Suggestions for sincere seekers

[lolly]

Breath counting is ok if you want stay focused on the breath, but I suggest an experiment in which you just sit being aware of whatever thoughts come and go, and then, start counting. I'm sure this counting prevents awareness of the spontaneous thoughts that are 'already there'. This means you can't observe 'what is' while counting. It's obvious innit. But wait, there's more

The breath meditation, that is, breath observation, has broader functions which entail a person noticing the degree to which they are distracted, not away from their breath, but just the degree to which they are distracted. Suddenly, within a minute of two, a meditator will start notice just that. That's the whole idea. Then the teacher tells them to start counting, which is really a distaction from that wildness (By wildness I do not mean a wandering mind. I mean the mind going wild, like a dangerous and erratic thing). This is what people were doing anyway, the wild stuff comes up and they find something to do so that they don't have to acknowledge it. Counting might bring a calmness, but it gets in the way of understanding 'this thing is wild as'.

The other point is, the idea isn't to keep the attention on the breath, but rather, to feel as acutely as is possible the finest detail of that sensation as one can. Really look into it. Find that feeling that you can hardly barely feel at all. This is how one doesn't become distracted - because it is actually interesting to feel the intricacies of that detail. It's a bit of hard work which isn't concentrating, but requires a concentrated mind. There is a difference. Secondly, by looking more deeply into the detail, the mind starts to become more acute in its perception, and thus begins to notice even more detail still. Soon enough, maybe a month or two, one can feel such subtle nuances... and then nuances within those nuances.

The last thing is, the mind wandering off is OK. I have sat with long term meditators who can keep it for maybe 2 minutes or 3 before it wanders off, but it doesn't matter because at some point, soon enough, you remember 'oh yea breath' and the mind returns, at which point you feel the tiny little details until it wanders and so on. You just watch the whole thing wandering off and the 'breath memory' occurs etc. like I said - ever going into more detail. I refined this quite a lot, and because it is about the detail withig a detail, there's actually no end to the practice. A beginner can feel hardly anything, and someone well practiced can feel incredible detail quite acutely in even the very slightest movement of breath.

This means 1) you fully realise it's gone mad and don't do anything to 'fix it'(because fixing is aversion to 'what is'). 2) You go into all the detail as a matter of interest which works on acuteness of perception 3) the wandering of mind might be a monkey, but it is not wildness.

Wildness is peculiar because mind left to its own meandering has none of the madness in it. The wildness is a different issue which are avoidance strategies playing out as the person doesn't want to acknowledge some of the content. This is the 'aversion/desire' playing preference for some thoughts and feelings above others - which is why people count, right? A think-count is preferable to the adverse 'voices' this person is generating. Counting is absolutely effective in that regard, of course.

When the person peers deep into those finer details, the conscious mind is going deeper right through the body sensation which is the manifest of itself. The wandering doesn't stop that. The reaction, avoidance aversion to some sensation or type of thought, or even frustration with wandering itself, is what prevents the deepening. Hence, distraction is reaction. You must to be able to see that the reason for counting is in aversion to 'unwanted thoughts'. This is a bit of a problem counting poses in the bigger picture of breath observation. Not too serious, but fundamentally counter to 'seeing what is'.

The proper approach in observation is like 'this is the actuality of the experience as it is right now'. Period. It does not need correcting.

I think you are misconstruing 'what is'. "What is" is the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you. If that happens to be a wild animal mind going mad, then that's what is. You aren't supposed to avoid that. Quite the contrary. You are supposed to know how goddam mad it actually is to the full extent of it. You realise "It's mad". That's all. And you peer into the intricate details of your breathing sensations(the nostrils are the best place to look).

This must sound like a more encompassing overview of breath observation.

I am more into the observation style, and I'm sure I give sound reason for that. There's no way a person can observe 'what is' while making it the 'way they want it to be'. I guess the volitional exercises have their own purpose, but personally, equanimity is practice and purpose. All else is consequential. This to me is like 'the high spiritual path' not to fix anything, get anything or experience anything, but to surrender over to it as it happens to be right now - just as you experience it to be.

[lolly]

Oct 17, 2016 9:18:26 GMT -5 satchitananda said:

Oct 17, 2016 8:27:31 GMT -5 lolly said:

You don't know squat about Hume.

You don't know squat about anything you've spoken about on this forum. Remember, you're just some guy on the internet - your words. It didn't take long for you to break your own stringent guidelines on subjugation. That makes you a fake. Should I report your post for arrogance and incivility. Perhaps Andrew can join me in a joint report for your disgusting and boring comments about his repetitiveness.

(rastaphant)

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2016 10:33:18 GMT -5 lolly said:

Breath counting is ok if you want stay focused on the breath, but I suggest an experiment in which you just sit being aware of whatever thoughts come and go, and then, start counting. I'm sure this counting prevents awareness of the spontaneous thoughts that are 'already there'. This means you can't observe 'what is' while counting. It's obvious innit. But wait, there's more

The breath meditation, that is, breath observation, has broader functions which entail a person noticing the degree to which they are distracted, not away from their breath, but just the degree to which they are distracted. Suddenly, within a minute of two, a meditator will start notice just that. That's the whole idea. Then the teacher tells them to start counting, which is really a distaction from that wildness (By wildness I do not mean a wandering mind. I mean the mind going wild, like a dangerous and erratic thing). This is what people were doing anyway, the wild stuff comes up and they find something to do so that they don't have to acknowledge it. Counting might bring a calmness, but it gets in the way of understanding 'this thing is wild as'.

The other point is, the idea isn't to keep the attention on the breath, but rather, to feel as acutely as is possible the finest detail of that sensation as one can. Really look into it. Find that feeling that you can hardly barely feel at all. This is how one doesn't become distracted - because it is actually interesting to feel the intricacies of that detail. It's a bit of hard work which isn't concentrating, but requires a concentrated mind. There is a difference. Secondly, by looking more deeply into the detail, the mind starts to become more acute in its perception, and thus begins to notice even more detail still. Soon enough, maybe a month or two, one can feel such subtle nuances... and then nuances within those nuances.

The last thing is, the mind wandering off is OK. I have sat with long term meditators who can keep it for maybe 2 minutes or 3 before it wanders off, but it doesn't matter because at some point, soon enough, you remember 'oh yea breath' and the mind returns, at which point you feel the tiny little details until it wanders and so on. You just watch the whole thing wandering off and the 'breath memory' occurs etc. like I said - ever going into more detail. I refined this quite a lot, and because it is about the detail withig a detail, there's actually no end to the practice. A beginner can feel hardly anything, and someone well practiced can feel incredible detail quite acutely in even the very slightest movement of breath.

This means 1) you fully realise it's gone mad and don't do anything to 'fix it'(because fixing is aversion to 'what is'). 2) You go into all the detail as a matter of interest which works on acuteness of perception 3) the wandering of mind might be a monkey, but it is not wildness.

Wildness is peculiar because mind left to its own meandering has none of the madness in it. The wildness is a different issue which are avoidance strategies playing out as the person doesn't want to acknowledge some of the content. This is the 'aversion/desire' playing preference for some thoughts and feelings above others - which is why people count, right? A think-count is preferable to the adverse 'voices' this person is generating. Counting is absolutely effective in that regard, of course.

When the person peers deep into those finer details, the conscious mind is going deeper right through the body sensation which is the manifest of itself. The wandering doesn't stop that. The reaction, avoidance aversion to some sensation or type of thought, or even frustration with wandering itself, is what prevents the deepening. Hence, distraction is reaction. You must to be able to see that the reason for counting is in aversion to 'unwanted thoughts'. This is a bit of a problem counting poses in the bigger picture of breath observation. Not too serious, but fundamentally counter to 'seeing what is'.

The proper approach in observation is like 'this is the actuality of the experience as it is right now'. Period. It does not need correcting.

I think you are misconstruing 'what is'. "What is" is the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you. If that happens to be a wild animal mind going mad, then that's what is. You aren't supposed to avoid that. Quite the contrary. You are supposed to know how goddam mad it actually is to the full extent of it. You realise "It's mad". That's all. And you peer into the intricate details of your breathing sensations(the nostrils are the best place to look).

This must sound like a more encompassing overview of breath observation.

I am more into the observation style, and I'm sure I give sound reason for that. There's no way a person can observe 'what is' while making it the 'way they want it to be'. I guess the volitional exercises have their own purpose, but personally, equanimity is practice and purpose. All else is consequential. This to me is like 'the high spiritual path' not to fix anything, get anything or experience anything, but to surrender over to it as it happens to be right now - just as you experience it to be.

You don't know squat about "what is". It isn't "the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you." That's an oxymoron since there is no truth in experiences which come and go, and all you are doing is reinforcing duality. "What is" is when the experiencer is removed from the experience and then what happens is merely witnessed by witnessing consciousness.

[zendancer]

Oct 17, 2016 10:33:18 GMT -5 lolly said:

Breath counting is ok if you want stay focused on the breath, but I suggest an experiment in which you just sit being aware of whatever thoughts come and go, and then, start counting. I'm sure this counting prevents awareness of the spontaneous thoughts that are 'already there'. This means you can't observe 'what is' while counting. It's obvious innit. But wait, there's more

The breath meditation, that is, breath observation, has broader functions which entail a person noticing the degree to which they are distracted, not away from their breath, but just the degree to which they are distracted. Suddenly, within a minute of two, a meditator will start notice just that. That's the whole idea. Then the teacher tells them to start counting, which is really a distaction from that wildness (By wildness I do not mean a wandering mind. I mean the mind going wild, like a dangerous and erratic thing). This is what people were doing anyway, the wild stuff comes up and they find something to do so that they don't have to acknowledge it. Counting might bring a calmness, but it gets in the way of understanding 'this thing is wild as'.

The other point is, the idea isn't to keep the attention on the breath, but rather, to feel as acutely as is possible the finest detail of that sensation as one can. Really look into it. Find that feeling that you can hardly barely feel at all. This is how one doesn't become distracted - because it is actually interesting to feel the intricacies of that detail. It's a bit of hard work which isn't concentrating, but requires a concentrated mind. There is a difference. Secondly, by looking more deeply into the detail, the mind starts to become more acute in its perception, and thus begins to notice even more detail still. Soon enough, maybe a month or two, one can feel such subtle nuances... and then nuances within those nuances.

The last thing is, the mind wandering off is OK. I have sat with long term meditators who can keep it for maybe 2 minutes or 3 before it wanders off, but it doesn't matter because at some point, soon enough, you remember 'oh yea breath' and the mind returns, at which point you feel the tiny little details until it wanders and so on. You just watch the whole thing wandering off and the 'breath memory' occurs etc. like I said - ever going into more detail. I refined this quite a lot, and because it is about the detail withig a detail, there's actually no end to the practice. A beginner can feel hardly anything, and someone well practiced can feel incredible detail quite acutely in even the very slightest movement of breath.

This means 1) you fully realise it's gone mad and don't do anything to 'fix it'(because fixing is aversion to 'what is'). 2) You go into all the detail as a matter of interest which works on acuteness of perception 3) the wandering of mind might be a monkey, but it is not wildness.

Wildness is peculiar because mind left to its own meandering has none of the madness in it. The wildness is a different issue which are avoidance strategies playing out as the person doesn't want to acknowledge some of the content. This is the 'aversion/desire' playing preference for some thoughts and feelings above others - which is why people count, right? A think-count is preferable to the adverse 'voices' this person is generating. Counting is absolutely effective in that regard, of course.

When the person peers deep into those finer details, the conscious mind is going deeper right through the body sensation which is the manifest of itself. The wandering doesn't stop that. The reaction, avoidance aversion to some sensation or type of thought, or even frustration with wandering itself, is what prevents the deepening. Hence, distraction is reaction. You must to be able to see that the reason for counting is in aversion to 'unwanted thoughts'. This is a bit of a problem counting poses in the bigger picture of breath observation. Not too serious, but fundamentally counter to 'seeing what is'.

The proper approach in observation is like 'this is the actuality of the experience as it is right now'. Period. It does not need correcting.

I think you are misconstruing 'what is'. "What is" is the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you. If that happens to be a wild animal mind going mad, then that's what is. You aren't supposed to avoid that. Quite the contrary. You are supposed to know how goddam mad it actually is to the full extent of it. You realise "It's mad". That's all. And you peer into the intricate details of your breathing sensations(the nostrils are the best place to look).

This must sound like a more encompassing overview of breath observation.

I am more into the observation style, and I'm sure I give sound reason for that. There's no way a person can observe 'what is' while making it the 'way they want it to be'. I guess the volitional exercises have their own purpose, but personally, equanimity is practice and purpose. All else is consequential. This to me is like 'the high spiritual path' not to fix anything, get anything or experience anything, but to surrender over to it as it happens to be right now - just as you experience it to be.

I understand this outlook totally, and I have no issue with people who want to do what you suggest. For some people it will lead to the truth of their being. I'm simply pointing out that there are lots of other approaches that can be used just as effectively. At one time, I had a lot of existential questions. By doing ATA-T, becoming internally silent, and simply contemplating what I wanted to know, my questions got answered. I discovered what I am (which is beyond imagining), and I ceased to feel separate from "what is."

No effort or practice is required to be what one is, and once one discovers the isness of THAT, freedom, peace, and equanimity automatically ensue.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2016 11:44:11 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Oct 17, 2016 10:33:18 GMT -5 lolly said:

Breath counting is ok if you want stay focused on the breath, but I suggest an experiment in which you just sit being aware of whatever thoughts come and go, and then, start counting. I'm sure this counting prevents awareness of the spontaneous thoughts that are 'already there'. This means you can't observe 'what is' while counting. It's obvious innit. But wait, there's more

The breath meditation, that is, breath observation, has broader functions which entail a person noticing the degree to which they are distracted, not away from their breath, but just the degree to which they are distracted. Suddenly, within a minute of two, a meditator will start notice just that. That's the whole idea. Then the teacher tells them to start counting, which is really a distaction from that wildness (By wildness I do not mean a wandering mind. I mean the mind going wild, like a dangerous and erratic thing). This is what people were doing anyway, the wild stuff comes up and they find something to do so that they don't have to acknowledge it. Counting might bring a calmness, but it gets in the way of understanding 'this thing is wild as'.

The other point is, the idea isn't to keep the attention on the breath, but rather, to feel as acutely as is possible the finest detail of that sensation as one can. Really look into it. Find that feeling that you can hardly barely feel at all. This is how one doesn't become distracted - because it is actually interesting to feel the intricacies of that detail. It's a bit of hard work which isn't concentrating, but requires a concentrated mind. There is a difference. Secondly, by looking more deeply into the detail, the mind starts to become more acute in its perception, and thus begins to notice even more detail still. Soon enough, maybe a month or two, one can feel such subtle nuances... and then nuances within those nuances.

The last thing is, the mind wandering off is OK. I have sat with long term meditators who can keep it for maybe 2 minutes or 3 before it wanders off, but it doesn't matter because at some point, soon enough, you remember 'oh yea breath' and the mind returns, at which point you feel the tiny little details until it wanders and so on. You just watch the whole thing wandering off and the 'breath memory' occurs etc. like I said - ever going into more detail. I refined this quite a lot, and because it is about the detail withig a detail, there's actually no end to the practice. A beginner can feel hardly anything, and someone well practiced can feel incredible detail quite acutely in even the very slightest movement of breath.

This means 1) you fully realise it's gone mad and don't do anything to 'fix it'(because fixing is aversion to 'what is'). 2) You go into all the detail as a matter of interest which works on acuteness of perception 3) the wandering of mind might be a monkey, but it is not wildness.

Wildness is peculiar because mind left to its own meandering has none of the madness in it. The wildness is a different issue which are avoidance strategies playing out as the person doesn't want to acknowledge some of the content. This is the 'aversion/desire' playing preference for some thoughts and feelings above others - which is why people count, right? A think-count is preferable to the adverse 'voices' this person is generating. Counting is absolutely effective in that regard, of course.

When the person peers deep into those finer details, the conscious mind is going deeper right through the body sensation which is the manifest of itself. The wandering doesn't stop that. The reaction, avoidance aversion to some sensation or type of thought, or even frustration with wandering itself, is what prevents the deepening. Hence, distraction is reaction. You must to be able to see that the reason for counting is in aversion to 'unwanted thoughts'. This is a bit of a problem counting poses in the bigger picture of breath observation. Not too serious, but fundamentally counter to 'seeing what is'.

The proper approach in observation is like 'this is the actuality of the experience as it is right now'. Period. It does not need correcting.

I think you are misconstruing 'what is'. "What is" is the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you. If that happens to be a wild animal mind going mad, then that's what is. You aren't supposed to avoid that. Quite the contrary. You are supposed to know how goddam mad it actually is to the full extent of it. You realise "It's mad". That's all. And you peer into the intricate details of your breathing sensations(the nostrils are the best place to look).

This must sound like a more encompassing overview of breath observation.

I am more into the observation style, and I'm sure I give sound reason for that. There's no way a person can observe 'what is' while making it the 'way they want it to be'. I guess the volitional exercises have their own purpose, but personally, equanimity is practice and purpose. All else is consequential. This to me is like 'the high spiritual path' not to fix anything, get anything or experience anything, but to surrender over to it as it happens to be right now - just as you experience it to be.

I understand this outlook totally, and I have no issue with people who want to do what you suggest. For some people it will lead to the truth of their being. I'm simply pointing out that there are lots of other approaches that can be used just as effectively. At one time, I had a lot of existential questions. By doing ATA-T, becoming internally silent, and simply contemplating what I wanted to know, my questions got answered. I discovered what I am (which is beyond imagining), and I ceased to feel separate from "what is."

No effort or practice is required to be what one is, and once one discovers the isness of THAT, freedom, peace, and equanimity automatically ensue.

The word "automatically" cannot be emphasised enough since the purpose of practice is to bring to an end all practices, where only peace remains as the natural state.

[maxdprophet]

fabulous discussion mates!

I love Lolly's "Find that feeling that you can hardly barely feel at all."  Excellent drillbit, that.  I've heard from experienced breath meditators that they get to a point where they can feel every pore in their body breathing. And I like the perspective that this is a helpful practice in itself, rather than as a means to end.  In fact, thinking of it as a means is a big distraction, and perhaps impediment.

For myself, SR is like the holy grail.  I don't really have any expectations of finding it but just chalk up the curious quest as like a fundamental force, like how heavenly bodies are attracted to each other (never to meet with enough horizontal force). blahblah

But neti neti, and seeing the aspects of desire and aversion, are practical things I can do now.  Whether purifying or not...time will tell I suppose. Equanimity has strengthened and vulnerability too, which I take to mean I'm not just becoming indifferent (the "near-enemy" of equanimity).

I think of breath-counting as similar to mantra work.  It's just a concrete anchor to help warm up the mind in meditation, akin to warming up before lifting weights.  The real work is done after the warm up, but if no warm up, no real work can be done.  Once the warm up is done, then either focus on the subtleties of sense-perception, or just let it all wash over.  And just witness the constant returning.  Many of these different practices meet in this work-area.  Either attention goes to that which can barely be felt, or it relaxes/dialates to witness the whole breadth of sensations, or who/what am I?

[lolly]

Oct 17, 2016 10:57:26 GMT -5 satchitananda said:

Oct 17, 2016 10:33:18 GMT -5 lolly said:

Breath counting is ok if you want stay focused on the breath, but I suggest an experiment in which you just sit being aware of whatever thoughts come and go, and then, start counting. I'm sure this counting prevents awareness of the spontaneous thoughts that are 'already there'. This means you can't observe 'what is' while counting. It's obvious innit. But wait, there's more

The breath meditation, that is, breath observation, has broader functions which entail a person noticing the degree to which they are distracted, not away from their breath, but just the degree to which they are distracted. Suddenly, within a minute of two, a meditator will start notice just that. That's the whole idea. Then the teacher tells them to start counting, which is really a distaction from that wildness (By wildness I do not mean a wandering mind. I mean the mind going wild, like a dangerous and erratic thing). This is what people were doing anyway, the wild stuff comes up and they find something to do so that they don't have to acknowledge it. Counting might bring a calmness, but it gets in the way of understanding 'this thing is wild as'.

The other point is, the idea isn't to keep the attention on the breath, but rather, to feel as acutely as is possible the finest detail of that sensation as one can. Really look into it. Find that feeling that you can hardly barely feel at all. This is how one doesn't become distracted - because it is actually interesting to feel the intricacies of that detail. It's a bit of hard work which isn't concentrating, but requires a concentrated mind. There is a difference. Secondly, by looking more deeply into the detail, the mind starts to become more acute in its perception, and thus begins to notice even more detail still. Soon enough, maybe a month or two, one can feel such subtle nuances... and then nuances within those nuances.

The last thing is, the mind wandering off is OK. I have sat with long term meditators who can keep it for maybe 2 minutes or 3 before it wanders off, but it doesn't matter because at some point, soon enough, you remember 'oh yea breath' and the mind returns, at which point you feel the tiny little details until it wanders and so on. You just watch the whole thing wandering off and the 'breath memory' occurs etc. like I said - ever going into more detail. I refined this quite a lot, and because it is about the detail withig a detail, there's actually no end to the practice. A beginner can feel hardly anything, and someone well practiced can feel incredible detail quite acutely in even the very slightest movement of breath.

This means 1) you fully realise it's gone mad and don't do anything to 'fix it'(because fixing is aversion to 'what is'). 2) You go into all the detail as a matter of interest which works on acuteness of perception 3) the wandering of mind might be a monkey, but it is not wildness.

Wildness is peculiar because mind left to its own meandering has none of the madness in it. The wildness is a different issue which are avoidance strategies playing out as the person doesn't want to acknowledge some of the content. This is the 'aversion/desire' playing preference for some thoughts and feelings above others - which is why people count, right? A think-count is preferable to the adverse 'voices' this person is generating. Counting is absolutely effective in that regard, of course.

When the person peers deep into those finer details, the conscious mind is going deeper right through the body sensation which is the manifest of itself. The wandering doesn't stop that. The reaction, avoidance aversion to some sensation or type of thought, or even frustration with wandering itself, is what prevents the deepening. Hence, distraction is reaction. You must to be able to see that the reason for counting is in aversion to 'unwanted thoughts'. This is a bit of a problem counting poses in the bigger picture of breath observation. Not too serious, but fundamentally counter to 'seeing what is'.

The proper approach in observation is like 'this is the actuality of the experience as it is right now'. Period. It does not need correcting.

I think you are misconstruing 'what is'. "What is" is the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you. If that happens to be a wild animal mind going mad, then that's what is. You aren't supposed to avoid that. Quite the contrary. You are supposed to know how goddam mad it actually is to the full extent of it. You realise "It's mad". That's all. And you peer into the intricate details of your breathing sensations(the nostrils are the best place to look).

This must sound like a more encompassing overview of breath observation.

I am more into the observation style, and I'm sure I give sound reason for that. There's no way a person can observe 'what is' while making it the 'way they want it to be'. I guess the volitional exercises have their own purpose, but personally, equanimity is practice and purpose. All else is consequential. This to me is like 'the high spiritual path' not to fix anything, get anything or experience anything, but to surrender over to it as it happens to be right now - just as you experience it to be.

You don't know squat about "what is". It isn't "the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you." That's an oxymoron since there is no truth in experiences which come and go, and all you are doing is reinforcing duality. "What is" is when the experiencer is removed from the experience and then what happens is merely witnessed by witnessing consciousness.

"What is" is 'the truth of this experience just as it is - as you experience it'.  "witness it" is just as good.
"Experience it" "witness it"  I don't mind any preferred terminology.
Of course, it's coming, going, changing. What does that imply?
Is duality being experienced? Or is that experienced as a thought seen to be passing?
I didn't mention it, let alone reinforce it. It's not part of my narrative at all. I would go into the nature of things that are actually noticeable, and not concern too much with concepts.

[lolly]

Oct 17, 2016 11:44:11 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Oct 17, 2016 10:33:18 GMT -5 lolly said:

Breath counting is ok if you want stay focused on the breath, but I suggest an experiment in which you just sit being aware of whatever thoughts come and go, and then, start counting. I'm sure this counting prevents awareness of the spontaneous thoughts that are 'already there'. This means you can't observe 'what is' while counting. It's obvious innit. But wait, there's more

The breath meditation, that is, breath observation, has broader functions which entail a person noticing the degree to which they are distracted, not away from their breath, but just the degree to which they are distracted. Suddenly, within a minute of two, a meditator will start notice just that. That's the whole idea. Then the teacher tells them to start counting, which is really a distaction from that wildness (By wildness I do not mean a wandering mind. I mean the mind going wild, like a dangerous and erratic thing). This is what people were doing anyway, the wild stuff comes up and they find something to do so that they don't have to acknowledge it. Counting might bring a calmness, but it gets in the way of understanding 'this thing is wild as'.

The other point is, the idea isn't to keep the attention on the breath, but rather, to feel as acutely as is possible the finest detail of that sensation as one can. Really look into it. Find that feeling that you can hardly barely feel at all. This is how one doesn't become distracted - because it is actually interesting to feel the intricacies of that detail. It's a bit of hard work which isn't concentrating, but requires a concentrated mind. There is a difference. Secondly, by looking more deeply into the detail, the mind starts to become more acute in its perception, and thus begins to notice even more detail still. Soon enough, maybe a month or two, one can feel such subtle nuances... and then nuances within those nuances.

The last thing is, the mind wandering off is OK. I have sat with long term meditators who can keep it for maybe 2 minutes or 3 before it wanders off, but it doesn't matter because at some point, soon enough, you remember 'oh yea breath' and the mind returns, at which point you feel the tiny little details until it wanders and so on. You just watch the whole thing wandering off and the 'breath memory' occurs etc. like I said - ever going into more detail. I refined this quite a lot, and because it is about the detail withig a detail, there's actually no end to the practice. A beginner can feel hardly anything, and someone well practiced can feel incredible detail quite acutely in even the very slightest movement of breath.

This means 1) you fully realise it's gone mad and don't do anything to 'fix it'(because fixing is aversion to 'what is'). 2) You go into all the detail as a matter of interest which works on acuteness of perception 3) the wandering of mind might be a monkey, but it is not wildness.

Wildness is peculiar because mind left to its own meandering has none of the madness in it. The wildness is a different issue which are avoidance strategies playing out as the person doesn't want to acknowledge some of the content. This is the 'aversion/desire' playing preference for some thoughts and feelings above others - which is why people count, right? A think-count is preferable to the adverse 'voices' this person is generating. Counting is absolutely effective in that regard, of course.

When the person peers deep into those finer details, the conscious mind is going deeper right through the body sensation which is the manifest of itself. The wandering doesn't stop that. The reaction, avoidance aversion to some sensation or type of thought, or even frustration with wandering itself, is what prevents the deepening. Hence, distraction is reaction. You must to be able to see that the reason for counting is in aversion to 'unwanted thoughts'. This is a bit of a problem counting poses in the bigger picture of breath observation. Not too serious, but fundamentally counter to 'seeing what is'.

The proper approach in observation is like 'this is the actuality of the experience as it is right now'. Period. It does not need correcting.

I think you are misconstruing 'what is'. "What is" is the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you. If that happens to be a wild animal mind going mad, then that's what is. You aren't supposed to avoid that. Quite the contrary. You are supposed to know how goddam mad it actually is to the full extent of it. You realise "It's mad". That's all. And you peer into the intricate details of your breathing sensations(the nostrils are the best place to look).

This must sound like a more encompassing overview of breath observation.

I am more into the observation style, and I'm sure I give sound reason for that. There's no way a person can observe 'what is' while making it the 'way they want it to be'. I guess the volitional exercises have their own purpose, but personally, equanimity is practice and purpose. All else is consequential. This to me is like 'the high spiritual path' not to fix anything, get anything or experience anything, but to surrender over to it as it happens to be right now - just as you experience it to be.

I understand this outlook totally, and I have no issue with people who want to do what you suggest. For some people it will lead to the truth of their being. I'm simply pointing out that there are lots of other approaches that can be used just as effectively. At one time, I had a lot of existential questions. By doing ATA-T, becoming internally silent, and simply contemplating what I wanted to know, my questions got answered. I discovered what I am (which is beyond imagining), and I ceased to feel separate from "what is."

No effort or practice is required to be what one is, and once one discovers the isness of THAT, freedom, peace, and equanimity automatically ensue.

It won't lead to the truth of your being, at least, I don't make that claim.  I was merely trying to describe more comprehensively what the breath observation is about.  I don't promote trying get self realised. I claim you are as you are. You do not exist apart from here, and you are just as you are.  These notions of correcting things and undertaking volitional activities all imply a future conjecture.  

I'm not promoting self realisation.  Forget Spiritual expectations, I say.  You are here so look at what's here. understand the futility, the complete impossibility, of finding something which does exist right now, and the utter inevitibility of 'this' as it is. 

My whole narrative isn't a goal for later on.  The meditation is here while this is being read.  Where are minds at, tryig to fing truth in these words to agree with or finding clay ducks in here to shoot down.  Look at what I'm saying in regards to yourself and find out, not if what I say is true, but what is actually true.  Is there anything to be found which doesn't exist now?  Is there a you which can be found somewhere other than this precise time. Are you other than the way you are now?  At least lets stay with what is possible.  If this is followed and actually looked at, It might begin to seem as though 'this is it' and there is simply no time to correct it, and all there is to be found is right here, and if that is in fact found by ones own introspection to be the case, then we realise that meditation is indeed already occurring.  If something clicked as one double checked what I said, not because they agrees or believed a single word of it, but because they actually realised whatever it was that they did, then that's it, discovered it, insight.  Was there any special calm involved or anything special?  Nope, simply doesn't matter, does it.

If in fact all that stuff about you being you as you are and it's only possible to notice what exists right now, is true then you simply have to stop if indeed you want to notice. You already did stop to notice, like Spira questions, "are you aware", you simply have to stop and check, "yes I am aware".  Ramana is like 'who am I' because you have to stop momentarily and look into it.  In the case of breath you can't observe the future breath, you have to stop to notice this precise sensation in the moment it exists, and you stay with it as it changes. There is no other way to see 'what is', but to stop.  It doesn't have be a deep calm or particular mind state.  When you saw the you are only here and all that can be noticed exists right now - no special mind state, but somehow it's found out... there's the essense of this thing, in that moment of noticing.

What I'm saying  doesn't matter. It's not true and false and agreeable and disagreeable. That's all monkeys going bananas, innit.  There's nothing here to put in a box and take home for later on. There's no knowledge being imparted.  Hahahahaha.

[andrew]

Oct 17, 2016 12:32:30 GMT -5 lolly said:

Oct 17, 2016 10:57:26 GMT -5 satchitananda said:

You don't know squat about "what is". It isn't "the truth of this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced by you." That's an oxymoron since there is no truth in experiences which come and go, and all you are doing is reinforcing duality. "What is" is when the experiencer is removed from the experience and then what happens is merely witnessed by witnessing consciousness.

"What is" is 'the truth of this experience just as it is - as you experience it'.  "witness it" is just as good.
"Experience it" "witness it"  I don't mind any preferred terminology.
Of course, it's coming, going, changing. What does that imply?
Is duality being experienced? Or is that experienced as a thought seen to be passing?
I didn't mention it, let alone reinforce it. It's not part of my narrative at all. I would go into the nature of things that are actually noticeable, and not concern too much with concepts.

The problem I am seeing with what you are saying is that the witnessing is involved IN the experience. So one can never actually witness the truth of the experience as it is...because one cannot remove the witness from the equation in order to witness the truth of the experience as it is. You affect the shape or structure of the experience in the act of witnessing it. I'm definitely not saying there is no value to the practice, just that you are not witnessing 'what is' or 'the truth of the experience as it is' because neither of these things are possible. In a sense, all experience is fabricated, including the 'witnessing it as it is' experience.

[laughter]

Oct 17, 2016 0:10:13 GMT -5 lolly said:

Oct 16, 2016 13:45:39 GMT -5 laughter said:

Underlying "Why do I meditate?" or "Why do people meditate?" is the existential question. "To see, honestly" is, in my opinion, a virtuous answer, as it seems to me really the best the mind and the heart will ever do. It strikes me as similar to the answer of "so that the Universe may know itself" to the question "why are we here?". But one can become conscious of the conditioned values that lead to an opinion like this one.

My suggestion to the sincere seeker is not to settle for any answer of this nature. And specifically, to those of you with an intellectual bent, you can turn the intellect to your service by recognizing the different forms of the existential question like this one. Every time it arises is an opportunity for a quiet and subtle noticing that is a return, a recognition, and an embrace.

I think 'answers' like "so that the Universe may know itself" are merely a clinging to reason.  "So that I may know the truth" is quite a different thing than coming to conclusions.   It's characteristic of the wild monkey to jump to conclusions, and hang onto 'the knowledge in the jar'.  I wouldn't settle for answers, and when the conversation is going on what is already immediately obvious, your awareness, attention, perception... well, who knows what all that is?  It just happens to be, and I can't explain it - but there is no need to - it's simply true.  The technicalities are to do with the mind/body movement which produces what we call 'false self'.  I refer to it as the centre of the narrative (memory flash: I liked Dennet's essay, The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity).  Dennet concludes quoting Hume.

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a percepton, and never can observe anything but the perception.... If anyone, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me (Treatise on Human Nature, I, IV, sec. 6).

Hume's narrative here bears a profound poignancy in that it's a statement about his sense of identity resulting from some obviously serious contemplation that wasn't just intellectual. Two facets of it particularly worth noting are his uncertainty as to the possibility of what other's might find in the inquiry in regard to this conclusion, while stating his own self-certainty. A casual google reveals how the quote as a whole applies to much of the dialog of this forum, as most of the raucous never-ending and recurring personalized debates are simplified versions of one point or another of what's elaborated in just that one article.

Was Hume's reference to the boundary of reason meant as a sort of ad-hominem directed toward those that would disagree with him? In cultural context, I'd suspect so, but that doesn't necessarily detract from the value of this perspective if it's evaluated free of any emotional reaction to it. It's fine, really, to admit up front that the sources of the spiritual material central to the theme of the forum and Shawn's site pick up at that boundary where reason finds it's own limit as expressed by the prominent minds of the Age of Reason.

One well-known and perhaps obvious and inarguable prescription common to most of those spiritual sources is the suggestion for the sincere seeker to suspend the specific certainty that Hume expresses as the result of his self-inquiry. But that's no reason to begrudge Hume, or anyone who sees things his way their understanding or to condescend to them about it. Anyone who's done even a little academic reading can discern that it's a very common outlook, especially among educated people. Many of them lead quite stable, happy and productive lives from this perspective, so there's nothing particularly dangerous or unhealthy about it.

And arguing with Hume to challenge his conclusion might have produced some of Kant's deepest work, but it is precisely the interest in intellectual debate and ad-hominem discourse that differentiates sincere seekers from those obviously kidding themselves about what those spiritual sources have to offer. This isn't to say that every interest in an intellectual debate is insincere, but the instances where it's obvious that there's no openness to learning as a part of the process aren't about consciously seeking at all.

[lolly]

Oct 17, 2016 14:03:10 GMT -5 andrew said:

Oct 17, 2016 12:32:30 GMT -5 lolly said:

"What is" is 'the truth of this experience just as it is - as you experience it'.  "witness it" is just as good.
"Experience it" "witness it"  I don't mind any preferred terminology.
Of course, it's coming, going, changing. What does that imply?
Is duality being experienced? Or is that experienced as a thought seen to be passing?
I didn't mention it, let alone reinforce it. It's not part of my narrative at all. I would go into the nature of things that are actually noticeable, and not concern too much with concepts.

1) The problem I am seeing with what you are saying is that the witnessing is involved IN the experience. So one can never actually witness the truth of the experience as it is..
2)because one cannot remove the witness from the equation in order to witness the truth of the experience as it is. You affect the shape or structure of the experience in the act of witnessing it.
3) I'm definitely not saying there is no value to the practice, just that you are not witnessing 'what is' or 'the truth of the experience as it is' because neither of these things are possible.
4)In a sense, all experience is fabricated, including the 'witnessing it as it is' experience.

1) Er..."What is" is 'the truth of this experience just as it is"

2) Ok if that's the case you reailse it, but is it actually the case or is it in fact some thoughts passing in the mind?

3) Its like 3 levels to it, for example, 1) what is being experieced; and 2) the nature or essence of it (insight); and 3) what that means for you (also insight). In this example it would be something like: This is happening. It's changing momentarily. Clinging is in impossible.

4) The notion that it is fabricated or not fabricated can be seen to be some passing thought.

[lolly]

Oct 17, 2016 16:27:37 GMT -5 laughter said:

Oct 17, 2016 0:10:13 GMT -5 lolly said:

I think 'answers' like "so that the Universe may know itself" are merely a clinging to reason.  "So that I may know the truth" is quite a different thing than coming to conclusions.   It's characteristic of the wild monkey to jump to conclusions, and hang onto 'the knowledge in the jar'.  I wouldn't settle for answers, and when the conversation is going on what is already immediately obvious, your awareness, attention, perception... well, who knows what all that is?  It just happens to be, and I can't explain it - but there is no need to - it's simply true.  The technicalities are to do with the mind/body movement which produces what we call 'false self'.  I refer to it as the centre of the narrative (memory flash: I liked Dennet's essay, The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity).  Dennet concludes quoting Hume.

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a percepton, and never can observe anything but the perception.... If anyone, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me (Treatise on Human Nature, I, IV, sec. 6).

1) Hume's narrative here bears a profound poignancy in that it's a statement about his sense of identity resulting from some obviously serious contemplation that wasn't just intellectual. Two facets of it particularly worth noting are his uncertainty as to the possibility of what other's might find in the inquiry in regard to this conclusion, while stating his own self-certainty. A casual google reveals how the quote as a whole applies to much of the dialog of this forum, as most of the raucous never-ending and recurring personalized debates are simplified versions of one point or another of what's elaborated in just that one article.

Was Hume's reference to the boundary of reason meant as a sort of ad-hominem directed toward those that would disagree with him? In cultural context, I'd suspect so, but that doesn't necessarily detract from the value of this perspective if it's evaluated free of any emotional reaction to it. It's fine, really, to admit up front that the sources of the spiritual material central to the theme of the forum and Shawn's site pick up at that boundary where reason finds it's own limit as expressed by the prominent minds of the Age of Reason.

One well-known and perhaps obvious and inarguable prescription common to most of those spiritual sources is the suggestion for the sincere seeker to suspend the specific certainty that Hume expresses as the result of his self-inquiry. But that's no reason to begrudge Hume, or anyone who sees things his way their understanding or to condescend to them about it. Anyone who's done even a little academic reading can discern that it's a very common outlook, especially among educated people. Many of them lead quite stable, happy and productive lives from this perspective, so there's nothing particularly dangerous or unhealthy about it.

And arguing with Hume to challenge his conclusion might have produced some of Kant's deepest work, but it is precisely the interest in intellectual debate and ad-hominem discourse that differentiates sincere seekers from those obviously kidding themselves about what those spiritual sources have to offer. This isn't to say that every interest in an intellectual debate is insincere, but the instances where it's obvious that there's no openness to learning as a part of the process aren't about consciously seeking at all.

Hume's relevance is he speaks of his own inquiry. I just point out, the notions that seem to frame him as wrong or just a philosopher are nothing to do with meditation. Meditation would be more like noticing the occurrence the notions themselves. Hume merely brings in a cartload of bananas and the monkeys go wild over it, like, "he be wrong" "philosophers are so and such".  Meditation would be in full recognition of that, and what is really going on in regards to oneself.  It isn't some supersonic thing. It's self awareness in the most mundane sense.

Kant said:

Enlightenment is the liberation of man from his self-caused state of minority. Minority is the incapacity of using one’s understanding without the direction of another. This state of minority is self-caused when its source lies not in a lack of understanding but in a lack of determination to use it without the assistance of another.

My interpretation is: Kant, Hume, Me or the 'meditation masters' can't give anyone the truth.  Kant merely alludes to this great responsibility we have to ourselves to employ completely the totality of our faculties in the truth.  By truth I mean, that which is honest to a fault - monstrously, brutally, ruthlessly and totally so.  It's a very difficult thing as it's always lapsing as we believe our own bushwa.  Obviously there are those who can't see past the bushwa, but they also know they are confused and unsettled, which is the return to the truth. It doesn't have to be rectified, it just as to be truthfully acknowledged as the fact it is. It's not hard to see that 'rectifying it' is in adverse reaction to it, so that's recognised as part of the dilemma itself, isn't it?

That's what we really need to be doing here if this is a meaningful conversation about meditation.  Not learning something a teacher can tell us but being conscious of all the minds movement - what is actually going on.  I'm already saying that I'm just saying and it isn't 'true' so if what I'm saying appears like a cart load of bananas, then watch the monkey go wild.  It's really nothing to do with what I say, Hume says, Kant says, and so on, see?

[lolly]

Oct 17, 2016 12:03:08 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

fabulous discussion mates!

I love Lolly's "Find that feeling that you can hardly barely feel at all."  Excellent drillbit, that.  I've heard from experienced breath meditators that they get to a point where they can feel every pore in their body breathing. And I like the perspective that this is a helpful practice in itself, rather than as a means to end.  In fact, thinking of it as a means is a big distraction, and perhaps impediment.

For myself, SR is like the holy grail.  I don't really have any expectations of finding it but just chalk up the curious quest as like a fundamental force, like how heavenly bodies are attracted to each other (never to meet with enough horizontal force). blahblah

But neti neti, and seeing the aspects of desire and aversion, are practical things I can do now.  Whether purifying or not...time will tell I suppose. Equanimity has strengthened and vulnerability too, which I take to mean I'm not just becoming indifferent (the "near-enemy" of equanimity).

I think of breath-counting as similar to mantra work.  It's just a concrete anchor to help warm up the mind in meditation, akin to warming up before lifting weights.  The real work is done after the warm up, but if no warm up, no real work can be done.  Once the warm up is done, then either focus on the subtleties of sense-perception, or just let it all wash over.  And just witness the constant returning.  Many of these different practices meet in this work-area.  Either attention goes to that which can barely be felt, or it relaxes/dialates to witness the whole breadth of sensations, or who/what am I?

Honestly, if you do breath observation, counting breath is counter-productive.  I tried to outline why that is because I think people need to understand what it is they do so they don't do things out of obedience or because of some teacher's tempting promises. Do it out of understanding it. It's not weight lifting so I wouldn't worry about warmups. 

If breath meditation is the thing, breathe normally, feel air moving in the nostrils somewhere, and feel out the finest details of it as possible. That's all it is.

1) breathing normally - the breath as it is.  The critical element of observation meditation is non-volition.  You don't make anything happen. No controlled breathing, no counting. You observe, and 'god' (for want of a better word) takes care of the rest.  It works on several levels (comments on this below) so 'distraction' is fine and doesn't matter. Point 3 talks about dealing with distraction.

2)  Feel nostrils - Feel the air anywhere in or on the nostrils, it's really a sensation meditation, to feel the air as it moves in and out.  Nostril or under nose area is best for feeling it.

3) Feel detail - as you try to feel the finest details of it possible, that becomes a point of interest. It's not like a object of focus, but more like a whole myriad of sensational movement which can be peered into, and rather than trying to focus or trying to concentrate, this peering into its finer detail simply requires a concentrated mind. Because it is more interesting, there is less tendency to distraction, and a less distracted mind is a more concentrated mind. Naturally, a detail exists in a small area and changes very quickly, so at first you can just feel something there, dull like, with not much detail. After practicing for, say, a month, it's significantly more detailed. Then you can just stay with one small area somewhere in or below the nose, and feel the all details in that small area.  At first just feel something, anything, and with practice it starts to get more detailed as the mind starts to become more acute.  It's not as easy as it sounds, and it's 'real work', as you you put it.

General comments:

In regards to the surrounding implications, there might be impatience, frustration with self and other negativities, but because the mind is so used to doing stuff, it starts to freak out a little when you don't give it stuff to do - like counting for example.  Importantly, don't become compelled by freaky mind, let it freak out, but keep feelig the detail, because this is how it works, you stop, it freaks out, but instead of being compelled by it, this time you are not.  The mind has a few tricks i the mind/body dynamic so maybe an itch will crop up or an ache somewhere or tension, but unless it's significantly uncomfortable, don't do anything about it.    The mind is playig tricks to drag you into aversion. Desire will crop up as you become impatient to feel detail probably as well, but it's all the mind playing tricks because 'ego' is being undermined because you stopped, and it's doing all it can to get you to do something. This is why counting is wrong, it's just mind tricked you into doing it out of adverse reaction, impatience, frastatio with distraction or whatever 'reason'. However, you cottoned on to it, and you know better, so you keep feeling for detail and let the mind do its worst.  So much can be about this because it works across the body/mind and the whole psychology of how ego needs yo to feed it. I can barely stop myself, but 'nuff' said for this entertainment.

That's what breath meditation is, and it is not followed as an obedience to some meditation authority. It should only be because it sounds sensible, makes sense, seems logical.

My view is, people who claim this is is gunna produce a self-realisation are making false promises.  The meditation is like becoming conscious of psycho-emotional obstacles and resolving them at the very roots.  It's fundamentally a healing process that gets to bottom of people's suffering.  The detail feeling is the basic key, and I think withing 3 months of the breath thing the body will start to come alive, and it goes through the hard and solid painful to the tingly wavy subtle to the energy flow because you start to get the balance of mind needed to endure all that sort of movement.  The whole thing is that balance, you know. It's not trying to have any kind of special experience.  I know people who git special experience without a stable balance and ran into complicated problems.  All that is just egomanic desires pursuing experience and always wanting  more.  The whole thing consists of conscious awareness and equanimity of mind.

I know I sound different to everyone else, and I'm not sweetening the bait hook with 'spiritual promise', and I really just dragging i a big cart of banannas, or making clay pigeons to be shot of the sky, but I don't want to invoke temptations and desires, and certainly not false promises, I actually try to talk coherently so it seems kinda reasonable.  I'm not a 'meditation master' or anything, and no one worthy of being believed, so either is seems sensible or it sounds like nonsense. Nothing more than that.

[laughter]

Oct 18, 2016 0:38:55 GMT -5 lolly said:

Oct 17, 2016 16:27:37 GMT -5 laughter said:

1) Hume's narrative here bears a profound poignancy in that it's a statement about his sense of identity resulting from some obviously serious contemplation that wasn't just intellectual. Two facets of it particularly worth noting are his uncertainty as to the possibility of what other's might find in the inquiry in regard to this conclusion, while stating his own self-certainty. A casual google reveals how the quote as a whole applies to much of the dialog of this forum, as most of the raucous never-ending and recurring personalized debates are simplified versions of one point or another of what's elaborated in just that one article.

Was Hume's reference to the boundary of reason meant as a sort of ad-hominem directed toward those that would disagree with him? In cultural context, I'd suspect so, but that doesn't necessarily detract from the value of this perspective if it's evaluated free of any emotional reaction to it. It's fine, really, to admit up front that the sources of the spiritual material central to the theme of the forum and Shawn's site pick up at that boundary where reason finds it's own limit as expressed by the prominent minds of the Age of Reason.

One well-known and perhaps obvious and inarguable prescription common to most of those spiritual sources is the suggestion for the sincere seeker to suspend the specific certainty that Hume expresses as the result of his self-inquiry. But that's no reason to begrudge Hume, or anyone who sees things his way their understanding or to condescend to them about it. Anyone who's done even a little academic reading can discern that it's a very common outlook, especially among educated people. Many of them lead quite stable, happy and productive lives from this perspective, so there's nothing particularly dangerous or unhealthy about it.

And arguing with Hume to challenge his conclusion might have produced some of Kant's deepest work, but it is precisely the interest in intellectual debate and ad-hominem discourse that differentiates sincere seekers from those obviously kidding themselves about what those spiritual sources have to offer. This isn't to say that every interest in an intellectual debate is insincere, but the instances where it's obvious that there's no openness to learning as a part of the process aren't about consciously seeking at all.

Hume's relevance is he speaks of his own inquiry. I just point out, the notions that seem to frame him as wrong or just a philosopher are nothing to do with meditation. Meditation would be more like noticing the occurrence the notions themselves. Hume merely brings in a cartload of bananas and the monkeys go wild over it, like, "he be wrong" "philosophers are so and such".  Meditation would be in full recognition of that, and what is really going on in regards to oneself.  It isn't some supersonic thing. It's self awareness in the most mundane sense.

Kant said:

Enlightenment is the liberation of man from his self-caused state of minority. Minority is the incapacity of using one’s understanding without the direction of another. This state of minority is self-caused when its source lies not in a lack of understanding but in a lack of determination to use it without the assistance of another.

My interpretation is: Kant, Hume, Me or the 'meditation masters' can't give anyone the truth.  Kant merely alludes to this great responsibility we have to ourselves to employ completely the totality of our faculties in the truth.  By truth I mean, that which is honest to a fault - monstrously, brutally, ruthlessly and totally so.  It's a very difficult thing as it's always lapsing as we believe our own bushwa.  Obviously there are those who can't see past the bushwa, but they also know they are confused and unsettled, which is the return to the truth. It doesn't have to be rectified, it just as to be truthfully acknowledged as the fact it is. It's not hard to see that 'rectifying it' is in adverse reaction to it, so that's recognised as part of the dilemma itself, isn't it?

That's what we really need to be doing here if this is a meaningful conversation about meditation.  Not learning something a teacher can tell us but being conscious of all the minds movement - what is actually going on.  I'm already saying that I'm just saying and it isn't 'true' so if what I'm saying appears like a cart load of bananas, then watch the monkey go wild.  It's really nothing to do with what I say, Hume says, Kant says, and so on, see?

Well in a very literal sense it is about what Hume and Kant have said because you've said what you've said using their quotes to say it. Have you ever considered how conversations are related in the sense of six degrees of separation? Unless and until someone is going to start from scratch with a new species created in the lab designed to evolve language independently, whatever we say or write is inextricably intertwined and in some sense a product of all of the human culture that preceded it. The only choice that is other than that dependence and further contribution is to stay silent.

I like your comment about honesty. But the conversation isn't just about the meditation. Putting Kant's statement about minority in cultural context, I could easily cast it in terms of the differences between meditation and prayer, but elaborating on that might push the wonk-o-meter on what I'm writing over an unacceptable threshold.

I'm not gonna' comment on the dynamics of the current dialog here. I'll send you a nasty bullying PM instead, but it will at least take the high ground of being completely free of gossip.

[lolly]

Oct 18, 2016 19:49:37 GMT -5 laughter said:

Oct 18, 2016 0:38:55 GMT -5 lolly said:

Hume's relevance is he speaks of his own inquiry. I just point out, the notions that seem to frame him as wrong or just a philosopher are nothing to do with meditation. Meditation would be more like noticing the occurrence the notions themselves. Hume merely brings in a cartload of bananas and the monkeys go wild over it, like, "he be wrong" "philosophers are so and such".  Meditation would be in full recognition of that, and what is really going on in regards to oneself.  It isn't some supersonic thing. It's self awareness in the most mundane sense.

Kant said:

Enlightenment is the liberation of man from his self-caused state of minority. Minority is the incapacity of using one’s understanding without the direction of another. This state of minority is self-caused when its source lies not in a lack of understanding but in a lack of determination to use it without the assistance of another.

My interpretation is: Kant, Hume, Me or the 'meditation masters' can't give anyone the truth.  Kant merely alludes to this great responsibility we have to ourselves to employ completely the totality of our faculties in the truth.  By truth I mean, that which is honest to a fault - monstrously, brutally, ruthlessly and totally so.  It's a very difficult thing as it's always lapsing as we believe our own bushwa.  Obviously there are those who can't see past the bushwa, but they also know they are confused and unsettled, which is the return to the truth. It doesn't have to be rectified, it just as to be truthfully acknowledged as the fact it is. It's not hard to see that 'rectifying it' is in adverse reaction to it, so that's recognised as part of the dilemma itself, isn't it?

That's what we really need to be doing here if this is a meaningful conversation about meditation.  Not learning something a teacher can tell us but being conscious of all the minds movement - what is actually going on.  I'm already saying that I'm just saying and it isn't 'true' so if what I'm saying appears like a cart load of bananas, then watch the monkey go wild.  It's really nothing to do with what I say, Hume says, Kant says, and so on, see?

Well in a very literal sense it is about what Hume and Kant have said because you've said what you've said using their quotes to say it. Have you ever considered how conversations are related in the sense of six degrees of separation? Unless and until someone is going to start from scratch with a new species created in the lab designed to evolve language independently, whatever we say or write is inextricably intertwined and in some sense a product of all of the human culture that preceded it. The only choice that is other than that dependence and further contribution is to stay silent.

I like your comment about honesty. But the conversation isn't just about the meditation. Putting Kant's statement about minority in cultural context, I could easily cast it in terms of the differences between meditation and prayer, but elaborating on that might push the wonk-o-meter on what I'm writing over an unacceptable threshold. :D

I'm not gonna' comment on the dynamics of the current dialog here. I'll send you a nasty bullying PM instead, but it will at least take the high ground of being completely free of gossip.

I didn't say these ones are great masters bringing a wonderful truth, and it's not my idea at all (I already said my interpretation of it). The way 'enlightenment' is used seem to me to be in cultural context with 'the age of reason', which yes, was somewhat counter-political to the church.  The quote doesn't appear to have any especially spiritual undertone. 

I would go further in interpreting Kant to highlight how the 'meditation master' relates to "the incapacity of using one’s understanding without the direction of another" with regard to the student.