Simple_Jack

Yeah, that monastery emphasizes the development of "Visuddhimagga jhanas" over the "Sutta jhana" [http://www.leighb.com/Jhana_in_Theravada_Quli.pdf]. As you can see from their website: they don't even begin to teach vipassana until after a certain amount of progress.

Depends on what he means by "gazing". Are you guys also including gazing at an object placed in front of oneself? In the Vijnanabhairava Tantra there is a technique of gazing at the night sky in order to enter the jhana of infinite space [http://www.meditationexpert.com/meditation-techniques/m_yoga_meditation_technique_cultivating_samadhi_of_infinite_space.html - there are also a couple of meditations listed from Buddhist sources.] "One should cast his gaze on a region in which there are no trees, [while] on [a] mountain, [or] on [a] high defensive wall. His mental state being without any support will then dissolve and the fluctuations of his mind will cease." In Bodri's book "25 Doors To Meditation": he mentions in the introduction, a list of meditations from the Surangama Sutra, which use each of the six senses as an object of meditation. He has a chapter devoted to a meditation on sound from that same sutra. He gives an example of its use by Ch'an master Hanshan (aka. 'cold mountain') where he describes deep absorption into the object of meditation (in this case the sound of a nearby waterfall), to the point where external sounds cease [http://books.google.com/books?id=eSOBzRbvkJkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false]. I think it's a good idea to read and compare what different teachers from different traditions, have to say on the subject of jhana. Most of all, I think it comes down to the individuals experience in the equipoise period. In what context are you guys mentioning 'feeling' or 'emotion'? I'm wondering because using the 4 brahmaviharas entails using as a meditation object, certain generated 'feelings' to enter jhana. Xabir mentions his experience in this thread [http://thetaobums.com/topic/20555-primary-and-secondary-enlightenment/page-3]: "Oh incidentally, recently I was practicing metta (for the first time, lol) and noted this: I wrote to Thusness some time ago: I was reading the book 'beyond mindfulness' by bhante gunaratana, its a book about jhana practice. He recommends either metta or breathing mindfulness to reach jhana. He said metta can lead to jhana cos the feeling of metta is very close to jhanic bliss. I didn't understand this until I practice metta today... Just thinking over, may others be well, happy, and free from afflictions... Then there's this feeling of metta like emanating from the heart region and its blissful, I can definitely see how this can lead into jhana. There is also a freedom from all unwholesome mental states, aversions, etc... Even tho I wasn't practicing that in a meditation setting, just standing. When you experience metta, everyone who do harm to you, you don't feel a bit of aversion at all - you see the worse person as friend. There is an uber transcendence from all mental afflictions - its almost a kind of altered state, but not really. You need to truly experience this. p.s. Thusness said, Yes and indeed an important practice. Do not think of the experience of jhana but rather relax and with utmost sincerity practice and metta. May others be well, happy and free from affiictions. "

Ok. This doesn't change the fact that anatman is a central theme in Buddhism. So, this shows me that you get your info on Buddhist practice from non-Buddhist sources....And that you haven't actually applied any specific Buddhist practices beyond maybe samatha.

This is not relevant to Buddhist practice. Do you really think that Buddha would have gone to all the trouble of refuting the Atman (i.e anatman/anatta) if in fact he was really trying to convey the message of an absolute formless consciousness that we are all "One" with?

Buddhism died out in India after the Muslim invasions of the 13th century...

"Neti, neti", is the domain of Advaita Vedanta. Buddhist meditation is predicated off of the refutation of the four extremes (existent, non-existent, both existent and non-existent, neither existent nor non-existent) http://www.academia.edu/1972635/Gorampa_Sonam_Senge_on_the_Refutation_of_the_Four_Extremes. "The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation.... The basis in gzhan stong is still emptiness, albeit is an emptiness qualified by the presence of ultimate buddha qualities, where samsaric phenomena are considered extraneous. Why? Because these ultimate qualities are only held to appear to exist in post-equipoise, but their appearance of existence disappear when in equipoise. The equipoise in both rang stong and gzhan stong is characterized as an equipoise free from extremes. In the case of commoners, this freedom from extremes is arrived through analysis that negate the four extremes in turn. This is necessary even in gshan stong because attachment to the luminosity described by the PP sutras will result in an extreme view, just as grasping to emptiness results in an extreme view. As I said, the most salient difference between R and S is in their post-equipoise formulation. In terms of how adherents of the so called R and S views actually meditate, there is no ultimate difference. The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the latter grasping to existence as emptiness. The purpose of Madhyamaka analysis is not to come to some imagined "correct" generic image of the ultimate, but rather to exhaust the mind's capacity to reify phenomena according to any extreme so that one's experience of conventional truth upon reaching the path of seeing in post-equipoise is that all phenomena are seen to be illusions, dreams and so on i.e. unreal and yet apparent due to the force of traces. .....It is exactly emptiness precisely in the fashion that I described it, even in Dolbuwa's [Dolpopa's] presentation. ~Lopon Malcolm" Where do you get your ideas from? In his "Tao & Longevity", Nan Huaijin derides much of the historical development of the alchemical sects: "...Visualization and transcendental thinking methods involve neither the transmutation of ch'i method that prevailed in the Chin, South, and North dynasties, nor the concentration on the cavity (such as concentration on Tan Tien) cultivation method that prevailed during the Ming and Ch'ing dynasties. They do not involve the Taoist cultivation method of transmutation of ching into ch'i, transmutation of ch'i into shen, and transmutation of shen into Void. Each of these Taoist methods has its own pattern and function. It is unfortunate that those who learn Taoism have confused the different traditions. Some students thought that all they had to do was find a good master who would teach them a hidden secret, and they could become an immortal instantly. They therefore ignored the study of the principles of the Taoist methods. Taoist methods were not organized into a science of immortality with principles, rules, systematic sequences, and methods. As a consequence, these practices lend to calamity rather than to the achievement of immortality" ~ Ch. 6, pg.23 Tao & Longevity: Mind-Body Transformation translated by Wen Kuan Chu, Ph.D

The situation in Tibet, Nepal and India are much different than in the West. I'm not totally familiar with the situation of these high lamas, but reading some of the life story's of some of these lama's: they were born into families that had their own land and would be considered well off by Tibetan standards. These countries had cultural institutions which supported the individual efforts of wandering yogi's. Compare that to the West, where people here would look at a wandering yogi as just another homeless bum. Also, from talking with ordained monks and nuns here in the West: a lot of them still have to support themselves with a regular full-time job. The West doesn't have the institutional support, especially for those interested in going on 3 year retreats; which in the West can cost up to 60k.

Daniel Ingram, the guy who wrote "MCTOB": is an MD at a hospital who made an amount of the progress people read in his book, while being married. While he claims arahantship by the standards of "MCTOB": in the sutta standards he would probably be an anagami/non-returner. So it is possible to make progress despite working long hours and being married. He did go on retreats in Southeast Asia, but he said himself (on dharmaoverground) that a lot of the progress was made while he was working and living with his spouse. Realistically, we can't use the example of the mahasiddhas and a lot of the lamas who were known to have reached a high level of cultivation. For instance, reading the stories of the mahasiddhas, you find out that most of them lived in caves, huts, etc. on the outskirts of villages or in the wilderness. Most of the great lamas that we read about spent years at a time on extended retreats, while living in a society that supported the lifestyle of a mendicant yogi. They didn't have to worry about working a 40+ hour work week to support themselves, complete with the distractions of modern day society. Nirvana/nibbana, in the Pali Nikayas, is represented by reaching arahantship because the three root poisons (ignorance, aggression, craving) are extinguished, along with the karmas that give rise to continued becoming (all good, bad, neutral karma) in samsara. From what people have said in the Theravada traditions: It is possible to reach the level of a non-returner, while living the lay life. Though, once arahantship is reached, those people end up leaving the lay life to become monks. People can still make progress in jhana's and towards awakening while having a gf/bf/wife/husband and working a regular job. In actuality, you can overcome the 5 hindrances to reaching jhana, temporarily in each meditation session; jhana states just temporarily suppress the fetters for the time you are absorbed in them. Depending on each individual's mindstream: in the post-equipoise state, (depending on which fetters stemming from the 3 poisons are strongest) an individual will still be subject to continued becoming. Even people who have reached the level of stream-enterer, once-returner or of a non-returner. Though, those individual's are not deluded in the same way as normal sentient beings and will be much less at the mercy of their fetters. From the Mahayana perspective, Hinayana arhats (and pratyekabuddhas) represent a non-afflicted ignorance, since there are still cognitive obstructions to the wisdom of buddhahood.

Nah, according to the Maha-Saccaka Sutta: he went through each of the 4 rupajhana's after remembering his experience of the 1st one when he was a kid. After reaching the 4th rupajhana, he gained the knowledges which led to his awakening. I like this sutta, because it also briefly describes how far he pushed himself in his ascetic practices [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html].

Somewhat, agree. I'd rather talk to a khenpo or an authorized teacher any day. He's more of a Mahamudra and Pali canon guy, anyway. Not written by xabir, but yeah Mahamudra and Dzogchen are complete teachings unto themselves. I don't necessarily agree with the guy, but I do think that being grounded in the Theravada teachings would definitely help facilitate understanding in Mahayana.

I'm sure people replying on here have good intentions, but there is a lot of conflicting advice being given. Especially, since you're following a particular approach of a Theravada tradition. I agree with the bold part of the text, unless of course, a particular approach just isn't working for you. From dharmawheel: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4461&start=40 Malcolm: Here, when we say non-conceptual, we do not mean a mind in which there is an absence of thought. When consciousness is freed from signs and characteristics, this is called the realization of emptiness. An non-conceptual mind may still indeed be trapped by signs and characteristics.

That's one approach to vipassana. You could also focus on the body, feelings, mind and mental qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html. Still not relevant. That's yet another approach to samatha-vipassana. Who's, "we?"

The qualifications for shamatha, in the preliminary practices of Dzogchen, will of course differ because Dzogchen doesn't emphasize jhana states. Like ChNN said, you're not officially practicing Dzogchen until you reach the stage of 'released-shine.' I have yet to hear (when receiving teachings/empowerments, etc.), anyone In Vajrayana mention jhana as necessary for progress. I didn't even think that they found it necessary in order to engage in vipashyana (much like the Burmese Theravada traditions), which would seem true in the (sutra) Mahamudra tradition of the Kagyu lineages. One example of it here, http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=9598&sid=6a58298f669b9e425bc4738f91abc265&start=20: Jnana - "With sūtra mahāmudrā one is introduced to the view after having established some degree of śamatha. Kagyu teachers usually consider the ninth stage of mental abiding of the desire realm to be a sufficient degree of calm. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's Moonlight: How then should one seek to realize tranquility? It is highly praiseworthy for someone to achieve simple tranquility on the preparatory level of the first concentrative absorption [on the plane of sublime form], as stated before. Failing that, one would do well to realize a one-pointed concentration on the plane of desire.And: If, during this quiescent state, the mind unceasingly perceives forms, sounds, and the other senses gently, serenely, fearlessly, vividly, and quietly, tranquility has been achieved.This differs from Je Tsongkhapa who maintained that the preparatory level of the first dhyāna was necessary. But generally, mahāmudrā and dzogchen are mindfulness based practice traditions, and with essence mahāmudrā and dzogchen one is introduced to the view and then maintains non-distraction as the meditation. Tsele Natsok Rangdröl, The Circle of the Sun: Concerning mindfulness serving or not serving as the meditation: some deluded people appear to concentrate with rigid fixation and believe that keeping their mind hostage is the meditation of mahāmudrā. That is nothing but their personal fault. The authentic great Kagyu masters took self-cognizant mindfulness as their practice, which is identical to the primordially pure self-awareness of the dzogchen system. Thus, despite different terminology, there is no difference in meaning. Neither system, mahāmudrā nor dzogchen, considers that meditation is the conceptual mind that fixates on mindfulness.The reason for this is succinctly stated by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, As It Is, Vol. II: There is no need to do anything to your present wakefulness at that moment; it is already as it is. That is the true meaning of naked ordinary mind, tamal kyi shepa, a famous term in Tibetan. Ordinary mind means not tampered with. There is no 'thing' there which needs to be accepted or rejected; it is simply as it is." I assumed you equated 'shamatha' merely as a state free of discriminating intellect. Sorry for the mix up. The terms 'shamatha-jhana' and 'vipassana-jhana' are modern terminology, which are not found in the tipitaka. Samatha-Vipassana aren't mentioned or taught as separate meditations in the suttas nor are jhanas described in the fashion of Ajahn Bram, etc. In the suttas, there isn't a dividing line between the two. 'Samatha-jhanas', would be the deep absorption as taught in the Visuddhimagga and by Ajahn Brahm & co. 'Vipassana-jhanas', would be a lighter state of absorption, where one is also applying vipassana. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4730 - nana: "Hi Mike & Oleksandr, Ajahn Brahm correlates his experience of what he designates as "jhāna" with a very selective and narrow reading of a few sutta-s. Such an interpretation doesn't accurately represent what the sutta-s actually have to say on the matter. Similarly, Ven. Pa Auk Sayadaw teaches what he designates as "jhāna" based on a very narrow reading of the Visuddhimagga. Best wishes, Geoff" In the Anupada Sutta, Sariputta is described by the Buddha as simultaneously entering each of the 9 jhana's, while applying vipassana (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html). It's very possible, I hadn't reached the 1st or 2nd jhana: I really don't think my practice should be an example for others. I'm just a novice practitioner. Though, there are objections on the web from practitioners who don't agree with the criteria for jhana as propagated by Ajahn Bram & co. This goes for visual signs of lights appearing as nimittas also: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=15578 - "alan... wrote: what does this say of teachings that do not use any mental imagery or at any rate, people who pay them no mind? for example leigh brasington? is there support in the suttas for this as well? as far as i can tell his method involves a feeling instead of an image. mikenz66: I think that's still a "sign of concentration". Just not visual." I don't think that one approach or description is "wrong" and the other "right." It's natural that there are going to be variances based off of people's practice and what they emphasize. Well, this is your experience. Why should this dictate the decision of someone else? Who's to say that this approach wouldn't work well for another individual? It's true that the Mahasi style of noting wouldn't appeal to everyone. There are many different approaches to samatha-vipassana people could apply. Personally, I prefer the pure sutta style approach . I just recommend MCTOB, because it's somewhat well known and there's a dedicated forum for people who go by that map. I think his description of the 'dark night', is a valid descriptor of a phase of experience that a lot of people have described going through. This phrase was coined from the experience of Christian Saint John of the Cross.

@ dmattwads Have you read Daniel Ingram's "Mastering The Core Teachings Of The Buddha"? That might be able to clear up some things about how to practice vipassana (assuming that you're applying a 'noting' style of vipassana.) It also describes the insight of anatta pretty well. Here's the website to download it in case you haven't already done that: http://integrateddaniel.info/book/

Well, just that in the suttas/sutras the sense of "I AM" is referred to as the "conceit of I AM," which is held as largely responsible for a sentient being's ignorance and continued suffering in cyclical existence. In Buddhism, an individual isn't free of the residual "I AM conceit" until arahantship is reached. This is emphasized because stream-enterer's up to non-returner's still experience the fetters stemming from ignorance, aggression, craving despite having severed clinging to 'Self-view.' Arahant's are free of both the 'eighty-eight deluded viewpoints' and 'eighty-one cognitive delusions.' [http://books.google.com/books?id=cFEfrVMdxiEC&pg=PT98&lpg=PT98&dq=eighty+one+cognitive+delusions&source=bl&ots=1HnU4r5nUa&sig=cbBJXXO-yYmEor9nYl0-UtJDH-4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tv17UZmuJ6WL0QHLqYCIAw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ] In actuality, it's (very) possible that someone can come across the experience of "I AM" (in the equipoise/post-equipoise period,) even if they weren't actively directing their efforts towards that direction. This is has been brought up in this thread by Daniel Ingram, author of MCTOB: http://jaytek.net/KFD/KFDForumOld/kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/3329416/Impermanence,%2BNo-Self%2Band%2BSuffering.html. Keep in mind this is an old article and that the MCTOB does not follow the traditional sutta categorizing of anagami, arahant, etc. Alex Weith has also changed his views based on his more recent experiences: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html I'm in no way discouraging anyone from takeing up self-enquiry a la Ramana Maharshi style or from pursuing this experience if they already came across it. Just that Buddhist practice is not focused on pursuing this experience and the suttas/sutras are very straightforward about regarding it as delusion.

Don't worry about what's being discussed in the posts not directed to you. It will only confuse you at this point in time. That's one way of doing it. Have you tried asking questions over on dharmaoverground or kennethfolkdharma? There are some experienced and knowledgeable people on there, who would be able to help you understand this stuff. I'm assuming that you are applying a "noting" style of vipassana, which is the main style of vipassana they tend to use on those forums. It also wouldn't hurt to read Bhante Gunaratana's "The Four Foundations Of Mindfulness In Plain English" or Analayo's "Satipatthana: The Direct Path To Realization" either. I've seen those recommended quite a few times (especially the former.) Gradually try to digest each set of instructions, making sure you understand the principles, while also experimenting in your meditation sessions. You're going to have to become self-reliant, especially if your applying these techniques without the aid of a meditation teacher.

When people speak of 'insight into anatta,' they are actually referring to the 3 marks/seals which is: anicca/'impermanence,' dukkha/'unsatisfactoriness,' anatta/'no-self.' This is insight of anatta in all three of its characteristics. If you want to know the purpose of vipassana, then these concepts are the place to start. I really can't explain it any better than how it is explained here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/munindra-on-anatta.html "Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing. As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on." You should also check out Walpola Rahula's "What The Buddha Taught." It's a good introductory book. http://buddhasociety.com/online-books/what-buddha-taught-walpola-rahula-9

Nah, the term 'shamatha' subsumes jhanas also. In communities that follow Theravada practice: you'll come across terms such as 'shamatha-jhana' and 'vipassana-jhana.' Vajrayana, for the most part, doesn't emphasize jhana. The 'nine stages of [calm-] abiding' in Tibetan Vajrayana is said to end at 'access-concentration,' which comes before the 1st jhana. Thoughts tend to stop by itself when I sit on the cushion. I've used mantra to reach the 1st jhana, whereby I would enter the 2nd jhana by focusing on its mental factors (IME, nimattas/'meditation signs' are not necessary for me to enter jhana.) No, not really. If that were true: then being unconscious or in a dull state devoid of course thoughts would count as 'shamatha.' Aren't you applying preliminary practices from Wallace's material? Why is this quote relevant? No one has actually mentioned Dzogchen practice in this thread.

IME, mantra as a meditation object can be used to enter jhana. I'm going to let you in on something, but only because this is the Buddhist sub-forum... The "I AM," is irrelevant to the practice of Buddhist meditation. It's considered a delusion in the Pali cannon and the Prajnaparamita Sutras of Mahayana. "Neutral awareness" is ignorance in Buddhism.

You have to experiment with this, figuring out which approach is more appropriate depending on the conditions of each particular session. Reading some commentaries to get detailed instructions, helps a lot also. Keep in mind, this will differ between those who follow the pure sutta approach, compared to those who follow the Visuddhimagga and Abhidhamma. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html "To exercise this power, however, mindfulness must be systematically cultivated, and the sutta shows exactly how this is to be done. The key to the practice is to combine energy, mindfulness, and clear comprehension in attending to the phenomena of mind and body summed up in the "four arousings of mindfulness": body, feelings, consciousness, and mental objects. Most contemporary meditation teachers explain Satipatthana meditation as a means for generating insight (vipassana). While this is certainly a valid claim, we should also recognize that satipatthana meditation also generates concentration (samadhi). Unlike the forms of meditation which cultivate concentration and insight sequentially, Satipatthana brings both these faculties into being together, though naturally, in the actual process of development, concentration will have to gain a certain degree of stability before insight can exercise its penetrating function. In Satipatthana, the act of attending to each occasion of experience as it occurs in the moment fixes the mind firmly on the object. The continuous attention to the object, even when the object itself is constantly changing, stabilizes the mind in concentration, while the observation of the object in terms of its qualities and characteristics brings into being the insight knowledges." "To practice Satipatthana successfully a student will generally require a sound theoretical knowledge of the practice along with actual training preferably under the guidance of a qualified teacher. The best source of theoretical knowledge, indeed the indispensable source, is the Satipatthana Sutta itself. However, though the sutta is clear and comprehensible enough as it stands, the instructions it offers are extremely concise, often squeezing into a few simple guidelines directions that might need several pages to explain in a way adequate for successful practice." http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1286373 How Practicing the Establishments of Mindfulness Leads to Meaningful Contemplation "Typically beginning meditators generally find that after a few weeks of practicing they run into a roadblock of some kind. "Nothing really happens when I sit. What should I be doing differently?" More often than not, this impression occurs with practitioners who do not have either a plan of practice to follow or a meditation teacher to guide them or both. They read a few books about meditation, become enthusiastic and decide to practice in order to pursue the benefits of practice, and begin with no firm conceptual purpose or guidance in place. This can also be the case when someone decides to take up Buddhist meditation. Because engaging in a practice based on Buddhist techniques can often be confusing and difficult to fully apprehend if one is not being lead by someone experienced in the practice. One of the first things to look for is: do I have a clear idea about what it is that I am to be doing and where it is going to lead me? Am I able to clearly see and verify the plan of approach so that it is distinctly and conspicuously set in the mind as a plan of action that will help me accomplish my goal: the ending of suffering. If a person has chosen the Buddhadhamma as their path to this goal, it becomes incumbent upon them to fully realize the gravity of their choice if success in the effort is what they seek. This means that one is assumed to have arrived at the full realization that the Path which the Buddha recommended is the Noble Eightfold Path, which means the development of Right View, Right Thought (or Intention), Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Contemplation (or Concentration). Each of these areas need to be attended to from the very beginning of the practice, right through until formal awakening occurs. After awakening occurs, it is assumed that they will continue to be practiced as a matter of mindful contentment. Those who are not clear about this path would do themselves a favor by reading and comprehending Bhikkhu Bodhi's small book The Noble Eightfold Path, The Way to the End of Suffering. But don't just read it and then set it aside, thinking that it is just a nice set of platitudes which are too difficult for you to focus your attention upon. If you are not willing to take the Noble Eightfold Path seriously, then you are not willing to take the practice itself very seriously either. If, however, you are serious about accomplishing this work, then do yourself a favor and become crystal clear and internally convinced about what it is that you wish to accomplish. Because otherwise, you will only end up sabotaging your own efforts and wasting your time. While reading the suttas about meditation can be helpful and used as a general guide for practice, it can often only make matters seem worse if one is unable to obtain further clarification when needed. Discourses like the Anapanasati Sutta or the Satipatthana Sutta, while they are very inspirational and encouraging, seem like they are for advanced practitioners and don't really seem to give the aspiring beginner any kind of practical idea about how to go about pursuing their instruction. One reads, for instance, about the four tetrads of mindfulness of breathing and becomes anxious. "How am I to practice all of this? I can barely remember the first tetrad while meditating, much less all the rest. My mind is too diffuse. What can I do?" This can become frustrating and demoralizing, leading a lesser mind to just give up. Yet, like anything else in life, one needs to realize that if they start out slow and gradually build up speed, that things are bound to get better. If you take each instruction as its own module and endeavor to develop just that one instruction, then eventually you will end up practicing and developing all the instructions like a master. Buddhist meditation challenges us to accomplish seemingly simple tasks, which in the end can turn out to be more difficult to accomplish than we first imagined."

When in doubt, refer to the Satipatthana (or Maha-Satipatthana) Sutta [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html.] In reality, this isn't so complicated once the principles are understood. Some good references are on dharmaoverground: http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1286373 http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1191517 Is this inspired by your personal approach to meditation? Or is this influenced by different sources (particularly B. Alan Wallace?) I'm just trying to understand where it is you're coming from: because there are many different approaches to meditation, especially when it comes to the means of applying 'insight meditation.' I want to address the highlighted part, because in the context of Buddhist meditation, this isn't a determining factor of practice and isn't even relevant. Particularly, in the Theravada tradition, vipasanna is based around the 3 marks (anicca, dukkha, anatta.) I haven't read this book on Munindra, but this is a good summary of the mechanics that make up vipasanna in the Theravada tradition: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Munindra "Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing. As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on."

When are you going to create a new thread? I want to violate it with pseudo-intellectual ramblings. I try my best, dwai. For someone of an inferior intellectual capacity, I sure worked up both you and 3bob pretty well.... If only you understood how hilarious all of this is to me.

One example of this in Vajrayana: Kamadeva - "The God of Love": http://www.virtualvinodh.com/mantra/236-kamadeva-mantra "The Buddhist Kamadeva": http://www.virtualvinodh.com/mantra/235-vajra-ananga-manjushri-the-buddhist-kamadeva

Vajrayana has practices specifically for attracting these types of things. If you feel that this will help you in some way, then I don't see what the problem is ::shrugs:: Bill Bodri explains, in his book "25 Doors To Meditation," how to use the Zhunti mantra to attract more wealth, a gf/wife, etc. Here's an article from his website that deals with this topic: http://www.meditationexpert.com/life-wisdom/l_karma_and_reincarnation.htm

Yes, always. As a "Buddhist" practitioner, I do not aim for the experience of "Oneness," but for the omniscience of Buddhahood which is free from all extremes.