Continued discussion on fundamentals of mindfulness meditation
 

I always talk about the same thing, so do not expect anything new from me in this thread

It's a universal topic, and not a so-called 'Buddhist' one, because the truth applies to everyone - Buddhist or not. I put it in the Buddhist section because that's what I learned, and Buddhists have the best mindfulness philosophy. However, one must understand that no one in the religion is an authority, and it's up to individuals to observe, investigate and discover their own insight.

One has to understand that the mindset of right vs. wrong, and agree vs. disagree, is the mind trying to garner and retain knowledge, but with wisdom, such grasping to the known subsides and multiple facets appear when a 'lightbulb moment' switches on. It is not a learning that gives you knowledge; it's an insight which changes you as a person. Having a mind that is primed for inspiration is the right way forward here, so 'empty the cup' and enjoy the ride.

Everything (from a Buddhist perspective) starts with 4 Nobel Truths (4NT):

1) there is suffering
2) suffering has a cause
3) suffering can end
4) there is a way to end suffering

'Mindfulness' or 'insight meditation' or 'vipassana' (same thing) is aimed at the self-discovery of those truths, which in the first person become: 'this is suffering, this is how I cause such suffering, this is how suffering subsides and this is the way to end suffering'. Then we find that people see things differently, have different processes, and they find out things in various ways, but the principles they discover are universally true. As such, suffering is both caused and resolved in one and only one way - though that is extraordinarily nuanced.

The Buddhists say the cause of suffering is craving, and that's true enough, but then there is a 3000 year long discussion about 'what craving is' and the same on 'what's suffering'. One has to understand that all that commentary is monks generating the knowledge which props up the religious organisation and their own status within it. No one actually discovers anything reading these endless ruminations. If interested in it, then might as well read it, but if not all that interested, it doesn't really matter, you just undertake the meditation and find out the way in which the 4NTs are true for you.

I'll continue with the meditation and the philosophy behind it in the next post. It's a forum, so you'll have to 'filter out the noise' going forward, and frankly, this medium isn't suited to much nuance, but we'll have enough fun at the level the forum enables, and see what happens next :smile:

Good topic, imo. :smile:

Your like an old record on repeat. Haha

I agree it does seem right to place these topics here, because Buddhism does hold within it the right philosophy of mindfulness.

It’s very simple when you take out all the bells and whistles that many people still and do attach too. I think this also applies to those attached to the philosophy itself.

You can never not see the truth of you right where your looking and observing, so if your attentive to you, even so, you can be more observant to where your clinging desiring, wanting, needing things to be a certain way.

The way is many, but often you’ll find people even attach to their way, desire order and direction that fits their ideas of how things should be.

The other thing is people in this way of trying to control the way, (even as it may serve an important step in process) only really need be attentive to an ongoing inward reflective process to grow through those steps as themselves.

Your right the principles people can discover are universally true. I’ve called this ‘sameness’ developed through being open in this way of our differences.

For me the platform of sameness regardless of beliefs, or needs or process, can support your own deepening into that nuanced subtle level of being, just by being open without clinging or craving to old ideas, old experiences that might have once determined a process and knowing.

As I’ve learned, it’s an ongoing continual letting go process. If your determining process through something fixed and not as a continuum, (letting the whole view fall away) you’ll continue to relate all new process through that field of vision, which means your determining openings through old seeing. This in and of itself, can actually appear your growing deeper, but in fact your circling the old view.

And that too is another trap of your own design, another layer of clinging..

Perhaps this is 'new' to Gem:

For many years I thought mindfulness and being-present were the same thing. Then about 3 years ago at a Taoist event, I learned this is not the case.

Recently I learned that Mindfulness is a specific (advanced) form of one-focus meditation. The focus seems to vary a bit depending on the lineage of the practice but roughly it is the current state and surroundings of your physical being. The most common variations is to exclusively focus on your sensory experience. Some practices also include your internal knowing/knowledge.

FYI: being present is a state of being (self) without the ego self being in control or affecting your actions.

A new post at least.. hehe

That makes sense what your explaining Wstein.

For me they both fit together. It’s like one allows for the other.

Yep - being present without ego is the gist of it, and it is also a very subtle and nuanced meditation practice. In Buddhism there 4 objects of awareness, body/feelings and mind/thought, but since body and mind are fairly abstract concepts, I prefer to reduce this to feeling (vedana) and thought (dhammas). The main reason for including abstract body and mind is, if you know the nature of the body, you understand the nature of all matter, and if you know the nature of your mind, you understand the nature of all minds.

One reason the other senses of sight, sound etc are over-looked is you can block the ears, close the eyes and so forth, but you can't block the feelings, and the deaf, blind and those without smell or taste still have feelings and thoughts. Hence, in order to be universal as a practice, without excluding anyone, The Buddhist approach is observing feeling (as it relates to mind).

Another reason why feeling is preferred to other senses is, all the other senses, including thought, resolve through the nervous system and produce feelings. Hence the object of craving is feeling, and the other senses but means of producing feelings. Hence we say 'from feeling craving arises', and 'craving is the cause of suffering'. This is where feeling inter-relates with psychology. Therefore; 'just observing' or 'mere awareness' of feeling without any 'craving' or psychological reactivity is precisely the meaning of awareness without ego. With 'right meditation', the no ego aspect is key.

That said, of course all the senses are included in general mindfulness, so you're aware of taste, and sounds and whatever is present all the time, but the understanding that all the senses culminate in the feeling (vedanas) to which one reacts (with craving or aversion) centralises the approach on the 4NT and the cause and resolution resolution of suffering.

Gotta get back to the start, and typically, when you get into the Buddhist meditation approach, they'll kick off with breath awareness. People who know me know I have a preferred specific method and the reasons why I claim it's optimal. I'm a bit pedantic about it because if you're a bit loose at the start, you won't gain the skills needed for progression later on.

That's just a bit of bragging, really. Mine is the best way and all that :wink:, but I'm not a spiritual master or a teacher or any other persona one might imagine me as in order to contrast and affirm their own identity status. 'You do you' as they say. In this discussion, there is no guide, so you are 100% on your own to discern for yourself honestly. The moment the mind starts to believe, the observation is lost and you started fabricating mental nonsense. My teachers (I had a few in my life) understood, so they didn't waste time on metaphysics or if reincarnation is real etc. I received the philosophy verbally in conjunction with the respective stage of meditation. At the beginning, meditation is pretty rough and the philosophy real simple, and by the end, the meditation is sublime and the philosophy nuanced.

I love to ramble, and go right off the track. I meant to say it starts with breath awareness, and develops and progresses into something more nuanced. Notwithstanding, breath awareness extremely nuanced in itself, and if practicing say 45 minutes a day, it would probably take 2 or 3 months before the next phase of subtler body feelings really sets in.

I should mention that mindfulness is a very particular form of meditation. Most of us imagine meditation as the yogis and internet influencers portray it, kinda mystical and lovely and trippy in the mind, but mindfulness is specific to the healing process - 'for the purification of beings' so it is said - and it's apt to conscious awareness penetrating through the layers more physically...

Because the gurus have told us 'spiritual stories' (and will no doubt do that on this thread as well) it is common that we expect 'some kind of experience'. IOW we crave and expect something special, but the essence of this meditation is no craving. Expectation or craving is obviously mentally fabricated - not the reality of lived-experience as it 'just is'. The intent in mindfulness is always returning to conscious awareness of real-lived experience just as you are experiencing it. Hence, I can feel this breath coming in, and then, the next breath going out. That's all it is.

Whenever I encounter Buddhist practices, its pretty much the same theme. They talk about aiming towards the egoless state [or spiritual], but all the practices demand you go back towards the physical.
Yes, I know that the very tangible physical is more than most beginners can handle. Still, it seems like a smoother transition towards the destination would be more effective.

Effective just depends on purpose. Mindfulness is said to be purposed for purification, overcoming sorrow, staying the path of truth, and nirvana. It's claimed to be 'the only way'.

I'm on board that it's the only way, but that doesn't mean a particular approach or method is the only way. It means suffering is caused in a particular way, by craving, and purification and liberation is achieved in one way - stop craving. The meditation is hence defined as 'ardent awareness free of craving in the world'. That's very simplistic on the face of it, but the actuality is really nuanced.

I know you're 'self taught' so to speak, and mindfulness can't really be taught because awareness is 'already there' and paying attention is already our nature. They can teach a particular method such as breath awareness or whatever, but that's not what is meant by 'the only way'. Actually, a lot of methods taught in Buddhist schools contradict the underlying principle of mindfulness, so almost everything you read online is also contradictory in that way. It is a religion, after all, and religions are fundamentally misguided.

I like to get past the religious noise and depend on solely on our own self-direction. A good teacher can helpful, for sure, but for me, to follow is to be misled and you only have you own determinations to rely on. I sincerely believe if we pay attention closely and discern for ourselves with complete honestly, that's the one and only way to stay true to the path.

This reminds me of a spiritual/metaphysical group I went to check out long ago. It turned out to be more of a teaching/lecture situation. Abut an hour into various instruction, the leader decided we all needed to work on our mind chatter. He of course had a fool proof method to work on that, which he was going to teach us 'right now'. Without any further delay, he started. After 2-3 minutes he looked right out me with an unhappy face and said that I needed to follow his instruction if I was going to reduce the mind chatter. I said I didn't need that. He looked even more unhappy. I told him, I usually don't have mind chatter, but if it would make him happy I could start some mind chatter so he could tell me how to stop it again. Needless to say, it didn't improve his mood.

Yep. It's common for meditation teachers to ask for obedience. The teachers I like will say we use this method, but they explain why the method is the way it is. Then you can discern for yourself, "OK that makes sense to me," and then go ahead from your very own understanding rather than obeying that teacher. If it doesn't make sense to you, don't obey the guy. You can only go by your own understanding.

If a teacher can communicate so you understand what meditation is, you automatically know 'how' to do it. A teacher could help with good ideas to refine a method and overcome problems etc., but you'd realise that it's sensible based on your own understanding. From then on you'll listen to teachers and realise hardly any of them understand the thing, and end up in your own private Idaho :wink:. I'm just saying because I have a hunch you'll understand what I'm on about lol.

<serious> Actually, a really good spiritual teacher does not need to understand anything nor do they need to communicate any information. It is sufficient to keep putting you back in front of your lesson until you learn it. The great teachers can get you to (or create) the lessons where you are most likely to learn them (on your own).

Interestingly, a spiritual master can put someone into a meditative state but that does not help them realize how to get there on their own.

Been to the actual Idaho, its filled with grasshoppers that make a big bright yellow splat on windshields. :wink:

Putting aside technique and philosophy the fundamental mechanism is neuroplasticity. By constantly returning attention to the object of attending - breath, sound, hearing, etc... - that rewires the brain, reducing the impressions and tendencies that give rise to a noisy mind.

Swerving slightly into technique that's why it's important to drop expectations and refrain from fabrications (e.g. indulging experiences) during a sitting. Technique is important. Very important.

Neuroplasticity
 

If anyone is interested in Neuroplasticity. HHDL along with Tibetan Monks and various Scientist have written some interesting articles regarding experiments etc: which can be found on the Mind and Life Institution Website and HHDL official Website.....

https://www.mindandlife.org/

https://www.dalailama.com/

I personally find it amazing that The Buddha (and others) knew that if we change our mind the brain will follow without having modern technology.

Yep. there is a habit breaking or a tendency breaking element to it. Yea, I think having a technique helps establish the continuity of work-flow, which you can schedule into a daily routine and progressively refine.

G'day. I just thought I'd pop by and see how it's going, and not much happening I see, so it's more like a reminder - 'this' is really happening and it's good to notice.

The thread is specifically about mindfulness; not about any old thing people call 'meditation'. That just means it an observation of what 'already is', and isn't what you purposely make happen.

I know seems simple. But I have noticed in the past that people tend to complicate things anyway - probably because that urge to 'do something' gives us some sense of ego-manic control. I was in that boat and have seen just about everyone else in the same boat, so I'm aware that the simple message of 'just observe' doesn't communicate very well.

In spirituality they like to be mystical and talk about non-doing, and maybe throw in a zen-like saying such as 'just sit'... I don't know about all that. I just know if you really want to know what is going on you have to 'stop and look'.

We generally use the breath to start a formal practice, and there are many reasons for that I could get into later on, and probably will because I always say the same things, as I already said (see what I did there?)... If you have the idea from a zen website or practically any teacher that counting/controlling your breathing is right for mindfulness - it's not. Mindfulness only requires you pay attention to the truth, as it is, in the way it's experienced by you. As soon as you add something on for yourself, you moved off mindfulness and into some other kind of meditation.

All meditations that require you to control, verbalise, visualise and so on are not mindfulness. All meditations that don't require that are mindfulness. Mindfulness is definable as paying attention to what is as you experience it. The Ramana self inquiry is mindfulness, the candle gaze is mindfulness, listening to the rain is mindfulness. Mindfulness is 'observation' without 'fabrication'.

You can't do and not-do at the same time. They are mutually exclusive, so it's best to know, as one of my teachers would say, "You just be aware and Dhamma does the rest"'.

There are reasons behind all this to do with the purification and stuff, and I know right now there's probably and urge to be like 'yea but, no but, yea but... and so on, but this post is just a tiny fraction of a whole thing. So, if the urge to rebuke comes up, just wait a sec and see if there is actually a contradiction here first. If there are contradictions then better pipe up. If not, then there's nothing wrong. I'm just saying this last bit because I know these threads tend toward contention as truthiness has a way of affronting the ego, but that's part of it, to see yourself like that. I'm just sayin' because I don't want the noise. I like that quieter mind which is self-aware.

I'm a 'private Idaho' kinda guy so I'm just going to follow through with this mindfulness thing since that's what I'm into.

In my last post I said that mindfulness is when you are aware of 'what is' without doing anything. Meditations that you have to do something (control, count, visualise or otherwise 'make it happen') are not mindfulness. On the other hand, if you are doing something, driving, sweeping, walking or whatever, mindfulness is doing such things consciously and purposefully.

For example, if you eat mindfully, you do all the moving consciously and intentionally, but you don't know what it feels like, tastes like etc. unless you pay attention. It's a mix. I make the spoon go to my mouth, but I don't make it taste as it does. The way it tastes, the texture of it etc, 'Just happens' in the moment.

In the formal practice, sitting to meditate, there is only the latter part. You don't intentionally move or think or visualise etc. You just observe. Feeling the breath is probably the best approach to start with... cuz reasons.

Sitting up is the best posture for formal practice, but you don't really notice why that is until a bit further down the road. I don't think fancy sitting like full lotus is extra helpful. I sat with yoga guys who are into specialised postures but they end up in pain and squirming around like novices. It's just the way you feel comfortable so you can sit without agony for like, maybe 45 mins or so. This isn't really a 'go with the flow' sort of meditation. It's more like 100% in. It requires complete attention. It's something you work on and refine, as one would practice and work on refining the nuances of playing the piano. If cross legs is too stiff and uncomfortable, sore back, broken knee or what have you, then perched upright on a dining chair is good enough. Laying down or reclining isn't as good, but it's fine. Since I think near enough anyone can perch on a chair, I say lying down is not necessary. Again, this pertains only to formal mindfulness meditation practice sessions. In general life of course living mindfully all the time in any posture and all movement is 'the way'.

So I'm imagining a person sitting cross legged or perched on a chair. The hands can fall comfortably in the lap or on thighs. We don't need special mudras or anything, so one hand cupped under the other in the lap is naturally comfortable.

It's not a 'eyes half open with gentle smile' thing. Eyes closed is best. Then attention goes to what your breathing feels like. That's it.

It's best to do each breath one at a time. I'm only feeling this breath coming in, just this one, I'm only feeling this breath going out. Then you know that you can observe just one breath without any distraction. Totally doable. If the mind wanders off at some time, no worries, just start again.

I know, even if you don't, that after a little while the mind will start thinking about adding something. Maybe you heard that counting the breaths is helpful, maybe you did mantra meditation a while ago or something else from somewhere, imagining prana or whatever... and you'll start to think, I should add a bit of that to this. The ego always wants something, but in this practice we give it nothing, so 'just observe' is the golden rule. Only conscious awareness of your spontaneously occurring real-lived experience.

Long enough post already. I want to explain more about the motive for this mode of meditation etc., so I'll get back to that another time. Maybe if you are pretty new to meditation, or have been led down the garden path before, just start with breath meditation... for 30 minutes or something... and see how it turns out. I also suggest 60 seconds of breath awareness before reading or posting on the thread, but I know I'm really pedantic and I need to rein in my unrealistic perfections.

Good afternoon Gem :smile:

Slow :biggrin:

did wonder if you were coming back

https://chriskresser.com/rewiring-th...caroline-leaf/

Dr. Caroline Leaf has done so much research, written many books on neuroplasticity....rewiring the brain.

I can understand why some practise with closed eyes as it can be difficult to concentrate when they are open so it is best for you personally but The Buddha practised Mindfulness with His eyes open according to some Suttas.....(Nikayas)

"So if a monk should wish: 'May neither my body be fatigued nor my eyes, and may my mind, through lack of clinging/sustenance, be released from fermentations,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing "
The Buddha....

Nothing much to say now, but have some time on my hands, so a bit of rambling just for kicks.

I said I was going to come back and talk about the motives behind mindfulness. In a nutshell, I think it is best to think of mindfulness as a healing, cleansing or purification practice (Buddhist say it's for 'purification, overcoming sorrow, staying truthful and attaining nirvana').

If you sit with the understanding that this is for my purification... that'll work. It's a correct motive. 'Overcoming sorrow' is what we would call resolving trauma, and 'staying truthful' is because this path of meditation is always and only the truth about yourself and the actuality of your experience. The truth is not the things you fabricate. Even more importantly, the truth is not negative thoughts, value judgments, self deprecation and all that nonsense the mind conjures. This is about the truth of life and insight into the real-nature of things. Not about what you think, what you want, or any other egomanic motives.

Hence, when sitting to meditate, if you understand this is for my purification/healing, it's a proper motive that aligns with the purpose of this meditation style.

The Sattipathana Sutta has the full explanation regarding the motives.
It ends with, " for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the Four Arousings of Mindfulness.”

It explains the ' Four Arousings ' in depth.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/...oma/wayof.html

i think the best motive is to have no thought or concern about yourself at all - to just be without a desire or goal or thought about anything - stillness, emptiness as what you are - motive..why we do what we do...why chose stillness, emptiness because its peace and truth and the light..its reality, the ground under projections of the bodies mind

One thing to understand is, I'm just talking about mindfulness in the way I'm inspired to. It's not like I know a bunch of stuff and I'm telling you how it is. I'm just narrating in one possible way.

In Buddhist ontology (what we can know), there is, most superficially, book learning. That's when you read or listen to this spiritual stuff and simply remember roughly what was said. The next aspect is applying reason to discern if it makes sense and is logical. The third aspect is the investigation by which you discover how it is true for yourself. Let's just call them memory, reason and insight for simplicity.

Reading this thread is for the first two ontological steps: you read and understand the words and; discern for yourself if it makes sense. If I quote a bit of Buddhist text, it has no additional truthiness. It's not like something is true because Buddha said it. Something is only true in the way it is true for you.

A whole room full of people will hear the exact same words or millions will read the same text, but each person is alone to glean meaning in the way they understand it, and discern for themselves if it's sensible or just a bunch of gobbledegook. If it has no contradictions and one facet of the narrative is consistent with all other facets, and it seems perfectly rational to you, then it's worth moving forward and finding out by investigating the way in which it is true for you.

Your reality as it is. The truth in the way you experience it. It means I can say abstractly, 'feel your breathing like this,' and a million people get it, but I cannot possibly tell you what your breath feels like. Only you know that.

This meditation is not future based in any way. The idea that one day in the future I will be enlightened etc. is desire for some sort of experience that is not actual. This mindful meditation exclusively pertains to reality as it is - the truth as it is for you. Therefore, the attention is supposed to stay 'here', and not be stretched into the future by hope and desire.

In that way, one feels the breath and knows exactly, without any doubt or distraction, 'This is the way it is'.

Broadly speaking here are some of my meditation influences.

Jon Kabat-Zinn https://www.mbsrtraining.com/jon-kab...n-mindfulness/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoLQ...cienceC enter

Richard Davidson https://centerhealthyminds.org/about...chard-davidson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyJQ...l=HealthyMinds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQrd...riFactorEngage

Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche https://www.yongeyfoundation.org/mingyur-rinpoche/
He is one of the monks who collaborated with Dr. Davidson's study on meditation's influence on mind. The following link will kick off six short videos of several minutes each on the Key Points of Meditation - Intention and Motivation Parts 1 & 2, Being vs Doing, Letting go of Expectations Parts 1 & 2, Everywhere, Anytime. It's a very good primer for anyone starting meditation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoPU...gyurRin poche

Whenever I lose motivation I always go back to this presentation titled "Becoming Conscious: The Science of Mindfulness" which is a panel discussion presented by the New York Academy of Sciences Nour Foundation. https://youtu.be/5TeWvf-nfpA?list=PL...ydVp1WpVnPNokg

Neuroscientists Richard Davidson and Amishi Jha join clinical mindfulness expert Jon Kabat-Zinn to explore the role of consciousness in mental and physical health, how we can train the mind to become more flexible and adaptable, and what cutting-edge neuroscience is revealing about the transformation of consciousness through mindfulness and contemplative practice.

@JASG

I have listened to a selection of TED Talks given by Richard Davidson and also by Y M Rinpoche which I thoroughly enjoyed, I love YM'S sense of humour :biggrin:
Good choices JASG.....

I listened to the long video, and Kabat-Zinn mainly is speaking my language.

There was an interesting section on effortlessness. I think that can be misconstrued because the efforts in mindfulness are a bit more sublime that what we typically call 'effort'. Many spiritualists promote the effortlessness thing, but they don't explain with any insight what Buddhists refer to as 'Right Effort'. You can google that and see definitions from the text, but it really only defines surface aspects, very valuable aspects, just not the nuance of the understanding one understands through the actuality of practicing. Practitioners would know some difficulties and how to deal, so I'll just say effortlessness and easy are not the same thing.

The next part moved on to reducing stress, which is a big thing in Buddhism as well - reducing/overcoming/not creating distress. Jha said paying attention, not just that, but "paying attention in a particular way". The Buddhists say in the 'right' way ('right' as connoted in the 8-fold path), and that's what makes mindfulness a particular thing. Zinn said something like paying attention deliberately without judgment, close enough, though I would also add ardent attention, like full attention and/or examining closely. The Buddhist definition is along the lines of 'ardent awareness with understanding of impermanence free from desire and aversion in the world' (Satipatthana).

Jha talks about 'meta awareness', but incorrectly. Meta-awareness is by definition awareness of awareness. She means self-awareness. Zinn explained meta-awareness earlier on, so it's all good, just that Jha is talking cross-definitions. She explains things very well from an experiential standpoint, but unfortunately, the moderator keeps interrupting her and asking about the brain. She persists with the experiential explanation, and he cuts her off! That's very poor moderation.

Zinn comes back on with some very interesting commentary about how you realise you are not what you are thinking and feeling, and he's so concise about how that detachment completely changes your relationship with the things going on in your mind. I think their hopes with depressive disorder are grossly misplaced (he actually says that depression-brain activity only decreases a bit - so, yea), but as far as mindfulness goes, this guy is dropping truth, dude; especially when he clarifies it's not about 'getting rid of it', but, the way he puts it, 'its about becoming more familiar with the territory'. I just call that knowing yourself just as you are.

Great to see Jha come back in. She was definitely sidelined there. Her point is profound and it's a point I always talk about: "our ability to hold our own ethical code really relies on our working memory. If you cannot hold information in your mind in the moment that guides how you are to behave, you'll just go back to a reactive mode that could really be very problematic". That gets to crux of it. 'Reactive mode' is what Buddhists call 'craving' - the cause of all suffering. When Jha frames that in the military context, it paints an extreme and clear picture of how that works.

The talk ended with a bit of loving kindness stuff, which I found very apt. The rest is question time and I won't comment.

I thought the talk was excellent. It was a bit surface level and didn't go into the purification process, which kinda misses the point, and things like training the soldiers for better presence on the ground distinctly overlooks the purpose of purification. It completely skipped body awareness as well. As a critique I'd say the talk on the whole missed the mark, and I couldn't gel with Davidson at all, but there were many real and valuable gems to be discovered. I loved it. Brilliant!

The Rinchope video starts with motivation, which is very timely in this thread, but it sounds like vague and vacuous platitudes to me. I can't complain. Good points, quite correct, just overly generalised and almost sloganistic, and wrapped in a sort of pretentious nicety. My main critique is he was saying you become this and you become that, which is not wrong essentially, but it's ill-fitting as a motive. Mindfulness is a cessation of urges to become ("becoming"). It's much discussed in Buddhist texts, so it might be an idea to google that to get a broader context. I really can't extol anything with this one. I'd be skeptical of this feller generally. Next. :smile:

YMR is a world renowned Tibetan Buddhist. You should check out his biography and pedigree.

He is the son of the renowned meditation master Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche and was formally enthroned as the seventh incarnation of Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche by Tai Situ Rinpoche when he was twelve years old. When he was twenty years old, Rinpoche was appointed as the functioning abbot of Sherab Ling Monastery. In addition to his extensive background in meditation and Buddhist philosophy, Mingyur Rinpoche has held a lifelong interest in psychology, physics, and neurology.

He wont mind :smile: , He's been described as the 'Happiest Man in the world '...

https://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-pr...n-in-the-world

I just listen to what is said and assess. If the critique is off, you need to say which part and why it's wrong. I know the guy has a great pedigree (I'm indifferent), but if you don't address the critique itself, it still stands.

Those videos aren't teaching Buddhism. They are geared towards novice meditators of which the vast majority are meditating for secular reasons. They are not for novice monks in the monastery or seasoned meditators on the path of Buddhism. It's all about the audience.

Just thinking, people say a lot of things about meditatiom, and after listening to all that, do I feel like I have more clarity? No. Less.

From my perspective, the bulk of what everyone says about mindfulness isn't particularly valuable. It's like mining for gold. You have to move a lot of dirt to find a few nuggets.

The essential idea in mindfulness, as Buddhists say it, is to resolve suffering. The general approach that informs method pertains the 4th Nobel truth: the way to end suffering. The basic message is, stop craving. It goes in some stages. One begins and probably in their first few sessions they see 'this is suffering' (I need to elaborate). As their practice refines they see, this is how I cause my own suffering. Once the cause is seen it's simple. Stop doing that. But simple isn't the same as easy.

All the way down. Happiness isn't gained; misery is lost. The trick isn't knowing, 'if I do this thing I will be happy'; it's knowing, 'if I keep doing this thing, I'll continue to be miserable - I should stop doing it'. Less doing. More not-doing.
,
With that premise we see not only is suffering involved in our various discomforts, self-referential narratives and present emotional difficulties, but also in all the life issues that remain unresolved. Our grudges, for example, resentment from being hurt long ago. The grudge is miserable. It could be grudge, abuse, torment, abandonment, war/violence or any old thing that still causes distress. Often, a collection of past events become evidence for negative self-beliefs. For example, 'my business didn't work, I lost two jobs and my important relationships broke down. All true things, but then they become evidence for: 'I'm a failure." "I'm not lovable." "I'm useless," and similar judgmental, fabricated, miserable beliefs. It's not a bunch of isolated disjointed things; it's all connected together, and let alone simple discomforts that are presently experienced, the past as well becomes trapped and can't be released.

No one with a grudge can simply say, "I don't want it," and it's thereby gone. Indeed, "i don't want it" is yet another another aspect of that "reactive mode which really can be very problematic," as Jha put it in the video. When people are hurt, we say things like, 'it gets better over time', 'time heals all wounds', 'It'll be OK; you'll see.' etc. That's because we understand the whole of the issue has to process and unwind in its own time.

In its own time implies that you don't make it happen. More like you stop resisting and let it happen. You are aware of the process as the change is happening. Similarly, a violent storm comes and rattles the house all around. You want the storm to stop as it breaks the shutters, destroys your crop and hail smashes your nice new car. But there is nothing you can do. You can only wait for it subside on its own.

Even when the whole place is calm and the sun shines and you're glad, you know there is going to be a terrible storm sooner or later... that's life.

Nature does it nature's way. In Buddha speak, 'nature's way' is called 'dhamma'. My teacher would say; 'you just observe, and dhamma does the rest'. The ability to 'just observe' enables the purification-aka-healing process (needs elaboration). We have all the sayings for it like, 'Non-doing, allowance, just observe,' along with the opposite perspective, 'Don't resist, don't cling, non-attachment' etc. Many people use the analogy, 'Just watch your thoughts float by like clouds in the sky'. All of the popular sayings refer to the same thing: you are aware. You can watch it as it is without controlling anything. Taoist smarty-pants would say, "By controlling nothing everything is controlled," But I ain't messing with their obtuse notions :rolleyes:.

One zen guy said, 'When your realise you do the breathing, you also realise that you shine the sun'. I think a bit to much Woah. Abstract, man; and therefore pretty wise. Kinda useless practically, but I like it :wink:!

I believe the point is, relinquishing control requires lots of self-control. Not only do you not effect the things, but also, the things also not affect you. That breaks the cause and effect cycle. Essentially, stuff happens you don't control, but you control your reactions, and it takes self-awareness to realise your reactive tendencies and stop doing that.

Relinquishing control is probably more about distraction (away from) and reactivity (substituting truthful emotions with something else) what is, rather than dropping deeper into the body to let the fullness of what is move through you. A fully embodied mindfulness requires conscious ‘dropping into’ the body rather than directing focus outward at what is. As an example if a group of people are chatting together, flowing freely in shared discussions, there is a natural tendency to be outwardly focused on what each person is bringing to the table. With attentive listening, your bound to take in a lot of external stimuli of others, so naturally without mindful practice/attentiveness within, you can lose yourself in those types of external exchanges simply because it’s a more direct and physically close interaction, that can affect your own inward reflective movements more mindful of what is going on inside you.

I have no idea where I am going with this but it’s just something that arose in me reading through a few response.


Even reading through the shared conversation here, I’m noticing how it can be a very subtle, in how one controls the external rather than be more attentive to whats moving or being activated within, so those subtle layers no longer impede the shared space.

I had an experience recently in a shared convo where one person started coughing. It arose and she couldn’t stop. I was aware but didn’t engage it, but rather let her notice and tend to it her way. The conversation continued, while she coughed. I think I said something to get her to move to do something for it, then she said. ‘I think I am talking too much’ ..


I said in response. “ do you realize that cough tends to arise when you talk about your mother?” She said inquisitively, “No?”..suddenly she stood up, grabbed a drink and says. “Yes I think their is something to that” ..

Her cough settled and back to the conversation we went.

I guess this is just highlighting how we don’t notice things in ourselves when we get enmeshed in others, or talk incessantly, without being consciously aware of ourselves. It can be tricky to stay fully grounded in yourself aware whilst engaging.

It’s through these kinds of experiences we can notice little or big things inside being activated.

It’s not so much “are we listening?” But rather “how are we listening”

Are we listening with full immersion from within? So the truth reveals itself more complete?


Of course I didn’t have to say anything at all, just practice ignoring others in my full immersion, but I did because I’m clearer in myself around mother issues. She’s still healing and her cough has been covered over with cheese and wine for long time..

Putting aside technique, intention & motivation, being vs. doing, letting go of expectations and focusing on the crux of it all - everywhere & anytime - this sums it all up. It's not an issue of developing awareness but simply realizing awareness. This is an illustration with sound but it applies to everything everywhere.

https://youtu.be/dG5ywz8OGqo?t=2301

He starts out by giving a job to Monkey Mind and how so very appropriate. Mind jumps from one stimulus to another, always overlaying it's interpretation over the direct experience.

Anyone practice Shikantaza, in essence meditation minus an object of attending? If one can carry that outside of sitting that is the meditative state. Jon Kabat-Zinn introduced me to that concept in the Nour Foundation talk I linked above and he called it Resting in Awareness.

Yes I practice and from my personal experiences I would say it's mindfulness without an 'Anchor'......

Yup. I don't know if you're familiar with Shinzen Young. He calls it Do Nothing meditation.

https://deconstructingyourself.com/d...editation.html

Even though the meditation is called Do Nothing, you’re actually doing a little tiny bit of something: you’re paying attention to the feeling of doing something.

It gets at the heart of letting go of doership because there is no anchor to return attention to when distractions arise. In essence and from my experience when it clicks one stays with any and all experience without mind overlaying itself on experience. It's letting go of mind.

My angle is, control means trying to make something happen or stop something from happening, and that's all good, just that it's the opposite of what mindfulness is.

Mindfulness is purposed for purification (even if none of the video teachers have said that), so if the woman's cough is related to old unresolved emotion, something stuck needs to come out. Mindfulness would be a good way to just stop and let everything be, and at least the way I would go about it, start with the breath, develop attentiveness, poise and sensitivity, and when body awareness open up a bit, work from surface to depth layer by layer over time - always the same 'ardent awareness with equanimity of mind. Accept 'this is me as I am' and just learn and understand yourself as you are. You don't need to change it (control) because it's not about 'becoming' the imaginary person you want to be in the future.

I just thought: It sounds like mindfulness is always subject to some sort of terrible emotion trauma. I guess since it is the mode of awareness that allows purification to happen, it comes across like that. Since most teachers aren't talking about it as a purification mode... they can talk about nicer things I suppose. Maybe the purification angle is just a bit less attractive.

You notice the videos said nothing about the body awareness, but 'dropping into the body' as you say it is the main thing with mindfulness. That's why I think you understand it whereas I don't say the same for the majority of men in robes. I generally only talk about the breath meditation because I think the body awareness aspect is a bit too nuanced, but I also notice I sound different to everyone else because they are all about the mind, whereas my view is, since craving is reaction to feeling, you can't understand 'cause' unless you have the body awareness.

That's a bit beside the point. I was trying to talk about the things because the thread is mostly inspired in case new people want to start meditation, or older people want to refine their mindfulness approach. It wasn't supposed to be theoretical, just some of the philosophy that is directly relevant to applied practice. I know it's a thread though, so tangents etc. I need to be more realistic about things like that - because my tidy little boxes are not realistic at all Lol.

I liked Zinn a lot from that video. I feel OK suggesting him - but I wouldn't personally suggest any of the others.

I'll check out Young now since he's linked. Should be interesting.

I'll just analyse this one by Young https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scCBVXMSQOc

Out of the gate, brain science is an interesting abstraction, and if interested, might as well learn about it, but it's an aside to the insight-knowing of mindfulness. Interested or not interested makes no difference. Meditation teachers get excited because the science can be used in the pitch. The knowledge influentially integrates meditation into normal society. The scientific discourse becomes a power of influence, which is a means to creating the pleasing sensations we crave.

Next, it gets interesting because he starts beating my drum about reason and logic, let the traditional frills and irresponsible claims go. He says he came from hard work in a Zen school, and people who do hard training usually go through things that make them sensible, and I dig his love of logic, so I'm thinking he might have something substantial to say.

He goes on to say the Buddhist mindfulness is science-like - which is true. Based in reason, and an investigation for insight into the underlying nature of things.

He does a meditation at the end, and straight away, attention goes to 'body experience'. In my view, that's the duck's nuts (a good thing). Thoughts are the background, but deliberate attention is 'somatic experience'. I'm into that.

Then, he makes the old 'do something' mistake. He tells you to say 'feel' to yourself. This adds an unnecessary mental fabrication to the pure observation. He says it's a reminder, of course it is, but the contradictory issue just can't be reconciled.

The overall critique is, the obsession with neurons is such that time which could have been used to mention critical things was wasted with over-kill on the science. In thirty minutes there was plenty of time for both, but more important things are missed and less important things included. Priorities have to be clearer. Purification is not mentioned at all, and since none of the teachers clarify that, how can their students understand and be prepared, or even know why they do what they are doing?

He's really on track being rational and bringing awareness back to the body, and I'm glad to see that after all the others didn't really mention it, but he 'adds on' unnecessary fabrication and creates a contradiction. I'll rate him much better than most, so 3.5 stars maybe 4, but wouldn't recommend him personally. He is pretty great, though, so don't take that wrong.

I'm not familiar with S.Young but understand why He calls it ' Do Nothing' . I've heard some use 'Choiceless Awareness Meditation', it's all good, 'Just Sit ' :smile: