Continuation of Meditation

[Gem]

Originally Posted by wstein

I would not use the word 'reflex'. It suggests a reactive response. One does not say water reflexively seeps through your fingers.

Yes, I see what you mean, because a personal reaction might be misconstrued as a reflex, and it could be misunderstood as 'intuitive'.

Lets go with an example. Imagine your hand flat, parallel to the floor, palm up, fingers slightly splayed. What happens if I drop a coin from a few inches above your hand? Does it bounce off your hand, does it get caught and stay in your hand, or does it fall through your fingers towards the ground? The coin takes no special action, makes no choice, or does anything different based on where your hand is. It remains a coin (its nature) the entire time. The only difference in the outcomes is the alignment of the penny to your hand. If the circumstance were different, say we are in space in zero gravity, the coin will just float there above your hand. When one is simply expressing their nature the outcomes of interactions is solely determined by circumstance and the alignment (nature) of the objects involved.

So, it would be most common to catch the coin, but if it were a hot coal, it's more common to pull the hand away, but whether that's a reflexive action or a personal reaction is quite a subtle difference. There's also predetermination, like, 'I will not move my hand',

[wstein]

Originally Posted by Gem

but whether that's a reflexive action or a personal reaction is quite a subtle difference.

Exactly my point. Neither is what I am suggesting.

If you fall, do you race towards the ground out of reflex or reaction? Neither. You fall due to having mass and being in a gravitational field (circumstance).

Being that gravity is sucking you towards the ground at alarming speed, what is the best to do on the way down to minimize injury upon reaching the ground? Reacting to falling or reflexively trying to land? Actually neither. Studies show that drunk people whose reactions and reflexes are too slow to take any meaningful action are injured less. This is due to them being relaxed.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by Gem

So, it would be most common to catch the coin

Not so. There is an old trick where someone holds a dollar bill vertically just above your fingers and drops it. They tell you before hand if you can catch it after they let it go, you can keep it. Over the distance of a few inches, your reaction time is too slow to catch either a coin or a dollar.

Anyway, in that example I am suggesting you be the coin, not the hand.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by wstein

OK, I will give it a try.

First I don't think "truthfulness/morality/ethics" is the bottom line for the meditative inquiry. The bottom line is to witness (face) whatever comes up. To be authentic, and thus gain the most benefit, one needs to be present to where your inquiry takes you.

OK, makes complete sense to me.

As to following that 'deeper within' part (rather than external sources), truthful/moral/ethical do come into play. But it is not in the way religions suggest. Those three things are really about honoring yourself. Behaving 'badly' always affects you in a negative way (and obviously can affect others too). The hard part about this manner of pursuit is to determine how 'badly' relates to truth, morals, and ethics for you. What it comes down to is honoring your inner (deeper) nature.

That one seems very reasonable too.

If you are an ethical being then your most beneficial actions are ethical. What is harder to see (or perhaps admit) is that not everyone is fundamentally ethical. For them what is best is to act unethically. Of course that can be really trying when you encounter someone of the opposite nature. Still, acceptance of them is also acceptance of yourself. Unconditional acceptance is required in order to really access that deeper part. Sometimes it means sitting with stuff one rather not be true. Remember, change is possible but only if you can start from where you are now.

This seems sensible, and I suppose it means that personal preferences are not really part of the meditative process, because one may not necessarily enjoy that which 'one rather not be true'.

Following a set of rules (commandments) cannot work as no set of rules can cover all circumstances nor can it account for the differing deeper nature of individuals.

Yes, I have found that preset rules can't be applied to all circumstances

The one size fits all honors no one. Still, guidelines (morals, ethics) can be helpful in a general sense. It can indicate what sorts of actions are more likely to be appropriate (best honor self). Or more to the point where the ethical and moral situations occur.

Agreed.

The nebulous part in all this is that very few are sufficiently in touch with their deeper nature to know what it is. As such they cannot honor it. Even those that eventually become aware, spend a portion of their lives without its guidance. This is where organizations (government, religions, etc) presume to step in for the ‘common good’. They issue a set of rules (teachings) to be followed. The best one can do at the beginning of pursuing the ‘deeper’ approach is to do their best based on what they know of their inner nature. There are going to be mistakes, plenty of them. That is a reflection of ignorance not of character.

I actually find that I don't have to obey laws so much as live in consideration of all others, but through my experience with addiction, it is clear to me that what I know id for the best isn't always reflected in my actions... i.e. honouring IT, but more recently I've taken to 'cleaning my own house'. It's not even an unawareness of the deeper truth, but growing the balls to live by it, and that certainly runs to much deeper and more subtle things than addictions.

One of the things that has been brought up is the role of well established ‘paths’. It would seem that cultural wisdom would accumulate and that everyone could save some time and effort by simply adopting it. In a way I can’t fully explain, being told something does not make it yours, even if you accept it.

I totally get that.

You still have to own it for yourself. It’s tempting to think that lessons could be provided to make the learning easier. That is true.

Well, it does seem more comfortable than the deep uncertainty that arises without it. One reason I don't refer to it is because I don't want to create a 'crutch', in a manner of speaking. I did undergo formal meditation in the buddhist tradition, and there's a great value in it, but there are pitfalls as well...

However, as everyone is an individual, those lessons also need to be individual. Handing down reams of wisdom from the ages does not take this into account.

Not sure if that addresses your request or not. Feel free to ask more questions.

I refer to the morality and ethics as truthfulness, which means taking a completely sincere ("authentic") and totally objective look at myself, and in your words, "to witness (face) whatever comes up"... to my best ability.

Thanks, it seems completely rational, and it all makes sense.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by wstein

Not so. There is an old trick where someone holds a dollar bill vertically just above your fingers and drops it. They tell you before hand if you can catch it after they let it go, you can keep it. Over the distance of a few inches, your reaction time is too slow to catch either a coin or a dollar.

Anyway, in that example I am suggesting you be the coin, not the hand.

Hahahaha, OK, I'm the coin, the hand is just a thing. It's a deeply effective metaphor.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by wstein

Exactly my point. Neither is what I am suggesting.

If you fall, do you race towards the ground out of reflex or reaction? Neither. You fall due to having mass and being in a gravitational field (circumstance).

Right.

Being that gravity is sucking you towards the ground at alarming speed, what is the best to do on the way down to minimize injury upon reaching the ground? Reacting to falling or reflexively trying to land? Actually neither. Studies show that drunk people whose reactions and reflexes are too slow to take any meaningful action are injured less. This is due to them being relaxed.

Yes, Good point, though reflex is very relaxed, but the difference between what is reflexive and what is reactive is extremely nuanced. The metaphor of falling is an excellent one which might make it seem that clutching out is a reflex, but a reflex only occurs if something is there to clutch. Like the fighter doesn't block if no punch is coming... in the meditation the difference is known because the reflex doesn't disturb anything, but the reaction is disruptive, and falling is an excellent metaphor about that.

[VinceField]

This idea of truthfulness/morality/ethics can more easily be defined as virtue. It is an important part of the path and certainly has an effect on one's meditation practice, although it is certainly not the goal or "bottom line" of the practice, but rather they work together towards a higher goal (the purification of mind). The practice of virtue, the practice of concentration, and the practice of contemplation/wisdom are the three main factors of the Buddhist path, all three which are to be developed in their own way and yet are interrelated. As an example, if one does not practice virtue, their meditation practice will suffer as a result, for there is little peace of mind when one is knowingly harming oneself and others. I have come to understand that any unskillful arising within my mind during my meditation practice is a result of either past wrong speech/action (lack of virtue) or wrong view/intention (lack of wisdom- as an example, identifying with something or assigning importance to something which then arises in the mind). Thus practicing virtue is of great benefit to one's meditation practice and to the path as a whole.

I would avoid advising one to act from the "inner self" or from alignment with "inner nature" or something mystical like was previously mentioned, as the ego has an amazing ability of convincing and deceiving the mind to do its bidding. Just as wstein said "Perhaps actual intuition is outside ego's reach, but that does not stop ego from making stuff up and presenting it as intuition," so it can be equally said that "Perhaps the 'inner self' is outside the ego's reach, but that does not stop ego from making stuff up and presenting it as 'inner self.'"

Instead I would recommend the Buddhist guidelines for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood, the three factors comprising virtue/moral conduct. I have yet to experience, hear of, or think of a situation that is not covered by these guidelines.

Right Speech- Abstaining from lying, divisive speech, abusive speech, and idle chatter. Wholesome, skillful, harmless speech.

Right Action- Abstaining from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. Wholesome, skillful, harmless action.

Right Livelihood- Not making a living in an occupation which directly or indirectly harms others.

Of course, the factors of Right View and Right Intention are crucial for skillfully following the three virtue precepts.

Right view is essentially understanding the Three Marks of Existence: that everything is subject to change, nothing can be considered to be "you" in and of itself, and that the fabrications which comprise our experience are unsatisfactory and stressful in nature. Also, understanding the Four Nobel Truths: Suffering exists, suffering has an origin, suffering can end, and there is a path to the cessation of suffering.

Right intention is essentially developing skillful intentions that are not rooted in the mind's defilements (greed, ill-will, or delusion), but rather that lead to the cessation of any unwholesome qualities. It's the intention of renunciation of worldly attainments in exchange for a greater persuit of the spiritual path and a commitment to good will and harmlessness towards others.

[Cmt12]

Originally Posted by Gem

I find it weird that you say reason is ineffective because story about the ego, and I have found expressing reason seems quite confronting as it rattles preconceived views that have been adopted.

I use reason and thought all the time. It's just thought cannot be relied upon for guidance into the unknown. It can't be relied upon for telling you the next step to take in your spiritual development.

I mean, think about it, how many philosophers have there been that have dedicated there lives to figuring out the nature of reality through thought?

Re Intuition: Intuitive insight is very rare and clarity on how Intuition works is even more rare. People mistake intuition when they are actually using inductive reasoning.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by Gem

Remember, change is possible but only if you can start from where you are now.

Originally Posted by Gem

I suppose it means that personal preferences are not really part of the meditative process, because one may not necessarily enjoy that which 'one rather not be true'.

Personal preferences are mostly a hindrance in the inquiry as there is bias towards the things we like (rather than following where the inquiry is leading).

Personal preferences (and inner nature) come into play after the inquiry in selecting changes to implement and in how exactly action is carried out. When fully aligned with self, personal preferences are externalized manifestations of our inner nature.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by VinceField

I would avoid
...
as the ego has an amazing ability of convincing and deceiving the mind to do its bidding.

Isn't avoidance a form of denial? Also seems like acting from fear.

If the ego is acting like Mara shouldn't it be addressed in like manner?

Since this is a meditation thread, I will suggest meditating on why the ego acts as it does.

IMO Repression or ignoring of the ego only seems like a delaying tactic. It will find a way of deceiving eventually. As I said it has a way of using whatever is at hand. Taking things off the table only forces it to present its case using whats left. Are you going to completely shut down in order to keep the ego from deceiving you?

Personally I have found effective and constructive means of addressing the ego. It is not an intractable problem. This is a topic for another thread.