|
Schnooks, when I was your age, I ran into Thich Nhat Hanh's Peace is Every Step and to this day it is probably the best book I've ever come across about integrating mindfulness into all aspects of one's life. If you haven't already, it is probably worth checking out. Also, it's probably worth figuring out what kind of devotion feels sustainable and balanced. Treasure the road, not the destination, and all that. There's no rush whatsoever, Buddhism definitely isn't going anywhere.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Using sanskrit terms for stuff when anyone who is not, uh, unusually familiar with sanskrit is going to feel confused or left out.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Possessive love would be viewed differently than simply loving something for what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
How do you meditate on something?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
I guess I'm wondering more how someone would meditate 'on' something other than compassion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
How has the counting been significant, out of curiosity?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Try to avoid riding a horse into their monasteries. It is not completely forbidden, but generally it is frowned upon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I recently converted to Orthodox Christianity and I was amazed by what I heard. They said that the true way to divinity was to destroy your attachments to things in the physical world and to downplay and control your passions. This sounded like Buddhism to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1zJzr-kWsI On a less vague note... Most would attribute it to the general similarities of sagacity from culture to culture. Also both are syncretic religions that have both made their rounds through similar regions. There's some theorizing that it goes the other way as well with some of the Guanyin/Avalokitesvara stuff having caught on as something of a Mary figure. But that stuff largely all comes down to who was where when and, in truth, we can't say with almost any certainty. The best answer to that question is to check out the different contemplative traditions around the world. Both the Jewish and Christian (and Islamic, i.e. the Sufis) overlap so well with, uh, a Buddhist worldview that often you can't even tell what tradition you're reading for substantial periods. In modern times, there's an active and ongoing exchange among Buddhist and Christian contemplative communities at all levels.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Spandex is pretty drat liberating.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Buddhist's can't even agree if birth or death are real, much less what on earth (or off earth) might or might not happen next.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
That wasn't a criticism whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
And he spent a lot of time pondering metaphysics, he just refused to talk about it. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Question for the Zen folks: One who has been recognized to have achieved meaningful mastery of (usually of/within one of the traditions of) Zen. It is implied that the recognition came from some people who were themselves recognized as people of some tangible mastery. It is amorphous in some ways, but I would be wary of someone who would claim to be a Zen Master and isn't able to speak of where they trained or who they trained with or who recognized them as well as what lineage that was all a part of. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
No doubt it is worth clarifying what mastery is and what it looks like. And of course, what zen is and what mastery of the things usually included under the umbrella of zen would look like as well. And if I've butchered anything in the last two posts, please jump in and clarify anything, any zen people who may or may not be in this thread. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:Any thoughts/advice is greatly appreciated! What branch of Buddhism we choose matters little compared to how we live life day-to-day and moment-to-moment. With that said, most people seem to find that Zen neither requires nor demands any beliefs beyond an interest in not harming anyone in the room. Probably because of that, you're likely to run into as wide of a variety of religious backgrounds at a zen sitting group as really anywhere. As to Vajrayana, I'm not a practioner, so I can only speak as someone who has bumped into it a bit and found some of their understandings of sleep and dreaming helpful as I continue to learn to live with narcolepsy. I've gotten the impression that many of the more 'supernatural'/religious/shamanic elements are there because it comes from an area and culture(s) where people would have experiences that would fall into one or more those categories, whatever the causes may be/have been. Since some of those experiences could be profoundly troubling or profoundly uplifting (or both, or neither, too), its understandable that they'd be interested in how to integrate such experiences into the fabric of life, as well as how to include people who experience the world radically different, whether due to religion, or mental health, or disability, etc. Taken at face value, it would likely be a lot to get used to and learn for anyone who doesn't already enjoy learning about what other faiths and cultures believe, both what's easy to grasp from a western perspective and things that sometimes appear to really clash with western perspectives. Only way to really know is to try it out. If it doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel right. There's an extraordinary amount that Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism see eye-to-eye on, and many people seem to have found that they can be quite complimentary, as well. Just as a brief aside: Buddha apparently said, "Scrutinize spiritual teachers like a gold merchant scrutinizes gold." Talk to em, engage em, get a sense of who they are and what's important. Not everyone in robes is in them for the same reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:I would strongly caution you away from bhakti yoga. I don't mean to besmirch other religions but Bhakti would form too many attachments to be "expedient means". Even tantric deity yoga is seperate from bhakti, simply that bhakti is for Brahma and Moksha, not Nirvana or bodhicitta. I'd love to hear a more in depth explanation of why you'd strongly caution someone away from Bhakti Yoga. quote:I would be wary of such things in meditation. In the buddha's attainment of enlightenment he encounters mara thrice while meditating, and the third time is as his ego. But the buddha banishes this. We cling very strongly to an ego that is not- this causes a host of afflictions that we should watch out for. I will say that I have had personal experiences of bodhisattvas, or powerful moments during meditation however! Be wary, but still treat them respectfully. I'd suggest offering them tea, should they turn up in dreams, but whatever is your cup of tea. Or just give em a hug.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:I wouldn't caution someone away in general. Bhaktiyoga is an incredible tool to forge s better person. But for a Buddhist practice, surrendering yourself to god fosters too much attachment, encourages a reification of the false views. I'm totally confused by this. You're saying the only thing in Bhakti Yogi is 'becoming god'? I was under the impression it was about recognizing the godlike nature of love that ties the beings of the universe together. And about recognizing the divine in all things as a means of facilitating practiced non-violence and helpfulness. The little bit I know about Bhakti Yoga has overlapped so heavily with Buddhism that until someone starts speaking, I can't tell them apart.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
I genuinely know almost nothing about what Bhakti Yoga actually believes, that's why I'm curious why you're so strongly opposed to it. You just surprised me because the people I've known from both Buddhist traditions and Bhakti traditions have, without exception, had a pretty deep mutual respect. You're literally the first person I've ever run into who sees them as incompatible or at odds or something, that's why I'm so curious. Especially since the people I've known who'd run into Bhakti traditions mentioned that many of their fellows were Buddhist contemplatives and that the presence of other traditions was one of the better parts of their entire experience of Bhakti Yoga. Similarly I've run into several Buddhists who felt a very deep kinship with the practices or traditions or encouragements of Bhakti. That is, they'd clearly found Bhakti useful in their own Buddhist practice. So I guess I'm curious if you've had some experience of their incompatibility or if they're just metaphysically at odds or something? Forgive my patched together knowledge of both Buddhism and Bhakti for a moment, please  My experience of the two is that they both have some meaningful responses that overlap substantially when it comes to the question of, "well how do we humans live in the world?" As to what gods or aspects of gods or awareness people realize, that seems to vary from one person to the next, regardless of tradition, so it's been my experience of contemplatives that you just kind of have to accept that they probably have their own reasons for having their own goals or gods. That said, the people I've known from the Bhakti tradition would wholeheartedly agree with your distrust of Bhakti, which is why I'm curious if you've had some experience of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:Nice answer and the sort of critique I think I was looking for when I asked. I introduced that false dichotomy in my language on purpose to illicit a reaction but I don't necessarily lean one way or the other ultimately, besides the fact that my cultural upbringing and circumstances have set me on a trajectory to appreciate the "globetrotting" lifestyle a bit more. I think one important thing is that his intended audience is probably the 18-35 range of people who still have a lot of youthful vigor and potential first world opportunities to leap towards, and in general I find his philosophy more enlightened than the average person's, which is obviously vague but perhaps you know what I mean. It does fail to answer that ever pervasive question of "what to do when the fun is over?," besides just saying get it while you can. Your contrasting view does make me ponder if we of the first world have some sort of responsibility towards those in more unfortunate situations, if they can be called that, and if so, what? I think we obviously do, in some sense, but I have no idea how to grasp the logistics of actually helping those people, and it does feel like a problem much bigger than myself-- there are probably an embarrassingly large number of people living in the year 2013 that are living like those ancient buddhists. How do you confront this personally? Is this something to meditate upon? Do you feel compelled to give up material possessions and move into a monastery? I don't know what to do besides keep on living in such a way that improves upon my first world, and hopefully if I am lucky enough to improve my own life and that world MAYBE some of that could spill over to others, eventually. Going out and seeking the most extraordinary or fantastically rare experiences seems frivolous as all poo poo to me while people continue to starve to death and/or die due to treatable illness, and a significant fraction of the world's children have only limited access to education. And on and on. Still, it really is wonderful when people end up with meaningful, worthwhile experiences. The idea of having to go to the other side of the planet or doing something so totally different to have a wonderful experience, seems like something to be concerned about, not something to make a lifestyle of. Yes, seeing the ways that people live with less, or in other cases, the way some people live with much, much more, is definitely eye-opening. But it's just as eye-opening in your own town/city, often much more so. Every contemplative tradition I've heard of has several big social services projects. Christians and their hospitals are probably the most visible example. By the way, while some Christian monastic traditions may involve a lifetime in monastic settings, that is less the case in Buddhism, and especially in more Western settings. Someone might sit 'locked in their room' for 20 minutes in the morning, or they may visit a monastery once a week, or never visit one, and that's great. Everyone has some combination of family, friends, pets, plants, community, goals, hobbies and/or livelihoods, etc. and generally any practice or 'training' that would get in the way of prior responsibilities would be seen as counter-productive and irresponsible at best and dangerous/neglectful at worst. Instead, recognize the opportunities already around us in our lives. No one has to go to a monastery to practice more patience with one's self and others. No one has to go to a monastery to waste less food and resources. No one has to go to a monastery to appreciate just how much (likely most of us here) already have, particularly with largely functioning bodies and full stomachs. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
There's a deep reverence in Buddhism for wandering and travelling. As well as for taking the time to sit in one's room or to visit a center of practice. They're understood to be mutually supportive and more of a function of where someone is in their life, what they want to do, and what they are able to do, rather than some absolute one-or-the-other kind of thing. Understand that this is a response to you, not some declaration of Buddhist beliefs or whatever. You'll get different answers from Buddhists/different people. I'm just saying that if someone can learn to enjoy life while travelling, hopefully they can learn to enjoy life while at home, as well. If you turned up here saying that you love to never leave the house, I'd be rambling to you about the virtues of going outside and travelling instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Those questions are pretty closely related. From what I've gathered from speaking to Buddhists about this: Attachment, as a part of the Four Noble Truths, is indeed presented as a major obstacle. The prescription presented in the FNT is the Noble Eightfold Path, or Middle Way. Buddha encouraged a middle-of-the-road approach to life and practice because he thought, at first, that suffering could be ended by extreme, life-threatening levels of renunciation and austerity. It nearly killed him and he was still suffering, probably suffering more, from his attachment to extreme practices. Apparently he realized that life and living (for one's self and others) requires a more pragmatic relationship with attachment. The middle road was born. The middle way (or whatever someone wants to call it), deals with existing in the world and communities we already are a part of, it is definitely not a guide to escaping into a catatonic, unresponsive inner realm. It was by blindly following attachments or blindly running from all fears that we drive ourselves into daydreams or obsessive distraction... or potentially damaging spiritual practice(s). If anything, it is meant as an antidote to the trance-like nature of being pulled constantly from one stimulus to the next. So it is more about opening our eyes honestly to the reality of all the suffering in the world, rather than attaching to momentary selfish gratification, or just shutting our eyes forever. So watch out for extremes and try to deepen your sense of what balance looks, feels, smells, sounds, and tastes like. Don't need a monastery to do that! And there's no reason to wait until you're within the walls of a monastery and less reason to stop upon leaving.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
http://www.dharmaseed.org/ That's my go-to source for way more talks than I could ever listen to. After that, I doubt I'll ever pay for a talk. I went to a Nyingma center for a talk once and they wanted 20 bucks. I offered them the two dollars and two oranges I had with me, but they didn't want them. Then their card scanner didn't work 4 or 5 times in a row, so that ended up working out alright. There's so much free stuff out there, I dunno why anyone pays for anything Buddhist, beyond token paper and ink costs. I guess if you really like a center and want to help with building costs....
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Supporting monastics is pretty cool, given that it is usually quite a search to find a cave with a convenient spring/stream in a safe, out of the way place. That and combining a bit of community with that lifestyle also seems to have been genuinely for the best. And yeah, maintaining buildings is not at all cheap. Especially old buildings.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
I'm aware of literally nothing in Zen that would be diametrically opposed to Christian beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
There were apparently a number of Benedictine Brothers that were into Zen for quite a while. Including an abbot of a Benedictine monastery. Apparently with the full support of the Catholic heirarchy. I was told this after turning up to a Zen group and jokingly asking them, 'How can I know you're not secretly a bunch of Benedictines dressed up as Zen practioners?' A lot of contemplative sorts end up with a pretty serious brothery/sisterly feeling towards other contemplatives/contemplative traditions. As well as a lot of mutual curiosity, from what I gather.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
I died a mineral and became a plant. I died a plant and became an animal. I died an animal and became man. Why should I fear death? When was I ever any less by dying? Rumi
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Has anyone in this thread experienced ego death through meditation? I've heard of ego death happening in sensory deprivation chambers and through the use of psychedelics, but since this is a Buddhism thread let's just stick to meditation. I've never been in deep meditation, but I've come to understand that your sense of time slows down and you lose at least some sense of individuality because you're concentrating on the present moment. Is this true, and is it possible to lose all sense of "I" while in a deep state of meditation? Jhanas are basically stages or degrees of this. Yes, it is absolutely possible, though people often/fortunately are careful not to talk too much about the content of meditative experience, so as to allow everyone to discover for themselves at their own pace. Why do you ask? Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
You're on the right track there, but still a little off if you think that mind 'isn't there' during sleep. Being dead and being asleep are very different states, both in the moment and in terms of future potential. One involves zero brain activity and zero metabolic activity, the other requires a great deal of brain activity as well as regenerative metabolic states. Consciousness also clearly continues during sleep, though indeed in markedly different ways from active, waking awareness. While there's no reason to assume that death and parts of the brain shutting down are actually identical, from the perspective of an individual, there is basically no experiential difference between something not existing and something not remembering it exists. Except that a living thing will, barring extremely extensive brain damage, remember that it exists again. Not trying to nitpick or anything. I find the intersection of sleep and wakefulness really fascinating as well. Each morning we experience our brains basically waking up and coming back online in a more individual sense. Memory functioning picks up after almost completely dropping away in the middle of the night. What we are coming back from, each morning, is not some absolute passivity, but an active state. Sleep is active, from the perspective of the brain. It is outwardly inactive because our brains effectively paralyze us in sleep (though not always perfectly). Physiologically, sleep involves some really important metabolic states to both growth and healing. That said, we all experienced non-existence once. Seems like death probably is pretty comparable to how it felt before we were ever born or conceived.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Also, strictly speaking, there's no reason people can't consciously experience sleep. It is just difficult as both memory and time-perception are not so functionally present in sleep states. Dunno to what extent it truly is trainable, but there are a number of sleep disorders that lead to such. Some are considered to be pretty terrifying (waking up mentally while sleep paralysis is still engaged) as that often goes along with hallucinations of 'entities.' Similarly, the transition from wakefulness to Stage I sleep is so subtle that it can't even be reliably noticed. People who are in Stage I sleep often would believe themselves to still be awake if you asked them. Cognitive function doesn't really substantially drop out until Stage II sleep.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
mcustic posted:You're right but full anesthesia is so much closer to death in terms of actual brain activity compared to regular sleep. At least I think so, I'm not a neuroscientist. However, all your points are valid and I didn't mean to claim I'd experienced death, just that I had an experience that pushed me towards Buddhism. Just to be really clear, I in no way meant to nitpick your post. Experiences where the self drops off temporarily are really all around us in life, though by nature very difficult to notice. Many people seem to think of it as an absolute 'All-self' or 'zero-self' kinda thing. By nature, it seems to be more of a spectrum. Often the self drops off a bit and makes a bit of room for something else. Day dreams, getting lost in thought for a moment, forgetting time for a bit, forgetting to breath for a few moments, sleeping, dreaming, getting absorbed in work or a game are a bunch of day-to-day ways in which self-perception (aka proprioception) drops off for a bit without us having to do anything. Like you, I find the fluid nature of self fascinating, both to be aware of and to try to bring a little more awareness to. I emphasize that I'm not trying to nitpick because, from what I can tell, everyone experiences all of these things a little differently, both experientially and neurologically. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Sure, the meditative state of being is almost, by definition, intended to loosen the rigidness of an overly-clinging sense of self/ego/whatever. What an individual experiences really depends on the individual, but people who spend some meaningful time putting together a more flexible and inclusive 'sense of self' seem to experience a greater range of the spectrum(s) of self. The more specifically Buddhist perspective on this stuff tends to particularly emphasize a balanced, middle path, perspective on such human phenomena. I.e. Don't worry about 'getting the experience' of the absolute extremes of such matters. Build a more gradual path towards a more relaxed notion of self that will support you more fully in whatever you want to do. A more gradual path in such things leads to being better grounded in the event that you begin to notice more fully the presence of a perspective that just doesn't really connect to any material identity. Of course, that's the safer, more traditional approach to such things. There are other ways people end up experiencing alarmingly complete loss of sense of self, from trauma to drugs to schizophrenia etc.. In those cases, it is usually profoundly disruptive (particularly in cases of trauma and schizophrenia) and terrifying when not expected. In the case of drugs, some people experience it as their sense of self is literally dying, which can be terrifying and traumatic, to put it mildly. In other cases of substances, some people experience a more gradual and painless/effortless/profoundly blissful 'slipping away,' so to speak. And, of course, everything in between. Naturally occurring (and welcomed or even invited), such experiences often are only a few moments or seconds long. Sometimes maybe a minute or two. With drugs, such things can be hours or days in duration, with after-effects lasting for months. From trauma and schizophrenia, such states can hang around for weeks, months, years at a time. Whether someone is trying to loosen the boundaries of their 'sense of self' or trying to rebuild the tatters of a self, both involve meaningful grounding in just what a healthy, balanced, adaptive, and inclusive (but not amoral) 'sense of self' would even look like. A sense of self graceful enough to relax its death grip from time to time. That and maybe investigate the strange 'canvas' onto which our mind is projected?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
If your eyes are darting, you've fallen asleep, generally. It's particularly easy to fall asleep if you sit with eyes closed, as opposed to half-open. Interestingly, the transition to Stage I sleep isn't (generally) noticeable as a sensation. Most/many people in Stage I sleep believe themselves to be awake when queried.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
From what I've gathered: When you turn up at any Buddhist meeting place, whatever the particular term may be in each case, take a look around and try to figure out whether people there seem happy, healthy, and balanced. If you're considering practicing there, ask around about the teachers affiliated with the place. Ask whatever comes to mind, but also ask what to watch out for, ask if they have any concerns of criticisms. Be really wary if the subject gets rapidly changed or the message seems too strongly, 'everything is perfect, all the people are beautiful.' Specifically, the Buddha said, "Scrutinize Buddhist teachers like a gold merchant scrutinizes gold before buying." One of the main reasons it is widely considered dangerous for people to rush through Buddhism (in a community context) is it is expected and understood that getting to know someone: whether student, teacher, one's peers, etc. in a relatively thorough way just, by nature, takes years.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
One must be careful while dealing with spiritual or 'mystical' matters/teachings/books (whatever the hell that means exactly) to remember that what is literally being said in the words is only a small part of everything that is being said. They take the symbolism, layers of symbolism, and interactions between symbols to be every bit as important as what is literally being said. Often, if not usually, instructions have a strong smybolic and/or metaphorical context. Moreover, there is often a traditional commentary or explanation that goes along with a teaching. These things exist to help ensure that when someone hears the words, 'meditate on a corpse,' that they may hear it as an encouragement to open-endedly investigate the impermanence of life, each in our own way, not as a command that they have to go sit on a literal, diseased/decaying corpse until they realize that they shouldn't be sitting on an old corpse, anyways. Taken literally, 'meditate on a corpse' is some seriously dubious, probably dangerous advice. Taken (or given) as an encouragement to investigate just what a deeply fulfilling life is and how to make the most out of whatever amount of time we have on this here rock, the encouragement makes a little more sense and can be practiced much more safely. And at one's own pace. Sorry about the rather extreme example. Words (especially old ones that have gone through multiple translations) require some extra, continued effort to connect to and understand. Taking a text or teaching (or whatever) literally that was never meant to be taken literally can get dangerous quickly. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:If I remember correctly, dwelling in graveyards and observing corpses in various states of decay is something monks traditionally have done (and still do in some countries IIRC). The idea is to look at a corpse and meditate on "my own body will be like this one day." Yiggy posted:Meditating next to and observing decomposing corpses is literally still a part of Indian aesthetic practice, and an old one at that. There are also several sutras which go over the details of what ways you're supposed to meditate on the decomposing corpse and its steps. The point is ultimately to consider impermanence and the transition of form, but the practice itself is not a metaphor or symbol, its something sramanas have done in India for a long time. In the culture which Buddhism grows out of, corpses are not uncommon or shocking. You're not supposed to literally sit on the corpse, sure, but you're in intimate proximity with it. Uh yeah? That is what was being referred to above. I tried to write it to be clear whether someone was aware of the practice(s) or not. Could have been clearer. I get hesitant to talk about some of the stranger seeming things (some) Buddhists and (some) Hindus get up to.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
he1ixx posted:Your mind really wants to do what it wants to do. It takes a while to get it settled and honestly the longer you stick with it, the easier it gets to settle your mind down. I still go off on flights of fancy or some weird imagined scenario where I'm explaining some aspect of the dharma to an imaginary person and then I snap back to present time and try to stay with it. Spacing out and being tired or bored are just other mental states - it's just part of it. Like others have said, just be ok with it and realize its part of the process. The more forgiving I got with myself about these little excursions, the better my sessions went. I settled down faster and ended up being able to develop much better states of concentration (during shamatha specifically). Flights of fancy are wonderful and can be observed mindfully. No reason to really shut them down, unless you're driving or it is the 25th in a row and the dishes still aren't done.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
It's important for circulatory reasons to not sit for more than 30 minutes to an hour at a stretch. Get up, walk around a bit, stretch, etc. Also, if a pain doesn't go away within a couple of minutes of finishing, you might have hurt something. It's important to have a sense of the difference between discomfort and what something doing damage feels like. Having some direction and/or goals is pretty good, but there's no rush. Enjoy whatever amount you're able to safely do. Pushing one's body too hard is a reliable way of getting hurt. A little, here and there, consistently, is almost always preferable to getting up and deciding to run a marathon one day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Tea Bone posted:I think you can change your posture if need be (at least until your back has healed). I'm still kind if new to this so I could be wrong here, but good posture is intended to aid meditation, I.e. a straight back helps clear the airways and encourages alertness. If you have an injury that makes sitting with a straight back uncomfortable to the point it hinders your meditation more than help it, it seems counter intuitive to continue in that position. With full lotus, just go a little farther with it at a time. Don't go from 5 minutes to 30 minutes to 50 minutes to 90 minutes (don't ever sit in full-lotus for 90 minutes, non-stop, it's really important for circulation to walk around at least every hour or so, and ideally every 30 minutes). Flexible enough basically means that if you can sit in the posture for a while without hurting yourself (i.e. no apparent injuries and no pains/discomforts really lasting beyond 2-3 minutes). That said, we are flexible to different extents every day, for any number of reasons. A bit of light stretching before hand can be useful, but mostly just take it slowly. Technically, where your legs are isn't even the most important part of full lotus, not even a critical one. I've heard it put as, "Full lotus is whatever pieces you're capable of bringing together. If someone is paralyzed at the neck, they sit full-lotus with their face." If we're fortunate enough to have working legs, we include them to whatever extent they can be safely included. By the way, straight back just means not leaning to the left or right, but pointing pretty much straight upwards. It is expected that each person will sit in a way that accommodates the curve of their back. Piling some cushion or folded blanket up under your butt for some elevation can really help. ................. Also from a little ways back: Deal with bedbugs/pests/disease vectors/rodent infestations realistically. If you're fine with getting bitten and sickened (or scratching bites until you end up with a life-threatening infection) and living in conditions that animals sensibly flee from, please keep in mind that letting such things get established in one living space puts your neighbors, friends, and family at greater risk as well. And letting them establish and reproduce and spread means that when they inevitably get exterminated/gassed, that many orders of magnitude more will be killed. Being prudent early on saves a lot of killing later and requires a hell of a lot less poison being sprayed. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
I'm curious now, because I really can't think of any reason whatsoever why a person shouldn't use Mala beads basically however they wish? Especially if they seem to find it helpful? If the only value people had ever found in them was some utility in keeping track of breaths/mantra counts, would they have stuck around so long? If I'm missing some way that Mala beads could be misused or harmful, please explain? Never heard of Mala beads being used incorrectly, just untraditionally, though I am no expert on them whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
You can just try to steer things out of spiteful 'gently caress that person' realm and more in the direction of trying to understand what someone is going through that is leading to them struggling in a publicly visible (and sometimes frustrating) way. Best you can usually do is if you can see (and help others to) see the ways that a person who is inspiring gossip usually needs understanding, not more poo poo on their plate to deal with. Also to quote Saadi: "How people talk about others around you is how they will talk about you around others."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 04:06
|
|