I have not "observed him for years" and perhaps because of that
there is freshness in what I see. I just take what he said
without prejudice or even the need to put him down.
In time you shall see.
Chanting dulls the mind as any monotonous repetition will. This
could easily be proven in the lab.
It quiets and stills the mind, it does not dull the mind. When I
chanted a mantra (even though this is not my main practice) I am
just amazed at how the mantra becomes an anchor into the state of
presence. I am simply aware of everything, the chanting, the mind,
etc. Whatever you say is not going to change my mind on this
because this has been my experience, your experience might be
different.
I can't see how chanting can lead to dullness unless one allows
the mind to wander off the chanting (which is to chant in mouth
only without the presence of mind) or chant without mindfulness or
awareness. In other words, practicing chanting in the wrong
way.
With awareness, chanting will not dull the mind and this can
also be proven in the lab.
Ok, so your view is more balanced than I thought.
So, which came first ?
Being aware is a choiceless state where there is no engagement
between the consciousness of the person and his environment and
hence no impose or projected images and ideas. Even if words and
meaning arises there is still awareness. The separation
between words,meaning and reality is not awareness.
There is a difference between the contents of thoughts and
reality itself, the thought itself, the sensation itself. When we
practice something like Vipassana/insight meditation, we do not
engage with the contents, just vivid clarity of all sensations
(including thoughts), and this is awareness -- observing naked
reality as it is not through a layer of concepts, but bare
attention.
Reality includes thought, but when we are practicing something
like Vipassana, we are sensing reality and not the concepts, as I
have previously pasted an article distinguishing concepts and
ultimate reality. We can use concepts as a tool, but it must not be
mistaken as reality, and also we should not get lost in it
(worrying about past present future, daydreaming, etc) An example
of mistaking thought as reality: "I used to experience Awareness,
and now I have lost it" and this thought then leads to frustration,
sense of loss due to a sense of self, while reality is more like
Awareness is experiencing the thought including the thought of
'having lost awareness', and the notion a separate experiencer, an
"I" is merely a thought and not reality. Of course this is just an
example, there are other countless examples in which we experience
suffering due to the notion of a separate self, taken to be real.
In reality the "I" thought is just a story, it has no reality, no
substance. The story has no actuality, the 'I' cannot actually be
found in real-time sensate reality, it is just a story, a concept!
-- in actuality there is simply arising sensations and the activity
of thinking which are all the manifestations of Awareness, and
there is no separate self or experiencer that can be found within
or apart from these manifestations. So when we practice Vipassana
we disregard the content aspect of the thought, the story of 'me',
or whatever imagined story or concept -- and just observe the
thought for what it is, an arising and subsiding thought as part of
the ongoing sensate reality.
However, when we engage and get lost in thinking about the
content of the thought, we are not seeing the thought in itself, we
are not being mindful or aware of the activity of thought in itself
(we are thinking about something, imagining, fabricating and
conjuring up images and concepts about things instead of being
aware of what is actually present here and now, i.e. the thought
and all sensations as it is) --
As Zen teacher Barry Magid says,
Our usual way of thinking is to think about something - we
sit and think about something out there that our thoughts are
descibing or imagining. This kind of thinking is characterized by
its descriptive content - what it's about. But what if instead of
focusing on the content of thought, we see thought as an activity
on its own right?
As something that we, or our body, does? Our foot itches, our knee
hurts, our head thinks. It is just this perspective that labeling
our thoughts come about. When we repeat the thought "thinking about
'the cat on the mat,'" our attention is no longer on the cat but on
ourselves having a thought, engaging in the activity of thinking.
Often in Zen literature we find the words not-doing used to refer
to a not-separate mode of cuntioning. No thinker having a thought.
Just the activity of thinking.
And Bhante Gunaratana states:
Mindfulness is nonconceptual awareness. Another English term for
Sati is 'bare attention'. It is not thinking. It does not get
involved with thought or concepts. It does not get hung up on ideas
or opinions or memories. It just looks. Mindfulness registers
experiences, but it does not compare them. It does not label them
or categorize them. It just observes everything as if it was
occurring for the first time. It is not analysis which is based on
reflection and memory. It is, rather, the direct and immediate
experiencing of whatever is happening, without the medium of
thought. It comes before thought in the perceptual
process.
.............
If you are remembering your second-grade teacher, that is memory.
When you then become aware that you are remembering your
second-grade teacher, that is mindfulness. If you then
conceptualize the process and say to yourself, "Oh, I am
remembering", that is thinking.
And Daniel M. Ingram states:
Another reason that students often fail to make progress is
that they confuse content and insight. I suspect that they are
confused because they have spent their whole lives thinking about
content, learning about content, and dealing with content in a
context where content matters, i.e. when one is not doing insight
practice. You can’t take a spelling test in first grade and say
that all that is important is that words come and go, don’t satisfy
and aren’t you. This just won’t fly and wouldn’t be appropriate.
Just so, when practicing morality, the first and most fundamental
training in spirituality, content is everything, or at least as far
as training in morality can take you. You can’t be a mass murderer
and rationalize this by thinking, “Well, they were all impermanent,
unsatisfactory and empty, so why not kill ’em?” This just won’t fly
either, and so content and spirituality get quite connected. This
is good to a point: see the chapter called Right Thought and The
Aegean Stables.
Fixation on content even works well when practicing the second
training, training in concentration. When meditation students are
learning to concentrate, they are told to concentrate on specific
things, like the breath, a Green Tara (a tantric “deity”), or some
other such thing. This is content. There is no such thing as the
breath or a Green Tara from the point of view of insight practices,
as these are just fresh streams of impermanent and absolutely
transitory sensations that are crudely labeled “breath” or “Green
Tara.” But for the purpose of developing the second training,
concentration, this is ignored and these impermanent sensations are
crudely labeled “breath” or “Green Tara.” Thus, even for pure
concentration practice, what you are concentrating on, i.e.
content, matters. Thus, the idea that content is everything is
reinforced.
However, when it comes to insight practice, content will get
you nowhere fast. In insight practice, everything the student has
learned about being lost in the names of things and thoughts about
them, i.e. content, will be completely useless and an impediment.
Here the inquiry must turn to impermanence, suffering and no-self.
These characteristics must be understood clearly and directly in
whatever sensations arise, be they beautiful, ugly, helpful, not
helpful, skillful, not skillful, holy, profane, dull, or otherwise.
Anything other than this is just not insight practice, never was
and never will be.
It doesn’t matter what the quality of your mind is, or what the
sensations of your body are, if you directly understand the
momentary sensations that make these up to be impermanent,
unsatisfactory and not self, then you are on the right path, the
path of liberating insight. However, as mentioned before, off the
cushion the quality of your mind, your reactions, your words and
deeds all matter. These are not in conflict. Insight practice is
about ultimate reality, the ultimate nature of reality, and thus
the specifics don’t matter. Morality and concentration are about
relative reality, and thus the specifics are everything. Learning
to be a master of both the ultimate and the relative is what this
is all about.
Chanmyay Sayādaw states:
However in vipassanā meditation every object of meditation must be
absolute reality, ultimate reality, paramattha. In vipassanā
meditation no concept can be the object of meditation. Concept
cannot be the object of vipassanā meditation because vipassanā
meditators need to realise the specific characteristics and general
characteristics of mental and physical phenomena, which are
absolute realities. So the object must be either mental or physical
processes which are ultimate realities. If concept is the object of
vipassanā meditation, vipassanā meditators cannot realise any
characteristics of mental and physical processes because you cannot
find any real characteristics in concepts. Concepts are created by
the mind.
Also, one more thing:
Though we simply sense reality and usually disregard the
contents of thoughts in Vipassana practice, when we engage in
worldly activities (especially if our job requires a lot of
planning, logical analysis, and so on), there is no way we can
avoid dealing with the contents. Thusness was just talking about
this with me a few days ago.
He said that in this case, what is important is to lose the
sense of self in relation to personal gain or loss. That is not
having the sense of self in work has a lot to do with full
involvement but not concerning with gain or loss. Then one will
realize how the six parimatas is related to the insight of anatta
(no self), then meditation will take a different role for one that
arises 'deep' insight of anatta.
In short, when engaging in content, one has to be egoless and
free from personal gain/loss. When in bare, realize that there is
no observer, no agent, just manifestation. Then one's practice
becomes complete. However many practitioner do not understand the
implication before the maturity of insight and cannot find the
place of this anatta insight in daily involvement of worldly
acitivities, thus the categorization of arahat and bodhisattva.
Even if one realizes Anatta (emptiness of self) when the
practitioner gets involved in worldly things they may have trouble
experiencing and applying that insight in worldly matters. Hence
this is also important. That is, what is described above is the way
to apply the insight of Anatta when dealing with contents, instead
of phenomena. I should also note that many people see this as a
practice, however what Thusness is talking about is really about
applying the anatta and dependent origination insight and
experience to flow to the content level itself. So far, I and
Thusness have not come across any writings that talk about this
aspect.
I have not experienced this myself, and for the moment Thusness
told me there is no need to focus on this yet, just practice
non-dual (with bare sensate reality) and dropping first, then give
rise to insight.
From this I know that you do not know what you are
talking about.
How do you distinguish between concentration,
attention and mindfulness ? Or are you able to ? Many people
mistook concentration for mindfulness.
I also know you do not know what I am talking about. Reality, is
always present, and available. There is absolutely no state that we
cannot practice insight meditation. Even if we enter into shamatha
jhanas, we can practice awareness and vipassana within that
shamatha jhana. Awareness/reality is always available at all
circumstances.
Concentration is the focusing of mind on a single point to the
exclusion of other things. In practices such as anapanasati, there
are two ways to do it: either shamatha, or vipassana. In shamatha
we simply focus on the concept, the content, the breathing in and
out, or the visualized mental image, and fix our mind on that
specific content alone. This leads to shamatha absorptions and
jhanas but not insight.
However, if we concentrate on the breathing sensations, and
sense the qualities of the breathing sensation, the contact with
the air, the coldness, warmness, softness, hardness, etc, that is
Vipassana because we are observing reality itself, not our concept
of it. While observing reality itself we then observe its three
characteristics (impermanence, suffering, not-self) and this is the
practice of Vipassana. This is the practice of mindfulness, not
concentration. There is some element of attention or concentration
involved here when practicing anapanasati, that is we focus
awareness on the breathing sensations, or there can be a more wide
open, less focused way of practicing vipassana or naked awareness
-- i.e. choiceless awareness practice. However meditation with
support (e.g. the breathe) is useful and easier in the beginning,
though at certain phase there will be a preference for awareness
without a particular object. It's all fine, it's all the different
ways of experiencing awareness.
Neither does the flower had shapes and colours if it is the
"direct touch".
The flower does not have inherent shapes and colours, (for
example other animals may not see a red apple but a black one, or
if you look with quantum vision you may see mostly space instead of
a fixed shape, so there's nothing inherently solid and objective
characteristics out there) but that is what it appears --
due to dependent origination. It's empty of inherent existence, but
this emptiness does not deny the appearances -- which is hollow and
empty like a mirage.
There is no need to deny appearances which are all the vivid
manifestation of Awareness. Of course when we practice bare
attention we also do not label it as "red", "round", etc, we just
observe as it is.
If there is no concept, notion etc. in a person who is fully
aware would he/she be able to avoid a hole when he/she sees one
?
It is fine to use thoughts, however in my experience I naturally
avoid things without the need to contemplate. I simply walk without
the need to think "left, right, left, front" -- it is totally
natural and effortless. In actuality there isn't a 'doer' -- things
simply emerge spontaneously. When one experiences or realises this,
wisdom emerges spontaneously and not through a lengthy process of
thinking, but as an immediate response to circumstances. If
thoughts arise, it arises without a thinker, and if action arises,
it arises without an actor. In any case as I stated -- we can use
concepts, but not to mistake it as reality, and also we should not
get lost in it (worrying about past present future, daydreaming,
etc). Simple.
http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol9no3b.htm
Excerpt:
Often
people ask, "How is it possible to not think? I've got work to
do!"
The
untrained mind is always thinking, so much so that it is difficult
to imagine what the state of not thinking is like! Once thinking
begins, it is like throwing a pebble into a completely still pool;
ripples after ripples ensue and the pool is no longer still. Thus,
Buddhism advocates that when we have work to do, do it. It serves
no purpose to lament (think) about the whys, the ifs and the buts.
Just do it. Many wise teachers liken a pure mind to a smoothly
polished mirror - unmoving, clear and bright. When a red apple is
placed before it, it just reflects the exact red apple. It is not
concerned with its colour, sweetness, shape or size. The mirror
'just does its job'.
Some
years ago, my company held its annual Dinner & Dance by the
poolside of a hotel. During the party, a little boy of about 3 or 4
years of age walked straight into the pool. Almost instantaneously,
a colleague who was about 3 tables away plunged into the pool fully
clothed and pulled the little boy out. There was work to done and
so he just did it. It was spontaneous; there was no further
thinking. I never forgot that incident because it was an excellent
example of an action not adulterated by thinking. It was selfless.
The notion of 'self' or 'I' was not involved at
all.
So vulgarity is based on some social mores and standard or as
one fellow said conventionally vulgar (gosh! the play on
words). If all these are conventionally established than
according to the "teachings" in buddhism wouldn't this be false
? If it is false then why get upset ? Isn't it because you
are trying to live up to some conditioned conventional and false
reality or to put it in another way to live up to your delusions
?
Btw. I am not defending Herzong_zwei. Just hoping that you could
see a bit of your own delusions - we seldom could do that on our
own ;-)
I am not upset here, just doing my job as a moderator. Please
see our new Rules & Regulations, which in fact is mostly the
same as the one written in 2006.
As you yourself said, even Buddha follows convention. So I am
using conventions to judge whether certain words are deemed as rude
and vulgar. For example if someone persistently wrote the F word
here, some actions will be taken. (I am not saying anyone, and
anyway I am guilty of using these words myself when talking with my
friends [it's funny], but I
hope this forum will be more orderly) Nothing wrong.
Don't you know that there is also a thing call "moving
concentration" ? It is called the access state of the mind.
For those with very active mind moving concentration meditation
chould lead to access state much faster than jhana and we all know
that with access state insights will arise. Now that's what
visuddhimagga said but then again what do I know ;-) .
Yes. Some amount of moving concentration is needed in Vipassana.
Like the breathing sensations are moving, but there is momentary
concentration on every arising sensations, which does not solidify
anything into something fixed (that would be shamatha). Unless you
are practicing in a choiceless, relaxing into wide open awareness,
then the type of concentration or focus is a bit different. There
isn't the sense of effort or attempt to fixate on anything, rather
one rests in wide open and spacious presence that reflects
everything spontaneously. I am not very familiar with Visudhimagga
terms.
Oh no! aren't we a tad sensitive here. Don't take it
so personally.
Sorry. Agree was a bit too harsh.