According to the teaching priorities of both
T Krishnamacharya and TKV Desikachar,
meditation could only be learnt within a 121
relationship, where a practice is sculptured
and fired according to the clay of the student.
In the Indian tradition some Mantra
are known as Mahāvakya or great sayings.
They express and re-mind us, in both
a mystical and poetical way, of the
presence of the eternal Awareness
within the everyday flux of existence.
There is one such Mahāvakya, renowned
and beautiful in its profound simplicity as
a heuristic means for revelation, whether
your Sādhana traverses either of two paths.
Either, the Sādhana path of Jñana Dhyānam
or, the Sādhana path of Bhakti Dhyānam.
Namely:
तत् त्वम् असि
Tat Tvam Asi ॥
“That Thou Art”
– Paul Harvey on Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.8.7
Dhāraṇā has three distinct, cyclical phases,
from a placing of awareness on the focus,
to an awareness of observation wandering,
to a re-placing of awareness on the focus.
There was a time when folks were
confused as to what is Meditation.
Now I wonder if folks are more
confused as to what isn’t Meditation?
Better not to confuse what are
merely meditational practices,
with the practice of meditation.
The former may be taught as a
learning step towards the latter.
The latter is something that really
can’t be taught, but can be learnt.
In Meditation the most
difficult exercise for
the mind, is the one of
not exercising the mind.
Krishnamacharya taught that a Samāhita Citta
was a prerequisite starting point for Meditation.
If so, how do we relate to the modern phenomenon
that a Vikṣepa Citta can be a starting point for Meditation?
Unless perhaps we discern that here it isn’t actually Meditation?
