"Naturally carrying" practice

"letting go is also not voluntary, in my experience" - ona

This
was a revelation for me! Just another piece of evidence to convince me
that I shan't "try" to do anything beyond the bare minimum of practice
instructions. Let the practice naturally carry me.

-sunyata

JMHO, but the practice can only "naturally carry" you after a certain
point. To get to that point requires some work in the form of
investigation, paying attention, and like things.

-cmarti

Re-posting this from another thread into more appropriate environs.

@chris: What do you think the mode of practice is like prior to practice "naturally carrying" you and how does it differ from when practice does "naturally carry" you?

For me, "naturally carrying" practice requires that I follow the simple instruction to focus on my ajna chakra during meditation. The practice will do all the necessary work from there.

I think the manner of "naturally carrying" practice that you reference may be different from what I describe. What's your definition of "naturally carrying" practice?

Chris, I'd agree that before that transition (which was the transition at which the conversations I referenced in the other thread happened to take place), a practitioner generally can't actually distinguish the "happens by itself/naturally carrying" aspects clearly (though perhaps they have hints of it) and there can be a "trap" of simply not looking, not investigating, or not doing anything because that sounds like what it means. I know several people who spent decades in monastic type practice, sitting and sitting, and never had any significant realizations because no one ever showed them how to really look.

Though there are teachings about "non-doing", "non-doing" is a very specific experience and not the same as "not doing anything" in the way we usually mean it. And that experience typically only becomes evident (involuntarily!) after a fair amount of structured and attentive investigation.

At a simplistic level it reminds me of a really great horse trainer I used to watch, who would ride like he was one with the horse, just relaxed and fluid and graceful. But when he taught he tended to shout "be one with the horse!!" to no avail, because to get to that simplicity of oneness requires years of dedicated training of the body. And then one day you start to feel it, these moments of flow where you just ride naturally. And then over time it becomes second nature.

Wisdom practice is not that comparable to learning a skill, but there are elements of that that are true for the phase leading up to that first shift, I think. After that, the analogy doesn't work well anymore.

"... "naturally carrying" practice requires that I follow the simple instruction to focus on my ajna chakra during meditation. The practice will do all the necessary work from there." - jake2

What is that "work?" I don't think it comes without volition prior to a certain developmental juncture.

For me that "work" is an investigation into the nature of experience.

-cmarti

I never received instruction to actively investigate the nature of my experience. Instead, Nagatomo-sensei told me to place my attention at my chakra (such as between the eyebrows) and if it wavers to gently bring it back. Specifically, Nagatomo said, "When you catch your mind wandering, return your mind to your chakra."

My definition of "work" is informed by this manner of practice: I tend to see the results of practice as "magical" because they occur as a natural consequence of this chakra-focusing practice without any other activity required on my part. Nagatomo-sensei told me it might be difficult for a lot of Americans to do chakra-focusing practice because they need to feel like they are doing or accomplishing something while meditating.

Despite my prior training, I am certainly open to hearing opinions regarding my type of practice on this forum. That's one reason why I am here!



I also want to mention something else. I have sat two times a day for 50 minutes each time for the past year a half. For five years prior to that I practiced at least once a day for 50 minutes each time. I practiced chakra-focusing the entire time, which I assume would be considered a form of shamatha. Despite this practice history, I have ever had an experience of absorption as it is defined on this forum. For the sake of clarity, I assume that absorption is defined here as, "an experience in which the everyday distinction between subject (the meditator) and object (the meditated upon) no longer obtains and which can be accompanied by feelings of bliss and/or peacefulness." Because I have never had this type of experience over 5+ years of shamatha practice, might I be practicing incorrectly?

Thanks ahead of time.

Jake2, the way I see it, Nagatomo gave you instructions for shamatha. Good shamatha can get you very far. It can clear away a lot of naturally arising obstructions. This is due to the experience of staying with the object of attention while other things are allowed to arise and pass. We learn a great deal about the reactive and delusive nature of the conditioned mind through shamatha (or we can, if we’re open to it).

But, I don’t know anyone who has opened to profound nondual realization, who did not at some point step back from shamatha and apply some form of vipassana (Skt: vipashyana). This is true of Advaita Vendanta sages, Zen masters, Mahamudra and Dzogchen adepts, and Shakyamuni Buddha himself. Becoming calm and focused can only take you so far; specifically, it can bring you face-to-face with the most fundamental duality/ignorance. But this can be thoroughly cut, and the way to do this is through investigation. It takes an act of investigation, and so at first it is not beyond intention. However, the intention is not the direct cause of realization. The true cause of realization is the power of reality itself. The intention of investigation merely sets the appropriate context for the power of reality to come crashing through. Without some form of investigation or inquiry, this setting is never fully formed.

As paradoxical as it seems, awakening requires participation. We use one thorn to uproot another thorn buried deep without our fleshy spiritual heart.

There are differing opinions on how much shamatha is needed to make good progress with insight. My understanding is that everyone is different. Most people require at least moderate shamatha, some require A LOT of shamatha. There are those rare individuals who can just inquire and wake up. Even more rare are those who seem to wake up with any conscious participation at all. The majority of us can get by on getting relatively calm and collected, and then turning toward skillful investigation.

One thing to keep in mind with teachings: sometimes you receive a teaching that is targeted at what you as an individual need at that moment. For example, the instructions I got from my teacher the first week we worked together were not the same as the instructions I got six months later or a year later.

Moreover, sometimes we read or hear a teaching, and we take away a certain amount of info from it based on where we are at the time and how much we can understand. But if we were to hear that same teaching some time later, we would understand different things.

Just to say, just because a teacher says "do this" or "don't do that" at point A does not mean it is still the right instruction for another person or for the same person at another time.

(I say this because there can be a tendency to get into black and white thinking, like "either this teacher is a perfect genius or this teacher is crap, it has to be one or the other". Teachers can be guides and can be inspiring. But they are human beings, not gods. They shit the same as everyone. Putting any teacher on a pedestal is likely to bite you in the ass eventually.)

Well, on top of that some people are awakened, but aren't necessarily very good at teaching.

I disagree particularly in regards to beginners. At a certain level of realization, a student can "get" a wide range of teaching. But a beginner cannot necessarily pick out the useful info from the giant pile of jargon, theory and method that the teacher may be spewing. They may be spewing total truth, but if it's couched in really complex language or is not simplified into basic instruction, a beginner can easily get caught up in bits that aren't very relevant for starting out, or miss the point, or just be confused.

Of course it's going to depend on the student and their learning style. But I recall reading stuff when I was a beginner that just tied my brain in knots or went in one ear and out the other, and other stuff that made me think "Oh, I got it, basic, simple, I can try this." For example, hearing a dense talk on emptiness was just abstract and I couldn't figure out how that applied to me trying to learn to meditate. Being told to count breaths was much more useful at that stage. Much later hearing that same dense talk was illuminated, fascinating and relevant.

Make sense?

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with....


-cmarti

I suppose only this: "Yes, but it's had for me to imagine an awakened teacher not teaching students how to awaken."

I was pointing out HOW it is possible for an awakened teacher to not really teach students well. That's all. Perhaps not really a disagree so much as a nuance.

Chris, I think maybe Ona is pointing out that the 'skill' [or 'divine accident', I think, sometimes] to awaken is not entirely coincident with the skill of articulating what happened and why or how it happened; analyzing the process; and then perceiving with great specificity what an aspirant's confusion and capacity are-- teaching is its own very particular skill set.

Someone can be very accomplished at technique, personally, and be totally clueless how it could be difficult for someone else who is constituted differently. Think of the archetypal computer tech geek who just wants you to get out of the way so he can fix your computer, and not waste his time trying to understand what happened, so you don't screw it up again.

Of the 'bad' teachers I've encountered, there was some deficiency of the analysis/articulation skillset, or of the 'reading and engaging the student' skillset. The former deficiency is the more dangerous, I think-- because it can result in urging students down the wrong path, with great authority [based on the teacher's misunderstanding of his/her own experience]; the latter is likely to simply be ineffectual.

@kate - yes, exactly what I was trying to say.

And can we introduce another element, the relational dynamic between teacher and student, as itself partly constitutive of the "goodness" of a teacher?

In other words, isn't it also the case that a given teacher may have skill sets a and b from your response above Kate, but only be able to articulate/explain his/her awakening and read/engage the student in such ways respectively as to only attract a particular kind of student, and only retain (or have success with, anyway) a subset of those attracted based on their compatibility with the teacher's engaging/reading style?

Thus students who approach such a teacher but do not resonate with the style of articulation, including the whole atmosphere or culture of view and practice the teacher establishes (regardless of the phenomenological accuracy of the teacher's explanations and descriptions), may perceive the teacher and community as ineffective? But in fact, the 'effectiveness' isn't a quality that adheres to the teacher and community, but rather is a condition that arises in dependance on the conjoined conditions of student, teacher and community?

And likewise, a student who doesn't respond well to the teacher's style of reading and engaging students, and thus who don't fit into the culture of relationship between students and the teacher that pervades the community, may be perceived to be a "bad" student when that "badness" doesn't actually adhere to the student but arises dependently on the conjoined conditions of relationship?

Note that rather than introducing an absolute relativism, this reflection I'm offering is meant to point at another factor of objectively 'good' studentship and teachership: namely, a sensitivity to the dependent arising of the relational dynamics that is at the heart of the communicative facet of reality (as contrasted with the phenomenological facet of reality, for instance).

Thoughts?

Jake, I'd completely agree that what we could call 'affinity' is a really important factor; and Chris, also completely agree about the importance of active investigation, on the part of the student. I think 'active investigation' is a good summary for the heart of practice-- all the books have been written about subjects to investigate, methods of carrying out the investigation, what people have experienced in the course of their own investigation. The innumerable details of what results from that 'whatever' [disgust with samsara, curiosity, spirit of adventure, intuition, desperate admission of need] that makes 'the unexamined life not worth living.'

And, looping back, maybe there are precious few teachers who have so essential a view, that they can recognize that investigation when the 'style' is markedly different from their own-- so we have more 'recipe-distribution' going on than necessary. I personally have found it necessary to remember that the true teacher is a 'still small voice' that I hear-- sometimes chiming in to agree with someone 'teaching' me, sometimes quietly disagreeing with someone 'teaching' me, sometimes telling me to run like hell! And sometimes reminding me, as in Shunyata's precipitating comment, that persisting in physically hurting myself is not a good idea.

At this point, I'd describe 'awakening' as 'faith in mind', or unexpected confidence, or original sanity; I'd suggest that it starts with trusting your gut about what is true for you in the moment.

-- on a completely frivolous note, here's a little parable about teaching at its best:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150732909504865

I've seen that guy (eta: the first guy who gave the narrator the idea)! I could never forget. He was dancing down the street outside my office one afternoon. I thought it was delightful!

'when the student is ready, the master appears'