Meditation MEGATHREAD

[johncocker 10]

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.

 

the four noble truths and the eightfold path

[dutch 68]

whos thinking about not thinking about thinking?

 

You dont' think about not thinking, you are capable of watching and observing the thinking process. When you watch and observe the thinking process it slows down and in the gaps you see who you are.

[Waldo 96]

@Richard.

 

I wonder where the Buddha would be, had he not gone his own way, and instead, stuck to the dogma of his day?...

 

Sounds a little preachy almost Richard. You're equating 'cured' with following the (presumably Buddhist) path, and the consequence of not following this path, to not be cured? (or an implication that you do not want to be cured, if you do not follow the path).

 

All seems based on a presumption that something wrong with us, that suffering is everywhere, and we need curing. It sounds very dogmatic and divisive (in a, you'll go to hell if you don't follow our way of doing things, type way) to me. Do you not feel as if you're just reiterating dogma Richard?

[TJC1 10]

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

 

Totally serious. Been thinking about this for months.

 

I will look out for a retreat then I guess.

[TJC1 10]

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

 

I'll try this. Thanks for the practical info!

[TJC1 10]

That depends on your goal. Yoga, tai chi, chi gong and sitting are all forms of meditation. Let me know what you want to acheive and I will give you a method.

 

If you just want to feel nice and at one with the universe ask someone else though, alas I cant help you with that.

 

Any tips for calmness, relaxation and becoming more centred?

 

If you have any tips on that in terms of meditation be much appreciated.

 

x

[PaliRichard 10]

@Richard.

 

I wonder where the Buddha would be, had he not gone his own way, and instead, stuck to the dogma of his day?...

 

Sounds a little preachy almost Richard. You're equating 'cured' with following the (presumably Buddhist) path, and the consequence of not following this path, to not be cured? (or an implication that you do not want to be cured, if you do not follow the path).

 

All seems based on a presumption that something wrong with us, that suffering is everywhere, and we need curing. It sounds very dogmatic and divisive (in a, you'll go to hell if you don't follow our way of doing things, type way) to me. Do you not feel as if you're just reiterating dogma Richard?

 

Not at all.

 

If you come from the Abrahamic angle of understanding Buddhism then you can interpret it in that way, but Buddha didn't teach about absolute good and evil.

 

He said that there was suffering in the world, he said that there was a cure to that suffering and gave the path (the boat) to acheiving that goal.

 

If you choose not to follow the Buddhist path that is up to you. There is absolutely nothing that says I must preach to anyone about why they should follow that path (as I've already stated I have actively avoided giving Pattricia meditation with the aim of following the Buddhist path, I merely gave her a method that many traditions and secularist meditators use).

 

If you believe (as Buddhist do) there is suffering in the world, then follow the path to escape it, if not don't, I'm not here to try to save you, if you consider you're not suffering then you are not suffering. My opinion, as a Buddhist, is that I am, and I am following the path to save myself.

 

So the 'path' of Buddhism involves skillful and unskillful actions, not good and bad.

 

There is nothing 'wrong' with living in any way you want, that is the Buddhist view, but if, and only if, you take the idea that we are suffering as a truth, which Buddhists do, then certain actions are skillful, certain are unskillful, but that applies only to me, not to someone who doesn't believe that, and I am not the judge of that person.

 

The Buddha did go his own way, he taught that he wasn't the first to do so, and because his own way was so painful he taught so others could find it without the hardship he went through. Did he teach everyone had to become a follower? No. Did he teach that there were benefitial and unbenefitial actions that followers should adhere to in order to acheive the 'goal' as quickly as possible with the minimun suffering? Yes.

 

Does that make it dogmatic? Not in my opinion because he didn't force it as the truth on those that were not interested.

 

My previous posts to you have related to Zen, which does accept the Buddhist path, had they regarded Taoism or Hinduism or Christianity then I wouldn't have said that certain people were grasping it incorrectly, that would be up to their own tradition to decide, not mine.

[PaliRichard 10]

Any tips for calmness, relaxation and becoming more centred?

 

If you have any tips on that in terms of meditation be much appreciated.

 

x

 

The tips given by Dave are useful, I would add counting the in and out breaths up to ten (then repeating) to begin with as this will help concentrate your mind, if it slips (if you find your mind 'running away' with you) return to the counting, but that is up to you to experiment with, but Dave's post was fine.

 

Just away to work but don't worry about the retreat too much yet, you don't want to get stuck in any particular tradition, just concentrate on the breathing.

[janie48 96]

Any tips for calmness, relaxation and becoming more centred?

 

If you have any tips on that in terms of meditation be much appreciated.

 

x

 

Have you looked at post18 ? etc, Pattricia has acchieved good results with the method she was given from Palirichard.

I shall probably try it myself,but i have been following one i got off the internet,and i have also been loaned a book from a friend.The post you received from onewheeldave will also be helpful to me. That is as much as i need for the present.

Best wishes with your progress.

[onewheeldave 22]

whos thinking about not thinking about thinking?

 

I don't recall mentioning anyone "thinking about not thinking about thinking"?

 

I was saying attention in meditation is best directed towards the gaps between thoughts, rather than the thoughts themselves.

[Phanerothyme 12]

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.

But like the religious experience, how do you discuss it with someone else without all the "lingo". Do different methods and practices result in different states, how many states are there, can they be characterised?

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.

 

You could go one further than that and say that all experiences are 100% idiosyncratic, no two are alike. The point being, how would you know without being able to meaningfully compare or even contrast the experiences?

 

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

Drifting into the nebulous already. What is "a thought"? what are "gaps between thoughts"? Precision is not the same as rationality.

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?

 

Fundmentally the comparison between altered states of four (to me) distinct kinds, religious, meditative, 'psychosis' and "drug induced".

[janie48 96]

 

Janie, the first experiences of meditation can wake a lot of emotions and intense feelings. That does get better over time.

When you say "just simple meditation, nothing deep" you are already very close moving the right way.

As soon as it gets complicated and far away you lose touch with it.

 

I'm not sure there is anything other than simple meditation, not from the Buddhist perspective anyway. It's the states of concentration that deepen as the analysis used becomes subtler and subtler, but the 'method' remains simple right to the 'end'.

 

Many of the methods mentioned on here, and used on different religions/traditions and even secular meditation share the same 'mechanics', it is largely the analysis or philosophy (or if you prefer, as some do) baggage that produce the various results. But the meditation, the method, remains the same for the masters and the students.

 

That is of course, only the Buddhist perspective, what others think I don't know.

 

I submitted my last post Richard before i saw your last post to TJCI

 

When i said simple thats because it suits my purpose,but that doesn't mean i dissmiss anything related to meditation on a more deeper level.

I have said i read the posts and find them informative,but that doesn't mean i understand every statement i read.

Some people have a more enquiring mind then i do and choose to study and analyse a subject in more detail,which is a very good thing of course.Its apparent that some posters on here have some reservations about some areas of meditation practices (Phanerothyme seems to be one) I don't see anything wrong with choosing to question something.

I hope that the remainder of the discussion will remain as informative as it has been so we can learn from each other.

 

and dutch i don't want it to get complicated because i'm complicated enough!

Edited March 13, 2012 by janie48
added a bit