Eastern Faiths

[aruna]

Anyone care to discuss?
Hinduism, Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen... etc etc.

[slobbit]

I'm willing to discuss. I'm writing what I guess would be called a magic realism story, and while I don't come out and say the Shrine is a Shinto shrine, or the meditations are zazen, or the directional tabus are fung shui, well--they are.

My dilemma is since I'm writing an alternate history I don't want to come out and say something like "That figured. Nara-bo was from a Tendai sect temple, and that's what they all believed over there," and portray something misleading because: 1. I don't know the finer points well enough, or 2. I've had to deal with some slight modifications to fit my worldview.

But yeah, I can discuss Japanese Buddhism, Shinto, shugendo, and Tao.

[SLake]

Anyone care to discuss?
Hinduism, Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen... etc etc.

Discuss? Do you mean that you have a bone-to-pick, questions maybe, or do you just want to watch people write stuff?

Buddha said that he didn't want people following his beliefs blindly, but he wanted them to think for themselves. But given my experiences with Buddhism, it appears they all wear the robes, don't have sex, and they're vegetarians. I could mistake them for Jehovah's Witnesses, even Bahai, if it weren't for their costumes, but admittedly, Buddhist works are more detailed.

How's that for starters?

[SLake]

Discuss? Do you mean that you have a bone-to-pick, questions maybe, or do you just want to watch people write stuff?

Buddha said that he didn't want people following his beliefs blindly, but he wanted them to think for themselves. But given my experiences with Buddhism, it appears they all wear the robes, don't have sex, and they're vegetarians. I could mistake them for Jehovah's Witnesses, even Bahai, if it weren't for their costumes, but admittedly, Buddhist works are more detailed.

How's that for starters?

Decidedly unspiritual...?

[aruna]

Definitely not bone to pick. More about practice.

[SLake]

Practice. A concept meaning repetition. I wonder if there's been anything new since the Vedas, except more practice.

Sorry I'm cynical about religion, East, West, North and South. Science too and definitely politics, and I'm not absolutely sure about myself either :) I hope someone can extend the dialogue for you in a more traditionally acceptable and practiced way.

[aruna]

Practice. A concept meaning repetition. I wonder if there's been anything new since the Vedas, except more practice.

Sorry I'm cynical about religion, East, West, North and South. Science too and definitely politics, and I'm not absolutely sure about myself either :) I hope someone can extend the dialogue for you in a more traditionally acceptable and practiced way.

It doesn't really matter. I don't need it (dialogue). And yes, repetition is the way, till we get it right. A bit like Groundhog Day!;)

[SLake]

It doesn't really matter. I don't need it (dialogue). And yes, repetition is the way, till we get it right. A bit like Groundhog Day!;)

Yep

[Tedium]

IMHO, perception is the only required practice, at least as far as Buddhism and Taoism are concerned. Over time, many things were added to these religions. The core, however, still remains perception. The ability to see and asess the world around you.

Buddha just sat down, calmed himself, and waited for the scales to fall from his eyes. I can't imagine that he did much more. He experienced an epiphany, a revelation, a "No shi-, Sherlock" moment. Of course the world was a certain way and of course there was something he could do to make it more bearable.

That is what I have come to find anyway.

[dadburnett]

Anyone care to discuss?
Hinduism, Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen... etc etc.

Taking a lead from the "Gandhi" quote you use ... what is it you want to see in such a discussion?

[DarkKnightJRK]

I've been curious about Zen. I'm not really sure about the spiritual stuff, but the idea of meditation, clearing the mind, that kind of thing facinates me and I think could help me out.

[Shweta]

I have a love-hate relationship with the Eastern religions myself. Just like everywhere else, I see some wonderful insights papered over with layers and layers of social normativity.

I am fascinated by the insights, hate the social normativity. I tend to identify as a Hindu heretic, partly because, well, Hindu women aren't supposed to even be looking for truth behind this stuff. Which I think is such nonsense.

However, I think as a historical phenomenon, as writer-fodder, the socially normative aspects might be the best bits. It's quite hard to write interesting fiction about altered states, I find; but the different social/cultural aspects have endless possibilities.

I really want to write something set in the period between Vedic (Indo-European) polytheism and the Ganges Valley civilization with its trinity and reincarnation and all that.

[aruna]

I've been curious about Zen. I'm not really sure about the spiritual stuff, but the idea of meditation, clearing the mind, that kind of thing facinates me and I think could help me out.

Zen is not the only practice for clearing the mind r meditation, but seems the most well known in the West. I need to write a book called Vedanta and the Art of Computer Maintenance, to get people out of the Zen-timeloop! But then, I know nothing about Computer Maintenance...

[aruna]

[QUOTE]I have a love-hate relationship with the Eastern religions myself. Just like everywhere else, I see some wonderful insights papered over with layers and layers of social normativity.

I stick with the wonderful insights, ignore the destructiveness and obvious unspirituality of many Hindu so-called traditions, such as caste cruelty. The latter, as I see it, are typical power issues and really have nothing to do with real Vedanta.

I am fascinated by the insights, hate the social normativity. I tend to identify as a Hindu heretic, partly because, well, Hindu women aren't supposed to even be looking for truth behind this stuff. Which I think is such nonsense. (my bold)
Shweta, that is not entirely true. I personally know at least five female Hindus (and have seen, in flesh and blood, and been impressed by, four of them) who are recognized as absolute authorities as Vedantic teachers, with huge followings of Hindu men and greatly respected in India. I can PM you their names if you like. Two of them are still alive. The other three never left India but are quite famous there for their wisdom and compassion. True, it might be difficult in some Hindu communities for a woman to show interest in anything beyond weddings and domestic management, but the wonderful thing about Hinduism is that whatever you can claim about it, the very opposite is also true.

I personally am not much interested in the normative aspects you mention, and as a non-Hindu they are also not important for me to know. And yet no other society, I find is as basically female as Hindu-India; I mean with that, that so-called female values seem to be at the very base of that culture.

And I have the highest respect even for "normal" Hindu women. No other women have so made me aware of my own strength and value as a woman as the ones I met when I first went to India. I left there as a completely different person; and it is actually Indian women who taught me self esteem. It's a phenomenon hard to describe, but for me it was absolutely true.


However, I think as a historical phenomenon, as writer-fodder, the socially normative aspects might be the best bits. It's quite hard to write interesting fiction about altered states, I find; but the different social/cultural aspects have endless possibilities.

Have you read anything by Meera Syal? You should! I recently read Life isn't All Ha Ha Hee Hee... which sounds like a very silly book but is actually excellent, well written and all about the domestic norms you describe, and women who break away from them. Though I took issue with some of the things Syal says about Hinduism in that book... living in England, I think she has not grasped some aspects of her own religion and makes some claims about it that I, as a non-Hindu, know to be wrong!

[Shweta]

Shweta, that is not entirely true. I personally know at least five female Hindus (and have seen, in flesh and blood, and been impressed by, four of them) who are recognized as absolute authorities as Vedantic teachers, with huge followings of Hindu men and greatly respected in India. I can PM you their names if you like.

Oh, I should have been clearer -- I was talking about women's historical role rather than current role. We're getting beyond many of the worst traditions now, I'm sure, and obviously even historically we've had figures like Mirabai. But the traditions and rituals make it pretty clear what womens' place was supposed to be!

I personally am not much interested in the normative aspects you mention, and as a non-Hindu they are also not important for me to know. And yet no other society, I find is as basically female as Hindu-India; I mean with that, that so-called female values seem to be at the very base of that culture.

Certainly the notion of Shakti is a principally female one, and that interests me a great deal. It's not how things were, though, growing up as a Hindu girl -- I had to move to the States to find out that Hindu female figures weren't always supposed to be meek!

Have you read anything by Meera Syal? You should! I recently read Life isn't All Ha Ha Hee Hee... which sounds like a very silly book but is actually excellent, well written and all about the domestic norms you describe, and women who break away from them. Though I took issue with some of the things Syal says about Hinduism in that book... living in England, I think she has not grasped some aspects of her own religion and makes some claims about it that I, as a non-Hindu, know to be wrong!

I'll look it up. I know exactly what you mean, though, about the outsider seeing things the insider doesn't. Kept happening to me when I went back to India :)

[aruna]

Certainly the notion of Shakti is a principally female one, and that interests me a great deal. It's not how things were, though, growing up as a Hindu girl -- I had to move to the States to find out that Hindu female figures weren't always supposed to be meek!


:)

And think of Draupadi, in the Mahabharata! Five highly desirable husbands, each one willing to do her bidding the moment she raised a little finger. And the whole war fought because she was insulted.

[Shweta]

And think of Draupadi, in the Mahabharata! Five highly desirable husbands, each one willing to do her bidding the moment she raised a little finger. And the whole war fought because she was insulted.

Yes, but her place is firmly established. She may be a cosseted wife, but any power she has is because her husbands protect her.

And when the Pandavas find out about Karna? They don't blame themselves, they blame their mother. Obviously it's a woman's fault.

There's all sorts of insidious nastiness in there.

[aruna]

Not to mention Sita having to walk through fire to prove her chastity.

[Shweta]

And then getting dumped anyway.
Grrr.

(Should finish writing my Sitayana story, I really should)

[aruna]

well, I have had the audacity to rewrite the Mahabharata.

[Shweta]

well, I have had the audacity to rewrite the Mahabharata.
:hooray:

[Death Wizard]

I'm a Buddhist. Buddhism is about walking the path, not talking about walking the path. So you can't really judge Buddhism on what you've read about it or heard people say about it. You have to to judge it based on what you feel once you've actually walked the path for awhile.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean this as chastisement for anything that's been said up to now. I'm just making my own points.

[aruna]

I'm a Buddhist. Buddhism is about walking the path, not talking about walking the path. So you can't really judge Buddhism on what you've read about it or heard people say about it. You have to to judge it based on what you feel once you've actually walked the path for awhile.

.

Same for Vedanta, especially the Advaita aspect of it. It's actually silence, not talking at all. And actually, I'm quite happy that Vedanta never achieved the populist appreciation that Buddhism did; it's far less crowded here. It also means that everyone mentions Buddhism or Zen when they talk about "Godless" religions, especially atheists. It means that you Buddhists get a lot more talkers!
However, even within an established practice an exchange can be fruitful and helpful and should not be ruled out. This is why I started this thread.

[blacbird]

The most powerful Eastern faith in the United States is belief in the Boston Red Sox.

caw

[Death Wizard]

Same for Vedanta, especially the Advaita aspect of it. It's actually silence, not talking at all. And actually, I'm quite happy that Vedanta never achieved the populist appreciation that Buddhism did; it's far less crowded here. It also means that everyone mentions Buddhism or Zen when they talk about "Godless" religions, especially atheists. It means that you Buddhists get a lot more talkers!
However, even within an established practice an exchange can be fruitful and helpful and should not be ruled out. This is why I started this thread.

I agree entirely. Sorry, I wasn't trying to sound weird about it. I do find, however, that the people in Upstate South Carolina (where I live) aren't the best people to have exchanges with!

[Death Wizard]

The most powerful Eastern faith in the United States is belief in the Boston Red Sox.

caw

Better that than the Yankees!

[SLake]

The most powerful Eastern faith in the United States is belief in the Boston Red Sox.

Well I can live with that. There's spirituality in everything.

I have a love-hate relationship with the Eastern religions myself. Just like everywhere else, I see some wonderful insights papered over with layers and layers of social normativity.

I can only agree, and Blacbird's post makes a lot of sense to me in that regard. (I mean, the arc of true belief has shifted to other devotions). All that was written, the glorious, feeble, good and evil is surely happening now, obvious and not so obvious. "Social normativity" what a huge spectrum that is, the very fabric of life, indeed "many layers." So whilst I agree, I think that within the multi faceted layers of people and their fascinating ways, you are kind of generalizing. Hell, I do it myself, but being we're supposed to be thinkers here, I was going deeper. Although it probably appears I'm being a smartarse, alas.

I am fascinated by the insights, hate the social normativity. I tend to identify as a Hindu heretic, partly because, well, Hindu women aren't supposed to even be looking for truth behind this stuff. Which I think is such nonsense.

Curious thing "normativity" it's kinda like a social currency to which we all agree, but underneath -- privately with our pals and family we share different philosophies that are often contradictory to "normativity." So even you are a "normative," as indeed I am, otherwise we'd be considered strange, which we most of us are aware of, so we take care to be "normative." (Grief "normative," oh what a word, what a word).

However, I think as a historical phenomenon, as writer-fodder, the socially normative aspects might be the best bits. It's quite hard to write interesting fiction about altered states, I find; but the different social/cultural aspects have endless possibilities.

Thing is, what were the normatives of history? People in this country, UK are whinging about laddette women -- drunk and wild -- acting like lads= boys, when 200 years ago, from what I've read, there were wilder, wilder women, and today's bunch are tame by comparison. So, normative, never mind looking at Western history, even your history, the normatives of history were very, very different. Therefore already, history is an altered state.

I really want to write something set in the period between Vedic (Indo-European) polytheism and the Ganges Valley civilization with its trinity and reincarnation and all that.

And all that, you say, hmmm, your casualness about the driving force of religious life and what people may have died for exhibits heretical tendencies :D Thankfully now we can chuckle, but could they then? Why couldn't they -- the obvious, fear? Or maybe such never occurred to them. Perhaps (obvious again) -- just as chuckling at someone's fervent belief in politics or someone's beloved RedSox we would avoid. Normative is surely ever-moving. Capturing a normative of history -- meaning from their POV and not ours is startling when achieved. It's SciFi -- Romance; costume; fiction / non -- a wonder of wonders, something everyone wants. Well, it is -- strange and foreign shores.

Surely all you need to do is shelve your current normatives for those of old, which means you will achieve an altered state -- be different, at least inside anyway, and obviously that is risky. Difference to the norm always carries risks -- as I've said, as most of us know. Understanding why dying with you husband is ok, even before Mirabai refused, was a reality they believed in, a normative. Can you achieve a state of belief that the practice was good, right and correct, and therefore have an inkling into their normatives? But I guess not everyone, even before Mirabai, would have agreed with the practice and there would have been murmurs somewhere. Perhaps today's kind of murmurs, but more likely not. I don't know Mirabai's reasons for refusing to die.

I'm probably making this more mystical than people enjoy enduring, but I'm talking differences. Obviously difference is what wars are all about. Difference is a serious matter. Staying non-political, the normative US attitude to modesty even today is laughable to the normatives of Europe, and both cultures are mostly the same blood. So already an altered state, one that many people could not endure -- each normative has reasons, facts etc, as to why their normative is right and the other's isn't. So history wooo, normative differences are huge, but again we're all are much of the same blood.

I hope you succeed with the project, I find other normatives fascinating.

[Shweta]

Well, certainly the normative rules of a different age would be different. But while researching them, I've been horrified at how many of them are still assumed by traditional Hindus. And I'm talking rules that are thousands of years old, here.

And there have been... more and less permissive ages. How dangerous it was to disagree would depend on when I set a story. (On a more permanent note, no, I haven't risked death or physical harm, but no, it hasn't been easy - I've risked a great deal to go my way in life, and do things many Europeans and Americans take for granted.)

The point about altered states is I think a misunderstanding. Certainly all fiction sets up an altered world. But we still want characters to respond plausibly within that world. So much Vedic religion seems to involve Soma, and working within an altered state of consciousness -- and in my experience that's not much fun to read about. Very different thing from an altered world.

And yes, I like to focus on the altered worlds :)

[SLake]

Well, certainly the normative rules of a different age would be different. But while researching them, I've been horrified at how many of them are still assumed by traditional Hindus. And I'm talking rules that are thousands of years old, here.

And there have been... more and less permissive ages. How dangerous it was to disagree would depend on when I set a story. (On a more permanent note, no, I haven't risked death or physical harm, but no, it hasn't been easy - I've risked a great deal to go my way in life, and do things many Europeans and Americans take for granted.)

The point about altered states is I think a misunderstanding. Certainly all fiction sets up an altered world. But we still want characters to respond plausibly within that world. So much Vedic religion seems to involve Soma, and working within an altered state of consciousness -- and in my experience that's not much fun to read about. Very different thing from an altered world.

And yes, I like to focus on the altered worlds :)[/quote]

If Buddha said life is a dream then he meant it's an "altered state." Normal characters respond plausibly within their state / time / era according to what is considered normal, so normal is variable -- it can be altered and alters frequently, eg recent Kenya and transitional Yugoslavia illustrate that ordinary folk can alter and become killers.

Whilst what is around us is commonly called real, it seems that perceptions of the real vary from age to age, crisis to crisis. Perhaps our time now is based on the truly real, or perhaps it is just another state of mind which will fade, become passe and in 200 years they will not understand the rationale of this normality. History bears this out, even our children. I'm not saying we are wrong, better or worse, but part of a variable perception -- part of an altered state.

Normality itself then is an altered state of consciousness. To appreciate the past I think the altered state of the times one is writing about should be adopted. In that way the writing will have the appearance of the solidity of their normality, because the writing will be about what is seen and understand by the writer as real. Otherwise it'll be the intellectual POV of a 21century person and that'll show through.

Achieving the altered state of another time is of course the province of the mystic who are rare as hen's teeth, or those who happen upon it by accident or determination, and you may know that it's known as being in character.

That's what I meant. Sorry about the confusion. :D

[aruna]

Well, certainly the normative rules of a different age would be different. But while researching them, I've been horrified at how many of them are still assumed by traditional Hindus. And I'm talking rules that are thousands of years old, here.



Speaking of... I just saw the movie Water, by Deepa Mehta. It's about widows, in particular a child widow, around the time of Gandhi. Very worth seeing, if a bit maudlin/Bollywoodesque at times. Seems to be based on a novel.
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Water-DVD-Special-Deepa-Mehta/dp/B000E112BG/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1201525338&sr=8-2

[Death Wizard]

The bottom line with Buddhism and some other Eastern philosophies is that meditation is what separates them from other religions. You can break down Buddhism intellectually and psychologically until your hair falls out, but all of that is just rhetoric in comparison to what is achieved during mindfulness meditation. Forget about the ritualistic trappings of Buddhism or any religion. They are meaningless when compared to meditation. You have to walk the path (with your mind) before you can truly understand what the path has to teach.

I'm not saying that the people commenting here haven't done that. I know Aruna has done it. Again, I'm just making statements that I believe to be true, due to my own experience.

[Shweta]

So from what I've learned, while the concept of mindfulness is crucial, different forms of Buddhism use different types of meditation. The focus is on different aspects of breathing, and the approach to intrusive thoughts is different. And they feel different, too.

And they all feel different from the semi-trance state of being around a pujaari chanting over a fire.

Where I'm going is, what forms of meditation do you guys do, and how do they seem to you?

[aruna]

I've been practicing Atma Vichara for over 30 years now. The principle behind it is that the mind is normally turned outward. Thus it is restless, roving around seeking fulfillment through attachment and pleasure. Atma vichara means drawing it away from the objects "outside", and turning it back on itself in order to seek its source. That practice brings inner peace and, ultimately, if practiced diligently, happiness independent of outer circumstances. But it's a long and very hard process.

[Death Wizard]

I practice mindfulness meditation in the Theravada tradition, which purports to be closest to the Buddha's original teachings.

Watching the breath is just a way to begin your focus, but what you really watch are all things that pass before your inner vision: emotions, physical sensations, etc. The Buddha taught that all things are impermanent. Therefore, desire and aversion are rendered meaningless. But again, just saying this doesn't mean much.

Look at it this way: You and I could be walking through the mall and I could say to you, "A tree is tall." Or I could take you to Redwood National Park and have you stand at the base of a Sequoia and say, "A tree is tall."

Meditation is more like the latter.

By no means would I ever try to convert someone to Buddhism or any religion. But for anyone interested in learning more about this from someone a million times more qualified than I could ever be, check out this: book. (http://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Plain-English-Updated-Expanded/dp/0861713214/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201535271&sr=8-1)

[Shweta]

If I'm remembering the different ones right, the Theravada tradition is the one that clicked the most for me, back when I took a class on Buddhism... way too long ago.

This is the one where you watch the thoughts and emotions that come into your head, and accept them, and let them go when they're ready to go, yes?

[Death Wizard]

If I'm remembering the different ones right, the Theravada tradition is the one that clicked the most for me, back when I took a class on Buddhism... way too long ago.

This is the one where you watch the thoughts and emotions that come into your head, and accept them, and let them go when they're ready to go, yes?

There's a lot more to it than that, of course, but you're on the right track. Buddhist texts number in the thousands of pages, and as you might imagine they are difficult to condense, but what you're saying isn't inaccurate. My point is (and I mean this good-naturedly), there's a world of difference between saying that you are going to "watch the thoughts and emotions that come into your head" and actually watching them. It's like the difference between telling someone that you're going to run a marathon and actually running it.

[Shweta]

Yes, and I do remember what that was like when I was actually meditating -- I was going on memory there. I also remember how hard it is to find words for the mental state!

[SLake]

There's a lot more to it than that, of course, but you're on the right track. Buddhist texts number in the thousands of pages, and as you might imagine they are difficult to condense, but what you're saying isn't inaccurate. My point is (and I mean this good-naturedly), there's a world of difference between saying that you are going to "watch the thoughts and emotions that come into your head" and actually watching them. It's like the difference between telling someone that you're going to run a marathon and actually running it.

Belief it has been said is powerful, so I would disagree with what you say about the difference between watching a marathon and actually running one. Although appreciating belief is the difference between knowing of belief and the actuality of it. Books; movies; forums even, are a mild parallel in the exercise of belief. People become excited and such when it is only in their minds.

The obvious of the marathon: sweat; weariness; exhaustion may seem impossible to "simulate" but in my experience it can be done, and that is an extreme of the power of belief.

Your point about watching thoughts and emotions come into your head, I would agree with, but only from the average male pov, which includes myself. In my experience an average woman, because of her speed and the multiplicity of her awareness' in thoughts / emotions etc, such observation would be possible. And in a woman's mind that is well ordered, quite easy.

[Shweta]

I dunno, I'm female and I find this form of meditation very hard indeed.

[aruna]

Over the years I have heard hundreds of women discuss their meditation practice. No, it is not easier for women.

Some individuals- both male and female have a predilection for meditation and do find it easier than most people. A more introverted nature can mean a natural inclination for the mind to turn inwards on itself rather than outward. But there is definitely no gender preference for such ease.

Deathwizard, your practice sounds very similar to the so-called "witness consciousness" of vedanta. There too, one withdraws into the "witnesser" or "observer" of thoughts.

The trouble is that there is no objective definition for meditation. People use the word to describe all sorts of mental activities. They use it to project their will into their desires. They use it to lose themselves in dreams. And all sorts of wish-fulfilling, comfortable things which would be anathema to any serious practitioner.

[SLake]

... sorry I cut it

The trouble is that there is no objective definition for meditation. People use the word to describe all sorts of mental activities. They use it to project their will into their desires. They use it to lose themselves in dreams. And all sorts of wish-fulfilling, comfortable things which would be anathema to any serious practitioner.

What I meant, as I said: the observation of passing thoughts and emotions -- a greater capacity + the speed = added ability. In my experience little to do with meditation as I know it. As you say -- besides the male / female ability -- there is no objective definition for meditation. And then you say, all sorts of comfortable things would be anathema to any serious practitioner, you are contradicting your previous statement regarding no objective definition of meditation.

I take these subjects more seriously than is probably useful on a forum, so I'll butt out and leave you guys to it. Apologies if I've upset you.

[aruna]

You haven't upset me in the least and do hang around!

Even if there is no objective definition of meditation, there ARE definitions of serious practice, and a consensus in all traditions --whether Buddhist, Vedantic, Taoist, Zen or whatever- as to goals and results; and a huge difference between someone who joins a meditation class as a once weekly relaxation exercise or an experiment, and someone who has dedicated his/her whole life to it, searched far and wide for the best teachers, and put in hours of hard work daily; and it would be silly to claim that all practices are equal and all definitions are equal.
I really hope this does not sound snobbish, but it is important that people define their position for a sensible discussion to take place; otherwise we are all speaking of completely different practices. I do use my own specific definition when I use the word, and I just wanted to make that clear.

[Death Wizard]

Belief it has been said is powerful, so I would disagree with what you say about the difference between watching a marathon and actually running one. Although appreciating belief is the difference between knowing of belief and the actuality of it. Books; movies; forums even, are a mild parallel in the exercise of belief. People become excited and such when it is only in their minds.

The obvious of the marathon: sweat; weariness; exhaustion may seem impossible to "simulate" but in my experience it can be done, and that is an extreme of the power of belief.

Your point about watching thoughts and emotions come into your head, I would agree with, but only from the average male pov, which includes myself. In my experience an average woman, because of her speed and the multiplicity of her awareness' in thoughts / emotions etc, such observation would be possible. And in a woman's mind that is well ordered, quite easy.

I promise that I don't mean this in a mean or argumentative way, but I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you just said.

Mindfulness meditation has little to do with belief. In fact, the Buddha -- who invented this form of meditation -- disdained belief of any kind. He encouraged people to believe only in what they see for themselves, not in what they are taught to see or told they should see.

I also disagree that you can simulate a marathon, or any similar example. The reason you can't do that is because each step you take in the marathon will be unique, impermanent, and have something to teach.

As for men/women meditating, there is no difference whatsoever. In fact, few minds -- except for the minds of highly realized meditators -- are well-ordered. And I can prove it. Sit down somewhere quiet and alone with the purpose of simply watching your breath. No other thought. Just concentrate on your breath slipping in and out of your nostrils. What you'll find is that about a tenth of a second into your first inhalation, your mind will wander. In that short of a time, you will be taught that you have very little control over your own mind and that your mind is not nearly so well-ordered as you might believe. In that short of a time, meditation teaches you something profound. Yet, it continues to teach much, much more than that, with every subsequent breath. That's what I mean when I say that talking about it and doing it are two different animals. You can talk all day long about how tall a redwood is. You can quote stats. Show me pictures. But all of that will pale in comparison to taking me to one and having me stand at its base.

[SLake]

I promise that I don't mean this in a mean or argumentative way, but I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you just said.

I cut here, but I read your post and appreciate what you said. Thank you, DeathWizard.


As you say, Deathwizard, and also nicely written. Thank you for your excellent manners -- seriously, around the net some people are atrocious.

You haven't upset me in the least and do hang around!

Even if there is no objective definition of meditation, there ARE definitions of serious practice, and a consensus in all traditions --whether Buddhist,

I cut here... but read and appreciate what you said, thank you, Aruna.

I really hope this does not sound snobbish, but it is important that people define their position for a sensible discussion to take place; otherwise we are all speaking of completely different practices. I do use my own specific definition when I use the word, and I just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you Aruna, also for your excellent manners and kindnes. I hope I clarify...

You're obviously both learned people, which naturally includes Shweta. Your advice DeathWizard is good, but for me good a little time back now. The first time I meditated properly was about 35 years ago with a Buddhist monk, whom whilst I was meditating I also saw in my mind as well, which made me jump, XD. In my mind he was hovering and it was so real I opened my eyes and there he still was, bum on the ground. ^^ I have no problem clearing my mind or meditating, even on the run / buses wherever I choose. By meditating I mean clearing my mind of all thoughts. But thank you anyway for your advice, it was well meant and well taken. Reminders are usually always good, in my opinion at least.

I tend to think Buddha a little slow, not a negative observation, but for this reason: 8 years under the tree (forget its name -- bohi...? duh sorry) and he realized he shouldn't be abusing his body by starving it. I was vegan for a number of years and it did me no good at all. It dawned that I'm a barbarian / Viking-ish, you know -- heritage and all that, so that's what I am and now I enjoy it, feel no guilt for what I am. I had an Indian pal whose wife knew over 1000 vegetarian dishes, so she said, and the ones I tried were exceedingly nice dishes, oh indeed, but hey, I'm from the West, a barbarian, the blood so I enjoy... (speaking for myself only ok?!). Oops, off topic.

Poor things, you asked me to stay :D

Meditation. Not being learned as you folk, but relying on my experiences, I know of an alternative in my writing and indeed life -- adoption of character which completely takes me out of myself, but it is more risky than ordinary mind clearing, or meditation, as it's often known. More risky because one tends to forget who one is. I think good actors often suffer from this problem sometimes. Whereas with straight mind clearing, the pointers to who one is are all around.

My conclusions then, my own -- and not learned like yours (I'm not being smart, but that's how it is with me), regarding meditiation is that there are two kinds. One subtacts, the other adds and there are variations of those two extremes. Subtractive is retreating from the noise of the mind. Additive is invoking the noise of the mind towards some end -- involvement in something or other. But my engagement in the two types er, not abstract -- at a distance. I mean (or think I mean -- because I haven't documented this, so I stumble along here) there's the clear mind, which only observes / is not touched or swayed -- when I don't have emotions (well that's near enough to what I mean). Subtractive meditation feels great and is surely what drug takers seek, as those who can clear their minds such as you probably can DeathWizard, will understand.

The other meditation although involvement, is also at a distance. (Again, not having documented, I write as I go). Er, well, my family upbringing was cold and I think that has helped me with detachment when I'm involved -- I have a variation of sociopath inbuilt I think -- does it show :D Thankfully now I'm surrounded by love at home, so it was happily-ever-after.

Anyway, meditation through involvement as detaching me from me -- much as meditation through subtraction has the element of detachment -- total involvement meditation as a project in itself when it's finished shows me another aspect of myself / life / what I am and am not. In that sense I run marathons for real.

Subtractive meditation I guess was for me a preparation for marathons. In that, first I realized me by detaching me subtractively and so observing me. Then knowing me (to an extent but not possibilities), after marathons, aka projects, I return to me again, a little changed and a little more learned. Ahhh dear me, it's all me, me, me. :D Was that funny? Probably not, sigh, I try.

Total envolvement meditation, hmmm, I haven't really explained it fully and I've never heard of it before, but it's lots of fun. It's a bit like playing a role and perhaps I can jazz it up by throwing in the concept of rebirth ^^.

So, with subtractive meditation I learned separation of self, and thence it is possible to join an entirely new self -- a meditation process in itself as I've indicated -- the marathon.

In separation I can agree with everyone, East, West, North and South, but feminists and racists will always dislike me on sight, alas. Agree depending on who I am with. Agree because indeed everyone believes themselves right and if I am like them, I understand why they are right. Anyway, that's just a spin off tale of meditative involvement and there are many adventures. The end result being, many me's with many perspectives -- none of them actually me.

To this extent I was drawn into the discussion by Shweta discussing history and normatives. Thank you all for your patience and manners.

[Death Wizard]

SLake:

I can't deny that there's a lot of wisdom in what you say. I also appreciate your saying that I'm learned, but my guess is you're probably much more learned than I am, in most regards.

However, the truth of words, whether learned or not, pales compared to the truth that naturally exists in the depths of a quiet mind. That's my opinion, based on personal experience.

I think that some people (not you) mistake mindfulness meditation for inner journeys, spirit quests, out-of-body experiences, drugged states, sleepiness, daydreaming, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. The meditator is supremely alert and supremely awake, and what he or she sees isn't woo-woo, angelic or otherworldly, but rather a series of objective yet liberating truths about what it means to be a living being. Again, my opinion, based on personal experience.

[SLake]

SLake:

I can't deny that there's a lot of wisdom in what you say. I also appreciate your saying that I'm learned, but my guess is you're probably much more learned than I am, in most regards.

However, the truth of words, whether learned or not, pales compared to the truth that naturally exists in the depths of a quiet mind. That's my opinion, based on personal experience.

I think that some people (not you) mistake mindfulness meditation for inner journeys, spirit quests, out-of-body experiences, drugged states, sleepiness, daydreaming, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. The meditator is supremely alert and supremely awake, and what he or she sees isn't woo-woo, angelic or otherworldly, but rather a series of objective yet liberating truths about what it means to be a living being. Again, my opinion, based on personal experience.

Learned, me, DeathWizard, you are most kind, thank you, and indeed all pales before the quieted mind, which few truly experience as you say, and such differs from person to person. Out-of-body, yes, a bit like a jet ride with afterburners on, and as such, as you point out -- not actually spiritual but only an experience.

Supremely awake is indeed startling as well, a supreme achievement by a determined will, all credit to you, DeathWizard, such as in The Pilgrim's Progress perhaps, surely the place of the Delectable Mountains, that Bunyan its writer mentioned, from which the only path is down into the Vale of Apollyon? The Vale of needles and pins and doubts, or something like that. I read it a long time ago.

Words, the anagram sword which as a writer you'll know all about, and saying they're only is risky because they make wars and drive people into battle. Without words only a fool would go except those at the point of a stick or something similarly spiked. The road is long and I mean well, not ill. But Eastern Faiths, that's the subject and here I am a barbarian, and you what you are, a published, learned and respected man I would say, with the patience to communicate with me, but honestly, I'm not that well-read and only in what I need.

I feel like an upstart, an interloper into polite company. I probably shouldn't but I do. So I really, really should leave you all alone, ok? Thanks again for your good manners and patience.

[aruna]

Thank you for your kind words, SLake, but I too feel the word learned is undeserved... I have always felt awkward, a blabbering baby, uncouth, incoherent, when it comes to discussing meditation! You on the other hand do sound learned, and it is always intimidating for me to discuss such an intimate topic with virtual strangers so I apologize if I have come across as preachy.
I agree totally with what Deathwizard said above and have nothing to add to that. Although I think that the urge towards meditation is always good, one does have to be careful these days -- it's a slippery slope and more often than not the ego gets in the way. Especially if you have been at it a long time, as I have. That's why I said in one of my first posts here: it's like Groundhog Day, always back to the beginning until you get it right!

[aruna]

Here's quite a nice YouTube animation that illustrates the concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyuQbIb0Xs

[Death Wizard]

Here's quite a nice YouTube animation that illustrates the concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyuQbIb0Xs

That was excellent. Thanks for sharing.

[SLake]

I will add an apology to DeathWizard for my clumsiness. I'd rather have added a short addendum to my last message explaining this and then PMd him which is more personal. But I don't know him personally, so here I am in the stark light of day explaining why I was clumsy and trying not repeat my clumsiness, sigh.

In my last post I pointed to difficulties that may happen on a path -- to all of us perhaps, and certainly me which is why I mentioned it, The Vale, another difficulty as one travels. But the postives I hadn't mentioned, only assumed -- that they went without saying -- the clear mindedness, awareness and realization of meditation -- even as I presumed DeathWizard capable of understanding such a process in the first place. His are splendid achievements and if my clumsiness appeared to contradict them, I apologize -- that was not meant. I saw DeathWizard's abilities, realized them and in my mind applauded him for them, which indeed I should have said, outloud.

Groundhog Day, Aruna. It took the actor a few months to get it right with the woman in the film -- how would he have faired with her on day 2, I always wondered that. :D But ego, mine does run away with me from time to time, too true. In a family surrounded by love and lots of humour, I tend to assume that outside people know that what I do is well meant, when of course they don't. In many cases the worst is assumed and retrospectively too often I realize this -- the sigh above yet another reminder of this to myself :(

Safer more often than not that I shutup, listen and observe! So alas, DeathWizard, I meant well, sigh. And thank you Aruna, I appreciate your well placed words.

[Death Wizard]

SLake:

No apologies are necessary, whatsoever. I didn't find anything you said to be the least bit clumsy. Quite the opposite. I was just defending my own standpoints, more in a general way than in anything specific said by you.