The Eightfold Path - The Fourth Noble Truth

[Gem]

Just to be clear, 'reactivity' refers to the dynamic between desire and aversion that unsettles peace of mind. It is also called 'craving' and sometimes called 'stress' in Buddhist philosophy. Of course, where these words are placed in discourse imbues them with contextual colour, just as the real-lived experiences they refer to are variously tinged.

The idea of my narrative is to look into the experience. When I say the breath is hard to feel (a subtle object), then you can sit there, feel the air at the nostrils and find out for yourself. Of course if you breath hard it's easy to feel and if you breath very lightly it is harder to feel, but need I state the obvious?

Assuming the obvious is self evident, as the meditation becomes more relaxed and the body less active, the breath becomes shallower and lighter aka subtler and harder to feel. It actually takes quite a bit of practice to be able to feel very light breathing clearly and distinctly, and the fact that heavier breathing is easier to feel than light breathing nullifies the 'everyone different' argument.

The reason this is relevant regards Maisy's comment on the unconscious reactivity. As I was saying in my previous post, reactivity pertains to feelings according to the premise 'from feelings craving arises'. Naturally, a new meditator finds it hard to feel anything around the nostrils once the breathing calms down. The feeling is there but the mind is unable to perceive it, at least clearly, and if unable to perceive the subtle feelings, the psychological reactivity to such feelings is also unconscious.

The breath is used to train the mind and sharpen the perception, and after quite a lot of practice you can start to feel even very subtle breathing clearly and distinctly, and as such, have the ability to become conscious of subtler aspects of body/feeling which you were prior not conscious of, as well as previously unconscious reactivity to them.

I'm afraid there might not be anything published online to validate anything I say, or maybe there is, but I only speak from the perspective of someone who practiced to refine the meditation.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

Assuming the obvious is self evident, as the meditation becomes more relaxed and the body less active, the breath becomes shallower and lighter aka subtler and harder to feel. It actually takes quite a bit of practice to be able to feel very light breathing clearly and distinctly, and the fact that heavier breathing is easier to feel than light breathing

The Vipassana technique is actually taken from the Satipatthana Sutta, now if you read this Sutta The Buddha never mentions feeling the in/out breath close to the Nostrils.

"Herein, monks, a monk, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree or to an empty place, sits down with his legs crossed, keeps his body erect and his mindfulness alert.

Ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out. Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath."

"Experiencing the whole (breath-) body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Experiencing the whole (breath-) body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the (breath-) body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the (breath-) body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself."


Here is a interesting Buddhist teaching on the practise of Vipassana.
https://buddhismnow.com/2013/09/12/v...adaw-of-burma/

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky

https://buddhismnow.com/2013/09/12/v...adaw-of-burma/

The article is fine, but it doesn't explain why the nostrils are preferred by many meditation teachers, and is wrong about his reasons against it, such as 'you lose contact with the body' and it's only for single pointedness, and it is ineffective in purification. I can tell he doesn't really understand the approach.

He prefers the abdomen approach (which can also be critiqued of course). He's basically saying it's a large area which is easy to feel, which is precisely my critique of that approach since I claim that a small area which is hard to feel is the ultimate subtle feeling-object.

Not that I'm against it. It's good, but the reasons he gives are vague so it's not really convincing in any rational sense. I think he conflates feeling a cruder feeling over a larger area with 'being in touch with the body', which is either a misgiving or a complete understatement of full body awareness.

I'm also going to contradict 'noting or naming'. It contradicts the more fundamental 'just observe' premise of mindfulness, and thus makes no sense to discerning individuals.

I also will contradict going slowly. Best go at normal speed and do what is normally done in the normal way, but just be aware of what you're doing. You'll probably find that conscious activities are more deliberate and careful, but don't intentionally do things in 'slow motion'. Just be more conscious about what you're normally doing.

Over all, I wouldn't follow what this article or the teacher it promotes says, but if one wants to use the abdomen for their breath awareness, most teachers suggest that, and it's all good (even though the sutta doesn't say feel the abdomen either). I just explain why the nose approach is better, but it doesn't really matter all that much.

[sky]

Mahasi espoused the direct path of Vipassana only (ekayano maggo) as it is taught in the Discourse on How to Establish Mindfulness, Satipatthana Sutta - MN 10) which is a Teaching believed to have been given by The Buddha and is followed by Buddhist....
Vipassana is obviously not just practised solely by Buddhist but as this Section is for Buddhism I personally think it's worth using The Buddhas Teachings.

[Maisy]

I read a quote once, wish I could find it again, where Buddha said to drop the obsession with self interest. To me, that means drop "doing" and instead focus on being. Being to me is about knowing, living, experiencing the truth of what is in the now. Going with the flow wide awake and aware, without interest in the person that exists as me. Being fully present and here now, but without "personhood" if that makes sense. But then person is here, but it can be non-identified with or observed as not I.

I can be here now empty which can be said to be more myself, not less. Aspects like awareness, understanding, knowledge, and wisdom. In one of those new age books an author said she remembered going before a panel of elders in the between rebirth realms and none ever gave her advice or commented on her life or judged her. They simply asked her how she thought she did. Higher beings had no interest in judging someone else. They just asked her what she felt. They just wanted to observe what was. Makes me think it is all up to us. No one else. Nothing somebody else did or is doing or said or taught. None of that matters. It's our individual journey. We make our own prisons and only us can break ourselves free.

[sky]

If you would like to be selfish, you should do it in a very intelligent way. The stupid way to be selfish is … seeking happiness for ourselves alone. … the intelligent way to be selfish is to work for the welfare of others.”
The Dalai Lama....

[Maisy]

In the Sabbasava Sutta (Pali Sutta-pitaka, Majjhima Nikaya) Buddha advised us not to ponder certain questions, such as "Am I? Am I not?" because this would lead to six kinds of wrong views:


I have a self.
I have no self.
By means of a self I perceive self.
By means of a self I perceive not-self.
By means of not-self I perceive self.
The self of mine that knows is everlasting and will stay as it is forever.

"In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible." Thanissaro Bhikkhu

[Gem]

You know I'm a minimalist. The reason is, I don't believe in 'adding on' when it comes to meditation, but taking away. I don't believe in doing something, but ceasing to do what is compulsive aka based on craving and temptation.

My antagonists argue that some cravings are noble, but I maintain these that impel the volition contradict the essence of mindfulness. However, this does not remove ardent awareness nor determination in the quest for truth.

There is a difference in the way one observes if they are more curious about what is true compared to if they 'want something to happen'. The truth is 'as it is', not 'as you want it to be', and 'what you want' can only be continuous pursuit of temporal sensations. To want to discover the truth leads not to a pursuit, or an avoidance, but to an inquiry or investigation for insight into reality.

The meditations I critique are fine for some purpose, but they 'add on'. Counting, timing, controlling, noting and so on and so on. This is because your mind wants a task to do apart from just observing. I you remove all the tasks, apart from the reality of experience, there is only unintentional activity, which is the reactivity or compulsive 'craving'.

You will find it is not easy to stop because doing so removes the psychic energy that perpetuates ego. When the ego realises no one is feeding it, it tries to get you to reengage that reactive process and it already knows what works. For this reason, I consider 'add ons' to be fundamentally misguided and assume the teachers who instruct it, which is the vast majority of them, don't really understand mindfulness in a fundamental way.

They are accredited, berobed and produced by authenticated religious schools, and because we don't know any better, we trust them and believe they know what they are doing. Then we back it up with a scripture or even just some nonsense someone published online. If people didn't continually generate that narrative, the entire religious structure would collapse. It all a 'house in the sand'. There is a lot at stake because the truth itself is highly disruptive to yourself, social circles, and the underlying fallacy upon which the entire establishment is founded.

The actual foundation, 'the house on the rock', is real. Truth and trust, which are morally pertinent, and coming back to the essence we call 'Buddha' - the quality of enlightenment within oneself.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

You know I'm a minimalist. The reason is, I don't believe in 'adding on' when it comes to meditation, but taking away. I don't believe in doing something, but ceasing to do what is compulsive aka based on craving and temptation.

The Buddha taught different types of Meditation Techniques each designed to overcome a particular problem or to develop a particular psychological state, He understood that different people benefitted from a different approach, hence the variations.

If you attend 'Non' Buddhist Retreats and Ashrams you can obviously notice some differences and alterations to His Teachings which again can be of benefit to some individuals, to each their own imo....

[Gem]

It doesn't matter what any figure of authority has to say unless what they say adds up and makes sense. If you see how it all fits, then that's your own intellectual understanding to guide you, and it isn't something someone else understands and you follow blindly because but you do not. Hence, undermining what I say is only possible if you can show the inconsistencies and contradictions. This is how I do my critiques. I just point out how one aspect of what they are saying contradicts something else. It's the only viable critique. Appeals to authority are not viable.

Earlier in this thread I linked a number of authorities that support what I say, but only because other people think that's a reasonable way to present their points. I personally do not think it reasonable. If I present or refer to an authority it is only because I understand their point and can discuss it in more depth.

Hence I have to think things through. I can't say one thing about mindfulness and contradict that thing somewhere else. If I do that then someone should point out that inconsistency... that's how critical thinking works...