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.
I think it is good not to over analyse everything. If meditation does not have immediate results, don't start to doubt or think you are doing it wrong. If you take this analyzing attitude into meditation that could very well be the reason of it not taking off, because you may constantly be 'judging' the process. Perhaps looking at it as something separate from yourself. Like there is 'you' overlooking the meditation. From this perspective it will not work, because you have to disappear allowing meditation to do its own thing.
It's fine to have a 'you' overlooking the meditation to begin with. Establishment of concentration is a becoming in the dependent origination sense. There is little hope for reliably disappearing the 'you' if you don't have at least some facility with basic breath meditation.
The tendency of the mind is to be fluttering like a flying monkey. When doing Zen type meditation, accompanying the present moment is the 'mind charnel channel'. Dead, useless, extraneous burnt corpses of former beings, ghosts of things that never happened, demons and all angles of angel wandering in and out of imaginary being . . . all us.
Wait... so the mind is a zombie flying monkey. That actually explains a lot...
I think it is good not to over analyse everything. If meditation does not have immediate results, don't start to doubt or think you are doing it wrong. If you take this analyzing attitude into meditation that could very well be the reason of it not taking off, because you may constantly be 'judging' the process. Perhaps looking at it as something separate from yourself. Like there is 'you' overlooking the meditation. From this perspective it will not work, because you have to disappear allowing meditation to do its own thing.
It's fine to have a 'you' overlooking the meditation to begin with. Establishment of concentration is a becoming in the dependent origination sense. There is little hope for reliably disappearing the 'you' if you don't have at least some facility with basic breath meditation.
There are more ways into meditation than focusing on the breath. Letting go is one of them, letting go of the 'you' and the 'you' having all kinds of ideas about meditation & mind. I agree not everybody can do it fully at the beginning. It depends on how much wisdom one has, not really on the ability to do breath meditation. But it is not all or nothing. If one lets go in this way for just a bit, that will already help. From misecmisc's post history I think he may benefit from this approach. It is in my experience one of the best ways to still thoughts and end confusion about meditation.
In my eyes it is this kind of practice Zen refers to with "just sitting". But if one conceptualizes it and interferes with the process, it is not "just sitting". That's what I see when misec said " i now try to do zen meditation of 'just sitting' - even though still my meditation is not going anywhere, "
The "I" that is "trying to do" has to go, leaving just the sitting. Then there will also be little or no thoughts of it going anywhere or nowhere.
Some people may understand it intuitively, others have faith or trust, some others may get some understanding gradually or instantly, and others may try and try everything until they finally realize all trying is not helping. There is no single approach here, no step by step manual.
@Sabre, Well, there is a step-by-step manual, I pointed him at it. It also outlines, from the Buddha's teachings, a conceptually coherent and fairly comprehensive framework for understanding the questions he was asking about these practices, and in that framework these practices are fairly advanced. There might be no single approach but the idea of asking someone to drop the "I" so they can do "just sitting" meditation before they have developed foundational capabilities like the mindfulness necessary to rest attention on a coarse object like the breath is a bit ludicrous.
Ìt's not so ludicrous as you may think. Perhaps it seems so from your experience, but in a way it is very easy. And again, it is not all or nothing. Just a little detachment of "you" from "the meditation" can already help. Anyway I am not here to argue with you about it. I gave misecmisc my advise and it's up to him to decide what to do with it.
If you think Thanissaro's approach is the best for everybody, that is your free thought, but that does not make it true. I don't think you have a way to decide for others that what I said can't help, even if it is just a small chance of perspective.
I'm not saying Thanissaro's advice is the best for everybody, I'm saying your advice is bad. Namely, that it's not good to raise questions when you don't see how the meditation is supposed to work and that a "fake it 'til you make it" approach (where you do your best to drop the "I" before you have the foundational capacities needed to see the fabrication of the "I" clearly) is a good use of a beginner's time.
I think it (@sabre and @fivebells discussion) is sectarian or gurutarian. You get different methods from different sects or gurus even.
I was given the method "who am I?" on the inbreath and "that too is not me" on the outbreath. This method was given by a korean zen monk.
In my own sangha they go by the method Trungpa Rinpoche taught which is to let yourself be to your own devices on the in breath and on the outbreath put 50% of your awareness to the sense of space (the room or however you sense it,,, spacious and at ease), 25% of your awareness on the breath and 25% on noticing thoughts as thoughts. This is a beginner meditation because it is self-sealing and cannot harm the student pretty much. I think some of the more energetic meditations you should have a teacher, not sure about Jhana if that is dangerous or not. You can find meditation instructions of Trungpa on you tube and Pema Chodron is his former student and you also can find her on youtube.
What I was talking about is not really a method. It sounds very active maybe, but "letting go of 'you'" is not like this. It is not a "fake it" or "do it". It is a change of mind that allows meditation to develop by itself. It may be part of a certain tradition (Ajahn Chah), but I can translate it to the Zen instruction of "just sitting" very well, which is what misecmisc was asking about.
I for one don't think we should label someone as a 'beginner' and therefore not teach them certain things that helped us. I was a 'beginner' when I came across this advise and still it worked very well for me. One can never know how others will react to advise, but I do know that people can surprise (also themselves) in their ability to meditate if they can just make a change of mind. So far having different methods didn't seem to help misecmisc all that much, so perhaps he can make the change of mind to just let go.
Let go and everything will unfold. No need for techniques, methods, doubts or expectations.
It would probably be more useful to @misecmisc1 pick apart my argument instead of calling me names ("sectarian or gurutarian") or appealing to authority ("this is how X teaches it.")
That the breath/space/thoughts meditation is harmless is not sufficient to make it appropriate for beginners. My same objection applies, that the space/thoughts components of this meditation depend on mindfulness and stability of mind as foundational capacities which are more productively developed using a sequence of progressively finer meditation objects.
I'm not appealing to authority! I am just pointing out that there are a variety of teachers and methods. Sectarian was pointing out that you arrived at your method from somewhere whereas the whole of Buddhism is quite diverse.
Fivebells is not sectarian, the discussion is. I mean obviously 100 gurus are going to give a whole variety of methods..
Mindfulness is stability. You are mindful of whatever comes into awareness so you are never thrown off. Mindfulness does not mean 'pleasant'. That brings us to sects again because different traditions have their own understanding of 'mindfulness'.
You are right, it is sectarian in a way. I agree that what I say is of course (and unpreventable) influenced by those I regard as my main teachers. Perhaps this confuses even more and if so I am sorry. But in a way I think the advise to "let go" is above the traditions, because it is not really a specific method, but a change of mind that is needed to develop the path anyway, regardless of traditions. It is the opposite of 'clinging' or 'attachment', so one could say it is an essential part of Buddhism and in some way or the other should be present in all traditions.
@Sabre, I wanted to say that it sounded like Sano's lute string which is not only true of Buddhism but also the arts. "not too loose and not too tight". @misecmisc1 that was really helpful to me in my practice. not too loose and not too tight.
By mindfulness I meant the ability to keep something in mind, as one keeps the breath in mind during basic breath meditation. By stability I meant the ability to maintain the object of meditation as disturbance/distraction arise. Closely related, but not the same. Whether those are different from others' definitions, I maintain that given misecmisc1's stated capabilities, these are foundational skills which are most productively developed independently of meditations based on refined objects of concentration like space or consciousness, or attempts to just drop the "I." All this stuff about sectarianism is a red herring.
Yes, fivebells. That's what I am saying about sectarianism; I see a huge difference between yours and my backgrounds. My teacher means awareness when she says mindfulness. So it doesn't matter if the object changes. In fact to all experience there is a VAM where it manifests and then an -e- where it diffuses out into emptiness. Space consciousness is both simple and refined in that it is here and now. We are beings with bodies and we move around in space. And we LOVE it. We love to be able to move around and that is a quality of mind consciousness too. The skhandas are not the self, but the qualities of awareness are always here whether the object of awareness is lost or not. The qualities of awareness are distinct from the consciousness skhanda in this analysis. I'd have to think long and hard about why.
Yes, space is simple and refined, and an excellent concentration object for stilling the mind. Still a difficult thing to rest attention on, compared to the breath, which is what I'm arguing.
Space isn't an object of meditation though. The nature of the mind or being is space. So you just link in to what is already always there. (as an intrinsic quality to awareness rather than an object)
It's not the same thing as the space jhana because the space jhana is NOT always here.
We don't even have a guaranatee that all beings breath. But we do know there is always space in the sense that I mean.
Meditation is not thinking about stuff - that may well happen - it is 'sitting on empty'. . . . however . . . easy to talk about 'just sitting', all kind of 'tricks' to bring us back to the empty space . . . rather than the arisings of the 'brain eating zombie' that passes for a mind (speaking for myself).
I sometimes think we have to 'smile all over' just to be happy with our 'simply sit' practice.
Birds are waking up. Light is on its way. Think I will just sit with an inner smile for a while . . .
What I was talking about is not really a method. It sounds very active maybe, but "letting go of 'you'" is not like this. It is not a "fake it" or "do it". It is a change of mind that allows meditation to develop by itself. It may be part of a certain tradition (Ajahn Chah), but I can translate it to the Zen instruction of "just sitting" very well, which is what misecmisc was asking about...
...Let go and everything will unfold. No need for techniques, methods, doubts or expectations.
Worked for me at the start, despite the objections raised here. It was a complete revelation. Later I learnt about counting breaths and other methods. But I think I had a lucky beginning.
I was given two brilliant pieces of advice to get going.
Buddhist practice is easy, you either do it or you don't. Sit down and give up everything.
@Sabre, @fivebells and @Jeffrey: Thanks for all your suggestions. Really appreciate the effort and time taken out by you all in giving these suggestions. Metta to you all and all sentient beings.
in zen method of just sitting, it is said to let thoughts be as such, without grasping and without rejecting - just be in here and now. a question came to my mind - what is this method leading to - means ok after some time, this can happen that we would not be too much concerned with our thoughts as they come and go, but later on also thoughts will arise and cease - we will try to be in present moment, but this way the whole life will pass, so where is that awakening? now someone will say that - in this moment, samsara and nirvana both exist - so does in Zen, being in present moment referred to as awakening? but then this can be a temporary awakening, which we might experience in sitting meditation - but when we are off the cushion dealing with worldly situations, how can we be in present moment and still handle the worldly situations - for example, if we just be in present moment, then we shall not plan anything for future - then we would not even set our alarm clock to get up after sitting duration, because to even set an alarm clock, we will have to think at what time we will get up from our sitting, so that will be thinking and not being in present moment - this is just a small example. then when we go to work-place and someone says to do something, then without thinking and planning how can we execute our work.
so how does it proceed in Zen or Dzogchen meditation, where they say to just be in present moment, with whatever experience is occurring, without changing it in anyway - means, how that unconditioned is experienced or how ignorance gets removed? like in anapanasati, we have the complete path from breath to nimitta to form-level jhanas to formless-level jhanas to unconditioned, so similarly what is the path in Zen meditation to awakening? does the Zen awakening and awakening through anapanasati are different?
i read an analogy somewhere written, where it said that mind is like mirror which reflects its objects - but we try to grasp the objects' reflection - the mirrorness of the mirror is like our True Nature. so these days, when sitting in just sitting method of Zen meditation, i am trying to develop the perception to be aware of this knowingness - i am not able to develop it, but still trying. in detail, what i am doing is, sitting with eyes closed, then whatever is happening in present moment, just try to be aware of it, then thinking in mind to focus on the common thing which is knowing these things, then for few minutes trying to sit still with whatever comes in my mind - whether external sounds, internal ear ringing, air touching body parts etc. So is developing this kind of perception going to help - or will it just add another layer of conditioning on the already existing ignorance? any suggestions please.
one more question - does being in the moment completely - as i read somewhere, when we are truely in the moment, it is like eternity - is it really true or just an exaggerated statement? means, see what i have noticed is - taking an example here - suppose when i sit in a room and i switch off the fans and if the climate is slightly warm, then i start to sweat - then i turn on the fans and when the air of the fans touch the body, the cool sensation which generates is really nice or even the natural air of trees if it touches a sweated part of body, a cool sensation generates which feels nice - this is ok - But what about when i was sitting in the room and i was sweating, i was not very comfortable then, so if someone is truely in the present moment, does in that sweating period also, that person will feel nice? means how does it feel to be truely in the present moment - does it feels nice or neutral or since we will be in present moment, we will not feel anything?
hope the above questions are not completely junk questions. so any suggestions please. thanks in advance.
Hi All,
i was reading some commentaries on Zen and on Dogen's teachings.
i found something nice there, so thought of sharing with you all.
zen is described as a way to live life deeply.
zazen is described as not a meditation practice, rather zazen is the expression of being in the moment entirely.
i read somewhere that Dogen said - we are already enlightened, but the reason we need to practice is because we have forgotten this thing. practice is enlightenment and enlightenment is practice. the moment we see delusion as delusion is enlightenment itself.
i read somewhere that Dogen said - we are already enlightened
I just knew I was a Buddha! :bowdown:
This Dog gone Dogen 'methodology' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikantaza is done by@how and I do a form of it (variations of sitting, Mudra and eye positions, breathing nature etc - nothing to write home about). I also may include chanting or other practices.
The formal essence of it is genius. You 'just' sit. Whatever arises is the just cause of non enlightenment.
There is no magic. No escape and evetually no entering or leaving. In essence your 'just sit' mind just sits.
Oh well, that's 'me enlightened'. Don't know what all the fuss was about . . .
I think it (@sabre and @fivebells discussion) is sectarian or gurutarian. You get different methods from different sects or gurus even.
I was given the method "who am I?" on the inbreath and "that too is not me" on the outbreath. This method was given by a korean zen monk.
In my own sangha they go by the method Trungpa Rinpoche taught which is to let yourself be to your own devices on the in breath and on the outbreath put 50% of your awareness to the sense of space (the room or however you sense it,,, spacious and at ease), 25% of your awareness on the breath and 25% on noticing thoughts as thoughts. This is a beginner meditation because it is self-sealing and cannot harm the student pretty much. I think some of the more energetic meditations you should have a teacher, not sure about Jhana if that is dangerous or not. You can find meditation instructions of Trungpa on you tube and Pema Chodron is his former student and you also can find her on youtube.
This to me highlights the inherent problems in practice without a hands-on teacher. You see in his life Trungpa Rinpoche did not teach a once size fits all method.. Those of us who were his students received instruction in a face to face one to one session or sessions..simply making an amalgam of methodology and passing in down through the institution is not helpful to all... CTR is not around, but many perfectly competent teachers are. In my view ten minutes with one of them is worth endless hours of internet verbal ping-pong.
Mind: Anything percievable or concievable is not it.
Enquiry:Is there a 'pure' mind 'state'?
We are restricted by relative terms but;
Mind can be 'seen' to have 3 'identifiable' states:
The waking mind, the 'state' you are currently in where you interact with the world and other sentient creatures in it. Buddhism teaches that this state is illusion and as such not 'Ultimate' Reality or 'Pure' mind.
The dreaming mind, the 'state' you are in, when you sleep. This is also not 'Pure' mind. In this state there is still an "I" present witnessing the dreams and images of this 'state'. Therefore we need only again to look to Buddhist teachings to understand that anything 'centered' around an "I" is illusion and can be rejected.
Enquiry:Is there a 'pure' mind 'state'?
The 3rd 'state' is that which we refer to as 'deep sleep'. In this 'state' there are no dreams or any dreaming 'activity', Nor do thoughts arise. This 'state' is a 'state' of 'Pure' mind
How so?
In this 'state' there is no gain/loss, there is no pain/pleasure, there is no here/there, there is nowhere to go or come from. The "I" or "You" that is constructed by waking mind, is 'absent'. There is no "I" operating the machinery of "i like this, i don't like that, i believe this, i dont believe that" Etc; etc. However you are still physically present, just 'being'. No-thing to be done, the world turns, birds sing, the sun rises. The moment you wake the constuct also wakes.
This then is what "represents" 'Pure' mind.
Again i have to use reletive terms to puvey an idea. I leave you with bit of Zen (it may/may not be useful) to point to 'Pure' mind
If you can percieve it, concieve it or describe it, it is not That That (when expressed with a capital "T" is used to 'represent' 'Pure' mind or Absolute
As an aside i find it kinda comforting that no matter what my efforts, intellect, knowledge, practice, understanding or preferences. No matter what my "I" knows, believes, prefers or understands; Every night 'me' and other sentient creatures 'connect' with That.
Enquiry:If That is ever present, what is it we search for?
Comments
...mmm brains...
In my eyes it is this kind of practice Zen refers to with "just sitting". But if one conceptualizes it and interferes with the process, it is not "just sitting". That's what I see when misec said " i now try to do zen meditation of 'just sitting' - even though still my meditation is not going anywhere, "
The "I" that is "trying to do" has to go, leaving just the sitting. Then there will also be little or no thoughts of it going anywhere or nowhere.
Some people may understand it intuitively, others have faith or trust, some others may get some understanding gradually or instantly, and others may try and try everything until they finally realize all trying is not helping. There is no single approach here, no step by step manual.
If you think Thanissaro's approach is the best for everybody, that is your free thought, but that does not make it true. I don't think you have a way to decide for others that what I said can't help, even if it is just a small chance of perspective.
I was given the method "who am I?" on the inbreath and "that too is not me" on the outbreath. This method was given by a korean zen monk.
In my own sangha they go by the method Trungpa Rinpoche taught which is to let yourself be to your own devices on the in breath and on the outbreath put 50% of your awareness to the sense of space (the room or however you sense it,,, spacious and at ease), 25% of your awareness on the breath and 25% on noticing thoughts as thoughts. This is a beginner meditation because it is self-sealing and cannot harm the student pretty much. I think some of the more energetic meditations you should have a teacher, not sure about Jhana if that is dangerous or not. You can find meditation instructions of Trungpa on you tube and Pema Chodron is his former student and you also can find her on youtube.
What I was talking about is not really a method. It sounds very active maybe, but "letting go of 'you'" is not like this. It is not a "fake it" or "do it". It is a change of mind that allows meditation to develop by itself. It may be part of a certain tradition (Ajahn Chah), but I can translate it to the Zen instruction of "just sitting" very well, which is what misecmisc was asking about.
I for one don't think we should label someone as a 'beginner' and therefore not teach them certain things that helped us. I was a 'beginner' when I came across this advise and still it worked very well for me. One can never know how others will react to advise, but I do know that people can surprise (also themselves) in their ability to meditate if they can just make a change of mind. So far having different methods didn't seem to help misecmisc all that much, so perhaps he can make the change of mind to just let go.
Let go and everything will unfold. No need for techniques, methods, doubts or expectations.
That the breath/space/thoughts meditation is harmless is not sufficient to make it appropriate for beginners. My same objection applies, that the space/thoughts components of this meditation depend on mindfulness and stability of mind as foundational capacities which are more productively developed using a sequence of progressively finer meditation objects.
Fivebells is not sectarian, the discussion is. I mean obviously 100 gurus are going to give a whole variety of methods..
Mindfulness is stability. You are mindful of whatever comes into awareness so you are never thrown off. Mindfulness does not mean 'pleasant'. That brings us to sects again because different traditions have their own understanding of 'mindfulness'.
You are right, it is sectarian in a way. I agree that what I say is of course (and unpreventable) influenced by those I regard as my main teachers. Perhaps this confuses even more and if so I am sorry. But in a way I think the advise to "let go" is above the traditions, because it is not really a specific method, but a change of mind that is needed to develop the path anyway, regardless of traditions. It is the opposite of 'clinging' or 'attachment', so one could say it is an essential part of Buddhism and in some way or the other should be present in all traditions.
It's not the same thing as the space jhana because the space jhana is NOT always here.
We don't even have a guaranatee that all beings breath. But we do know there is always space in the sense that I mean.
I even do it on occasion.
Meditation is not thinking about stuff - that may well happen - it is 'sitting on empty'.
. . . however . . . easy to talk about 'just sitting', all kind of 'tricks' to bring us back to the empty space . . . rather than the arisings of the 'brain eating zombie' that passes for a mind (speaking for myself).
I sometimes think we have to 'smile all over' just to be happy with our 'simply sit' practice.
Birds are waking up. Light is on its way. Think I will just sit with an inner smile for a while . . .
I was given two brilliant pieces of advice to get going.
Buddhist practice is easy, you either do it or you don't.
Sit down and give up everything.
That about sums up the whole thing for me.
i was reading some commentaries on Zen and on Dogen's teachings.
i found something nice there, so thought of sharing with you all.
zen is described as a way to live life deeply.
zazen is described as not a meditation practice, rather zazen is the expression of being in the moment entirely.
i read somewhere that Dogen said - we are already enlightened, but the reason we need to practice is because we have forgotten this thing. practice is enlightenment and enlightenment is practice. the moment we see delusion as delusion is enlightenment itself.
This Dog gone Dogen 'methodology' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikantaza
is done by@how and I do a form of it (variations of sitting, Mudra and eye positions, breathing nature etc - nothing to write home about). I also may include chanting or other practices.
The formal essence of it is genius. You 'just' sit. Whatever arises is the just cause of non enlightenment.
There is no magic. No escape and evetually no entering or leaving. In essence your 'just sit' mind just sits.
Oh well, that's 'me enlightened'. Don't know what all the fuss was about . . .
:om:
You see in his life Trungpa Rinpoche did not teach a once size fits all method..
Those of us who were his students received instruction in a face to face one to one session or sessions..simply making an amalgam of methodology and passing in down through the institution is not helpful to all...
CTR is not around, but many perfectly competent teachers are. In my view ten minutes with one of them is worth endless hours of internet verbal ping-pong.
Enquiry:Is there a 'pure' mind 'state'?
We are restricted by relative terms but;
Mind can be 'seen' to have 3 'identifiable' states:
The waking mind, the 'state' you are currently in where you interact with the world and other sentient creatures in it. Buddhism teaches that this state is illusion and as such not 'Ultimate' Reality or 'Pure' mind.
The dreaming mind, the 'state' you are in, when you sleep. This is also not 'Pure' mind. In this state there is still an "I" present witnessing the dreams and images of this 'state'. Therefore we need only again to look to Buddhist teachings to understand that anything 'centered' around an "I" is illusion and can be rejected.
Enquiry:Is there a 'pure' mind 'state'?
The 3rd 'state' is that which we refer to as 'deep sleep'. In this 'state' there are no dreams or any dreaming 'activity', Nor do thoughts arise. This 'state' is a 'state' of 'Pure' mind
How so?
In this 'state' there is no gain/loss, there is no pain/pleasure, there is no here/there, there is nowhere to go or come from.
The "I" or "You" that is constructed by waking mind, is 'absent'. There is no "I" operating the machinery of "i like this, i don't like that, i believe this, i dont believe that" Etc; etc. However you are still physically present, just 'being'. No-thing to be done, the world turns, birds sing, the sun rises. The moment you wake the constuct also wakes.
This then is what "represents" 'Pure' mind.
Again i have to use reletive terms to puvey an idea. I leave you with bit of Zen (it may/may not be useful) to point to 'Pure' mind
If you can percieve it, concieve it or describe it, it is not That
That (when expressed with a capital "T" is used to 'represent' 'Pure' mind or Absolute
As an aside i find it kinda comforting that no matter what my efforts, intellect, knowledge, practice, understanding or preferences. No matter what my "I" knows, believes, prefers or understands; Every night 'me' and other sentient creatures 'connect' with That.
Enquiry:If That is ever present, what is it we search for?