@ruzickaw Well, a lot of people get confused when they meditate deeply because there are some pretty bazaar phenomena that arise when one meditates deeply. And, when we go to our meditation teachers most them do not seem to meditate deeply, because most of them have no idea about the various meditation phenomena (charisms).
@Jhananda Not to give any theoretical explanation is the best. Just sit down and what comes up (like pain in the back or the knees) take it as a meditation object. That is enough to start with. Meditation is a gradual process. Jhana is not ecstasis.Jhana (Dhyana) is meditation which leads to absorbtion (samadhi). Ecstasis is being out of oneself, with even loss of clear consciousness. THere is no need to tell the people about the difference.
@ruzickaw Well, I agree that it is best to use the charisms that arise during meditation as meditation objects, just as pain is often used by contemplatives; however, most meditation teachers tell meditators to ignore the charisms as they arise.
Also, a fine point in translation is the Pali term 'Jhana' was mistranslated as 'dhyana' about 21 centuries ago when the Pali canon was translated into Sanskrit, which has resulted in misunderstanding the jhana is just meditation. It is not.
@Jhananda Again, no need for semantic discussion, what means what. Feel it.
When i entered for the first time a buddhist meditation center in Sri Lanka, i got only basic instraction: Sit, walk, observe the breath, keep the mind in the here and now. How to do it , i have to find out by myself. Meditators should not given everything digested. Each one has to
struggle to find his own method. All this talk about self-knowledge and self-awareness is usless. There is no self.
@Jhananda - you do not know to whom you speak - you are 50 yrs too late with that question - speaking of naive. Occultism does not exist except as self-knowledge which IS the path of the mystic - or is that too deep for you?
@sandraeggers I agree self-knowledge which IS the path of the mystic; however, few occultists I met and read seemed to be interested in self-knowledge, or self-awareness. I would argue that anyone who is pursues self-knowledge and self-awareness is a contemplative, not an occultists. However, one does not become a mystic until one has developed the ecstatic, altered states of consiouseness of contemplation (samadhi).
There is no dichotomy between occultism and mysticism. Mysticism embodies occultism - occult simply means hidden - occultism or the use of hidden knowledge is something mystics necessarily do as the occult or hidden or supernatural aspects of knowledge reveal themselves to them. Any attempt to analyze and differentiate the occult from mysticism as a path and activity is simply naive.
In the story "The Rooster and the Tortoise" by Dr. Malachi Martin (three PhDs) in his book HOSTAGE TO THE DEVIL, we have the testimony of a well-known psychologist (Princeton/Stanford/Cambridge), Vipassana meditator, who became demonically possessed and levitated in front of his students. His testimony on what happened, how he was trapped and freed during an exorcism, is in that book.
Keep an open mind. Read for yourself. Very fascinating!.
@JoeJacari I would like very much to be able to post links to my website on Youtube, but for some reason Youtube will not allow it. However, if you check my YouTube channel you will find a link to my website the greatwesternvehicle dot o-r-g. Or, search Google for it.
@JoeJacari it is very nice to see people site sources, thank-you. My writing also sports lots of sources. However, I fail to see how my responses to you are dismissive. Just because I do not agree with some of your premises and reading does not mean that I am being dismissive. I simply have my own observations, research and conclusions that do not agree with yours. So, why are you being combative?
@JoeJacari I am not resorting to ad hominem responses.
Anyone who receives a PhD in Anthropology and a tenured teaching position at any highly respected university, such as UCLA, is therefore "highly respected." However, I would agree that since Carlos Castaneda's writing revealed nothing about the Yaqui people, and he was writing fiction and passing it off as fact, does not say much about the teaching faculty of the Anthropology department at UCLA.
@JoeJacari I am familiar with M. Scott Peck, MD and I have read some of his work, and respect it. So, since I am not familiar with the book, and I was not present for the event reported in the book, then I will have to reserve my critique, other than to say the premises stated in your paragraph regarding the event are not supported by my personal observations and research.
@JoeJacari As an anthropologist, who studies mystics and mysticism as a participant observer, I am by definition a scientist with a wide open mind. Nonetheless, science is defined by the repeatable experiment. If the conditions are the same, then the results must be the same. thus, I find the story of the guy with the three PhDs levitating in front of his students due to demonic possession too fantastic, and is not supported by my 40 years of spiritual observations
@JoeJacari For instance Carlos Castaneda is an example of a person who was highly respected with a PhD in Anthropology, and a tenured position at a well respected university (UCLA) who published widely on shamanism, and many purchased a lot of his books. However, we found out later that he was writing fiction and passing it off as factual scientific research.
@JoeJacari However, my research does not at all support your premise that mystical phenomena manifests differently according to one's culture. But, I would agree that the pretentious priests of the various religions would certainly fabricate fantastic stories that would suit their audience to keep the coppers being dropped into the donation basket. For instance my case histories cross cultural boundaries and I have found stigmata-like phenomena manifesting among Buddhists and Hindus
@JoeJacari As an anthropologist, who studies mystics and mysticism as a participant observer, I am well aware of the wide range of reported psychic phenomena, and I indeed have personal experience, and I have gathered case histories of living mystics today who manifest some of these phenomena. However, most of these phenomena are subjective and not objective. Thus my data does not support most of the reports of objective psychic phenomena
@JoeJacari Very interesting, while I have studied the mystics of the major religions, and everyone of them has miracles associated with them; nonetheless modern day mystics manifest none of the objective miracles, while manifesting all of the subjective ones. Thus I have concluded objective miracles are the product of various motives, such as: an entrenched priesthood who want job security; and devotees who want to be associated with a miracle.
@JoeJacari As an anthropologist, who studies mystics and mysticism as a participant observer, then I reason if enlightenment is real, and not just delusion, then enlightenment and its associated subjective and objective phenomena must cross the barriers of religion. However, while in Catholicism incorporiality is saintly; in Tibetan Buddhism complete dissolutionment of the body is what they look for in a saint, whose body supposedly turned into a rainbow. So, which is it going to be?
St. Teresa of Avila 1515-1582, Spain, (Group I: Stigmata, Miracles, Angels, Incorruptibility)
Her heart is preserved and kept on display at the Carmelite Church of Alba de Tormes. "That heart, transfixed by an Angel with an arrowhead symbolizing the love of God...seems to go on living independent of its owner: it swells, bursts into flame and breaks its crystal container." Extensive examination of this incorruptible bit of flesh, by doctors, provides detailed description.
@JoeJacari @JoeJacari Thank-you for posting your most interesting comment. My research shows that while many of the subjective experiences of the mystics are true, such as the ecstatic altered states of consciousness of the contemplation is true, so are the OOBE; however, the magic tricks such as levitation, are not supported. Also, as an archaeologist I know that incorporiality manifests under environmental conditions, such as cool and dry, and does not require sainthood
I must say of all the descriptions I have EVER heard of Suka/Piti, St Theresa's words about having her "heart pierced by and angel's spear" is about the closest thing I have ever heard to fitting the actual felt expereince of entering Jhana. I think it even out does the Buddha's simile about the lake being replenished from an underground source.Transverberation they call it in Christian mystic circles.
@dharmasack Thank-you for posting your contributions to this video. I have read some of the Christian and eastern mystics and find many of their descriptions quite similar. In the case of Teresa's heart being pierced, it sounds more like the opening of the heart chakra, which, in my experience, is beyond the experience of the 4 jhanas. Just as the kundalini rising is also outside of the four jhanas; however, they are all interrelated.
@Jhananda I meant it in terms of the sukha/piti characteristics that relate to the Buddha's simile of the lake. For some reason, for me, the nimitha arises as a particular physical sensation rather than as a light, it's not common that this happens, but for some people it does. Usually it's rare though because the dhatu of sight is so much more subtile and refined than that of physical sensation. I guess I am just a caveman like that. ;)
@dharmasack my research shows that while some mystics see visions, others may hear sounds, and others may feel tactile sensations, and others might experience kinesthetic and others, smell or taste, etc, and some mystics may have some combination of the above charisms. If you can see the relationship of all of these charisms you can see that they are sense oriented. Thus, I have concluded that one manifestation is no better than the other. It is just different strokes for different folks
I really like the Christian Mystics, Meister Eckhart is another who I find talks in Jhanaic terms. The Mystics definitely understood the state with thought and the state without thought as being a threshold of sorts. They didn't describe it as Vitakka, Vicara, but close enough.
@dharmasack I agree, while there are differences in description from mystics of one culture to another; nonetheless, there are remarkable similarities, such as the stilling of the mind being a threshold to deeper charisms.
When I hear you speak it is all so very clear. Makes me wonder what all the argument is about among the various groups. If we could even just all agree that there is in fact a naturally occuring state of consciousness (without the use of substances) that can be arrived at from spiritual practice, what a long way we would have come. Thanks again for your continued good works.
@jillatay Yes, Jill I agree, if others disagree with the findings of myself and other rigorous contemplatives, such as yourself and Michael Hawkins, then it suggests that those who rain down offensive comments upon us, must not be rigorous contemplatives. Since it is the Buddhist orthodoxy who is greatly offended by our work, then it suggests the Buddhist orthodoxy does not understand the dhamma.
@adreampuppet Thank-you Michael for your continued support. Mystics must support each other, because no one else is going to, and people need to see a group of people who are well-behaved who sing in harmony with each other, for them to consider jumping on board
what´s the point of talking about terminology? Just get into the deep state.
ruzickaw 1 month ago
@ruzickaw Well, a lot of people get confused when they meditate deeply because there are some pretty bazaar phenomena that arise when one meditates deeply. And, when we go to our meditation teachers most them do not seem to meditate deeply, because most of them have no idea about the various meditation phenomena (charisms).
Jhananda 1 month ago
@Jhananda Not to give any theoretical explanation is the best. Just sit down and what comes up (like pain in the back or the knees) take it as a meditation object. That is enough to start with. Meditation is a gradual process. Jhana is not ecstasis.Jhana (Dhyana) is meditation which leads to absorbtion (samadhi). Ecstasis is being out of oneself, with even loss of clear consciousness. THere is no need to tell the people about the difference.
Whatsoever comes up, just observe it.
ruzickaw 1 month ago
@ruzickaw Well, I agree that it is best to use the charisms that arise during meditation as meditation objects, just as pain is often used by contemplatives; however, most meditation teachers tell meditators to ignore the charisms as they arise.
Also, a fine point in translation is the Pali term 'Jhana' was mistranslated as 'dhyana' about 21 centuries ago when the Pali canon was translated into Sanskrit, which has resulted in misunderstanding the jhana is just meditation. It is not.
Jhananda 1 month ago
@Jhananda Again, no need for semantic discussion, what means what. Feel it.
When i entered for the first time a buddhist meditation center in Sri Lanka, i got only basic instraction: Sit, walk, observe the breath, keep the mind in the here and now. How to do it , i have to find out by myself. Meditators should not given everything digested. Each one has to
struggle to find his own method. All this talk about self-knowledge and self-awareness is usless. There is no self.
ruzickaw 1 month ago
@Jhananda - you do not know to whom you speak - you are 50 yrs too late with that question - speaking of naive. Occultism does not exist except as self-knowledge which IS the path of the mystic - or is that too deep for you?
sandraeggers 6 months ago
@sandraeggers I agree self-knowledge which IS the path of the mystic; however, few occultists I met and read seemed to be interested in self-knowledge, or self-awareness. I would argue that anyone who is pursues self-knowledge and self-awareness is a contemplative, not an occultists. However, one does not become a mystic until one has developed the ecstatic, altered states of consiouseness of contemplation (samadhi).
Jhananda 6 months ago
There is no dichotomy between occultism and mysticism. Mysticism embodies occultism - occult simply means hidden - occultism or the use of hidden knowledge is something mystics necessarily do as the occult or hidden or supernatural aspects of knowledge reveal themselves to them. Any attempt to analyze and differentiate the occult from mysticism as a path and activity is simply naive.
sandraeggers 6 months ago
@sandraeggers we are naive when we never unpack our belief systems. I have unpacked mine. Have you?
Jhananda 6 months ago
@Jhananda
In the story "The Rooster and the Tortoise" by Dr. Malachi Martin (three PhDs) in his book HOSTAGE TO THE DEVIL, we have the testimony of a well-known psychologist (Princeton/Stanford/Cambridge), Vipassana meditator, who became demonically possessed and levitated in front of his students. His testimony on what happened, how he was trapped and freed during an exorcism, is in that book.
Keep an open mind. Read for yourself. Very fascinating!.
JoeJacari 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari I look forward to you comparing my work and videos to your mystical experiences, both subjective and objective.
Jhananda 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari I would like very much to be able to post links to my website on Youtube, but for some reason Youtube will not allow it. However, if you check my YouTube channel you will find a link to my website the greatwesternvehicle dot o-r-g. Or, search Google for it.
Jhananda 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari it is very nice to see people site sources, thank-you. My writing also sports lots of sources. However, I fail to see how my responses to you are dismissive. Just because I do not agree with some of your premises and reading does not mean that I am being dismissive. I simply have my own observations, research and conclusions that do not agree with yours. So, why are you being combative?
Jhananda 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari My observations and research shows that mystics manifest Stigmata and/or halos, and thus such phenomena is not at all culturally specific.
You can find my CV on line at the Great Western Vehicle dot org website
Jhananda 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari I am not resorting to ad hominem responses.
Anyone who receives a PhD in Anthropology and a tenured teaching position at any highly respected university, such as UCLA, is therefore "highly respected." However, I would agree that since Carlos Castaneda's writing revealed nothing about the Yaqui people, and he was writing fiction and passing it off as fact, does not say much about the teaching faculty of the Anthropology department at UCLA.
Jhananda 1 year ago
@JoeJacari I am familiar with M. Scott Peck, MD and I have read some of his work, and respect it. So, since I am not familiar with the book, and I was not present for the event reported in the book, then I will have to reserve my critique, other than to say the premises stated in your paragraph regarding the event are not supported by my personal observations and research.
Jhananda 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari As an anthropologist, who studies mystics and mysticism as a participant observer, I am by definition a scientist with a wide open mind. Nonetheless, science is defined by the repeatable experiment. If the conditions are the same, then the results must be the same. thus, I find the story of the guy with the three PhDs levitating in front of his students due to demonic possession too fantastic, and is not supported by my 40 years of spiritual observations
Jhananda 1 year ago
@JoeJacari For instance Carlos Castaneda is an example of a person who was highly respected with a PhD in Anthropology, and a tenured position at a well respected university (UCLA) who published widely on shamanism, and many purchased a lot of his books. However, we found out later that he was writing fiction and passing it off as factual scientific research.
Jhananda 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari However, my research does not at all support your premise that mystical phenomena manifests differently according to one's culture. But, I would agree that the pretentious priests of the various religions would certainly fabricate fantastic stories that would suit their audience to keep the coppers being dropped into the donation basket. For instance my case histories cross cultural boundaries and I have found stigmata-like phenomena manifesting among Buddhists and Hindus
Jhananda 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari As an anthropologist, who studies mystics and mysticism as a participant observer, I am well aware of the wide range of reported psychic phenomena, and I indeed have personal experience, and I have gathered case histories of living mystics today who manifest some of these phenomena. However, most of these phenomena are subjective and not objective. Thus my data does not support most of the reports of objective psychic phenomena
Jhananda 1 year ago
Comment removed
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari Very interesting, while I have studied the mystics of the major religions, and everyone of them has miracles associated with them; nonetheless modern day mystics manifest none of the objective miracles, while manifesting all of the subjective ones. Thus I have concluded objective miracles are the product of various motives, such as: an entrenched priesthood who want job security; and devotees who want to be associated with a miracle.
Jhananda 1 year ago
@JoeJacari As an anthropologist, who studies mystics and mysticism as a participant observer, then I reason if enlightenment is real, and not just delusion, then enlightenment and its associated subjective and objective phenomena must cross the barriers of religion. However, while in Catholicism incorporiality is saintly; in Tibetan Buddhism complete dissolutionment of the body is what they look for in a saint, whose body supposedly turned into a rainbow. So, which is it going to be?
Jhananda 1 year ago
St. Teresa of Avila 1515-1582, Spain, (Group I: Stigmata, Miracles, Angels, Incorruptibility)
Her heart is preserved and kept on display at the Carmelite Church of Alba de Tormes. "That heart, transfixed by an Angel with an arrowhead symbolizing the love of God...seems to go on living independent of its owner: it swells, bursts into flame and breaks its crystal container." Extensive examination of this incorruptible bit of flesh, by doctors, provides detailed description.
For real...
JoeJacari 1 year ago
@JoeJacari @JoeJacari Thank-you for posting your most interesting comment. My research shows that while many of the subjective experiences of the mystics are true, such as the ecstatic altered states of consciousness of the contemplation is true, so are the OOBE; however, the magic tricks such as levitation, are not supported. Also, as an archaeologist I know that incorporiality manifests under environmental conditions, such as cool and dry, and does not require sainthood
Jhananda 1 year ago
I must say of all the descriptions I have EVER heard of Suka/Piti, St Theresa's words about having her "heart pierced by and angel's spear" is about the closest thing I have ever heard to fitting the actual felt expereince of entering Jhana. I think it even out does the Buddha's simile about the lake being replenished from an underground source.Transverberation they call it in Christian mystic circles.
dharmasack 1 year ago
@dharmasack Thank-you for posting your contributions to this video. I have read some of the Christian and eastern mystics and find many of their descriptions quite similar. In the case of Teresa's heart being pierced, it sounds more like the opening of the heart chakra, which, in my experience, is beyond the experience of the 4 jhanas. Just as the kundalini rising is also outside of the four jhanas; however, they are all interrelated.
Jhananda 1 year ago
@Jhananda I meant it in terms of the sukha/piti characteristics that relate to the Buddha's simile of the lake. For some reason, for me, the nimitha arises as a particular physical sensation rather than as a light, it's not common that this happens, but for some people it does. Usually it's rare though because the dhatu of sight is so much more subtile and refined than that of physical sensation. I guess I am just a caveman like that. ;)
dharmasack 1 year ago
@dharmasack my research shows that while some mystics see visions, others may hear sounds, and others may feel tactile sensations, and others might experience kinesthetic and others, smell or taste, etc, and some mystics may have some combination of the above charisms. If you can see the relationship of all of these charisms you can see that they are sense oriented. Thus, I have concluded that one manifestation is no better than the other. It is just different strokes for different folks
Jhananda 1 year ago
That's a good vid, and points well made.
I really like the Christian Mystics, Meister Eckhart is another who I find talks in Jhanaic terms. The Mystics definitely understood the state with thought and the state without thought as being a threshold of sorts. They didn't describe it as Vitakka, Vicara, but close enough.
dharmasack 1 year ago
@dharmasack I agree, while there are differences in description from mystics of one culture to another; nonetheless, there are remarkable similarities, such as the stilling of the mind being a threshold to deeper charisms.
Jhananda 1 year ago
When I hear you speak it is all so very clear. Makes me wonder what all the argument is about among the various groups. If we could even just all agree that there is in fact a naturally occuring state of consciousness (without the use of substances) that can be arrived at from spiritual practice, what a long way we would have come. Thanks again for your continued good works.
jillatay 1 year ago
@jillatay Yes, Jill I agree, if others disagree with the findings of myself and other rigorous contemplatives, such as yourself and Michael Hawkins, then it suggests that those who rain down offensive comments upon us, must not be rigorous contemplatives. Since it is the Buddhist orthodoxy who is greatly offended by our work, then it suggests the Buddhist orthodoxy does not understand the dhamma.
Jhananda 1 year ago
Thank you, Jeffrey, for another informative and insightful presentation.
adreampuppet 1 year ago
@adreampuppet Thank-you Michael for your continued support. Mystics must support each other, because no one else is going to, and people need to see a group of people who are well-behaved who sing in harmony with each other, for them to consider jumping on board
Jhananda 1 year ago