Meditation MEGATHREAD

[Waldo 96]

Hehe.

 

It also reminds me of the chasing 'god' thing. The more you seek after 'god' the more you actually setup a mental construct that there is 'you' and there is 'god', and that as you're trying to got towards 'god', you must actually be some distance from 'god'.

 

Of course, 'god' is intershangeable with other constructs, such as enlightenment etc; the mechanic being that the more you chase after it, the more seperation you actually create.

 

It's like trying to make water flow faster through a hose, by squeezing the hose...

 

If I was fool-hardy, I might even go so far as to suggest, that there is no god other than that which you are (note: this is not the same as that which you think you are). I say fool-hardy, because back when everyone was saying the world was flat, they used to string people up who said it was ball shaped...

[Phanerothyme 12]

I view meditation simply as a technology, rather than as an end in itself. And I believe it must be possible to communicate with other human beings about it without solely using metaphor, simile, poetry, scripture or invoking notional deities.

 

I'm interested in what the technology can do and what other people [on this forum] experience; particularly when the experience transcends the relatively common 'relaxation' effects associated with both meditation and breathing exercises.

 

That is the challenge for me. If it can't be talked about in plain language, if ideas cannot be exchanged without recourse to poetry, allegory, years of scriptural study or a foreign language, then its not much good to anyone.

 

Forgive the slightly polemic tone, but it generally helps to get replies.

[Phanerothyme 12]

I say fool-hardy, because back when everyone was saying the world was flat, they used to string people up who said it was ball shaped...

 

The diameter of the earth (they already knew it was a globe) was calculated more than two millennia ago, to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

The "stringing people up" thing is more to do with inward looking tribal politics occasionally turning on the nearest nonconformists - nothing to do with knowledge or the lack of it.

[Waldo 96]

I agree and disagree with aspects of this.

 

I do agree that the 'path', the boat/finger has to be abandoned once one has reached the goal.

 

I think the biggest problem is that far too many people abandon it before reaching the goal because they wrongly assume they are there. Note that nowhere in the sayings you quoted does it say there is no finger, there is no boat. I was a student of zen for a long long time (as I have previously related) and I will repeat part of its problem is that it is too simplistic, people tend to grab it intellectually and assume that they have 'got it'.

 

The part I don't agree with, as a Theravadan is 'our true original nature', in traditional Buddhism that was never taught, it is I believe a later 'addition' by some zen schools.

 

I do salsa a lot too (or I used to)...

 

You get different types in salsa; some just want to get on the dance-floor for a boogie, they don't really know any of the structure of salsa (there are fundamental rules to the dance). They just want to do their thing.

 

Others, have learned the structure, but they strictly adhere to it, and just regurgitate the moves they've been taught by dance teachers, fearful, lest they make a wrong step.

 

The best (IMO) salsa dancers, have leanred the structure, but then they've forgotten it (or sublimated it). Their movement for the most part fits with the rules, but there is something more; they play with the dance, with the music, even flirt with breaking the rules, it's spontaneous and led by their spirit.

 

It's like listening to Hendrix live (or live recording). If you had the musical notation written down for one of his songs, and you had that replicated note for note; it would sound nothing like Hendrix.

 

Going back to Emerson again; where is the Shakesphere would could have taught Shakeshere?...

 

Also on the matter of original nature; I think the Taoists refer to it as PU (the uncarved block), and a great introduction book to Taoism, I can highly recommend, is "The Tao of Pooh".

Edited March 13, 2012 by Waldo
Stop to step

[Waldo 96]

The diameter of the earth (they already knew it was a globe) was calculated more than two millennia ago, to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

The "stringing people up" thing is more to do with inward looking tribal politics occasionally turning on the nearest nonconformists - nothing to do with knowledge or the lack of it.

 

Ah sure.

 

I was making it up, that they strung people up for saying the world was round!

 

I think the general principle applies. People, or groups of people, sometimes have a vested interest in the whole of humanity labouring under an incorrect paradigm. It's often not politically expedient to let everyone in on the truth.

 

I'm an old cynic! (well, maybe not that old).

[PaliRichard 10]

I view meditation simply as a technology, rather than as an end in itself[/Quote]

 

I agree with this entirely.

 

And I believe it must be possible to communicate with other human beings about it without solely using metaphor, simile, poetry, scripture or invoking notional deities[/Quote]

 

........and I partially agree with this, earlier on I put a post up in which I related the story of a man who had studied the Pali texts for his entire life and still didn't 'get' what the Buddha taught.

 

That is the challenge for me. If it can't be talked about in plain language, if ideas cannot be exchanged without recourse to poetry, allegory, years of scriptural study or a foreign language, then its not much good to anyone[/Quote]

 

I think the thing with this, from a purely Buddhist angle is that it is not the meditation itself which is the experience. As I said I agree that it is a technology, in Buddhism it leads to greater and greater degrees of concentration, and it is within those degrees of concentration that you apply analysis, and it is that analysis that causes awakening.

 

The Buddha likened the analysis to the intention of going to a park, once you are there it naturally falls away, it is not needed anymore, and what you are left with is the experience.

 

The difficulty with describing the experience is that it's a little like trying to describe 'blue' to someone who has been blind since birth, unless you have something to measure it against it can't really be described, and there is nothing (at least I have never experienced anything) that relates to that experience.

 

We can talk about it philosophically, as most medititive traditions do, but to put it into words, I genuinly don't think you can.

 

The 'mechanics' of meditation can be described, the experience can't in a nutshell.

[onewheeldave 22]

So tell us, how would one begin to meditate? because I'm dying to get started. x

 

Find a quiet space, sit still with upright spine, either crossed-legged on a cushion, or on the edge of a chair.

 

Attention inwards, watch the mind. Don't try to 'not think'- that's futile. Just watch, notice how thoughts/emotions arise naturally, aspire to not 'add' to them.

 

i.e. don't judge the arising mental states as being bad (or good), just note their existence and then go back to watching the mind.

 

You will get pulled into getting involved with them, maybe for minutes at a time. When you become aware that you've been distracted by getting involved in a trian of thoughts/feelings, simply let them go and return to watching the mind.

 

Don't judge yourself as being 'bad' or 'weak minded' for continually getting pulled into these trains of thoughts/feelings- it's natural and normal: one thing we learn from meditation is how little control we have over our own minds.

 

With many, many hours of such practice you will start to be more aware of the gaps between thoughts, and, over time, these will become more prominent, and the thoughts/feelings lesser. Till the next day, when, for no apparent reason, the mind will chatter like a monkey again

[PaliRichard 10]

It's like listening to Hendrix live (or live recording). If you had the musical notation written down for one of his songs, and you had that replicated note for note; it would sound nothing like Hendrix.[/Quote]

 

I agree with this, but Buddhism isn't just 'written' down, it has to be practiced, the boat has to be rowed, the finger followed etc, my whole point is that, to use your Hendrix analogy, you are not trying to sound exactly like Hendrix, but you are learning to play the guitar, and if Hendrix is your teacher your not going to learn a few chords then abandon it, which is what I see taking place in Zen, simply because people have had a guitar lesson and think that they can play Voodoo Chile, it's not necessarily the case that they can.

 

The Buddha never said he wanted you to have all his life experiences, he said that there was suffering, and his was a path that could cure that suffering, so if you wanted to be cured, follow the path, and if you didn't - well don't.

[onewheeldave 22]

I accept that. It seems to me that the benefits of meditation ought to be accessible without alien terminology.

 

I can enter meditative states, but I'm curious to know whether these are analagous to the meditative states that Buddhists,Taoists, TMers & Yogics experience.

 

But the semiotics are slippery.

 

You need terminology to pass these ideas on, and no-one is talking any kind of language I understand here.

 

When you meditate what, typically, happens to you and what do you experience?

 

 

I view meditation simply as a technology, rather than as an end in itself. And I believe it must be possible to communicate with other human beings about it without solely using metaphor, simile, poetry, scripture or invoking notional deities.

 

I'm interested in what the technology can do and what other people [on this forum] experience; particularly when the experience transcends the relatively common 'relaxation' effects associated with both meditation and breathing exercises.

 

That is the challenge for me. If it can't be talked about in plain language, if ideas cannot be exchanged without recourse to poetry, allegory, years of scriptural study or a foreign language, then its not much good to anyone.

 

Forgive the slightly polemic tone, but it generally helps to get replies.

 

You speak in the manner of many rationalists/members of the sceptical movement.

 

Not every experience can be expressed in purely rational terms- not every experience can be communicated to others in plain language.

 

The only way you're going to grasp what a person experiences when a person meditates, is to meditate.

 

And, i can tell you from experience, that if you're utterly focused on rational understanding, you're not going to have the meditation experience that someone who is not utterly focused on rational understanding will have.

 

Rationality, by definition, requires thoughts, and, the kind of meditation most here are talking about, takes place in the gaps between thoughts.

 

Thoughts that arise in meditation are best handled by a simple acknowledgement, and, a refusal to get involved with them.

 

When thoughts are acknowledged, but not entered into dialogue with, they tend to become less frequent- any other attempt to 'do' anything with thoughts, only serves to encourage them, and their frequency will increase.

 

I'd suggest you ask yourself what it is that interests you about meditation?

[johncocker 10]

So tell us, how would one begin to meditate? because I'm dying to get started. x

 

 

if you're serious

why not find a retreat centre ,must be one nr sheffield somewhere.

do a 4 day theravada vapassana silent retreat see if its the thing for you ,

 

maybe palirichard would know were theres one

[dutch 68]

Thank god there are people like dave here now putting the attention towards meditation.

[johncocker 10]

You speak in the manner of many rationalists/members of the sceptical movement.

 

Not every experience can be expressed in purely rational terms- not every experience can be communicated to others in plain language.

 

The only way you're going to grasp what a person experiences when a person meditates, is to meditate.

 

And, i can tell you from experience, that if you're utterly focused on rational understanding, you're not going to have the meditation experience that someone who is not utterly focused on rational understanding will have.

Rationality, by definition, requires thoughts, and, the kind of meditation most here are talking about, takes place in the gaps between thoughts.

 

Thoughts that arise in meditation are best handled by a simple acknowledgement, and, a refusal to get involved with them.

When thoughts are acknowledged, but not entered into dialogue with, they tend to become less frequent- any other attempt to 'do' anything with thoughts, only serves to encourage them, and their frequency will increase.

 

I'd suggest you ask yourself what it is that interests you about meditation?

 

whos thinking about not thinking about thinking?