Robin Beck

>>>> Looking back on my own experience, I sense that my meditation is not only guided by what I know to be Buddhist theory, but I also know that elements of Neurobiology and psychology that I've picked up over the years have been integrated into my method for observing the mind.

>>>>Is this a danger? Dunno. I do, however see in the future of Buddhism an incorporation of modern understanding of the mind. Someday we will have meditation master neurobiological researchers who will perfect their understanding of the meditation practices. I hope, anyway.

I definitely agree that modern science should help inform us. The Five Niyamas, kinds of causality, help us here:

Karma Niyama = Volitional Moral Causality.
Utu Niyama = Inorganic Chemistry
Bija Niyama = Organic Chemistry
Citta Niyama = Psychology & Spirituality.
Dharma Niyama = Physics

So far, Science confirms the beneficial effects of Buddhist Meditation.

>>>Which brings me to an observation. The various ways of guiding meditation are to an extent an "understanding". Even the Buddha seems to have explained different meditation methods, pointing out certain guideposts to proceed and look for depending on one's approach.

Right. In general, it is safe to divide Meditation into three categories:

a. Access Concentration. This relates to right exertion. It is seeing the elevator, getting on the elevator, and deciding to get off.

b. Calming & Concentration {Shamatha} Meditation. This has two main levels. There are fine material absorptions; usually 4, where form still exists; but there is no contact with form. Then there are the formless attainments, 4 or 5, where there is no form; just abstract concept. These -- the form absorptions and formless attainments, are maybe the magic city.

c. Mindfulness & Insight Meditation: This is a more 'diffuse concentration' or spacious observation. I think we get off the elevator the same place we got on, and go back to the street for this one.

I think it is a mistake to just skip the Shamatha part and only do the mindfulness. Shamatha helps up build practical skills. We can cultivate our emotions; move them toward the Four Intangibles. Wecan concentrate on tasks better. We can enhance the more intuitive skills; like the ability to solve jigsaw puzzles, riddles, crypt-o-quotes and crosswords. We can also improve our more abstract cognitive skills, improve our reading comprehension, grasp abstract concepts better, and enhance our ability to retain and apply information.

None of these benefits of Shamatha awaken us, IMO. They provide merits and skills. The way to awaken is, IMO, via the four frameworks of Mindfulness. That is the way we glean self understanding.

I am planning to go into detail in the upcoming posts; if I do not get side-tracked.

>>> For Zhiyi, all of these things lead to the ultimate realization of AnnutaraSamyakSambodhi, as I understand

Mote that in the context of the Nikayas, the term Annutara - Samyak -Sambodhi only applies to the Attained Awakening {Shikaku} of Buddhas like Shakyamuni and Maitreya. It is the acquired fruit of the exclusive Bodhisattva Vehicle.

In terms of the mutual exclusivity of the Three Vehicles, beings like us, who enter the stream after hearing the Buddha-Dharma preached; attain Anubodhi.

In the Lotus Sutra, the term Annutara - Samyak - Sambodhi refers to the unattained awakening {hongaku}. In other words, it is the non-acquired or innate fruit of the all inclusive one vehicle.

In terms of phenomena; Annutara - Samyak - Sambodhi and Anubodhi are different. In terms of noumena; they are the same -- Pure Beauty, Stable Bliss, Constant Immediacy, and Authentic Being.

>>>>I was thinking about the "familiarizing" aspect of meditation that I mentioned the other day, and thought how it relates to the term Dharma. We generally use it as a noun to refer to individual phenomena or to the Buddhist teachings. But the original meaning implies an action - Dharma is derived from a root Dhr or something like that, which means "to hold", and so Dharma is something that holds. The way this was explained to me is that what is held in place in a Buddhist context is our mind/life. We put ourselves into the teaching and it holds us on the path.

My understanding is that Dharma is from the same verbal root as Dharani. I think the ma makes it an action noun, a gerund. So it might function like 'ing.' Holding, used as a noun, might be a near literal rendering?

BTW, the adjective firm; meaning stable, is a cognate. So, Dharma is a firming {noun}, a stabilizing {noun}. Gerunds are confusing because they look like kind of like adjectives and adverbs.

Mark,

There is a time to fight and a time to make peace.
My reading of the Nirvana Sutra is that fighting is only acceptable as a defense against aggression; and then only as a last resort.

Still, we are discussing meditation here; not shakubuku versus Shoju. Your position seems to be that we should not be talking about meditation.

More specifically; we are talking about what is Meditation, how to meditate, what to expect when we meditate, the pitfalls, and benefits. We are not talking about Shakubuku.

Hi R,

Patience is something I'm starting to understand. :)

I was thinking since my last post about those experiences I had. I'm going to indulge in your bandwidth here and sort of meander off topic, but still generally related, please excuse me...? Let me know if I ought to post in another outlet...

I was thinking about the "familiarizing" aspect of meditation that I mentioned the other day, and thought how it relates to the term Dharma. We generally use it as a noun to refer to individual phenomena or to the Buddhist teachings. But the original meaning implies an action - Dharma is derived from a root Dhr or something like that, which means "to hold", and so Dharma is something that holds. The way this was explained to me is that what is held in place in a Buddhist context is our mind/life. We put ourselves into the teaching and it holds us on the path.

The familiarizing that is done in meditation is to familiarize with the aspects of dharma so that they hold the mind/life more securely.

However, then there is that Zhiyi teaching that I also paraphrased - "teachings on the aggregates, causation, dhyanas, 6, 7, 8, 9 consciousnesses, two truths, three truths, four noble truths, 10 worlds, 100 worlds, 1000 worlds, 3000 realms in a thought-instant, NMRK, etc. All these are ways to understand and represent varying degrees of Truth depending on one's particular tradition." For Zhiyi, all of these things lead to the ultimate realization of AnnutaraSamyakSambodhi, as I understand. In at least a few of his works that I have read, he takes time to explain how every practice is inclusive of all others and that each approach is just another way to approach the same ends. A professor of mine explained the basket of analytical tools that a scholar has in a similar way - take historical facts and apply sociological methods, deconstruction, psychological, post-modern perspectives, etc. and each can yield information that contributes to a fuller picture of the past, towards a "truer" understanding of that moment in time. Of course, any "understanding" is an abstraction separate form the moment itself... and the same goes for our Buddhist practice... We can approach an understanding of Suchness, but it is an abstraction, until the subject object divide is transcended. To touch back onto the point of your original post, reifying the "understanding" and mistaking it for reality is a danger - perception of achievement of something one has not.

Which brings me to an observation. The various ways of guiding meditation are to an extent an "understanding". Even the Buddha seems to have explained different meditation methods, pointing out certain guideposts to proceed and look for depending on one's approach.

Looking back on my own experience, I sense that my meditation is not only guided by what I know to be Buddhist theory, but I also know that elements of Neurobiology and psychology that I've picked up over the years have been integrated into my method for observing the mind.

Is this a danger? Dunno. I do, however see in the future of Buddhism an incorporation of modern understanding of the mind. Someday we will have meditation master neurobiological researchers who will perfect their understanding of the meditation practices. I hope, anyway.

Sorry that kind of rambled and only danced around your original topic. I want to get your take on that.

Q

Dear Robin:

By whom? By men who couldn't live a day like Nichiren Daishonin? What is misconstrued is the central place that Nichiren Daishonin holds in the Buddhist pantheon by virtue of his bodily reading of the Lotus Sutra. Difficult times are precisely when shakabuku not shoju should be practiced. Were these peaceful times we could seclude ourselves and practice meditation to our hearts content and admire the birds and the ducks. There really is no time to sit in quiet contentment. It is time to walk the walk.

Mark

Mark,

I hope you are well. The topic in this thread is Meditation. If you want to discuss aggressive. medieval takes on Shakubuku; please do so elsewhere.

We are living in a difficult time; when some things from Sutras can be taken out of context and misconstrued.

Dear Robin and Q;

Shakabuku practice is far more dangerous than meditation and far more effective in this Latter age:

Mark

Discipline is new to me. It takes a while. Patience is required.

Hi R,

I am learning a lot from you here. Thanks for doing this series.

I admire your disciplined approach and have myself in recent years sought to apply a more disciplined approach to meditation also.

Not to go into it too much here, but the most significant experience where my mind was "blown", I was having an exhilarating experience "riding the elevator" so to speak. At a certain point, I became distracted and all of a sudden became conscious of where I found myself and in that moment realized that what I was perceiving about that moment was terribly disjointed from my "ordinary" experience of being. I knew that I didn't just pop up there, but had arrived there through a series of "insights", but for the life of me, I could not trace the steps. For years after, I spent a lot of time trying to retrace my steps and figure out how I got there and understand how it related to my ordinary waking, walking life. Side effects of that experience included not being quite sure of anything I thought anymore - I had done something to so undermine the sense of reality that I had up to that point that I could not be sure of anything anymore. I did not know a lot of Buddhist theory at that time which I subsequently used to piece together my foot steps. If I had known a little more, had proceeded at a more disciplined pace, maybe I would not have traveled so far on the "elevator" so quickly and been troubled by the experience.

I have tried to recapture the efficiency of practice in those years, but I wonder if my brain simply isn't wired for such a fast ride anymore. I sometimes wonder if its related to what they say about physicists and mathematicians- that if you don't have that Eureka break through in your early 20's, you never will. Then again, I also know of physicists who make breakthroughs late in life after years of dedicated work. Perhaps related to sudden/gradual models of wisdom?

Just musing.

>>> Ultimately, the goal of Buddhism is to develop the wisdom to "know" what is "REALLY" going on,

Right now, I am working on Form Absorption {Rupa Dhyana}, the lower levels of Shamatha; which is a long way from the ultimate. However, I think it is practical. I also do not think it is as hard as people think. It is what is it is. The danger zone; as I see it, is access concentration; the riding the elevator.

To get to the first level of Absorption, we need to get past the Five Hindrances or Blocks. Then we have to get past the thrill or fear of Access Concentration.

Ride, ride my see-saw
Take this place, on this trip
just for me
Ride, take a free ride
Take my place, have my seat, it's for free

...

I like to dream yes, yes, right between my sound machineOn a cloud of sound I drift in the night
Any place it goes is right Goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here ...

>>>>> I have also heard warnings about penetrating into teachings that one is not prepared for - that they can cause one to go crazy. I am suspicious that sometimes these warnings are used in certain traditions to regulate the distribution of teachings. On the other hand, I've had the experience of having my mind "blown" on occasion and the difficulties I subsequently had integrating those experiences into the rest of my life as I know it.

See, that is my point. The only mind blowing experiences I have had, with Shamatha, were on the elevator. Once I get off; I can experience the dhyanic factors.

It is like reading a good book or viewing a good movie. We clear out distractions and direct our attention. Our interest is piqued. There is an arising of en-joy-ment; we might laugh or cheer. That can mellow out into the vedana of bliss. Pretty soon we are absorbed. If someone says something, we do not ever hear them. Nothing scary there.

Now, there are kinds of meditation. Shamatha is one-pointed concentration; to the exclusion of all else. Cultivation {Bhavana} is often an applied Shamatha. Mindfulness {Sati/Smrti} is more of a spacious awareness or open presence that enables one to see both the forest and the trees.

Then there is deity visualization; which is where there is talk about limiting access.

Hi Robby,

Hope you are recovered from your cold.

I remember reading Timothy Leary a bunch of years ago and he described a "Fifth Circuit" of consciousness characterized by "rapture" that is attended by pitfalls similar to some of the pitfalls of Dhyana that you describe. He derided some people who just seek this consciousness out as "Fifth Circuit Rapture Engineers." I've heard Buddhist meditation teachers warn about addiction to states of bliss as well.

On a related note, my understanding is that in Tibetan, one of the terms for meditation is "to familiarize". The way it was explained to me is that meditative practice is a way to reorient the way the mind works. So, for instance, our minds are ordinarily wired for self preservation - feed ME, cloth ME, safety for ME... these are the basic impulses that make most of us go. It depends on certain false conventions (at least from a Buddhist analytical perspective) that actually prevent us from seeing Suchness.

Ultimately, the goal of Buddhism is to develop the wisdom to "know" what is "REALLY" going on, (Suchness?) ie, that the conventional self is an illusion, as is most of what we perceive... as such we have teachings on the aggregates, causation, dhyanas, 6, 7, 8, 9 consciousnesses, two truths, three truths, four noble truths, 10 worlds, 100 worlds, 1000 worlds, 3000 realms in a thought-instant, NMRK, etc. All these are ways to understand and represent varying degrees of Truth depending on one's particular tradition. In the sense of meditation described above, we meditate on these concepts and condition the mind to see reality through these various lenses, thereby attaining levels of insight. Seeing into how these teachings apply once is a breakthrough, but the real question is if the mind can be so conditioned to see reality in these various ways when we get up off the cushion, so to speak. To achieve this, we go over the analysis backwards and forwards until it is the way we see all the time. ie, we familiarize ourselves with the wisdom of the Buddhas.

In this sense, their is a neutral quality about meditation implied in this view, and even that meditation can be turned to evil applications. For instance, one could just as well meditate on all the ways that people are evil and must be exterminated.

My sense is that this neutral nature of meditation practice is why Buddhist teachers are often so concerned with correct doctrine. You see this in Nichiren, but I have yet to encounter a dharma teacher who did not at least offer some minor warning about where a concentrated mind was focused. Nichiren gets a bad rap, but I'm finding doctrine is a hot area of dispute, even in traditions perceived as peaceful and open - for anyone interested, google gelugpa and Shugden Dorje for an interesting insight into the world of Tibetan Buddhism.

I have also heard warnings about penetrating into teachings that one is not prepared for - that they can cause one to go crazy. I am suspicious that sometimes these warnings are used in certain traditions to regulate the distribution of teachings. On the other hand, I've had the experience of having my mind "blown" on occasion and the difficulties I subsequently had integrating those experiences into the rest of my life as I know it.

To tie this up, I'm not sure that these dangers ought to discourage one from taking up a meditative practice, but I would keep the dangers in mind as one progresses.