Muscle Tension During Meditation

[Gem]

Don't entertian ideas of 'negativity'. The sensations are what they are and possibly manifest of mental/emotional conditions, but 'negative' is a judgement value. In meditation it is as it is, and merely observed to be.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by ScarlettHayden

Or.. becoming aware of what negativity he's holding onto.. and then releasing it as he feels it?

It's gonna be a release of some kind. Either way, it's good. Just go with it.

By advising to "just go with it," it seems to imply that you should just allow the tension to be there and continue on with the meditation, rather than do something to alleviate the unwholesome state of the body.

There is a big difference between experiencing tension and allowing it to be there, and using a skillful means of eliminating the tension and bringing about a more wholesome state of body and mind. Namely, the one does not bring about much progress and development, as it ignores problematic areas of the body and mind that necessitate skillful attention, whereas the other does lead to more wholesome states.

An important aspect of the meditation method I use is to use whatever skillful means necessary to move towards the most wholesome state of body and mind in each moment. If there is some physical tension, see how you can use your thoughts, breath energy, and awareness to free the tension. If the mind is particularly unruly, see how can you focus your awareness in a way which leads to stronger states of concentration. Unwholesome states should be accepted only in that there isn't aversion arising in their presence. Otherwise, they should seen for what they are and action should be taken to rid oneself of them.

Passively accepting whatever comes into one's experience in the present moment is one way to meditate, but it doesn't tend to lead to very deep levels of insight or development. This is why the Buddha taught a very active means of meditation to achieve liberation.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

By advising to "just go with it," it seems to imply that you should just allow the tension to be there and continue on with the meditation, rather than do something to alleviate the unwholesome state of the body.

Well, 'go with it' doesn't really mean anything specific so 'seems to imply' is about as good as it gets with that one.

There is a big difference between experiencing tension and allowing it to be there

That's unlikely. More likely when a person notices a tension, they relax it.

, and using a skillful means of eliminating the tension and bringing about a more wholesome state of body and mind. Namely, the one does not bring about much progress and development, as it ignores problematic areas of the body and mind that necessitate skillful attention, whereas the other does lead to more wholesome states.

An important aspect of the meditation method I use is to use whatever skillful means necessary to move towards the most wholesome state of body and mind in each moment. If there is some physical tension, see how you can use your thoughts, breath energy, and awareness to free the tension. If the mind is particularly unruly, see how can you focus your awareness in a way which leads to stronger states of concentration. Unwholesome states should be accepted only in that there isn't aversion arising in their presence. Otherwise, they should seen for what they are and action should be taken to rid oneself of them.

I beg to differ. If there's a physical tension, one is aware of that by means of sensation. Since one is adverse to the sensation, they employ some nature of activity to get rid of it. Undertaking such activity is indicative of the adversity to the experience as it is.

Passively accepting whatever comes into one's experience in the present moment is one way to meditate, but it doesn't tend to lead to very deep levels of insight or development. This is why the Buddha taught a very active means of meditation to achieve liberation.

What you say Buddha taught is contrary to what I was told that Buddha taught.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by Gem

Well, 'go with it' doesn't really mean anything specific so 'seems to imply' is about as good as it gets with that one.

It certainly does have a specific meaning, just like mostly any other expression in the English language. In the expression "go with it," "it" in this case implies the experience. Go with the experience. In other words, allow whatever is happening to happen. "Go with the flow." "Ride it out," perhaps. I think we're all familiar with the expression "go with it" and what it means. If the original poster wants to clarify, please do, although it's a pretty basic expression with a commonly understood meaning.

That's unlikely. More likely when a person notices a tension, they relax it.

You took my quote out of context.

I was comparing two ideas:

1. Experiencing tension and allowing it to be there.

2. Using a skillful means of eliminating the tension and bringing about a more wholesome state of body and mind.

The original sentence:

"There is a big difference between 1. experiencing tension and allowing it to be there, and 2. using a skillful means of eliminating the tension and bringing about a more wholesome state of body and mind."

About your idea that when a person experiences tension they immediately relax it, this is actually a skill that is developed with practice. It requires experimenting with different ways of thinking and moving awareness and energy through the body to achieve. You can't always just tell your tensions to relax and expect your body and mind to be relieved.

I beg to differ. If there's a physical tension, one is aware of that by means of sensation. Since one is adverse to the sensation, they employ some nature of activity to get rid of it. Undertaking such activity is indicative of the adversity to the experience as it is.

It is very possible to experience something undesirable without experiencing aversion. It is called equanimity. The undertaking of activity to eliminate the undesirable condition is not done out of aversion, it is done out of wisdom, understanding that there are more skillful and wholesome states that can be attained with the right intentions and effort. For more on this, there is a plethora of knowledge and teachings on Buddhism available freely online that you may consult.

What you say Buddha taught is contrary to what I was told that Buddha taught.

I'm not sure who "told" you what Buddha taught or what they told you he taught, but my knowledge comes directly from the Buddha's suttas, what are supposedly the most direct teachings of the Buddha. The oldest records of his teachings. I also study the teachings of a couple prominent Theravada Bhikkhus on a daily basis, so I'm more than familiar with the teachings, especially since I practice them.

Take care pal.

[jayemem]

I think what this comes down to is that there are many different ways to meditate and everyone experiences it differently. Their bodies will react in the way it is going to react and I also believe Viking was going through some kind of energetic release, as this is what happens to me. Controlling this however could be benficial, or it might not be. The only person to determine this is Viking. Perspective is everything, so to say, so someone with a very traditional approach to meditation will certainly interpret meditation experiences differently than, say, someone like myself who was never taught how to meditate and do so in a way that's beneficial to me. I understand that a lot of practice goes into attaining certain conditions while meditating in Buddhist practice, which is surely beneficial and challenging in it's own way, but perhaps there's more to this than trying to manipulate or control what Viking is describing.
Buddhist meditation is quite interesting indeed, and I would one day like to practice the way Vince does. Good luck with everything Viking!

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

It certainly does have a specific meaning, just like mostly any other expression in the English language. In the expression "go with it," "it" in this case implies the experience. Go with the experience. In other words, allow whatever is happening to happen. "Go with the flow." "Ride it out," perhaps. I think we're all familiar with the expression "go with it" and what it means. If the original poster wants to clarify, please do, although it's a pretty basic expression with a commonly understood meaning.

OK, it's a very basic expression, but not at all specific or elaborate.

You took my quote out of context.

I was comparing two ideas:

1. Experiencing tension and allowing it to be there.

2. Using a skillful means of eliminating the tension and bringing about a more wholesome state of body and mind.

The original sentence:

"There is a big difference between 1. experiencing tension and allowing it to be there, and 2. using a skillful means of eliminating the tension and bringing about a more wholesome state of body and mind."

About your idea that when a person experiences tension they immediately relax it, this is actually a skill that is developed with practice. It requires experimenting with different ways of thinking and moving awareness and energy through the body to achieve. You can't always just tell your tensions to relax and expect your body and mind to be relieved.

True, I was not really sure of you meaning, so thanks for clarification.

Just an example from my own meditations: Sometimes I notice a tension of muscles in my legs, and when I notice it, it relaxes, but later on I notice the tension has come back. It's nigh on impossible to notice that tension without relaxing it, but in other instances, with a tension in the neck or shoulders, I notice it, but it can't be relaxed. It just stays tense even though I became aware of it.

It is very possible to experience something undesirable without experiencing aversion. It is called equanimity. The undertaking of activity to eliminate the undesirable condition is not done out of aversion, it is done out of wisdom, understanding that there are more skillful and wholesome states that can be attained with the right intentions and effort. For more on this, there is a plethora of knowledge and teachings on Buddhism available freely online that you may consult.

OK I may consult Googleji on that.

I'm not sure who "told" you what Buddha taught or what they told you he taught, but my knowledge comes directly from the Buddha's suttas, what are supposedly the most direct teachings of the Buddha. The oldest records of his teachings. I also study the teachings of a couple prominent Theravada Bhikkhus on a daily basis, so I'm more than familiar with the teachings, especially since I practice them.

Take care pal.

I did meditation in the sutta traditions through anapanna and vipassana, but didn't really learn the philosophical aspects very well, but by maintaining a regular practice I came to realise things. I do sometimes come across 'teachings' but often find that they contradict my own discoveries, so to me, 'name dropping' Buddha or Bhikkhus doesn't actually lend credibility to the things that people say.

I usually find the there is abundance of frills and glitter and very little of core value, but recently I read an article by a guy who discarded anything that was sectarian Buddhist and retained what was common to all the Buddhist sects... the core of it... and in this case, I found the article very agreeable.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by Gem

I did meditation in the sutta traditions through anapanna and vipassana, but didn't really learn the philosophical aspects very well, but by maintaining a regular practice I came to realise things. I do sometimes come across 'teachings' but often find that they contradict my own discoveries, so to me, 'name dropping' Buddha or Bhikkhus doesn't actually lend credibility to the things that people say.

Interesting. The only time I name-dropped the Buddha was a statement that he taught an active form of meditation. Well, wouldn't you know, the active meditation I was speaking of comes directly from the Anapanasati sutta and the Satipatthana sutta, the sources of the anapana and vipassana meditation you mentioned. If you practiced in line with Buddhist teachings, then you should know just how active and involved the instructions are. Strange that you disagreed with my original statement. Perhaps you received second-hand teachings that didn't accurately reflect the teachings.

I usually find the there is abundance of frills and glitter and very little of core value, but recently I read an article by a guy who discarded anything that was sectarian Buddhist and retained what was common to all the Buddhist sects... the core of it... and in this case, I found the article very agreeable.

The frills and glitter can be found in Mahayana Buddhism, although I'm sure Mahayana Buddhists would disagree with your opinion that there is little of core value in the teachings. I am coming from Theravada Buddhism, which is extremely down to earth. I would be interested to hear what Buddhist teachings contradict your own discoveries.

With Metta

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

Interesting. The only time I name-dropped the Buddha was a statement that he taught an active form of meditation. Well, wouldn't you know, the active meditation I was speaking of comes directly from the Anapanasati sutta and the Satipatthana sutta, the sources of the anapana and vipassana meditation you mentioned. If you practiced in line with Buddhist teachings, then you should know just how active and involved the instructions are. Strange that you disagreed with my original statement. Perhaps you received second-hand teachings that didn't accurately reflect the teachings.

I found the formal meditation I undertook was pretty practical, but I didn't study the suttas, so I can't be sure if it is aligned or not, but I imagine it would be. I would assume all teachings are second hand and have noticed quite fundamental disparities in the techniques practiced by different sects. Each sect would consider their particular practices to be the pure dhamma teachings, I presume, as they did where I underwent the training. I was led to believe that Vipassana meant to see it is it is, and I'm down with that.

The frills and glitter can be found in Mahayana Buddhism, although I'm sure Mahayana Buddhists would disagree with your opinion that there is little of core value in the teachings. I am coming from Theravada Buddhism, which is extremely down to earth. I would be interested to hear what Buddhist teachings contradict your own discoveries.

With Metta

The feller who wrote the article I mentioned also could see the core values that were common to all the Buddhist meditation schools, and he identified the 'additions' which pertained to particular sects, so there was a fundamental basis that underpinned all the practices.

The main contradiction I notice is, while my practice is an observation technique in that I just see what is, some other practices being taught have added volitional invocations such as visualisation, counting or mentally verbalising 'in breath, out breath' etc. I also experimented with incorporating additions of this nature, but I found it was in direct contradiction to 'as it is' meditation.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by Gem

I found the formal meditation I undertook was pretty practical, but I didn't study the suttas, so I can't be sure if it is aligned or not, but I imagine it would be. I would assume all teachings are second hand and have noticed quite fundamental disparities in the techniques practiced by different sects. Each sect would consider their particular practices to be the pure dhamma teachings, I presume, as they did where I underwent the training. I was led to believe that Vipassana meant to see it is it is, and I'm down with that.


The feller who wrote the article I mentioned also could see the core values that were common to all the Buddhist meditation schools, and he identified the 'additions' which pertained to particular sects, so there was a fundamental basis that underpinned all the practices.

The main contradiction I notice is, while my practice is an observation technique in that I just see what is, some other practices being taught have added volitional invocations such as visualisation, counting or mentally verbalising 'in breath, out breath' etc. I also experimented with incorporating additions of this nature, but I found it was in direct contradiction to 'as it is' meditation.

Thanks for the reply Gem. Your answer about the contradiction is a bit different from your original statement, which was that your "discoveries" contradict Buddhist teachings. It seems now you're saying that Buddhist teachings contradict each other.

There is actually no real contradiction here. The visualization and mental verbalization are simply skillful means for cultivating the wholesome states and most fertile conditions necessary for concentration and insight (vipassana aka "as it is") to arise and develop. There are many other strategies that include some type of mental fabrication which are likewise compatible with the original teachings.

The Buddha's meditation instructions explain the steps to progress throughout all of the many stages of meditation, but explicit details as to exactly how to carry out these steps are not given, leaving the meditator to come up with their own strategy for executing the instructions. So although counting and visualization are not found in the suttas' instructions, they have been found to lead the meditator to the wholesome states described in the original teachings and are thus considered a skillful means of implementing the Buddha's instructions. These are simply mental fabrications of various kinds, and there is no meditation that doesn't have some type of fabrication involved, even the "as it is" meditation you speak of. The Buddha didn't teach a passive or inactive meditation; he said this type of meditation did not bear fruit.

You are correct in your statement that all sects consider their Dharma to be the true Dharma, although Mahayana Buddhists generally accept Theravada teachings as authentic, whereas the same cannot be said the other way around. That is because Theravada teachings come directly from the first written record of the Buddha's teachings, whereas Mahayana teachings come from later records and include teachings that certain teachers claimed to have received directly from the Buddha's spirit in visions and altered states of consciousness many years after the Buddha's death.

My apologies to the OP for taking part in derailing this thread.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by VinceField

Thanks for the reply Gem. Your answer about the contradiction is a bit different from your original statement, which was that your "discoveries" contradict Buddhist teachings. It seems now you're saying that Buddhist teachings contradict each other.

There is actually no real contradiction here. The visualization and mental verbalization are simply skillful means for cultivating the wholesome states and most fertile conditions necessary for concentration and insight (vipassana aka "as it is") to arise and develop. There are many other strategies that include some type of mental fabrication which are likewise compatible with the original teachings.

I had experimented with the few mental fabrications which I heard of and found that are not conducive. The basic problem is that if one employs a volitional act, the 'as it is' is obscured by it. I would suggest that this is why the fabrications are not included in the suttas.

The Buddha's meditation instructions explain the steps to progress throughout all of the many stages of meditation, but explicit details as to exactly how to carry out these steps are not given, leaving the meditator to come up with their own strategy for executing the instructions. So although counting and visualization are not found in the suttas' instructions, they have been found to lead the meditator to the wholesome states described in the original teachings and are thus considered a skillful means of implementing the Buddha's instructions. These are simply mental fabrications of various kinds, and there is no meditation that doesn't have some type of fabrication involved, even the "as it is" meditation you speak of. The Buddha didn't teach a passive or inactive meditation; he said this type of meditation did not bear fruit.

You are correct in your statement that all sects consider their Dharma to be the true Dharma, although Mahayana Buddhists generally accept Theravada teachings as authentic, whereas the same cannot be said the other way around. That is because Theravada teachings come directly from the first written record of the Buddha's teachings, whereas Mahayana teachings come from later records and include teachings that certain teachers claimed to have received directly from the Buddha's spirit in visions and altered states of consciousness many years after the Buddha's death.

My apologies to the OP for taking part in derailing this thread.