Meditation - Essential to Buddhism

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

The messages can be pretty simple, do unto others as you would want done unto you. Love yourself and others. Be kind to yourself and others. Even to not judge. But yea depending on our circumstances, even these simple ideas can not work at all. What about when we encounter others who are harming the innocent? What then? Not judge? Not put an end to the unrighteous harm? Then judging becomes a good and righteous thing. Be kind and non-violent and non-judgmental towards a pit bull running through a neighborhood attacking small children? A life on earth is no easy thing. Everything is complicated.

It's complicated because you're thinking it.

What is more telling is how violently some react to the core Buddhist knowledge that sitting meditation is essential.

For years, Ryan, you have been quoting Bodhidharma, but out of context.

When the old Masters spoke, they were speaking to monastics who sat as a foundation, not to a layman (woman) sitting at home at their keyboard, fighting the conception that they might actually have to practice and philosophizing about the essentials

Thinking one's way to practice is always going to be confusing. There are countless real life centers and teachers that could help, but of course it's easier to stay behind the keyboard critiquing this person and that, thinking this way and that "A thicket of views"

JL

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by Gem

What, essentially, is meditation?

According to Krishnamurti, meditation is not the popular relaxation technique that most people call to mind, nor is it a religious or spiritual dogma based activity for some gradual imagined improvement to some aspect of one's self through time, but is instead an attempt to see and experience freedom from the known in the now, this present moment, through the ending of identification with conceptual thought based knowledge, through the ending of time. Therefore meditation is not a means to an end, to achieve something in the future. The future does not exist except in the imagination of one in the now. We will always be in the present moment, nowhere else, so it is here liberation must be found. There is no other place. There also is no end, no arrival, as to imagine such means one is in conceptual interpretative thought, bringing the known, and past and future into the present, which means one would not be in meditation.

Now Krishnamurti's lectures can weave meditation into his experience and understanding, but one could also let it be the popular relaxation technique that most people call to mind, or the religious or spiritual dogma based activity for some gradual imagined improvement to some aspect of one's self through time. Or simply an activity for some experience. Let the word represent that. Whatever one believes it to be. An experience watching or controlling one's breath, repeating a mantra or the words your guru gave you, or swallowing the tongue and all of that.... focusing on the chakras, the 3rd eye, ignoring thoughts, and on and on. Let the word represent that. Let everyone use the word to describe what they know or believe it to be.

That way there is no conflict! Instead have no word for it. No connecting to one's conditioning. No connecting to anything of the past in the present. Then one can enter a timeless non-conditioned state.

The repetition of words, is self-hypnotic, self-enclosing
and destructive. The isolation of thought is always within the field
of the known, and the answer to (belief) is the response of the
known. Meditation is far from this. In this field, thought cannot
enter; there is no separation, and so no identity. Meditation is in the
open; secrecy has no place in it. Everything is exposed, clear; such
as the beauty of love. Krishnamurti

[Phaelyn]

This quote reminds me of Buddhism's statements about the ending of consciousness, as Buddhism does not define consciousness as self or realized being, as that is Buddha nature or the mind stream. Realized awareness and consciousness are two different things in Buddhism. Like realized awareness is us, consciousness is ignorant awareness (plus mind.) Awareness conditioned, identified, ignorant of it's true nature and the true nature of all things, empty.

Meditation is a state of freedom, but not from anything. Freedom from something is only the cultivation of resistance. To be conscious of being free is not freedom. Silence of the mind cannot be brought about through the action of will. There is silence when will ceases. This is meditation
Krishnamurti

K objects to the use of the words like mind, self, atman etc. on the ground that these will signify agency and effort. Thought is caught in the net of its own making. Thought or the egoic identity can never free itself from thought. One can't think or reason oneself free. Only though awareness in the now, can one be free.

To have some deep feeling about Buddhism is not the point; we just do what we should do, like eating supper and going to bed. This is Buddhism. Treat every moment as your last. It is not preparation for something else. If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything, it is open to everything. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few.
― Shunryu Suzuki

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

You brought up some interesting points.

What can complicate matters is sometimes when we are under duress, some people go into 'automatic mode'.

I liked your analogy of a pit bull. What do you do?

We act (react) according to our nature at any given moment. You are right, it is generally automatic mode, habit, one's conditioning and ego. But then if we are more aware, have some distance between "us" and our habitual conditioning and ego, there is some space there so we might not react with some form of our conditioning and habit and ego.

People tend to imagine what some "liberated" state looks like and is, like no more right or wrong or morals, which is not true at all. Without ego, one is peaceful, harmonious, compassionate, with empathy and connection to all. So disharmony, wishing harm to others, a lack of compassion or a lack of understanding would be not present. So it's not really a thought of "wrong" that moves one, based on conditioning or belief, it's a awareness of what is not harmonious. Seeing and understanding if one is attempting to inflict harm on another. Then out of empathy, reacting. To protect others from harm.

Like that Buddhist story of the monk who gave the thief anything he wanted from his hut. The monk was not attached to any possession, so he was not doing anything out of the ordinary for him. He was reacting out of his nature. Now if the monastery had some children around, and the thief approached one to do harm, the monk would stop the thief. Compassion and love is also a part of the monk's nature. The monk would not hate the thief, so would do the least harm to the thief as would be possible in order to stop the harm to a child.

I would do all I could to protect children from the pit bull. I don't know what that would be as it is an imagined thing. I would react to protect the children the best I could, to get the dog under control. I don't have the tools animal control does, so I would have to improvise. I've seen in videos some adults let the dogs attack them, to spare the children. That is truly a selfless thing. I've also seen in videos adults who do nothing. Stand in their doorways and watch. When a parent who truly loves their children is in a situation like that, there is no thought of self. They put themselves in harms way for their children without a thought. Like those parents, and anyone really full of love, that runs into burning buildings to save others. I just saw a story of a fireman who saved two children running into a burning building, this fireman died attempting to get a third child. Like those on the Titanic, who let others have their lifeboat seats.

The Dalia Lama said in those video's, if one was harmed in some Buddhist organization, they should warn others. The is the compassionate thing to do. Just like how the DL said, no Buddhist group should invoke fear.

[HITESH SHAH]

According to me , following ingredients would qualify one to be called as meditative
1. Regularity in practice - sitting practice is wholesome very much mandated by almost all religions .
2. disciplined - Sages mandate discipline in time (daily particular time that too in morning preferably) ,place (particular place in home) and deity also in this respect.
3. Recital of mantra / shloka - which prepares ground for positive meditative experiences.
4. Transcendental / sublimatory - It should enable you to rise above narrow material boundaries (of name,form,shape ,mind) and understand the shallowness of walls/ boundaries based on color,caste,religion ,financial status , nationality ,sex , governance model etc . This is orientation / directional attribute meaning seeker on the path of meditation may not be at this level in the beginning but is gradually above pierce all veils and boundaries one by one . So one should not deride others in the path if they have lesser degree of these in their practice.
5. Real - meaning gradually impacting the seeker's life in positive way .

First 3 are preparatory and outwardly steps making our spiritual journey easier but not necessarily mandatory . There are anecdotal stories of God telling Narad (realized sage in Indian tradition whose association with God was continuous) that an ordinary farmer who recites God's name just 3 times in a day is most realized soul . This can only be possible when farmer is truly liberated with whatever rudimentary technique he may have followed and is successful as per tests laid down in 4&5 above .

Well said, HITESH SHAH. Thanks for the contribution

Namaste

JL

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

According to Krishnamurti, meditation is not the popular relaxation technique that most people call to mind, nor is it a religious or spiritual dogma based activity for some gradual imagined improvement to some aspect of one's self through time, but is instead an attempt to see and experience freedom from the known in the now, this present moment, through the ending of identification with conceptual thought based knowledge, through the ending of time. Therefore meditation is not a means to an end, to achieve something in the future. The future does not exist except in the imagination of one in the now. We will always be in the present moment, nowhere else, so it is here liberation must be found. There is no other place. There also is no end, no arrival, as to imagine such means one is in conceptual interpretative thought, bringing the known, and past and future into the present, which means one would not be in meditation.

I like to say the meditation implies a close observation of what is happening right now, but I also undertstand there are ways of formalising that into practice, such as breath observation for example, and the progression is quite obvious: the closer you look, the more you see - but you can't see, experience, the future; it's only possible to experience 'this' as it is right now, and in that sense, there can not be a future objective for meditation.

People think there are steps, so they imagine a future enlightened version of themselves and strive to persue that end, but they overlook themselves fabricating the that imaginary me in time thought structure - hence meditation is 'knowing' what you're doing so you don't fool yourself, and hence it is a completely honest thing, which implies integrity.

There are results of purification and releasing trauma as consequence of ceasing to turn the kammic wheel, but even though that's the purpose, it's not the goal perse. The goal it to know 'this' as it is, as it is experienced by you, right now, not because you have to do it, but because it's actually true. However, you can't pay attention if you are agitated or excited or filled with desire, as reaction is distraction, so in the most simple terms, conscious awareness with mindful equanimity is what it is.

Now Krishnamurti's lectures can weave meditation into his experience and understanding, but one could also let it be the popular relaxation technique that most people call to mind, or the religious or spiritual dogma based activity for some gradual imagined improvement to some aspect of one's self through time. Or simply an activity for some experience. Let the word represent that. Whatever one believes it to be. An experience watching or controlling one's breath, repeating a mantra or the words your guru gave you, or swallowing the tongue and all of that.... focusing on the chakras, the 3rd eye, ignoring thoughts, and on and on. Let the word represent that. Let everyone use the word to describe what they know or believe it to be.

That way there is no conflict! Instead have no word for it. No connecting to one's conditioning. No connecting to anything of the past in the present. Then one can enter a timeless non-conditioned state.

The relaxation is like a precursor, but if buddha thought that was it, he would have said so, and he didn't. He said it's for the purification, overcoming sorrow, and liberation, but people have want it to get them something because they don't know life without desire, and really, ego can't survive without it since the dynamic between desire and aversion propels ego from one moment into the next, which is 're-birth'. The problem is, if you try to understand this you already missed the point. You either realised it or you didn't look at it closely enough, and probably the latter since it requires such close attention.

Q: You have said that samatha and vipassana or concentration and insight are the same. Could you explain this further?

Answer: It is quite simple. Concentration (samatha) and wisdom (vipassana) work together. First the mind becomes still by holding on to a meditation object. It is quiet only while you are sitting with your eyes closed. This is samatha and eventually this samadhi-base is the cause for wisdom or vipassana to arise. Then the mind is still whether you sit with your eyes closed or walk around in a busy city. It's like this. Once you were a child. Now you are an adult. Are the child and the adult the same person? You can say that they are, or looking at it another way, you can say that they are different. In this way samatha and vipassana could also be looked at as separate. Or it is like food and feces. Food and feces could be called the same and they can be called different. Don't just believe what I say, do your practice and see for yourself. Nothing special is needed. If you examine how concentration and wisdom arise, you will know the truth for yourself. These days many people cling to the words. They call their practice vipassana. Samatha is looked down on. Or they call their practice samatha. It is essential to do samatha before vipassana, they say. All this is silly. Don't bother to think about it in this way. Simply do the practice and you'll see for yourself.

Q: Is it necessary to be able to enter absorption in our practice?

Answer: No, absorption is not necessary. You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind. Then you use this to examine yourself. Nothing special is needed. If absorption comes in your practice, this is OK too. Just don't hold on to it. Some people get hung up with absorption. It can be great fun to play with. You must know proper limits. If you are wise, then you will know the uses and limitations of absorption, just as you know the limitations of children verses grown men.

Questions and Answers with a Buddhist Meditation Master

[Gem]

Originally Posted by janielee

Q: You have said that samatha and vipassana or concentration and insight are the same. Could you explain this further?

Answer: It is quite simple. Concentration (samatha) and wisdom (vipassana) work together. First the mind becomes still by holding on to a meditation object. It is quiet only while you are sitting with your eyes closed. This is samatha and eventually this samadhi-base is the cause for wisdom or vipassana to arise. Then the mind is still whether you sit with your eyes closed or walk around in a busy city. It's like this. Once you were a child. Now you are an adult. Are the child and the adult the same person? You can say that they are, or looking at it another way, you can say that they are different. In this way samatha and vipassana could also be looked at as separate. Or it is like food and feces. Food and feces could be called the same and they can be called different. Don't just believe what I say, do your practice and see for yourself. Nothing special is needed. If you examine how concentration and wisdom arise, you will know the truth for yourself. These days many people cling to the words. They call their practice vipassana. Samatha is looked down on. Or they call their practice samatha. It is essential to do samatha before vipassana, they say. All this is silly. Don't bother to think about it in this way. Simply do the practice and you'll see for yourself.

Q: Is it necessary to be able to enter absorption in our practice?

Answer: No, absorption is not necessary. You must establish a modicum of tranquillity and one-pointedness of mind. Then you use this to examine yourself. Nothing special is needed. If absorption comes in your practice, this is OK too. Just don't hold on to it. Some people get hung up with absorption. It can be great fun to play with. You must know proper limits. If you are wise, then you will know the uses and limitations of absorption, just as you know the limitations of children verses grown men.

Questions and Answers with a Buddhist Meditation Master

That sounds sensible and plainly spoken.When it's said sensibly like that and relegates the mystique such as absorption as an unnecessary aside, I am left with the impression that he understands things at a fundamental level. It's refreshing to hear something like that (compared to more commonly quoted spiritual vacuity). I'll even click the link, which I very rarely do.

[Gem]

That link is really worth a look. It's good quality, clearly spoken, to the point and demonstrates a clear understanding. You guys know how critical I am of spiritual teachers, and I tend to give a negative critique because they are flaky or even degenerates, but this time I could really only make a glowing positive review.