The ultimate purpose of Buddhist-style meditation practices

[VincentRJ]

Not really.

All this tells you is that the majority of Monks live with Ego, I, Self, Me, Mine, as do most people.

That's what's seriously wrong. If those who are actually specialising in the teachings of the Buddha, by devoting their life full-time to the subject and supposedly practicing the teachings and following the rules, still 'live with Ego, I, Self, Me, Mine, as do most people', then surely that represents in some respect a serious failure of the monastic order in Thailand.

Buddhadasa, well, let's just say he had a genetic issue.

This is the usual, comforting fallacy of denialism, that most overweight people use. "I don't eat too much. It's just my genes."

If this excuse were based on reality, it would be an amazing opportunity for science to investigate how one can achieve greater than 100% efficiency. It would be like setting off on a journey by car, with half a tank of petrol, then discovering at the end of the journey that the tank is full, without having stopped on the way to fill the tank.

Monks like all must battle entrenched conditioning.

I don't know percentages but Monks choose this life for many reasons.

In a poor country many use monkhood as their way out of having to labor for paltry earnings, some doing quite well out of it.

Others may have poor teachers and become called upon to officiate ritual and thus expend their time on non practice.

Others fall for the chanting, good luck in next life, pray to Buddha teaching and simply expend their resources fruitlessly.

Others simply can't shake monkey mind. It can be extremely challenging.

We must remember that Monks are humans and influenced by the same fetters as all others.

We have to cut Buddhadasa some slack as he personally wasn't the one who proffered the genetic line.

Also 227 precepts limits opportunities to exercise. Monks cannot partake in swimming, gym work, yoga, weights, running etc.

I personally think this is stone age stuff. Limiting exercise for supposed modesty.

Rocky,

Thanks for your insight into the situation. You've listed a number of reasons which appear to me to be descriptions of a failure of the system.

One might expect that those who are attracted to the monastic way of life would already have some understanding of the principles of Buddhism, and their own goals and purposes in becoming a monk, and would therefore be more successful in 'battling' their entrenched conditioning than the population at large.

I just recently came across a fairly detailed description of the history of the 'so-called' rebel Santi Asoke group, by researcher Marja-Leena Heikkila-Horn. It seems the Asoke group is controversial because of its strict adherence to veganism, its generally austere lifestyle, its open criticism of capitalism, consumerism and the commodification of Buddhism, and its criticism of the lax practices of the mainstream sangha.

I was surprised when I cam across the following statement in the article, relating to Buddhadasa.

"Bodhiraksa and the Asoke group have expressed great admiration for the teaching of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and visited Suan Mokkh to pay respect to Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. They admire his critique on idolatry. They also embraced his interpretation of enlightenment as something that can be reached in this life rather than after death. They only regret that Buddhadasa was not a vegetarian and did not practise what he preached."

I haven't been able to find any details on what it was that Buddhadasa preached but did not practice. Have you got any ideas on what it might have been, Rocky?

http://wrldrels.org/profiles/SantiAsoke.htm

[rockyysdt]

The only thing I can think of is perhaps diet.

[VincentRJ]

The only thing I can think of is perhaps diet.

Hhmm! I suspect it is more than just diet, but I can't find any translations of the written works of the founder of Santi Asoke, having searched under the names of Phra Bodhiraksa, Bodhirak, and Samana Photirak, on the internet.

What I have come across, in my search, is the following description of the Asokan views on 'sitting meditation', which puts the group in stark contrast to that other controversial movement at Wat Phra Dhammakaya, which is in political trouble at the moment.

"Asokans often poke fun at groups who have a strong focus on sitting or formal meditation by asking ‘How does sitting with your eyes closed help you? When you open your eyes and stand up you are the same as before you started meditation!’ The Asokans compare sitting meditation to a bottle of dirty water. If the bottle is kept still the sediment settles at the bottom of the bottle and the water appears clear. In other words, defilements are not seen. As the bottle is shaken the water becomes clouded with sediment. In a similar way the meditator’s problems and defilements reappear once he/she stops meditating.

For Asoke members ‘every moment of the day should be meditation in the form of mindfulness (sati), consciousness and awareness of the surrounding world'."

I also came across the following statement of criticism from the Asokan group.

"Buddhadasa taught his followers not to cling strongly to anything, yet Buddhadasa's views have become so highly esteemed that many cling dogmatically to his teachings."

However, this is a criticism of the followers of Buddhadasa and I guess such criticism could apply to any Buddhist who clings dogmatically to any aspect of the Dhamma.

[rockyysdt]

If this is the case then Asokans are missing out the 8fp refers to both concentration & mindfulness.

Also the only controversial thing you could attribute to Buddhadasa is the requirement to regularly practice.

The other things are not controversial.

[VincentRJ]

If this is the case then Asokans are missing out the 8fp refers to both concentration & mindfulness.

Not really. As I understand:

"For Asoke members ‘every moment of the day should be meditation in the form of mindfulness (sati), consciousness and awareness of the surrounding world.

Asoke people emphasise more the aspect of “concentration,” and thus their meditation is concentration in whatever they do whether it be eating, working or sleeping. Every action is carried out with careful concentration, which is their meditation. "

[rockyysdt]

Agreed but I don't think you can achieve those deep levels without sitting.

The Buddha was sitting under the bodhi tree.

[Brucenkhamen]

Asoke people emphasise more the aspect of concentration, and thus their meditation is concentration in whatever they do whether it be eating, working or sleeping. Every action is carried out with careful concentration, which is their meditation. "

I think most of us would understand what you've described to be right mindfulness, not right concentration, though the two go hand in hand and the level of emphasis varies from teacher to teacher.

[rockyysdt]

Asoke people emphasise more the aspect of concentration, and thus their meditation is concentration in whatever they do whether it be eating, working or sleeping. Every action is carried out with careful concentration, which is their meditation. "

I think most of us would understand what you've described to be right mindfulness, not right concentration, though the two go hand in hand and the level of emphasis varies from teacher to teacher.

Yes, Right Mindfulness & Right Concentration.

The two can be blended but my feelings are that they were deliberately taught as (two) practices of the 8 fold path.

I don't think, initially any way, I could achieve the necessary Concentration if I was going on about my daily life.

Sitting allows this to occur.

I also think that the insights and experiences achieved from deep Samadhi are needed before one can have such concentration levels during daily Mindfulness.

[trd]

Asoke people emphasise more the aspect of concentration, and thus their meditation is concentration in whatever they do whether it be eating, working or sleeping. Every action is carried out with careful concentration, which is their meditation. "

I think most of us would understand what you've described to be right mindfulness, not right concentration, though the two go hand in hand and the level of emphasis varies from teacher to teacher.

Yes, Right Mindfulness & Right Concentration.

The two can be blended but my feelings are that they were deliberately taught as (two) practices of the 8 fold path.

I don't think, initially any way, I could achieve the necessary Concentration if I was going on about my daily life.

Sitting allows this to occur.

I also think that the insights and experiences achieved from deep Samadhi are needed before one can have such concentration levels during daily Mindfulness.

Samadhi is often translated as concentration, which is wrong in my view. Samadhi is one pointedness of mind. There is only awareness as subject without object. Once that singularity is there, it is effortless. It is innocent. Concentration implies a focus on an object. Using that word would be acceptable if it is understood that the object must be let go of because one pointedness cannot be with object. I'm sure you can relate to this in your practice with breath. Breath can be considered as the object. The transition from putting attention on object to samadhi is subtle but there comes a point when a very fine level of awareness of object (mantra, breath etc) is finally transcended leaving only the one pointedness of undifferentiated awareness itself knowing itself. Whereas there may have been some concentration initially, there is certainly none in samadhi which is without effort or intent.

You have made a connection between samadhis experienced with sitting practice and mindfulness during daily activity. I entirely agree. But it depends on what you mean by mindfulness. What does it mean to you?

Edited June 20, 2016 by trd

[rockyysdt]

Obviously lacking any depth of experience and knowledge my level of Mindfulness would be at the course level.

That is observing ones, breath, body, feelings and thoughts as if from a neutral third party only this third party is not a third party but will eventually unveil itself as being egoless in time.

That this awareness continually grows in concentration, strength, depth and fineness with practice, pure due to its neutrality to what is being observed.

Edited June 20, 2016 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Obviously lacking any depth of experience and knowledge my level of Mindfulness would be at the course level.

That is observing ones, breath, body, feelings and thoughts as if from a neutral third party only this third party is not a third party but will eventually unveil itself as being egoless in time.

That this awareness continually grows in concentration, strength, depth and fineness with practice, pure due to its neutrality to what is being observed.

Okay so let's explore this connection between sitting practice and mindfulness. Sitting practice will cultivate awareness by experiencing samadhi, however fleeting that might be. When you have finished the inward stroke of practice and go back into activity as the outward stroke, if you have connected with the silence within from which thoughts arise, then you will very often bring that value back out into activity. Are you not likely to feel peace after getting up from sitting? To be mindful of thoughts and actions as you suggest will take the mind in the opposite direction of the pure awareness of samadhi. The breath was a way of letting go in sitting practice so why use it now in activity? Sitting gave you a quiet and easier environment to reduce mental activity using breath. And what we have done is to open up to the unbounded. So in activity we want to use the result of that skillful action by going back to this awareness that has already been cultivated during sitting and whose value we bring to activity. That for me is true mindfulness. To be mindful of awareness, not of an object.

But unlike sitting practice that can be scheduled by the clock, I don't advise practising mindfulness like that. In my opinion it should only be practised when you are being offered an invitation. Regular sitting practice will result in this silent awareness becoming more and more apparent during activity, not only after immediately meditating, but at anytime. It can arise quite spontaneously. There may be days when you are immersed in peace. There may be times when you are mentally agitated, but overall there should be a steady march towards stillness while active. So my recommendation is to be mindful of that stillness by putting the attention there when it is already there, when an invitation to go there is being offered. Do you see what I mean? This sense of stillness is there to some extent so abide in that place by being mindful of it. But don't decide that you want to be mindful if the hand of silence isn't being offered to you at that particular moment in time. Otherwise it will just be a strain and it will involve effort. We should always practice effortlessly and innocently without expectation.

[rockyysdt]

I see what you mean.

Allow Mindfulness during action to instill of its own accord.

This might take some time.

In the meantime can't I practice the course level mindfulness to guard against inappropriate thought, speech & action.

It's not continuous but when engaged helps me to refrain.

My anchor is breath.

It helps keep me in the present during action.

This way I tackle from both directions.

That which seeps through from sitting whilst reducing the impact from poor thought/deed.

Saying the wrong thing to colleagues at work can have repercussions lasting a considerable period. Even inappropriate thoughts can amplify.

I had someone pm me recently suggesting I was presenting myself as an expert on a matter. He clearly misinterpreted something out of context and couldn't see past this. He could see something which wasn't there. I encounter this often with people.Even with facts presented they drift back to their beliefs. A search of his recent posts suggested he often derided posters he thought erred in their logic. I wanted to let him have it, but a couple of deep breaths, a scan of tension in the body and a visual of my thoughts brought me back.

Edited June 20, 2016 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

Samadhi is often translated as concentration, which is wrong in my view. Samadhi is one pointedness of mind.

Yes concentration is a pretty poor translation for samadhi as it implies straining, squinting, or striving.

I think one pointedness of mind is better as long as it's understood that it's about the mind and not so much about being one pointed on an object. Collectedness, stabalising, centering I think are good descriptions.

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes, Right Mindfulness & Right Concentration.

The two can be blended but my feelings are that they were deliberately taught as (two) practices of the 8 fold path.

I don't think, initially any way, I could achieve the necessary Concentration if I was going on about my daily life.

Sitting allows this to occur.

I also think that the insights and experiences achieved from deep Samadhi are needed before one can have such concentration levels during daily Mindfulness.

The point of sati (mindfulness) is continuity of attention, attention to whatever is appropriate at the time. We just need to remember to notice when attention has lapsed or drifted and re-establish attention over and over again until we establish a level of awareness that becomes mostly continuous. Generally we learn mindfulness techniques/exercises to help bring our attention using something tangible like the breath or body sensations but it's not about those exercises it's about learning to recognise awareness and cultivating it.

Samadhi is about stabilising the mind.

So we continually bring the mind to attention and stabilise it, and the two work hand in hand and support each other.

The thing with sitting meditation is that it allows one to work with the mind on a more subtle level and it gets momentum going but ideally we want to get to the point where we are less reliant on sitting as the mind has developed a momentum of mindfulness that is continuous throughout the day, I'm skeptical this can happen without the support of sitting in the first place though.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

Yes, Right Mindfulness & Right Concentration.

The two can be blended but my feelings are that they were deliberately taught as (two) practices of the 8 fold path.

I don't think, initially any way, I could achieve the necessary Concentration if I was going on about my daily life.

Sitting allows this to occur.

I also think that the insights and experiences achieved from deep Samadhi are needed before one can have such concentration levels during daily Mindfulness.

The thing with sitting meditation is that it allows one to work with the mind on a more subtle level and it gets momentum going but ideally we want to get to the point where we are less reliant on sitting as the mind has developed a momentum of mindfulness that is continuous throughout the day, I'm skeptical this can happen without the support of sitting in the first place though.

I can't seem to find any personal accounts on the internet from Santi Asoke members, relating to their meditation practices.

I think you might be right that sitting meditation, devoid of any concern about practical activities, could allow one's attention to be directed to greater subtleties. At least, that makes sense to me.

Unfortunately, no-one can go back in time and repeat a sequence of behaviour to see how it compares with a previous and different behaviour, except in the fantasy film 'Groundhog Day'.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Vincent.

I suspect you wouldn't need a behavioral comparison.

If Awakening was taking place there would be a knowing.

[VincentRJ]

Hi Vincent.

I suspect you wouldn't need a behavioral comparison.

If Awakening was taking place there would be a knowing.

Rocky,

There are lots of people throughout history and in the present day who are absolutely convinced that they know a particular truth, so much so that they would give their life for it. Such beliefs seem too extreme for me.

With different meditation practices, I would think that there has to be a comparison at the individual level to determine which practice is more effective.

[trd]

Hi Vincent.

I suspect you wouldn't need a behavioral comparison.

If Awakening was taking place there would be a knowing.

Rocky,

There are lots of people throughout history and in the present day who are absolutely convinced that they know a particular truth, so much so that they would give their life for it. Such beliefs seem too extreme for me.

With different meditation practices, I would think that there has to be a comparison at the individual level to determine which practice is more effective.

You can spend a whole lifetime just speculating about stuff.

[rockyysdt]

I think the landscape must be littered with such stances.

Actual regular practice is a must.

[VincentRJ]

Hi Vincent.

I suspect you wouldn't need a behavioral comparison.

If Awakening was taking place there would be a knowing.

Rocky,

There are lots of people throughout history and in the present day who are absolutely convinced that they know a particular truth, so much so that they would give their life for it. Such beliefs seem too extreme for me.

With different meditation practices, I would think that there has to be a comparison at the individual level to determine which practice is more effective.

You can spend a whole lifetime just speculating about stuff.

Only if one doesn't have to work because one has a secure, private income, or because one is a Buddhist monk.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Vincent.

Let's both take the plunge, encourage each other, and take on full practice

If it's all true, then anything else is a waste of time.

Don't worry about livelihood.

We'll be fed and housed.

[VincentRJ]

Hi Vincent.

Let's both take the plunge, encourage each other, and take on full practice

If it's all true, then anything else is a waste of time.

Don't worry about livelihood.

We'll be fed and housed.

Hi Rocky,

But I like to have control over my own diet. Just as it's important to have only wholesome thoughts (and sometimes no thoughts at all), it's also important to eat only wholesome food (and sometimes no food at all, when fasting).

I like to work in the garden, growing my own food organically. How can I sit down all day doing nothing when I know there's a ripe bunch of bananas which will be eaten by the birds, bats and possums, if I don't harvest the bunch quickly?

[rockyysdt]

It seems that there'll be no escape for you or us.

[trd]

Hi Vincent.

I suspect you wouldn't need a behavioral comparison.

If Awakening was taking place there would be a knowing.

Rocky,

There are lots of people throughout history and in the present day who are absolutely convinced that they know a particular truth, so much so that they would give their life for it. Such beliefs seem too extreme for me.

With different meditation practices, I would think that there has to be a comparison at the individual level to determine which practice is more effective.

You can spend a whole lifetime just speculating about stuff.

Only if one doesn't have to work because one has a secure, private income, or because one is a Buddhist monk.

Every human being speculates, thinks, expresses ideas and concepts, believes in things, regardless of what they do. Every second of your existence. But what does it amount to when you are on your death bed. Nothing. If you are still bound to identifying with an illusory self, you will have discovered nothing. You will have spent your life as a thought churner. That's all.

[rockyysdt]

It seems TRD has a point.

What I'm finding with age is that due to entrenched conditioning my life is of a repetitive and fixed existence, only sometimes with different places, people, situations.

Edited June 23, 2016 by rockyysdt

[trd]

If you lived a monastic way of life it would be even more repetitive and without the different places. That's not the issue. In fact a regulated and ordered way of life may be more conducive to opening you up to the unchanging silence within. If your life was full of new experiences and distractions everyday that would tend to take the mind in an outwards direction instead of inwards. I can understand you thinking that repetition further entrenches conditioning. But it's not the conditioning that's the problem. Do you think all habits disappear on awakening. Of course not. It would not be possible to live as a physical being if that were the case. It is the attachment to habits which is the cause of dukkha. When the habits of a personal self are seen to just arise from unchanging awareness, there is no bondage and therefore no suffering. So a regular routine can be good because it can act as a reliable focal point, just like breath in meditation, from which to let go and abide in what remains as the unchanging.

[VincentRJ]

If your life was full of new experiences and distractions everyday that would tend to take the mind in an outwards direction instead of inwards.

Everything in moderation, Trd.

Each day never has to be actually full of new experiences, although this seems to be the case for many people who are strongly attached to their smart phone.

As I write this, I'm sitting at a desktop computer with a large screen and a full-size keyboard. I own a smart phone, but mainly for emergency purposes, such as having an accident in the wilderness, breaking a leg, or getting bitten by a deadly poisonous snake, or my car breaking down in some remote region. I use it mostly on occasions when I might be meeting someone at an airport or some other location, and need to advise where I am, or find out where they are. So far, there have been no emergencies.

Whilst I enjoy new experiences, I prefer that such new experiences occur in a peaceful environment without distractions. I never want to be interrupted by phone calls on such occasions.