Trouble with silencing my mind while meditating...

[Battle00333]

Is it wrong to say that a busy mind lacks dicipline?
The way I see it. A busy mind is a mind in which is accustomed to speaking whenever it wants to.
The mind is not used to being silent, not used to having to pick its' words and therefor puts up resistance when you try to forcibly silence it.

Instead of trying to silencing your mind, try to slow it down first.
You gotta hit the brakes before you can throw the anchor.

I also believe it's possible to meditate without silencing a busy mind. ( with enough practice )
We slow down or silence the mind because it's going too quickly. But speed and time is relative. So in theory instead of slowing down your mind to match your senses, it should be possible to elevate your senses to match the speed of your mind

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Battle00333

Is it wrong to say that a busy mind lacks dicipline?
The way I see it. A busy mind is a mind in which is accustomed to speaking whenever it wants to.
The mind is not used to being silent, not used to having to pick its' words and therefor puts up resistance when you try to forcibly silence it.

Instead of trying to silencing your mind, try to slow it down first.
You gotta hit the brakes before you can throw the anchor.

I also believe it's possible to meditate without silencing a busy mind. ( with enough practice )
We slow down or silence the mind because it's going too quickly. But speed and time is relative. So in theory instead of slowing down your mind to match your senses, it should be possible to elevate your senses to match the speed of your mind

I tend toward distinguishing between a 'wandering mind' and a 'wild mind'. Or maybe a difference between a thoughtful mind and noisy mind. The difference is, a 'wandering mind' or 'thoughtful mind' is quite peaceful, but the 'wild mind' or 'noisy mind' is noticeably agitated. In so saying, there is nothing to do in regards to a wandering mind or thoughtful mind, but there good sense in finding out what make one become highly agitated and noisy. That's what meditation is for, to find out how your own suffering is generated, and upon discovering that, cease generating it.

Indeed, your second point of elevating the senses is a good one, and this means being more acutely perceptive so that you can notice more subtle things that the typical hard physical seemingly substantial things we might take for granted as a reality. This is actually why a meditation object is used, and rather than 'focusing on an object' one 'looks more deeply' or notices the subtler nuances of it, and the practice of becoming consciously aware of the finer nuances hones the mind's perceptive ability, and brings it back to being extremely sensitive in regards to sense perceptions, and by so doing, nothing can go by unawares, and the meditator becomes extraordinarily still in contrast to the rapidly changing phenomena being perceived (and change is very rapid indeed at the subtler level). In short, the agitated mind is dull and insensitive, so one has to be acute to the ways in which they react to the senses and cause their own agitated psychological states. Because no one wants to suffer in that way, once conscious of it, they will cease to create such disturbances for themselves in the first place rather than wondering 'what to do about it' after the fact. The fact in that case is already agitation is already is there, and one is aware, 'this is how it is', but because no investment in it is made, it ceases to be perpetuated and the mind re-settles into balanced equanimity.

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by Gem

IThe fact in that case is already agitation is already is there, and one is aware, 'this is how it is', but because no investment in it is made, it ceases to be perpetuated and the mind re-settles into balanced equanimity.

Yes, some faith is required, and some discipline.

Thanks, Gem.

shiningstars

[Ground]

Originally Posted by shiningstars

Yes, some faith is required, and some discipline.

Faith and discipline undermine equanimity.
Faith fosters attachment through focusing on one object or one set of objects in the affirmative and ignoring or even negating others. Discipline is stress and the opposite of relaxation. So faith and discipline make equanimity impossible.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by shiningstars

Yes, some faith is required, and some discipline.

Thanks, Gem.

shiningstars

The way I would word this is some care and delicacy is required. In terms of 'discipline', it certainly has a place - like, a fitness program should be followed rigourously, but 'discipline' is most often construed as control. If I use fitness as a metaphor, then one has control over their exercise because they are acutely aware of what they are doing. For example, when you pay careful attention to how you raise hands up into the air, you simply pay attention and are aware of your body as you raise your arms. You don't have to control all the intricacies of it - you just do it carefully and fluidly while paying attention to it - so what we call 'control' is actually careful conscious attention, and it isn't the dictating of every little detail of movement - It's certainly not the inhibition of such movement.

[aloha]

Originally Posted by Gem

10 minutes is at the 'better than nothing' level. My main training was an Eastern tradition. The reason retreats are quite grueling is because there is so much do and so little time. Physical discomfort is quite important initially because the practitioner comes to know how highly reactive they are to the physical sensations. Later on, though, this changes and pleasure, the pursuit of pleasure, and the clinging to it becomes the sticking point. When the subtle motion becomes intense and relentless it's important a practitioner is well aware of how their personal reactivity disturbs them and is well grounded in their balance of mind. I guess since this thread is based on Mantra, though, I'm not in the right place, and it's my mistake.


That's not quite it. Mindfulness is the ability to observe without personal involvement, judgements, reactions and so forth. It basically means, as J. Krishnamutri put it, "I don't mind what happens". One doesn't renounce the things they find pleasurable or deliberately seek pain, but rather, one doesn't become compelled by their desire for pleasures and their strong aversions toward unpleasant experiences. Of course, life is to be enjoyed under a basic attitude of 'this will soon pass'. The point it, experiences good or bad can bring superficial happiness or unhappiness, but 'satisfaction' as Buddhists might my use that word is completely independent of the personal experiences a person might have.

-----
I'm not into mantras either. I have enough sound in my head already.

I understand that retreats are grueling and physical discomfort is countenanced. I regard this as emblematic of spiritual materialism. Rather like shrinks insisting that them getting paid is part of your therapy. Or the way these retreat hosters always have their hands out. Liberation isn't free. I wonder how successful they are at turning out enlightened arahants whose desires are extinct. I enjoy canned dharma talks, however.

I agree that ten minutes is barely "better than nothing"; in fact any less would be a joke. If you aren't up to twenty or thirty minutes per day in a week or so, you aren't really trying. But it depends a lot on your lifestyle, how easy it is to be mindful while not meditating, how much you study the dharma, etc. Very individual, I think. I encourage people to begin meditating, and I think it is most important to commit to doing it every day. It is easy enough to increase the time when your practice builds momentum. There are times to sit and there are times to work, do chores, and so forth. Retreats do not redeem an unhealthy lifestyle. At best they might convince you to leave your city life or bad job/relationship behind and find something more congenial to the spirit.

The only reason I would go to a retreat would be to meet practicing buddhists, but talking and socializing is discouraged. I can sit at home; I have a peaceful place to sit.


One might split hairs and say that it is *attachment* to sensual pleasures, not the pleasures themselves, that are the root of all evil. The Middle Way of course does not seek pain, the buddha was specific about that. Many things that people often think pleasurable, such as eating meat and consuming intoxicants, are strictly renounced by the five precepts. (The buddha in his day not only introduced the new idea of hospitals for the sick, but also animal hospitals - how wonderful! imagine a vegetarian country where animals were free, and people took care of them when they were sick or hurt.)

Beyond ordinary sensual desires (rewarding oneself with sugary foods, for example, involves delusion), any desire for anything brings suffering in its train. "Dukkha" finds its genesis as a word in being the opposite of "sukkha," which means sweetness. To seek out sweetness is to bring about its opposite, as night follows day, 'as the cart follows the ox.' Life is a zero-sum game, for every up there is a down, every high has its low. It is reality, suchness, the way it is. Savor the sweetness and sow the seeds of disgust.

Take sex, the most accessible desire to the analyzing mind. It is one thing to enjoy sex, I will grant you, but how much time do people spend thinking about sex, yearning and pining, as opposed to how much time actually doing it? Put all that desire aside, and imagine the amount of freedom that alone would add to the average consciousness, eh? Sure you can still enjoy sex during the few moments you manage to appropriately engage in it, just don't think about it before or afterward and keep your mind free. If you can. More practical is to simply abandon any thoughts of having sex unless someone actually confronts you with a proposal, and then consider it. Chances are, in the rare event, you would find a reason not to do it anyhow. Much human desire is for the highly improbable, if not entirely unachievable.

I would suggest that a mindful person use the abilities strengthened by meditation to prune the useless deadwood of pointless desire, to begin with. Once we begin to take control of our own minds, we can plug the leaks in our bucket, the habitual pointless energy drains, and allow the mud to settle. Desires are not shy, nor are aversions, we are not unaware of them, particularly in meditation. Being able to "flick off" all the useless detritus of the mental processes is useful all the time, not just in sitting.

So, mindfulness, then, is, like samadhi, a means, the end being prajna, wisdom. Mindfulness clears the smoke, settles the mud, purifies the mind; and then we see.

Perhaps we may have a problem with anger. Maybe, through practice and the path, we can manage to master this in most cases. Still we know the tendency to anger has not been entirely uprooted. The next stage in meditation is to work on the roots of anger, to deal with it so effectively that even the tendency to be irritated begins to disappear.

As I stated in an earlier post, and the buddha says in the lion's roar, even the desire for life itself is ultimately let go of - "the holy life has been lived...there is no more coming to be." We don't identify with something that dies; nor something that lives. We are life being life as long as life lives.

As for satisfaction - sukkha - being "completely independent" of experience, that doesn't even make sense. Sukkha is the opposite of dukkha, which is characteristic of experience. Perhaps you are speaking of the inner "satisfactions" of buddhism, the fruits of enlightenment; you may be speaking of the rapture and bliss, the waves of love often experienced by the renunciant. The buddha speaks of the jhanas, the first and lowest involving rapture, bliss, equanimity and so forth, and progressing to just equanimity, though no doubt including the other brahmaviharas, lovingkindness, mutual joy, and compassion.

These are the pleasures and treasures of the buddhist: to seek nothing that isn't freely offered, and to sincerely wish all being(s) well. "Satisfaction" is found in freedom, not in satisfied desire, of any sort.

Thanks for engaging with me.


aloha

[Gem]

Originally Posted by aloha

-----
I'm not into mantras either. I have enough sound in my head already.

I understand that retreats are grueling and physical discomfort is countenanced. I regard this as emblematic of spiritual materialism. Rather like shrinks insisting that them getting paid is part of your therapy. Or the way these retreat hosters always have their hands out. Liberation isn't free. I wonder how successful they are at turning out enlightened arahants whose desires are extinct. I enjoy canned dharma talks, however.

I just explained it, but basically life is going to be pleasure and pain and best one can do is keep an even keel. The meditation is a journey of healing (I call 'purification') but the psycho-emotional healing or benefits are consequential - not the purpose.

I'm sure many reputable schools do not charge fees, and many more operate by covering costs, which is to say they are not-for-profit. Of course there are many questionable commercial operations as well that demand high fees, but the spiritual economy in general is quite corrupt - and misleading. A proper school would be NFP and pay no wages to its teachers/staff. The problem of meditation teachers becoming wealthy isn't even the main issue. The main problem is when people pay, their 'demanding ego' is reinforced. Basically, under the ethos encapsulated by 'dana', service is given without expectation or demand for recompense. A good school operates on dana, which encourages generosity. Without that, the proper conditions for meditation would be undermined because we really have to enliven that spirit of metta, love and kindness, to bring about the right conditions.

I agree that ten minutes is barely "better than nothing"; in fact any less would be a joke. If you aren't up to twenty or thirty minutes per day in a week or so, you aren't really trying. But it depends a lot on your lifestyle, how easy it is to be mindful while not meditating, how much you study the dharma, etc. Very individual, I think. I encourage people to begin meditating, and I think it is most important to commit to doing it every day. It is easy enough to increase the time when your practice builds momentum. There are times to sit and there are times to work, do chores, and so forth. Retreats do not redeem an unhealthy lifestyle. At best they might convince you to leave your city life or bad job/relationship behind and find something more congenial to the spirit.

The only reason I would go to a retreat would be to meet practicing buddhists, but talking and socializing is discouraged. I can sit at home; I have a peaceful place to sit.

There are benefits to undertaking a retreat and the conditions, facilities, expertise and guidance available are very valuable, but the real test isn't about sitting long hours for the duration of the retreat. The test is maintaining a practice after the retreat ends and/or actually applying what one gains to their daily life. In terms of making a social connection, one would do best by staying on as a 'dana worker' after their retreat period is complete. This brings you into the thick of the sangha community, and it is an invaluable experience.

I can retreat at home when I want to, but this is because I completed so many formal retreats at an ashram. Without having the formal training behind me I wouldn't be able to do self-retreats. Self-retreat is especially hard going, I have found, and I suggest it is quite an advanced practice.

One might split hairs and say that it is *attachment* to sensual pleasures, not the pleasures themselves, that are the root of all evil. The Middle Way of course does not seek pain, the buddha was specific about that. Many things that people often think pleasurable, such as eating meat and consuming intoxicants, are strictly renounced by the five precepts. (The buddha in his day not only introduced the new idea of hospitals for the sick, but also animal hospitals - how wonderful! imagine a vegetarian country where animals were free, and people took care of them when they were sick or hurt.)

Well 'killing' is strictly renounced, but not all Buddhists are vegetarians. The precepts don't say 'I shall not consume meat'. Although the precepts are taken as a vow along with the three Jewels, 'Sila' refers to a more integral morality based on benefit rather than harm. It is closely related to metta (in that what arises within or from the pure heart would be reflected manifestly in compassionate activity), and is also linked with laws of volition and karma. I think it really means one need be aware of their malicious and/or kind intent so as understand for themselves what morality is. My saying is, 'obedience is not ethical'.

Beyond ordinary sensual desires (rewarding oneself with sugary foods, for example, involves delusion), any desire for anything brings suffering in its train. "Dukkha" finds its genesis as a word in being the opposite of "sukkha," which means sweetness. To seek out sweetness is to bring about its opposite, as night follows day, 'as the cart follows the ox.' Life is a zero-sum game, for every up there is a down, every high has its low. It is reality, suchness, the way it is. Savor the sweetness and sow the seeds of disgust.

Sure, desire is at the root of suffering, but to savour the sweet is to 'enjoy it while lasts', and soon enough it will be gone.

Take sex, the most accessible desire to the analyzing mind. It is one thing to enjoy sex, I will grant you, but how much time do people spend thinking about sex, yearning and pining, as opposed to how much time actually doing it? Put all that desire aside, and imagine the amount of freedom that alone would add to the average consciousness, eh? Sure you can still enjoy sex during the few moments you manage to appropriately engage in it, just don't think about it before or afterward and keep your mind free. If you can. More practical is to simply abandon any thoughts of having sex unless someone actually confronts you with a proposal, and then consider it. Chances are, in the rare event, you would find a reason not to do it anyhow. Much human desire is for the highly improbable, if not entirely unachievable.

Complicated stuff as sex, gender, sexuality are a big part of human identity. When undertaking retreat I observed strict celibacy, which I believe is enforced because a lot of emotional contents and self imagery are tied to physical sensations of sexual urges. In any regular life people take some action to 'relieve' this urge, but in retreat such relief isn't permitted, so if a person has latent sexual frustrations, these surface as one has no way to avoid the sensation we call 'urges', and thus can not avoid the associated psychology. One has to come to peace all that, including the associated emotional contents. It has nothing to do with dulling these urges. On the contrary, one will become increasingly acute to such arising sensations. The psychological reactions to these sorts of sensations will subside, which is to say, the desires, frustrations and so forth will be eroded under the impassive gaze of mindful conscious awareness. This applies to all physical sensations, so celibacy is a mere facet within the overall practice of 'letting it be as it is'.

I would suggest that a mindful person use the abilities strengthened by meditation to prune the useless deadwood of pointless desire, to begin with. Once we begin to take control of our own minds, we can plug the leaks in our bucket, the habitual pointless energy drains, and allow the mud to settle. Desires are not shy, nor are aversions, we are not unaware of them, particularly in meditation. Being able to "flick off" all the useless detritus of the mental processes is useful all the time, not just in sitting.

Indeed, the quietude of mindful awareness is the fundamental key to resolving the psychological reactivity we experience as 'suffering' (though ways are various and usually mulit faceted). It's just that the person can't do anything about it, so to speak (which is why it is a problem in the first place). The resignation to 'as it is' is what enables it to pass. Aversions toward the arising experience cause people to suppose they should act to get rid of it prune it etc, but such action is obviously compelled by aversion toward whatever it is that thought to need cutting off. The tricky bit is not minding either way if it is present of if it ceases to occur, for then you have no impetus to 'interfere', and will not invest in it in any way, either by clinging or by rejecting. A simple fact will remain. "It is". Of course 'this will pass' in just the same way as 'sweet things' do - so we're aware, it is, it is changing, it has transformed.

So, mindfulness, then, is, like samadhi, a means, the end being prajna, wisdom. Mindfulness clears the smoke, settles the mud, purifies the mind; and then we see.

Perhaps we may have a problem with anger. Maybe, through practice and the path, we can manage to master this in most cases. Still we know the tendency to anger has not been entirely uprooted. The next stage in meditation is to work on the roots of anger, to deal with it so effectively that even the tendency to be irritated begins to disappear.

Sure, volatile reaction such as anger may arise to some degree, but it will not overwhelm the balance of ones mind. If the practice is 'right' the very roots of all that will be revealed, and once clearly seen and understood, it can no longer catch one unawares and overwhelm them. This means one won't be be compelled by it, but rather, respond mindfully in such unsavory situations.

As I stated in an earlier post, and the buddha says in the lion's roar, even the desire for life itself is ultimately let go of - "the holy life has been lived...there is no more coming to be." We don't identify with something that dies; nor something that lives. We are life being life as long as life lives.

As for satisfaction - sukkha - being "completely independent" of experience, that doesn't even make sense. Sukkha is the opposite of dukkha, which is characteristic of experience. Perhaps you are speaking of the inner "satisfactions" of buddhism, the fruits of enlightenment; you may be speaking of the rapture and bliss, the waves of love often experienced by the renunciant. The buddha speaks of the jhanas, the first and lowest involving rapture, bliss, equanimity and so forth, and progressing to just equanimity, though no doubt including the other brahmaviharas, lovingkindness, mutual joy, and compassion.

These are the pleasures and treasures of the buddhist: to seek nothing that isn't freely offered, and to sincerely wish all being(s) well. "Satisfaction" is found in freedom, not in satisfied desire, of any sort.

Thanks for engaging with me.

Oh, It's my pleasure, entirely.

aloha

I don't go so high into Buddhist doctrines because it becomes a jumble to me, and really, any person only need be concerned with the practice, which is not 'how to practice', but 'what it is to practice'. We established practice isn't about the experiences one might desire, so this puts the notion of a goal in question. We also alluded to the process of purification (which I claim is consequential) - but because there is no adverse quality to it - the purpose is other than pruning or getting rid of what we deem harmful or unpleasant. I suggest that all this is about being at peace with whatever experience is occurring right now, and therein lies both the simplicity and the difficulty of meditation.

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by Gem

The way I would word this is some care and delicacy is required. In terms of 'discipline', it certainly has a place - like, a fitness program should be followed rigourously, but 'discipline' is most often construed as control. If I use fitness as a metaphor, then one has control over their exercise because they are acutely aware of what they are doing. For example, when you pay careful attention to how you raise hands up into the air, you simply pay attention and are aware of your body as you raise your arms. You don't have to control all the intricacies of it - you just do it carefully and fluidly while paying attention to it - so what we call 'control' is actually careful conscious attention, and it isn't the dictating of every little detail of movement - It's certainly not the inhibition of such movement.

Thanks, Gem, for this nice example.

By discipline, I meant some discipline to sit down and meditate, not the state of mind when one is meditating.

By faith I mean recognizing that even when the mind seems busy, it's all OK and as it should be, and to stick with the meditation.

Like the exercise you mention, something is happening even when it's not always "obvious".

shiningstars

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by aloha

I understand that retreats are grueling and physical discomfort is countenanced. I regard this as emblematic of spiritual materialism.

aloha,

I have only read your initial paragraph and would like to comment.

No, they are not emblematic of spiritual materialism. There are fees to be paid, rent, maintenance, heating, food, etc.

Whilst some schools offer retreats on dana, and assume the generosity of attendees, many can and do operate with money because this is what pays the bills.

Teachers also devote time, energy, service.

Retreats are incredible opportunities for real practice, and no lingering in between with talk and craft.

In other words, they are a long standing and significant tradition across schools for a very valid reason, in my experience.

shiningstars

[aloha]

Originally Posted by shiningstars

Yes, some faith is required, and some discipline.
Thanks, Gem.
shiningstars

Athenians fought along side spartans against the persians at thermopylae, before the three hundred made their stand under king leonidas. One of the athenians, awed by the grace and god-like ability that some of the spartans fought with, and finally asked one of them how they could fight with such perfection, such divine splendor. The lacedaemonian told him, "More virtue, athenian, and less philosophy."


aloha