Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 15:09:49 GMT -5
Would it be fair to say that anyone stating that there is only one 'correct' approach is most likely to still be immersed in their own uncompleted approach. Seemingly unbeknowst? It may be more a matter of only being exposed to one approach rather than many. When one first steps on the pathless path, there is usually major confusion and massive ignorance. Some people follow only one approach because that's all they know about. A person who encounters Tibetan Buddhism, for example, may be given mantra recitation. If mantra recitation is the only approach they know, and if it leads to awakening, which it sometimes does, then the person may conclude that mantra recitation is the only worthwhile approach. Other people, by contrast, may be exposed to numerous different approaches, or they may meet many people who followed different approaches and attained freedom. Those who become familiar with numerous non-dual spiritual traditions will have a different understanding about pathways to freedom than those whose knowledge is limited to only one tradition. FWIW, some traditions only teach one limited approach whereas other traditions teach multiple approaches. Take Zen, for example. A beginning student may be given breath-counting as an initial exercise. Later, the student may be taught about breath following, feeling the breath, or being the breath, all of which are slightly different forms of meditation. The student may be told to do a listening practice or ATA-T while doing kinhin (a form a walking meditation). The student may be encouraged to do shikan taza or other forms of attentiveness. If the student eventually wakes up, who's to say which exercises contributed most significantly to that? All of the exercises increased attentiveness upon "what is" and helped the student "get out of his/her head." I primarily pursued four forms of ATA-T, and I think ATA-T has some significant advantages over other common forms of meditation, but I've met Tibetan Buddhists who woke up using mantras, and I know about other people who woke up pursuing mindfulness (ATA+T), yoga, koan contemplation, and many other approaches. Everyone's mileage will vary depending upon the broadness of their experience and their open-mindedness about alternate pathways. Ok thanks, I understand. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 11, 2016 15:11:22 GMT -5
Oh yeah, sure. That happens too. We'd probably all be insane if that didn't happen occasionally. Funny thing about meditation is that, since there isn't much outside stimulus, mind really revs up. Especially with beginning meditators. I lose a lot of attendees that way - they can't handle it. Maybe those are the ones that would do better with a mantra. Just a side thought. From my own experience and observing and listening to the descriptions of the experience of others, it seems to me that some of us have an affinity for sitting still on our own with our eyes closed or fixed on something like a sunset, while others get uncomfortable when left alone in a room with their own thoughts. In fact, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are so many different methods of and approaches to meditation in part because of how peoples temperament and outlook vary. Absolutely. Although, I have to say that the first 6 months of meditating for me were not pleasant. The first silent weekend I attended, I actually became concerned for my sanity and left early!  Why I kept going is something I occasionally speculate about. Glad I did, though. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2016 16:16:52 GMT -5
From my own experience and observing and listening to the descriptions of the experience of others, it seems to me that some of us have an affinity for sitting still on our own with our eyes closed or fixed on something like a sunset, while others get uncomfortable when left alone in a room with their own thoughts. In fact, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are so many different methods of and approaches to meditation in part because of how peoples temperament and outlook vary. Absolutely. Although, I have to say that the first 6 months of meditating for me were not pleasant. The first silent weekend I attended, I actually became concerned for my sanity and left early! Why I kept going is something I occasionally speculate about. Glad I did, though. Sounds like my first three-day retreat. If there hadn't been other people there whose fortitude challenged my pride, I would probably have cut and run halfway through! Like you, I'm glad I didn't because major stuff started happening near the end of the second day. Life can be unpredictable like that. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 11, 2016 17:59:46 GMT -5
I mean by 'what is', noticing the 'dominance' of mind, if that's indeed the case. It might be realised like "wow, I never noticed my thoughts dominate me so much". That's what I refer to as an 'insight', becoming conscious of what previously went by unknown. Ok, I meant it in terms of a moment of clarity with the mind quiescent, which is commonly reported by most people relative to something external that's captured their attention. Stopping by Woods on a Snowy EveningBy Robert FrostWhose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound’s the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep. Insight is what constructs wisdom. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 11, 2016 21:18:39 GMT -5
A person can notice what is as soon as they start looking, and they can't start to look at 'what is' until they stop making it 'as they want it to be'. It's easy to experiment by just noticing 'what is' spontaneously arising in the mind, and then start a mantra or visualising, upon which you find you can longer be conscious of the spontaneously occurring mind , as 'it is'. not my experience. Looking, from the get-go, was distorted by my dominant mind. There was no "Oh, there's a thought" that wasn't immediately followed by a one-way ride into imagination, usually with side commentary and emotional content. Using breath awareness (and, I assume, a mantra would do this too) as a touch-stone settled that tendency. Of course, eventually that gets dropped as the mind becomes more settled. And then the looking begins. As I say, this is my experience. And it's not as linear as I'm describing. Just generally speaking, the ability to notice grew and the need to 'bring attention to breath' diminished. In actuality, my meditations have been all over the map at different times. I can see why you describe mantra as a kind of contrivance (making things as we want rather than as they are), but by that definition even sitting down to meditate is a contrivance. I guess it's all a contrivance. Contrivance definition: a thing that is created skillfully and inventively to serve a particular purpose :) I wonder if the difference in approach is tied to a difference in purpose. I seem to hear from you that the purpose of meditation is equanimity. Is that right? To me, that's one of the purposes but not the main one. Well, anyone can see that they are breathing, so it takes just that instant to see 'what is'. If that, in itself is not some sort of miracle... Usually people start a meditation program and first they notice their wild monkey mind. That's 'what is', and it can be alarming to realise just how highly distracted the mind is. You stop, though. You stop to look, and the mind is disrupted because it needs you to perpetuate that incessant activity. This is usually the sort if insight people get pretty much straight away- when they stop to look. At this point a lot of teachers incorporate something mantra like, counting breath or saying breathing in breathing out, and person feels better because they are no longer stopped - they sate the compulsion to do something. If they don't engage that activity, they get more disturbed on an emotional level, and they can then see how easily disturbed they are. this means, by the end of the first 20 minute sitting they found out quite a lot about themselves that they were not conscious of before. That's what I refer to as 'insight'. This is undervalued in the meditation discourse, but it is the most important thing in regards to becoming conscious. I don't describe mantra as a contrivance. I just point out; 1) it can't be noticed; and 2) you have to do it as an activity; and 3) it prevents you from seeing what spontaneously occurs in the mind. It is indeed a 'means to an end' where the activity is not the purpose itself. As far as I'm concerned, the volitional exercises have their own benefits, but I think people who understand meditation fundamentally wouldn't promote it. Indeed, none of the 'great teachers' do. I can't advocate observation 'just look' and also advocate a volitional exercise because the former defeats the latter. There is never a need to bring attention to breath, but the breath is misconstrued as 'an object of focus', and the whole host of aspects about becoming conscious of the wild monkey are not only over looked, but actively discouraged. Breath meditation is very nuanced, and the 'focus on breath and bring mind back again' kinda misses the point. As I said, teachers incorporate counting and so on because their idea is 'focus on breath'. My idea is 'get insight' - become aware of what''s going on with yourself - which entails the entire scope of mind/body dynamics. But really, although I advocate breath meditation in general, on this forum I just using it as a simple example to illustrate the fundamentals it can imply. Indeed. Practice is the cultivation of equanimity, nothing else, which is to be at peace with what is as it is in the way it currently experienced by you. This isn't about transcendentalism. It is about the reality of awareness within this moment, whatever that happens to be. Everything else is consequential. The 'high spirtitual path', then, is not to do with what is experienced - it is to do with that balance of mind within which experience can freely occur. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 21:59:46 GMT -5
That's not my experience. Looking, from the get-go, was distorted by my dominant mind. There was no "Oh, there's a thought" that wasn't immediately followed by a one-way ride into imagination, usually with side commentary and emotional content. Using breath awareness (and, I assume, a mantra would do this too) as a touch-stone settled that tendency. Of course, eventually that gets dropped as the mind becomes more settled. And then the looking begins. As I say, this is my experience. And it's not as linear as I'm describing. Just generally speaking, the ability to notice grew and the need to 'bring attention to breath' diminished. In actuality, my meditations have been all over the map at different times. I can see why you describe mantra as a kind of contrivance (making things as we want rather than as they are), but by that definition even sitting down to meditate is a contrivance. I guess it's all a contrivance. Contrivance definition: a thing that is created skillfully and inventively to serve a particular purpose  I wonder if the difference in approach is tied to a difference in purpose. I seem to hear from you that the purpose of meditation is equanimity. Is that right? To me, that's one of the purposes but not the main one. Well, anyone can see that they are breathing, so it takes just that instant to see 'what is'. If that, in itself is not some sort of miracle... Usually people start a meditation program and first they notice their wild monkey mind. That's 'what is', and it can be alarming to realise just how highly distracted the mind is. You stop, though. You stop to look, and the mind is disrupted because it needs you to perpetuate that incessant activity. This is usually the sort if insight people get pretty much straight away- when they stop to look. At this point a lot of teachers incorporate something mantra like, counting breath or saying breathing in breathing out, and person feels better because they are no longer stopped - they sate the compulsion to do something. If they don't engage that activity, they get more disturbed on an emotional level, and they can then see how easily disturbed they are. this means, by the end of the first 20 minute sitting they found out quite a lot about themselves that they were not conscious of before. That's what I refer to as 'insight'. This is undervalued in the meditation discourse, but it is the most important thing in regards to becoming conscious. I don't describe mantra as a contrivance. I just point out; 1) it can't be noticed; and 2) you have to do it as an activity; and 3) it prevents you from seeing what spontaneously occurs in the mind. It is indeed a 'means to an end' where the activity is not the purpose itself. As far as I'm concerned, the volitional exercises have their own benefits, but I think people who understand meditation fundamentally wouldn't promote it. Indeed, none of the 'great teachers' do. I can't advocate observation 'just look' and also advocate a volitional exercise because the former defeats the latter. There is never a need to bring attention to breath, but the breath is misconstrued as 'an object of focus', and the whole host of aspects about becoming conscious of the wild monkey are not only over looked, but actively discouraged. Breath meditation is very nuanced, and the 'focus on breath and bring mind back again' kinda misses the point. As I said, teachers incorporate counting and so on because their idea is 'focus on breath'. My idea is 'get insight' - become aware of what''s going on with yourself - which entails the entire scope of mind/body dynamics. But really, although I advocate breath meditation in general, on this forum I just using it as a simple example to illustrate the fundamentals it can imply. Indeed. Practice is the cultivation of equanimity, nothing else, which is to be at peace with what is as it is in the way it currently experienced by you. This isn't about transcendentalism. It is about the reality of awareness within this moment, whatever that happens to be. Everything else is consequential. The 'high spirtitual path', then, is not to do with what is experienced - it is to do with that balance of mind within which experience can freely occur. From reading your post, if I was your meditation student I wouldn't know what to actually do. When I teach someone meditation they know precisely what to do. It doesn't take long, a matter of days until they will say to me something like, "I suddenly found my mind was empty of thoughts and there was just awareness. It's the first time in my life I've experienced this. It surprised me". I've always liked the way Buddhism describes meditation as a skill. I like that word skill. Skill in meditation. Skill in action. The skill is in developing the discrimination between awareness and mind and there's a powerful way of doing that by using an object, in this case with mantra. The goal of meditation is to experience unbounded awareness. I don't accept any other definition. It is the cultivation of that turning back into awareness that results in the wisdom and insight of seeing what is. Wisdom comes from silence. What I have been describing is a sitting practice, but to complement that one should practice mindfulness in activity, but what I teach is not what you describe. I don't recognise mindfulness as being aware of bodily sensations and sitting with what just is. For me mindfulness is being mindful of awareness or more accurately we call it self inquiry. When my student tells me they now know what awareness is that's when I introduce self inquiry. Now that this awareness is experienced sometimes in activity also is when inquiry can work because there is an ability to locate that sense of awareness which has been cultivated as a result of the sitting practice using mantra, so it is easy to turn back to awareness in activity. That is the true meaning of mindfulness or inquiry. What you advise about being with bodily sensation as a "what is" experience doesn't go deep enough. Transcendence is crucial which is another way of saying we have to experience non dual awareness. Without that it's not meditation. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 12, 2016 3:07:34 GMT -5
I mean by 'what is', noticing the 'dominance' of mind, if that's indeed the case. It might be realised like "wow, I never noticed my thoughts dominate me so much". That's what I refer to as an 'insight', becoming conscious of what previously went by unknown. Yes, and in many cases that's one of the first major realizations that people have on the pathless path. Becoming free of those dominating thoughts usually involves a lot of other subsequent realizations. Sure, in my case there's not much about becoming free as it depends on which individual is in bondage or has freedom, and the main thing is the truth of the matter as it pertains the actual experience on any individual. I think setting up future freedom merely increase the egoic desire to 'special things', and instead, it can be framed as 'the truth will set you free, so that a pure inquiry in the truth will predominate the endeavour. For example if the desire to be trancsendental arises, meditation would recognise the current state of desire - rather than pursue the future experience of a transcendental state. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 3:16:28 GMT -5
Yes, and in many cases that's one of the first major realizations that people have on the pathless path. Becoming free of those dominating thoughts usually involves a lot of other subsequent realizations. Sure, in my case there's not much about becoming free as it depends on which individual is in bondage or has freedom, and the main thing is the truth of the matter as it pertains the actual experience on any individual. I think setting up future freedom merely increase the egoic desire to 'special things', and instead, it can be framed as 'the truth will set you free, so that a pure inquiry in the truth will predominate the endeavour. For example if the desire to be trancsendental arises, meditation would recognise the current state of desire - rather than pursue the future experience of a transcendental state. It would be incorrect practice to have such a desire. However one must recognise that the seeker has the desire for truth and according to scripture that is a prerequisite for finding it. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 12, 2016 5:33:15 GMT -5
The inquiry into the truth is not a desire for an experience. I question: what can be desired if there is no desire for an experience?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 6:27:29 GMT -5
The inquiry into the truth is not a desire for an experience. I question: what can be desired if there is no desire for an experience? There would be no inquiry into the truth if there was no desire for it. Why bother? But desire for what exactly? There is a desire but it is not possible to know the nature of this truth until it is known. Until then it is a conceptual idea, an imagining of what the truth is. So how can we explain the search for truth if we don't know what it is. There can only be one answer, and that is because we are already complete. We already know the truth but it is obscured by the veil of ignorance of identifying with objects and a personal self. If we weren't already complete, unlimited and free, nothing would motivate us to find it. There is a confused mix of identities, the unbounded universal I and the limited personal I. It's there. That's why we seek it. And when that shift occurs, four things happen. Firstly the final dissolution will happen unexpectedly. Secondly it will not be what you are expecting. Thirdly it will be so familiar you knew what it was all along. And fourthly, there will be absolutely no doubts of any kind about what has happened. This is the end of suffering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 6:30:16 GMT -5
This fella keeps it pretty simple... ZEN Shredding @zenshredding The apparent known is dependent on the Knowing & the Knowing is dependent on the Absolute; You-Are-The-Absolute - not the known or knower. mobile.twitter.com/zenshredding |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 12, 2016 7:29:34 GMT -5
Well, anyone can see that they are breathing, so it takes just that instant to see 'what is'. If that, in itself is not some sort of miracle... Usually people start a meditation program and first they notice their wild monkey mind. That's 'what is', and it can be alarming to realise just how highly distracted the mind is. You stop, though. You stop to look, and the mind is disrupted because it needs you to perpetuate that incessant activity. This is usually the sort if insight people get pretty much straight away- when they stop to look. At this point a lot of teachers incorporate something mantra like, counting breath or saying breathing in breathing out, and person feels better because they are no longer stopped - they sate the compulsion to do something. If they don't engage that activity, they get more disturbed on an emotional level, and they can then see how easily disturbed they are. this means, by the end of the first 20 minute sitting they found out quite a lot about themselves that they were not conscious of before. That's what I refer to as 'insight'. This is undervalued in the meditation discourse, but it is the most important thing in regards to becoming conscious. I don't describe mantra as a contrivance. I just point out; 1) it can't be noticed; and 2) you have to do it as an activity; and 3) it prevents you from seeing what spontaneously occurs in the mind. It is indeed a 'means to an end' where the activity is not the purpose itself. As far as I'm concerned, the volitional exercises have their own benefits, but I think people who understand meditation fundamentally wouldn't promote it. Indeed, none of the 'great teachers' do. I can't advocate observation 'just look' and also advocate a volitional exercise because the former defeats the latter. There is never a need to bring attention to breath, but the breath is misconstrued as 'an object of focus', and the whole host of aspects about becoming conscious of the wild monkey are not only over looked, but actively discouraged. Breath meditation is very nuanced, and the 'focus on breath and bring mind back again' kinda misses the point. As I said, teachers incorporate counting and so on because their idea is 'focus on breath'. My idea is 'get insight' - become aware of what''s going on with yourself - which entails the entire scope of mind/body dynamics. But really, although I advocate breath meditation in general, on this forum I just using it as a simple example to illustrate the fundamentals it can imply. Indeed. Practice is the cultivation of equanimity, nothing else, which is to be at peace with what is as it is in the way it currently experienced by you. This isn't about transcendentalism. It is about the reality of awareness within this moment, whatever that happens to be. Everything else is consequential. The 'high spirtitual path', then, is not to do with what is experienced - it is to do with that balance of mind within which experience can freely occur. From reading your post, if I was your meditation student I wouldn't know what to actually do. When I teach someone meditation they know precisely what to do. It doesn't take long, a matter of days until they will say to me something like, "I suddenly found my mind was empty of thoughts and there was just awareness. It's the first time in my life I've experienced this. It surprised me". I've always liked the way Buddhism describes meditation as a skill. I like that word skill. Skill in meditation. Skill in action. The skill is in developing the discrimination between awareness and mind and there's a powerful way of doing that by using an object, in this case with mantra. The goal of meditation is to experience unbounded awareness. I don't accept any other definition. It is the cultivation of that turning back into awareness that results in the wisdom and insight of seeing what is. Wisdom comes from silence. What I have been describing is a sitting practice, but to complement that one should practice mindfulness in activity, but what I teach is not what you describe. I don't recognise mindfulness as being aware of bodily sensations and sitting with what just is. For me mindfulness is being mindful of awareness or more accurately we call it self inquiry. When my student tells me they now know what awareness is that's when I introduce self inquiry. Now that this awareness is experienced sometimes in activity also is when inquiry can work because there is an ability to locate that sense of awareness which has been cultivated as a result of the sitting practice using mantra, so it is easy to turn back to awareness in activity. That is the true meaning of mindfulness or inquiry. What you advise about being with bodily sensation as a "what is" experience doesn't go deep enough. Transcendence is crucial which is another way of saying we have to experience non dual awareness. Without that it's not meditation. The key point. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 12, 2016 10:43:52 GMT -5
The train has already left the station. Please explain how that answers a simple 'yes or no' question. It doesn't answer the question; it points to something else in the same way that the earlier answers pointed to something else. The intellect is incapable of grasping what was pointed to. It must either be realized non-conceptually and instantaneously or be missed entirely. Who are you? What is the truth? What is reading these words? An alternative answer to, "What is the truth?" would be to stand up, turn around, and sit back down, in silence. Some people will understand, and some will not. FWIW, there are many yes or no questions that cannot be adequately answered with yes or no. Someone once asked the Buddha, "Does God exist? Yes or no?" The Buddha remained totally silent, and simply looked into the man's eyes. After a few moments of silence, the man's eyes grew wide, he bowed before the Buddha with deep gratitude, said, "Thank you, thank you, thank you," and then left in a state of apparent happiness and joy. Ananda, one of the Buddha's disciples didn't understand what had happened, and he asked the Buddha to explain. The Buddha replied, "There are four kinds of horses. Some have to be whipped vigorously to make them go where you want them to go. Some have to be whipped much less vigorously. Some only need to lightly feel the touch of the whip. And some horses are so sensitive and so alert that they only have to see the shadow of the whip." |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2016 13:16:39 GMT -5
Ok, I meant it in terms of a moment of clarity with the mind quiescent, which is commonly reported by most people relative to something external that's captured their attention. Insight is what constructs wisdom. Wisdom in the sense that Niz referred to it is the shedding of conceptions and ideas about oneself and the world, rather than replacing old and failed beliefs with newer and better ones. It turns out that this idea of wisdom reflects the outlook of an ancient culture that he obviously was conditioned by in the course of his life ... which is of course a rather amusing irony. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 12, 2016 19:56:28 GMT -5
Insight is what constructs wisdom. Wisdom in the sense that Niz referred to it is the shedding of conceptions and ideas about oneself and the world, rather than replacing old and failed beliefs with newer and better ones. It turns out that this idea of wisdom reflects the outlook of an ancient culture that he obviously was conditioned by in the course of his life ... which is of course a rather amusing irony. :) Indeed, wot nis sed. Insight is a light bulb moment of irrevocable truth. It doesn't occur as an idea. It occurs like 'ah I see'. |
|
Why I kept going is something I occasionally speculate about. Glad I did, though.
