Continued discussion on fundamentals of mindfulness meditation

Originally Posted by Gem

It's just the same in principle... somewhat different application....

Yup, and as I understand albeit at a very high level Advaita Vedanta and Tibetan Buddhism are strikingly similar in concept, though the language is different. Language is always the difficulty, isn't it?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Advaita Vedanta and Tibetan Buddhism are strikingly similar

Yea, language is only for intellectual understanding. We can assess what's said and ascertain if it makes sense or if it's contradictory, far-fetched and/or unreasonable. If it is consistent and has no blatant contradictions and it 'rings true', then it's reasonable to follow through with dedicated practice.

By giving it your own critical review, you can then go ahead according to your own understanding rather than following a guru figure with mindless obedience. In time you start to realise your teacher knows his stuff because he can address any facet in granular detail without contradicting any detail of any other facet. By that stage, just following the discourse internally in real time can result in significant insight.

I don't really know much about the Tibetan schools, and frankly, they strike me as a bit weird generally speaking. I have been involved in one called 'the diamond way', but they were really into rinchope icons - and I just think that's inane. I have admired some of the zen guys from Japan and Vietnam, and the old school Pali Canon guys from India, Burma and Thailand... I also like some of the Non-duality mob very much, like Ramana, Papaji and Nisargatta, though I don't trust some of their contemporaries in that lineage. I'm a pretty big J Krishnamurti fan as well. I have a pretty diverse influence, really, but they are all very fundamental teachers without unnecessary fluff. That's my jam. On the other hand, I have no time for Osho, Sadguru and other yogi sorts, and Mooji is a bit off track as well I reckon.

Originally Posted by Gem

On the other hand, I have no time for Osho, Sadguru and other yogi sorts, and Mooji is a bit off track as well I reckon.

Interestingly enough it was Sadhguru who nudged me from a mostly secular path to being firmly on a spiritual path when some of his videos came up when I was searching for consciousness/consciousness studies. It was one simple thing he said and that was to open up a space between mind and consciousness and I was able to directly relate that to direct experience in effortless meditation. After watching maybe a dozen of his long-form presentations I realized they were all cookie-cutter and I had also found Vedanta Society of New York so that was that for Sadhguru.

The problem with Mooji is there is no lineage from Ramana Maharshi, and while Papaji seems to be the real deal Mooji still had someway to go. I forget if it was Papaji or maybe Mooji that unleashed the tidal wave of neo-Advaitan teachers on the West, but that is not a direct and formal lineage from Ramana.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

not a direct and formal lineage from Ramana.

Huh. I thought Papaji was from Ramana and Mooji was from Papaji. I guess Mooji is the kinda guy to 'embellish' things, so maybe not. Some others came from Papaji. Gangagi springs to mind. The tidal wave went different ways, but generally led back to Ramana and Nisargadatta - both self inquiry guys. I'm a fan.

Originally Posted by Gem

Huh. I thought Papaji was from Ramana and Mooji was from Papaji.

That is true but it's not a formal lineage. This is basically how the entire Satsang industry sprung into being. There is no formal methodology. No consistent way to pass along the knowledge and no actual practices aside from sitting down and listening to whatever some self-anointed teacher says.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

no formal methodology.

I thought self inquiry was a practice entailing persistent relentlessness. Everytime you notice you've drifted off, you remember and resume attention on the sense of self, and stay with it as much as you can. I'd call that a method with an effort.

In mindfulness discourse, there is effort, called 'right effort', which covers a range of things like expelling negative states of mind and staying with the positive states, but essentially it comes down to how hard it is to not-do, and pertains to an effort that has nothing to do with 'making it as you want it to be'.

When you get into the meditation, you notice pretty soon that there are times you were just there exerting no will at all, and can see that volition is all part of the observable phenomena and it is a by-product of 'craving'. However, there a deeper intent, the ardency for what's true. Since what is true has nothing to do with what an individual wants, craving/volition is useless.

Similarly, self inquiry is looking deeper into 'what is', and although that intent is ardent and relentless, it has no object of desire/aversion.

Then the question, Do you want to know the truth 'as it is', or do what to make things 'as you want it to be'. If the former then the ardent-but-nonvolitional, surrendering will approach is the way. If the latter, then maybe mantras, pranayama or other volitional activity can procure something desirable.

Originally Posted by Gem

I thought self inquiry was a practice entailing persistent relentlessness. Everytime you notice you've drifted off, you remember and resume attention on the sense of self, and stay with it as much as you can. I'd call that a method with an effort.

It's very bare-bones and for a teacher such as Ramana Maharshi it might have been enough for exceptional students.

Problem is when you have someone like Mooji instructing your average run-of-the-mill student you end up with the so-called direct path and that is you are already Enlightened so all one needs to do is realize it and any formal practice or effort is just more food for the ego. That's neo-Advaita and what it's devolved into.

As I understand Mooji sent many of his students out into the world telling them they were ready to teach and in truth they were nowhere near ready. That's where neo-Advaita comes from.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

and any formal practice or effort is just more food for the ego. That's neo-Advaita and what it's devolved into.

Yea... I can see what they mean, and I talked about not-feeding ego on this thread as well, but contrary to the non-dualist, I advocate single minded persistence and determination, which is, every time you realise you have drifted into distraction, remember , and resume meditation. Reserve a time every day for formal practice and you'll see how yesterday's work leads into today's, and some small life-skill improvements. I'd personally start with breath awareness, and as much as possible, conscious awareness of all daily activities, do tasks consciously and deliberately, and maintain self-awareness in social interactions. If a non dualist tells me that's all ego food or something, I'd be like, that's OK, the thought comes and goes and all you do is feel the breath. I like self inquiry very much as well and I'm all for it, but to me, it is a facet of mindfulness and life has physical, mental and spiritual facets.

If someone is like 'what about mantra' (or another volitional method) I'd be like, that falls outside the mindfulness approach, so for mindfulness, don't do that. We tend to find they add their mantra and/or God names to breath awareness, but eventually they realise they have to fabricate the mantra, whereas the feeling of breath 'just is' - and to focus comes with the choice - see it 'as it is' or make it 'as I want it to be'? It's the subtle difference between willingness and willfulness... and I only suggest the former is the best way.

[Gem]

Just came back, cuz you know me, bla bla bla.

I don't mean to get off track with all the other things, but since it's conversation time, I go on any tangent, and luckily this time, I can give supportive critique where in most cases I'm pointing out contradictions. So, self inquiry? Approved!

I'm here on the mindfulness mission, and breath awareness is simple as a practice, too simple. So simple that everyone wants to make it more than it is. I did a search for videos by cats with pedigree, but almost everyone makes it 'extra' when it need not be, and really shouldn't be. There are few that get it 'right' and I think this guy nails it. Starts at 25 secs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3Qlug07ZM

[Gem]

I did a bit of scouring around to find some mindful meditation stuff with a high standard of quality. This is hard to find because the vast majority of meditation content is hokum.

I was really disheartened at first because the youtube monks didn't pass muster. Some like Ajahn Brahm give good talks and has some great fundamentals... but on the whole, Buddhist monks online aren't that crash hot.

I remembered Jon Kabat-Zinn from the talk linked earlier in the thread, and listened to a few of his videos. He says everything in plain language, no fluff, which is really good for understanding. His fundamentals are 'right' and his guided mindfulness meditations are simple, consistent and free of contradiction. In his own way, he views mindfulness rightly as a healing mode - a bit too psychiatric and brain science for me personally - but that's his jam.

It's a long video but the has lots of shorter ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_If4a-gHg_I