Types of Meditation ?

Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by GlorytoGod, Mar 17, 2009.

  1. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    Before speaking God was listening. Mrs. God was speaking and God couldn't get a word in edgewise
     
  2. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Namaste Thomas,

    It was a good talk, and quite ecumenical, but that has been his practice for years.

    Can you agree that all traditions have value and looking within vs. without connection? To me that was stated by Paul in Galations (ecumenical) and Jesus...look niether high or low...the kingdom of heaven is in your midst.
     
  3. GlorytoGod

    GlorytoGod There is a River

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    i went to a Buddhist meditation class last night, was ok, but almost everything the guy talked about was in the Bible apart from re-incarnation.

    Soaking Prayer for those who dont know is where you just soak in Gods presence it can be really amazing :)

     
  4. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    Crazy. That shows that all religions point to the same ultimate transcendent truth or you went to the wrong building. :p

    (or did he know or suspect you were all Christians and he's insidiously trying to get you to get into Buddhism :eek:)

    s.
     
  5. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    Re: Types of Meditation ? Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thomas [​IMG]
    In Buddhism yes, because it doesn't penetrate the veil, as it were.

    What does this mean, please?

    s.

    anyone?:confused:
     
  6. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    I like that. In zazen there is no expectation and nothing to achieve.

    Ooh, I like that too. :)

    s.
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,553
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    I would say 'looking within' is a metaphor ... you like looking 'in', but you have previously ridiculed the idea of looking 'up', for example, yet I see no contradiction between the idea of God within, of God all around, of God above, below, etc. but that there is a certain 'common sense' of symbolism and 'up' is most fitting for the Godhead:
    "These things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said: Father..." John 17:1.

    Looking 'in' speaks of union or intimacy ... but as you reject the Christian hermenteutic as it is traditionally understood, I don't think we do agree.

    From a meditative viewpoint, I would say that in looking within, the first port of call is the conscience:
    "the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them" (Romans 2:15) ... This is, in a wider context, the Natural Law ... so looking within will suffice for a life of natural virtue, but if one seeks the infusion or spiration of the supernatural virtues, then one is obliged to look/go further ... beyond the self.

    Thomas
     
  8. GlorytoGod

    GlorytoGod There is a River

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    maybe I read somewhere the the essence of all true religions is the same.


    LOL

    seriously though I might repackage some of the methods with a Christian emphasis, wouldnt be hard to do :eek:
     
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,553
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    It was something of a pointed statement.

    One could argue that Buddhism does not signify a 'revelation' in the sense of the transcendent making itself known to the contingent, or the Absolute to the relative. 'Enlightenment' in that sense could still remain within the operation of the unaided human intellect and reason. There is nothing 'supernatural' about the Buddha or his teachings.

    If such is the case ... and I use that qualifier if ... then the 'actual transcendent' remains hidden, or in the language of symbolism 'beyond the veil', and what is arrived at, or not spoken of, is a 'speculative transcendent'. Nothing is said, because nothing can be said. In such case Buddhism can then be likened to a philosophical system, based on all the available data of human experience, but about the beyond-human, it can say nothing.

    I tend to believe however that the Enlightenment does signify an order of revelation.

    Thomas
     
  10. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    The Dali Lama says that you know when you are enlightened as everyone you see you see as enlightened.

    Eckardt Tolle says if you wish to obtain enlightenment, quit putting it as a goal. As the point of entry can never be in the future but only in the now.
     
  11. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8

    Thank you for your reply Thomas. :)

    Aside from my own limited, misguided, incomplete understanding (!) you made a reference to “Buddhist orthodoxy.” I think it might be difficult to agree on what this might be, given the nature of Buddhism. For example, Nichiren Buddhism is based upon the Lotus Sutra. Theravadan Buddhism does not accept such sutras. Therefore the orthodoxy of Nichiren Buddhism is presumably unrelated to that of Theravadan? – making it difficult or even impossible to speak of “Buddhist orthodoxy?” With no single text or authority (body or person) Buddhism is a disparate creature around the globe.

    So any stumbling comment that I might make regarding the transcendent would only be coming from my understanding, gained through Soto Zen; which I may attempt given time! More generally, I have seen Theravadan Buddhism referred to as psychological Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism referred to as transcendent Buddhism.

    s.
     
  12. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,553
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Probably right ... I'm no expert.

    Thomas
     
  13. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    62
    2 Corinthians 3
    {Substitute obscuration (Jesus said he would be coming in the clouds)for veil, and chitta for heart, etc...}
     
  14. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    You believe the Buddha nature is "nothing" or "empty"?
     
  15. Netti-Netti

    Netti-Netti New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Addendum to my above post:

     
  16. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,553
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    No.

    But I have no clear understanding of how Buddhism defines the 'self' — as I understand it, it's not the same as the 'self' of the Abrahamics, the 'person'.

    Thomas
     
  17. Paladin

    Paladin Purchased Bewilderment

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thomas,

    I would be interested to hear what you have noticed about 'self' apart from doctrine. Just your own ideas and musings about what we call "me", just in the spirit of inquiry.
     
  18. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,553
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    I take my understanding of self primarily from the investigation of Thomist metaphysics that began in the last century, focussing on Aquinas' Neoplatonism rather than his Aristotelianism.

    In the Christian tradition, the self is a concrete existential being, and the first point is that it exists, as Boethius said, as "an individual substance of a rational nature" ... from then we get into the Thomist dimension of 'being-in-relation", in that every being defines itself in relation to other being around it, and other being around it locates that being in time and space (We both say 'I', but the 'I' of which I speak is irreducibly me, whereas the 'I' of which you speak is irreducibly you ... not me ... )

    This goes way off the meditation topic ... if it's going to be pursued, it should be elsewhere, I think.

    None of it is apart from doctrine, however. The self as I see it is Trinity-shaped ...

    Thomas
     
  19. Paladin

    Paladin Purchased Bewilderment

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,084
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes it does seem to digress. I guess what I was going for was a personal account rather than a doctrinal one for that would put it all right back into a contemplative inquiry.
    Thanks for your indulgence Thomas :)
     
  20. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,259
    Likes Received:
    8
    Try this for size :)

    What Is the Self: What Buddhism Teaches About the Self



    If that means you’re in danger of any clarity, you’ve heard of upaya? Well…
    in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra it appears (to me) that the right medicine, the right teaching depends on the person (upaya; expedient means). So a person attached to the idea of self is taught the fallacy of this. The person attached to the idea of no-self is taught the fallacy of this...



    s.



     

Share This Page