No thought meditation

I don't see a place where I can ask questions about practice and hope the following is appropriate. My practice has taken a new turn. Lately I have been just sitting, relaxed and still but with a focused mind. Is this what the mahamudra masters call the meeting of shamatha and vipassana? I found I can turn off thoughts, at least for a short time. When they come back I turn them off again. I don't have to make much of an effort, just a subtle nudge. But, throughout I still have a sense of self.

I have been ping pong noting with a Skype partner every morning for a year. Lately we found we can turn off or turn down the thinking but still talk. It's a kind of meditative talking. Lots of long pauses. I seem to be talking out of stillness. The sound just comes out.

Would appreciate comments. I'm fumbling around in the dark.

Jack

Some others here might have more of a similar background to you, so you may find their comments more helpful. What I'd say is I never try to turn off thoughts, because the goal of my meditation was not (and is not) to shut up my mind and sit silently, but to gain insight into the play of the mind so that the play would be seen through and its apparent solidity and "me-ness" would break down. "Everything is fodder for the meditation machine", including thoughts, sensations of every kind, memories, images, whatever happens to arise.

Otherwise, what have you got? A lot of silence on demand, but where's the insight? I found it more fruitful at the point where meditation became deeper (and that sort of silence and clarity began to arise at least sometimes on its own) to turn to inquiry, such as "what will the next thought be?" "where is that thought located?" "who made that thought happen?" "who is feeling that sensation?" and so on. In this way the play of phenomena in experience began to be seen as arising spontaneously rather than generated by "me".

Does that help at all? Make any sense? It's fine if it doesn't, or feel free to ask if it makes a little sense but seems confusing.

Ona, I am continuing my daily 4 Foundations Noting practice. My purpose with the stopping of thought meditation in separate sessions was to be able to "see in the seeing", etc. That is, to be able to cut down on the mental crap I add onto basic sensations. Also,I read in "Clarifying the Natural Mind" about the recommendation to stop thoughts. That is also taught by Ken McLeod. Your second paragraph above is a real concern of mine. Does my continued noting practice address this? All your comments make sense.

Chris, what seems to happen is thought disappears but sensations remain. This includes stopping comparing, judging but goes beyond. I do find it difficult to put all this into words. Maybe the best explanation is when my Skype partner and I do this talk meditation or whatever you call it. I don't think ahead of what to say, mull over what he said or think about when I should talk. The words just come out.

Thank you both for your comments and interest.

Jack

You know, your noting practice and your other practice may or may not be productive. It really depends on how you are doing them.

When you do noting (as you implied in paragraph 2 above), are you noticing that "the words just come out" and likewise the thoughts and sensations just come and go by themselves? Can you spot the ends and beginnings of them? It doesn't do any good if you just sit there saying words, you have to really pay attention. But it sounds like in that "talk meditation" you are getting a bit of that. "The words just come out." So who is talking? Where do the words come from? Where do they go? What's in between? How do you know?

You also said "I still have a sense of self." How do you know? What specific sensations, qualities, thoughts or ideas let you know for certain that you have this sense of self? Sit down, notice the sense of self, and list every single aspect/quality/characteristic of it. Write them down. (I'm actually really curious - I wish someone had given me this exercise, because it would have come in handy later for comparison as the experience changed.)

Chris, the difference is the silence out of which words appear and the attention being paid. If I am talking to you, I might have a running commentary in the background. For instance, should I say this or that, maybe I shouldn't say x and so on. I would guess I sometimes think but do not say maybe 3 times as many responses as I really say out loud. This is not usual but seems to be happening more in the last few years. I also am not aware of the silence, start and end of my speaking in normal mode.

Ona, I do two types of noting meditation. One is fast. The other is very slow. The fast noting seems to enable me to dis-embed from sensations and is useful in that way. The slower noting is very similar to what I call mahamudra noting. I do notice the stillness between sensations and their start and end.

"So who is talking? Where do the words come from? Where do they go? What's in between? How do you know" I know because I can see it. "Who is talking" is a whole other thing. I will be asking myself that for many years, I think.

Your second paragraph will give me something to look for in future meditations. Many thanks.

jack

Chris, the words and running commentary, all seem to appear and disappear without any connection to me, at least the conscious me. I do see that during those times and have been seeing that for years. Is that the point you are trying to make?

A decade ago I was doing walking meditation during a retreat. It involved walking 20 meters, stopping, turning around and walking back. I was fascinated by the stopping, turning and especially by the first step to start walking again. I couldn't find any agent that was causing all this. What was making the decision? Then I started noticing the same thing getting up off the cushion. Then eating, then talking and so on. It still fascinates me.

This brings up the question Ona was asking. How do I know I still have a sense of self throughout all this? It's not involved in walking, stopping, sitting, talking, thinking, etc. But, it is still there. Maybe it is the consciousness or the witness that I identify with. I will keep looking.

I am trying to relate this to my every day practice. Yes, has something to do with it. But, every day practice also is just trudging along. Oops, have to get ready to go to work.

jack

No thought states are great signposts in practice, if you ask me. Probably 5% of the general population might really understand the kind of peace that can come from accessing that kind of state. Obviously the goal is unconditional peace, so there is always more refining that can be explored...

One thing that was pointed out to me recently is that my own judging, analyzing, evaluating, assessing of my meditation itself is where my self is hiding out, right under my nose! "Practice thoughts" seem to be easy to overlook for meditators! I've been having a great time just watching those arise --- it cuts very close to home. I also tend to go asleep during calm, open, thoughtless states. I want to just space out. And it's finally getting into my head that there are plenty of things to note: space, calmness, quiet, stillness, relaxation, searching, analyzing, evaluating, humor, joy, bliss, relaxing, calmness, quiet, evaluating, imagining, anticipation, frustration, humor, bliss, joy, resignation, spacing out, judging, resignation, calmness... etc.

(One other thing: thoughts probably >are< bare sensations, that's how we know they are there. The narrative story of thoughts is slightly different, but distinct. When something becomes a narrative, it's an unexamined long chain of sensations. Focusing on the pure sensations of thoughts is fun too --- and also cuts very close to home. Part of the brain seems to know there is a narrative going on, but it's possible to put the sensations of thoughts in the forefront and investigate them the same way as body sensations. Sort of like putting your mind on the bare sensation (sound) of speech, without focusing on the meaning of the narrative.)

Nice Shargrol. Yes, I find thoughts have a sort of "pre-thought" pulse, and one can watch that kind of gentle (or rapid) pulsing at a level at which the thoughts haven't yet even formed into words or images.

And yes, also, if there is silence, there is still stuff to note or investigate.

Hi Jack,



First of all, welcome! I realize now that I failed to respond to your initial post in the forum.



Next, about no-thought. My take is that active thought suppression is nearly always counter-productive. I'm not sure exactly how you go about silencing thoughts, but I think there are healthy and unhealthy ways that this can happen.



The healthy way occurs when the arising of thoughts is reduced as a secondary effect of developing shamatha. For example, if your chosen object is the breath, staying with the breath naturally leads to a more refined, calm, and subtle breath experience. The more subtle the breath, the quieter the mind becomes. You'll notice that thinking takes a great deal of energy, and that energy requires more and more breath, and disrupts concentration. But, rather than focusing on the thoughts themselves, it's better to go back to the primary object and allow the process to calm itself. When this happens, thoughts get more subtle, and sometimes stop. If this happens, it's OK to notice it, but staying with that noticing tends to generate reflection -- thoughts start coming up again, and the breath gets less subtle, etc.



The unhealthy way occurs when suppressing thought is the goal, and is done energetically, and with pressure. The mind tries to divert attention from thoughts by tensing up. It works at first, but fatigue sets in quickly. The mind easily becomes dull this way, because the calm of shamatha isn't there to support and sustain the ease and clarity that comes through a more balanced approach.



Also - and this is just a guess, or an opinion - it seems that unless one's mind is very tranquil and clear, there's no way to really see whether the more subtle thought activity is still occurring. One may be able to press down and block out the more gross or obvious thoughts. But, this doesn't really allow awareness the kind of clarity and stability required for noticing the more subtle arisings that usually go unnoticed. Therefore, what you perceive as a quiet, thought-free experience may be anything but.



The only advice I can offer (if you're open to it) is to keep your practice going regardless of the effects. This is a major obstacle to cultivating deeper states of concentration, or even stages of insight. In jhana practice, for example, if one only concentrates on their chosen object until the jhana factors arise, and then switches their attention to those factors, the state is not likely to deepen the way it would if they were to stay with the object.



In short, stay with your practice, patiently and persistently, regardless of what happens. Noticing secondary effects happens; when it does, go back to the practice, over and over again. I can't think of time when this simple principle will stop being relevant.

Hi Jackson,

This is a helpful post for me. I have one question. You describe the process of shamatha and sticking with the object of concentration and state that not sticking with your object and engaging your thoughts/images leads to greater mental activity. Where does vipassana fit into this process?

"Where does vipassana fit into this process?" -Jake2

Good question. It's a matter of considerable debate among, and within, the various Buddhist traditions.

In my view, shamatha is all about cultivating stable, calm, clear attention. Traditionally, the more one develops these qualities, the better one can apply their mind to investigation (vipassana), which leads to the kinds of insights that truly liberate the mind.

Practicing vipassana without good concentration is like trying to gain insight into cell division without the use of a good microscope. Shamatha makes it possible for the mind to see things it could see before, and vipassana is the process of investigating these things in ways that result in letting go.

It's a bit more mixed up than this, though. Vipassana can lead to insights that allow one to achieve greater stability, calm, and lucidity. So, the two can't ever truly be separated in a dichotomous way. Still, to practice only shamatha is not sufficient for liberation; likewise for the role of shamatha in good vipassana practice. They're a lot like the two wings of bird. When both are in good health, it's possible to soar. When one is lacking, progress in practice tends to stay grounded for a while.

Does that answer you question?

Hi Jack,

In short, stay with your practice, patiently and persistently, regardless of what happens. Noticing secondary effects happens; when it does, go back to the practice, over and over again. I can't think of time when this simple principle will stop being relevant.

-awouldbehipster

===

Thanks for the response. I understood what you are saying except for the above paragraph. Which practice are you talking about?



I have a hard time putting words to some of my mind states, wary about fooling myself and wary about shoehorning my experience into something I have read about. With that said, I seem to be stopping thoughts, at least for a short time, without actively damming them up. I get in a still place and subtly shift away from thoughts. I can't feel that this creates any tension or disturbance. I notice the short silent places between sensations and increase them.



I, like sunyata, wonder where vipassana fits into your comments.



Here are the instructions in Clarifying the Natural State that I am trying to follow. "Do not think about the past, what you did or what happened previously. Do not think about the future, what you will do or what will happen later. Also do not create thoughts about the present, about what appears or what is happening right now. ' p21 Any mahamudra jocks out there that can help me here?



Jack

Thanks Jackson. It does help. So by focusing on mind/body phenomena in vipassana you do not disturb the calm state achieved through shamatha? This statement is where I am getting hung up:

"But, rather than focusing on the thoughts themselves, it's better to go back to the primary object and allow the process to calm itself. When this happens, thoughts get more subtle, and sometimes stop. If this happens, it's OK to notice it, but staying with that noticing tends to generate reflection -- thoughts start coming up again" - Jackson



Sorry for the font change. Not intended.

Jack, sorry for the lack of clarity in my concluding paragraph.

I was referring to whatever practice you happen to be doing, at any time. Just keep going back to it.

It looks like your practice instructions are missing the hyperlink :-/ Darn computers!

I'm no Mahamudra buff, but I think I know what you're doing. Settling the mind into its natural state is more shamatha than vipassana, I think. It makes sense that thoughts would get quiet as a result. The object in this case is the natural emptiness and clarity of mind. It makes sense to notice the gaps between thoughts, and to keep it in mind. Naturally, thoughts subside as you mind becomes more calm, clear, and relaxed. If this is what you're doing, keep it up. Especially if there's no straining, and dullness doesn't result.

At first, these kinds of practices are more on the shamatha end of the spectrum than vipassana, but it starts to shift toward a balance as you progress. They are never completely divorced, though, since both shamatha and vipassana in the Mahamudra tradition are based on the View of Mahamudra; both work toward realization and stabilization of the View, in my understanding at least.

"Thanks Jackson. It does help. So by focusing on mind/body phenomena in vipassana you do not disturb the calm state achieved through shamatha?" -Jake2

It depends on which state you are referring to. If we're talking about full absorption jhana (which not everyone finds valuable), than yes - one must exist full absorption prior noticing the arising and passing of phenomena from moment to moment. However, the "neighborhood concentration," which is as close as you can get to full absorption without actually entering it, is the optimal form of concentration for vipassana.

What I was trying to say is that developing concentration is very useful. Most of us tend to rush into vipassana because we want to get on with getting enlightened, and this works for some peope, as far as the early stages of awakening are concerned. But, to develop the kind of concentration that really helps with the more subtle investigations, taking the time to practice shamatha on its own is definitely worth the time. And to do that, you have to stay with your object as best you can.

Is that any more clear? I seem to be having a hard time communicating in written form today.

Yes that does help thanks. When you say "absorption" what type of experience does this refer to?

Chris, yes - I sometimes forget how much foundational information I've ingested over the years.



Jake2, there's a wonderful book out there called The Experience of Samadhi by Richard Shankman. It goes into this subject in-depth. You can also listen to (or read the transcripts for) the Buddhist Geeks interviews with Shankman ( part 1 / part 2 ).

Thanks! I'll check that out

Chris, I love this line from one of the articles at that link:

"Don’t try to make anything happen."

I think of all the ways this plays out: Times you don't even recognize that you are trying to make things happen. Times when you think you really are making things happen. Times you recognize you are trying to make things happen but you also see that it's "not working" (what's happening doesn't seem to be affected by what you are trying to do.) Times when you stop trying to make things happen...