Hello Instructors,
I have a question about comprehension.
It seems from my study and practice that there are perhaps two slightly different approaches to reaching comprehension – I could be wrong, so your input would be greatly appreciated
First approach: The student simply holds the object he wants to comprehend in his awareness. And comprehension arises spontaneously from that awareness, without the need for any form of thought or analysis. Comprehension arises spontaneously.
As Samael Aun Weor writes, “The meditation became exhaustive, it became more and more profound, and when I was feeling dismayed, I left the mind in quietude and in silence as if waiting for some revelation; the truth came in those instants.” – The Three Mountains
Second approach: The student engages in some form of analysis regarding the object he wants to comprehend – he looks into the facts of the object in order to come to a better understanding of that object.
The analysis of the female body in Nagarjuna’s Precious Garland seems to be a good example of this approach: the student analyses the facts of the human body – the constituents of the human body – in order to come to a better understanding/perspective of the body, which serves to dampen faulty cognitions, such as lust or attachment. So this clearer understanding does not arise spontaneously, as in the first approach. Rather, it is the product of a deliberate and logical analysis.
Samael Aun Weor writes, “It is possible to transform mechanical reactions through logical confrontation and the intimate Auto-reflection of the Being.” – Revolutionary Psychology
Both these approaches seem to have the same goal: to arrive at a clearer understanding of the object in question. And in both approaches, comprehension arises from the same source – the awareness. But the routes taken to produce this comprehension seem to differ slightly. In the second approach, the student deliberately engages in analysis in order to try and attain some form of comprehension. But in the first approach, no such analytic effort is made – the student simply waits for the new perspective to arise spontaneously.
I was wondering, could you perhaps help me understand the relationship between these two approaches? Are they both equally valid? Is one better than the other? Do they both lead to comprehension?
Thank you
I have a question about comprehension.
It seems from my study and practice that there are perhaps two slightly different approaches to reaching comprehension – I could be wrong, so your input would be greatly appreciated
First approach: The student simply holds the object he wants to comprehend in his awareness. And comprehension arises spontaneously from that awareness, without the need for any form of thought or analysis. Comprehension arises spontaneously.
As Samael Aun Weor writes, “The meditation became exhaustive, it became more and more profound, and when I was feeling dismayed, I left the mind in quietude and in silence as if waiting for some revelation; the truth came in those instants.” – The Three Mountains
Second approach: The student engages in some form of analysis regarding the object he wants to comprehend – he looks into the facts of the object in order to come to a better understanding of that object.
The analysis of the female body in Nagarjuna’s Precious Garland seems to be a good example of this approach: the student analyses the facts of the human body – the constituents of the human body – in order to come to a better understanding/perspective of the body, which serves to dampen faulty cognitions, such as lust or attachment. So this clearer understanding does not arise spontaneously, as in the first approach. Rather, it is the product of a deliberate and logical analysis.
Samael Aun Weor writes, “It is possible to transform mechanical reactions through logical confrontation and the intimate Auto-reflection of the Being.” – Revolutionary Psychology
Both these approaches seem to have the same goal: to arrive at a clearer understanding of the object in question. And in both approaches, comprehension arises from the same source – the awareness. But the routes taken to produce this comprehension seem to differ slightly. In the second approach, the student deliberately engages in analysis in order to try and attain some form of comprehension. But in the first approach, no such analytic effort is made – the student simply waits for the new perspective to arise spontaneously.
I was wondering, could you perhaps help me understand the relationship between these two approaches? Are they both equally valid? Is one better than the other? Do they both lead to comprehension?
Thank you
Accepted Answer
Both are useful and necessary, and both are far from what they initially appear to be. Both are states of observation in meditation. Both depend upon active consciousness and passive mind. If the mind (intellect especially) is active, then one cannot access these techniques. This is the mistake beginners make: they believe that observation and analysis are acts of intellect: thought. They are not. Both occur without thought. The logical analysis described is a superior logic that occurs without intellectual activity.
The difference between them is a matter of pressure. In the non-analytical approach, one applies no pressure. This allow subtle insights to arise. In the analytical approach, one applies pressure of attention to the observed object, resulting in different kinds of insights.
When contemplating a given subject, sometimes you need to approach it directly, forcefully. Yet at other times, this yields no result. Sometimes, one needs to become invisible to the object in order to comprehend it.
The difference between them is a matter of pressure. In the non-analytical approach, one applies no pressure. This allow subtle insights to arise. In the analytical approach, one applies pressure of attention to the observed object, resulting in different kinds of insights.
When contemplating a given subject, sometimes you need to approach it directly, forcefully. Yet at other times, this yields no result. Sometimes, one needs to become invisible to the object in order to comprehend it.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
Accepted Answer
Both are useful and necessary, and both are far from what they initially appear to be. Both are states of observation in meditation. Both depend upon active consciousness and passive mind. If the mind (intellect especially) is active, then one cannot access these techniques. This is the mistake beginners make: they believe that observation and analysis are acts of intellect: thought. They are not. Both occur without thought. The logical analysis described is a superior logic that occurs without intellectual activity.
The difference between them is a matter of pressure. In the non-analytical approach, one applies no pressure. This allow subtle insights to arise. In the analytical approach, one applies pressure of attention to the observed object, resulting in different kinds of insights.
When contemplating a given subject, sometimes you need to approach it directly, forcefully. Yet at other times, this yields no result. Sometimes, one needs to become invisible to the object in order to comprehend it.
The difference between them is a matter of pressure. In the non-analytical approach, one applies no pressure. This allow subtle insights to arise. In the analytical approach, one applies pressure of attention to the observed object, resulting in different kinds of insights.
When contemplating a given subject, sometimes you need to approach it directly, forcefully. Yet at other times, this yields no result. Sometimes, one needs to become invisible to the object in order to comprehend it.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
- Page :
- 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Books
-
Books for Prisons