From the Foundation to the Apex

[Gem]

G'day

I'm not religious, so I'm not interested in Buddhist religion(s), but I believe the philosophy of universal truth has merit and Buddhist philosophy applies to that sort of reality. It's not an objective truth, because due to the universe and the mind emerging momentarily together, the truth is more-or-less subjective in nature. Hence the discovery of truth involves subjective qualities of truthfulness such as honesty and trust.

Truthfulness, being the ability to walk the path of truth, gives spiritual discovery an ethical foundation without which one's spiritual journey would lack virtue due not having a moral compass. A moral commitment to abide by certain precepts including truthfulness, being harmless, not stealing and a couple of other basic moral commitments creates a foundational basis for meditation success.

Buddha said meditation is for purification, overcoming sorrow, staying the path of truth and spiritual liberation, and his lessons pertained to universal aspects of thoughts and feelings and virtues such as compassion and equanimity rather than sectarian beliefs and traditions. Not to put sectarian things down, as they might have some sort of cultural significance, just to say spiritualism is essentially universal and variations in culture/tradition aren't particularly relevant, but when I say 'truthfulness', you get it no matter your background, and since it's universal, we're on the same page.

[BigJohn]

Thanks for sharing.

I suspect there are others who feel very similar to the way you feel.

[Gem]

Just trying to establish a moral compass to keep one true to the path. It sounds very strange doesn't it, because people don;t really think of morality as an essential life ingredient. The philosophers have always tried to rationalise morality, but it's never quie pinned down and remains an open discussion. That's not the topic here, though, albeit a very interesting one.

This is not theoretical. It introspective because the meditation is for discovery within oneself, so I'm to tell others what's what. Just here to say how I see it and let everyone check on themselves to see what sort of merit it has, if any.

It's going to be hard, because I have to try to articulate morality as an integral aspect of meditation, purification and liberation. The Buddhists have a teaching about you could look up, but in essence, morality, meditation and wisdom enhance each other. These aspects are attached to the 8 fold path, and to go into that explanation would be tedious as hell, but be happy and look it up you're interested.

This won't be a tedious wall of text about the nuances of Buddhist philosophy. It's more like an introspective discussion about the big picture. Indeed, even though morality, meditation and wisdom are categorised in the teaching, IRL they are aspects of the same thing. You can't be moral without insight into yourself, and the sum of insight is wisdom. This implies that one with considerable wisdom would have a high degree of mortality, which frankly, leads one to consider what the questionable conduct of some spiritual teachers implies about their qualification.

Hence, when it comes to the spiritual path, your morality is import, and a teacher's moral standard needs to be exemplary. There are many devious characters who are Buddhist teachers, so on really does have to extraordinarily discerning when building trust and cultivating a teacher/student relationship - or any interpersonal relations.

I guess that brings me to refuge. Taking refuge is a Buddhist tradition which is basically trust. There is refuge in Buddha (the enlightenment in yourself), dhamma (way of the universe) and sangha (the community and monks or teacher(s)). Obviously, if you don't trust your teacher or community, you won't take refuge in them, and you don't just throw your trust-pearls before the swine. People have show their trustworthiness to build up your trust in them, so refuge is a bit of process. Refuge in your enlightenment within is easier in principle, but in reality, there is a process of coming to full trust in 'life'.

Anyway. I talk a bit and people drift off, so this is enough. Make a comment and be happy.

[Gem]

Kaboom


What was I saying? Some stuff, and I hope it came together, but the stuff in my head is so interwoven that to me there are just different ways of looking at the same thing, so I can't really talk about morality apart from mindfulness, insight or wisdom and all the other things. Buddhist philosophy creates distinct categories for explanation purposes, but the main thing to know about Buddhist philosophy is the artificial categories are not thought about as distinct separate things. Like taking refuge is one aspect, trust as another, and morais another, mindfulness different and wisdom another thing etc, but of course no one will take refuge unless there is trust and there is no sustainable trust unless there is morality, and so all the things link together. I think somewhere in Buddhist philosophy they talk about all the facets of a jewel... which is is like, dhamma is like one jewel with a lot of different facets - but you can look that up since google has the story about a million times..


Anyway, just thought I'd say something randomly... I might come back later and say something more betterer.

[Gem]

I'd talk on other threads, but they don't interest me at the moment, so I'm just banging along here, trying to talk about something so complex there is no way I can string it together, but this conversation has been going on for thousands of years without letting up, and for me to think this makes any difference is like saying a drop of water makes a difference to the ocean.

The pointless endeavour of lfe, right?

Well, even if life has no purpose, meditation does: purification, overcoming sorrow, truth and liberation - at least that's how Buddhists see it - but when they conform to these discourses... that's where they claim the knowledge, form the sect, create affirmation rituals and conscript, convert, ordain and all the other irrelevant things which are taken to be important.

Buddha refers not to a person, but the quality of enlightenment. You can refer to a person as a Buddha, but really it refers to the enlightenment in them, which is also in you. That spiritual journey is one that explores and gains insight into ones self. Through knowing the nature of the body you understand the nature of matter, through understanding the nature of the mind you understand suffering and its resolution, and by knowing the one you always thought you were is not-me, you realise who and what you are.

Now you might feel excited because 'wow spiritual', so I am always left with this futility. People always want something, they are running from discomfort chasing after pleasure, which means the mind is always agitated and they never just stop.

Stopping is fantastic. Not special, but great. It's not like 'something other than this' has to happen. It's just the immediate and conscious subjectivity of knowing 'this is how it is' - noticing.

Anyway. That's all I have to say, so notice things and be happy.

[Gem]

You know I'm just ranting, right, but still, it's important, this stuff. We could be all wound up in our delusions of spiritual grandeur you know, and forget that things we take for granted are important whereas the spiritual nonsense is actually menial.

Well, let me say it is ridiculous to be 'so spiritual' if the basics are missing.

The problem with the religion is it constrains people to a substructure. Different teachers saying different things, but they all use the same drop down menus: the three jewels, sub-menu: 4 noble truths, sub-menu: 8 fold path and so forth. It's all made up, it doesn't mean anything, and there no truth in it.

The ontology in Buddhism is something like. First you hear dhamma (teachings). Second you think it through - join the dots and see if it seems sensible, makes sense, adds up, sounds reasonable and logical. Third you examine it in yourself to see the way in which it is true, if it is true at all.

This ontological process means the philosophy or teaching includes examination. The theory is not separate from the meditation. There is no philosophy without practice. In Buddhist philosophy everything tends to merge together, so don't imagine the meditation is over there and later on and this conversation (or monologue as it turned out to be) is over here and happening now, because actually, this monologue and the meditation are the same thing...

You didn't make these words happen, have no control or power over them, and regardless if you think they are 'not really Buddhist' or whatever it is, I already said there is no truth in these words or any others - but some sort of truth is kinda in the mix there, innit?

Anyhooo...

[Gem]

So, just trying to point out how morality is the 'moral compass' that stays on the path of truth, but morality is not a stand alone. The bigger picture in buddhism is 4 aspects together, namely: morality, mindfulness, insight and wisdom (sila, samadhi, panna).

The problem I'm about to face now is I'm going to say what meditation is, and everyone will disagree and say "whatever works for you", however, I'm going to be consistent so that all the parts fit together. That means what I say about meditation has to fit seamlessly with the above mentioned 4 aspects.

To understand morality requires understanding where ill-will comes from, and even though I'm going to say so, what I say isn't true. The thruth is 'the way in which it is true' according to your insight, so don;t agree with me and disagree - that;s just the mind trying to grasp at knowledge - but look at it within yourself and discern honestly so you know something about yourself.

It's all about how you react. If you don't like something you react adversely, and from that adverse reaction, the ill-will is incited. On the other hand, if you like something you react with desire/clinging, and ill-will is generated from such reactivity. On closer examination you'll find that desire and aversion are not separated. Aversion is the desire for something not to be, and desire is the aversion toward something not being. Everytime you react adversely to what is, you desire something which isn't. In Buddhist it is called Tanha, which means that dynamic between aversion and desire. Categorically, Tanha is the cause of suffering, but experientially, there is no difference between tanha and suffering. IOW, reactivity is 'will' or volition is suffering. Reminder: don;t argue because it isn't true. Notice yourself to se how it is true according to your experience and you'll find how what I said applies to yourself is actually nothing like what I said... and you could say something insightful then without agreeing or disagreeing at all because you were so busy 'looking' that you ceased grasping at knowledge.

Before I get off track...

The basic point of Buddhism is the 4 noble truths (4NT). There is suffering; Suffering has a cause; Suffering can be resolved; There is a way to resolve suffering. Of course meditation is 'the way', and that is very specific. One just investigates themselves and sees how they generate their own suffering and stops doing that. Since tanha (aversion/desire) or reactivity is the cause, that's what you stop doing.

The exploration is 'knowing' in the sense that it resolves ignorance, but you have to conceive of that not in terms of knowledge but it terms of insight or wisdom.


No edits.

[Gem]

The first meditation is breath observation, which is called anapanasati in Buddha-speak.

There's really only one instruction. Be aware of what breathing feels like. I prefer the traditionalist method of feeling the breath in or under the nose. Usually a teacher will add things like counting breaths, timing breaths, breathing deeply, belly breathing etc, but I would say stop doing things and merely pay attention to what your normal breathing feels like.

The only addition I'd make is, be ardent with attention and try to feel as much detail as possible by feeling the subtlest aspects of the sensation that you can. It trains the mind to be more sensitive.

I was taught to do breath meditation in that way, and there is a lot of material on nostril or nose anapana online if you want to have a look. I think it is the best way to breath meditate, and the 'right' way (aka sama sati or sama samadhi)

The purpose is to walk the path of truth, so the meditation is not inspired by interest in any experience which is not already here and now. It is more like having an acute awareness of 'this' experience 'as it is'. The path then is not one that has the past behind and the future ahead. The path of truth is ever-now, and the direction or progression is from the dull-minded perception of hard, static, solidified reality to the sharp-minded perception of flowing, subtle, dynamic reality. To travel that path one just feels the subtlest feelings possible, and the mind is honed through such a practice.

If the mind is quite dull, which it would be to start with, then feeling anything at all is quite fine. When you notice mind has wandered off, you simply resume as before. In time you can feel more detail in that feeling, so hone in on the lightest aspect you can detect. Of course it follows that practicing feeling the lightest feeling possible trains mind's perception to become more sensitive, and you start to perceive at a subtler level than before.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

The first meditation is breath observation, which is called anapanasati in Buddha-speak.

There's really only one instruction. Be aware of what breathing feels like. I prefer the traditionalist method of feeling the breath in or under the nose. Usually a teacher will add things like counting breaths, timing breaths, breathing deeply, belly breathing etc, but I would say stop doing things and merely pay attention to what your normal breathing feels like.

The only addition I'd make is, be ardent with attention and try to feel as much detail as possible by feeling the subtlest aspects of the sensation that you can. It trains the mind to be more sensitive.

I was taught to do breath meditation in that way, and there is a lot of material on nostril or nose anapana online if you want to have a look. I think it is the best way to breath meditate, and the 'right' way (aka sama sati or sama samadhi)

The purpose is to walk the path of truth, so the meditation is not inspired by interest in any experience which is not already here and now. It is more like having an acute awareness of 'this' experience 'as it is'. The path then is not one that has the past behind and the future ahead. The path of truth is ever-now, and the direction or progression is from the dull-minded perception of hard, static, solidified reality to the sharp-minded perception of flowing, subtle, dynamic reality. To travel that path one just feels the subtlest feelings possible, and the mind is honed through such a practice.

If the mind is quite dull, which it would be to start with, then feeling anything at all is quite fine. When you notice mind has wandered off, you simply resume as before. In time you can feel more detail in that feeling, so hone in on the lightest aspect you can detect. Of course it follows that practicing feeling the lightest feeling possible trains mind's perception to become more sensitive, and you start to perceive at a subtler level than before.

Quote Gem = [ but I would say stop doing things and merely pay attention to what your normal breathing feels like. ]
Why would you say to stop doing these things when The Anapanasati Sutta clearly differs. I would say to read the Sutta and learn the correct way as taught by The Buddha.

This Link written by a highly respected Buddhist Scholar may help.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....118.than.html

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

Quote Gem = [ but I would say stop doing things and merely pay attention to what your normal breathing feels like. ]

Why would you say to stop doing these things when The Anapanasati Sutta clearly differs. I would say to read the Sutta and learn the correct way as taught by The Buddha.

This Link written by a highly respected Buddhist Scholar may help.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....118.than.html

The text doesn't say to deep breath to count breaths, time breaths etc. It mentions discerning, which is to say, if the breath is short, then you know it's short. If it is long then so be it. To be conscious of, to 'know', be aware of is the central theme.

The same applies to 'the whole body', but the paragraph is an overview of a long term meditation process. Typically in practice, one focuses on the breath to hone the sensitivity of the mind so that they may have an acute perception of subtle feeling in the body when the mind is sufficiently trained for that. In the breath meditation context, being sensitive to the body also alludes to focus on the actual real-lived feeling of the breath as a sensation.

Being sensitive to mental fabrication is really a nuance of being sensitive to the body, and as usual in Buddhist philosophy, although things are partitioned into clear categories for explanation's sake, it's really talking about facets of a single thing. Calm body and calm mind go hand in hand. If the mind is agitated there are tensions in the body, and the calming of body/mind is unified.

The breath meditation is a sensation meditation, but breath specific rather than a whole body focus. Naturally, you also become conscious of other feelings of the body, but these are not the focus. Whole body awareness is a bit more advanced, but it follows on from breath meditation, which is what the sutta also implies.

In breath specific meditation, the meditator will become 'sensitive to mental fabrication' (conscious of what their mind does). All sorts of thoughts will come up, and because the intention is to just feel the breath, you really notice how frequent this thinking is, and for how long you remain unaware of your breath. You notice that you aren't master of the mind, but subject to it. Not only that, when you start to feel uncomfortable, itchy and/or achy or whatever, you realise how reactivity to your feelings interupts your serenity. You notice your frustrations, impatience and so forth incite the ill-will I talked about in earlier posts on morality.. Hence 'sensitive to mind' is part and parcel of the overall scope of the meditation - right back to the moral foundation - an aspect of the greater whole, rather than a specific 'step'. In short, you become acutely conscious (sensitive to) of what your mind does and the tendencies it has. However, the intention is still to remain with the breath regardless of how much the mind plays up, how often you are distracted or how long you remain distracted for.

The calming body/mind is how you notice tensions, and having noticed them, relax. This is 'part and parcel' of becoming conscious, though in depth tensions/fabrications would apply more to the full body or 'entire body' stages than being breath specific... However, it still happens in breath meditation, like you might be observing your breath but have stiff shoulders for example, which you'd relax or calm when you notice it.