now I can meditate much further and the distractions that use to bother me no longer do.

On an earlier post I said:

All man's miseries derive from not being able to sit quietly in a room alone.
Pascal

The answer back was;

Why should a man be able to sit quietly in a room alone?

The benefits are that stress slide off you like a non stick frying pan.
The more fit you are, (mental fitness) the more non stick you are and the more stress it takes to 'ruffle your feathers'

The opposite is also true, the least fit you are or the harder it is for you to sit quietly in a room alone, the less amount of stress is required to 'ruffle your feathers'

 

[swamiralff]

Wow!

This thread has gone much further than intended

For example, there were a lot of comments about being whipped.

I only used it because it was a common phrase. I wanted to compare the discipline required for meditation as the same as lifting barbells or becoming physically fit with another form of exercise.

The more often you practice meditation, the deeper you can go in it and the less will distract you.
I call this mental fitness because it is the same as physical fitness. It requires work to improve. I don't mean mental fitness in the sense as an absence of a mental disorder.

For example. When I first started to meditate even the slightest distraction would prevent me. Now I can meditate much further and the distractions that use to bother me no longer do.

On an earlier post I said:

All man's miseries derive from not being able to sit quietly in a room alone.
Pascal

The answer back was;

Why should a man be able to sit quietly in a room alone?

The benefits are that stress slide off you like a non stick frying pan.
The more fit you are, (mental fitness) the more non stick you are and the more stress it takes to 'ruffle your feathers'

The opposite is also true, the least fit you are or the harder it is for you to sit quietly in a room alone, the less amount of stress is required to 'ruffle your feathers'