Meine Erfahrungen mit Meditation und Träumen unterscheiden sich in mancher Hinsicht NICHT von meinen Erfahrungen mit anderen Methoden wie der emotionalen Entlastungspsychotherapie. Alle Methoden haben mir ein besseres Verständnis für unbewusste Teile von mir gegeben, die dann nicht mehr unbewusst waren. Während die meisten mir bekannten Psychotherapien dazu neigen, zwischen dem Subjekt und den Emotionen zu unterscheiden, tendiert Meditation zur Aufmerksamkeit, und zur Distanz von der Seite des Subjekts zu den Emotionen und Gedanken (dem Verstand).
Ich sage tendiert, weil beide Methoden tatsächlich den Aspekt der anderen Methode enthalten. Es handelt sich also nicht um eine vollständige Trennung, sondern nur um eine Gewichtung eines Aspekts. Innerhalb der Logik kann ich nicht beides sagen: "Ich bin ängstlich" und "Ich bin nicht ängstlich".
Um dieses Paradoxon zu lösen, können wir zwei verschiedene Bewusstseinszustände unterscheiden: den nicht-meditativen und den meditativen. In der nicht-meditativen BIN Ich die Angst, weil ich es so erlebe, wenn Sie die Angst völlig zulassen und akzeptieren können. Ich spreche NICHT über die Situation, in der Sie versuchen, der Angst zu entkommen oder sie zu unterdrücken, weil sie unangenehm oder unerwünscht ist.
Im meditativen Zustand kann ich die Angst als außerhalb von mir selbst betrachten - dies ist ein theoretischer Aufbau, in der Praxis war ich selten in der Lage, dies zu tun, aber der Punkt ist, dass es möglich ist. Diese Bedingung setzt auch voraus, dass ich die totale Angst zulasse.
Dies ist Theorie, etwas anderes ist Praxis. Meine Erfahrung zeigt, dass ich musste durch die nicht-meditative Phase gehen (d. h. mich mit meinen Gefühle als Teil von mir zu identifizieren und akzeptieren), um zur meditativen Ebene zu gelangen. Alles abhängig davon, wann Sie mit einem bewusste mentale Entwicklung beginnen, viele Jahren von Unterdrückung von Emotionen bedeutet, dass man am Anfang buchstäblich spürt, auf einem Vulkan zu sitzen, der fast jeden Moment explodieren kann.
Die verdrängten Emotionen treten anfangs oft mit einer Intensität, die mir angst gemacht hat. Als ich vorher sagte, war es notwendig die nicht-meditative Phase durchlaufen, um zur meditativen Phase zu gelangen, heißt aber nicht, dass ich definitiv mit der nicht-meditativen Phase fertig bin. In der Praxis wird es als eine Bewegung durch mehrere Schichten der Psyche erlebt.
Wenn Sie in einer Ebene oder Situation ausreichend "tief" gehen, jedoch nur in Bezug auf diese Ebene oder diese bestimmte Situation, werden Sie möglicherweise mit einer neuen Ebene konfrontiert, die der vorherigen Ebene ähnlich sein kann, d. h. habe eine Verbindung dazu. Bildlich wirkt es wie eine ausgedehnte Spirale, die sich auf und ab bewegt.
Das Wesentliche und oft nicht verstandene (z.B. Janov: 'Primal scream') hat entweder - Punkt ist nicht die (Wieder-) Erlebnis eines verdrängten gefühls oder Muster, aber das Verständnis der Beziehung zwischen dem Verdrängten und dem neurotischen Muster, das man in seinem Alltag wiederholt. Dieses Verständnis wird von einem "Aha-Erlebnis" begleitet.
This spontaneous and coincidental intellectual and intuitive emotional overall understanding is the real understanding, unlike the solely intellectual understanding, which in this context is of no use. The acquisition of and the understanding of the combined works of Freud, Jung, Reich, Grof and Bhagwan helps nothing. The real understanding happens in practice, in the 'real life'.
Several thousand years ago, when they in the East did not live such a stressful life as we do today in the West, traditionael sitting meditation was sufficient to unlock the unconscious. Today we in the West, most of us need to use body therapies with emotional release in order to penetrate the muscle and character armor, with whick we protect our unconscious.
Therefore, psychotherapeutic techniques such as primal therapy, bioenergetics, gestalt therapy, encounter groups, etc. are so popular in the West now , where still more people are unable to cope with the pressure of the repressed emotions (and this is the statistically greatest motive for starting therapy) or being interested in living more.
The turning point in the paradox 'I am my emotions' and 'I am not my emotions' is not only a theoretical finesse, but rather a good advice when working in practice and having to relate to ones feelings. In strong and intense emotional outbreaks, one can feel so overwhelmed by an emotion, that one is experiencing being the emotion - although one can basically still say that one is not the emotion.
The most important thing is the attitude you have before and during the experience. If you upfront have believe that 'I am not my emotions', it can cause you not to dare letting go and let the emotion come true, ie. you suppress part of it.
On the other hand, if you are able to say 'I am my feelings', it may be easier to allow the complete emotion without repression. The hard thing in practice is, that you very easily identify the I and the witness with the attitude that says: 'I am not my emotions.'
As far as I can see I am trying to describe the difference between Yoga and Tantra - this model I have borrowed from Jes Bertelsen. Where he has it from, I do not know. Almost all other models of explanation and descriptions I have borrowed from Bhagwan. In my own personal development, I often encountered paradoxical phenomena, which I could not grasp until I read or heard Bhagwan.
Yoga maintains a conscious control by maintaining the object (eg, emotion) separated from the subject (witness). It seems difficult to keep the witness and the I separated.
Tantra surrenders 'consciously', ie. you try to 'give up' deliberately. This is also a paradox like "be spontaneous". The point is that you have to make so much effort to surrender, that you cannot exert yourself more, and precisely here the surrender is happens spontaneously! Tantra does not fight the flow of the river but floats along - and with awareness.
Both the yogic and the tantric method emphasize awareness, and both have the same goal, but the roads are different. Certain therapeutic techniques such as 're-birthing' and Bhagwan's dynamic meditation (in Danish originally called HU meditation), both of which are physically dynamic, ie. that they by special conscious breathing enhances the repressed emotions' possiblity to get to sight of the consciousness, have aspects of both yoga and tantra. You try to release the mind control simultaneously with a deliberate breathing. You try to flow and just be a witness.
In the beginning, it will be difficult not to express the repressed emotions - because of their intensity - but later you try to let the emotions come forth without expressing them. You try to see them as a movie rolling in front of your eyes. Although it may sound contradictory and intricate in this dualistic languages, however, it can be done.
Both Yoga's and Tantra's goals are the ego's disappearance, where only the witness is left. From a higher consciousness plan, it is two sides of the same case. To comparison, the way of love (Jesus') and meditation (Buddha) is expressed the same difference, which is only an analytical difference between a dualistic one plane of consciousness. In both the deep love and the deep, ie. real meditation disappears the ego.
One of the appealing aspects of love is the ability to experience the egoless state. The same is the case of sexual orgasm. In meditation is for many more difficult - even myself - to surrender in this state because there is no external physical 'uterus' surrender to. But in all three cases it is associated with great anxiety to surrender to a state of no letting go of the ego.
My experience shows that I had to go through the 'I am my emotions' phase to experience 'I'm not my emotions'. My experience of deep pain and death is probably the most powerful experience I have ever had in this regard.
In order to make it concrete, I have chosen some of Bhagwan's answers to someone who asks:
Bhagwan, cowardice and hypocrisy can also be beautiful? Can I accept both my cowardice, my stinginess, my hypocrisy, and a tendency towards privatism that you have called idiotics. If I accept these trends, how will I be free?
No matter how strange and contradictory it sounds, peace is always only to be found in the midst of the pain, never in flight or the fight against, what appears to be negative or painful.
This and the subsequent in this long quote has been some of the most important to me in my development. It has often been a guide for me, some sort of 'Just come, it does make hurt like Hell, but it's the only way, and there is light on the other side!' Ever since I first read something from Bhagwan - although at that time I was in the AAO, which also rejected Bhagwan at that time - I have, in my specific experiences, increasingly been confirmed this truth, even though it is probably so 'uncomfortable', because I always hoped, that there was a shorcut thru the pain.
'A very fundamental thing to remember is: Only union with psychological pain opens the door to liberation and transcendence, only union with psychological pain. Anything that is painful must be accepted, a dialogue with it must be established. It is you. There is no other way around it. the only way is to absorb it. ...
Psychological pain does not exist simply because of some painful stimuli or realities. The pain, on the other hand, is produced by interpretations of these facts and realities ....
You have a specific ego. This particular ego continues to constantly condemn cowardice. It is because of this condemnation and interpretation, that the pain occurs ....
Only when consciousness withdraws from the realities pain arises. You try to avoid facts like cowardice, fear, hatred, sadness. Do not withdraw. Avoidance creates the pain. Psychological pain is not contained in any emotion, but arises with the intention of avoiding. The moment you decide to avoid something, the pain arises.
In unity pain disappears. That's the division you create between the feeling — the fear, the hate — and yourself. You become two. You become the observed and the one, who observes. You say, 'I'm here, the one who observes, and there's pain, that observed, and I am not the pain.' This dualism creates pain. You are not the observed, you are not the one observing - you are both. You are both. Don't say, 'I feel pain.' That's a wrong way to put it. Don't say 'I'm scared.' Simply say, 'I'm afraid.' At this moment, 'I' is the fear. Do not divide ...
That's what Krishnamurti means when he keeps saying, 'The viewer is the viewed.' The viewer is the seen and the experience is the experienced - don't separate subject and object. That is the main reason for misery.'
Source: Danish magazine 'Rajneesh', year 5, no. 1
Bhagwan speaks from the level of the meditative state to the level of the mind to lead the questioner towards the level of the meditative state. I will try to describe the differences on the level of the mind, the level of the meditative state, and the enlightened level of consciousness.
Bhagwan and Krishnamurti both speak from the state of consciousness, where they are: the enlightened consciousness (often called Christ consciousness, Buddha consciousness or God consciousness).
The difficulty of understanding this, if one has not experienced a meditative state with awareness — provided it is at all possible to understand without such an experience (1) — is that we have learned from a child's perspective to see the world according to a certain agreement, but 'forgot' that it is an agreement. Or like Don Juan tries to explain Castaneda, who does NOT understand:
The world is such-and-such or so-and-so only because we tell ourselves that that is the way it is. If we stop telling ourselves that the world is so-and-so, the world will stop being so-and-so. At this moment I don't think you're ready for such a momentous blow (to be catapulted out of the level of the mind or the ego, where the subject is separated from the object and into the meditative state and possibly samadhi, My note.), therefore you must start slowly to undo the world. - 'to undo the world' I call to learn your unconscious, projections, neurotic patterns etc., my note. (Castaneda: A separate reality, p. 219)
(1) Before I had a meditative experience myself, I could neither understand or imagine how it might be experienced. I believed in the words and the possibility. What I have previously called total understanding is according to my own definition not possible without the experience itself.
In the hope of not increasing the confusion, I will try to illustrate the experience of the meditative state, in which 'the viewer is the viewed', by the diametrical opposite of the meditative state — diametrical, in terms of the intensity of awareness — namely, by the experience we popularly call 'to fall into spell.' And from the following example we can see that the meditative state may have different degrees of awareness. I've been in both a meditative state with no awareness ('into spell') and in state with 100% awareness (samadhi or satori).
See my previous description, where I for a brief moment experienced exceeding our normal definition of the usual reality with full awareness. Whether my awareness was really 100% I can neither be sure nor 'prove', but it matches the descriptions of samadhi from Bhagwan.
In the commendable book 'THE BOOK, On the Taboo against knowing who you are' Watts writes about approaching death and the experience of death - as 'only' is the death of the ego! - in a similar tantric way like Bhagwan in the previous long quote (THE BOOK, p. 36):
'If you are afraid of death, be afraid. The point is to get with it, to let it take over - fear, ghosts, pains, transience, dissolution and all. And then comes the hitherto unbelievable surprise: you don't die, because you were never born. You had just forgotten, who you are.'
Those readers who have experienced the fear of death and the fear of total surrender, will agree, that 'words are poor' to describe it.
My samadhi experience described earlier was anything but voluntary, but I had no other resort - if we disregard suicide, which basically is the same, to escape the mind - because of distress. And what Watts says in the quote is a thousand times easier said than done. There has to be a lot, that is 100% confidence (eg to a person who has come through) or courage voluntarily to take the chance into the unknown because it is so shocking compared to our normal view of reality and of who we are.
If I had not read or heard that death was 'only' the death of the mind or of the ego and the fear of experiencing this was immense and possibly associated with suicidal thoughts, I consider it very likely that I had tried suicide. When I found myself in all the hopelessness, the pointlessness, that darkest darkness and the physical pain of my stomach ulcer, I suddenly realised, why so many people in this situation choose to commit suicide.
I have to honestly admit that at the time I was scared to death and fucking scared, and all this I do not write to scare others, but hopefully to help. It is terrible and horrible, but it is not the death, that we learn about in our Christian culture. I'm still scared to experience it, but not so much as I was then and I think, that is important.
Now back to the text, where I try to describe, through an example, the meditative state and samadhi. The characteristic of the meditative state is thus the experience of 'non-difference' between the viewer and the viewed, and this state can be experienced with varying degrees of awareness. The following quote is a description in Jung's terminology:
> > > Egoloser Bevusstseinszustand