Continued discussion on fundamentals of mindfulness meditation

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

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

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.

Originally Posted by Gem

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.

[Gem]

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 .

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 !

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.

[JustBe]

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.

[sky]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Anyone practice Shikantaza, in essence meditation minus an object of attending?

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

Originally Posted by sky

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.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustBe

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.

[Gem]

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.

[sky]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

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

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 '