Time Dedicated to Worship/Prayer, Meditation, and/or Silent Contemplation

[JustGeorge]

@River Sea

I'm more of a reader to the discussion at this point, but I believe @SalixIncendium said @Bharat Jhunjhunwala was being lazy because he wouldn't read the scripture @SalixIncendium was hoping he would. @Vinayaka kindly found the scripture for him.

I don't think he was calling his belief lazy, or implying that he lies around all day.

 

[Vinayaka]

@River Sea

I'm more of a reader to the discussion at this point, but I believe @SalixIncendium said @Bharat Jhunjhunwala was being lazy because he wouldn't read the scripture @SalixIncendium was hoping he would. @Vinayaka kindly found the scripture for him.

I don't think he was calling his belief lazy, or implying that he lies around all day.

From how I see it, It was only with regard to not looking up the Upanishad for himself. Lazy in the same sense as when folks ask a question that could easily be answered by a simple search.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala @Vinayaka @SalixIncendium

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala is not lazy.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala shared his personal experience, while you @SalixIncendium claim him to be lazy. Why do you claim @Bharat Jhunjhunwala is lazy?

So basically, @Bharat Jhunjhunwala has a different perspective, and yet you, @SalixIncendium call @Bharat Jhunjhunwala lazy.

First, I did not call him lazy. I told him not to be lazy about reading what he asked me to provide. There is a distinct difference.

As to why, he asked for scripture, I gave him the Upanishad, and rather than read it, he demanded a verse out of context.

I don't find quoting verses out of context useful, as they are commonly misinterpreted without the context of the Upanishad.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not quite sure how to answer this. No time for prayer/worship/or formal meditation. But I do a lot of silent contemplation (usually of math, physics, or history). Does that count? I certainly feel more peaceful after....

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I have low expectations as well. The very idea of Brahman having desires is outside my thinking, but when you equate Brahman with the God of Abraham, as many anti-Hindu Christian translators did, it seems sadly possible. But it also shows how ridiculously out of touch they were.

He, who is permeating the mind, who has Prāna for his body, whose nature is consciousness, whose resolve is infallible, whose own form is like Ākāsha, whose creation is all that exists, whose are all the pure desires, who possesses all the agreeable odors and all the pleasant tastes, who exists pervading all this… (Chhandogya Upanishad 3:14:2-3).
In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of Purusha. He looking round saw nothing but his Self… He feared… He thought, “As there is nothing but myself, why should I fear.” But he felt no delight… He wished for a second… He then made this his Self to fall in two, and thence arose husband and wife (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1:4:1-3).
In the beginning, dear boy, this was Being alone, one only, without a second… That Being willed, "May I become many, may I grow forth." It created fire. That fire willed, "May I become many, may I grow forth.” It created water (Chhandogya Upanishad 6:2:1-3).

 

[SalixIncendium]

This is precisely what I mean by what I said above about misinterpreting verses taken out of context.

He, who is permeating the mind, who has Prāna for his body, whose nature is consciousness, whose resolve is infallible, whose own form is like Ākāsha, whose creation is all that exists, whose are all the pure desires, who possesses all the agreeable odors and all the pleasant tastes, who exists pervading all this… (Chhandogya Upanishad 3:14:2-3).

Read with verse 1...

All this is Brahman. Everything comes from Brahman, everything goes back to Brahman, and everything is sustained by Brahman. One should therefore quietly meditate on Brahman. Each person has a mind of his own. What a person wills in his present life, he becomes when he leaves this world. One should bear this in mind and meditate accordingly.​

This is the person meditating on the Self as Brahman. These are not the qualities of Brahman.

In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of Purusha. He looking round saw nothing but his Self… He feared… He thought, “As there is nothing but myself, why should I fear.” But he felt no delight… He wished for a second… He then made this his Self to fall in two, and thence arose husband and wife (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1:4:1-3).

Again, meaningless out of context. Read the entire Upanishad.

Verse 1.2.1...

There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was covered only by Death (Hiraṇyagarbha), or Hunger, for hunger is death. He created the mind, thinking, ‘Let me have a mind.’[1] He moved about worshipping (himself). As he was worshipping, water was produced. (Since he thought), ‘As I was worshipping, water sprang up,’ therefore Arka (fire) is so called. Water (or happiness) surely comes to one who knows how Arka (fire) came to have this name of Arka.​

In the beginning, Brahman is nirguna. "Beginning" implies time, which implies Maya. Brahman is without time (or space...or causation).

In the beginning, dear boy, this was Being alone, one only, without a second… That Being willed, "May I become many, may I grow forth." It created fire. That fire willed, "May I become many, may I grow forth.” It created water (Chhandogya Upanishad 6:2:1-3).

This verse actually reinforces that Para Brahman is nirguna. "One without a second." Nondual. Without qualities.

Through the power of Maya, Brahman becomes saguna.


You would do well to stop verse-mining.

Also, this is not a debate thread, so you would also do well to stop debating.

 

[chinu]

How many hours in a typical week do you currently spend in dedicated worship/prayer, meditation, and/or silent contemplation outside of everyday secular activity?

"0" Zero seconds in a week.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Everything comes from Brahman,

How can it come out unless Brahman has desires?

These are not the qualities of Brahman.

What is it then, if everything comes out of IT?

He created the mind, thinking, ‘Let me have a mind.’

Why did he create if no desire?

"Beginning" implies time, which implies Maya

Where from did Maya arise?

Para Brahman is nirguna. "One without a second." Nondual. Without qualities.

On this I agree. But Nirguna does not mean desireless.

stop debating.

Agree.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Agree.

Then why do you persist?

 

[Vinayaka]

Then why do you persist?

It's a habit, when you have the 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. There is an aura of contrariness. There is no point responding. Let's go back to the topic.

Besides time involved, there is also the factor of intensity. Will power goes a long way on the ability to go in, and in, and in, and then in some more. But amazing as it sounds, realized beings have to use will to come out of samadhi.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

I've never been much good at meditation tbh. I'm often distracted by stray thoughts, outside sounds or one of my legs hurting. I can calm myself, but never clear my mind or fall into deep meditation. I personally prefer instrumental music to distract me.

 

[Niatero]

Leaves fluttering in the breeze

I was standing there
Looking at a tree
And I remembered who
My God is to Me

I need to get out more.

 

[Tomef]

How many hours in a typical week do you currently spend in dedicated worship/prayer, meditation, and/or silent contemplation outside of everyday secular activity? I'm not talking about a quick petition to your god to help you find your car keys or get a job or living in accordance with your religious or spiritual views, but dedicated practice.

If you would like to indicate which of the above practices you perform, feel free to do so below.

And preemptively, no, posting on RF doesn't count.

Depends what else might be included I suppose. I think prayer is probably inwardly directed, to some part of ourselves we can’t, or can’t easily, access consciously, or (maybe) to a collective unconscious of some sort, as David Lynch seems to think.

So, anyway, a good few hours a week goes to silent reflection on various things, sometimes accompanied by prayer as described above.

 

[sayak83]

I will go the Madhyamaka route
The statement "Brahman has desires" is not true
The statement "Brahman has no desires" is also not true
The statement"Brahman has desires and also has no desires" is also not true.
The statement "Brahman neither has desires nor no desires " is also not true.
There is a telling statement in the Gita here that may be relevant "For any quality X, that X is in me, but I am not in that X, behold my Maya".
This point is important. In ordinary language when we say that subject S has a property P, then it is also tautologically true that the description of the subject S will involve that property P. So yellowness is in the Banana means we should describe banana as being yellow. But this is not true for Brahman. Since every property P and it's negation Not_P exists in Brahman simultaneously, Brahman cannot be said to be qualified by either having or not having that property. The general linguistic rule in Inapplicable. That is what is meant when we say Brahman being nirguna.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I will go the Madhyamaka route
The statement "Brahman has desires" is not true
The statement "Brahman has no desires" is also not true
The statement"Brahman has desires and also has no desires" is also not true.
The statement "Brahman neither has desires nor no desires " is also not true.
There is a telling statement in the Gita here that may be relevant "For any quality X, that X is in me, but I am not in that X, behold my Maya".
This point is important. In ordinary language when we say that subject S has a property P, then it is also tautologically true that the description of the subject S will involve that property P. So yellowness is in the Banana means we should describe banana as being yellow. But this is not true for Brahman. Since every property P and it's negation Not_P exists in Brahman simultaneously, Brahman cannot be said to be qualified by either having or not having that property. The general linguistic rule in Inapplicable. That is what is meant when we say Brahman being nirguna.

...and one reason why it is difficult, if not impossible, to describe Brahman with language. Brahman is not an object separate from the one attempting to describe it. The eye cannot gaze upon itself to see its what it is that is seeing.

 

[River Sea]

...and one reason why it is difficult, if not impossible, to describe Brahman with language. Brahman is not an object separate from the one attempting to describe it. The eye cannot gaze upon itself to see its what it is that is seeing.

There is no separation.