So here's a question. It's been a topic in some form or another several times lately, on another message board I play on.
The Question: What are the differences and/or similarities between chakra meditation and vipasanna (awareness meditation)? This is a deep question, so any thoughtful answers are appreciated. This is something I want to figure out. On a surface level, the answer is obviously that they are different, but as I examine the gray area, it becomes so large that I can no longer see them separately.
And it's not just the message board, it's me. When I first learned what "true" or "pure" meditation was, there was a train of thought that began to have a negative view of the use of will during chakra meditation, not a belief, but a consideration. OTOH, another train of thought suggests that being a physical entity presupposes the use of will on some level or another, and the thought that any focus of will during meditation is a fallacy, is false.
The distinction here is that awareness is not an act of will, and that everything else is, whether done consciously or sub-consciously.
My answer. And keep in mind I'm not enlightened so I'm just guessing in part.
The ideal state of vipasanna is a state no mind. What this means is that there is no focal point of mind, there is only formless awareness with no center. ANYTHING else is a focus of some sort, which begets the creation of form, a center, a reference point. One angle is that all mechanisms of willful thought have dropped below the level of consciousness. It is this training of "no mind" during vipasanna that allows a person to change.
The problem is that people can practice zen for years and years, chasing perfection. Very few people become zen masters, and very few are those who become enlightened. I'm not suggesting that vipasanna is useless, but it seems to be a passive practice.
OTOH, chakra meditation can be as active as the meditator wishes, so long as the meditator is willing. At times, this can be bad, almost as if it could be abusive, trying to kill a beast that won't die. At other times, it's empowering and there is almost "too much light" (which is a good thing). But there is another side to chakra meditation that could be considered more pure. It's about allowing. It could almost be referred to as focused vipasanna, even though the phrase is a paradox.
I'm beginning to see that there are two distinct types of chakra meditation. As I look back, I can see that I've utilized both. Neither are bad in any way, but there is the possibility of being stuck trying to idealize one mode over the other. In either case, a person can chase a previous experience. When something is successful, there is a tendency to follow the same footsteps. The main fault of chakra meditation is to fail to know when to "switch gears".
Passive chakra meditation is feminine. Instead of forcing the movement of energy, there is an asking. The asking is the only form of will used, and is a centering of awareness on the chakras. It's accepting, and compassionate, kind and forgiving, hopeful and patient.
Active chakra meditation is masculine. Instead of asking, the movement of energy is created by force of will. Kundalini is brought forth on demand, and chakras are "spun". Things happen, changes are made.
The thing I'm realizing is that failure to embrace one results in overuse and corruption of the other. This is the way of chakra meditation, playing with polarity. I'm beginning to see that perhaps chakra meditation leads into vipasanna. It's an integration of the masculine and feminine, a balance, that I now seek. The more balanced I become, the less focus there will need to be on chakras, but it takes playing with polarity to get there.
Many people report great success within 2-6 years of chakra meditation. Vipasanna is nice, but it's the kind of thing I would have laughed at before I discovered chakra meditation. It seems like trying to go from A to Z, skipping everything in between. It seems like something that comes after a person has played with the energies of polarity. It seems to defeat the point of having the experience of life, as painful as it may be. If a person idealizes "no mind", does that not presuppose "mind"?
I hope you see what I'm getting at. So what is the difference between chakra meditation and vipasanna? Which would you recommend for beginners? What results have you had?
-------------------- rahz
comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace I am I feel I do I love I speak I see I know
why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.
|