I think because they belong to different levels of development of the gradual path. Good sila is required to develop the calm and insight enabling the letting go...
Mike
I think because they belong to different levels of development of the gradual path. Good sila is required to develop the calm and insight enabling the letting go...
I can't do it, because I have no idea how to be "nonjudgmentally aware", and nobody wants to/can teach me that.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:23 amI am curious as to whether those who are critical of MBSR actually have any experience of it?
"I tried it, but didn't find it satisfactory because...( insert reasons )" seems like a more credible response than "I just don't like the sound of it".
And then what?robertk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:21 amI would say any phenomena which arises only for an instant , then ceases immediately- as all dhammas do- is insignificant and if seen as such wouldn't even need to be dismissed.binocular wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:03 amOn the other hand, there is an approach both in psychology as well as in popular Buddhism that has a practice of considering thoughts, feelings, etc. as "just thoughts, just feelings," etc. with the implication that this somehow makes them eminently dismissable. It's this practice that trivializes thoughts, feelings, etc. -- and it is this trivialization that I have been fighting all along (although it seems unsuccessfully).
And JKZ, for example, is advanced in sila like that?
I've no idea. But I think you may be identifying a problem that some of these secular techniques seem to jump immediately to a rather advanced form of practice.
Rāhula was only seven and newly ordained, so the Buddha gave him an exhortation on sīla. It's in the Cūḷarāhulovāda Sutta that he is given an insight-related discourse that leads him to arahatta.
It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.
Of course it's not right. You cannot separate the seen from the seer. It is one activity that your mind has divided into two parts. You cannot be 'non judgmentally aware'. All perception is judgemental at this stage. Stop fighting it and trying to lead it somewhere. This is the activity that is disturbing you. The kind of relaxation and withdrawal from focusing on mental and emotional disturbances needs to happen first. This is done with calming/tranquility practice. The attention withdraws from this activity of thoughts and feelings and you might find yourself feeling blissful. Nothing wrong with that. It is just a stage, an effect. Vipassana, insight, can happen then, but only if the other conditions are present.
Exactly right.Kim OHara wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:43 pmIt isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.
Kim
Hi, maybe this can be of some help - if not, sorry ..Kim OHara wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:43 pmIt isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.
One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.
I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?
Kim
What you're describing is something awfully advanced, namely, direct perception, ie. a perception that is not conditioned.Kim OHara wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:43 pmIt isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.
One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.
I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?
But is there any sutta that combines moral exhortation _and_ a teaching on anatta?Dhammanando wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:36 pmRāhula was only seven and newly ordained, so the Buddha gave him an exhortation on sīla. It's in the Cūḷarāhulovāda Sutta that he is given an insight-related discourse that leads him to arahatta.
http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle-l ... vada-sutta
Meditation doesn't happen in some kind of metaphysical and moral vacuum. Just because someone doesn't specify their metaphysical and moral convictions, doesn't automatically mean that they don't have them or that they are beyond them.
That's true.
That's probably true, too.
That's not true, however. The heart of the practice is simply accurate observation of what's going on in our own minds, and its success is quite independent of our specific religious or moral framework. That's why Buddhist meditation and Christian meditation can be so similar and produce such similar results.
I think you're setting up an artificial barrier here, or you may be misinterpreting what I said.binocular wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:56 amWhat you're describing is something awfully advanced, namely, direct perception, ie. a perception that is not conditioned.Kim OHara wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:43 pmIt isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.
One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.
I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?
I find it hard to believe that all those masses of folks doing mindfulness meditation have attained to direct perception.
Granted, some people are very capable of psychological compartmentalization.
I think that description would apply to MN 22
https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.2“Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous, no volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’ It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous.
The Buddha’s policy seems to have been to give whatever kind of teaching would conduce to the highest good that his listeners were capable of. In this case, apparently, it was conversion to the Dhamma, not penetration of the Dhamma.