Bumps on the Cultivation Path

[Maddie]

Joe, I use two techniques to still the mind. The first one is mantra meditation, where I just focus on the mantra being said to the exclusion of everything else. The other is the mindfulness technique that Dawg referred to in his thread about the spirit world (how I wish he would post again lol). I focus on the breath going in and out and mentally say Buh-doh. Buh on the inhale and doh on the exhale. When I find my mind wondering I just bring it back to that practice over and over.

 

Spotless. I'm not sure if I quite understand what you meant in your last post about changing computers?

 

This morning I did a two hour Vispassana session. I felt like a sports commentator about my own mind. I did not get involved with the actually content of the thoughts, but noted that I had them and what their content and quality was, as well as how they were being felt by me. I did notice when paying attention to how they were being felt that I felt a lot of pressure and sensation in the center of my chest going all the way up to the center of my throat.At one point I became aware of a thought/feeling that was quite unpleasant which felt like "I am nothing, I have nothing". I was able though to stay objective and observe it. Then after a while of observation of that thought the oddest thing happened. Added to my observation and commentary of "I am nothing, I have nothing" was "there is no I, there is no nothing". It made no sense to me, yet at the same time more sense than anything ever had. I still don't understand it, but it was interesting and I'd like to understand this.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Joe, I use two techniques to still the mind. The first one is mantra meditation, where I just focus on the mantra being said to the exclusion of everything else. The other is the mindfulness technique that Dawg referred to in his thread about the spirit world (how I wish he would post again lol). I focus on the breath going in and out and mentally say Buh-doh. Buh on the inhale and doh on the exhale. When I find my mind wondering I just bring it back to that practice over and over.

 

Hi D

 

I hate to break this to you, but you cannot still the mind using a mantra. You cannot enter shamatha using a mantra.

 

That is not what a mantra is for. Mantra repetition is for manifesting, cleansing, directing the prana or winds..

 

Look closely at what occurs during mantra repetition. When you first intend to sound the mantra, vocally or sub-vocally, the first place that activates is the lower tan tien (just below the navel and in). This is the chi that is going to empower the mantra. The chi comes up and then circulates in the throat chakra (which is also the chakra for dream activation). The chi (or prana) then flows to the areas of the body related to the particular sounds.

 

Case in point. Most mantras end in "mmm" or 'ng'. The purpose is to bring the circuit of chi/prana to the brow, or as close to the third eye as possible. Aum.. Om.. Aung, Om Mani Padme Hung.

 

Or, with other mantras, to bring the chi up and then back down, like Om Nama Shivaya. The last 'ya' takes the energy back down to the navel..

 

So what has all this directing of energy, filtering it through the throat chakra and moving around got to do with shamatha? Absolutely nothing!

 

How are you going to make a pool of water calm and still by throwing in pebbles every few seconds?

 

Let's see.. ok. repeat the mantra. ( the mind performs the task). Then it waits (or not) and thinks, "now I must perform the mantra again".. ( the mind performs the task). Observes that the mantra has faded, thinks again, " now I must perform the mantra again".. The act of initiating the mantra is using the mind. It is agitating the mind. How is the mud in the water bottle going to settle if you keep on shaking the jar?

 

The reason why breath meditation is so popular and is an effective tool, is because breathing goes on regardless of whether or not you are consciously performing the breathing. As a matter of fact, it is very hard to watch the breath and not control it. Breathing, when left alone, does not require any thinking. Thus, the mind can go to great depths of stillness because the mind has nothing to do but let go and watch.

 

Do you get these principles?

 

Even watching the breath while reciting a mantra, although it may be a good training tool for beginners, is also not something that will still the mind. Both of the methods that you have mentioned in your practice are not shamatha practice. The second could be called a 'mindfulness practice', but it will never still the mind.

 

This probably sounds like a broken record, but, if you are really interested in how to practice shamatha, I would get a hold of 'The Attention Revolution" by Alan Wallace. He explains everything quite well, all the steps, the phases of practice and more. It is quite an amazing book and will clear up some of the popular misconceptions that people have.

 

Also, the technique of dissolving thoughts, which is also a shamatha practice, is described by Alan Wallace in his Dzogchen podcasts. It is called "taking the impure mind as the path".

http://archive.org/details/IntroductionToDzogchenRetreatWithAlanWallace2012

 

This is also described by Tenzin Wangyal in the "Five Elements" book and other sources.

For example:

http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/tenzin-wangyal

 

Developing the capacity for clear light dreams is similar to developing the capacity of abiding in the non-dual presence of rigpa during the day. In the beginning, rigpa and thought seem different, so that in the experience of rigpa there is no thought, and if thought arises we are distracted and lose rigpa. But when stabliity in rigpa is developed, thought simply arises and dissolves without in the least obscuring rigpa; the practitioner remains in non-dual awareness.

Tenzin Wangyal

 

The technique of dissolving thoughts is also described in various Dozgchen books.

 

Hopefully that helps.

 

TI

[Maddie]

According to this article by Brodi mantra practice can be used to quiet the mind.

 

http://www.meditationexpert.com/meditation-techniques/m_mantra_japa_meditation_techniques.htm

 

Though the meditation I was using in regard to my last post was mindfulness of the breath, and observation of thoughts.

 

The mantra I'm currently doing is the Zhunti Mantra.

 

So I alternate between mindfulness and mantra.

[Spotless]

Mantra's and other techniques can definitely aid in moving toward stilling ones mind.

 

Everything Tibetian_Ice said regarding the use of Mantras was very good - additionally it can be added that for a certain time the use of Mantras or even counting as in the case of counting from zero to 100 and 100 to zero simultaneously are exercises that make it impossible for your "analyzer" to be functioning. In other words: the habituation to internal dialog and critique can be stopped during these exercises. This can and will help you to lessen this inclination and eventually become more successful in stilling your mind.

 

Mantras can also become quite automatic - like constantly playing a tune that is stuck in your head that you happened to hear on the radio. You will reach stages where you are in awareness with both your breath and a faint mantra in the background while you almost feel like you are wearing these things - the "I am" that is you lies aware in stillness - as these physical movements take place.

 

Whether your mind is still or not - the "I am" that is you is still - it is not in need of stillness - it does not need healing, it has no stain upon it - the steady "noise" of mantra, breathing and heartbeat do not hinder stillness - they will move to a frequency that is virtually inaudible - and you may notice them then only when they cease.

 

At times you will hear the heart beat in your eardrums, feel the winds as they move within and without - all things of this sort can distract you or not distract you - it is according to your work. Sometimes the ability to view from neutrality is greatly aided by a distant mantra - and you can postulate the effect of a mantra - or you can go with traditional forms and adherence to tonal "rules".

Edited April 25, 2013 by Spotless

[Simple_Jack]

Hi D

 

I hate to break this to you, but you cannot still the mind using a mantra. You cannot enter shamatha using a mantra.

 

IME, mantra as a meditation object can be used to enter jhana.

 

 

 

You will reach stages where you are in awareness with both your breath and a faint mantra in the background while you almost feel like you are wearing these things - the "I am" that is you lies aware in stillness - as these physical movements take place.

 

 

Whether your mind is still or not - the "I am" that is you is still - it is not in need of stillness - it does not need healing, it has no stain upon it - the steady "noise" of mantra, breathing and heartbeat do not hinder stillness - they will move to a frequency that is virtually inaudible - and you may notice them then only when they cease....

...Sometimes the ability to view from neutrality is greatly aided by a distant mantra...

 

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.

[Maddie]

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.

 

This whole "no-self" concept is confusing to me. Jack would you mind elaborating on it?

[Ish]

IME, mantra as a meditation object can be used to enter jhana.

 

Agreed. This is also based on experience not theory.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Agreed. This is also based on experience not theory.

 

So, who said that shamatha is jhana? And how do you know that your state was jhana?

 

You should not equate jhana with shamatha. They are two different words, two different concepts. The jhanas are mental states that you go through as the mind becomes more and more subtle and refined, even the formless jhanas.

 

According to all the literature that I've read, mantra repetition could possibly take you to the first jhana, but must be abandoned to get any higher. Even Ajahn Char, who advocates "Buddho" mantra breath meditation during non-meditating waking hours, has instructions for breath meditation that do not include mantra repetition.

 

But, here is the thing, you can still have thoughts all the way up to the eighth jhana. Having thoughts is a sign that the mind has not yet been stilled. So, technically, stilling the mind via shamatha takes you past the eighth jhana.

 

The jhanas are finer and finer levels of consciousness. When the mind is stilled, the whole coarse mind collapses. You experience the awareness, the golden field of light, collapse and shrink back down into the heart. There is an accompanying swoon and mini-death-like experience. That has been my experience.

 

And really, if you think about and had experience in it, you would have to ask yourself, if a prerequisite of shamatha is vitakka and vicarra, which is directed and sustained attention on one object, to the exclusion of all other objects, how can starting and stopping a mantra while trying to focus on what you are starting and stopping, be considered to be one continuous flow of attention? It is like running your own puppet show, and making pretend that you aren't actually making the puppet perform.

 

I did mantra repetition for 4 1/2 years without success. It wasn't until I sustained my attention on the "I" (first letter of the visualized mantra) that I experienced an astonishing samadhi that I didn't know was even possible. Everything got real bright, there was only the subject, observation and the object, and then all three fused together, with a great amount of bliss and pure consciousness. That is the event which made me realize that mantra repetition does not produce samadhi. That is what made me investigate patanjali's limbs of yoga: Dharana and Dhyana, whose counterparts in Buddhism are Vitakka and vicara.

 

Mantra repetition is not CONTINUAL SUSTAINED attention. Mantra repetition is not stability. You need the stabilization part; the continuous attention part. And, mantra repetition, the sounding off of sound, mental or otherwise, causes the throat chakra to activate, producing more and more dream forms and other manifestations. It's kind of like plugging the in-end (hose) of the vacuum cleaner to the out-end of the vacuum cleaner and just letting the dirt circulate. How is that 'stilling the mind'? You have to shut the vacuum cleaner off to still the mind, not stir up dirt and re-direct the flow..

 

 

TI

 

There may be Dzogchen in Buddhism, but there is no Buddhism in Dzogchen. - Alan Wallace.

[Ish]

So, who said that shamatha is jhana? And how do you know that your state was jhana?

 

You should not equate jhana with shamatha. They are two different words, two different concepts. The jhanas are mental states that you go through as the mind becomes more and more subtle and refined, even the formless jhanas.

 

According to all the literature that I've read, mantra repetition could possibly take you to the first jhana, but must be abandoned to get any higher. Even Ajahn Char, who advocates "Buddho" mantra breath meditation during non-meditating waking hours, has instructions for breath meditation that do not include mantra repetition.

 

But, here is the thing, you can still have thoughts all the way up to the eighth jhana. Having thoughts is a sign that the mind has not yet been stilled. So, technically, stilling the mind via shamatha takes you past the eighth jhana.

 

The jhanas are finer and finer levels of consciousness. When the mind is stilled, the whole coarse mind collapses. You experience the awareness, the golden field of light, collapse and shrink back down into the heart. There is an accompanying swoon and mini-death-like experience. That has been my experience.

 

And really, if you think about and had experience in it, you would have to ask yourself, if a prerequisite of shamatha is vitakka and vicarra, which is directed and sustained attention on one object, to the exclusion of all other objects, how can starting and stopping a mantra while trying to focus on what you are starting and stopping, be considered to be one continuous flow of attention? It is like running your own puppet show, and making pretend that you aren't actually making the puppet perform.

 

I did mantra repetition for 4 1/2 years without success. It wasn't until I sustained my attention on the "I" (first letter of the visualized mantra) that I experienced an astonishing samadhi that I didn't know was even possible. Everything got real bright, there was only the subject, observation and the object, and then all three fused together, with a great amount of bliss and pure consciousness. That is the event which made me realize that mantra repetition does not produce samadhi. That is what made me investigate patanjali's limbs of yoga: Dharana and Dhyana, whose counterparts in Buddhism are Vitakka and vicara.

 

Mantra repetition is not CONTINUAL SUSTAINED attention. Mantra repetition is not stability. You need the stabilization part; the continuous attention part. And, mantra repetition, the sounding off of sound, mental or otherwise, causes the throat chakra to activate, producing more and more dream forms and other manifestations. It's kind of like plugging the in-end (hose) of the vacuum cleaner to the out-end of the vacuum cleaner and just letting the dirt circulate. How is that 'stilling the mind'? You have to shut the vacuum cleaner off to still the mind, not stir up dirt and re-direct the flow..

 

 

TI

 

There may be Dzogchen in Buddhism, but there is no Buddhism in Dzogchen. - Alan Wallace.

In the quote i responded to it didn't mention shamatha, only jhana.

 

"Everything got real bright, there was only the subject, observation and the object, and then all three fused together, with a great amount of bliss and pure consciousness."

 

Thats what i experienced in a repeatable fashion with mantra. The quality of practice was good, complete focus and devotion in the mantra, going very deep into each syllable slowly. No other thoughts. Sounding the mantra mentally, hearing the mantra, being the mantra. Body disappears after some time then it all breaks down into the powerful bliss/light.

It could be as a result of energetic of devotion and deep focus.

Probably just first jhana. But yeah powerful and feel amazing afterwards.

 

I think the stability factor is a quality of mind you can generate not necessarily focused on a "gross" object. So you could use mantra as a platform into whatever state this is, then use a concentrated mind to meditate on the actual state, that becoming the "object" concentrated upon.

 

 

 

I didnt pursue it further as i dont practice mantra anymore, so i don't know where it can lead with more practice.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Ish

[Maddie]

The last few posts seem interesting, but could I ask you to dumb it down a bit cause I'm a bit lost :-/. That seems to be the case often in Buddhism at first with some new concepts I feel like a total moron and it can take me a while to "get it". Ok so I'll break it down into a few questions cause I'm confused.

What is the purpose of Mantra? I've tried out various mantras. Currently my practice consists of doing the Zhunti mantra and mindfulness meditation (separately). I don't want to give the impression that I think they are the same thing. I did the Zhunti mantra this morning, and mindfulness this evening.

Just as an aside I experimented with mudras today to see what they could contribute to my practice. The first one I tried was the Gyan mudra. I felt very sleepy, dizzy and out of it while holding this mudra. Then I changed to the meditation mudra with the thumb tips touching and quickly felt less sleepy. This evenings mindfulness session was very tedious, seemed like it took forever, but I guess that's how it goes sometimes. I tried to do to the best of my understanding observing my thoughts and simply taking note that they were there. I hope thats the right idea. At other times during mindfulness I do the "buddo" clear your mind method.

Why is it that sometimes meditation can seem relatively easy and feel quick, and other times like this evening it seems like slow torture?

Edited April 27, 2013 by dmattwads

[Simple_Jack]

So, who said that shamatha is jhana? And how do you know that your state was jhana?

 

You should not equate jhana with shamatha. They are two different words, two different concepts. The jhanas are mental states that you go through as the mind becomes more and more subtle and refined, even the formless jhanas.

 

According to all the literature that I've read, mantra repetition could possibly take you to the first jhana, but must be abandoned to get any higher. Even Ajahn Char, who advocates "Buddho" mantra breath meditation during non-meditating waking hours, has instructions for breath meditation that do not include mantra repetition.

 

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.)

 

 

So, technically, stilling the mind via shamatha takes you past the eighth jhana.

 

No, not really. If that were true: then being unconscious or in a dull state devoid of course thoughts would count as 'shamatha.'

 

There may be Dzogchen in Buddhism, but there is no Buddhism in Dzogchen. - Alan Wallace.

 

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.

[Maddie]

Does this sound familiar to those of you who cultivate? "Ok I'm doing pretty good, getting the hang of this, learning a lot, oh crap I don't know what I'm doing, I don't know anything, ok its not as bad as I thought, alirght I'm doing ok...... ?? lol

[Spotless]

it is interesting - for only a very short time in my practice did i actually vocalize a mantra.

 

Tibetian_Ice is referring to a vocalized mantra - it has been such a long time ago that I did mantras vocally that I do not think of them from this standpoint and I should have clarified that.

 

Creating the vibration does not require the vocalization - and its origination need not be in the vocal cord area though it is often habituated there.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Spotless

[Spotless]

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.

If taken in context my use of "I am" is not irrelevant to the practice of BM nor is it delusional.

 

Your use of "neutral awareness" is perhaps what you think but my use of the term is not considered ignorance in Buddhism.

 

The translations are always interesting - and I have been on the road of minutia to the extreme in my late teens and early 20s

but from what I can see much of what I would view here as hyper specific is often not very helpful to the person originally posting here.

 

If adherence to technique is what you are after then be my guest - my guidance is practical guidance with the particular student at hand.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Spotless

[Tibetan_Ice]

it is interesting - for only a very short time in my practice did i actually vocalize a mantra.

 

Tibetian_Ice is referring to a vocalized mantra - it has been such a long time ago that I did mantras vocally that I do not think of them from this standpoint and I should have clarified that.

 

Creating the vibration does not require the vocalization - and its origination need not be in the vocal cord area though it is often habituated there.

Hi Spotless,

I am not talking about only vocalized mantra. I am talking about vocalized (out-loud), subvocalized (no audible sound) but still using the location of the vocal chords to produce 'silent friction', super-subvocalized (relaxed throat but still using the linguistic function at the back left of the brain) , pure thought mantras (where you think the mantra) and intuited mantras (spontaneously manifested off the top of the head).

 

All of these methods of creating a repeating thought-form in all consistencies of coarse to finer gradients start with the navel chakra, which is the main source of the wind. The source is closely connected the will. Without the enactment of the will which is started by intent and brought to fruition through the combination of intent, will, source/prana/chi, nothing happens. There is no movement.

 

Now, you may say that there are three sources (dantiens/tan tiens etc), the navel, the heart and the brain (medulla). That is correct to a degree, but you will notice that when the head center collapses into the heart and the breathing stops, the navel center is still emitting its own energetic breathing. Therefore, I assume that the main controller for prana/chi/wind is the navel center.

 

Try this experiment. Start to sound off a mantra. but just before it becomes a sound or a mentally repeated thought, STOP. See what part of the body was first to move. It is the lower tan tien, the navel center. If you repeat this a few times, you will see that just by holding the initial intent, the navel chakra emits a flow of energy/heat/prana/wind. If you do this when you've completely relaxed the body, you will see that the energy from the navel first flows downwards towards the root chakra. When you perform any form of the mantra, you are taking that energy and transforming it into various formations, various vibrations, various manifestations of form.

 

You can't use form to reach the formless. Instead, you have to silence and still the winds. You can do that by dissolving the winds into the central channel. You can also do that by stilling the mind, by letting things be exactly as they are, dissolving on their own as is natural, until finally, all veils are dissolved revealing what lies beneath, has always existed and was in plain sight all along. Clear, vivid, infinite yet beyond these limiting concepts.

 

Gee, I'm starting to sound like a guru or something..

 

TI

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

This whole "no-self" concept is confusing to me.

Imagine a table. What makes it a table? Nothing really, it is simply a set of parts which has features, which we choose to classify as 'table'. Those parts could be arranged into something else. If we separate them, there is no table; and the table doesn't exist independently of its parts.

 

Therefore, the table is 'empty'.

 

Consider yourself. You are made of parts - the 5 skhandas. Like the table, you are not a fundamentally existing thing. There are just constantly changing and interacting processes... which can be conceptually labelled as a 'person'.

 

This isn't saying that you don't exist. Of course you do. But when you classify yourself as a person or an 'I' of any sort, that's a conceptual label which has no real substance to it, a way your mind tries to model reality.

 

It's like the world is there, then you draw a map and take that map to be the real thing. The map is just a way of interpreting the world.

[Simple_Jack]

This whole "no-self" concept is confusing to me. Jack would you mind elaborating on it?

 

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

[Simple_Jack]

The last few posts seem interesting, but could I ask you to dumb it down a bit cause I'm a bit lost :-/. That seems to be the case often in Buddhism at first with some new concepts I feel like a total moron and it can take me a while to "get it".

 

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.

 

 

This evenings mindfulness session was very tedious, seemed like it took forever, but I guess that's how it goes sometimes. I tried to do to the best of my understanding observing my thoughts and simply taking note that they were there. I hope thats the right idea.

 

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.)

 

 

Does this sound familiar to those of you who cultivate? "Ok I'm doing pretty good, getting the hang of this, learning a lot, oh crap I don't know what I'm doing, I don't know anything, ok its not as bad as I thought, alirght I'm doing ok...... ?? lol

 

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.

[Simple_Jack]

If taken in context my use of "I am" is not irrelevant to the practice of BM nor is it delusional. Your use of "neutral awareness" is perhaps what you think but my use of the term is not considered ignorance in Buddhism.

 

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

 

 

If adherence to technique is what you are after then be my guest - my guidance is practical guidance with the particular student at hand.

 

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.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

@ 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/

Edited April 27, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Maddie]

@ 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/

 

Thanks for the link. Ha ha I'm feeling better today. Yesterday, at least the second half of the day I sort of got stressed out about meditation. Pretty much the whole week I had been doing lots of it no problem. And then yesterday I was meditating and really hated it, and then started to feel like I was doing it poorly, and then started to feel like I didn't have any idea what I was doing. I think I was pushing myself too hard and that was stressing me out. I really do more or less understand mindfulness, I guess I was just in a weird place. Oh life.....

[Tibetan_Ice]

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.

Jack,

As Alan Wallace puts it, each persuasion has it's own version and interpretation of Shamtha, but the goal is essentially the same. However, I was discussing shamatha, and you brought in the jhana aspect of it.

The Dzogchen Shamatha practice is different from Theravada. Different in understanding and terminology.

Theravada commentators insist that the bhavanga is an intermittent phase of consciousness, which is interrupted whenever sensory consciousness or other kinds of cognitive activity arise. So it is not an ongoing repository of memories or any other mental imprints. Despite the fact that the bhavanga is described as the naturally pure and radiant state of awareness that exists whether or not the mind is obscured with defilements, this school—perhaps out of a concern that it be seen as a permanent, independent Self—denies that it is an ever-present substrate.

 

I believe Dzogchen contemplatives who have achieved shamatha gain access to this same dimension of consciousness, but they interpret it in a somewhat different way. The substrate consciousness (alayavijñana), as they call it, consists of a stream of arising and passing moments of consciousness, so it is not permanent; and it is conditioned by various influences, so it is not independent. But they do regard it as a continuous stream of consciousness from which all mundane cognitive processes arise.

 

Wallace Ph.D., B. Alan (2006-04-10). The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind: v.ution (pp. 121-122). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

 

I don't think you understand what you are saying. According to the "shamatha-jhanas" and "vispassana-jhanas", the first jhana is supposedly a shamatha jhana (along with the second, third and fourth material jhanas). If you are using mantra to gain accses to the first jhana, then you aren't in the first jhana. Or the second. Your self-assessment is erroneous. By the way, these variations and deviations, although popular today are not accepted by Alan Wallace.

 

I've heard this on many occaisions, by Ajahn Brahm, Shaila Katherine and others. If you do not realize the nimittas, you do not gain access to the jhanas. Now, no doubt you can find the opposite point of view, which there seems to be prevalent in Buddhism, as is the downfall of Buddhism (too many people saying opposite things), but when accomplished meditators say that you need to have nimittas to get to the jhanas, I believe them.

 

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.htm

 

WHEN THE NIMITTA DOESN'T APPEAR

For some, when the breath disappears, the nimitta doesn't happen. No lights appear in their mind. Instead, they are only left with a deep feeling of peace, of emptiness, of nothing. This can be a very beneficial state and should not be belittled, but it is not Jhana. Moreover, it lacks the power to proceed any further. It is a cul-de- sac, and a refined one at that, but it is incapable of being developed further. There are a number of methods to bypass this state, generate the causes for nimitta, and go deeper into the Jhanas.

 

 

 

You said: "If that were true: then being unconscious or in a dull state devoid of course thoughts would count as 'shamatha."

There is no relation there. Unconsciousness or a dull state devoid of thoughts is missing the 'vividness' and 'Clarity' that is characteristic of shamatha. You argument is faulty.

 

You said "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."

You just naturally assumed that shamatha is only Therevadan, thus it encompasses the jhanas etc. Alan Wallace's Dzogchen shamatha doesn't mention the jhanas at all, nor does he refer to different levels of jhanas.

 

The last thing I will say is this:

you said: "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."

 

Well, yes I have read Daniel Ingram's "MTCTOTB". I found it overly intellectual and complex. Further, I was not impressed with two things: the practice of noting is very similar to mantra repetition and does not lead to stilling the mind. If your mind actively participates in hunting for thoughts in order to note them, that is not a practice of "letting be". In order to note thoughts you have to grasp at them. You have to hunt them down, move your attention all around, keep your mind active. Besides, as one progresses in shamatha, there are so many thoughts that arise and pass that it is literally impossible to note them all. So, I don't believe what he says.

 

The other objection that I have to Daniel Ingram's writings, is that his teachings have a malicious thought-form of the "the dark night". If you spend time with his writings and give credence to his over-emphasis on the 'the dark night', it will soon envelope your karma too and become a reality. If the dark night were true, or worthy of so much note, then you'd find it in many other writings and teachings (Dzogchen included), but you do not.

[Maddie]

Continuing the Shamatha vs Vispassana discussion I have a question. So as I understand it in Vispassana you observe your thoughts, whereas in Shamatha you focus on one object. Now again as I understand it in Shamatha as thoughts arise you note them and then go back to your point of focus (be it breath, counting, a word, what ever). But what happens if thoughts just keep arising the whole time, no matter how long you meditate (I'm talking two hours sometimes). With a non-ending stream of thoughts to note one after the other this almost seems like it morphs in to Vispassana by default. Is there something I'm not understanding?

[Birch]

I'd like to know the answer to this too, but so far all I have found out is that thoughts do that. And the minute I become aware of 'no thoughts' then that by itself is one. Paradox and schmocks.

 

---2cts--opinion---not--concierge

[Maddie]

I'd like to know the answer to this too, but so far all I have found out is that thoughts do that. And the minute I become aware of 'no thoughts' then that by itself is one. Paradox and schmocks.

 

---2cts--opinion---not--concierge

 

Yes I'm so glad you said that because this happens to me often during meditation. I'm meditating and suddenly I become aware of a few seconds of emptiness and then I'm like "oh wow no thoughts..... duhooo!" lol