Insight meditation and the Satipatthana sutta

Originally Posted by Gem

So, I'll get back to topic and this time I'll speak on what I have pre-intended to, and what I always wanted to, and as best I can, from the beginning, take one step at a time in an orderly way as I can. Yet to even consider where to begin is difficult, as the topic of meditation doesn't really begin and end..

People make rash decisions sometimes. I am very human.
That said. I'm still very interested in your experience during your meditation sits. Even though I may appear to hold on to the sutta's. I came to buddhism through pragmatic dharma. I.e practise, experience that practise and then compare notes. The fact that I see conformation with what is in the sutta's as correlating with my experience does not diminish your experiences.

Fot the time being 'll try to refrain from making the distinction whether or not It is buddhism. Obvious fabrications exclused of course.

As a starter. Does the start of the satipatthanna equal the totality of the anapanasati? I.e mindfullness of the breath?

With Love
Eelco

[sky]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

People make rash decisions sometimes. I am very human.
That said. I'm still very interested in your experience during your meditation sits. Even though I may appear to hold on to the sutta's. I came to buddhism through pragmatic dharma. I.e practise, experience that practise and then compare notes. The fact that I see conformation with what is in the sutta's as correlating with my experience does not diminish your experiences.

Fot the time being 'll try to refrain from making the distinction whether or not It is buddhism. Obvious fabrications exclused of course.

As a starter. Does the start of the satipatthanna equal the totality of the anapanasati? I.e mindfullness of the breath?

With Love
Eelco

'People make rash decisions sometimes. I am very human.'

We all jump sometimes without thinking, glad you are very human as I haven't mastered the art of non human language yet....

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

On the point of a "trained dog" and how it relates to e.g. the Satipatthana Sutra, I was reflecting a little more on this.

If the Buddha teaches something like "as you breath in long, be aware you are breathing in long, as you breath in short, be aware that you are breathing in short" and someone reads this, gets some guidance from a live teacher, sits down and does this practice at home, does this mean that they are now like an obedient robot or a "trained dog"?

It would be like yoga. A teacher teaches breathing exercises, focuses on the hara, breath in and out with the inflection and release of the posture (as an example). Over time, these practices help enhance body awareness and improve posture. A student, following this advice from their yoga teacher, follows this course of action and over time, masters the breathing exercises associated with yoga, improves their own abilities and awareness of both breath and body...

Or a student seeks to learn Tae Kwon Do. Attends a few classes, gets some basic instructions from the teacher, perhaps reads a few manuals. They then either at the Judo and/or at home, start exercising and practicing the basic instructions. Example, practicing a kick and punch, or the development of the "horse" posture to strengthen their stand/stance, or develop increased body awareness and agility through stretches etc. All foundational steps to help them learn the art form, discipline and practice of the martial art.

Are these people classified as mindless students, not knowing anything for themselves, have no practical experience to speak of, or are just like a "trained dog"? (for the record: I think the world of dogs, so I don't personally mean it as a negative, but in this case, I am trying to continue the point raised above). I would have thought that they are far from clueless and in fact - having both listened to the instructions and then over time, practiced it themselves, with input from their teachers if they are lucky, they are now moving from book learners to first hand knowledge, to competency and hopefully over time (depending on their dedication, instructor and natural abilities) mastery - i.e they are led and guided and instructed until they know intuitively the practice (whether it is yoga or martial arts) and also its inherent benefits and possibilities. It is normal at this point for faith to be more inherent, as belief turns into experience and experience into intuitive understanding. These same students are happy to reference the instructions, the teachers that helped them. Does this mean that they know nothing and are hapless "trained dogs" who did not learn anything? I wouldn't agree with that personally.

Buddhism, in my opinion, is a very very similar discipline (except its mastery is that of enlightenment (first as a Stream Entrant) and later Full Awakening and Nibbana).

Anyway, I think it can be useful to reflect a bit more on the premise posited above and through this thread i.e. that if you listen to genuine teachings/awakened teachers and follow guidance, one risks not really knowing anything or becoming 'just' a "trained dog" - I don't see it this way and also wonder, if it is true, I wonder, what was the Buddha's teachings and methods for as his one goal was to teach others to the same goal/realizations, and something he was very successful in, and Buddhist Masters continue to be successful in with real life students/practitioners.

In my opinion, Buddhism is probably the least belief bound religion - most of it just requires a basic interest, but most importantly, the willingness and ability to put the teachings into practice (like Tai Chi, or Yoga, or a discipline such as being a master gymnast). As the teachings always say, the standard is to know the results for oneself.

Also, the fact that all Buddhist teachers and Masters reference Buddha's teachings and sutras either as a practice guide, and importantly, as the standard for Buddhist practice/results - suggests to me that it is not unwise to do so - as is often inferred in this thread by the OP. In fact, it is actually natural and respect worthy in the tradition.

Those are my thoughts on the topic, after further reflection. Thanks for listening.

BT

Sometimes when I am reading others reflections I am drawn to quotes.

This one came to me to post here.

“As a water bead on a lotus leaf, as water on a red lily, does not adhere, so the sage does not adhere to the seen, the heard, or the sensed.” The Buddha

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I am very aware of where you coming from within yourself. If people cant listen to themselves that deeply they wont notice themselves or others and it can create reactive engagement through the party unaware. I know you notice and I know what I notice in your relating. The challenges that others pose up against your view or needs, will often reflect as the conflict or difficulty (however it is seen) they feel not open to in themselves Often choosing another means to meet it. So I am very aware how you wish to communicate and build understanding.

Basically, to me 'because the sutta said' doesn't cut it. It wasn't like that when I did my training. There were elaborate discourses that were intricate in detail about the meditation, and we had an understanding of what we were doing. I guess I just assumed that was the way to go.

Actually I find listening to you very easy.

That's good. I try to make it interesting, and minimise the cut and pastes. If I say my bit, then I will reference a text that is relevant to my point. But if people accept it just because I can back it up with religious text, that's not understanding. See, interesting.

At times your intellectual side and knowledge base is sometimes to over the top for me..lol.

But in the expression and relating I learn much from you even so.

Yes I bring a lot of value to the table.

The way your express your knowledge is often reflected and heard more clearly because of this. And as I am not an intellect but more and intuitive learner and learn more directly through experiences, this is helpful for me to understand and build a picture of the knowledge to match both those things...

Yes, it's supposed to go together as practice and philosophy.

I can listen in lots of ways of course, but the depth allows me to move more in flow of what is there and presented as it is. That can be a challenge for anyone who is subjected to a plethora of unfair criticism of course. I notice its easy to get defensive or set boundaries up against that.

Big difference in setting boundaries and being defensive. That's important to understand because it marks the difference between being assertive and making assertions. Same as the difference between protections and controls. All kinda related, really.

For me the investigation of myself up against such things, unfair or otherwise opens the flow of my own clarity and ability to relate to people in lots of ways, aware of them, just as they are.

Well, we know things are as they are, and in some situations like if a person is abused, we can't just allow any nature of abuse, and allow it to continue. There is a time to step up. To me it's about strength, and there are three basic kinds of strength. The first is the strength of a reed that bends with the current and isn't broken (which is the nice spiritual one). The second is like a rocky outcrop in the ocean that anything colliding there will be smashed on the rocks, There are times for each, but a rocky outcrop is a dangerous one. The last strength is a push. It's a very rare one, and reserved for the most extreme harms.

Both those things you share- reacting to what people say and reacting to how you feel can create problems. I have taught myself well to remain present more so and allow those reactions to be my own if they arise. I find its easy now more than ever. So when faced with old wounds or past challenges, I find now I can move through to find a way to relate even so.

Basically we only react to the feel. People think they react to what's said and all that, but its really happening on a feel level. We start to realise this through subtle body awareness. It's written in the teachings surrounding dependent arising, but I won't jump forward as I wish to move in an order.

Of course its easier with like minded people, who are self aware and self reflect and do less reacting, but often I am up for the challenge with those who challenge me. It teaches me lots of ways to open up different relating styles in myself. All the while being truthful to myself and what is important in my truth. It seems to work well.

Well, I have to deal with different folk, and some are challenging, but I find myself largely unaffected and generally affectionate...

Originally Posted by Gem

To discuss this meditation is very complicated and requires a very concerted attention. It is easy to instruct people who will 'obey the master', so to speak, but it is very difficult to explain with proper reason so that people understand within themselves.

I think you are trying to over-complicate it.
That said if you indeed try to explain so that people will understand for themselves You are setting yourself up for an impossible task.

The layout of this meditation is such that people will have to sit down and "do the work" so to speak to see what understanding there is to be found.

You say somewhere that when you were taught there were many discussions and discourses to help you.
I feel the sutta's are distilled from conversations like that and that the essence remains, but we present day meditators need to go practice, define and discuss what is presented as a teaching to come to some agreement .

So maybe instead of start at the difficult end and try to explain what you seem to find difficult to explain. Can you say something about what you were taught and take it from there?

[sky]

'Water, if you don’t stir it, will become clear; the mind, left unaltered, will find its own natural peace, well-being, happiness and bliss'

Meditation is the natural state of the mind why does it become so complicated to some...

Originally Posted by sky123

'Water, if you don’t stir it, will become clear; the mind, left unaltered, will find its own natural peace, well-being, happiness and bliss'

Meditation is the natural state of the mind why does it become so complicated to some...

In this case I think because of the difference between the meditative states and the possible insights that may arise when inbestigating those states.

Sitting in meditation, calming the mind gives rise to some very tranquil states. The states themselves are an effect of consentration. Investigation of those states may give rise to wisdom.

That's how I understand it anyway.

With love
Eelco

[sky]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

In this case I think because of the difference between the meditative states and the possible insights that may arise when inbestigating those states.

Sitting in meditation, calming the mind gives rise to some very tranquil states. The states themselves are an effect of consentration. Investigation of those states may give rise to wisdom.

That's how I understand it anyway.

With love
Eelco

I wonder do some make it complicated because they don't like simple...

I don't know.

Can you describe the natural insight that arises when your mind is tranquil and naturally at peace.
Has that insight somehow stabilized into a natural state that has changed the way you perceive the world?

This btw is a genuine question. Although it may seem i am very much into the doctrine, I actually am interested in pragmatic dharma approaches. I have talked and listened to many people who try to explain what the do to work with the mind, how they perceive the different states and for those who claim stream entry and beyond can pretty much state how their perception has changed.

With Love
Eelco

[sky]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

I don't know.

Can you describe the natural insight that arises when your mind is tranquil and naturally at peace.
Has that insight somehow stabilized into a natural state that has changed the way you perceive the world?

This btw is a genuine question. Although it may seem i am very much into the doctrine, I actually am interested in pragmatic dharma approaches. I have talked and listened to many people who try to explain what the do to work with the mind, how they perceive the different states and for those who claim stream entry and beyond can pretty much state how their perception has changed.

With Love
Eelco

I do very little sitting down and meditating, for me it's part of my life and I practise anywhere and everywhere, it just happens when it happens. One of the most important things it made me aware of is how much time I spent listening to myself talking to myself
Controlling the inner talk ( most of it nonsense anyway) I can feel sensations, emotions, feelings, physical sensations etc: becoming more aware of them. I like to think of mindfulness as mind full ness, my mind is full of what's happening now I haven't got much room for inner chit chat nonsense.
Another pastime I really enjoy is observing things without thought or judgement, just looking without adding to, this is enjoyable when doing walking meditation.
There are so many forms of meditations to enhance our lives, they are all good no matter which one you prefer.