Muscle Tension During Meditation

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

To be fair, Vince, on a number of occasions (the nostril/one pointedness issue and the shortening/lengthening breath point) you are really talking about differing perspectives and interpretations of something and not a real definite way of doing something 'rightly' or 'wrongly'....

You are correct. I never stated that any of the interpretations you have just mentioned are definitely correct or incorrect, only that there are reasons why I favor one over the other.

[sunsoul]

Originally Posted by VinceField

The link you provided was not to the sutta, but rather was a commentary on the sutta, although there were some quotes from the sutta scattered throughout the commentary.

Here is the actual sutta : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....118.than.html

The first two steps of the sutta are what is in question here:



Truthfully, the sutta doesn't say whether the breath should be natural, or if one should consciously breathe in long and short. However, the latter makes the most sense in my opinion. Why? Because if the sutta is meant to be practiced in order of the steps described, which most teachers believe is the case, and the first step is to discern the long breath, then if the natural breath is not long, one cannot even begin the meditation. The same goes with the short breath- if the natural breath is not short, one cannot complete the second step.

I don't necessarily see a problem if one switches steps 1 and 2, discerning the short breath first rather than after the long breath. But even still, if one naturally breaths long, then there will never be a short breath to discern and the meditation cannot be completed in line with the sutta's instructions UNLESS one consciously breathes short.

Of course, it is possible that the suttas instructions are aimed at discerning the length of the breath in general and the breath doesn't necessarily have to be long or short. It could be somewhere in between, for instance. The teachers I follow believe the long and short breath is to be fabricated, however, so that is the method that I implore.

I have seen a couple threads of a similar nature over at the Wheel in the past, but I'd be interested to see the responses that come in! Go for it!

Take care

That is really simply awareness of your breath. Breathing in, my breath is long. It is not giving instructions to actually breathe long... Also, that quote that I wrote in an above post from commentary *explicitly* states that there is no controlling of the breath. It is absolutely clear on this point but you have conveniently overlooked it...!

Yes, will post something elsewhere on this.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

That is really simply awareness of your breath. Breathing in, my breath is long. It is not giving instructions to actually breathe long...

That is your interpretation. Many prominent Buddhist teachers hold a very different interpretation, as I have proven with direct quotes from these teachers' instructions.

Also, be aware that you seem to be presenting your interpretation as being an absolute fact when it is simply an opinion, the very same thing you warned me of in your previous post.

Also, that quote that I wrote in an above post from commentary *explicitly* states that there is no controlling of the breath. It is absolutely clear on this point but you have conveniently overlooked it...!

I overlooked nothing my friend. You provided a link to commentary by a teacher who believes that the practitioner should not control the breath. I acknowledge this, and commented that it was simply commentary and not an instruction from the sutta itself. This is just one interpretation of the sutta's instructions, not necessarily more or less valid than the different interpretation held by the three well-known teachers that I provided links to.

Take care

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

You are not speaking of another practice per say, but rather, a different interpretation of the same practice.

There is actually much debate as to whether the interpretation of focusing awareness on the nostrils is correct, or even conductive to the practice.

It's supposed to concentrate the focus and extend the attention span, and it people I have discussed it with seem to think that that's all it's for, but there's more to it than that. It is conducive to the practice (effective) if the finer points of breath observation are understood.

According to my research, the general consensus of teachers and practitioners are against it, not only because of the linguistic evidence against that particular translation, but also because it produces a state of one-pointed concentration to the exclusion of all other areas of experience within the body and mind, which directly opposes the purpose of satipatthana and anapanasati, as it closes off awareness and thus insight into everything outside of one's concentration on that one tiny particular area of the body.

On the contrary, focusing on a minute area ensures that a very subtle and detailed perception is made. In my case, using the tip of the upper lip is just a couple of mm^2, yet I can feel variances of sensation within that minute area, and if focus is particularly good, I reduce the area to a needle point.

I am aware of the intricacies of such methods of one-pointed awareness, conceptually anyway. The many teachers and practitioners that I know of who have followed that method and eventually came to reject it have helped me avoid potentially wasted effort practicing in this way.

It's basically a preliminary part of meditation that hones the sensitivity of perception... but there's other implications to it. It might not suit everyone, but I wouldn't proceed to bodily meditations until this ananpanna is quite refined and the initial obstacles of meditation are resolved.

Regarding your statement that there are prerequisite fundamentals of the expansion of body sensations that contradict the teachings of the ordained, I would be interested in hearing the details.

That will be a detailed explantion of focus, attention, distraction, persona reaction and the fundamental principles of the insight into the nature of the mind. That only pertains to the anapanna portion of the practice. It would be hard to articulate it, ans might be an entirely futile endeavour in the case of those who don't follow the very specific method of practice. I would enjoy laying it all out is a systematic fashion, but would take a bit of wroting and re-writing. I might post it on Gems Jewels (pun of the triple Gem and 3 jewels) and let you know.

I won't explain the body meditations though, because that's something that requires a very consistent frame of mind and it's not safe unless it is used only to cultivate equinimity. If it's not done in the pure way, with pure intention, under the right kind of integrity, it will serve no good. Poeple need to go to a properly organised venue which provides the required guidance and care, because it is a purification/healing strategy that can raise deep mental disturbances.

You have already shared one reason, which I believe I effectively addressed with evidence from the teachings. If you believe you have more, feel free to share. My convictions are in the teachings and my experience in following the teachings, and the two have yet to contradict one another.

Evidence from the teachings won't cut it. It just ends up as blind faith without the deeper understanding about why the practice is designed to be as it is. Things have to be a logical set of reasons that fit together and make sense so that people can discern for themselves if it seems suitabe. Doing a meditation just because a bloke in robe says it's good is akin to being misled, because the act of undertaking a meditation routine has to make the practice itself the primary thing, and not a secondary thing merely used as a means to an end. If it is a mean to an end, the practice is then of secondary importance and is undertaken out of desire for an imagined outcome. The saying I use to illustrate this is from Zen "In practice there is"

I am very curious as to where you were taught. If I were to guess, I'd say you attended a ten-day Vipassana retreat, based on everything you have said thus far.

I have attended at least 15 ten day retreats... It's good for people who want to learn meditation and provides the right kind of facilities and care. (Fees are donation based and anyone can attend) ... and, be certain to keep your own mind as opposed to conforming to the institutional rote.

I understand that your views on the practice come from your experience, but being that your experience is limited, especially in the sense that Vipassana is only a part of the teachings and was never taught to be separated as it's own practice, and you are unfamiliar with the teachings from which your practice originates from, teachings that are crucial to understand to put the practice into perspective and ensure one is going in the right direction, there is a whole lot of room for error, both in practice and view. In other words, I don't believe your views can be trusted as of yet, for you currently only hold one piece of the puzzle. But this is just my opinion, going off of what you have said up until now. It is not meant to be a judgement, but as a perspective that you may benefit from if you honestly take it into consideration.

Take care

I don't identify as a Buddhist and only have a vague interest in Buddhism, so everything I say is directly in reflection of my own meditation practice. Buddhist religion is in no way crucial to undertaking this kind of meditation, though it is Buddhist meditation. My experience is limited and no one trusts my views. I don't want people to believe me. It is entirely reliant on explaining the method and why the method is that way. It has to seem logical and sound reasonable. I have tried to discuss it with people in the past but they refer to the dogma of antiquity and religion to dismiss my discourse, and of course aren't really interested in any reasoning which apparently contradicts the texts.

I don't recommend techniques. I merely discuss them when the subject arises. What I recommend is, people can practice meditation it the way they find for themselves and continually find their own way. Be very honest and trust that when guidance is needed it will be there, because dhamma does it all and you are simply the witness. Above all, keep a pure heart and go with the greater good.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's supposed to concentrate the focus and extend the attention span, and it people I have discussed it with seem to think that that's all it's for, but there's more to it than that. It is conducive to the practice (effective) if the finer points of breath observation are understood.


On the contrary, focusing on a minute area ensures that a very subtle and detailed perception is made. In my case, using the tip of the upper lip is just a couple of mm^2, yet I can feel variances of sensation within that minute area, and if focus is particularly good, I reduce the area to a needle point.


It's basically a preliminary part of meditation that hones the sensitivity of perception... but there's other implications to it. It might not suit everyone, but I wouldn't proceed to bodily meditations until this ananpanna is quite refined and the initial obstacles of meditation are resolved.


That will be a detailed explantion of focus, attention, distraction, persona reaction and the fundamental principles of the insight into the nature of the mind. That only pertains to the anapanna portion of the practice. It would be hard to articulate it, ans might be an entirely futile endeavour in the case of those who don't follow the very specific method of practice. I would enjoy laying it all out is a systematic fashion, but would take a bit of wroting and re-writing. I might post it on Gems Jewels (pun of the triple Gem and 3 jewels) and let you know.

I won't explain the body meditations though, because that's something that requires a very consistent frame of mind and it's not safe unless it is used only to cultivate equinimity. If it's not done in the pure way, with pure intention, under the right kind of integrity, it will serve no good. Poeple need to go to a properly organised venue which provides the required guidance and care, because it is a purification/healing strategy that can raise deep mental disturbances.


Evidence from the teachings won't cut it. It just ends up as blind faith without the deeper understanding about why the practice is designed to be as it is. Things have to be a logical set of reasons that fit together and make sense so that people can discern for themselves if it seems suitabe. Doing a meditation just because a bloke in robe says it's good is akin to being misled, because the act of undertaking a meditation routine has to make the practice itself the primary thing, and not a secondary thing merely used as a means to an end. If it is a mean to an end, the practice is then of secondary importance and is undertaken out of desire for an imagined outcome. The saying I use to illustrate this is from Zen "In practice there is"


I have attended at least 15 ten day retreats... It's good for people who want to learn meditation and provides the right kind of facilities and care. (Fees are donation based and anyone can attend) ... and, be certain to keep your own mind as opposed to conforming to the institutional rote.


I don't identify as a Buddhist and only have a vague interest in Buddhism, so everything I say is directly in reflection of my own meditation practice. Buddhist religion is in no way crucial to undertaking this kind of meditation, though it is Buddhist meditation. My experience is limited and no one trusts my views. I don't want people to believe me. It is entirely reliant on explaining the method and why the method is that way. It has to seem logical and sound reasonable. I have tried to discuss it with people in the past but they refer to the dogma of antiquity and religion to dismiss my discourse, and of course aren't really interested in any reasoning which apparently contradicts the texts.

I don't recommend techniques. I merely discuss them when the subject arises. What I recommend is, people can practice meditation it the way they find for themselves and continually find their own way. Be very honest and trust that when guidance is needed it will be there, because dhamma does it all and you are simply the witness. Above all, keep a pure heart and go with the greater good.

Well my friend, I hope your practice bears fruits for you. It's been a nice discussion but at this point, I don't see it going anywhere beneficial.

I generally become weary when a lay practitioner believes to have more accurate knowledge, wisdom, or experience than lifelong practitioning Bhikkhus in regards to the practice, or when one hold's their own views and assumptions higher than the principals of the teachings, principals that are experientially valid. My view here does not come from blind belief, it comes from the insight gained through the practice that the teachings do in fact lead to the purification of mind.

One cannot expect to gain the most or even develop in the right direction in line with the Dhamma by following Buddhist meditation methods without the knowledge of the path as a whole, and without the desire to cultivate purity of mind through the path. As I said before, the meditation is just one piece of the puzzle, and without the other pieces, that one piece cannot be put into the proper perspective. Thus it is clear why your ideas contradict the teachings. Not to mention that Vipassana meditation the way it is taught at most retreats is an incomplete system of practice, as it excludes very important aspects of the Buddha's original teachings and incorporates questionable methods.

To say that you have little interest in Buddhism is synonymous with saying you have little interest in ridding yourself of your defilements and your ego's unwholesome tendencies, no interest in developing pure and wholesome states of mind, as this is what lies at the core of all Buddhist teachings. I say this mainly because I believe your path is, in fact, in alignment with these goals, and ironically, this is the purpose of the Buddhist meditation technique you implore. Most Buddhists understand Buddhism to be a path of practice, rather than just a body of philosophies and rules like most religions are seen as.

Advising people to find their own way seems practical and harmless enough. Unfortunately, most people are swayed by their attachments and delusions, and lack the wisdom and insight to make truly beneficial choices when it comes to most things, including a spiritual path. This is why I recommend people to the Dhamma; I've been in their shoes, explored most of the other avenues, and been lost in my own attachments and delusions. I still have much work to do, of course, but I can see where this path is leading and the results thus far have been surpassed by no other practice in my experience.

My final statement will be a repetition of a previous one, but an important one. Explore the original Dhamma teachings yourself. It will put your practice into better perspective.

Take care.

[VinceField]

Sun

I created a thread over at DW asking the members their opinions on the issue of the natural breath vs the controlled breath, including which method they use and why.

What is your handle over there, btw?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

Well my friend, I hope your practice bears fruits for you. It's been a nice discussion but at this point, I don't see it going anywhere beneficial.

It's a bit hard to speak in terms of reason, because not easy to articulate, but maybe I will write something up just for fun.

I generally become weary when a lay practitioner believes to have more accurate knowledge, wisdom, or experience than lifelong practitioning Bhikkhus in regards to the practice, or when one hold's their own views and assumptions higher than the principals of the teachings, principals that are experientially valid. My view here does not come from blind belief, it comes from the insight gained through the practice that the teachings do in fact lead to the purification of mind.

This is good. Because if one speaks according to Bhikkus, it's just second-hand news, whereas if spoken directly from experience, it's very sincere.

One cannot expect to gain the most or even develop in the right direction in line with the Dhamma by following Buddhist meditation methods without the knowledge of the path as a whole,

Not accurate

and without the desire to cultivate purity of mind through the path.

Accurate

As I said before, the meditation is just one piece of the puzzle, and without the other pieces, that one piece cannot be put into the proper perspective. Thus it is clear why your ideas contradict the teachings.

Contradiction arises where the deeper aspects of the practice show irregularities in teachings. Besides, the Bikkhus aren't exactly in agreement, anyway.

Not to mention that Vipassana meditation the way it is taught at most retreats is an incomplete system of practice, as it excludes very important aspects of the Buddha's original teachings and incorporates questionable methods.

Tru Dat! (Basically my whole point).

To say that you have little interest in Buddhism is synonymous with saying you have little interest in ridding yourself of your defilements and your ego's unwholesome tendencies, no interest in developing pure and wholesome states of mind

Inaccurate.

, as this is what lies at the core of all Buddhist teachings. I say this mainly because I believe your path is, in fact, in alignment with these goals, and ironically, this is the purpose of the Buddhist meditation technique you implore. Most Buddhists understand Buddhism to be a path of practice, rather than just a body of philosophies and rules like most religions are seen as.

It's very sensible religion on the whole. I simply don't identify myself as Buddhist.

Advising people to find their own way seems practical and harmless enough.

Advice deals in the how to do and what to do, but I deal in the what it is and the why to do.

Unfortunately, most people are swayed by their attachments and delusions,

Ha, aren't we all!

and lack the wisdom and insight to make truly beneficial choices when it comes to most things, including a spiritual path. This is why I recommend people to the Dhamma; I've been in their shoes, explored most of the other avenues, and been lost in my own attachments and delusions. I still have much work to do, of course, but I can see where this path is leading and the results thus far have been surpassed by no other practice in my experience.

I tend to trust in the sensibility of people and in a nutshell, Dhamma does the work and all you do is be aware.

My final statement will be a repetition of a previous one, but an important one. Explore the original Dhamma teachings yourself. It will put your practice into better perspective.

Take care.

By interest in Buddhism is quite slight, so it's unlikely that I will, but I will certainly look into the things you recommended with interest, and I have downloaded an audio version of all the suttas, so thank you for the inspiration. Much happiness and Metta.

[VinceField]

It's been a pleasure conversing with you Gem. I look forward to future interactions. Take care buddy.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by Gem

This is good. Because if one speaks according to Bhikkus, it's just second-hand news, whereas if spoken directly from experience, it's very sincere.

Not accurate

Issues may arise in this regard when the practitioner doesn't have the proper knowledge to frame or understand one's experience. Issues may also arise regarding one's intentions and purposes for the practice if this knowledge is unknown. This knowledge is gained through the teachings.

As Bhikkhu Boddhi states, "vigorous meditation practice without the guiding light of clear conceptual understanding is futile." referring to those with lack of knowledge of the teachings.

He also states in regards to meditation without study of the Dhamma, "we’ll instinctively bring into our practice our own unexamined assumptions about the purpose of practice, and then our practice can easily become subservient to our personal agendas or our cultural biases rather than a means to fulfilling the goal set for it by the Buddha."

Regarding "second-hand news," it is important to take the wisdom of those who have come before us so that we may map out the territory in which we plan on traversing. Going into the practice without this knowledge is akin to travelling to a destination on the other side of the world without a map or much knowledge of one's path or the landmarks one will encounter along the way. No knowledge of what to do if you take a wrong turn, or even how to discern if you're heading in the wrong direction. You only have vague directions, akin to the Buddha's meditation instructions, but without street names or distance indicators.

One may arrive at their destination with a whole lot of luck, but it is by far the least efficient way to go about the journey. They will at least have to ask for directions along the way, which could be likened to receiving teachings from Bhikkhus.

This "second-hand news" serves as a guide for our own journey, and should be trusted over our own experience when we are lacking complete understanding of the underlying principles of the Dhamma and when we are immersed in the world of sense pleasures and defilements, as this second-hand news comes from those who have put the principles of the Dhamma into action as the utmost priority in their lives, with knowledge, insight, experience and wisdom that likely far surpasses our own, whereas our own insights are tainted by our impure minds.

It's like being a rookie scientist, trying to replicate an experiment done by countless professional veteran scientists who have all arrived at the same result. The rookie gets results that differ from the countless veterans due to an error on his part, but believes his results are more valid than the consensus. He isn't aware that his results are erroneous because he lacks the book knowledge which would otherwise inform him of his mistake. His preconceived notions convince him that the book knowledge is unnecessary. He has fun doing his experiments, but they don't lead to the desired result.

Contradiction arises where the deeper aspects of the practice show irregularities in teachings. Besides, the Bikkhus aren't exactly in agreement, anyway.

It is reasonable that a practitioner lacking proper knowledge of the Dhamma and bringing their own convictions into their practice will come across what they believe are contradictions. I would be interested in hearing the contradictions you speak of.

Bhikkhus' interpretations of the teachings may be different, as many times the Buddha instructs what to do, but not how exactly to do it. Thus, different methods of carrying out the instructions have been developed, although these methods all lead to the same place. I would imagine that any Bhikkhu would agree that the perception of contradictions between the teachings and one's practice is the result of wrong view and/or wrong practice.

There are a few Bhikkhus who contribute to discussions over at the Dhamma Wheel forum. I'm sure they would be pleased to help provide some perspective on your perceived contradictions.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

Issues may arise in this regard when the practitioner doesn't have the proper knowledge to frame or understand one's experience. Issues may also arise regarding one's intentions and purposes for the practice if this knowledge is unknown. This knowledge is gained through the teachings.

I think it can be useful, but not in blind faith.

As Bhikkhu Boddhi states, "vigorous meditation practice without the guiding light of clear conceptual understanding is futile." referring to those with lack of knowledge of the teachings.

One such a Bhikku would have a vested interest in Buddhist teachings. If the guy can give reason which makes sense, then people can decide. In discussions I have, when I give reason, the response is often how what say contradicts age old teachings. This is the difference between consideration of reason and following in blind faith. I know I will contradict one teacher and another teacher will agree.

He also states in regards to meditation without study of the Dhamma, "we’ll instinctively bring into our practice our own unexamined assumptions about the purpose of practice, and then our practice can easily become subservient to our personal agendas or our cultural biases rather than a means to fulfilling the goal set for it by the Buddha."

That may be true, and from my perspective, as you might have noticed, many aspects of 'accepted practice' are somewhat misguided.

Regarding "second-hand news," it is important to take the wisdom of those who have come before us so that we may map out the territory in which we plan on traversing. Going into the practice without this knowledge is akin to travelling to a destination on the other side of the world without a map or much knowledge of one's path or the landmarks one will encounter along the way. No knowledge of what to do if you take a wrong turn, or even how to discern if you're heading in the wrong direction. You only have vague directions, akin to the Buddha's meditation instructions, but without street names or distance indicators.

I'm sure you are aware that one teacher disputes the modes of practice, as you mentioned there is debate on the merits of breath meditation. From my perspective, breath meditation is an observation, and if not practices as such, indeed it is futile. The destination is here where you are as you are. What is. Attention has to look deeply into 'this' and not be distracted elsewhere. No other way enables looking deeply.

One may arrive at their destination with a whole lot of luck, but it is by far the least efficient way to go about the journey. They will at least have to ask for directions along the way, which could be likened to receiving teachings from Bhikkhus.

I'm quite sure of myself, and also comfortable with a large degree of uncertainty, but have no issue talking with Bhikkus, but it's possible that my discourse on meditation may contradict some aspects of his.

This "second-hand news" serves as a guide for our own journey, and should be trusted over our own experience when we are lacking complete understanding of the underlying principles of the Dhamma and when we are immersed in the world of sense pleasures and defilements, as this second-hand news comes from those who have put the principles of the Dhamma into action as the utmost priority in their lives, with knowledge, insight, experience and wisdom that likely far surpasses our own, whereas our own insights are tainted by our impure minds.

If a person can explain a practice and give good reason why the practice is as it is, and it seems quite sensible, then why not give it a go. It sounds like it makes sense so it's only logical to try it. Never believe anyone at face value. I'm confident that through practicing I have noticed things and continued to refine my way, and I don't want to be distracted from this by contradictory practices such as you have described.

It's like being a rookie scientist, trying to replicate an experiment done by countless professional veteran scientists who have all arrived at the same result. The rookie gets results that differ from the countless veterans due to an error on his part, but believes his results are more valid than the consensus. He isn't aware that his results are erroneous because he lacks the book knowledge which would otherwise inform him of his mistake. His preconceived notions convince him that the book knowledge is unnecessary. He has fun doing his experiments, but they don't lead to the desired result.

The actual thing is. The destination is you as your true nature, and your true nature is the you that's here as you are. One doesn't go about trying to change this apparition (only observes it as it changes). You can't observe the future you. You can only observe the you thats right here. Unlike science, only you can look. There are no repeatable experiments to be done. Every moment you perpetuate by action and by reaction. The habitual egomanic behaviour is to act and react, and meditation is the intentional cessation of acting and reacting. Any scientist who manipulates the experiment with desire or bias for an outcome will become involved in the process of action and reaction, and thus, not ascertain the truth.

It is reasonable that a practitioner lacking proper knowledge of the Dhamma and bringing their own convictions into their practice will come across what they believe are contradictions. I would be interested in hearing the contradictions you speak of.

Already raised: control breath/don't control breath.

Bhikkhus' interpretations of the teachings may be different, as many times the Buddha instructs what to do, but not how exactly to do it. Thus, different methods of carrying out the instructions have been developed, although these methods all lead to the same place. I would imagine that any Bhikkhu would agree that the perception of contradictions between the teachings and one's practice is the result of wrong view and/or wrong practice.

You must have noticed that different teaching direct contradict each other.

There are a few Bhikkhus who contribute to discussions over at the Dhamma Wheel forum. I'm sure they would be pleased to help provide some perspective on your perceived contradictions.

I'm sure we would have conflicting views on certain aspects of the practice.