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.
Am I meditating correctly?
Joshua
Veteran
I've never had any formal meditation training at all. I've never been to a sangha, retreat or even met another buddhist in my life. I've only even been interested in buddhism for less than a year. Regardless, probably like many, I ambitiously try to meditate every day (which I've only done for about two bouts of maybe two months each). I'm worried that I'm not even meditating correctly at all, but I figure I'm having higher than necessary expectations because those are typically the meditations which unwillingly become simple tranquil meditations. I say this because at other times I have what I'm assuming to be much more successful meditations where I seem to absolutely lose all sense of a physical world, which for the first few weeks always seemed to be accompanied by an intense spinning sensation. Often the moment I attain that deepness of concentration my very realization or excitement seems to lose it and once lost it seems next to impossible to return to during that meditation session. More recently it seems my concentration has gotten stronger but in order to guarantee that deepness of meditation, whatever it is that I'm utilizing concentrationwise, causes intense tension on what feels like my frontal cortex, it usually results in this awkward quasi-headache feeling for a couple hours afterward. I've read that I'm "using my intellect too much and not enough heart". I'm not so sure how to discern between the two. One-pointed concentration is the only thing I know how to succeed with, and I can only do that with my "intellect". One time I had taken some pills, Tramadol, and that one day, I achieved such a profound meditation, I could meditate for over an hour easily and I was delving in and out of these "time lapses" so-to-speak, where I'd literally lost such a sense of self that it was as if I was no longer existing without even the most subtle thoughts for periods of 2 or 3 minutes only to be interrupted by the subtlest ripple, then back again. This, however, only occurred through the aid of pharmaceuticals 
That may have been confusing
At any rate, does anybody have any advice?
That may have been confusing
At any rate, does anybody have any advice?
0
Comments
have a look here:
http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-meditation.htm
I would download these to mp3 and listen on headphones.
Nice
Ideally enlightenment, but that's certainly hasty, I just don't want to be wasting my time doing things beyond my capacity which my readings of Tantra have illustrated to be a potentiality. Which way? I don't know what you mean.
You are right. We have such a very rare and valuable chance to become humans and to be able to practice meditation. What else do we have to wait for except trying to gain enlightenment.
If you really want to go on the path to enlightenment, practice Vipassana. I think you are following this, rite?
If you are going after these really pleasant experiences, then it is a time wasting activity. In fact, going after any kind of feeling is a time wasting activity because feelings are ultimately empty as they come and go just like everything else. To step back and simply observe, without grasping, the coming and going, is not a time wasting activity.
I really don't know. I don't have a specific game plan. I do meditate with characteristics of Vipassana. I suppose I should do some more reading and try to emulate more closely whatever that will be?
Yeah, I don't really think I'm always chasing a goal, though I suppose I do, I usually try to absolutely stop thinking (maybe that's what Vajrayana buddhists refer to as Rigpa?). I usually get so lost in meditation and observations that I'm left not feeling too goal oriented. At the same time I'm usually disappointed if I didn't achieve anything noteworthy after meditating so I suppose by extension I must assume I'm not meditating correctly? Ugh.
I suddenly feel like a lamb that wandered away from the shepherd. What shall I do?
Don't think about it. in my opinion it's a distraction. Trust me, I think about it, but I try not to. Inching towards enlightenment implies that there's something separate from what is.
This is a good website that may help. You could also do some reading on the terms "jhana" "samadhi" and "vipassana" There is a whole ton of information out there on this stuff with lots of good instructions. However, the best help always comes from personal contact with a good teacher.
Personal contact with a good teacher is very good for this.
My advice would be to start practicing plain and simple Shamata, first with a big object as support, then with a point, then with your breathing, then with an imaginary object visualized with your mind. Try to train yourself in stabilizing your mind while meditating, gaining more resistance and getting used to be sitting at least 15 minutes without loosing totally your concentration. All of this meanwhile you are searching for a teacher (my recommendation would be tibetan Buddhism... well that's because I practice tantra hahaha), so when you have one you will not start by totally zero and it will be easier for you to advance in other kind of practices.
Good luck
@ Alfonso - I must admit, I've been infatuated by the Thai Forest Tradition branch of Theravada but your very own posts that I viewed yesterday regarding those fine Berzin Archives forced me to reconsider that those strange, esoteric Tantra practises might have some merit after all. Perhaps I was being a bit hasty and biased in my opinion
About tantra. Yeah, I was pretty prejudiced against tantra before getting closer to it when I started to get involved in buddhism. But as I was studying I discovered the real meaning of the practice and all the imagery. Now I like to present tantric practice as a more physiological way of approaching to the buddhist practice: winds, channels, etc. and because it is highly physiological, then it has some things in common with the most known Yogic traditions (Hatha, Ashtanga, etc.) that also have a physiological basis, for example, the most traditional (Nyngima) distinction of the different stages of buddhist practice is made in the following way:
1 Sravakayana
2 Pratyekayana
3 Bodhisattvayana
From here starts the Tantrayana, and the first three can be found similarly in the Vedic tradition (tho the vision and essence of practice is completely different, the support for Buddhist tantra is emptiness and bodhicitta)
4-5-6 Outer Classes Tantras (they are also called yogas)
7-8-9 Inner Classes Tantras (number 9 being Atiyoga or Dzogchen, not exactly a tantra)
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nine_yanas
Hm, I've studied Spanish off and on for a bit, when I was in high school I used to talk to a chileno and a learnt a few things that are now mostly forgotten. But not those apparently
I'm hopefully going to be immersing myself in those Tantra today. I've done a very small amount of reading on Vedic chrakras and kundalini energy and such, I assume these themes are found also in Tantra?
You say you had similar doubts as I in the beginning, so then, don't you still find some of Vajrayana practises to be a bit dogmatic, how did you remedy your doubts?
Lastly, have you been in contact with a Vajrayana teacher or do are you simply autodidactic? I don't mean to be insensitive either, I'm crossing my fingers it's more or less autodidactic because I'll never find myself a good Vajrayana teacher in Podunk Indiana.
About my experience, I dispelled prejudges and doubts by going to a public talk of one of the advanced practitioners of my actual teacher, I started saying him all my critics and doubts, he answered them all and also give me lectures to do: things of the Madhyamaka philosophy, a little bit of Tibetan history, etc.
In Vajrayana it is essential a teacher, you cannot go without a teacher in vajrayana. Now, it doesn't mean that you need to have the teacher by your side, for example my main teacher lives in the USA while I'm on Chile, and I only see him 1 time per year. But there is a well established tiny center here, so we can study and advance in communion with more advanced practitioners.
I hope it helps you
I practice Vipassana and know quite well about Theravada Buddhism. But, for Mahayana Buddhism, I have very little knowledge. If you know, can you explain about Mahayana Buddhism? What's the core purpose?
To become a buddha and help all to become enlightened.
so, the followers are all trying to become a buddha?
(I know this has nothing to do with the thread, just curious)
I just checked out information on Samatha meditation, it seems to be very similar to what I was doing I believe, interesting. It's really beginning to sound like I'm doing a clumsy Samatha and then fumbling into Jhana every now and then. Does this sound right?
Are tranquil and concentration meditation two different translations of the same Samatha meditation?
yes
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/about/glossary/glossary_tibetan.html#xG
From a Mahayana point of view, Arhats still have attachments and obscuration, tho they are more subtle, they still need to continue practicing. For example, one clear difference is that in the Theravada tradition you take vows "until the end of my life", while in Mahayana it is "until I achieve enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings".
The heart of the Mahayana practice is Bodhicitta, that is method and wisdom, that is compassion and emptiness INSEPARABLE.
Although be careful with this part, in my opinion (and I think of any non fundamentalist buddhist) is that it is obvious that Arhat do have compassion (it is the second of the 4 brahmaviharas. The thing is that in Mahayana we speak of mahakaruna, GREAT compassion; because of the vows and the comprehension of emptiness), Hinayana is NOT Theravada tradition and has NEVER designed that tradition! Hinayana is more of a methodological invention to explain the different kinds of capacities of the individual: one could easily be a Mahayana practitioner and hold in reality a Hinayana view; also being a Theravada practitioner and holding a genuine Mahayana view. The difference is that for the Mahayana the path doesn't end where Theravada guys say; Buddhahood is attainable for every sentient beings, not mere arhatship (which is an enormous achievement of course).
About this issue between Hinayana-Theravada / Mahayana, I like Sri Walpola Rahula's book "What the Buddha taught" In one of the last chapters he speaks about Ekayana, 1 yana; he doesn't see any contradiction between Mahayana teachings and Theravada (he was a Theravada monk).
Also there are some other metaphysical points that are very important, for example emptiness. Nagarjuna criticizes the metaphysics of the view of lots of buddhists about the nature of things, he says that they are grasping to svabhava and that doesn't go well with Anatman, they hold an atomist materialistic view: for example, Sarvatisvadas, if I well remember, held the view that a mere phenomena (like a glass), while it lacks atman (because when it is broken, then it cannot be found), its atomic constitution did have concrete reality but they are not subject to our predication. While in non-mahayana tradition we can see that the analysis of dependent origination is mostly applied to the subject, that is, the 5 aggregates, in Mahayana, starting from Nagarjuna, is applied to every phenomena... from there the concept of Shunyata arises. But, as Sri Walpola Rahula also puts it, this is in no way contradictory with the "original" teachings of the historical Buddha; also, in my opinion, one can find teachings that are seeds for the tantric teachings clearly in the Canon Pali, for example when the mind is described as having the function of cognizing and of "clarity"... but I don't have too much knowledge on this topic like to start talking about this.
P.S.: Tantra is considered to be inside Mahayana tradition, but not a sutric tradition as Chan and Zen are. Chan and Zen would be non-gradual sutric methods, while Tantra would be... a tantric method, while Dzogchen would be a non-gradual non-sutric method (also, not tantra).
May I ask the exact significance of Nagarjuna in the Mahayana school?
Non-gradual is something like "instant" or "spontaneous" realization, "effortless". Like the sutra about how Mahakassyapa got realization, when Buddha just showed a flower and smiled, then Mahakassyapa was the only one who understood and also smiled.
Hm, so Dzogchen doesn't practise Tantra? Sogyal Rinpoche had given me that impression. But I also didn't know anything he was talking about...
It is really confusing at this moment for me, I still don't get it in truth. It is only concepts and distinctions.... sorry I feel ashamed when I start talking in general about tantra or Dzogchen hahaha I prefer to link to Berzin Archives, to quote lamas, and to recommend people to ask a proper teacher
For a person who is determined to follow such a path, how strong and truthful is his determination?
Has he realized the Four Noble Truths not by knowledge but by means of wisdom?
In my view, if he has not seen the genuine truth of nature, the compassion to save the beings, that occurs inside his mind will not be firm. Due to the nature of impermanence, his compassion and determination will fade away, may be not in the current life, but in another lives depending on the surrounding and his karma.
I would agree completely if a person has achieved certain stage on his path to enlightenment, and as he has discovered the truth, he has enormous compassion for others to see what he have seen, for others to be on the path to enlightenment. Although he knows that he can be in absolute peace within a few more steps, he does not choose to continue. Instead, he stayed behind to go on the tougher path with suffering so as to save others. He understands suffering more than any others who think suffering means a physical pain or mental disappointment. Such compassion and determination are firm and truthful since they are founded based on the realization of the Noble Truths.
The compassion to become a Buddha and save others will naturally root in one's heart as he goes on the path to enlightenment.
If not, Buddha would have taught us the path to become Buddha, instead of showing us the way to enlightenment.
Chandrakirti Madhyamakaavatara, Padmakara translation Group.
From what I have read, the 'Gautama Buddha' have passed all kinds of lives, as humans, as animals and as other beings, in total, more than several billions of lives, counting from the life in which he started vowing to become a Buddha. In that life, he was a monk and was in another Buddha's era. So, he knows the Noble Truths and the path to enlightenment. He could have become enlightened just in that life. But he didn't choose and vowed to pass billions of lives of suffering to become a Buddha and save infinite number of beings.
So, to become a Buddha is extremely difficult. But, it is possible of course.
From a Mahayana point of view, Gautama Buddha was already enlightened eons before he was in that life as Gautama. Gautama was only a manifestation to show the path to all the sentient beings.
Perfect joy only exists in Nirvirna because in such dimension, neither body nor mind exists. Even if one can see emptiness (absolute cease of the existence of body), his mind, which is observing over this emptiness, still exists. So, suffering is still there.
The suffering (Dukkha) that Buddha refers does not mean the physical or mental pain. It means as long as the body and mind exist, he is suffering.
The very core of Buddhism, Vipassana, is very difficult to understand and is understandable only by wisdom. Only by wisdom, one will clearly understand what real suffering means.
Yeah, of course, meeting a Buddha is not the main cause of enlightenment. Buddha cannot help one to get enlightened with his power. He can only show the way. Those who got it right and did it right got enlightened. Those who did not, again continued in the infinite cycle.
From Theravada point of view, before the pre-Gautama becomes the Gautama Buddha, he is just a normal being with only one big difference from other beings. In each and every life he passed, he filled the water pot bit by bit (By analogy, the pot which is to be full in order to become Buddha).
If he has already been enlightened, he would have been in Nirvirna. 'He' no longer exists anymore. Nirvirna does not have any coming back nor reincarnation. That's why it is called absolute peace and freedom.
Also, Perfect Joy, as I exposed in my post, was from the Mahayana point of view as the first stage of the Bodhisattva, and as it says there, it is different from the traditional Theravada conception of Nirvana: In Mahayana, the Nirvana of the Arhat (not dwelling in any of the 3 realms of existence) is not full enlightenment, because it is attachment to the passive aspect of the mind because we see no activity, also it is supposed that, although they don't have any more emotional obscuration, they do have a little more subtle obscuration: cognitive and still some kind of emotional, like attachment to sex I think. Generosity is an activity, and when the three concerns are present (subject being generous, act of generosity per se, the object of the generosity) then it is a mundane paramita, when the three concerns are not, because it is being comprehended from the emptiness (of inherent existence) of all phenomena, then it is the perfection of that paramita.
Let me explain: generosity is a positive force and being stingy is a negative force. When one donates all his money for the community for instance, he is collecting positive energy. This positive energy will create a new life in which he enjoys well for his good deed. When one robs money from another, he is creating negative energy. This may cause him to be a beggar and suffer in his next life. Still whether the energy is positive or negative, life is continuously created. Activity is the main source of life in infinite creation.
One is doing good things to his community in the current life. But, who can ensure he will not suffer in hell in the future life because in his next life, he is going to be brought up in the family of bandits and kills numerous beings?
What I want to stress on is that doing good things, having good nature of mind is not enough. Because we don't know who we will be in the future. How can you ensure that you will continuously be a good person in the next next lives?
So, those Arhats, they don't engage in those positive nor negative activities. They don't create a new cause anymore.
Again, I am not saying that paramita is not good. It's really great and noble but it cannot help one to be free from suffering. It's just a temporary remedy. Let's say you help a person who is dying of hunger by providing food. Because of your food, he will live on. But, can you always help him in each and every next life of his, when he is dying of hunger? No. There is only one way to help him really, to show him the path to enlightenment as what Buddha and Arhats did.
Again I am not saying that only what I am saying is correct. If there are things more acceptable than what I have currently experienced through Vipassana, I will willingly accept. I always wanted to know the truth and I have found the truth. And I want others to know the truth as well. That's my main purpose in this forum.
I am saying all these not by knowledge. I have seen the truth as it is. I have seen the real suffering and the real peace. I really want others to experience what I have done and get improved more than me. Wanting all beings to be free from suffering and gain enlightenment is my one and the only will.
May all beings be free from suffering.
i've been wondering for so long, how the hell does one pronounce the r in a sanskrit consonant cluster like tṛṣṇā ?
is it a retroflex/cerebral/lingual (i've seen it referred to in all three ways?). is it the same as in english, then a cerebral s and n as well? so for convential purposes very close to tershna as an english speaker would say casually?
Oh dear...
Then why you dialog? If it is because of truth, you already have it. So, if it is discussion, then it is apologetics and preaching.
Sorry, but I really think that you hold a very limited view, specially regarding concepts. As I have said numerous times: I'm making the distinction of the use of Mahayana categories and non-Mahayana categories, but you insist in understanding one and other categories from just one point of view, in that way neither dialog is possible, nor real understanding of the traditions.
I'm sorry, but I think your view can't even be hold as a being from a Theravada tradition. Remember that the Canon Pali tells us of many householders who attained arhatship. Being an Arhat does not mean to cease all activity... or did Gautama cease activities when he was awaken? Not even from a Theravada point of view! When we say he stopped, as he says to Angulimala, it is from a karmic conditioned point of view, not from an absolute point of view... he was not searching for the absolute ahimsa of the Jains!
If someone is dying because of hunger, I swear to you that I would prefer to give him some little food before attaining your concept of enlightenment, by far. Without activity and compassion there is no sense for the Buddhadharma... from any point of view of any tradition.
Good luck on preaching, but remember what Gautama said: He got to were he is because he was never contempt with any kind of attainment.
Even in Theravada, there are many monks who have learned the concepts of Buddhism all their lifetime, but they never practice and follow the path. They have no idea about what real peace means. (I am sorry, No offense to them, but it's the truth). So, when they pass on their knowledge to their students, the concepts that are supposed to be as genuine as what Buddha taught, are no longer genuine, mixed with their own bias and conceptions. That's why different clans and schools of thoughts arise.
Please just answer this question.
Why did Buddha only show the path to enlightenment (Four Noble Truths and EightFold Path) instead of showing the path to become a Buddha?
Here is my answer:
The compassion to save others, will naturally come in one's mind after he has realized the Noble Truths by wisdom. Then, the path is his choice, whether he wants to get enlightened as an Arhat in a short while or whether he wants to continue the cycle of life until he becomes a Buddha when he will be able to save infinite beings.
It is not appropriate for a normal layman to choose such a great path with his premature understanding and wisdom. How can one ensure that the path he is taking is the correct way?
How can one help save others while he cannot fully understand himself?
The purpose of all my dialogs is not for one to accept the path that I have practiced. Try each way to its deep level and judge and choose. Isn't it reasonable?
He didn't show the path to become a buddha? Second turning of the wheel?
"The distinction is, on the one hand, a historic or quasi-historic scheme by which the Buddha's first sermons, as recorded in the Pali Canon and the tripitakas of other early schools, constitute the First Turning, and the later Mahayana sutras comprise the Second and Third turnings."
The original Buddha's sermons comprise only the First Turning. So, "the Second turning of the wheel", is it really original as what Buddha taught or
the mixture of Buddha's sayings with own perception and interpretation of the Founder of these concepts?
First Dhamma Sangayana: First Council
[http://mahavamsa.org/2008/05/dhamma-sangayana-buddhist-councils/]
Thera Upali for Vinaya Pitaka and Thera Ananda for Rest of Dhamma: The gathering of the bhikkus selected Upali Thera to explain the Vinaya pitaka (code of discipline) and Thera Ananda for rest of the Dharma. Mahakassapa questioned Thera Upali on Vinaya pitaka. Thera Upali explained the Vinaya Pitaka as he heard from Buddha.
After establishing the Vinaya pitaka, Mahakassapa questioned Ananda thera on sutta pitaka. All the theras repeated Dharma, in turn after Ananda. It took seven months to compile the complete Dharma.
Since the canon was established by the theras, it was known as Theravadha.
Tripitaka or Pali Canon is the exact original teachings of Buddha. Thera Upali and Thera Ananda, these Arhats, recorded those sermons as exactly what they have heard from Buddha. Only they can fully understand each statement of what Buddha had said. If Buddha had taught the Second Turning of the Wheel, it obviously would have been in Tripitaka.
...
May all be free from suffering.
Is that somewhat related to Third Eye Meditation, where you uncover your third eye to obtain communication with the 4th and 5th dimensions?
- anicca. Everything is limited to a certain duration and, consequently, liable to disappear.
- dukkha. Everything is unsatisfactory. There is nothing that can be relied upon, there is nothing that can bring true happiness.
- anatta. Everything is deprived of a self. There is no self-inherent entity, nothing that can be controlled.
It is a journey from our current dimension to the one and only ultimate dimension which is called Nirvana where neither body nor mind exists.How do you know there are other dimensions?