The Perils of Meditation

[Apech]

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

 

Also do you know what the Mahayana interpretation of the skandha's are? I'm under the impression the Mahayana interpret them as "things" whereas the Theravada view them as "functions"?

 

In the mahayana they are seen as bundles or heaps - which is probably the same as Theravada.

 

[Maddie]

11 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

In the mahayana they are seen as bundles or heaps - which is probably the same as Theravada.

 

[Maddie]

14 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

In the mahayana they are seen as bundles or heaps - which is probably the same as Theravada.

 

 

In this regards yes they are the same. 

[Apech]

8 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

In this regards yes they are the same. 

 

I think that anatman is a bit confusing or misleading by the way - there are several wrong turnings in buddha-dharma that people seem to like to take.

[forestofemptiness]

@dmattwads, you really need to consolidate! 

 

I would encourage you to study more deeply, preferably with a teacher. It took me a long, long time to even begin to understand it. It is an amazing teaching. I'm not clear what you (or @dwai) mean by self. Certainly the Buddha rejected both the notion of eternalism and nihilism. Maybe we should start a new thread?

 

2 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

From studying the Buddhist concept of anata deeply I have become increasingly convinced that the Buddha did not teach no self as is commonly assumed, but rather taught what the self is not, namely it is not any of the five skandhas. When asked if there was a self or no self the Buddha would not answer.

 

I don't know what you mean. Mahayana rejects any notion of atomic things, whether they are dharmas or units of time. Of course, everything is empty, meaning without a permanent, independent, unitary self. 

 

2 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

Also do you know what the Mahayana interpretation of the skandha's are? I'm under the impression the Mahayana interpret them as "things" whereas the Theravada view them as "functions"?

 

A few reasons. First, I came to the conclusion that Theravada worked better in a monastic retreat environment, and I am a householder. Second, I thought its explanations didn't fully cover my range of experience. Third, I discovered Nagarjuna, and found the teachings so compelling I couldn't stick with Theravada anymore.  

 

2 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

If you don't mind my asking, may I inquire as to why you migrated from Theravada?

 

[Maddie]

4 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

@dmattwads, you really need to consolidate! 

 

I would encourage you to study more deeply, preferably with a teacher. It took me a long, long time to even begin to understand it. It is an amazing teaching. I'm not clear what you (or @dwai) mean by self. Certainly the Buddha rejected both the notion of eternalism and nihilism. Maybe we should start a new thread?

 

https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

[Apech]

8 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

 

I would say this article is helpful.  Many people get caught up in the no-self thing - just as they do with the emptiness thing and it sends people into more confusion than they started with.  I'd say the same of the supposed atheism of Buddhism - just another rabbit hole really.

 

 

[Maddie]

29 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I would say this article is helpful.  Many people get caught up in the no-self thing - just as they do with the emptiness thing and it sends people into more confusion than they started with.  I'd say the same of the supposed atheism of Buddhism - just another rabbit hole really.

 

 

 

Yes, I think the article made a good point when it showed that many of the questions that the Buddha refused to answer later on when other monks did answer gave rise to these issues that you pointed out that distort the teachings.

[forestofemptiness]

That is hair splitting of the highest order.  It seems like he is denying the statement "there is no self" but rather affirming the statement "there is nothing which is a self." TB therefore avoids the somewhat idiotic position put forward by Daniel Dennett who says we are not conscious, reading these words, and so on. I would say this position is not commonly accepted in Buddhist circles, but is commonly misunderstood in that way, including by ancient Vedantins who say that the very assertion denying a self refutes it, because who is then making the statement (modern Vedantins like Swami Sarvapriyananda know better!). 

 

I recall TB's article on the not-self strategy caused a lot of stir, and that folks tried to use to to say there is a self. But I think this misses the point (since TB never asserts a self in the Upanishadic or quasi-Upanishadic sense, although he has been accused on that). Bhikkhu Bodhi allegedly wrote a refutation, and TB a refutation to that refutation, etc. 

 

Now there are some Theravadin teachers who have gone whole hog and embraced the atman or self, but they are very much in the minority and tend to come from a practitioner point of view. There are Western and Indian scholars (many who aren't Buddhist) who make assertions, but their views are generally refuted by the folks with a solid understanding of the suttas and Pali. I don't have an issue with people who choose to go that route, but I don't agree that it is the objectively correct route, or even the most common one. 

 

Because there are all these debates, I am always asking people to define what they mean by self, and usually no definition comes (as we see here). The self that is denied is any x that is permanent, unitary, and independent. However, this is a conventional teaching, and ultimately all concepts are rejected. Simply put, our experience doesn't fit into neat, tidy mental boxes. 

 

In Mahayana terms, I would say there is a difference between refuting a self, and setting forth no self (which is also considered an extreme or a position). It is difficult for the mind to accept no positions--- due to its tendency to grasp. 

 

 

9 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

 

[Maddie]

5 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

That is hair splitting of the highest order.  It seems like he is denying the statement "there is no self" but rather affirming the statement "there is nothing which is a self." TB therefore avoids the somewhat idiotic position put forward by Daniel Dennett who says we are not conscious, reading these words, and so on. I would say this position is not commonly accepted in Buddhist circles, but is commonly misunderstood in that way, including by ancient Vedantins who say that the very assertion denying a self refutes it, because who is then making the statement (modern Vedantins like Swami Sarvapriyananda know better!). 

 

I recall TB's article on the not-self strategy caused a lot of stir, and that folks tried to use to to say there is a self. But I think this misses the point (since TB never asserts a self in the Upanishadic or quasi-Upanishadic sense, although he has been accused on that). Bhikkhu Bodhi allegedly wrote a refutation, and TB a refutation to that refutation, etc. 

 

Now there are some Theravadin teachers who have gone whole hog and embraced the atman or self, but they are very much in the minority and tend to come from a practitioner point of view. There are Western and Indian scholars (many who aren't Buddhist) who make assertions, but their views are generally refuted by the folks with a solid understanding of the suttas and Pali. I don't have an issue with people who choose to go that route, but I don't agree that it is the objectively correct route, or even the most common one. 

 

Because there are all these debates, I am always asking people to define what they mean by self, and usually no definition comes (as we see here). The self that is denied is any x that is permanent, unitary, and independent. However, this is a conventional teaching, and ultimately all concepts are rejected. Simply put, our experience doesn't fit into neat, tidy mental boxes. 

 

In Mahayana terms, I would say there is a difference between refuting a self, and setting forth no self (which is also considered an extreme or a position). It is difficult for the mind to accept no positions--- due to its tendency to grasp. 

 

 

 

 

Just one thing I want to point out so it does not get lost is that by saying that the Buddha did not specifically say there is no self is not the same thing as saying that the Buddha said there is a self.

 

There were many questions the Buddha left unanswered. He would also not answer if he would exist or not exist after final Nibbana. Later when people did attempt to answer this question it gave rise to schools of thought that either said Nibbana is either annihilation or some other form of existence like a heaven. Again both questions that the Buddha simply did not answer.

Edited January 25, 2021 by dmattwads

[Apech]

56 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

 

Just one thing I want to point out so it does not get lost is that by saying that the Buddha did not specifically say there is no self is not the same thing as saying that the Buddha said there is a self.

 

There were many questions the Buddha left unanswered. He would also not answer if he would exist or not exist after final Nibbana. Later when people did attempt to answer this question it gave rise to schools of thought that either said Nibbana is either annihilation or some other form of existence like a heaven. Again both questions that the Buddha simply did not answer.

 

Because the final realisation of the Buddha is ineffable, unknowable - which is what he said at the beginning of his 'career'.

[Maddie]

18 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Because the final realisation of the Buddha is ineffable, unknowable - which is what he said at the beginning of his 'career'.

 

I think its when people try to make what the Buddha said was unknowable, knowable polarities of thought spring up.

[forestofemptiness]

I think you're mixing up your suttas. The unanswerable questions are in the Cula-Malunkyovada. The Sutta we're discussing is With Ananda, SN 44.10. In that Sutta, the Buddha doesn't say the question is unanswerable, he says that he is on the horns of a dilemma. 

 

Vacchagotta has asked the Buddha about two options: atthata and natthatta. Notice, the second question was not about anatta, the characteristic of all dhammas, but natthatta. Given this, Bikkhu Sujato translates the text differently, using natthatta to mean "absolute existence" (see his explanation here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-not-self-existence-and-ontological-strategies/11836)

 

In SN 44.10, Buddha says there are 4 reasons he didn't answer the question (https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato):

 

1. "if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists." 

 

2.  "if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists."

 

3. "if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”

“No, sir.” --- note the literal here is sabbe dhamma anatta, all dhammas are not self. 

 

4. "if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’”

 

So this wasn't a general refusal, it was a refusal to answer Vacchagotta, who actually posed the question oddly in terms of absolute existence, it was not silence in the face of anatta, but natthatta. 

 

Cf to SnP 5.19, where the Buddha tells the questioner to remove the view of self. 

 

 

2 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

Just one thing I want to point out so it does not get lost is that by saying that the Buddha did not specifically say there is no self is not the same thing as saying that the Buddha said there is a self.

 

There were many questions the Buddha left unanswered. He would also not answer if he would exist or not exist after final Nibbana. Later when people did attempt to answer this question it gave rise to schools of thought that either said Nibbana is either annihilation or some other form of existence like a heaven. Again both questions that the Buddha simply did not answer.

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by forestofemptiness

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

I think you're mixing up your suttas. The unanswerable questions are in the Cula-Malunkyovada. The Sutta we're discussing is With Ananda, SN 44.10. In that Sutta, the Buddha doesn't say the question is unanswerable, he says that he is on the horns of a dilemma. 

 

Vacchagotta has asked the Buddha about two options: atthata and natthatta. Notice, the second question was not about anatta, the characteristic of all dhammas, but natthatta. Given this, Bikkhu Sujato translates the text differently, using natthatta to mean "absolute existence" (see his explanation here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-not-self-existence-and-ontological-strategies/11836)

 

In SN 44.10, Buddha says there are 4 reasons he didn't answer the question (https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato):

 

1. "if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists." 

 

2.  "if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists."

 

3. "if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”

“No, sir.” --- note the literal here is sabbe dhamma anatta, all dhammas are not self. 

 

4. "if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’”

 

So this wasn't a general refusal, it was a refusal to answer Vacchagotta, who actually posed the question oddly in terms of absolute existence, it was not silence in the face of anatta, but natthatta. 

 

Cf to SnP 5.19, where the Buddha tells the questioner to remove the view of self. 

 

 

 

 

This is an interesting and important topic which probably deserves it's own thread.

 

But now I would like to redirect this thread to the various problems of meditation.

[Maddie]

Without getting into meditation specifically I do realize that mindfulness can be quite uncomfortable and most people actually seek to do the exact opposite of mindfulness.

 

*Granted it can be rough so sometimes concentration can be a nice break (eight fold path speaking) or chanting.

Edited January 25, 2021 by dmattwads

[Maddie]

It occurred to me that meditation is a broad topic and word so I thought perhaps if I were to add a little more detail to how I specifically practice meditation it might illuminate things better.

 

So typically I was doing basic Buddhist anapanasati breath meditation. I would just focus on my breath. After a while the thoughts would generally calm down quite a bit and I would be very relaxed and feel extremely peaceful. That part was great.

 

What was not great is that maybe later that day or maybe the next day I would begin to feel either very anxious or depressed and have really random unpleasant thoughts bombard me for several days to a week until the effects of the meditation would wear off.

 

Over the years this pattern has repeated itself enough to become noticeable as a pattern. I think some of the side effects and explanations for them were in the article the OP had posted.

[dwai]

3 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

That is hair splitting of the highest order.  It seems like he is denying the statement "there is no self" but rather affirming the statement "there is nothing which is a self." TB therefore avoids the somewhat idiotic position put forward by Daniel Dennett who says we are not conscious, reading these words, and so on. I would say this position is not commonly accepted in Buddhist circles, but is commonly misunderstood in that way, including by ancient Vedantins who say that the very assertion denying a self refutes it, because who is then making the statement (modern Vedantins like Swami Sarvapriyananda know better!). 

Ah! That old ox, beaten, but still not quite done  

Quote

 

I recall TB's article on the not-self strategy caused a lot of stir, and that folks tried to use to to say there is a self. But I think this misses the point (since TB never asserts a self in the Upanishadic or quasi-Upanishadic sense, although he has been accused on that). Bhikkhu Bodhi allegedly wrote a refutation, and TB a refutation to that refutation, etc. 

 

Now there are some Theravadin teachers who have gone whole hog and embraced the atman or self, but they are very much in the minority and tend to come from a practitioner point of view. There are Western and Indian scholars (many who aren't Buddhist) who make assertions, but their views are generally refuted by the folks with a solid understanding of the suttas and Pali. I don't have an issue with people who choose to go that route, but I don't agree that it is the objectively correct route, or even the most common one. 

 

Because there are all these debates, I am always asking people to define what they mean by self, and usually no definition comes (as we see here). The self that is denied is any x that is permanent, unitary, and independent. However, this is a conventional teaching, and ultimately all concepts are rejected. Simply put, our experience doesn't fit into neat, tidy mental boxes. 

 

In Mahayana terms, I would say there is a difference between refuting a self, and setting forth no self (which is also considered an extreme or a position). It is difficult for the mind to accept no positions--- due to its tendency to grasp. 

 

 

 

I'd be happy to contend that The Self is not a thing and leave it at that. What's important is -- does your (and it's not directed toward anyone in particular)  practice alleviate your suffering? 

Edited January 25, 2021 by dwai

[forestofemptiness]

The issue is that Buddhism is very contextual (we could call it, say, a "categorical framework). There are specific teachings for specific people in specific situations. If my teacher is sitting in the middle of the room, some of us will have to look to the left to see her/him, and some will have to look to the right. Some will have to turn more than others. There is no contradiction. However, if you are on the right side, and look to the right, you will not see the teacher. 

 

Similarly, there are important reasons for the teachings to be structured as they are, as I'm sure there are important reasons for other teachings to be structured as they are. The problems only arise when some one attempts to subvert one categorical framework by importing the rules of another. 

 

But at the end of the day, they are all merely pointers, are they not? 

 

 

 

 

52 minutes ago, dwai said:

Ah! That old ox, beaten, but still not quite done  

I'd be happy to contend that The Self is not a thing and leave it at that. What's important is -- does your (and it's not directed toward anyone in particular)  practice alleviate your suffering? 

 

[dwai]

31 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

The issue is that Buddhism is very contextual (we could call it, say, a "categorical framework). There are specific teachings for specific people in specific situations. If my teacher is sitting in the middle of the room, some of us will have to look to the left to see her/him, and some will have to look to the right. Some will have to turn more than others. There is no contradiction. However, if you are on the right side, and look to the right, you will not see the teacher. 

 

Similarly, there are important reasons for the teachings to be structured as they are, as I'm sure there are important reasons for other teachings to be structured as they are. The problems only arise when some one attempts to subvert one categorical framework by importing the rules of another. 

I think this is a very important point. But there is also the case of missing the proverbial moon for the finger pointing  

Quote

 

But at the end of the day, they are all merely pointers, are they not? 

 

 

 

 

 

It is only an issue when it needs to be articulated, imho. That's why the sages say, its best to not talk about it. But we can't *not talk*  

 

P.S. You know what's weird -- I don't have any memory of having typed all those exhausting lines of thought, though I remember doing something at that time  (maybe it is some form of dementia...though I prefer to think of it as a side-effect of letting go and simplifying my life)

Edited January 25, 2021 by dwai

[forestofemptiness]

Have you come across coherence theory vs correspondence theory of truth? 

 

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

I think this is a very important point. But there is also the case of missing the proverbial moon for the finger pointing  

It is only an issue when it needs to be articulated, imho. That's why the sages say, its best to not talk about it. But we can't *not talk*  

 

[dwai]

14 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

Have you come across coherence theory vs correspondence theory of truth? 

 

 

No, what is it? 

[forestofemptiness]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

No, what is it? 

 

It's a bit counterintuitive. Here's a snip from Greg Goode, who turned me onto the idea (which I immediately rejected, but have warmed up to). I'll see if I can find a better summary.

 

Blanshard argues that truth is the coherence among our various ideas. As a judgment is integrated into a larger and more coherent system of thought, the more closely it approximate “truth.” A “false” idea is one that doesn’t cohere as well as its opposite. Over the years, Blanshard has been regarded as one of the major authorities on the coherence theory.

 

Before encountering Blanshard’s work, I had always accepted the more common theory, which says that truth consists of an idea matching or corresponding to a bit of reality in the world. In fact, it’s called the “correspondence theory” of truth. But before reading The Nature of Thought, I had never examined just how correspondence was supposed to work.

 

In fact, one of Blanshard’s principal arguments for the coherence theory is that the correspondence theory can’t work as it claims to. We can’t ever be in the position to adjudicate how a judgment corresponds to an orange. We can’t verify whether correspondence is even taking place.

 

The other argument is based on what we do when we try to ascertain the truth of a judgment. We check how well or poorly the judgment is supported by related judgments and observations. We ascertain how well the judgment coheres with other judgments and with the existing structures of experience. In other words, even if we wish to define truth as correspondence, in practice it is coherence.

 

I had encountered the coherence model of truth in an earlier reading Hegel. But Blanshard’s exposition is crystal clear. I found the coherence model to have a simple logic as well as an almost aesthetic appeal. Of course this short discussion can’t settle the controversy between the coherence-vs-correspondence debate, but I found the coherence model to assist in deconstructing the mind/world dualism I’ve always felt to be entailed by the correspondence model.

 

https://greg-goode.com/spirituality/the-nature-of-thought-1939-a-personal-review/

[Apech]

4 hours ago, dmattwads said:

It occurred to me that meditation is a broad topic and word so I thought perhaps if I were to add a little more detail to how I specifically practice meditation it might illuminate things better.

 

So typically I was doing basic Buddhist anapanasati breath meditation. I would just focus on my breath. After a while the thoughts would generally calm down quite a bit and I would be very relaxed and feel extremely peaceful. That part was great.

 

What was not great is that maybe later that day or maybe the next day I would begin to feel either very anxious or depressed and have really random unpleasant thoughts bombard me for several days to a week until the effects of the meditation would wear off.

 

Over the years this pattern has repeated itself enough to become noticeable as a pattern. I think some of the side effects and explanations for them were in the article the OP had posted.

 

The mind has what you might call an elastic quality - it absorbs and stores the imprints of experience as energy and form and then discharges them when the right triggers arise.  If you do deep relaxation then it can kind of unwind temporarily and then snap back later.  I think that is what you experienced.

[Maddie]

23 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

The mind has what you might call an elastic quality - it absorbs and stores the imprints of experience as energy and form and then discharges them when the right triggers arise.  If you do deep relaxation then it can kind of unwind temporarily and then snap back later.  I think that is what you experienced.

 

It's a decent theory, the only problem is that before I would do the meditation I might be feeling more or less neutral and then after the meditation was over feel pretty rotten.

[Apech]

11 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

It's a decent theory, the only problem is that before I would do the meditation I might be feeling more or less neutral and then after the meditation was over feel pretty rotten.

 

That's exactly what I would predict from my 'decent theory'