Meditation people roll call!

I think my whole involvement with meditation and metaphysics in general is coming from a place of wanting to find a way to exist here in the West in contemporary society. It seems to me that Eastern disciplines (perhaps like the ones referenced on this thread), though, are techniques that, in order to obtain real results, ultimately require the kind of seriously austere and disciplined lifestyle that is simply not possible if one is not interested in living a truly ascetic life.

That's why I think we need a "progressive" approach that goes beyond 1960s flirtations with the East. And, yes, that's what led me to interest in metaphysical practices and beliefs that fall under the "new age" umbrella.

whew. this thread. i only opened it to see if anyone else did TM :/

anyway. a lot of what jon lewis said is true for me too. i learned the technique more than 10 years ago now; i'm deeply sceptical about most of the trappings, but i have to admit the meditation aspect of it works for me. the mantra, from what i understand, is based on body size and shape more than anything else. hmm. whatever. maybe it's all balls. like i say: it works for me, on a basic level. that's all i need, or am interested in.

i let it slide for about three or four years and only got into it again recently when i got talking to someone else who practises it. i rarely do it twice a day; usually it's just mornings. today i got up late and didn't bother at all. but i genuinely feel it helps me keep a sense of perspective; sets me up well for the day in the morning, and can help me unwind at night.

YMMV, naturally. i'm no advocate; just a dude who's pleased he learned.

Tim, look into Dzogchen. It is seriously not ascetic. The whole point is that practice should not be separate from everyday life because what difference does it make if you can sit for a while calmly if you can't do it when it counts? There's a funny story before Dzogchen was recognized by everyone as authentic and ancient when a certain Tibetan buddhist accused a Dzogchen master by saying, "So you don't meditate, then?" and the Dzogchen master replied, "When am I ever distracted?"

Tim I assume yr at least marginally familiar with Jodorowsky but one of the big spiritual issues for him has been the rejection of various eastern traditions precisely because of their nihilism/asceticism. He doesn't accept that withdrawing from the world is a requirement for spiritual fulfillment.

x-post

...I thought many Buddhist sects (Zen, in particular) believed that withdrawal was not at all a requirement. That enlightment came from being fully engaged with the details of living.

Also: http://www.bozemanzengroup.org/

:D

I don't know how I didn't know about this!

Can I ask, though - is it a practice aimed at deflecting things? Is it a practice aimed at attaining a sense of detachment? Because I think those things are necessary, but only to a certain degree. I don't want a philosophy that's steeped only in a dogma of detachment. Ultimately, what I want is not to have to be detached or to be deflecting things that would otherwise hurt me. I want to progress into a mode of life where those necessities are much less of an issue - where the things that surround you and occupy your mind are positive and don't need to be deflected.

one of the big spiritual issues for him has been the rejection of various eastern traditions precisely because of their nihilism/asceticism. He doesn't accept that withdrawing from the world is a requirement for spiritual fulfillment.

Yes!

Was referring to dzogchen in my post.

I think if I was a monk I would find a very snowy, abandoner, freezing expanse and then like drink like crazy big bottle of chivas and die that way. You know, v. calmly burning to death. One-trick ponies.

Actually, Shakey, I listened to a Doreen Virtue recording about karma healing recently and she was talking about healing karma from past lives. Interestingly, one of the things she asked people to allow themselves to heal from was choosing lives of religious discipline involving celibacy in the past.

Tim, if you're asking me, Dzogchen is considered the Great Perfection. The ultimate teaching. Thereveda is slow and ascetic. Tantra is experiential and ascetic. Dzogchen is what you may be introduced to eventually, if you're lucky, by tradition, if you don't seek it out yourself. After years of asceticism, you may move onto tantric practices and deity yoga, mandalas and offerings, and then, if your master sees you have developed, but are becoming dependent on those things, will have you smash your mandala or whatever and move onto Dzogchen. There are all sorts of stories of realized practitioners who suddenly got up and shocked everyone by smashing their instruments and leaving or whatever. That's because they finally got past all those stages. If you start Dzogchen right from the beginning, you won't be asked to do 100,000 prostrations or anything. In fact, a lot of western Dzogchen students can be lazy and deluded about their development, because they're like "I'm above all that" without realizing they're not at all. All those preliminary practices of the lesser and greater vehicles are great tools for development. This is why people often warn against studying Dzogchen too soon. But, I say, if you've been reading about this stuff for a while, there's nothing better you could do than to read about Dzogchen. There are some classic works that just sort of split your mind open as you read them.

...I thought many Buddhist sects (Zen, in particular) believed that withdrawal was not at all a requirement. That enlightment came from being fully engaged with the details of living.

qft, viz various koans ala

MONK: What is enlightenment?
ROSHI: Have you finished your meal?
MONK: Yes.
ROSHI: Then go wash your bowl.

That's exactly what I was thinking of.

I want to progress into a mode of life where those necessities are much less of an issue - where the things that surround you and occupy your mind are positive and don't need to be deflected.

I neglected to answer this, didn't I? Yes, Dzogchen is exactly that. It is specifically NOT about deflecting things, actually. Everything "self-liberates".

From wikipedia:

In Dzogchen, self-liberation is achieved by discovering or recognizing one's own primordial mindstream and remaining in that natural state of primordial awareness in which all phenomena are experienced without creating karma through reaction, attachment, or conceptual labelling.

This is the kind of austerity I'm talking about - Don't create karma. Don't react. Don't become "attached." Don't label things.

Having come to believe in past lives and the idea that we chose the current lives we are living in order that we may fulfill particular purposes, I reject the idea that a lot of us should DETACH from these plans and desires.

I've been practicing for a while and I can tell you it's about as un-austere as buddhism gets.

HOOS OTM tho - where is this dominant part of the mind that is fooling all the other parts

the cerebral cortex.

Extricating your mind from noisy inner dialog is the opposite of your mind playing a trick on itself. It's experiencing the mind for what it really is (pure awareness) before it becomes distracted by thought.

are you really "experiencing the mind for what it really is" (let's disregard the tangled mess that "what it really is" is), or are you just *thinking* you are?

That wikipedia entry is misleading. In Dzogchen, the pervading feeling is that there is nothing to do. In all other forms of buddhism, the pervading feeling is that there is something to do. That simple shift in perspective makes a world of difference.

Whatever the position of the body is the correct one for integration with rigpa. Wherever the eyes are looking is where they are looking. Wherever the eyes focus is where their focus is found. Whatever arises in the Mind is already integrated with rigpa. The implicit instruction is that there is nothing either to change or to alter. There is nothing to do, nowhere to go, no practice to follow. If this is not immediately understood, questions are useless. There is nothing to ask because there is nothing to do beyond recognizing that you have never been anywhere other than the state of rigpa. If the practitioner is in the non-dual state, then of course there is nothing to do, and nowhere else to go.

Probably makes no sense, which is why I initially just said to check it out for yourself. ;-)

or are you just *thinking* you are?

As soon as you are thinking, you are not. But, if thoughts arise in the state of rigpa, you are.

"the pervading feeling that there is nothing to do" - in meditation or in life in general as a philosophy of detachment, not creating karma, etc.?

Dzogchen teachings go beyond conventional moral codes - including the principle of karma. The idea is that karma is not a mechanistic system of cause and effect but in reality an illusory manifestation of perception and response. This was very threatening to the religious hierarchy - and it still is. The sense in which karma was the 'form aspect' of pattern that played in relation to the 'emptiness aspect' of chaos was not judged to be conducive to maintaining social order. These teachings were therefore given in secret, as they were seen to be too dangerous for the general population.

Tim, in Dzogchen, the only thing you try to do is remain present. If you fuck up, big deal. Keep trying. Hard to explain, you know what I mean? Best to read about it because I can't do it justice.

And you can do all the other practices you want. It's not like you're supposed to stop ngondro or chod or kriya yoga or mantra or anything else that is working for you. But, the most common practices in Dzogchen are as simple or as complicated as you want them to be. That's why it's so easy to screw up, I suppose. For me, the studying helps, but I still do mantra and kriya and ngondro because I like it.

are you really "experiencing the mind for what it really is" (let's disregard the tangled mess that "what it really is" is), or are you just *thinking* you are?

-- Granny Dainger, Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:50 PM

It seems to me that you're trying to get Humean on perception by interpreting perception itself as a mental process. Am I right?

Btw guys I think it's really cool that an ILX thread on meditation has gotten so many responses.

Dzogchen teachings go beyond conventional moral codes - including the principle of karma. The idea is that karma is not a mechanistic system of cause and effect but in reality an illusory manifestation of perception and response.

I'm sympathetic to this and I think it's in accord with that Doreen Virtue meditation I was talking about before - allowing one to release karma. The principle difference still seems to me to be that the dzogchen philosophy is still proferred within the Buddhist principle of not acting and thus not accruing the karma (whether it's illusory or not) in the first place.

the Buddhist principle that advocates not acting, I should say

I've never heard of Doreen Virtue. I'll have to check that out.

Maybe bookmark for some time when you really got a lot of time on your hands :)
http://www.mandala.hr/1/groundpathfruit.html
There is some information on nonaction under the heading "Ground, Path and Fruition."

Uh... I didn't notice that "Ground, Path and Fruition" also happens to be the title of the full article. I meant, scroll down about halfway and there's another section with the same header title.

here's a simple one. sit somewhere quiet, in a comfortable poistion. close your eyes, and try to turn your brain off for two minutes. do not have a single thought for two minutes. If you can do this, you're pretty damn good. a trick that might help is to concentrate on a subtle physical feeling you might have, like your arm resting on your leg, or something like that. It's amazing how long 2 minutes can be (when you're not on ILX, hehehehehe)

are you really "experiencing the mind for what it really is" (let's disregard the tangled mess that "what it really is" is), or are you just *thinking* you are?

-- Granny Dainger, Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:50 PM

What I'm really driving at here is that we can play the "are you really ... or are you just THINKING ..." game all day. When one is really awake, though, it can't be expressed in words (or thoughts).

MONK: What is the living meaning of Zen?
ROSHI: The cypress tree in the courtyard.

The Prajnaparamita Sutra says:
Regarding mind:
Mind does not exist,
Its expression is luminosity.

I just started doing this. Granted I'm in the total beginning stages, i.e. "shut up for five minutes", so I'm not feeling that enlightened yet, but it is fun to imagine breathing through your forehead.

What I'm really driving at here is that we can play the "are you really ... or are you just THINKING ..." game all day. When one is really awake, though, it can't be expressed in words (or thoughts).

My point (if I have one at all. I'm not really as dogmatic about this as it may appear) is that "are you really" and "are you just THINKING" are identical. You can try to use your mind in different ways, to process sensation differently, but you'll always be bound to it. Of course perception is a mental process, how can it not be? Any experience that feels otherwise is an illusion (I don't get the har hars upthread in response to the brain playing a trick on itself. Perception is nothing but this!). There's something to be said for meditation, and if it helps you in anyway, I'm glad. I just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience that quasi-religious gobbledygook thrown on top of it.

Nobody should doubt perception is a mental process. In my post Granny originally responded to, I said that mind and nature of mind were inextricably linked (interdependent) and only to be separated for examination. Now, the question remains, "what is 'thinking?'" And how does examination of this question relate to the passage from the prajnaparamita:
Regarding mind:
Mind does not exist,
Its expression is luminosity.

Taken in conjunction with my comments on 'the mirror' above, this means that the mind's expression is nothing more than the reflection of things, which are all interdependent expression of the void. As all things do not exist in and of themselves, but as interdependent unity, Mind itself is the illusion of selfhood which buddhism denies. Try to explain what the mind is, what thinking is, and you wind up with empty definitions ad infinitum, a series of assumptions based on definitions for convenience which sum up the delusion of duality. Mind is invisible, clear and luminous like a mirror, which gives rise to reflection. This is the nature of mind. "Mind does not exist. Its expression is luminosity."

Mind itself is the illusion of selfhood which buddhism denies

This should really say "Mind gives rise to the illusion of selfhood..." Examining Mind and Nature of Mind in this way, gives rise to Nondual Awareness which eliminates the illusion of selfhood and is beyond thinking. GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SOHA is the Mantra of Wisdom of the Heart Sutra: "Gone, gone, gone to the Other Shore, attained the Other Shore having never left" or "Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond, Gone Completely Beyond, Awakened. So Be It."

I just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience that quasi-religious gobbledygook thrown on top of it.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 5:16 AM

We're in agreement, then!

I don't even know what that means.

HOOS OTM tho - where is this dominant part of the mind that is fooling all the other parts

the cerebral cortex.

lolz - consciousness does not have a physical center. the brain is a dynamic system with no central processor.

is there anything you aren't an expert on? all advance thought occurs in the forebrain is allz i was saying. lolz!

sorry dean, i'll try to put it in words you'll understand:
the lone lizard in the house of peace extends his vision to the noble warrior.

haha, that's funny.

The part I didn't get was this bit: just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience

I thought that's what reality was, scientifically speaking (a mystical energy field we only understand through experience).

...or maybe you'd like to rephrase that into a ludicrous strawman?

all advance thought occurs in the forebrain is allz i was saying.

I'm not a neurobiologist or anything but I have read enough to know that this kind of blanket generalization is not accurate and does not really describe how the brain functions. No single part of the brain functions independently of all the others.

what I'm getting at is that brain functions can't be compartmentalized as simply as that - for any given thought process, a bunch of different parts of the brain are going to be involved, even when some parts are playing a more dominant or central role. Current science has only the dimmest notion of how various brain functions are interrelated.

I just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience that quasi-religious gobbledygook thrown on top of it.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 5:16 AM

1. Reality exists.
2. Every moment we make decisions to ignore and escape from reality (that which is physically in front of us) and run into a little world in our heads. Rather than "he raised his voice at me," in our little imaginary world "he hates me and I keep doing this thing wrong, why oh why etc"
3. Zazen (that is, sitting on your ass and simply Sitting On Your Goddamn Ass, allowing thoughts to arise and disappear without following their Byzantine pathways) is a way of training the mind to focus on the present moment rather than scurrying away into safe and familiar imaginary corners. It's called "practice" because it's practice for applying that kind of focus and non-judgment to every moment in our daily lives.

Better?

kinda lacks the poetry of "the lone lizard in the house of peace" though

Yeah I gotta meet that lizard. I hear he's got great weed.

http://x53.xanga.com/5fbd957a67d33136696461/w100291663.jpg

Better?

Yeah, that was better. Who was talking about lizards and whatever?

Dzogchen meditation is actually called "contemplation" and does not resort to any reality escapage. It is regularly lived life with arising thoughts, existing reality and everything else lived in the state of rigpa.

A lot of people compare Zen and Dzogchen, like Thich Nhat Hanh, for example because they seem to be saying the exact same thing. There is a major difference between Zen and Dzogchen, though, which is lost on Zen practitioners.