Why Meditate?

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by robertk »

Just to note that according to the ancient Commentaries during any moments of genuine insight there can never be any unpleasant feeling, disgust, in the sense of averion in any way, fear, etc.
These ideas that people having insight will have unpleasant experiences seems to come from a major misunderstanding by some relatively recent meditation technique follwers/ leaders.
The terms such as dispassion and bhaya used in the visuddhimagga are desrbing a very calm understanding level of the nature of reality. Which is inherently unsubstantial.
dhamma_newb
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:36 am

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by dhamma_newb »

robertk wrote:Just to note that according to the ancient Commentaries during any moments of genuine insight there can never be any unpleasant feeling, disgust, in the sense of averion in any way, fear, etc.
These ideas that people having insight will have unpleasant experiences seems to come from a major misunderstanding by some relatively recent meditation technique follwers/ leaders.
The terms such as dispassion and bhaya used in the visuddhimagga are desrbing a very calm understanding level of the nature of reality. Which is inherently unsubstantial.
...it is worth investigating the language one encounters in Buddhist texts—especially the meaning of key technical words. The understanding of nibbida that lies on the near side of such investigation (turning away in utter disgust from the revolting world) is very different from the meaning that lies on the far side (deeply understanding the conditioned nature of constructed experience, thereby allowing a stance of non-attachment to all phenomena)." - Andrew Olendzki
http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issu ... all03l.htm
The watched mind brings happiness.
Dhp 36

I am larger and better than I thought. I did not know I held so much goodness.
Walt Whitman
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Ben »

There are these roots of trees, these empty huts. Meditate, Ananda, do not delay, or else you will regret it later. This is our instruction to you.

This is what the Blessed One said. The venerable Ananda was satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words.

-- MN106 Anenjasappaya Sutta
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Ron Crouch
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 4:32 pm

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Ron Crouch »

robertk wrote:Just to note that according to the ancient Commentaries during any moments of genuine insight there can never be any unpleasant feeling, disgust, in the sense of averion in any way, fear, etc.
These ideas that people having insight will have unpleasant experiences seems to come from a major misunderstanding by some relatively recent meditation technique follwers/ leaders.
The terms such as dispassion and bhaya used in the visuddhimagga are desrbing a very calm understanding level of the nature of reality. Which is inherently unsubstantial.

That is quite a claim. Could you cite what commentaries you're talking about? Even better would be to cite the source or link to it so we can read it for ourselves. What you are claiming seems to run right up against the Visuddhimagga's explanation of the insight knowledges - the direct source and paragraph is cited above and you can take a look for yourself. In it, there is a pretty crystal clear description of what the insight knowledges are like, so don't take my word for it - read it. Better yet, experience them for yourself and find out.

Here is what would be helpful. I'm making the claim that the Visuddhimagga describes the insights knowledges as difficult and having some suffering involved, and that some of this suffering is pretty intense, maybe even "terrifying." Here is a quote from the Visuddhimagga describing the 6th insight knowledge that supports this interpretation, on page 673 paragraph 29:


"As he repeats, develops and cultivates in this way the contemplation of dissolution, the object of which is cessation consisting in the destruction, fall and breakup of all formations, then formations classed according to all kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, station, or abode of beings, appear to him in the form of a great terror… When he sees how past formations have ceased, present ones are ceasing, and those to be generated in the future will cease in just the same way, then what is called knowledge of appearance as terror arises in him at that stage."

And just in case it wasn't clear, here is one from page 677, paragraph 41:
"And here (1.a.) what is terror is certainly (2.a) suffering…"

I urge you to read it directly for yourself.

Also, another important point you are making is that if you are having genuine insight, then you won't experience any suffering. That it will be very calm and dispassionate. Here is another gem from the Visuddhimagga warning against exactly that interpretation, from page 660 paragraph 21:

"Now, when he is a beginner of insight with this tender insight, ten imperfections of insight arise in him... what are these ten imperfections? They are: (1) illumination, (2) knowledge, (3) rapturous happiness, (4) tranquillity, (5) bliss (pleasure), (6) resolution, (7) exertion, (8) assurance, (9) equanimity, and (10) attachment."

To be clear, this paragraph is describing someone who gets to the first insight knowledge and pretty much stalls out because they are happy with it. This can be pretty common.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Robert, Ron,
[I haven't directly addressed Ron's post since I was writing when it was posted, but I hope the following is still relevant.]
robertk wrote:Just to note that according to the ancient Commentaries during any moments of genuine insight there can never be any unpleasant feeling, disgust, in the sense of averion in any way, fear, etc.
I think that's an interesting point. One, you've brought up before, but perhaps not for a while...
robertk wrote: These ideas that people having insight will have unpleasant experiences seems to come from a major misunderstanding by some relatively recent meditation technique follwers/ leaders.
The terms such as dispassion and bhaya used in the visuddhimagga are desrbing a very calm understanding level of the nature of reality. Which is inherently unsubstantial.
This is worth exploring, I think. Let's look at the relevant passage:
Visuddhimagga XXI
PDF Here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3. KNOWLEDGE OF APPEARANCE AS TERROR]

29. As he repeats, develops and cultivates in this way the contemplation of
dissolution, the object of which is cessation consisting in the destruction, fall
and breakup of all formations, then formations classed according to all kinds of
becoming, generation, destiny, station, or abode of beings, appear to him in the
form of a great terror, as lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, spirits, ogres, fierce
bulls, savage dogs, rut-maddened wild elephants, hideous venomous serpents,
thunderbolts, charnel grounds, battlefields, flaming coal pits, etc., appear to a
timid man who wants to live in peace. When he sees how past formations have
ceased, present ones are ceasing, and those to be generated in the future will
cease in just the same way, then what is called knowledge of appearance as
terror arises in him at that stage.

30. Here is a simile: a woman’s three sons had offended against the king, it
seems. The king ordered their heads to be cut off. She went with her sons to the
place of their execution. When they had cut off the eldest one’s head, they set
about cutting off the middle one’s head. Seeing the eldest one’s head already
cut off and the middle one’s head being cut off, she gave up hope for the youngest,
thinking, “He too will fare like them.” Now, the meditator’s seeing the cessation
of past formations is like the woman’s seeing the eldest son’s head cut off. His
seeing the cessation of those present is like her seeing the middle one’s head
being cut off. His seeing the cessation of those in the future, thinking, “Formations
to be generated in the future will cease too,” is like her giving up hope for the
youngest son, thinking, “He too will fare like them.” When he sees in this way,
knowledge of appearance as terror arises in him at that stage.
...
32. But does the knowledge of appearance as terror [itself] fear or does it not
fear? It does not fear. For it is simply the mere judgment that past formations have
ceased, present ones are ceasing, and future ones will cease.
Just as a man with
eyes looking at three charcoal pits at a city gate is not himself afraid, since he
only forms the mere judgment that all who fall into them will suffer no little
pain;—or just as when a man with eyes looks at three spikes set in a row, an
acacia spike, an iron spike, and a gold spike, he is not himself afraid, since he
only forms the mere judgment that all who fall on these spikes will suffer no
little pain;—so too the knowledge of appearance as terror does not itself fear; it
only forms the mere judgment that in the three kinds of becoming, which resemble
the three charcoal pits and the three spikes, past formations have ceased, present
ones are ceasing, and future ones will cease.

33. But it is called “appearance as terror” only because formations in all kinds
of becoming, generation, destiny, station, or abode are fearful in being bound for
destruction and so they appear only as a terror.
...
So, it seems that the Commentaries are saying that if one actually has that insight knowledge ("knowledge of appearance as terror").

Mahasi Sayadaw's Summary says:
6. Awareness of Fearfulness (bhayatupatthāna-ñāna)

When that knowledge of dissolution is mature, there will gradually arise, just by seeing the dissolution of all object-and-subject-formations, awareness of fearfulness {37} and other (higher) knowledges, together with their respective aspects of fear, and so on. {38}

Having seen how the dissolution of two things — that is, any object noticed and the insight-thought engaged in noticing it — takes place moment by moment, the meditator also understands by inference that in the past, too, every conditioned thing (formation) has broken up in the same way, that just so it will break up also in the future, and that at the present it breaks up, too. And just at the time of noticing any formations that are evident, these formations will appear to him in their aspect of fearfulness. Therefore, during the very act of noticing, the meditator will also come to understand: "These formations are indeed fearful."

Such understanding of their fearfulness is called "knowledge of the awareness of fearfulness"; it has also the name "knowledge of fear." At that time, his mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless.

{37} Bhay'upatthāna. The word bhaya has the subjective aspect of fear and the objective aspect of fearfulness, danger. Both are included in the significance of the term in this context.
{38} This refers to the knowledges described in the following (Nos. 7-11).
Are these two passages contradictory? Or is is that the mind "gripped by fear and seem[ing] helpless" is a precursor to the actual insight knowledge?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Ben »

Ron & Mike,

Excellent posts!
with Metta

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Polar Bear »

Mike, I personally feel that you'd have to jump through a small hoop to say they're not contradictory. But maybe the hoop is just an illusion. I notice that much of this thread seems to be semantical misunderstandings and argument, up until page 4 or so at least

:namaste:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Ron Crouch
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 4:32 pm

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Ron Crouch »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Ron,
Ron Crouch wrote:There are just as many people though who don't have such a nice experience of it. And many really feel like they were suckered into something without being given all the important information up front. I don't worry about you. I worry about them. I see them all the time in my teaching practice.
Does this "important information" also involve a thorough grounding in the teachings of the Buddha?

I see risks in following a "meditation technique" which is designed to induce certain experiences, but in which the knowledge of the Dhamma that provides the context to these experiences is "outsourced" to a teacher. That "outsourcing" might be functional in a retreat situation or when there's regular ongoing contact with a teacher, but outside of that, the only person who is with the practitioner 24/7, is the practitioner themselves. If they understand the Dhamma, from the variety of different perspectives and angles from which the Buddha saw fit to teach it, perhaps they would be more equipped to manage the transition?

Possibly then, it's not a case of deterring those who are not hard-core, manly and committed enough to get to the end, but in encouraging the gradual instruction of the kind Mike mentioned above first, so they have a solid grounding in the fundamentals of the Dhamma before attempting practices which might otherwise induce "dark nights"? (such fundamentals including, Right Effort, mudita and other quite elementary things that seem very useful in the specified situation). There's a great many lay people who have benefited over the centuries from the wisdom of the Buddha... it seems a shame to deter the current generation from mental cultivation, on account of such things.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Hi retro - man, I love you - you write the most interesting and provoking stuff!

I have to say that "outsourcing" is a likely a big problem in many dharma scenes, but I don't think you and I agree on what to do about it. My take on it is that "outsourcing" occurs whenever people place their complete faith in a teacher, a religion, a technique, a particular sutta, etc, instead of being very very pragmatic about what they are directly experiencing on the path and what causes and conditions (to use a bit of dharma-speak) led to it. A teacher is more of a coach and a sounding-board to make sense of what is happening and refine technique, and not ever a place to outsource ones' own experience. That's where things get cultish to me and give me the heebe-jeebies.

The goal is to ground the practice in one's own reality, not in any ideal, even if the ideal comes from a great teacher or a great sutta. In short, people need to get real. They need to get way more practical about this stuff and how it directly impacts them. Way too many people intellectualize and get lost in the minutiae of language and pali translations, and on the other hand, way too many people in lost in the feeling of belonging and compassion that comes from teachers and sanghas. What is needed is a middle-way (more dharma-speak). And that middle begins squarely in ones' own direct experience.

If one sees that the source of suffering is none other than oneself and the conditions that lead to either suffering or liberation are in one's own hands, then sila is a forgone conclusion. The key is getting people to see that it is in their hands.

Lastly, just let me say - "manly" - really?

P.S. For anyone hung up on my admonition to not meditate if you don't want to become enlightened let me point out that I really love meditation and while I am all in favor of warning people away from meditation if all they want is a self-improvment project, if what you want is liberation (and I suspect almost everyone on this forum does) then meditate all the time! Don't stop! On the cushion or off, cultivate insight and be mindful. Just know it might be rough for the "self" - but no problem right? It's a fiction anyway.
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Polar Bear »

Ron Crouch wrote:
The issue rests on the kind of meditation a person is doing. In classical buddhism there is a distinction made between "wet" and "dry" insight, which is the difference between the insight knowledges (nanas) experienced directly after deep concentration ("wet" = jhana) or without deep concentration ("dry" = no jhana). If you are doing it wet, then the dukkha nanas (dark night stages) seem like a breeze, a mild bit of turbulence in an otherwise smooth flight. If you are doing it dry however, then the dukkha nanas can really rock your world - and not in a good way. In the old texts and commentaries they divide it up into these two types as if they were all or nothing, but in truth almost everyone mixes it up and so the ambiguous answer of "it depends." Essentially, it depends on how deep your concentration is and how well you use it to move through the insight stages. So, while everyone will go through the insights into suffering in one form or another, how you experience it depends a lot on your concentration. Stronger concentration equals less difficulty.
Hope that helps.
"
I think it's clear something has gone wrong. The eightfold path starts with right view, everything else is developed simultaneously, and if you're not doing that, you're supposed to ask someone skilled in the area you're lacking in to help you. People need to be able to concentrate in order to gain proper insight. If people had true insight into dukkha, then they wouldn't create more dukkha for themselves by worrying about it, it's all impermanent, and believe it or not, and I heard this from a pali scholar so it's not personal knowledge unfortunately, but impermanence doesn't translate quite properly into english. Anicca and Anatta have a certain amount of positive connotation to them in the pali, they're supposed to be a little liberating just from hearing about them. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS POINTS BUDDHIST PRACTICE FACES RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN TO BE CALM AND COLLECTED/CONCENTRATED WHILE THEY'RE MEDITATING.


I'm no expert, but anybody with common sense can see my point. Samadhi and Sati go hand in hand and vipassana is a quality that means clear seeing it's not a vehicle for liberation from what I've read so far and there are certainly some Bhikkhus who would agree with me. Thus, using simple common sense, I deem the Bhikkhus deeming samadhi/samatha and sati/vipassana to be something developed in tandem. Let's not create unnecessary dichotomies where it's best if there were none.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Ron Crouch
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 4:32 pm

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Ron Crouch »

polarbuddha101 wrote:
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS POINTS BUDDHIST PRACTICE FACES RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN TO BE CALM AND COLLECTED/CONCENTRATED WHILE THEY'RE MEDITATING.


I'm no expert, but anybody with common sense can see my point. Samadhi and Sati go hand in hand and vipassana is a quality that means clear seeing it's not a vehicle for liberation from what I've read so far and there are certainly some Bhikkhus who would agree with me. Thus, using simple common sense, I deem the Bhikkhus deeming samadhi/samatha and sati/vipassana to be something developed in tandem. Let's not create unnecessary dichotomies where it's best if there were none.

I think we agree on this, and I emphasize concentration for all my students before developing insight (for reasons that I think I've made clear).

Maybe this is inappropriate for this forum, and Ben can chime in and let me know if I'm crossing a line in this particular online community, but I would be much more interested in hearing about your personal experience with the mix of concentration and insight than any thoughts about it. When you are calm and collected and concentrated during meditation what happens?

Please keep in mind that I know this is a personal question, so I do not ask it in any challenging way. I know how important concentration is for fruitful insight and any personal experiences you (or others) would feel safe in sharing would be wonderful examples...
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi PB,
polarbuddha101 wrote: I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS POINTS BUDDHIST PRACTICE FACES RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN TO BE CALM AND COLLECTED/CONCENTRATED WHILE THEY'RE MEDITATING.
No need to shout... :tongue:

I don't see anyone arguing against this here. That's what most of us are trying to do. However, it's not always easy...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by tiltbillings »

polarbuddha101 wrote:Thus, using simple common sense, I deem the Bhikkhus deeming samadhi/samatha and sati/vipassana to be something developed in tandem. Let's not create unnecessary dichotomies where it's best if there were none.
And I do not know of anyone who teaches Buddhist meditation that would say differently.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ron,
Ron wrote:The goal is to ground the practice in one's own reality, not in any ideal, even if the ideal comes from a great teacher or a great sutta. In short, people need to get real. They need to get way more practical about this stuff and how it directly impacts them.
Well said. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Nanavira Thera...
Nanavira Thera wrote:Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha's Teaching. But human kind, it seems, cannot bear very much reality: men, for the most part, draw back in alarm and dismay from this vertiginous direct view of being and seek refuge in distractions.
Indeed it's true that various sources of information and help available can either be applied directly as a means of understanding one's experience, or serve as distractions and grounds for speculation. It is pretty self-evident which use of knowledge is superior.

This holds true for everything from "the minutiae of language and pali translations" to "teachers and sanghas". All potentially useful, all potentially distracting - depends what's done with it.
Ron Crouch wrote:Lastly, just let me say - "manly" - really?
:lol:

Image

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Polar Bear »

Mike, I apologize, the caps lock was meant for emphasis not to indicate volume or anger or frustration.

Tilt, I'm glad you feel that way but I've read things that seem to indicate otherwise. So it's just what I've gathered indirectly. If there isn't this problem then awesome.

:namaste:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by cooran »

Retrofuturist said: it's not a case of deterring those who are not hard-core, manly and committed enough to get to the end
Not for any of those lower beings who are female, eh?

Image
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Post Reply