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.
What is "meditation"? Don't know!
GuyC
Veteran
Hi Everyone,
This is aimed at no one in particular, and I am a potential perpetrator of what I am about to talk about:
I think it is worth saying that there is a danger in becoming the "meditation police", by which I mean trying to convince other people that our thoughts about what meditation is as well as our particular methods and attitudes is somehow more authoritative than another persons thoughts, methods and attitudes on what meditation is and how to do it. Even if we have experiential evidence that our method of meditation does what it is supposed to, does that necessarily imply that it is the "only way" or that other methods lack any value?
"Meditation" is a word that is used in many different religious and secular circles which makes it easy for two or more people to think they are talking about the same thing when they mention the word, but have totally different ideas about what meditation actually is. Becuase of the wide-spread use of the word "meditation" I think we should be careful about talking authoritatively about a subject that has no proprietor.
Granted, we are on a Buddhist forum here, so we naturally assume that when people ask about meditation they want to know about "Buddhist meditation", but even that is highly subjective! Something as fundamental as "Samma-Samadhi" (Right Stillness: The Eighth factor of the N8FP) is widely debated in terms of what it is, how to reach it and also it's importance and relevance to the rest of the path.
So where am I going with this rant...I think we should be humble enough to admit that we might not know as much about meditation (or Buddhism, for that matter) as we think we do. Sure, share the techniques and methods that you have with other people, offer advice to people who ask for it if you have encountered the problems they are encountering, but try to avoid telling other people that they don't know how to meditate just because their ideas are different than yours.
Again, this is aimed at no one in particular. If it is aimed at anyone, it is aimed at myself, but I thought I would share these words in case other people might benefit from it.
Metta,
Guy
This is aimed at no one in particular, and I am a potential perpetrator of what I am about to talk about:
I think it is worth saying that there is a danger in becoming the "meditation police", by which I mean trying to convince other people that our thoughts about what meditation is as well as our particular methods and attitudes is somehow more authoritative than another persons thoughts, methods and attitudes on what meditation is and how to do it. Even if we have experiential evidence that our method of meditation does what it is supposed to, does that necessarily imply that it is the "only way" or that other methods lack any value?
"Meditation" is a word that is used in many different religious and secular circles which makes it easy for two or more people to think they are talking about the same thing when they mention the word, but have totally different ideas about what meditation actually is. Becuase of the wide-spread use of the word "meditation" I think we should be careful about talking authoritatively about a subject that has no proprietor.
Granted, we are on a Buddhist forum here, so we naturally assume that when people ask about meditation they want to know about "Buddhist meditation", but even that is highly subjective! Something as fundamental as "Samma-Samadhi" (Right Stillness: The Eighth factor of the N8FP) is widely debated in terms of what it is, how to reach it and also it's importance and relevance to the rest of the path.
So where am I going with this rant...I think we should be humble enough to admit that we might not know as much about meditation (or Buddhism, for that matter) as we think we do. Sure, share the techniques and methods that you have with other people, offer advice to people who ask for it if you have encountered the problems they are encountering, but try to avoid telling other people that they don't know how to meditate just because their ideas are different than yours.
Again, this is aimed at no one in particular. If it is aimed at anyone, it is aimed at myself, but I thought I would share these words in case other people might benefit from it.
Metta,
Guy
0
Comments
then we can dissect and discuss the idea. break it down and see if it holds true. and if it doesn't we should figure out why it doesn't work. since everyone is different, everyone is going to have different experiences.
but oddly i feel there is almost a framework that people can work with when it comes to meditation. like common traps and potential insights. the buddha laid it all down anyways. we're just learning to interpret what the buddha says + our own experience + our own cultural conditioning = data given.
each idea is valid unless proven otherwise.
Good topic. One can only judge ones own meditation. But the problem is people sometimes get to a certain level, don't get any further and think that must be it, because their teachers don't give any advice or inspiration and they themselves don't see it can get deeper.
Like the popular noting practice; I tried it once or twice but immediately saw through it. What's the use of noting things? Once you note you already lost the event you noted. And at a certain point you start noting notes of noting notes
Another thing is vipassana where people apparently aren't told to relax, which for me is a very important aspect. Again, maybe this work for some (??) but not for me.
That's why I personally looked at different teachers (Thich Nhat Hanh, Gil Fronsdal, Tibetan monks, different Ajahns) following different methods until I found what worked for me and what inspires me. And what works for me, I sometimes share to maybe inspire others and perhaps give them a slight push or different view, while not being judgmental about other methods, because everybody's path is different. For every 1 Buddhist there exists 1 style of meditation, 1 path. In the end everybody has got to find his own path, nobody can walk it for them, not even the Buddha could.
To talk about the sama-samadhi dispute: Maybe mental absorptions are important, I personally once discarded it. Now I'm back with the camp that think they are important. You can only judge yourself. The great Thich Nhat Hanh says they are not important while some other great monks say they are, now who am I to judge them? I can only share my vision and keep on sitting on the cushion exploring the mind.
The funny thing is, the more you meditate the more you see all traditions and methods come down to the same thing, which of course is the 8-fold path.
Sabre
I don't necessarily believe that "my way is the best for everyone"...but I think it's a potential danger (at least for me, maybe this does not apply to you). That's all, nothing more, nothing less.
Metta,
Guy
It is good to see that we can all agree on relaxation as being an important ingredient...maybe we can start a list of ingredients that people on this forum agree on as to what is important to meditation. Perhaps we can start a seperate thread dedicated to this subject.
Any ideas that one (or more) people object to as being important we will leave out. Then, with the completed list, we have a "basic method of meditation" which we can offer to "new Buddhists" who want to know what we practice here.
I imagine there will be a lot of ideas that we disagree on, but hopefully there are also several ideas we agree on as well, giving a foundation for practice. We've already got relaxtion (anyone object to this being an important ingredient?)...that's a good start!
Metta,
Guy
say as an artist...most of my best art comes from when i decided to thinking outside the box and disregard traditional techniques and preconceived ideas of what i think art should be. in fact even if i view a piece of artwork as failure, i can learn a lot more from that verse a piece of artwork that is complete. because you can only recognize the failure if you understand what works. if you just call something a failure without an understanding of what can make a piece of artwork better...then that is a subjective judgement. the imperfect can only exist when we know the perfect and vice versa.
growth only occurs when there is conflict. but the "potential dangers" do waste a lot of time. that is why we test and examine all our beliefs and like scientists we repeat experiments constantly.
so fail elegantly. live and learn.
So, can we add "not being afraid to make mistakes" and "reflecting on experience" to the list of "important meditation ingredients"? Any objections?
Metta,
Guy
Regarding this proposed list of "important meditation ingredients":
Perhaps we keep this list simple, maybe 10 or so items, then we can compile them into an "Official New Buddhist Basic Meditation Technique Guidelines" booklet. Plus, we can also add to the booklet the famous Kalama Sutta, with a note to the reader that these are merely "guidelines" and are not meant to be definitive - thus avoiding the potential "meditation police" problem.
If the Forum admins don't want to have the "New Buddhist" name attached to this idea then that is fine, I think it's a good idea so I'll probably do it anyway with or without the "New Buddhist" name.
Metta,
Guy
All the best,
Todd
@GuyC. So have you had a complete change of heart? At first you cautioned against establishing a "right" way of meditating, but now you are in favor of a guideline. Those two endeavors seem somewhat contradictory.
What I think is a "potential danger" (and this doesn't apply to Enlightened beings - if we believe that Enlightened beings exist - but that's another discussion altogether) is if we think something is Samma-Vayama, Samma-Sati and Samma-Samadhi then we try to convince others of this when we do not know for sure.
Even if the Suttas are a 100% accurate representation of the Buddha's Teachings and we quote the Suttas to try to prove what our idea of meditation is - we may have misinterpreted those Suttas. So we need to be careful.
The proposed guidelines are simply that: guidelines. Their aim is not to be definitive, but to provide new Buddhists with a framework based on the experience of other people living in the modern world speaking modern language. Not everyone who has an interest in Buddhism is eager to dive into the Suttas, so I am trying to make a simple accessible booklet for newbies. It is not meant as a replacement of the Suttas (I even plan to quote the Suttas in the text and to emphasize the spirit of the Kalama Sutta), instead, it is meant as an introductory manual.
Perhaps the "meditation police" are actually a straw man, but if it weren't for that straw man I probably wouldn't have thought of the "Non-Definitive, Non-Replacement-for-The-Suttas, Possibly-Inaccurate-Agreed-Upon-Ideas-of-What-Medition-is-Within-a-Buddhist-Context Official (New Buddhist? optional) Basic Meditation Technique Guidelines"* booklet - which I still think is a good idea.
Metta,
Guy
*Title of booklet as yet undecided.
You have good concerns, however I don't see your manual as addressing those concerns since it simply creates (inadvertently) a new authority, which is the majority opinion of the people who participate in this project.
Nevertheless, I think this can be a useful enterprise for all of us. Good luck, and I'll see you in the other thread.
I will make it clear in the opening few paragraphs of the booklet that the methods contained within the booklet are not the final word on meditation and that each person should come to their own conclusions after trying out various methods (the ones in the booklet as well as other sources) and finding what works for them.
If the introductory book is received well by newbies then I might write a secondary booklet based on the Anapanasati Sutta and the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta and offer various resources from different "experts" (pointing out that the experts do not always agree) on how to interpret these Suttas. Then after seeing what the "experts" have to say about these Suttas, they can find through their experience which of these interpretations (through the practice of which) leads to an increase in wholesome states and a decrease in unwholesome states (a measure which the Buddha taught). I won't mention all of this in the first booklet for the sake of simplicity.
Metta,
Guy
With love, Jen
I hope the books are of benefit to others.
Metta,
Guy
We should advice beginners that basically there are 2 types of Buddhist
meditation; vipassana & samadhi.
Metta,
Guy
I never saw the value in it. Even when I fell in love with the rational logic of Buddhism, I almost never meditate. I practice Buddhist way of living every day... nix the meditation.
I grew concerned and emailed a Buddhist author about the topic. I asked "Can I be a Buddhist and not meditate?" He replied "umm I guess, but there is great value in meditation... and I don't know a Buddhist who doesn't meditate."
Now I was feeling the peer pressure. But I always rebel against peer-pressure.
Now a couple years into Buddhism.. I realized. I do meditate. My own way, and I never even realized it.
When I clean the whole house top to bottom, I play some pretty Buddhist chants (seriously who can be in a bad state of mind when good music is playing?). I start chanting along and become very absorbed in my task. I notice the wood floors while I clean them. The smells. I feel productive. I contemplate life and examine my thoughts. Also when I ride my bike with the dogs, I feel incredibly aware. My muscles pump, the wheels turn, the dogs are running by my side. I notice the temperature, I'm just very aware. I do lots of inner reflection in the car when I'm the passenger (my girlfriend decided that she should always drive). My thoughts are only interrupted when she requests me to hand her something.
I don't think meditation needs to be done in a mystical, or even rigid manner. I think meditation comes naturally to most folks, you just need to find out how you already meditate. Maybe you do it while drawing, or when lying in the bed. Don't feel pressured to conform to a rigid discipline. Then you won't enjoy it. meditation.
First of all, I offer my apologies for the long post. I couldn’t think of any part of this post that I would be happy about deleting. If you will please bear with me, I hope that this post addresses some of your concerns regarding sitting meditation. I am by no means an expert, but I will offer what little knowledge I have and try to make it clear as to which of the following is just my opinion.
When I started this thread I actually had an assumption that "meditation" would be understood by the other forum users as “sitting meditation” without even realizing! Thank you for pointing this assumption out!
The reason why I had this assumption is because there are somewhat controversial and arguably important Suttas where the Buddha does seem to suggest that there are certain methods (of what we might today, in the English language, rightly or wrongly, call "meditation") which are to be practiced in a sitting posture (see: Anapanasati Sutta – Majjhima Nikaya 118). Anapanasati (which in English translates to “Mindfulness of Breathing”) is considered by some to be an indispensible part of Buddhist practice or, at the very least, it may be considered to be one particular method that has helped many people on their path to Awakening.
Not everyone agrees on some of the details of the Anapanasati Sutta, but one detail which I have not seen any controversy about is that the method is to be practiced in a sitting posture. I think we can agree that it was while sitting under the Bodhi tree that the Buddha reached Awakening...or at the very least we can agree that this is what the books say...and he encouraged his disciples (both lay and monastic) to practice the same (i.e. “sitting meditation”).
What you describe as meditation I would personally call a "flow" experience (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) ). But, hey, who is to say what is and is not "meditation", right? The following words are just my opinions and my (limited) experiences of two things; a) what I commonly call “meditation” (or more specifically “One guy’s interpretation of sitting meditation within a Buddhist context” – but from this point on I will refer to this as “meditation” for simplicity) and b) what I would call “flow”:
"Flow" definitely has a lot of similarities to (and many of the same benefits as) sitting meditation. But in my experience it seems that "sitting meditation" (which could arguably be sub-categorized within the "flow" category of experiences) really allows the mind to go deeper into peace, happiness and wisdom compared to other "flow" activities (such as physical exercise, cleaning or sometimes even thinking can be a “flow” activity). Furthermore, thinking for long periods of time (even about positive themes) will drain the mind’s energy (at least, in my experience), whereas cultivating inner-silence (which is one of the skills/qualities a person develops through the particular “formal sitting meditation” method that I practice) tends to increase the mind’s energy. Sitting meditation is not supposed to replace other “flow” activities, instead, I would say that there is a time to do physical exercise, a time to clean, a time to think and a time to just “sit meditation”.
Within Buddhist formal meditation practices it could be said that there are two main types (depending on the posture): sitting and walking. Walking meditation can be used in conjunction with very “Buddhist” themes, such as seeing the “Three Characteristics” (impermanence, suffering and non-self) in phenomena while walking back and forth – or – it can simply be another basic flow activity. It is possible to meditate while lying down but one tends to fall asleep (at least, I do), it is possible to meditate while standing still but it tends to be physically taxing to stand still for long periods (at least, in my experience). Sitting, like lying, is comfortable – so the posture can be sustained for long periods – which is helpful when it comes to cultivating stillness of mind. However, unlike lying, sitting is more conducive to cultivating awareness.
Ideally we should "be mindful" (by which I mean be aware of what we are doing and also to know why we are doing it) throughout all our daily activities. Within a Buddhist context some might argue that mindfulness and meditation are one and the same. In my opinion, mindfulness is an important ingredient in "formal sitting meditation" but "mindfulness" and "meditation" are not (at least, in the way that I am using the word in the context of this particular post – which is by no means definitive) the same thing. I would argue that all forms of so-called “Buddhist meditation” (or at least the ones I have encountered and practiced) contain mindfulness, but, not all forms of mindfulness bring the same benefits as sitting meditation (in a Buddhist context). In other words: All apples (Buddhist meditation techniques) are fruit (mindfulness techniques), but not all fruits are apples.
There is certainly a feedback loop though: i.e. the more a person practices "formal sitting meditation" the more mindful they become in their "daily activities" (e.g. cleaning and exercising) and the more mindful a person becomes in their "daily activities" the deeper and more beneficial their "formal sitting meditation" becomes. The two ("mindfulness in daily life" and "formal sitting meditation") are mutually beneficial. If your mind regularly and easily enters a state of “flow” in your “daily activities” then I would guess that you would easily reap the benefits from “sitting meditation”.
It might seem to someone who does not practice sitting meditation (...or to someone who has practiced one type of sitting meditation - that didn’t work for them for one reason or another - and has grown sceptical of all types of sitting meditation as a result...) that sitting meditation is just a bunch of hocus-pocus mystical mumbo-jumbo. But those who have practiced sitting meditation and have experienced peace, clarity and sheer joy as a result – they will discard any views that it may be a bunch of out-dated ancient hocus-pocus on account of their first hand experience.
If you are interested in giving sitting meditation another chance, I encourage you to explore (both the theory and the practice) of the different methods available. Become familiar with the Suttas and compare your experiences to the Suttas. Talk with other practitioners about your practice and about the Suttas, especially those who are long-term meditators. Try to keep an open minds and see where it takes you.
In keeping with the original theme of the thread I feel that I re-emphasize that any and all of what I have said is not necessarily true, it is just one unenlightened person’s opinions based on his limited experience of what he would call “meditation” within the framework of his (possibly wrong) understanding of Buddhist Teachings.
Don’t feel any pressure to practice sitting meditation just because you are a Buddhist. If you don’t meditate, that’s fine. But, if you do decide to give it another go then I hope you enjoy it and that it is of great benefit to you.
If you have read my whole long-winded post, congratulations! Your patience will serve you well in your meditation practice!
May we all be happy, may we all be peaceful, and may we all grow in the Dhamma!
Metta,
Guy
Thanks for the reply. I first got into Zen Buddhism philosophy. But I always found myself at odds with their version of meditation. I never want to be a nirvana chaser, so I found meditating to be kind of useless at that time.
I much prefer chanting meditations, or meditation that occurs when I'm doing an activity that is repetitive. I also like the rosary style meditation. I spoke with a theravada monk who did not have a high opinion of Zazen style sitting meditation. He tried hard to explain his version to me... but again, I didn't find myself desiring meditation, and I didn't find my life lacking without it.
I think sitting would be good for my posture and body awareness, but I also like to play devils advocate and ask "If someone had no legs, or was stuck in a twisted position... could they not attain enlightenment because they cannot sit correctly?"
Sometimes I see people really wrapped up in correct posture. Even people who stretch their legs in order to do that each foot on top of the opposite thigh thing. I think meditation is only one part of Buddism. I find myself really challenged to actually practice Buddhism when I am dealing with the stresses of college, roommates, family, dogs lol.
What first attracted me to Buddhism was it's logical life advice. I love koans, and I love writings on Buddhism. It's like Buddha discovered cognitive therapy, before psychology even had a term for it. I use the teachings in daily life, and until I find myself lacking without conventional styles of meditation, I probably won't do it.
(Don't worry, I'm also long winded) I enjoyed your explanation because you're right, there are different styles of meditation for different purposes. The only kind of hocus pocus meditation I see, is my grandma's kind. (She's just a mix of new age- not buddhist). My grandma is always trying to see her past lives through meditation. (Don't worry, I know that's not the Buddhist kind of meditation). I love her cookiness though, because she gives everything a go.
So many cultures have many takes on Buddhism. I just find that my style had similarities to other styles, without even realizing it.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
I also think that the idea that one is a "expert" in an area in buddhism transcends simply meditation. Just as there is not one particular method that all will do and find useful with meditation, similarly it is the same with mindfulness and many other aspects too! What I liked about buddhism is its freeness, the buddha even said question everything for yourself, and then there are always people who will say "enlightenment isn't this, it is______" and then explain. Opinions are wonderful and diverse but I believe people often become headstrong in their beliefs, since often they spend so long making their ideas sound and thus solidifying their world, that other ideas seem to be incorrect. Human nature perhaps?
Different people have different styles it depends what social story you tell. Perhaps warning is good perhaps it is unfounded. I guess now I understand that could be the topic of the thread.
Harumph I do hope that a condensed readers digest is posted I would shake that guys hand.
So once while doing it, I saw a field and a stone wall. So I said "Grandma I was a wall!" and she told me I was an idiot. Just recently I told her I am going to be a cat in my next life and she told me I can't. She said I can't regress. But is it really regression to be a cat. My cat has a pretty rewarding life and seems more content than me.
Long story short, I learned that everyone meditates differently, and all people claim different and personal rewards. Some criticize and say "This is the right way" and others say "No here's the way". The debate on whether to meditate or not reminds me of the debate on prayer. Some people love it and see much benefit, and others don't. My way to meditate means I'd get hit with that stick in Renzai (that's a joke... I know people can opt out of stick).
Personally I wouldn't want to be a cat.
You might be interested to see what the Buddha said about two people who came to him asking what they will be reborn as if they behave like animals: "Kukkuravatika Sutta: The Dog-duty Ascetic" (MN 57), translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera. Access to Insight, 14 June 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
The Buddha taught right samadhi has at least three qualities, namely, purity, stability & activeness.
Activeness is "kammaniyo", meaning "fit for work" of vipassana.
Ajahn Brahm does not explain samadhi the same as the Buddha because Ajahn Brahm states one can only remember what occurred in samadhi when one emerges from it.
Right Samadhi includes at least three qualities rather than just one.
Right Samadhi is the foundation for insight. Any samadhi that cannot discern clearly cannot be right samadhi.
The practise is much more than remembering to watch the breathing.
'Mindfulness' means to bring into & maintain wisdom or right view in the mind.
In my opinion, the term "mindfulness of breathing" often confuses new meditators.
Of right mindfulness, the Buddha said: :om:
The Buddha gave them a honest answer. If you act like a dog, you will take birth as a dog.
For example, if I, Dhamma Dhatu, spend my time sniffing the bums of other dogs, fetching sticks for my master and acting as though I am a watchdog guarding the house, surely my behaviour cannot be regarded as human.
My mind has certainly become or taken birth as a dog.
When I first learned meditation, one sentence & two words was all the instruction I needed.
:om:
- is what my first instructor told us.
true.
The Pali word here means: "past abidings" or "pasy dwellings" (lit: "past homes")
It does not mean "past jiva", where "jiva" is the Pali word for "life".
Thus, our claims of "are you sure about that?" are mere conjecture.
Until we see this for ourselves, no one can prove it to us.
Worse, when we see this for ourselves, we cannot prove it to another.
:dunce:
Nothing more, nothing less.
Metta,
Guy
P
P