Learning meditation with no religious inclinations

[trd]

No apology necessary. Actually if the ego gets bruised, this in itself is useful knowledge. It may cause you to focus on that which is not you.

[rockyysdt]

Apologies, Mr TRD. It was Mr Rockyysdt that got upset

Hi B.

I was puzzled that you thought I was upset.

Two dimensional (forum) discussions can be very limited in regard to what one is attempting to convey.

Sorry you thought I was upset.

Perhaps I should choose my words more carefully.

No bruising of ego, just interested in airing some unresolved issues about understanding what was taught by the Buddha.

A major part of Buddhist practice is to see the "I" (ego) for what it is, a construct.

My dilemma is the end result, "Annata" (self/not self) which suggests there is nothing (“Deeds are done but there is no doer of.”).

One virtually must dedicate their life to practice in order to even a slim chance of climbing the pinnacle.

The reward being that ones "ego" will be witness to the cessation of suffering, & voidness of self/not self.

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu quotes the Buddhas conclusion:

The Buddhas principal of not self denies self in all respects, both conditioned and unconditioned, or in other words, both that side in front of the curtain and that behind the curtain.

Why would we embrace such a path if we are impermanent and conditioned and will not endure the journey?

Conditioned and impermanent as we are, this is all we have.

Isn't that which the ego marches towards always was and always will be regardless of us?

Edited January 19, 2014 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

So where do you go from here?

Continue to to practice Mindfulness & Meditation.

These are basic tools which we can add to exercise, good diet, and lifestyle free from harm to others.

In terms of Awakening, this involves religion and needs more consideration.

[trd]

If awakening required religion, then it would be a mere concept which it is not. Awakening is simply being who you are. Meditation is an aid to putting the attention on the only thing you can be certain of, the sense of I am. This sense of I am is time bound and is impermanent. But by abiding with the I am, with perserverence, there is the final dissolution of even that "I" which is the primary thought of individual consciousness so that what remains is unbounded choiceless awareness, your true nature, which is imperishable. It is peace of mind - I am that I am.

So turning full circle, I will repeat my response to you on 4 January.

Do you want to wake up to your true nature or do you want to get lost in scripture and dogma?

[Brickbat]

Friends, Romans, Countrymen

How about a big whack with a Brickbat!!

I plan to " get lost" . Hopefully lose my mind along the way.

"We all end in the ocean, we all start in the stream

And we're carried along by the river of dreams". Crooned Billy

It's been nice chatting.

[rockyysdt]

If awakening required religion, then it would be a mere concept which it is not. Awakening is simply being who you are. Meditation is an aid to putting the attention on the only thing you can be certain of, the sense of I am. This sense of I am is time bound and is impermanent. But by abiding with the I am, with perserverence, there is the final dissolution of even that "I" which is the primary thought of individual consciousness so that what remains is unbounded choiceless awareness, your true nature, which is imperishable. It is peace of mind - I am that I am. So turning full circle, I will repeat my response to you on 4 January. Do you want to wake up to your true nature or do you want to get lost in scripture and dogma?

In theory you are correct.

Until we have first hand experience isn't this still theory?

Correct practice is a fine line.

We strive to wake up to true nature, but are we simply replacing old conditioning with new conditioning?

It seems that we can't have it both ways.

On one hand our practice makes us feel good, and peaceful and allows us to grow new positive habits and mind states (all revolving around "I" to experience them).

While on the other hand "the Buddhas principal of not self denies self in all respects, both conditioned and unconditioned, or in other words, both that side in front of the curtain and that behind the curtain".

This suggests that our "true nature" is also an illusion or construct.

If one habitually goes into a meditative state with a picture of what "true nature" is then eventually this will become your new conditioning.

For example, your idea of true nature is: "unbounded choiceless awareness, your true nature, which is imperishable".

Someone else may have a different opinion of what true nature is.

Thus we enter religion.

Edited January 20, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

In theory you are correct.

In reality I am correct.

Until we have first hand experience isn't this still theory?

Absolutely. We could apply this to anything. If I said you will get fit if you work out in the gym every day, you could say it's just a theory. You can do one of two things. Do nothing or go to the gym and see what happens. The choice is yours. But you have raised a very valid point. A certain amount of faith is required to take the necessary steps. You can call it grace.

Correct practice is a fine line.

Yes correct practice is important. That is why a knowledgeable guide can be helpful.

We strive to wake up to true nature, but are we simply replacing old conditioning with new conditioning?

Absolutely not! It is the striving that is the mistake. You think you are a seeker on a path. There is no path. What you are seeking is nothing but yourself. Conditioning requires a subject object relationship. Your true nature is just the knower, the subject, so who is there to be conditioned ?

It seems that we can't have it both ways.

That is because in this present time, you are unable to experience no conditioning. That is why you are on the "path". You are very fortunate. There are very few who seek answers as you do.

On one hand our practice makes us feel good, and peaceful and allows us to grow new positive habits and mind states (all revolving around "I" to experience them). While on the other hand "the Buddhas principal of not self denies self in all respects, both conditioned and unconditioned, or in other words, both that side in front of the curtain and that behind the curtain".

You have to let go of all conditioning, good and bad. This is perfectly in accord with what Buddha taught about the unconditioned mind. What is often misunderstood is that when Buddha spoke of no self (annata) he was referring to the small self ( the Freudian self) which has no real existence. In advaita vedanta it is the big Self (atma) which is referred to which is the same as what is called emptiness in buddhism.

This suggests that our "true nature" is also an illusion or construct.

It is what you call the real world that is the illusion. It comes and goes which your true nature does not. It is beyond any illusion or construct.

If one habitually goes into a meditative state with a picture of what "true nature" is then eventually this will become your new conditioning.

Then you are not meditating.

For example, your idea of true nature is: "unbounded choiceless awareness, your true nature, which is imperishable".

Unbounded choiceless awareness is not an idea. The sky is blue. Is that an idea?

Someone else may have a different opinion of what true nature is.

Then it is simply that. An opinion.

Thus we enter religion.

What is you definition of this word religion?

[rockyysdt]

What is often misunderstood is that when Buddha spoke of no self (annata) he was referring to the small self ( the Freudian self) which has no real existence. In advaita vedanta it is the big Self (atma) which is referred to which is the same as what is called emptiness in buddhism. This suggests that our "true nature" is also an illusion or construct. It is what you call the real world that is the illusion. It comes and goes which your true nature does not. It is beyond any illusion or construct. If one habitually goes into a meditative state with a picture of what "true nature" is then eventually this will become your new conditioning. Then you are not meditating. For example, your idea of true nature is: "unbounded choiceless awareness, your true nature, which is imperishable". Unbounded choiceless awareness is not an idea. The sky is blue. Is that an idea? Someone else may have a different opinion of what true nature is. Then it is simply that. An opinion. Thus we enter religion. What is you definition of this word religion?

Atma/atman/nirvana/big self.

It depends who you talk to, or whose interpretations you subscribe to.

Buddhagosa, in the 5th century, with Christian eyes interpreted the Buddha's teachings to include such constructs as the big self.

Quote:

Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could lead to Nirvana.

His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed, step by step guide to enlightenment. And yet in the postscript he says he hopes that the merit he has earned by writing the Vishuddhimagga will allow him to be reborn in heaven, abide there until Metteyya appears, hear his teaching and then attain enlightenment.

Others, such as Buddhadasa, not accepting doctrines just because this is how we've known it/practiced it for centuries, went back to the Buddhas earliest discourses.

Specifically "Sutta Pitaka".

Here he found that what the Buddha was actually teaching was that Nirvana/Atman/Big Self is also a construct.

The last refuge beyond the small "I".

He learned that to fully awaken one must also give up the notion of Nirvana/Atman/Big Self for these are also illusion.

For me religion is about that which relates to impermanent/unconditioned/infinite.

That which can never be defined.

That which is beyond the impermanent/finite/conditioned.

All we need do is ask ourselves, "Why do we seek our true nature?".

There you will find ego.

Edited January 20, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

For me religion is about that which relates to impermanent/unconditioned/infinite.

That which can never be defined.

That which is beyond the impermanent/finite/conditioned.

Then just go there and forget about these various interpretations that will continue until the end of time.

Edited January 20, 2014 by trd

[trd]

I"m not interetested in your ideas. You will have different ideas next month, in the next five minutes, so what?

Just be here now. Can anything be simpler.

[rockyysdt]

For me religion is about that which relates to impermanent/unconditioned/infinite. That which can never be defined. That which is beyond the impermanent/finite/conditioned. Then just go there and forget about these various interpretations that will continue until the end of time.

Don't get me wrong TRD.

I'm all for practice.

What I'm saying is that its better to forget about anything religious/supermundane as we will never find it.

Then was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.

What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?

There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Edited January 20, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

With the greatest respect Rockyystd, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited January 20, 2014 by trd

[trd]

Perhaps you should tell me exactly what your practice is.

[Brickbat]

2 minds battling it out to fix a problem it created. Ha ha hah

Maybe Einstein was dead wrong when he said that the thing that creates a problem can never fix it.

Jam your finger in a door. You will be in the moment. One pointed concentration.

Chasing happiness is the surest way to miss it .

Maybe that should provide a clue????

[rockyysdt]

With the greatest respect Rockyystd, I have no idea what you are talking about.

No problem trd.

It's my personal dilemma.

At the crossroads of trying to determine what the Buddha actually taught.

Is his teaching a way for a human to grow to his best potential in this life, or

is his teaching a gateway to Nirvana and escape from the endless rounds of re birth & suffering (metaphysical)?

Practice, well, just the usual thing.

• Sitting Meditation.
• Mindfulness.
• Observance of the five precepts.

Meditation revolving around mindfulness of breath, of body, of thoughts, of feelings, & our interaction with the external.

Sitting meditation in the early phase of anapanasiti.

Investigate the short breath.

Investigate the long breath.

Fine tune the long comfortable uncontrolled breath.

When mind wanders gently observe for tension in the body and let go, and re focus on the long comfortable uncontrolled breath.

Follow the breath all the way down to the diaphragm, and then follow breath out with careful attention to the point between the in and out breath.

You indicated you had no idea what I was talking about.

The poem touches on the inability of that which dwells in the physical to be able to grasp or understand that which is of the metaphysical (religion).

Things like the origin of the world, soul, life after death, re birth into many lives, nirvana and other things. Even "true nature".

That's why all we can do is discuss/debate, but with no answers.

My interest lies in what the Buddha actually taught.

I've learned over the years there are many interpretations/expectations.

I suppose that's why many (as the title suggests) value meditation without religious inclination.

Edited January 21, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

The only way to find out what the Buddha actually taught is to stop thinking about what the Buddha actually taught.

[rockyysdt]

The only way to find out what the Buddha actually taught is to stop thinking about what the Buddha actually taught.

You're correct.

Although discussion has been good for me as I have learned considerably about practice.

Discussing what the Buddha actually taught is also helpful to an extent.

Dharma is an important ingredient. It's our road map/user guide.

It's been said several times by others that practice without Dharma is purposeless.

If one misinterprets Dharma he/she can be well off the mark.

Edited January 21, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Brickbat]

Buddha's Heart Sutra

No Ignorance. No end to ignorance

There is no ignorance

There is no end when we are on the path to becoming.

When the mind is operating.

Vedas means knowledge

Vedanta means End of knowledge

The abyss of No Thing

[scthunt]

Do you need a teacher/guru to aid you or can you just do this yourself at home?

Im not a Buddist either, I use meditation to calm my ADD, Ive heard of psychotherapist using meditation to reduce several aspects of psych pathology.

I learned to meditate thru the guidance of audio books, and while I sure working one on one with someone would probably improve my practice, its an absolute necessity.

Sent from my iPod touch using Thaivisa Connect Thailand