Saying "back, back, back"

[In Flux]

Originally Posted by Aupmanyav

I like the idea, back, back, back. But meditation is not always back, back. What would one forward to? Once you have the wall at your back, then perhaps then you can say 'go forward to ..". IMHO, meditation has to have a purpose. :)

I think the purpose of meditation (e.g. develop concentration, or insight) cannot be forced, but you can create the conditions, for example by being mindful of the breath, relaxing the body, keeping a correct posture, etc. So in a sense, there are "duties" in meditation. My expectation is that if you take care of these duties (perhaps by going "back, back, back") then eventually you will go forward :-).

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by In Flux

My expectation is that if you take care of these duties (perhaps by going "back, back, back") then eventually you will go forward :-).

Where? One has to set a goal. "I meditate on the answer to this question." In Patanjali's yoga, these are the last three steps.

Dharana ("Concentration"): Fixing the attention on a single object.
Dhyana ("Meditation"): Intense contemplation of the nature of the object of meditation.
Samadhi ("Liberation"): merging consciousness with the object of meditation.

[In Flux]

Originally Posted by Aupmanyav

Where? One has to set a goal. "I meditate on the answer to this question." In Patanjali's yoga, these are the last three steps.

Dharana ("Concentration"): Fixing the attention on a single object.
Dhyana ("Meditation"): Intense contemplation of the nature of the object of meditation.
Samadhi ("Liberation"): merging consciousness with the object of meditation.

I think these are great goals. I would also consider liberation as my goal (ultimately), except that I'm not so dedicated that I can claim to have this goal. On the short term, I would say that my goal is to have a pleasant experience and a sense of relative freedom.

[Gem]

I hope you don't mind my contribution as I am aware it can be a counter view to the consensus, but I think Patanjali has a good set of goals for the first two, but I'd go another way from there and not bother with obtuse notions such as 'merge with the object'.

We typically utilise breath for having a better attention span and investigation into the nature of the object, and depending on the specifics of the technique, concentrate the attention into a more point-like focus, so hear me out, because this is where 'back back back' is misguided in a sense, but not harmful or anything, with regard to the first 2 goals.

Ok, so if you notice the mind has gone awol, upon recalling the breath you can say back back back, which effectively shuts off the other sound that distracts the attention and tells you to return attention to the object, and this could reasonably improve the attention span, but it does not imply in any way that the object (sensation of the breath) is actually being examined closely, and therefore, does not in itself lead toward the second goal.

The way these goals typically work together is, of course we determine that we shall observe the breath, but then, rather than trying to hold the attention on that object, closely examine the sensation so you can experience the subtler nuances of it. you will find that concentration, attention-span and acute examination are basically the same thing when it comes to breath awareness, or we could say each enhances the others, and because you are practicing awareness of the finest subtleties that you possible can perceive, the mind is being trained in improving sensitivity of perception...

I don't think Patanjali's third goal would be that so I'm going to double check that now. I did a search, and actually, nothing came up to confirm or deny these goals (though I might have searched with the wrong terms). I'm totally down with the first two goals anyway, so good enough!

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by In Flux

I think these are great goals. I would also consider liberation as my goal (ultimately), except that I'm not so dedicated that I can claim to have this goal. On the short term, I would say that my goal is to have a pleasant experience and a sense of relative freedom.

That is a nice achievable goal. As for liberation, I wonder, what you want to be liberated from? :)

[Aupmanyav]

Welcome and thanks @Gem, for joining the discussion and for your nice post.

Our friend @In Flux engages in meditation to still the mind, which is OK. That is his goal. Everyone does not need to go on a search for 'truth'.

As for your post, I think what Wikipedia mentions is a particular understanding of the word (liberation, merging consciousness with the object of meditation). What happens if one is is an atheist (like me, no God to merge with) and an advaitist (who is already no different than Brahman and has no bondage)?

In Hinduism, Samadhi means: sam, "together"; ā, "toward"; stem of dadhati, "puts, places": a putting or joining; to put together towards (a solution).

In Buddhism, Samadhi means: When samadhi is developed, things are understood as they really are.

I take the meaning of Samadhi as 'arriving at a conclusion' which will be the step next to intense contemplation. Your comments will always be welcome. :)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Aupmanyav

Samadhi

I don't know what the Indian words mean because people have told me different meanings for them... which is pretty typical of the ambiguity in spiritual discourse. Kinds just make it up as we go along lol.

In my tradition we place a lot of importance on discernment, so when people, especially a teacher, tells us something, we apply critical thinking - does it make sense? do the parts add up? or does it contradict itself remain inconsistent?

What we usually hear is people want to use a volitionally generated verbalisation like counting or back back or other verbalisation, and stop doing that when they no longer need it, but I question, do you really need it? That is a rhetorical question. Obvs the answer is no. People will only say at best it helps. Hence the notion doesn't make much sense, but still remains the general consensus...

But still, if a non-volitional 'just observe' or 'just be' approach is not the underlying intention, then might as well verbalise something, maybe repeat a mantra, entertain some visualisations, or perhaps go toward pranayama where they purposely control the breath and visualise 'prana' etc. You just have to understand that all those are for 'making it as you want to be', and are not for 'seeing it as it is'.

Since I'm talking from the 'pure observation' as-it-is perspective, I just explain things from that view. Not because I'm the expert anyone should believe, but because I can be consistent without any contradictions. That's all it is.

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by Gem

.. but I question, do you really need it?
You just have to understand that all those are for 'making it as you want to be', and are not for 'seeing it as it is'.

Since I'm talking from the 'pure observation' as-it-is perspective, I just explain things from that view. Not because I'm the expert anyone should believe, but because I can be consistent without any contradictions. That's all it is.

No. One can plod on in life without understanding anything beyond food, sex, shelter, etc., but some people are not satisfied with that.

Analysis is necessary for life. It is important to analyze and understand words to get at the meaning. 'just be' also needs to be analyzed before the understanding of what 'just be' means.

Does 'all those' include Buddha, who is one of my gurus (the others are Sankara and Bertrand Russell), or are you exempting him? I do not think Buddha wanted to 'make you as you wanted it'. :)

A word related to 'Samādhi' is 'Samādhāna', which clearly means 'solution, answer'. So, I take 'Samādhi' as 'finding answer' after intense contemplation (dhyāna).

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Aupmanyav

Analysis is necessary for life.

I've been around all these Indian words for years. People say different things about them, and after all this time, I have no idea what it means. I think if I spoke the language they would fit in the bigger picture. In my school 'samadhi' just means concentration, but we have samma samadhi, which is the right kind of concentration.

Usually we start chasing physical things like money, car, house, partner, alcohol and so on because we think it will make us happy, but that happiness doesn't last so we start craving more and more. At some point a person realises, even if I have everything I won't be satisfied. Then they start seeking spiritualism to get even greater heights of pleasure, but it keeps passing and leaves one discontent.

Mindfulness deals with the craving itself. The cessation of craving, which is a very deep subject.

When we commence breath meditation, people have told us about the peace of mind and all the amazing things, some have said God is there, and we see the photos of the meditators on the beach in the sunset etc. - so we enter with craving - I want that - why don't I have that - where is my special thing - and start chasing after the internal pleasure we have been convinced we can have. We don't actually look for what is 'already there' because we want to make it 'the way we want'. We feel elated when we have the pleasure and distressed when it passes into discomfort, and we don't even realise that this dynamic of craving and aversion itself is the reason we can't be satisfied, and that this is precisely what has to stop.

The teachers of mindfulness from zen schools and many other schools realise the meditator is craving 'something special' or is adverse toward their pain and wants relief, and therefore incites the volition to 'make it as I want to be'. The teacher then gives the student a verbalisation or something volitional they can engage, and it works, the ego gets that sense of control which sedates it for a while, but actually, this whole dynamic is what we are supposed to stop doing in the mindfulness practice. The opposite. Denying the ego of the volition it needs to perpetuate rebirth from one moment to the next. However, this means not pursuing pleasure, not avoiding discomfort, which is the cessation of volition, and therefore 'just being'.

If a person is not interested in 'what's true', and is more interested in 'what I want', then you can use a mantra or another volitional technique to generate a desirable vibration. The alternative is to examine what just happens to be, just as it is, but you can't do both of these at once any more than you can ride both a horse and a camel at the same time.

Not saying do say back back or don't say it or anything else. Just talking the background philosophy so we can understand why we do what we do from a bit deeper perspective. Then we are better able to discern what we do and why we do it in that way.

[Aupmanyav]

Originally Posted by Gem

Mindfulness deals with the craving itself. The cessation of craving, which is a very deep subject.

At my age, I do not crave for anything other than food that pleases me. Most of what I crave is not advised as good for my health. But why should I care with a few remaining months/years? Just be. I do not have any questions in my bag. Buddha talked about kusal and akusal desires. :)