Meditation - What's the Point?

If there is no point then why do people meditate? I suppose Im missing your point. But isn't that like saying (to use a bad analogy) someone continues to pinch his own arm because its pointless. I understand the concept of not expecting results or enlightenment. I don't search for enlightenment. I meditate for the reasons I mentioned and it seems to work for me.

reply to post by Tucket


Edgar Cayce fan? www.lawofone.info Wynn Free and group do some channeling but a ton of info for Ed's fans can be found here.

reply to post by rogert4


Visualisation occurs after the mind is silenced. If you can't silence your mind first, anything visualised will be corrupted by mental static. Letting go of the Human Ego is probably the most important aspect. The idea that you need to 'do something'.

Song, Dance and Verbal cues are a choice but the most basic version of meditation, at its most raw, is stillness and silence of the body and mind. From there you can advance to different meditative states using different techniques.

The point of my post is to give the person a clear idea that nothing HAS to be visualised or said, and to begin with this should be the preferred starting point.

reply to post by RicketyCricket


I found the only way I could learn to meditate properly was to undertake a 10 day silent vipassana retreat. They are donation based and for me it was hard work but incredibly rewarding. This technique is very pure, it is not based on mantras or religion but instead you work with your breathing, then your bodies sensations and when you have got that down something else occurs which I cannot really explain. This was the only technique that worked for me but as has been suggested before its a very personal path.

LightAssassin
reply to post by rogert4

 

The point of my post is to give the person a clear idea that nothing HAS to be visualised or said, and to begin with this should be the preferred starting point.

Understood, and I agree with the first part, but not the second. I don't believe any 'should' needs to come into meditation, I believe it is a personal journey and every individual can find their own path. That path need not be the same path as others, nor start from the same place.

As I said in my first post, trying to do nothing got me nothing more than frustration and confusion. Using 'tools' to direct awareness got me started. My path was perhaps different to yours.

Actually, from my experience and understanding, any 'should' or any belief, opinion, rule or even words if we are attached to them, takes you out of the present moment and for me that means takes you out of life. So any rule is a denial of life itself

Anyhow, what's happening with Mr. Cricket? How is your meditation exploration going? How about some feedback on your experiences?

reply to post by rogert4

Happy to engage with this, I don't see it as trolling, just a valid perception of some of what goes on under the label of Meditation, although from your post it seems you are focusing on Buddhists.

Trolling is internet behaviour calculated to offend. I'm calculating that people who practise meditation are spiritually advanced not to take offence at my post...

I'm not necessarily talking about Buddhist meditation, though it is the type I most often encounter.

What is your experience of meditation and what is your definition of 'self'?

Personal experience: repeated, unbroken failure to achieve a meditative state. Actually, I stopped trying over twenty years ago. Vicarious experience: quite a lot, since I live among Buddhists and my social circle tends to consist of well-off, well-educated people who can afford to indulge their inner selves a little. I have also talked extensively about spiritual, religious and related matters, including meditation, to Buddhist monks, Hindu priests, Muslim bawas and Sufis and sundry Asiatic holy men. I have taken things we aren't allowed to talk about on this site with many of them too, although I don't believe that is strictly relevant.

My definition of the self is: this body, this brain, this particular point of view.

Tucket
If there is no point then why do people meditate? I suppose Im missing your point.

Take the word "point" literally as in "dot" and you`ll get it.

reply to post by Astyanax


That's a nice reply, thanks.

You sound to have had a similar experience to me regarding (quiet the mind) meditation

Unhooking the concept of Self from body, emotion, and thought is not so difficult ... when you cut your fingernail, are you still 'self' or did you get less in the process etc etc, putting self in the brain is a bit more tricky as we obviously die without it! I get that you are probably way past that, I am not intending to be patronizing, but the info may be useful for the thread?!?!

Buddha reckoned that we are not our bodies, thoughts or emotions, and we are also not self. The first 3 are kind of self evident to me, obvious rationalizations, but the last bit I found REALLY challenging, and the top dude at the Wat gave me some lame explanation that kinda meant to me he didn't get it either - but what do I know!

and yeah, if people get 'trolled' by a bit of a challenge to their precious beliefs, they probably need to re-assess their meditation efforts

ETA: I just reread the post. I would love to talk about the 'other' things too, I have a fair bit of experience in that realm, which I alluded to earlier, and it certainly helps to get a different perspective on the teachings of the so called masters. But let's not get the thread closed!

LightAssassin
reply to post by rogert4

 

Visualisation occurs after the mind is silenced. If you can't silence your mind first, anything visualised will be corrupted by mental static. Letting go of the Human Ego is probably the most important aspect. The idea that you need to 'do something'.

Most westerners have massive issues with silencing the mind. Tayesin taught that we focus the mind on a task such as visualisation, instead of spending half our lives trying to learn to quieten the thing down to start with. It's a tool to be used effectively.

Focus and Intent. Simples.

reply to post by rogert4

Serious question: if meditation affects our mental functioning in ways that make us less effective as members of society, is that not a form of brain damage?

Many who meditate come to adopt a new way of looking at life. They attribute this to the knowledge or understanding they have obtained from meditation. It seems to me that it could just as well be some kind of pathology. People who adopt the 'meditative' outlook tend to make themselves ineffective in the world. This is not just a matter of how they think but also how they feel and how strongly they are motivated to act on their feelings.

Buddha reckoned that we are not our bodies, thoughts or emotions, and we are also not self. The first 3 are kind of self evident to me, obvious rationalizations, but the last bit I found REALLY challenging, and the top dude at the Wat gave me some lame explanation that kinda meant to me he didn't get it either - but what do I know!

I've come to think of it like this. Besides physical sensations, thoughts and emotions, 'self' seems to have another distinct component, which I think of as 'viewpoint' or 'consciousness of existence'. This is the pure sense of having a particular, unique position and relationship with the world, a sense of existence somewhere behind the eyes, the consciousness that I am I, here, and the rest of the world is not-me, over there. This abstract self is the entity that experiences what western philosophers call qualia.

From a strictly materialist viewpoint, this sense of unique consciousness can be thought of as an epiphenomenon, a kind of illusion generated by the unconscious physical and mental processes of our bodies and brains. But it can also be regarded as separate — as the separable essence of self. It is the thing that moves from mind to mind, through the cycles of rebirth, leaving everything else — memories, affection, passions, understanding — behind in one discarded body after another.

*

I've thought, read and talked about these things a lot, but in the end I'm too much of a materialist — and a sensualist — to be really keen on transcendence and enlightenment. I love nature, music, literature and art. I find the workings of human societies and the natural world — physics, biology, psychology, etc. — equally fascinating.

This leaves me unsympathetic to the Buddhist position that this world is a vale of tears, that life without the quest for enlightenment is meaningless, that ultimately the suffering of life outweighs its felicities and pleasures and the only way to escape suffering is to detach oneself entirely from all phenomenal things. I understand that not everyone who practises meditation looks at things from the viewpoint of Buddhist metaphysics, but it seems to me that meditating tends to make people think along such lines. Which, I humbly submit, are dangerous lines to follow if one wants to survive, procreate and prosper in this difficult world.

reply to post by Astyanax


That's the most beautiful post I have read on ATS in my 6 year tenure

I want to respond in kind, but not off the cuff, I'll be back ...

reply to post by Astyanax


You have touched on a lot of important points here and I would like to offer a different view. Firstly, though, I agree that many of your criticisms can be relevant to certain practitioner's or even entire schools of "spirituality". They don't, however, reflect the true intentions of Buddhism or of meditation.

Serious question: if meditation affects our mental functioning in ways that make us less effective as members of society, is that not a form of brain damage?

Many who meditate come to adopt a new way of looking at life. They attribute this to the knowledge or understanding they have obtained from meditation. It seems to me that it could just as well be some kind of pathology. People who adopt the 'meditative' outlook tend to make themselves ineffective in the world. This is not just a matter of how they think but also how they feel and how strongly they are motivated to act on their feelings.

You stated that an alternative perspective of reality or life, then that of our cultural normative, must be a pathology or mean we are "less effective as members of society". Doing this establishes a number of logical fallacies and projects presumptions upon a conclusion. You presume that our culture or society does not, itself, suffer from pathology's that promote ineffectiveness. Pathological inclinations towards violence, greed, apathy, intolerance, exploitation... and so on, are all very real within our culture and society. I don't think I need to qualify that statement, as anyone who is even remotely conscious of our culture and society can see this is true.

As Jiddu Krishnamurti once said, "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

So then, an alternative to this normative does not automatically equate to "pathology" or "ineffectiveness". It may if our culture and society was perfectly healthy, but it is not and will never be. Alternatives are a necessity, therefore, in order to continuously move us away from these pathology's and inefficiencies towards something better. Of course, this does not demand that ALL alternative views or paths will do this, which is why we must critique the characteristics of each view or path in their own right. Will they lead us towards a more intelligent, compassionate, cooperative, and thus efficient way of life?

I've thought, read and talked about these things a lot, but in the end I'm too much of a materialist — and a sensualist — to be really keen on transcendence and enlightenment. I love nature, music, literature and art. I find the workings of human societies and the natural world — physics, biology, psychology, etc. — equally fascinating.

This leaves me unsympathetic to the Buddhist position that this world is a vale of tears, that life without the quest for enlightenment is meaningless, that ultimately the suffering of life outweighs its felicities and pleasures and the only way to escape suffering is to detach oneself entirely from all phenomenal things. I understand that not everyone who practises meditation looks at things from the viewpoint of Buddhist metaphysics, but it seems to me that meditating tends to make people think along such lines. Which, I humbly submit, are dangerous lines to follow if one wants to survive, procreate and prosper in this difficult world.

The material sciences are also a "quest for enlightenment", it is just taking a different path. Physics, Biology, Psychology, Neuroscience, Technology... all of these things interest me, too. I went to school for neuropsychology and, oddly enough, am now a web programmer/designer who is passionate about permaculture, among other things. These paths, or narratives for explaining reality and pursuing my survival and satisfaction within such, are something I am culturally and naturally inclined towards and enjoy. However, I also know that none of these things will bring about true and lasting contentment with, or understanding about, reality. They can only offer fragmented glimpses into certain aspects of reality and life.

Which is why I do feel the need to relinquish strong attachments to them. That doesn't mean I can't continue to pursue them as a sort of playful interest. But it does mean that I don't rely upon them as a means of understanding who I am or to explain the purpose and meaning of life. The Buddha never said "the world is a vale of tears", or that all phenomenal experiences should be renounced indiscriminately, rather that suffering is an inescapable aspect of phenomenal existence and that we should strive to acquire insight as to why this is. Through doing so much of our suffering, in the forms of despair, discontentment, anger and fear, is extinguished. And if we are sincere enough in our quest, we can learn to become more empathetic and compassionate human-beings, allowing for a greater effectiveness in relating to and interacting with our fellow humans, insofar as the planet as a whole.

Ahh..got it

reply to post by rogert4

Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to reading your post.

reply to post by openlocks

You stated that an alternative perspective of reality or life, then that of our cultural normative, must be a pathology or mean we are "less effective as members of society". Doing this establishes a number of logical fallacies and projects presumptions upon a conclusion.

I salute your generosity, O Wise One, in adding to your karmic burden by taking on the task of correcting me. Logical fallacies, eh? Are you sure they are in my post, and not in your reading of it?

You presume that our culture or society does not, itself, suffer from pathology's that promote ineffectiveness.

I presume nothing of the kind, nor is such an assumption pertinent to my argument. As you realise if you've been paying attention, you and I live in very different societies. The society of Kapilavastu was surely different to either of ours. Societies and cultures differ around the world and throughout history. And even the most apparently hidebound are in a state of continuous change. Society and culture are evanescent, transient things (rather like the Self). However, the outlook cultivated by many who meditate — and which is 'normative', as you put it, in Buddhism — renders people equally ineffective in any society.

The Buddha knew this. That is why he was so reluctant to concoct a lay rule for Buddhists, and why he emphasised, for example in the Upasaka-sutta, the unlikelihood that 'lay followers' could attain enlightenment. The best they could hope for was to be reborn into better circumstances.

The way of the Buddha is the way of renouncement of the world. There has never been, and never will be because there never can be, a society in which followers of the Eightfold Path can function effectively; the triumph of enlightenment means the end of all human institutions.

Astyanax
reply to post by rogert4

 

I'm going to respond to all of the post, because I feel we are both enjoying the exchange, but please don't get caught up in any detail, it's the end of your post that moved me and what I want to speak to.

Serious question: if meditation affects our mental functioning in ways that make us less effective as members of society, is that not a form of brain damage?

If this, then that? Maybe. But to me it's an invalid question because is appears to make an assumption which I cannot agree with because that isn't my own personal experience. My own experience of practicing with certain styles of 'meditation' has made me more effective as a man, a father, a husband, a family member, a friend and I believe, a member of society. Mostly of course, that's my own opinion, but I do get direct feedback to confirm it from time to time

I can type a bunch of words to back up my claim: community projects, business achievements, financial records, summaries of relationships etc etc but it's all anecdotal and all subjective and if you have your own contrary experiences, what's the point?

I've come to think of it like this. Besides physical sensations, thoughts and emotions, 'self' seems to have another distinct component, which I think of as 'viewpoint' or 'consciousness of existence'. This is the pure sense of having a particular, unique position and relationship with the world, a sense of existence somewhere behind the eyes, the consciousness that I am I, here, and the rest of the world is not-me, over there.

Seems like we are on the same page, or a similar one at least. I may have read something a little different between the lines though

This abstract self is the entity that experiences what western philosophers call qualia.

From a strictly materialist viewpoint, this sense of unique consciousness can be thought of as an epiphenomenon, a kind of illusion generated by the unconscious physical and mental processes of our bodies and brains. But it can also be regarded as separate — as the separable essence of self. It is the thing that moves from mind to mind, through the cycles of rebirth, leaving everything else — memories, affection, passions, understanding — behind in one discarded body after another.

Not sure I get you here, but it sounds like you lean both ways!? Have you looked into any of Rupert Sheldrake's work?

*

I've thought, read and talked about these things a lot, but in the end I'm too much of a materialist — and a sensualist — to be really keen on transcendence and enlightenment. I love nature, music, literature and art. I find the workings of human societies and the natural world — physics, biology, psychology, etc. — equally fascinating.

I was around 40 when I had my first cup of shamanic juice. I had thought, read and talked about the nature of reality and the meaning of existence, pretty much my entire adult life. In the 8 hours that followed I had experiences that taught me more than I had learned the entire 20 years to that date, as well as unraveling most of what I naively thought was true about myself and the world.

I have always believed that the purpose of life is to experience it, that's all! What I have been slowly uncovering, with meditation as one of my aids, is how to maximize my conscious awareness of my experiences, mostly by learning the art of presence and surrender.

I loved human biology at school, it was probably one of the only things I loved about school!, but understanding the functions of the heart, even at the cellular level or beyond, is nothing compared to connecting with the energy of your heart and feeling it's gift of wisdom, compassion and harmony. Knowing the names of all the acupuncture points may be valuable if you believe acupuncture a valid healing modality, but that knowledge doesn't generate the joy and wonder of feeling streams of energy coursing around your physical form, and then being able to play with them, directing them back and forth just for fun

For me, transcendence has nothing to do with sensory deprivation. It is instead the escaping of the prison of time, the releasing of memory and thus past and future to regain the presence we are born into. Rather than dulling the experience of living, the experience of 3D reality and the experience of human interaction and creative activity, it enhances it, for it gives us access to innate sensitivities we forgot we had, enabling us to feel what's really there, rather than what our thoughts tell us is there.

Yes indeed, life is spontaneously arising. Thoughts don't move fast enough to label life, only the snapshot memories of moments, but that isn't life, nor was it ever! IME, only feeling, witnessing, sensing or flowing with the energy you experience with your conscious awareness of your present moment allows you to enter the bliss of nascent joy

This leaves me unsympathetic to the Buddhist position that this world is a vale of tears, that life without the quest for enlightenment is meaningless, that ultimately the suffering of life outweighs its felicities and pleasures and the only way to escape suffering is to detach oneself entirely from all phenomenal things. I understand that not everyone who practises meditation looks at things from the viewpoint of Buddhist metaphysics, but it seems to me that meditating tends to make people think along such lines. Which, I humbly submit, are dangerous lines to follow if one wants to survive, procreate and prosper in this difficult world.

Perhaps I have a little more sympathy but not that much.

IMO, Life is suffering simply because we resist or hold onto energy patterns. When we interfere with the flow of life by using thoughtforms to lock energy into place, the lack of flow makes us feel less than whole, like something is missing ... suffering! The point of life is to experience. It doesn't matter if you experience the inside of a cave for 40 years or you sail around the world and climb Everest, it's all just experience, no more or less valid than any other ... from the bigger picture. From the personal perspective, I want to have fun and play with life, which is why it only took me 15 days in the forest to realize what a waste of my 3D talents it would be to stay there any longer, I want to make a different contribution, to have my life be used in a different way - others are better at doing 'forest retreat' than me

reply to post by rogert4

(You appear) to make an assumption which I cannot agree with because that isn't my own personal experience. My own experience of practicing with certain styles of 'meditation' has made me more effective as a man, a father, a husband, a family member, a friend and I believe, a member of society. Mostly of course, that's my own opinion, but I do get direct feedback to confirm it from time to time

Personal experience is hard to argue for or against. The person who had the experience has a solid conviction of the truth of it, but proving it true to others is often impossible. Conversely, he may be mistaken — he may have hallucinated or confabulated his 'experience', or simply misinterpreted it — but persuading him of this may be equally impossible because of the strength of his conviction.

Besides, a damaged brain cannot necessarily perceive its own malfunctioning. I'm not seriously proposing this is the case with you — apart from saying kind things about my post, you haven't shown any other signs of having lost your marbles — but for the sake of argument these possibilities must be considered.

Finally, you seem to be hesitant to call what you do 'meditation', so quite possibly you haven't actually experienced the full brain-melting monty.

Not sure I get you here, but it sounds like you lean both ways!? Have you looked into any of Rupert Sheldrake's work?

I read one of his books many years ago, I think. I don't care for people who try to mix science and metaphysics.

The bit of my post you quoted is straight out of Buddhist metaphysics, though. Here are a couple of texts dealing with the subject:

Three Cardinal Discourse of the Buddha

The Five Aggregates: A Study Guide

Only feeling, witnessing, sensing or flowing with the energy you experience with your conscious awareness of your present moment allows you to enter the bliss of nascent joy

Perhaps you are right, but why should conscious awareness of the present moment exclude memory? You're over forty, so you must surely have experienced flashes of the contentment and joy that can come from recalling past acts and events, things you did right and did well, loving and joyful moments you experienced, and suchlike.

Recalling the past with pleasure is by no means the same as hankering after what you no longer have. An arthritic, elderly ex-athlete may still take joy and pride in past feats of prowess. Someone who has loved well and lost can still appreciate the felicity and passion they once experienced, even if the pleasure is tinged with regret for the loss. You don't need to meditate to come to this place in life; at any rate, I haven't had to.

IMO, Life is suffering simply because we resist or hold onto energy patterns. When we interfere with the flow of life by using thoughtforms to lock energy into place, the lack of flow makes us feel less than whole, like something is missing ... suffering! The point of life is to experience. It doesn't matter if you experience the inside of a cave for 40 years or you sail around the world and climb Everest, it's all just experience, no more or less valid than any other ... from the bigger picture. From the personal perspective, I want to have fun and play with life, which is why it only took me 15 days in the forest to realize what a waste of my 3D talents it would be to stay there any longer, I want to make a different contribution, to have my life be used in a different way - others are better at doing 'forest retreat' than me

I might quarrel with your terminology (you're using 'energy' as a metaphor; there's no actual energy involved, apart from the tiny amounts of electrochemical and thermal energy involved in cerebral processes) but I am happy to agree with what you are saying here. According to the Buddha, though, you have to leave all this stuff behind in order to attain liberation. Joy is just as potent a generator of thanha as suffering.

reply to post by RicketyCricket


Why don't you just try routine concentration exercises twice a day for twenty minutes a day? Then you can avoid all of these metaphysical complications.

Actually kneeling, then head to the ground, or resting on hands, increasing blood flow to the brain, you can feelz it big time!!

So, Blood to Brain = GOOD!!

Astyanax
reply to post by rogert4

 

The person who had the experience has a solid conviction of the truth of it, but proving it true to others is often impossible. Conversely, he may be mistaken — he may have hallucinated or confabulated his 'experience', or simply misinterpreted it — but persuading him of this may be equally impossible because of the strength of his conviction.

I'd say, that my experience of my experience of some form is just as valid as your experience of your experience of the form. One may think they have the truth of it, perhaps because they have more 'agreement' from others who share a similar perspective. I don't claim any access to truth, just my own experience of my own experiences

Finally, you seem to be hesitant to call what you do 'meditation', so quite possibly you haven't actually experienced the full brain-melting monty.

To me it's just a label, as are all words, and it points towards something which people in this thread have debated over. The act of meditating and the various altered states of consciousness don't occur for me to be automatically linked. I've had some pretty interesting experiences, some of them felt like death, some like birth, some just ripped my sense of self apart and left me breathless in a 'what the fk just happened?' kind of way, but I am not claiming I've experience the ultimate - something tells me that's a bit of a red herring anyhow.

The goal of enlightenment shows up for me as a bit elitist, a bit of an ego trip. What happens afterwards? All the pretty stories say you just get back to life as it was before. Didn't buddha hang around for 40 years teaching after he got 'enlightened'?

Personally, after even the most profound altered state experience, the dog still needs feeding and the lawn cutting


The bit of my post you quoted is straight out of Buddhist metaphysics, though. Here are a couple of texts dealing with the subject:

Three Cardinal Discourse of the Buddha

The Five Aggregates: A Study Guide

Only feeling, witnessing, sensing or flowing with the energy you experience with your conscious awareness of your present moment allows you to enter the bliss of nascent joy

Perhaps you are right, but why should conscious awareness of the present moment exclude memory? You're over forty, so you must surely have experienced flashes of the contentment and joy that can come from recalling past acts and events, things you did right and did well, loving and joyful moments you experienced, and suchlike.


Yes, I call this presencing a memory. It isn't the past that is experienced, it is the act of creating an energy pattern in the moment from the stored code of the memory. If you do away with time for a moment, and have all past and future be simultaneous, then it isn't a linear past present future thing, it's a tuning-in thing.

I might quarrel with your terminology (you're using 'energy' as a metaphor; there's no actual energy involved, apart from the tiny amounts of electrochemical and thermal energy involved in cerebral processes) but I am happy to agree with what you are saying here.

Not that kind of energy

oh dear, that last post got its tags in a twist and my '4 hour window' has expired. Sorry for the confusion!