< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

“It doesn’t come from outside.”

 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
12 October 2016 14:28
 

Buddhism as such, as I understand it, is about questioning the role one seem to be given in life. That is what Gautama the prince did. And he came to the conclusion that being a prince who is supposed to rule a worldly kingdom isn’t what he came for. He denied his position and by doing so he denied the whole indian cast-system and his role in it.

That is what iconoclasts do, who are heroic enough to not let society choose their path in life. Anything else said about the Buddha’s teachings is open for discussion. But his actions can not be denied. THAT is the only true real buddhist teaching, taught by his actions….as an example.

Now continue telling zen-“master” storys….

[ Edited: 12 October 2016 14:30 by Throwdare]
 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
12 October 2016 23:42
 
Throwdare - 12 October 2016 02:28 PM

Buddhism as such, as I understand it, is about questioning the role one seem to be given in life. That is what Gautama the prince did. And he came to the conclusion that being a prince who is supposed to rule a worldly kingdom isn’t what he came for. He denied his position and by doing so he denied the whole indian cast-system and his role in it.

That is what iconoclasts do, who are heroic enough to not let society choose their path in life. Anything else said about the Buddha’s teachings is open for discussion. But his actions can not be denied. THAT is the only true real buddhist teaching, taught by his actions….as an example.

Now continue telling zen-“master” storys….

 


Agree about actions being important. I’m not so familiar with the actions of the Buddha - my associations of him are largely a stone statue and things like the Diamond Sutra, where he talks about moments coming and going like bubbles and no separate self reincarnating and whatnot (in which case, I suppose you and I already are the Buddha, in some sense.) It’s hard to picture what it would have be like actually hanging out with the Buddha based on that (when I do, I picture him as a long-haired surfer dude type with golden eyes who is a little perplexed at the God-like status he’s been given in 2016, but who knows?), unless you invited him over for dinner and he remarked on the comings and goings of tastes the whole time and you were like “Ok, I get it Buddha, the taste of the soufflĂ© is fleeting and also you think it’s overcooked, a sensation that you describe but do not grasp with each bite.” and then he just went silent and stared out your window for the rest of the night in a state of Pure Being. Jesus to me seems a bit more knowable with the stories of doting on children and sudden sternness and washing feet and whatnot. (Although I think Buddha was a bit more descriptive regarding his thought process and specific techniques.)


Buddhism also confuses me a bit as there are centuries of Buddhist philosophy and psychology added to the original sutras, and it’s not so clear what is purely pragmatic, worldly advice and what is spiritual and when the line is blurry and so on. I thinks there’s a lot of wisdom in that tradition, though, although I find it funny that it seems the final outcome of much very serious work in Buddhism is to see that it was a sort of child’s game all along - emptiness thinking a thought and thinking it has found itself whilst standing right there. Kind of like playing hide-and-seek with a toddler, where you keep asking “I wonder where they could be? Did they hide in this teacup? I better check. Excuse me… anybody in theeeeere….” and of course they think that’s all very serious and they’ve pulled off a great trick by ‘disappearing’, ha ha.

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
13 October 2016 12:47
 

PS… regarding this:

Throwdare - 12 October 2016 02:28 PM

That is what iconoclasts do, who are heroic enough to not let society choose their path in life.

 


I am interested in the relative, fuzzy grey line where iconoclasm meets solipsism. I sometimes think Buddhist culture in this country (totally just my own anecdotal musing here,) is influenced a bit by the rise of Authoritarian Strongman “Trump” Culture on the one hand, and Victim Culture (which Jonathan Haidt has some interesting thoughts on, btw - he hypothesizes that we have moved from an honor culture to a dignity culture to a victim culture over time) on the other. Again, just my own anecdotal impression, but to me, Buddhism in this country emphasizes the “walk your own path” (vs. interdependence, which in my understanding exists in some eastern Buddhist communities at levels which would be totally foreign to most of us,) in a way that is similar to that election meme “America needs to be single for a few years and find itself”, ha ha. Western Buddhism is not happening in a small village context where your neighbors are just going to drop in and bring you food or check on you or watch the kids for awhile - I think taking those same sentiments and adding them to a culture where people live very, very individualized lives is an unknown at this point, but again, my sense is that some people are looking to this as a third path between the “safe space-dom” of claiming any messy human influence and interaction is abusive and coercive; and the actual well, abusive side of extreme authoritarianism. But it seems to me that this could either be seen as a productive, transitional state, wherein people learn new (more tailored to the modern world) ways of relating; or, if it’s permanent, simply a move towards stoicism and isolationism. You have what you need within yourself so don’t bother anybody else… I’ve said before, because Buddhism advocates ‘middle path’ in most things, there are almost always two sides of the story you can emphasize there, and to me that seems to strongly deemphasize interdependence. This, again, may be fine, given the current context, but it is something I think one has to be careful with during spiritual practice.

 
 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
14 October 2016 07:49
 
NL. - 13 October 2016 12:47 PM

PS… regarding this:

Throwdare - 12 October 2016 02:28 PM

That is what iconoclasts do, who are heroic enough to not let society choose their path in life.

 


I am interested in the relative, fuzzy grey line where iconoclasm meets solipsism. I sometimes think Buddhist culture in this country (totally just my own anecdotal musing here,) is influenced a bit by the rise of Authoritarian Strongman “Trump” Culture on the one hand, and Victim Culture (which Jonathan Haidt has some interesting thoughts on, btw - he hypothesizes that we have moved from an honor culture to a dignity culture to a victim culture over time) on the other. Again, just my own anecdotal impression, but to me, Buddhism in this country emphasizes the “walk your own path” (vs. interdependence, which in my understanding exists in some eastern Buddhist communities at levels which would be totally foreign to most of us,) in a way that is similar to that election meme “America needs to be single for a few years and find itself”, ha ha. Western Buddhism is not happening in a small village context where your neighbors are just going to drop in and bring you food or check on you or watch the kids for awhile - I think taking those same sentiments and adding them to a culture where people live very, very individualized lives is an unknown at this point, but again, my sense is that some people are looking to this as a third path between the “safe space-dom” of claiming any messy human influence and interaction is abusive and coercive; and the actual well, abusive side of extreme authoritarianism. But it seems to me that this could either be seen as a productive, transitional state, wherein people learn new (more tailored to the modern world) ways of relating; or, if it’s permanent, simply a move towards stoicism and isolationism. You have what you need within yourself so don’t bother anybody else… I’ve said before, because Buddhism advocates ‘middle path’ in most things, there are almost always two sides of the story you can emphasize there, and to me that seems to strongly deemphasize interdependence. This, again, may be fine, given the current context, but it is something I think one has to be careful with during spiritual practice.

I’m also interested in distinguishing between (healthy) iconoclasm and (mere) solipsism. For me the line isn’t that thin. I think there actually is a big gab between the two of them which I define right now for the sake of making sure we’re on the same page when we use the terms iconoclasm vs. solipsism:

Iconoclasm is about exposing and deconstructing idols, who are worshipped by certain people as gods, heros and/or other kinds of identification figures who they admire and adore and therefore worship.

Solipsism is the (pseudo) philosophical conclusion one comes to when mere narcissism gets made into a philosophie to justify its point of view. In other words, its the perception that there is no universe, no world other than myself. “I’m all there is, therefore all has to serve me and my needs, wants and desires. There is no other god but me.”

The practise of Iconoclasm includes the deconstruction of ones own narcissistic tendencys. Discerning them from the more altruistic tendencys one is having. And by constantely doing so, the mere narcissistic tendencys dry out. But that does not mean one does not have needs, wants and desires any longer. It just means the desires are now not unknown any more and unconsciously acted upon. The desires are then natural and healthy desires who (almost) every human being has. Unhealthy desires are droped because they are seen as what they are: fuel for an agitated state of mind who acts out without second guessing. In sanskrit the state of mind in which there are no desires any longer is called sattva. A sattvic mind is not agitated and is quiet and still. It has nothing to do, Only with a sattvic mind pure beingness can be realized. And when pure beingness is realized, the mind becomes a servant and isn’t the master any longer.

I hope that makes sense.

I’m not formally trained in buddhism. I’m trained and experienced in yoga-meditation practizes and traditional (old-school) advaita-vedanta.. Therefore my understanding of the various buddhist teachings is very limited. But I think I got the overall message of the Buddha. Which is, paraphrased: Walk on the (eight-fold) dharma-path and by doing so you will reach the goal of life.

 
 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
14 October 2016 14:19
 
NL. - 12 October 2016 11:42 PM
Throwdare - 12 October 2016 02:28 PM

Buddhism as such, as I understand it, is about questioning the role one seem to be given in life. That is what Gautama the prince did. And he came to the conclusion that being a prince who is supposed to rule a worldly kingdom isn’t what he came for. He denied his position and by doing so he denied the whole indian cast-system and his role in it.

That is what iconoclasts do, who are heroic enough to not let society choose their path in life. Anything else said about the Buddha’s teachings is open for discussion. But his actions can not be denied. THAT is the only true real buddhist teaching, taught by his actions….as an example.

Now continue telling zen-“master” storys….

 


Agree about actions being important. I’m not so familiar with the actions of the Buddha - my associations of him are largely a stone statue and things like the Diamond Sutra, where he talks about moments coming and going like bubbles and no separate self reincarnating and whatnot (in which case, I suppose you and I already are the Buddha, in some sense.) It’s hard to picture what it would have be like actually hanging out with the Buddha based on that (when I do, I picture him as a long-haired surfer dude type with golden eyes who is a little perplexed at the God-like status he’s been given in 2016, but who knows?), unless you invited him over for dinner and he remarked on the comings and goings of tastes the whole time and you were like “Ok, I get it Buddha, the taste of the soufflĂ© is fleeting and also you think it’s overcooked, a sensation that you describe but do not grasp with each bite.” and then he just went silent and stared out your window for the rest of the night in a state of Pure Being. Jesus to me seems a bit more knowable with the stories of doting on children and sudden sternness and washing feet and whatnot. (Although I think Buddha was a bit more descriptive regarding his thought process and specific techniques.)


Buddhism also confuses me a bit as there are centuries of Buddhist philosophy and psychology added to the original sutras, and it’s not so clear what is purely pragmatic, worldly advice and what is spiritual and when the line is blurry and so on. I thinks there’s a lot of wisdom in that tradition, though, although I find it funny that it seems the final outcome of much very serious work in Buddhism is to see that it was a sort of child’s game all along - emptiness thinking a thought and thinking it has found itself whilst standing right there. Kind of like playing hide-and-seek with a toddler, where you keep asking “I wonder where they could be? Did they hide in this teacup? I better check. Excuse me… anybody in theeeeere….” and of course they think that’s all very serious and they’ve pulled off a great trick by ‘disappearing’, ha ha.

I don’t think buddhism is a (mere) philosophie per se. I think it’s a way of life.

It’s about understanding the nature of suffering and then, by that, being an example of what can be considered as: Some sort of a solution. ...by being a (conscious) action-figure.

But as I mentioned before, I’m not an expert in buddhism by any means. But stream-entry is stream-entry is stream-entry….still. And before that, all is chasing the wind.

 

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
14 October 2016 21:13
 
Throwdare - 14 October 2016 07:49 AM

I’m also interested in distinguishing between (healthy) iconoclasm and (mere) solipsism. For me the line isn’t that thin. I think there actually is a big gab between the two of them which I define right now for the sake of making sure we’re on the same page when we use the terms iconoclasm vs. solipsism:

Iconoclasm is about exposing and deconstructing idols, who are worshipped by certain people as gods, heros and/or other kinds of identification figures who they admire and adore and therefore worship.

Solipsism is the (pseudo) philosophical conclusion one comes to when mere narcissism gets made into a philosophie to justify its point of view. In other words, its the perception that there is no universe, no world other than myself. “I’m all there is, therefore all has to serve me and my needs, wants and desires. There is no other god but me.”

 


Well, that makes sense if you are a moral realist who views iconoclasm as a practice of smashing false idols to get to some True Truth. In any realm where you are talking about relativism, however (even if you believe there are some topics where relativism doesn’t apply,) then iconoclasm can be a sort of perma-rebel or devil’s advocate orientation towards the world. I think we do in fact need some percentage of people who play that role to keep society from stagnating but as a general practice for well-being I think it can turn into solipsism in that communal efforts and relationships are always based on some degree of arbitrary standards and status quo. Granted, maybe the most extreme iconoclasm is the Highest Good - you don’t hear a lot of stories about Jesus chatting with his followers and going “OMG, yeah, you totally get what I’m saying, it’s like we’re twins!”. I think his general orientation regarding how well even his disciples understood him is kinda summed up in “Jesus wept”. Revered spiritual persons in history do tend to appear as singular individuals largely outside of cultural norms, be they mainstream or alternative norms. If viewed through an entirely relative lens one could say it’s a matter of semantics regarding whether or not you would call that extreme narcissism or antisocial behavior - what else, after all, would we typically label someone who eschews all communal values and instead proclaims their own set of rules that they say is absolutely true in a universal or divine sense? We view such historical characters differently because we feel they made a discovery that was True in the same way that one can make a True mathematical discovery - but again, a lot of how one views that depends on whether or not you are a moral realist. If a mathematician said everyone was 100% wrong and only he knew the true answer to a question, whether or not we would call him or her a narcissist with grandiose fantasies or a persecuted genius would depend largely on there being some third party standard by which to judge their claim of correctness.

 

The practise of Iconoclasm includes the deconstruction of ones own narcissistic tendencys. Discerning them from the more altruistic tendencys one is having. And by constantely doing so, the mere narcissistic tendencys dry out. But that does not mean one does not have needs, wants and desires any longer. It just means the desires are now not unknown any more and unconsciously acted upon. The desires are then natural and healthy desires who (almost) every human being has. Unhealthy desires are droped because they are seen as what they are: fuel for an agitated state of mind who acts out without second guessing. In sanskrit the state of mind in which there are no desires any longer is called sattva. A sattvic mind is not agitated and is quiet and still. It has nothing to do, Only with a sattvic mind pure beingness can be realized. And when pure beingness is realized, the mind becomes a servant and isn’t the master any longer.


I think technically iconoclasm could be applied to deconstructing one’s compassionate tendencies if one doesn’t believe in a sort of moral truth, thus my comments above. As to the rest, I won’t get into this too much here, but this is where I get confused with Buddhism. We should see that agitated mind states are not healthy but there is actually no ‘self’ within us who can see or know such things. We should have no desires, not cling and let everything go, which presumably includes the directive to let everything go in the first place, rendering it a moot practice, kind of like inventing an acid so powerful that no container can hold it. What are you going to do with it, invent it and it’ll eat through the flask, the table, the floor of the lab, etc., the second its made an then disappear, which is hardly functional. If you have no desires you have no desire not to have a desire. Etc. Hold things in totally accepting, open mindful awareness while trying to cultivate certain states and be a certain way. If you’re really 100% open, why not be 100% accepting of clinging, agitation, and all the rest? Wanting a calm mind is a desire itself, after all. And on and on.

 


I think meditation is a great practice, I just don’t understand the logic of it. That’s ok - if someone described exercise to me in the absence of my having any knowledge of human physiology, I don’t think that would make sense either (You run until you’re hot and tired and aching and feel bad and then you feel great and it’s good for your health even though everything about your immediate experience with it would suggest it’s horrible for your health, leaving you tired and short of breath and so on.) The logical links there simply cannot be made without a great deal more knowledge, and I suspect the same is true of meditation.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9254
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
15 October 2016 10:19
 
NL. - 14 October 2016 09:13 PM


I think meditation is a great practice, I just don’t understand the logic of it. That’s ok - if someone described exercise to me in the absence of my having any knowledge of human physiology, I don’t think that would make sense either (You run until you’re hot and tired and aching and feel bad and then you feel great and it’s good for your health even though everything about your immediate experience with it would suggest it’s horrible for your health, leaving you tired and short of breath and so on.) The logical links there simply cannot be made without a great deal more knowledge, and I suspect the same is true of meditation.

Suppose you ran a daycare center for pre-schoolers.  Would you have a ‘quiet’ time morning and afternoon, say 10 or 20 minute periods?

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
15 October 2016 21:19
 
unsmoked - 15 October 2016 10:19 AM

Suppose you ran a daycare center for pre-schoolers.  Would you have a ‘quiet’ time morning and afternoon, say 10 or 20 minute periods?


Sure. For the same reason that, if I could, I would take power naps during the day. And again, I have no problem with mediation as the equivalent of a power nap, a good jog, a day off to just relax and de-stress, etc., etc. If that’s ‘all’ it is, then it is still a healthy practice, much like eating fruits and vegetables is a healthy practice, and that’s valuable. But my personal interest in it is more about metaphysical possibilities. So the ‘why’ of why it’s good for you interests me.

 
 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
16 October 2016 09:03
 
NL. - 15 October 2016 09:19 PM
unsmoked - 15 October 2016 10:19 AM

Suppose you ran a daycare center for pre-schoolers.  Would you have a ‘quiet’ time morning and afternoon, say 10 or 20 minute periods?


Sure. For the same reason that, if I could, I would take power naps during the day. And again, I have no problem with mediation as the equivalent of a power nap, a good jog, a day off to just relax and de-stress, etc., etc. If that’s ‘all’ it is, then it is still a healthy practice, much like eating fruits and vegetables is a healthy practice, and that’s valuable. But my personal interest in it is more about metaphysical possibilities. So the ‘why’ of why it’s good for you interests me.

Meditation: It’s like bruishing your teeth for the mind to prevent the mind from rotting.

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
18 October 2016 06:31
 
Throwdare - 16 October 2016 09:03 AM

Meditation: It’s like bruishing your teeth for the mind to prevent the mind from rotting.


Well, I still think the mechanisms here are important, though. While I would prefer (at least I think I would prefer - maybe it would be a “careful what you wish for” situation) for there to be some beautiful metaphysical truth regarding why meditation works - the true nature of mind, ground of being, underlying oneness, etc. - recently I still find myself a bit worried about the implications of a pell mell practice even if it’s entirely secular and materialistic, like brushing your teeth or exercising. Extend the exercising metaphor a bit - for most people, who are going to jog a little bit on the treadmill, do a few sit-ups and so on, you can give a vague direction like “exercise is good for you”. But there’s a lot more to be known about it. Specific types of exercise are dangerous for specific health conditions; even for the healthiest person, doing a really unbalanced or unsafe (forgetting to stretch, working only one muscle group out of sync with another, etc.) exercise routine can hurt more than help, and so on.


To me, this tracks somewhat with my observations of meditation. There are places where I have found it extremely helpful in a wonderfully uncomplicated way where I would add almost no qualifiers to that (“Well except.. but…”). I’ve found it very good for de-stressing and very helpful for sensory sensitivities, for example. In other places I’ve found it hit or miss. I actually felt the way I was practicing increased my social anxiety to some degree, as it increased awareness to signals (small facial expressions, etc.) that I was already hypersensitive too. Same for my vaguely ADD ‘laser focus’ attention (a lesser known side of ADD, it can involve poorly modulated attention in both directions) - it almost increased my ability to hyper focus on a favored topic or project - if I had been working with a teacher who knew me well, I imagine they would have said I needed less one-pointed concentration work, more equanimity (as in, dragging oneself away from favorite things and towards ‘boring’ things) work. Some things I’m not sure how to frame without know ‘what I’m looking at’ when it comes to the paradigm behind meditation. Are overwhelming feelings of love a good thing? I mean they feel good, but so does a glass of merlot - they might be mildly dysfunctional in a starkly materialistic paradigm where they can make you, to put it bluntly, kind of a sucker; or a sign of progress if one thinks there’s truly a loving ground of awareness that one can view more clearly. So in that case I’d say how I view it depends largely on what meditation ‘is’.


If you are doing an intense exercise routine you usually do it with some degree of guidance from a trainer. Even for milder routines that anybody in good health can do relatively independently, there are standard precautions (again, stretching, warm-ups, in yoga things like counter poses, and so on). But then, we know at least a moderate amount about the mechanisms through which exercise affects the body and what constitutes good practice there. I think there are many helpful practices in meditation but there has been a sudden influx of many practices from many traditions and it’s not clear how they work together. Many of the original traditions were presented in a very specific sequence in a very specific community and environment - I wonder if just ditching that context has consequences. Perhaps not, perhaps a better analogy would be ‘reading’ - you can read tons of books in any old order and for the most part toss all that new knowledge into your brain without any ill effects. But I don’t think we have enough knowledge about what meditation ‘is’ to know that yet, and to that degree, the ‘why’ of why it does something is important.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9254
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
18 October 2016 08:50
 
NL. - 18 October 2016 06:31 AM


Well, I still think the mechanisms here are important, though. While I would prefer, at least I think I would prefer, maybe it would be a “careful what you wish for” situation . . .

Can you meditate while wishing for something?

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
18 October 2016 12:08
 
unsmoked - 18 October 2016 08:50 AM
NL. - 18 October 2016 06:31 AM


Well, I still think the mechanisms here are important, though. While I would prefer, at least I think I would prefer, maybe it would be a “careful what you wish for” situation . . .

Can you meditate while wishing for something?

 


Of course. At the broadest level, I’d say not only can you meditate on anything, but you couldn’t stop meditating if you tried. The question is should you meditate on it - Buddhists would likely say meditating on certain wishes (things like metta excluded) is meditating on delusion. But still meditating.

 
 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
18 October 2016 12:16
 
NL. - 18 October 2016 06:31 AM
Throwdare - 16 October 2016 09:03 AM

Meditation: It’s like bruishing your teeth for the mind to prevent the mind from rotting.


Well, I still think the mechanisms here are important, though. While I would prefer (at least I think I would prefer - maybe it would be a “careful what you wish for” situation) for there to be some beautiful metaphysical truth regarding why meditation works - the true nature of mind, ground of being, underlying oneness, etc. - recently I still find myself a bit worried about the implications of a pell mell practice even if it’s entirely secular and materialistic, like brushing your teeth or exercising. Extend the exercising metaphor a bit - for most people, who are going to jog a little bit on the treadmill, do a few sit-ups and so on, you can give a vague direction like “exercise is good for you”. But there’s a lot more to be known about it. Specific types of exercise are dangerous for specific health conditions; even for the healthiest person, doing a really unbalanced or unsafe (forgetting to stretch, working only one muscle group out of sync with another, etc.) exercise routine can hurt more than help, and so on.


To me, this tracks somewhat with my observations of meditation. There are places where I have found it extremely helpful in a wonderfully uncomplicated way where I would add almost no qualifiers to that (“Well except.. but…”). I’ve found it very good for de-stressing and very helpful for sensory sensitivities, for example. In other places I’ve found it hit or miss. I actually felt the way I was practicing increased my social anxiety to some degree, as it increased awareness to signals (small facial expressions, etc.) that I was already hypersensitive too. Same for my vaguely ADD ‘laser focus’ attention (a lesser known side of ADD, it can involve poorly modulated attention in both directions) - it almost increased my ability to hyper focus on a favored topic or project - if I had been working with a teacher who knew me well, I imagine they would have said I needed less one-pointed concentration work, more equanimity (as in, dragging oneself away from favorite things and towards ‘boring’ things) work. Some things I’m not sure how to frame without know ‘what I’m looking at’ when it comes to the paradigm behind meditation. Are overwhelming feelings of love a good thing? I mean they feel good, but so does a glass of merlot - they might be mildly dysfunctional in a starkly materialistic paradigm where they can make you, to put it bluntly, kind of a sucker; or a sign of progress if one thinks there’s truly a loving ground of awareness that one can view more clearly. So in that case I’d say how I view it depends largely on what meditation ‘is’.


If you are doing an intense exercise routine you usually do it with some degree of guidance from a trainer. Even for milder routines that anybody in good health can do relatively independently, there are standard precautions (again, stretching, warm-ups, in yoga things like counter poses, and so on). But then, we know at least a moderate amount about the mechanisms through which exercise affects the body and what constitutes good practice there. I think there are many helpful practices in meditation but there has been a sudden influx of many practices from many traditions and it’s not clear how they work together. Many of the original traditions were presented in a very specific sequence in a very specific community and environment - I wonder if just ditching that context has consequences. Perhaps not, perhaps a better analogy would be ‘reading’ - you can read tons of books in any old order and for the most part toss all that new knowledge into your brain without any ill effects. But I don’t think we have enough knowledge about what meditation ‘is’ to know that yet, and to that degree, the ‘why’ of why it does something is important.

I’m not trying to offend you, but as long as you can not define what meditation is all about, or agree with my definition, or at least define what contemplation is all about, I’m not reading your wall of text.

That’s how arrogant I am. I learned that kind of stance from Dennis Campbell. Blame him for this.

(imagine a smiley face here….)

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
18 October 2016 14:01
 
Throwdare - 18 October 2016 12:16 PM

I’m not trying to offend you, but as long as you can not define what meditation is all about, or agree with my definition, or at least define what contemplation is all about, I’m not reading your wall of text.

That’s how arrogant I am. I learned that kind of stance from Dennis Campbell. Blame him for this.

(imagine a smiley face here….)


Not sure if you’re totally kidding or you actually wanted to ask a question here or both?

 

 
 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
18 October 2016 14:12
 
NL. - 18 October 2016 02:01 PM
Throwdare - 18 October 2016 12:16 PM

I’m not trying to offend you, but as long as you can not define what meditation is all about, or agree with my definition, or at least define what contemplation is all about, I’m not reading your wall of text.

That’s how arrogant I am. I learned that kind of stance from Dennis Campbell. Blame him for this.

(imagine a smiley face here….)


Not sure if you’re totally kidding or you actually wanted to ask a question here or both?

I’m just teasing yah…

...on a more serious note:

Here is one more definition of what I think meditation is all about:

Me-di-I-tat-I-on.

Contemplate on it. It’s worth the effort. (And consider, if you can, more than one language to understand what that term might refer to.)

By the way, I think I see yah, NL. This, my post here, is not meant to offend you or put you down. It’s meant to .....ah….pick an intention of your liking.

 

 

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›