On Meditation
Quoting Magnus Anderson
Why would meditation be a form of denial (in the negative sense)? It could certainly be used that way, and perhaps sometimes denial is helpful - not a sign of sickness, but a sign of reviving health, of the curing of an illness. For example, if someone is experiencing extreme anxiety, it is often pointless to try to think about resolving an issue that is identified as the cause of the anxiety, because one cannot be rational while feeling extreme anxiety. It is much better to meditate, and hence be "in denial" of the issue, until you can regain your balance and eliminate the anxiety, such that you can then start to rationally address the problem.
Meditation is the holy grail of mysticism because it has been found, through repeated practice, to be the kind of activity, that, like prayer, brings man closer to the Divine.
Why is it that meditation is the holy grail of mysticism? Is it not because meditation is a form of denial? It is a return to a more primitive way of thinking that is known as intuition.
Why would meditation be a form of denial (in the negative sense)? It could certainly be used that way, and perhaps sometimes denial is helpful - not a sign of sickness, but a sign of reviving health, of the curing of an illness. For example, if someone is experiencing extreme anxiety, it is often pointless to try to think about resolving an issue that is identified as the cause of the anxiety, because one cannot be rational while feeling extreme anxiety. It is much better to meditate, and hence be "in denial" of the issue, until you can regain your balance and eliminate the anxiety, such that you can then start to rationally address the problem.
Meditation is the holy grail of mysticism because it has been found, through repeated practice, to be the kind of activity, that, like prayer, brings man closer to the Divine.
Comments (64)
With practice, one can achieve a quiet meditative-type state: relaxed, calm, passive. The chatter of the brain gradually dies down; it doesn't usually go away.
One can add a mantra; a Christian meditator would probably adopt a prayer, or a liturgical passage, and simply repeat it literally, or think it. And so on.
I have not meditated beyond the quiet, relaxed, calm, passive observer state. But so far, I have experienced acceptance rather than denial. It isn't a primitive state, it's just a state that anyone can achieve with some practice, for whatever purpose they have in mind.
Achieving a mystical state, as in deep and prolonged meditation, is the practice of specialists.
Yes, but it depends on the definition of denial. When I am very anxious about a particular problem and I meditate, then I am fully accepting of the anxiety I experience, but I try to detach from the effort to mentally solve the problem. That is a sort of temporary "denial" of solving the problem, since I realise that I cannot solve it in that state.
This is exactly it and I think nowadays people assume that meditation is linked to new ageism. The one thing I hate about yoga classes is the leader tends to blab on about something mystical, whereas I enjoy spending an hour in class essentially just stretching my body, a way to decompress and escape my incredibly busy lifestyle.
That is the way I see meditation, self-reflective practice that takes one out of the busy and places emphasis even temporarily just on 'me'. For mental health and to improve there are a number of other 'practices' that need to be done, including what you eat, friends that you have, exercise and taking care of your brain through reading and knowledge. All this leads to peace, which is happiness.
To me, meditation is really just self-reflective practice that slows the mind down to remind the person of the importance of this peace.
Yeah, when I first learned meditation, I was told I was too much in my head Ö
:-} - and you're not even in the business world...
Is business the only conceivable form of busy-ness? :s
Yes >:O
I once owned my own business too and can understand the difficulties. But my life right now is much more busy then it was back then.
[hide="Reveal"]
Gosh, some people... >:O
No. ;)
Why are you so hard to satisfy then?!
Because I demand quality.
Quality in what?
Everything.
I was taught by Diogenes to lower my expectation and I'll never be frustrated again! You should try it! ;)
You know what they say about assumptions? Did I say I that I expected anything or that I was frustrated?
You said that you DEMAND quality. You said that you are not satisfied when I asked you. Seems quite evident now, no need to backtrack Sir ;)
This phrase is obviously pejorative, i.e. return to an atavistic or ‘primitive’ attitude. However, intuition is essential to anyone - even scientists rely on it!
Leaving that aside - the English word ‘mediitation’ is not quite the same as the Buddhist or Hindu term, dhyana. The English ‘meditation’ means to think deeply about something or dwell on an idea. Buddhist meditation is not focussed on thought, in fact the pursuit of thoughts is discouraged. The practice is to be aware of thoughts as they arise, but when they’re noticed, to return the attention to the breath and/or bodily sensations. In S?t? Zen the practice is called Za-Zen, or Shikan-taza which literally means ‘just sitting’. However it is practiced in the context of the elaborate philosophical writings of the founder of the school, Master Dogen, who was a very sophisticated thinker - comparable to his approximate Western contemporary, Meister Eckhardt.
This point of dhyana practice is to see through the often automatic mental reactions that the mind forms. That ‘seeing through’ is what is referred to as ‘insight’. In Buddhist meditation, the aim is not seeking unity with the deity, but it does result in a sense of relatedness with everything, as the unconscious mechanisms of habitual thought-patterns disperse.
There’s a chapter in Evelyn Underhill’s “Mystcism” about the distinction between the two words, magic and mysticism, both of which are outdated and have different connotations than they did when she wrote, but it’s worth noting. (Off the top of my head), From her research, she deleineates magic as a psychologizing form of mystic practice with the sole purpose of power; harnessing a practice for personal gain. Mysticism in the classical sense as practiced within Christianity is a pure act of love for the creator; the “Divine Wound”, and is focused on achieving Union with the divine.
So, it’s intersting to note that theosophy, and then New Ageism (growing out of theosophy) grew out of a more magical approach to mysticism. Which would put secular meditation, yoga, etc, purely in the camp of magic, not mysticism. Spiritual practice for personal power and gain, not for a movement towards union with the divine.
I’ll look at the chapter tonight.
? D?gen
Demanding does not necessarily include expecting, and not being satisfied does not necessarily include frustration. :)
Meditation is often presented in a vastly over-complicated way, sometimes overblown, sometimes under-estimated. It's quite simple in principle (though it's got tremendous depth, and does require commitment, in practice). There are two aspects to it, or two sides to the coin of it (I'm using the formulation of Mahayana Buddhism, but it's really the same in all systems, because it's grounded in commonalities re. how the brain/mind works):-
1. "Calming" meditation - quite simply, this is just getting the body into parasympathetic activation mode, while the mind remains alert and awake. The nervous system has two modes of activation, sympathetic and parasympathetic, sympathetic is the normal waking state, in which the mind and body are geared to interacting with the world around you. Parasympathetic activation is the body "shutting down" in order to self-repair - most obviously in sleep, but sometimes just dozing off can get it too. The key is that in meditation you have activate the parasympathetic nervous system but also at the same time keep the mind awake and alert - and that's tricky, because normally when the body "drops" into parasympathetic activation (it's a notable sensation that you can sometimes catch in the act while falling asleep), the mind shuts down too (i.e. one falls asleep). The required alertness is obtained by sitting upright and keeping the spine absolutely straight, but while the body is relaxed, and that is effected by getting the right tilt to the pelvis, which is effected by using a cushion and sitting cross legged (in one of several possible ways) with the knees lower than the hips. There are lots of other options, but this is what one might call the "classic" method that's common across many traditions.
In the calm state, you are alert and awake, aware of what's going on around you, but not reacting to it, and the mind is naturally fairly empty of thoughts, while the body is deeply relaxed, with the breath naturally slow, refined, minimal and even. Also, the body is somewhat "blank" in terms of sensations - one might say it's the proprioceptive equivalent of "brain grey" for the visual system when the eyes stop saccading, or have the same input wherever they saccade (e.g. if you either fixate on an object, or stare at a blank wall). The more practiced you are at calming meditation, the more naturally empty of thoughts the mind will get, and quicker too (i.e. at first it might take 5-10 minutes to get the "drop", eventually it's instant, and profoundly deep, as soon as you sit down to your accustomed posture).
There are many, many ways to mechanically get the body into a parasympathetic state (e.g. body scanning, focusing on the breath, counting breaths, fixating on an object, staring at a blank wall, etc.) and there are all sorts of refinements, but that's the basic idea.
2. "Insight" meditation. This is what you "do" while you're in the calm state, and there are roughly two types of things to do in the calm state: 1) rational investigation, and 2) passive observation of subjective experience.
Rational investigation is, for example, analyzing the philosophical teachings of a traditional school like Buddhism or Daoism, or even something like the method of Cartesian doubt, but in the sense of how they apply to you and your personal experience, rather than as mere arguments (as we would do with philosophy here). Essentially one "tests" the teachings in one's own experience, with one's mind as a laboratory of sorts. Particular attention may be paid to the question "Who/what am I?" and this is one of the most powerful methods, as it attacks the central problem directly. But meditations on transience, death, etc., are also valuable.
Passive observation is to simply be aware of the world without thinking of what it is, what it's called, without conceptualizing it. You suspend your knowledge of what this "thing", your experience, is, but you nevertheless attend to it carefully in the here and now. One charming simile used in the Tibetan teachings is of a child wandering a temple. The kid doesn't know what the hell these golden statues of gods, etc., are, but it's hypnotized by their beauty. That's the thing you want, that suspension of naming and conceptualization, that not-knowing, while still being minutely focused on the texture of experience in the here and now.
By either route, or alternating both, and with sufficient depth of calm, at some point - usually, though not invariably, after a period of intense fear, or of feeling like you're close to losing your mind - it occurs to you that you don't exist in the way you've been accustomed all your life to thinking you exist. It occurs to you that you are not an independent entity imprisoned in the body, sitting somewhere behind the eyes peeping out at the world. The ordinary everyday sense of "I", "me", etc., vanishes, or one might say it becomes diaphanous, or insignificant. At the same time, there's a concomitant realization that "your" consciousness isn't personal, but rather impersonal, i.e. it "belongs" to the Universe, it's not just the body's consciousness, but also the property of the Universe at large.
Initially, this experience can be either bland or an absolutely stunning revelation, it's different for different people and at different times. How it's described in different cultures and in different times varies as well - some cultures have been plain and analytical about it, some have been more florid and "religious" in describing it. The emotional feeling-tone of the insight in its full form is one of immense, profound peace, "the peace that passeth understanding." (Note: this is different from the sense of calm that arises with parasympathetic activation, it's a mental phenomenon, the result of having come up to the buffers, so to speak, to a full stop, with no more questions, with all possible questions of the "big" variety answered.)
It's the same realization whether the context is religious or a-religious, theistic or non-theistic, or rationalist. (The religionist simply views the experience as revelatory of a direct link to the Divine - the bit of God, who is omnipresent, that's in you, so to speak; the rationalist can take a more abstract view that it's simply a kind of intimacy with the Universe at large, or even more simply, an absence of the sense of separation.)
Notably, insight can be had without the benefit of calming meditation, in ordinary everyday circumstances, or in peak/flow experiences (such as skilled sports, or drug experiences) or in moments of stress, grief, fear, etc. - but it's usually fleeting, evanescent, and often passed over as of no significance, or rejected as something fearful (some forms of what's been called "depersonalization" are probably insight experiences). Calming meditation stabilizes the insight so that it's more fully grasped. Also, insight deepens calm, and calm facilitates insight - they go together rather nicely and help each other along.
Having this experience is only the beginning - obviously the ultimate aim is to live in the world from this perspective. And that's where the "teachings" of all the great religions come from. Were we simply rational animals, ethics would remain at the level of virtue ethics. The larger dimension of ethics, the sense of universal brotherhood, etc., comes from this area, comes from people who have experienced this type of experience. (Of course these are not contradictory - universalist ethics must be built on a solid foundation of virtue ethics, otherwise it becomes an insane kind of hyper-altruism. In fact the practice of virtue ethics is a necessary preliminary practice for meditation in most traditional systems, since if the mind is constantly disturbed by reflection on wrongdoing, it's difficult for it to get into a calm state.)
One thing to watch out for, a major pitfall, is this: the disappearance of the ordinary sense of self is not itself the goal, and it's a common trap to think it is, to make an enemy of the ordinary everyday sense of self, and to strive to be in a "state" of no-self all the time. That's a false goal, pseudo-enlightenment. In fact, it's perfectly fine to have that ordinary, everyday sense of self. The trick is to know at all times, with unshakeable certainty, that it's not real, even while it seems to be. That is full, final enlightenment, at least according to some Buddhist and Advaita traditions. Having the experienc eof the disappearance of the ordinary sense of self is a big help, a big initiation, and with that experience one finally has one's foot in the door, so to speak; but the disappearance per se of the ordinary sense of self is not the goal. Again, traditional teaching similes come to our aid: in the dark, one mistakes a coiled rope for a snake. Upon investigation, one realizes it's a coiled rope, and one then remains unshakably certain that it's not a snake, but a coiled rope, even if it still looks like a snake.
This is basically what it's all about. As I say, it can be elaborated in various ways and there are lots of possible ramifications that can be explored, and it's something you can get better at in various ways, but this twofold procedure is the core "thing" of meditation, and the "royal road" that's common to many traditions in the East
(Note: the West had similar teachings in antiquity - for example, there's a practice called "incubation" which was used as a form of healing and psychotherapy in the ancient Greek world, which involved lying down in a dark place and simply giving up - under supervision and with the guidance of trained attendants. Parmenides' teacher was said to have taught him "silence." The West's teachings had to go underground as a part of "occultism" during the time of Catholicism's doctrinal and political hegemony, and often got garbled as a result. It should be noted that, like some Chinese Daoist systems, and Tibetan systems like Dzogchen, the Western systems tended to favour "astral travel", which is basically lucid dreaming entered into from the waking state. This "astral travel" is what "magick" is all about - it's what generated the various "apocalypses" and "visions" you find in things like the Gnostic teachings, as well as things like the "visionary" proem to Parmenides' philosophy, which reads, quite literally like a straightforward account of a vision, and is itself an introduction to the philosophy, rather than just some flowery, irrelevant preamble.)
Proof that I am busy, unlike you who talks non-stop about business and appears non-stop to be on TPF. Gosh, some people. (L)
Quoting Perplexed
I agree, hence why I myself have stated that for me, above all else, peace is really my only goal and by peace I mean that calm, level-headed attitude and a restfulness within but this is not achieved by mindfulness or meditation only. It requires a complete transformation in your attitude and how well you take care of yourself.
Many of us are in a position where we are required to manage conflicting or multiple things and the more tired and anxious you are, the less productive and so you end up lacking any achievement. Life becomes this terrible repetition of just dealing with shit with bits and pieces of positive "moments" that keep you going.
The most important problem to overcome in my opinion is the people in your personal space because you can form attachments or dependency - either emotionally or economically - that make you adapt to their presence, like having a thorn in your side that you do not remove, and so you just deal with them day in day out until you find that years have passed and you haven't an inkling as to what happiness is. So it is to find the courage - despite you wanting them around - to admit that these people are toxic to your happiness and that may mean a radical change to your personal circumstances.
there are several approaches in meditation, of course. The most common are the "calming" ones where the person attempts to be mindful to a certain object of meditation, like for example the breath. These techniques are very useful to deal with anxiety attacks, stress etc. IMO there is no "denial" here: simply one tries to maintain self-control by trying to remain focused on some objects. For example this type of meditation is called "samatha" in Buddhism. These calming techniques are accessible to all, regardless their philosophy, religion etc
However there are of course other types of meditation. In Christianity there is the "contemplative prayer"*, for example (in fact the "eastern" meditative approaches should be called IMO "contemplation"...). In Buddhism as @Wayfarer mentioned there is the "insight meditation" (vipassana, zazen..) where one "observes" the arising and ceasing of bodily/mental feelings to realize their transient, unsatisfactory** and "not-self" nature. In the Chuang-Tzu (Daoism) there are mentioned various approaches. For example the "zuowang" (ch. 6) where one "sits and forgets" to become one with the Dao. In all these cases the idea is that one manages to acquire, so to speak, a different perspective on existence, rather than become calm and focused. But IMO it is necessary to emphasize the differences between the traditions. For example the "zuowang" appears similar to "zazen", "vipassana" etc but whereas in Daoism one tries to "unite" with the cosmic proccess, in Buddhism one tries to stop the "I-making" and "my-making", i.e. he tries to be free from identification and possession (and therefore in Buddhist eyes the Daoist approach is still characterized by a subtle tendency of "I-making", "my-making".).Therefore in Buddhism saying that one has the goal to become "joined" the "whole universe" is mistaken: in fact while "monists" seek to trascend duality to become "one", in Zen one searches to become "not-two" and "not-one", i.e. beyond all possibile conceptualization. Christianity is of course very dissimilar: one here searches to build a better relationship with a Divine Person, who is distinct from oneself (this is why the "total absorption in the Divine" is regarder "heretical" or at least "heterodox" in Christianity). To a skeptic maybe Buddhist "insight meditation", zazen etc are more appealing since are simply based on the observation of the experience. By the way even these "specific" types are seen to bring a better relation with life, i.e. they also have a sort of "calming" effect. This list IMO is very limited, however. ***
Despite the enormous differences between the various techniques however I should not call meditation as a type of "denial". Actually in order to meditate one must face his own problems, try to find the best technique that "fits" with himself, one must have a LOT of patience (since while some results are sometimes immediate the progress might take even years). IMO "denial" might manifest in an unwillingness to adimit that "something is wrong" and trying to "live as nothing is wrong". This at least should be clear with the "calming approaches" (and in them I include approaches of modern psychology like CBT, autogenic training...), but the same can be said for the "specific" techniques that are unique to each religion.
Finally I wanted to add that despite the enormous differences the "calming result" in most approaches (to my knowledge) arises from the "letting go". We let go our tendency of "controlling" (excessively) our lives. For example a Christian might try to have a more solid "faith" with God (in the same sense to the "faith" that we have with a friend, i.e. it is a "trusting" rather a "dogmatic faith"). A Daoist seeks to "go along with the flow of the ten thousand things". A Buddhist of course seeks to "let go completely of his tendency to grasp" etc it seems that an authentic meditation practice involves a radical effort to "let go", "trusting", "surrender" etc.However this "surrender" allows one to live better, i.e. to paradoxically "win".
*Of course for devotional practicies (i.e. those involving the worship of one or more "higher beings") arguably all types of prayer are a form of "meditation" and in fact they are expected to bring the same "better relationship" as the "contemplative prayer".
** to be more precise the momentary experiences are regarded "unsatisfactory" because of our attachment. However the contemplation on their impermanent nature should render us "dispassionate" (neither attached nor averse) to all of them.
***For example we might include all types of devotional practices, mantras etc
Edit: I forgot to mention also the post of @gurugeorge, who treats almost exactly the things I have said in a slightly different way.
Ohhh poor TimeLine feels the need to say she has a bigger one :D
Bigger heart? So true. I am a fluffy bunny feet. You are a disease-spreading flushable. :P
Absolutely, you are right, how could I have made such a mistake. Of course demanding does not necessarily include expecting, and not being satisfied does not necessarily include being frustrated...
[hide="Reveal"]except in like 99% of cases >:)[/hide]
With the same shoes everyday :P
lmao
What's wrong with spiritual practice in order to improve your efficiency and capacity in the world?
Agreed.
As I said in my post I think for most authentic spiritual practices the idea is that one has to "surrender", to "let go", to "trust" etc. Paradoxically that "surrender" is correlated to (the highest) "victory" according to many religious traditions. The idea is that the "ego" shrinks to zero, so to speak, while the mind "joins" the infinite (in whatever form). The self-mastery has nothing to do with an egoistic drive. The self-mastery increases as "egoism" decreases.
This in fact contrary to our intuition. In fact we would expect that one who is "in control" is one who rules everything, or even imposes his will against others. But those who try to "impose" their will actually are those who actually lose (and are those who suffer the most).
Sadly it is very difficult to surrender :(
I agree that meditation is a quieting of the will. In Daoist philosophy this would be called quieting of the Zhi (Daoism it's very specific in need regards to the nature of the human spirit). However, you don't surrender. There is no way to surrender. Surrender is a marketing term, that is unachievable (sort of like a carrot in front of the donkey). What happens is as the will (Zhi) it's quieted, some other aspect of the spirit (Shen) arises. It is a totally different feeling and provides greater insight into the nature of the human spirit. There is no big enlightenment moment. Just gradual understanding and increasing feeling.
This is the big thing. Any goal, and attempt to moderate will, any effort to find the Yi, is counterproductive. It just happens when it happens. Normally it is suggested that one just bring their mind to the breath, which is fine, but even this "bringing" is use of will. It is all just quiet. My approach is Tai Chi which allows me to gradually sink into the state. One complete routine is usually about 27 min. At the end I feel the energy in my body as water flowing inside of me and moving me without will (Zhi). Something else is moving me.
Probably the word "surrender" here can create problems.
What I meant was not really very so different to what you said now. The will cannot cease (while alive, of course). However as you say it can be quieted, calmed. And even calming the will is something that seems to go against our "intuition": we think that the "victor" is one who manages to "impose" on reality his/her will. Instead what I meant is that paradoxically it is the one who calms, quiets etc his will.
I do not know very well Daoist meditation (except for what I read about "zuowang" - sitting and forgetting) when for example you say:
it strongly suggests me the idea of "surrender". The will is completely calmed, there is no need to "control" everything etc. But if I am not misinterpreting what you say, you actually are "going along with the flow", at least for a while. In this sense I think that we can agree that the word "surrender" can apply.
What is more controversial is the possibility of a total let go/surrender. Regarding such a possibility I am more skeptical. But what I can say is that that a moderate "surrender" IMO is exactly the "calming" effect that you describe.
IMO in fact we are inclined to think, even unconsciously, that we can control everything. This leads us to express our "will to power" in order to "dominate". When however we begin to realize that such a control is impossible and our attempts in doing so are counterproductive we begin at least to question the validity of our expectations, desires, attempts to control etc. From the perspective of our instinct to dominate, the calming is really a surrender, I think.
As I said the real "denial" is actually continue to negate our inability to control things;)
The distinction is very subtle. One doesn't "surrender". One just does (in my case the Tai Chi form). After thousands of times if practice, the "shift" just happens. I don't know anyone personally who has experienced this shift practicing Tai Chi, though many talk about it as a matter of course. The key is patience.
I agree with what you say.
Interesting. Thank you.
Yeah, I agree that the term "surrender" might be misleading. In fact what I have in mind is only a "surrender" of a particular type of will. But not of the "will itself". So IMO our perspectives are very similar on this. On the level of the will itself there is only a "calming", a "stilling" etc, not a real surrender. But normally our actions are somewhat conditioned by the "will to power". In order to achieve the calmness this "will to power" should at least in part "disappear".
I think it is only a matter of perspectives. If I realize that I cannot "rule over everything" I will in some sense surrender and give up my expectations. Possibly then I can work for calming my mind etc. After that as you say the will is spontaneous.
Actually this perspective reminds me a lot of Chan/Zen Buddhism (other than of course Daoism) where spontaneity, free action is seen as a liberated action. In both traditions the goal seems to be a state with no more plans, chains etc only spontaneity, freedom - the same spontaneity found in the flow of a river (except of course that we are aware and the river is not :) ).
Maybe on Zen @Wayfarer can confirm (or reject) what I have said.
So what about rephrasing the issue in these terms: It is a "surrender" of a particular type of will, namely the "will to power". But when we consider the "will" in fact the process is not really a surrender but only a calming, stilling etc.
Yes. I agree.
You will find that there is much marketing in many traditions nowadays so there are lots of what write which you will not find in practice. Creating a commercial business of any tradition will necessarily affect the tradition.
Excellent ;)
Regarding the marketing... yeah sometimes I have the same impression!
So, early in the piece, I realised that to pursue any kind of practice in this way is 'a religious discipline'. I mean, you could say that of almost any form of training - sports training or musical practice - if you just do it, no matter what, then it's said 'oh, he practices religiously.' So out of that, grew a kind of natural appreciation of the Buddhist approach - that it takes devotion, dedication. You learn do it for the sake of doing it, not to get somewhere or gain something. Like the Nike ad. And even to do that, is to live a different way, in a world that is entirely geared towards getting somewhere.
But at the same time, I also faced many obstacles and hindrances - bad habits, emotionality, laziness, procrastination. And when you persist for long period, there are barren times, and times when you feel as though your efforts are pointless. There are times when you give up, think, oh well, that was just a phase. But I persisted.
And overall, the insights that arose have been more than worthwhile. In my case, I had an initial realisation around the time I got married. There was a definite shift, something like an inner re-configuration. That, I realised, was actually a conversion experience. 'Conversion' is not simply adopting an attitude or identifying with a religion - it is a psycho-physiological change in the way of being. In Greek philosophy, it was called metanoia; in Indian, it is 'pravritti'. How those things come about is obviously a mystery, there's no formula or method for it, but they're real.
As far as 'surrender' is concerned - one aspect of that is the realisation that 'I' don't matter; I have become less consumed by the anxiety about me and mine. It's just the concerns of 'me'. And this is the same for everyone. All beings have this state of self-concern, even animals. So I think part of what shifts in meditation, is that you see from a perspective which is not so self-centred, in a natural way. Of course it doesn't mean one becomes entirely free of self-centeredness overnight, but again it's a change in the way you see.
And on that note - going to sit.
Your statistical assessment is just a guess, and even if it were accurate, you would still have no warrant for classing me with the 'most of' rather than the 'few'. You could have simply asked the question instead, as any good investigator would do. :P
Personally I studied a bit of eastern philosophy almost four years ago. I read the "Tao Te Ching" simultaneously with some insights of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and for whatever reason I found a strong similarity between them (I remember that for many days I had a sort of "intellectual excitement" that suggested that there was surely a connection between the two works). Then I began my quest to discover eastern philosophies motivated also by the fact that eminent physicists like Einstein, Schroedinger, Bohr, Bohm, Heisenberg etc were attracted too. So I started to digging in the net and at first I conflated Buddhism, Vedanta and Taoism thinking that "they were the same" (actually reading "The Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance" did not help with this error). Then I began to appreciate their difference and I began to be more attracted by Buddhism, especially Theravada. Anyway until last summer it was merely an intellectual interest, nothing more. However when I understood that my intellectual questioning (especially about the "Unconditioned/Nibbana" and the doctrine of "rebirth") was meaningless without the actual experience, I decided (actually after a suggestion of a friend) to start meditation (at the same time I also read the "Way of Zen" of Alan Watts). Now I am trying to maintain a constant practice of both vipassana and samatha. I found the effects of medition immediate but a mixture of intellectual skepticism, doubt, laziness, anxiety, horrible time management etc is interfering with my "actual progress". Still this living experience is actually confirming the benefits of spiritual practices. Anyway while I am still higly skeptical of many "supernatural" claims made by religions and ancient philosophies I have to admit that in reality in many ways they store a lot of pratical and intellectual wisdom, sadly unrecognized in contemporary society.
Also I found that - to my knowledge - most (if not all) forms of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism all agree about the importance of trying to be not self concerned (and at the same time however you become aware of the "higher perspective" (e.g. in Buddhism the realization that all conditioned things are impermanent leads one to detach and to be less concerned...) -another paradox).
"Spiritual" practice make possible to actually, so to speak, experience the "wise words" of the sages. An intellectual understanding can of course give a "glimpse" on them, but the practice in fact permits to actually "see" them.
Way of Zen was an early favourite of mine. Also got a lot out of Supreme Identity and Beyond Theology. I love Watts' writing. I read Zen and the Art back in the 70's. Another favourite from that time was Tao of Physics (despite its detractors).
Regarding the obstacles to practice - encountering those is an essential aspect of the practice. There's a Zen teacher called Dosho Port whose online portal is called Vine of Obstacles - the name says it!
Quoting boundless
(Y)
Thanks for the link about Wittgenstein (I knew about his "spiritual side" which IMO is often unrightly disregarder - however it is true that he sometime compared to both buddhist and daoist philosophers).
Regarding Watts I only read that book and I found it well written. I like in particular his "free" quest, outside any particular organisation (in this experientially I feel very similar to him).
Actually to be more precise Buddhism attracts me on the pratical side rather than the "doctrinal" (which from a buddhist point of view might sound "weird" since "right view" is the first step) due to both skepticism and to some "views" that I have that might be regarded as "eternalistic" in a buddhist community. Also I have a hard time to accept a particular doctrine since I still percieve that there is an immense treasure of wisdom in other traditions. Doctrinal problems aside, on the experiential level I am finding Buddhism the most "accessible" since it refers to the actual immediate experience (to practice it one simply can start from his immediate experience without taking "tenets" on faith). On the other hand however other "doctrines" fascinate me a lot (and above all the unexpected similarities between them!). So I consider myself still a (very confused) questioning "agnostic".
Regarding the obstacles, thank you also for this link! It confirms my idea that spiritual life is full of paradoxes.
By the way I learned to accept my limitations in the practice. At first I expected only immediate results. After some time I came to realize that the practice is gradual and it must be done, as you say, to the "sake of doing it". It required some time (and also some suggestions from a "online" friend). But IMO if one cannot come to terms with himself the practice becomes impossible. So actually meditation, if anything, even stripped of its "spiritual" connotations should IMHO be performed to the simple sake to come to terms with oneself, to have a better outlook on life etc. But there is too much "hurry" in the modern society as others have mentioned: deadlines, bureocracy*, part-time jobs, obsessiveness with productivity, "publish or perish" attitude in the academia etc. From the Tao Te Ching (Lau translation, https://terebess.hu/english/tao/lau.html):
20
[i]The multitude are joyous
As if partaking of the offering
Or going up to a terrace in spring.
I alone am inactive and reveal no signs,
And wax without having reached the limit.
Like a baby that has not yet learned to smile,
Listless as though with no home to go back to.
The multitude all have more than enough.
I alone seem to be in want.
My mind is that of a fool - how blank!
Vulgar people are clear.
I alone am drowsy.
Vulgar people are alert.
I alone am muddled.
Calm like the sea;
Like a high wind that never ceases.
The multitude all have a purpose.
I alone am foolish and uncouth.
I alone am different from others
And value being fed by the mother. [/i]
Yeah with all this "hurry" even meditating for reduce anxiety can lead to a certain amount of isolation, sadly.
*the Italian one seems to be quite infamous (I am Italian BTW)
I think you’re in a good place! I also question my own relationship to Buddhism; there are many things said and done by Buddhists that I don’t necessarily agree with. But I think Buddhism does encourage a kind of healthy scepticism - not niggling doubts, but a deep questioning. And like you I also find great wisdom in other traditions particularly Christian Platonism. And the Tao.
At least in theory, you're using the techniques that draw one into the divine, but using those techniques for one's own accomplishment in a temporal life which end's with death. Which is essentially demonic. So the use of spiritual practice is essentially nihilistic. And this is the same for yoga nerds as it is for satanists or Thelemasts. Again, in theory.
Well, thank you! Our approach seems quite similar. Curiosly, I have a deep interest in platonism, too (I am very inclined to beleieve that there are "eternal truths" - and I do not think that this is in contrast with Buddhism since truths are not necessarily "substantial", however I saw that many Buddhists would disagree as it happens*).
To clarify what I meant by "experiential", let me quote an excerpt of the Dhammapada (from: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=093):
"His path [i.e. that of a liberated individual] ,like that of birds in the air, cannot be traced."
This suggests to me a total freedom from all designations. Regardless of the acceptance of the "doctrine" of a particular school, this "image" is one of an absolute freedom. This - united to the fact that the there is a strong emphasis on the "here and now" - is what attracts me to Buddhism. While I think that the "metaphysics" is also interesting, I think that this "experiential" part is even more important (I admit that this a somewhat "perennialist" approach, but IMO it is the experiential part that is important regardless the fact that the "doctrine" is actually true or not). This experiential, in fact, part suggests me an absolute "boundlessness" (and actually my nick reflects my interest on the concepts of "infinite, boundless, ineffable" etc X-) ) .
Meditation therefore for me it is meant to "see" really important aspects of our existence that in "normal" life we neglect. And I also think that in ancient times where lives were less "constructed", so to speak, meditation (and other techniques) were possibly more effective. And the "boundlessness" which I referred before. At the same time this "openness to the higher", so to speak, must be accompained by a reduction of the "ego". If there is not this "reduction" the danger is a sort of "vainglory" (which is a quite important issue according to a very large number of traditions).
P.S. (maybe too much OT)
In many Buddhists for example I encountered a sort of "fear of the eternal". But IMO while, of course, transience is of a fundamental importance in Buddhism, nowadays it seems to much "emphasized". I read, for example, opinions (even among very respectable and serious teachers and/or monks) suggesting that "Nibbana/Nirvana" is nothingness, an "absolute void". I find such interpetrations somewhat "off" (albeit sometimes very logical and rigorous), I cannot articulate the feeling but it seems that I am "certain" that they are "wrong" (maybe it is only "clinging" X-) ). Personally while maybe nowadays it is a common interpretation, it appears that in ancient times, in fact, it was not. For example it seems that the ancient Theravadins held that Nibbana was "permanent, eternal..." as you can see here https://suttacentral.net/en/kv1.6 (however considering it "something" is maybe inappropriate. But considering it "nothing" is even worse..., possibly "no-thingness" in contrast to "nothingness" ). Anyway, I also see that even before the beginning of the Common Era there was a wide range of views about many tenets. This, oddly, quite conforts me and actually motivates my "skepticism/questioning".
I don't see how that is demonic. Didn't Abraham and his sons all pray to God and engage in spiritual practices to better guide them in their worldly activities? Of course they did.
It is definitely an error. Actually there are canonical statements to this effect:
http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra14.html
But nihilism is nevertheless a pitfall for Buddhists. It comes from interpreting ??nyat? as merely nothingness or non-existence. In actual fact, ??nyat? refers to ‘conditioned existence’ i.e. all objects of perception, sensation, thought, etc are compound, subject to decay, and so on.
My view is that Nirv??a and the unconditioned is never an object of perception however the mind constantly tries to find or identify it as an object. Ceasing from that false effort is ‘the way of negation’. Actually it’s somewhat similar to the mystical approach ‘cloud of un-knowing’, except that it is not focussed on deity.
Thank you for sharing the sutra, very interesting and clear! So both the Mahayana and like the classical Theravada refute in a very expliciti way this type of "nihilism" (apparently however in different ways). Sadly it seems that reductionism influenced many Buddhist out there.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah that is also my interpretration. In fact the language is "apophatic" in order to not "cling" to a false concept of Nirvana. Regarding the "cloud" I agree the approach is similar.
Quoting Wayfarer
Agreed! the "voidness" simply points to the lack of "fixity" * of the conditioned. It is a "no-thingness" rather than a "mere nothingness". It allows change and therefore also life. After all if we were "fixed" we could not have any chance of make progress.
*I prefer the term "fixity" rather than "permanence" since Buddhism refutes "annihilationism", i.e. the view that at death the "self" is destroyed (and therefore it refutes the view that "something" can remain "fixed/stable" for a while and at a certain point being destroyed).
Thank you very much for the insights! (Y) :)
Understanding is not within the borders of time. Time never brings understanding. Time can bring about accumulation of information, but understanding doesn't depend on time.
Understanding is not a gradual process to be gathered little by little, in increments.
Understanding is now or never; it is a destructive flash, not a tame affair; it is this shattering that one is afraid of and so one avoids it, knowingly or unknowingly.
The fear of not being able to cope kicks in. Actually the fear is always there, because it is foundational to the psyche. Hence the insistence on"activity" as a coping strategy, to cover up or dismiss this fear (or any kind of fear), i.e. fear per se, from awareness (eyes-vision). Which clearly is Ineffectual.
In the west, meditation is simply pondering deeply on a particular topic of interest à la René Descartes (vide Meditations).