Very unpopular opinions

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Why do you want to grade me 😁?

 

No meditation tradition can change a fair amount of stuff because simply it takes a different process and also more than one person to change them.

It's no accident that meditation is often classed as avoidance for doing the actual work on ourselves. It doesn't need to be avoidance, because it's a good tool, but all too often it often is.

I wasn’t trying to grade you but I just wondered where you derive the authority with which you speak about meditation.  I actually agree that it can be used as avoidance strategy - there’s a term for it which I can’t remember.   
 

I would suggest though that whatever knowledge you have may be incomplete as you seem to assume that people are saying things which they are not.  That’s all.

[snowymountains]

8 minutes ago, Apech said:

I wasn’t trying to grade you but I just wondered where you derive the authority with which you speak about meditation. 

 

The same one as you. Also perhaps the pointers re its gaps are not to be found in meditation, as after all otherwise claims around what meditation can do would had been more modest.

Edited June 1 by snowymountains

[Apech]

8 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

The same one as you. Also perhaps the pointers re its gaps are not to be found in meditation, as after all otherwise claims around what meditation can do would had been more modest.

Same as me? Really how bizarre.

[snowymountains]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

Same as me? Really how bizarre.

 

How so, the results of the authority meters don't match?

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

How so, the results of the authority meters don't match?

I have no idea what that means.

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

I have no idea what that means.

 

Since you asked for authority, I assumed you carry authority meters to measure it.

[Cobie]

On 02/06/2024 at 12:53 AM, snowymountains said:

… authority meters …

 

 

Edited July 19 by Cobie

[snowymountains]

4 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

 

 

Dad has the Tulku role 😂

[Nungali]

'Authority meters'   ? 

 

 

This one has a probe     

[Mark Foote]

15 minutes ago, Nungali said:

'Authority meters'   ? 

 

 

This one has a probe     
 

 

 

That's a beauty.

Back in the high school electronics lab, we used to sneak up behind our classmates while they were working on their power supplies, and give a shout.  220, knock 'em off the stool!

 

We didn't become experts in electronics, just in 220v.

 

Edited June 1 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

Why do we love Dao Bums.  This page, and the last part of the previous.

Edited June 1 by Mark Foote

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

 

That's a beauty.

Back in the high school electronics lab, we used to sneak up behind our classmates while they were working on their power supplies, and give a shout.  220, knock 'em off the stool!

 

We didn't become experts in electronics, just in 220v.

 

 

Btw. 220 with very little amperage flow can easily kill someone, same with 115 to a lesser extent !?

 

I got across 300 vdc once and it could have easily killed me, it felt like i image a javelin going all the way threw my chest would feel !!  Oh, and don't get downfield when track and field folks are throwing javelins.

 

Edited June 2 by old3bob

[Forestgreen]

5 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

It's no accident that meditation is often classed as avoidance 

The effect of meditation on the Self has a lot in common with dissociation, and a person that already have issues with the Self might fare better if that is dealt with first (dissociation is often classed as avoidance).

 

Not saying that concentrative breathwork and basic mindfulness are without use, but going deeper into a meditative process might be problematic.

 

The method most often called out for being an avoidance is the habit of slipping in to a cognitive empty no-self state. A state without thought and where the experience is that this is not happening to ME is definetly a problem if the goal should be integrating traumatic experiences. 

Edited June 2 by Forestgreen
Added stuff.

[Apech]

7 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

The effect of meditation on the Self has a lot in common with dissociation, and a person that already have issues with the Self might fare better if that is dealt with first (dissociation is often classed as avoidance).

 

Not saying that concentrative breathwork and basic mindfulness are without use, but going deeper into a meditative process might be problematic.

 

The method most often called out for being an avoidance is the habit of slipping in to a cognitive empty no-self state. A state without thought and where the experience is that this is not happening to ME is definetly a problem if the goal should be integrating traumatic experiences. 

Yes we’ve had quite a few conversations on here about spiritual bypassing - I don’t think that we should confuse meditation with therapy.

[stirling]

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

"That being, this is".  In a nutshell, dependent origination in action. 

 

I don't see that being said in those passages, though I would agree that just "being" is, from one conceptual perspective, dependent origination in action since the subject is no longer present in the mix when just "being" is occurring. 

 

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I don't read that as "upon emerging from the jhanas... you begin doing an insight practice", do you?

 

Not necessarily, but it could make sense. I can absolutely see the value of insight practice after resting in the formless jhanas at a variety of levels. When the mind is still many conceptual constructs, feelings, ideas, etc. can be deconstructed and liberated.

 

I am not concerned with whether or not we are talking about the Buddha's exact intention or words. I don't believe that any of the early Buddhist works are necessarily one person instructions that somehow maintained their fidelity in an oral traditions until someone finally wrote them down 500 years later. It is foolish to believe such a thing or maintain that there is some authenticity there that other works don't have. People commonly can't remember what they have just heard, or fail to notice obvious things in experience all of the time. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

 

https://www.livescience.com/6727-invisible-gorilla-test-shows-notice.html

 

As far as interpreting the Buddha: There have been countless realized beings since the Buddha, and more appear every day. Any of them might have invaluable insight and be able to teach from prajna. 

 

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

These states are not an end in and of themselves, unlike what the Buddha’s two teachers had taught him shortly after he’d left home to begin his spiritual quest.

 

I assume this is a Brassington quote? I am abundantly sure that Brassington teaches from a particular set of reference materials. That they don't match the ones YOU might choose is a shame (see above), but I don't think it has anything to do with the validity of his teachings, qualification to teach, or his knowledge and experience of the jhanas. 

 

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I would say Leigh is pulling rabbits out of his hat, with his history and his notion of the relationship between the concentrations and insight.  He is in good company, most of Theravadin Asia appears to have accepted the notion that concentration and insight come separately.  I don't find it so, in the first four Nikayas--insight is a byproduct of concentration. 

 

I have his book in a stack of books here to hand, so I'll share with you what he says his sources are. From the preface:

 

Quote

The translations in this book are based on the works of Bhikkhu Bodhi, Marice Walshe, and Thanissaro Bihikku. 

 

Quote

This book is based on the jhana teachings found in the suttas of the Pali canon. 

 

This is a link to the sources he uses, from the book:

 

https://www.leighb.com/links.htm

 

You can make up your own mind about whether these are authentic enough for your tastes. 

 

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

The principal difficulty in explaining the concentrations is "one-pointedness of mind".  That's a universal of concentration according to Gautama, and it has to be experienced. You've read Koun Franz's offering on the subject in my writings before:

 

It IS difficult to explain "one-pointedness". Why? Because you would be free of thought, which takes some training. This is why is not a factor in the 1st jhana, which is not formless. You also need a teacher that can verify or experience. 

 

What Koun Franz is talking about is not one-pointedness. Moving awareness around is interesting, but an activity of the mind. Deep absorptions like "one-pointedness" are not activities of the mind. 

 

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

...I wouldn’t recommend dedicating your life to it, but as an experiment, I recommend trying it, sitting in this posture and trying to feel what it’s like to let your mind, to let the base of your consciousness, move away from your head. One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.

 

( “No Struggle [Zazen Yojinki, Part 6]”, by Koun Franz, from the “Nyoho Zen” site
https://nyoho.com/2018/09/15/no-struggle-zazen-yojinki-part-6/ 

 

Franz recommends this as an experiment, not a central practice. Is it possible that, in moving your awareness around you might realize that awareness doesn't reside behind your eyes, but is actually wherever attention is and become enlightened? Sure! But it isn't a tool that gets emphasized for a reason. The Buddha, for example, doesn't recommend it, as far as I am aware. BTW, if this IS a practice that appeals to you, you should check out Loch Kelly's book "Shift Into Freedom" which is heavy on exercises where you move awareness around in space and "unhook" it from the mental thought processes.

[Taomeow]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

Yes we’ve had quite a few conversations on here about spiritual bypassing - I don’t think that we should confuse meditation with therapy.

 

I've learned to never meditate the "formal" way in order to solve, mitigate, bypass, or get a break from a real-life problem or mood.  Not for to "calm the nerves," alleviate anxiety caused by a real-life problem, attempt to bypass it, or "change my attitude."  It's the wrong tool.  It's akin to cracking nuts with your smartphone just because you don't have a nutcracker handy but want those nuts cracked.  You won't get far with the nuts and you will, in all likelihood, cause your phone to cease being that smart while at it.       

 

 

[stirling]

20 hours ago, snowymountains said:

It's missing out on a lot of things, omission is not limited to trauma, but don't have time to expand.

The tldr version is that overall they're good practices but also incomplete as a set of knowledge on many aspects and wrong on other aspects.

 

Like I said.... a last stab at it. We don't have to see eye to eye. Hope you are enjoying your weekend.

 

[liminal_luke]

41 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

I've learned to never meditate the "formal" way in order to solve, mitigate, bypass, or get a break from a real-life problem or mood.  Not for to "calm the nerves," alleviate anxiety caused by a real-life problem, attempt to bypass it, or "change my attitude."  It's the wrong tool.  It's akin to cracking nuts with your smartphone just because you don't have a nutcracker handy but want those nuts cracked.  You won't get far with the nuts and you will, in all likelihood, cause your phone to cease being that smart while at it.       

 

 

 

I agree, in a way.  Meditating to solve psychological problems is like dining at a Michelin star restaurant because you got caught up with things at work and forgot to eat lunch.  If a hotdog would do as well, don´t order the prix fixe menu with accompanying wine service.  That said, do you find that the perspective reached in meditation puts everyday problems in a helpfully different light?

Edited June 2 by liminal_luke

[Forestgreen]

34 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 It's akin to cracking nuts with your smartphone just because you don't have a nutcracker handy but want those nuts cracked.  You won't get far with the nuts and you will, in all likelihood, cause your phone to cease being that smart while at it.    

I would gladly sacrifice my smartphone if there were nuts needing to be cracked in the vincinity.

[Apech]

37 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

I've learned to never meditate the "formal" way in order to solve, mitigate, bypass, or get a break from a real-life problem or mood.  Not for to "calm the nerves," alleviate anxiety caused by a real-life problem, attempt to bypass it, or "change my attitude."  It's the wrong tool.  It's akin to cracking nuts with your smartphone just because you don't have a nutcracker handy but want those nuts cracked.  You won't get far with the nuts and you will, in all likelihood, cause your phone to cease being that smart while at it.       

 

 

THIS!!!!!!

[Taomeow]

13 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I agree, in a way.  Meditating to solve psychological problems is like dining at a Michelin star restaurant because you got caught up with things at work and forgot to eat lunch.  If a hotdog would do as well, don´t order the prix fixe menu with accompanying wine service.  That said, do you find that the perspective reached in meditation puts everyday problems in a helpfully different light?

 

Oh yes, definitely.  

Don't know about others, but for me, the important thing is not to put the cart before the horse.  Incidentally, in some shamanic traditions, the word for "meditation" is "horse."  You want your "horse" to gain strength by tending to it first -- feed and water and brush and care for it well, establish a trusting relationship.  You learn to ride it next.  And if you want it to also move the cart loaded with your problems, make sure you don't overload that cart -- and by no means put it in front of the horse so it has to push it out of the way continuously in order to get anywhere.  

 

But what you learn and experience in true meditation does help.  It starts by helping you "know thyself" first.  You discover the extent of some of your qualities -- e.g. endurance and patience, ability to focus, ability to tolerate physical discomfort (especially if you are a full lotus practitioner )) ) and the prudent limits to the above so you don't do more damage than good...  And then you can apply (first deliberately and eventually spontaneously) things you've learned and mastered in meditation to everyday problems.  The horse does help move that cart provided one doesn't go about it bass ackwards.    

[Mark Foote]

15 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

Btw. 220 with very little amperage flow can easily kill someone, same with 115 to a lesser extent !?

 

I got across 300 vdc once and it could have easily killed me, it felt like i image a javelin going all the way threw my chest would feel !!  Oh, and don't get downfield when track and field folks are throwing javelins.

 

 

I sympathize, old3bob!

DC, froze you to the contact?

 

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I don't see that being said in those passages, though I would agree that just "being" is, from one conceptual perspective, dependent origination in action since the subject is no longer present in the mix when just "being" is occurring. 

 

 

 

And there is only this degree of disturbance, that is to say the six sensory fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded on this body itself. (One) regards that which is not there as empty of  it.  But in regard to what remains [one] comprehends:  'That being, this is.'  

 

I would say he's talking about "things as it is", to quote Suzuki.  One thing to another, cause and effect, right now.  An experience, as opposed to an understanding.  

Can't say that I've had the experience, though!

 

 

Quote

 

I am not concerned with whether or not we are talking about the Buddha's exact intention or words. I don't believe that any of the early Buddhist works are necessarily one person instructions that somehow maintained their fidelity in an oral traditions until someone finally wrote them down 500 years later. It is foolish to believe such a thing or maintain that there is some authenticity there that other works don't have. People commonly can't remember what they have just heard, or fail to notice obvious things in experience all of the time. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

 

https://www.livescience.com/6727-invisible-gorilla-test-shows-notice.html

 

As far as interpreting the Buddha: There have been countless realized beings since the Buddha, and more appear every day. Any of them might have invaluable insight and be able to teach from prajna. 
 

 

 

A. K. Warder in his "Buddhist India" actually goes so far as to attribute the sutta pitaka to Ananda:

 

The 'doctrine' was first recited by Ananda, who being the Buddha's personal attendant had heard more than anyone else.  Kasyapa asked him about all the dialogues, etc., he remembered, and the assembly (at the First Rehearsal) endorsed his versions as correct. The doctrine thus compiled became known as the Sutra Pitaka, the collection of sutras (the term 'pitaka' probably signifies a 'tradition' of a group of texts).

 

(2nd ed., p 200)

 

... in Ceylon, at least, in the Sthaviravada School, it is recorded that the monks were organised into groups specializing in each of the agamas or the Vinaya or the Abhidharma, handing these texts down to their pupils and so maintaining the tradition.  In fact even ten years after his full 'entrance' into the community, a monk was expected to know, besides part of the Vinaya obligatory for all, only a part, usually about a third, of his agama, and these basic texts are pointed out in the Vinaya.

(ibid, p 206)

 

Ok, apparently that's accepted history in the Theravadin tradition, not just Warder.

 

A quick online search doesn't immediately confirm Ananda's eidetic memory, but I found:

 

From section 3.2 of the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali:

 

For several hundred years, from the time that separate transmission lineages emerged in the Asokan period until the texts were written down, the EBTs (Early Buddhist Texts) were passed down orally in separate textual lineages. Comparative studies have shown that this oral transmission was highly reliable and that the core doctrinal material was essentially unchanged. How did this work, given what we know about the unreliability of memory? Indian culture provided the template for highly reliable oral preservation. It is known that the Ṛg Veda and other Vedic texts were transmitted orally—that is, by memory—with extreme accuracy for over two thousand years.

 

 

A modern instance of eidetic (photographic) memory in the Order:

 

In 1985, the Guinness Book of Records recorded the sayadaw (Mingun_Sayadaw) as a record holder in the Human memory category. The exact entry was Human memory: Bhandanta Vicitsara (sic) recited 16,000 pages of Buddhist canonical text in Rangoon, Burma in May 1954. Rare instances of eidetic memory -- the ability to project and hence "visually" recall material-- are known to science.
 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingun_Sayadaw)
 

 

You're right, lots can happen when texts are handed down orally.  I'm satisfied that the voice in most of the first four Nikayas is unique and consistent, and that the content of those sermons regarding mindfulness and concentration have no counterpart in any of the other religious literature of the world.
 

 

Quote

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

These states are not an end in and of themselves, unlike what the Buddha’s two teachers had taught him shortly after he’d left home to begin his spiritual quest.

 

I assume this is a Brassington quote? I am abundantly sure that Brassington teaches from a particular set of reference materials. That they don't match the ones YOU might choose is a shame (see above), but I don't think it has anything to do with the validity of his teachings, qualification to teach, or his knowledge and experience of the jhanas. 
 

 

 

Yes, a Brassington quote.  

I don't think you're going to find anything in the first four Nikayas that supports his account of the history, or his opinion about the concentrations, no matter whose translation you use.
 

 

Quote

 

It IS difficult to explain "one-pointedness". Why? Because you would be free of thought, which takes some training. This is why is not a factor in the 1st jhana, which is not formless. You also need a teacher that can verify or experience. 
 

I grant you, that there are sermons in the first four Nikayas that associate "one-pointedness" with the second concentration, instead of the first.  I did find something that seems clear on the topic:
 

“And what… is the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations, with the accompaniments?  It is right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness.  Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components , this… is called the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations and the accompaniments.”

 

(Pali Text Society, MN III 71vol III p 114; similar at SN V 17; “noble” substituted for Ariyan)
 

 

That would say that if right concentration exists, "one-pointedness" exists.

 

Thought "initial and sustained" is a characteristic of the first concentration.  That  would say that thought and "one-pointedness" are not mutually exclusive.

Gautama described his way of living, before and after enlightenment, as sixteen thoughts initial and sustained, each in connection with an inhalation or an exhalation.  He claimed that such an "intent concentration on inbreathing and outbreathing" was his way of living "most of the time" and especially in the rainy season.  

He also said that at the end of his discourses, he returned to "that first characteristic of concentration in which I ever constantly abide (Pali Text Society MN I 249, vol I p 303)".

I would therefore surmise that he spent most of his time in the first concentration (since it's the only one with thought initial and sustained), but the "contemplation of cessation" in his thought initial and sustained, particularly in connection with a particular inbreath or outbreath, allows for a return to the fourth concentration when circumstances warrant (by means of the "survey-sign" of the concentration).

 

Tell me now, who is teaching these things?

 

 

Quote

 

What Koun Franz is talking about is not one-pointedness. Moving awareness around is interesting, but an activity of the mind. Deep absorptions like "one-pointedness" are not activities of the mind. 
 

 

 

How in the world did you get that Koun Franz is "moving awareness around" from what he said?

 

One thing you’ll find, or that I have found, at least, is that you can’t will it to happen, because you’re willing it from your head. To the extent that you can do it, it’s an act of letting go–and a fascinating one.

 

 

I'll agree that "one-pointedness" is not an activity of the mind, not an habitual or volitive activity of the mind.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Franz recommends this as an experiment, not a central practice. Is it possible that, in moving your awareness around you might realize that awareness doesn't reside behind your eyes, but is actually wherever attention is and become enlightened? Sure! But it isn't a tool that gets emphasized for a reason. The Buddha, for example, doesn't recommend it, as far as I am aware. BTW, if this IS a practice that appeals to you, you should check out Loch Kelly's book "Shift Into Freedom" which is heavy on exercises where you move awareness around in space and "unhook" it from the mental thought processes.

 

 

 

I think you make an excellent point there, when you say that "awareness doesn't reside behind your eyes".  The eyes have a particularly strong connection to the part of the brain concerned with equalibrioception, graviception, and proprioception, and they can reset the sense of location.  I would say that's why most people feel that their consciousness, the consciousness they associate with "I am", resides in the head behind the eyes.

 

"... you might realize that awareness doesn't reside behind your eyes, but is actually wherever attention is and become enlightened?"--

Let the mind be present without an abode.

 

("Diamond Sutra", tr. Venerable Master Hsing Yun, from “The Rabbit’s Horn: A Commentary on the Platform Sutra”, Buddha’s Light Publishing p 60)

 

 

Loch Kelly could be talking about "making self-surrender the object of thought, one lays hold of concentration, one lays hold of one-pointedness", hard to say.  Doubt he gets into what comes next, though!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 2 by Mark Foote

[Nungali]

On 6/2/2024 at 9:35 AM, Mark Foote said:

 

 

That's a beauty.

Back in the high school electronics lab, we used to sneak up behind our classmates while they were working on their power supplies, and give a shout.  220, knock 'em off the stool!

 

We didn't become experts in electronics, just in 220v.

 

 

Think yerselves lucky ... my brother-in-law informed me that when he worked for Telecom , the 'in' practical joke was to connect 24v up to the stainless steel Men's room urinal trough .

[stirling]

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

And there is only this degree of disturbance, that is to say the six sensory fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded on this body itself. (One) regards that which is not there as empty of  it.  But in regard to what remains [one] comprehends:  'That being, this is.'  

 

I would say he's talking about "things as it is", to quote Suzuki.  One thing to another, cause and effect, right now.  An experience, as opposed to an understanding.

 

Yes, probably. 

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

Can't say that I've had the experience, though!

 

I'm sure you have, actually. It happens all the time! Have you ever had a teacher point out emptiness to you? With some repetition it is easy to begin to recognize how it happens both naturally, and in meditation practice all the time.

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

You're right, lots can happen when texts are handed down orally.  I'm satisfied that the voice in most of the first four Nikayas is unique and consistent, and that the content of those sermons regarding mindfulness and concentration have no counterpart in any of the other religious literature of the world.

 

I appreciate your enthusiasm. Historical authenticity, when it comes to the Buddha's teachings, doesn't concern me. Speaking for myself, I would trade the Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra for the entirety of the the Pali Canon texts. I am very grateful to the Buddha for his teachings, but also to any number of masters, including my personal teachers. In my opinion, living teaching teachers teach a living dharma that has a skillfulness we can't get from reading texts. The central thing that links good practices and teachings is a teacher's level of understanding, whether is it Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Sufi, Hindu, Dao, or whatever. Skillful teachings get recognized and spread. Realized beings can recognize skillful teachings immediately as they are illuminated by emptiness (Prajna).

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

I don't think you're going to find anything in the first four Nikayas that supports his account of the history, or his opinion about the concentrations, no matter whose translation you use.

 

Perhaps. I will never know, I don't intend to go looking.  If you are interested in the source of his teaching, you could ask him. I have heard he is an enthusiastic and friendly emailer. 

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

I grant you, that there are sermons in the first four Nikayas that associate "one-pointedness" with the second concentration, instead of the first. 

 

I don't think you get one-pointedness until 4th jhana, actually, which is the first of the "formless" jhanas. In 4th jhana the factors of sukha and dukka drop away and there is just equanimity and emptiness. 

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

I did find something that seems clear on the topic:
 

“And what… is the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations, with the accompaniments?  It is right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness.  Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components , this… is called the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations and the accompaniments.”

 

(Pali Text Society, MN III 71vol III p 114; similar at SN V 17; “noble” substituted for Ariyan)
 

 

That would say that if right concentration exists, "one-pointedness" exists.

 

Yes. The Noble Eightfold Path is actually the experience of enlightened mind... aspirational until there is insight. Acting from Wisdom (Prajna) perfects all of the "rights". 

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

Thought "initial and sustained" is a characteristic of the first concentration.  That  would say that thought and "one-pointedness" are not mutually exclusive.

 

First jhana is concentration on the sensation of piti. There is still thought. I don't think it is possible that thought and one-pointedness co-exist.

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

Gautama described his way of living, before and after enlightenment, as sixteen thoughts initial and sustained, each in connection with an inhalation or an exhalation.  He claimed that such an "intent concentration on inbreathing and outbreathing" was his way of living "most of the time" and especially in the rainy season.  

I would say he spent most of his time in the first concentration, but the "contemplation of cessation" in his thought initial and sustained, particularly in connection with a particular inbreath or outbreath, allows for a return to the fourth concentration when circumstances warrant (by means of the "survey-sign" of the concentration).

 

Once our man Syd became an Arhat his mind would naturally have defaulted to a formless jhana in day to day consciousness. I would say 5th because it is the perfection of equanimity.

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

How in the world did you get that Koun Franz is "moving awareness around" from what he said?

 

Wherever you place your attention, whatever object you use in meditation, THERE is your awareness. I have come across similar practices before. My own late teacher taught a version of something Suzuki taught to work with pain that she learned from her teacher (herself a student of Suzukis) where you put your attention on the discomfort and through a series of examinations take apart it's qualities and permanence. 

 

Quote

Some people will say this means to place your attention here, meaning to keep your attention on your hands. - Koun Franz

 

There appears to be a similar instruction here, to me.

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

I think you make an excellent point there, when you say that "awareness doesn't reside behind your eyes".  The eyes have a particularly strong connection to the part of the brain concerned with equalibrioception, graviception, and proprioception, and they can reset the sense of location.  I would say that's why most people feel that their consciousness, the consciousness they associate with "I am", resides in the head behind the eyes.

 

Yes, I would agree with you. Using exercises where we move awareness we can take that apart a bit and see that the awareness we are comes from where awareness rests. Ultimately the Ayatana (senses) are seen to be empty... without specific location, not belonging to a self, happening now (see your Suzuki quote above).

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

Loch Kelly could be talking about "making self-surrender the object of thought, one lays hold of concentration, one lays hold of one-pointedness", hard to say.  Doubt he gets into what comes next, though!

 

Find out for yourself if you are curious.