Few things point out the fallacy of a correct posture like achieving such a thing, because the difficulties of a meditation practice will simply continue on unabated despite such a narrow achievement.
Do you think that a mind, when threatened with a potential curtailment of its empire during meditation, won't bring up the ideal of a perfect posture to neutralize such a threat?
How much of these aches and pains are about having chosen a meditation posture that is more ideal-based than it is actually comfortable?
Is each moment of your life, also equally filled with these aches & pains when you are simply being physically still?
how
Each moment is a new arising, a life and its finish. Each moment of consciousness is another re-do in relationship to the last. Is the person who brags still existing in the same universe that spawned that bragging?
To an ego, this is chaos,
to the braggart, it is fears defense,
to the accepting, another opportunity in awakening.
how
This is a great subject.
In paying attention to the micro moments of ones gaze becoming inattentive, you might notice that the eye's focus actually begins first to cross just enough to start creating a blank visual screen that the mind can then freely dominate. This a common observation amongst zazen forms that are practiced with the eyes open and is just indicative of the way we have habituated the process of sense gate data subservience in the promotion of our mind's own storylines.
Meditators who are blind or meditators who practice with their eyes closed can find the same precursors to a falling away from being fully present in the obfuscations of any of the other sense gates as well.
In Zen its good to note that such observations are considered to be more akin to concentration exercises than they are to the meditation itself. They can be foundational to the development of a meditation practice but shouldn't be mistaken for the meditation practice itself.
In a different tradition that has similarities to Zen they have a delightful admonishment to their meditators about it in saying one should be wary of becoming as limited as a cat watching a mouse hole.
how
With Shamatha meditation, the instruction is to rest your gaze on a spot - on the floor, about 3' out from where you sit.
Something I learned over the years was that this instruction is important. It's important because it teaches the student about a tool they can use in their practice. Kind of a hack.
When meditating, rest your gaze on your object (that spot on the floor). When you sense your eyes wandering away from the object, you are no longer meditating. Return to the object and resume meditation. Don't go all vise-grip on the object to prevent wandering. Just rest.
It is harder to imagine a bigger statement of contempt for your fellows than choosing a funerial legacy that removes that much breathable air from a terrarium that the rest of the living depend upon to continue surviving.
how
A funeral costs about 10,000 euros over here as well.
But it seems like a self-aggrandising statement. I’m tempted to record no wishes on the matter, as I will be gone by then and what’s left is just the physical shell.
Jeroen
Right speech: do not talk to a resentful person about politics, especially if the party getting roasted is the one they have voted all their life. Dumb, SUPER DUMB Kotishka!
Kotishka
@FleaMarket said:
What's he say about speaking to the causes?
He says that disease is a process that encompasses a person’s entire life, from their early childhood conditions, trauma, work stresses, past and current mental wellbeing, to name just a few salient factors.
It’s a good book, makes a lot of sense. He says the reason so few people talk about trauma is because they don’t want to acknowledge society’s flaws, and that we might have to do things to make significant changes.
Jeroen
@Jeroen said:
Hmm arguing with yourself is not a good sign…
Maybe. A fun way to openly change an opinion past the edit limit.
I’m still reading Gabor Maté’s book on trauma and the toxic culture, and have just >arrived at the chapters on mental health, he seems to agree that diagnoses are only >useful as a shorthand for a set of symptoms and don’t speak to causes.
That makes sense. Just reading most of the names, it's just a labeling of a symptom. "Anxiety, depression, bi-polar" doesn't really explain much about why someone is. What's he say about speaking to the causes?