Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Very basic question . . . sorry if it's TOO basic
specialkayme
Veteran
So I have been meditating for about a year and a half. I'm still a beginner. I started with the "8 Minute Meditation" book, and moved on to Metta Meditation. I can do some metta meditations, but mostly I just count breaths and try to focus on that. Quiet the mind, if you will. I started meditating 8 minutes a day, and once I felt comfortable with that I added a minute. Now I'm up to 13.
Anyway, I'm reading alot about meditation on things: Emptiness, Interconnectedness, Buddha-nature, ect. My question (and it's very basic) is how do you meditate on a topic?
I thought the whole point was to quiet the mind. Once it starts to wander, you bring it back. If I meditate and start thinking about emptiness, my mind will wander. Sometimes on emptiness, sometimes not. So is some wandering mind allowed, as long as it's on the same topic? Or should I just be repeating "Emptiness" over and over again?
Anyway, I'm reading alot about meditation on things: Emptiness, Interconnectedness, Buddha-nature, ect. My question (and it's very basic) is how do you meditate on a topic?
I thought the whole point was to quiet the mind. Once it starts to wander, you bring it back. If I meditate and start thinking about emptiness, my mind will wander. Sometimes on emptiness, sometimes not. So is some wandering mind allowed, as long as it's on the same topic? Or should I just be repeating "Emptiness" over and over again?
0
Comments
I would suggest, to keep it simple, and not into a bunch of different meditation practices and topics. I would start by practicing simple anapanasati, which is Mindfulness with Breathing meditation. This is different from what you're practicing. Eventually, this will lead into vipassana.
Personally, I find the book you mentioned to have a very poor understanding of Buddhist meditation... what it describes is more about dangling a shiny object in front of yourself to distract yourself from reality for a few minutes. The author describes what he teaches as "an enjoyable mini-vacation." It's a temporary, conditioned sense of "peace" and "bliss" that results from non-thinking and shutting out reality.
The Buddha sought unconditioned peace, Nibbana. This requires insight, particularly of the truth of anatta, anicca, and the nature of dukkha. Insight can't be gained through what that book describes. Insight isn't gained through chanting those words repeatedly, but begins with an intellectual understanding and is then seen/experienced as the truth during your meditation.
I would highly recommend this video; it's the best meditation teaching I've come across:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-3529760254352711693#
This is another good resource: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html
However, I wouldn't recommend meditating on emptiness or buddha nature this way, as both of these go beyond conceptual understanding. There are meditations that lead to understanding them in the mahamudra tradition, but I think you will need a teacher before you practice them.
Meditation is somthing quite different. The goal of meditation is quite different. The purpose of meditation is to develop direct insight into the nature of an object. In zazen or dhyana we come to a point where our mind is unified and one pointed enough to focus on a object fully and to apprehend its true nature. Without the development of one pointendness aquired in zazen we can never truely direct the mind enough to meditate.
So Fundamentaly zazen and meditation are alomost identical. The primary difference is that in zazen we develop one pointed concentration and in meditation we use the one pointedness already aquired to apprehend the nature of an object.
1. The first is Calm Abiding, in which you learn to concentrate. He advises beginners to focus on the breath for 21 breaths. And only when we can focus on the breath without even the slightest wavering of focus (caused by internal or external stimuli/distractions) ... only then are we ready to move onto the second type of meditation. Achieving this type of concentration takes years, he says (and so far I haven't proven him wrong!)
2. This is Analytical Meditation, in which (with the complete focus we learned in Calm Abiding) we are now able to examine topics.
In order to meditate and examine on things, we need to have this complete focus, or ... you're right ... the mind will wander. According to my teacher, the purpose of #1 is not to quiet the mind, but to train the mind to focus on what we choose, without distraction.
I feel that an intelectual understanding of the dharma is not nessasarily a bad thing. However if one mistakes an intelectual understanding for a true realization that is delusion. This is a result of attatchment to the idea of enlightenment not real enlightenment.
To me an enlightenment experience is somewhat like seeing the inate beauty of a flower. And an intelectual experience is like knowing of photosynthesis. When you see a flower, you naturaly feel the flowers beauty. And after knowing the awe of a flowers beauty sometimes knowledge of photosynthisis enhances your appreciation for the flowers beauty. If you hate the class involved it can decrease it or at least your love of photosynthesis. But trying to approach enlightenment through an intelectual understanding of it . Is like someone who trys to feel the beauty of a flower by means of an understanding of photosynthesis. Now granted photosynthesis is cool but if a poet were to write
Oh!! carbon dioxide gas
Converted into organic compounds
You might say dear god have you ever seen a flower?
This is why intelectual understanding can be dangerous
Im sure there are botanists who think that way (no offense)
However if you have an intelectual understanding and actualy see the flower (e.g. attain enlightenment) then the information could potentialy help others in need of a description considering that enlightenment is beyond sense
This is why zen masters still study the dharma
Hope that helped
Alex
The starting point is to quiet the mind and work with this mind. Here is a useful site for meditation instruction.
http://www.vipassanadhura.com/howto.htm
Analytical meditations are done somewhat like this: Let's say our main topic is "The eight worldly concerns". Then you would go thinking about one by one, how attached you are to them, how much aversion you have towards them, thinking of examples from your own life, seeing what kind of process goes on your mind that leads you to believe that, let's say, other people's praise, for example, is so important, if it should be like that or not, and so on. You familiarize yourself with the subject and bring it to your everyday life.
Thank you for this answer NamelessRiver, of all the responses this one appears to be the clearest and easiest to understand. No offense to everyone else though, you all gave some great responses and keep the discussion coming, I'm certainly benefiting from it.
But your reply somewhat confuses me. If the point of Calm Abiding is to develop single pointed concentration, then the goal would be to work with your mind until you can concentrate on one object without your mind wandering, right? As far as I think, that's what I'm working on right now, and probably will still be doing for at least a few years (till I get it right(thanks FoibleFull)).
But if the second goal is insight, in the process of insight meditation isn't your mind wandering from topic to topic? Sure you are focusing on the eight worldly concerns, but isn't your mind just wandering from one to the other, and how attached or disattached you are to them, how good they are and how bad they are, ect? Or is it once you have achieved Calm Abiding you are able to think about a topic such as that, and truly analyze it, and in analyzing it your mind isn't wandering?
Sorry if I'm being difficult, but from my perspective it looks like I"m trying to achieve concentration in step one, then let the mind wander in step two. I realize this is wrong, but I don't understand how I'm wrong. I'm just trying to look down the path a little instead of just walking while staring at my feet.
What if you told me 1+1=3 and after meditating on this for an hour a day for 15 years I believed it?
The point is Buddhism isn't as straightforward as summation.
Perhaps its a catch 22 but according to the story books it wasn't a catch 22 for the Buddha.
Ajahn Chah called samatha and vipassana two sides of the same stick. However, it is best to start with your basic meditation. In my tradition (Zen), we do not purposely do any intellectual analysis or thoughts during meditation, the objective is merely to sit, and as thoughts arise, to return to the breath, or the count of the breath (whatever is your practice).
If you stick with meditation, your other answers can be answered by yourself but it is important not to get distracted now.
Stick with your meditation, be patient, and be patient.
The mind is oft allured by the complex, the intriguing and such, but I think you will see that the Earth herself works on foundation first and whilst simple, its strength cannot be underestimated.
You do require some patience for this though, and if necessary, join a local Sangha and teacher whom may provide better guidance for you in person.
These are just some of my viewpoints FWIW.
Best wishes,
Abu.
Thank you Floating_Abu. It was helpful.
I guess I should mention that I am part of a sangha, although not a local sangha. Mine is about an hour and a half away. It gives me the opportunity to make it to a session about once or twice a month, but unfortunately doesn't give me much of an opportunity for one on one training. I"m getting by though.:)