Ask A Buddhist II

[Lodro]

Wow! I wasn’t aware at all that navel-gazing was so central a practice to Tibetan Buddhism. That is incredible! I cannot believe how similar our religions can be in terms of practices, experiences, states of mind etc,

The way I look at it, if people are engaged in any practice without bias and with the training and guidance of a genuine mystical tradition, it really couldn’t be any other way. After all, from a Buddhist perspective anyway, the experience of mind unstained by delusion is universal.

Ah yes I meant to attach a little “explanation” to Saint Symeon’s rather colourful use of “warfare” imagery.

I figured as much. You know, we have wrathful deities with 24 arms, trampling piles of corpses (representing ego), holding skull cups full of blood, cutting out hearts, etc… These are the kinds of things that might get misunderstood, Warrior tradition and warrior metaphors are actually a prominent part of Tibetan Buddhist iconography and teachings as well.

What posture do Tibetan Buddhists take during this meditation?

For most of our practices of any kind of meditation or contemplation, we take basically the posture that you see the Buddha sitting in. Upright with legs crossed, back quite straight and upright, perhaps palms on the thighs, chin slightly tucked, eyes gazing forward or slightly down (depending on practice), soft focus. The Zen tradition has very similar posture and instructions.

I’d like to mention that that we’re very fortunate in the west in that many of our teachers have such extraordinary faith in their students that they are willing to give very profound instructions to even their newest students. It is said that if you really paid attention to these instructions and practiced them diligently, you could become completely liberated just through the practice and blessings of that teaching. But most of us need a lot more help and getting instructions in the most profound practices involves becoming a student of your guru, doing the preparatory practices (ngondro) and so on. Specific practices have very specific postural instructions given in the context of a teacher-student relationship, but there wouldn’t be anything too surprising there.

 

[Vouthon]

I should point out that all of the deity practices and so on in the Tibetan Buddhist practices are actually considered to be lower (edit albiet very profound) forms of practice that open the gate to these highest practices, which are completely non-conceptual

That is exactly how it is in Catholicism as well. The earlier practices - what we call “meditation” - are discursive, using images, ideas, thoughts, even statues and icons (this is known as cataphatic prayer) - whereas contemplation is a freeing of the mind from all images, thoughts, concepts, ideas, sense perceptions etc (this is known as apophatic or imageless prayer).

From some key mystics:

“…When you are praying, do not shape within yourself any image of the Deity, and do not let your intellect be stamped with the impress of any form; but approach the Immaterial in an immaterial manner, and then you will understand…Undistracted prayer is the highest intellection of the intellect…Prayer is the flower of gentleness and of freedom from anger…When you pray as you should, thoughts will come to you which make you feel that you have a real right to be angry. But anger with your neighbor is never right. If you search you will find that things can always be arranged without anger. So do all you can not to break out into anger…He who wishes to pray truly must not only control his incensive power and his desire, but must also free himself from every impassioned thought…If your intellect is still distracted during prayer, you do not yet know what it is to pray as a monk; but your prayer is still worldly, embellishing the outer tabernacle. When you pray, keep close watch on your memory, so that it does not distract you with recollections of your past. But make yourself aware that you are standing before God. For by nature the intellect is apt to be carried away by memories during prayer. While you are praying, the memory brings before you fantasies either of past things, or of recent concerns, or of the face of someone who has irritated you…The state of prayer is one of dispassion, which by virtue of the most intense love transports to the noetic realm the intellect that longs for wisdom…When your intellect in its great longing for God gradually withdraws from the flesh and turns away from all thoughts that have their source in your sense-perception, memory or soul-body temperament, and when it becomes full of reverence and joy, then you may conclude that you are close to the frontiers of prayer…”

- Evagrius Ponticus (345-399 AD), Desert Father & Catholic mystic

“…When during prayer no conceptual image of anything worldly disturbs your intellect, then know that you are within the realm of dispassion…Two states of pure prayer are exalted above all others. One is to be found in those who have not advanced beyond the practice of the virtues, the other in those leading the contemplative life. The first is engendered in the soul by fear of God and a firm hope in Him, the second by an intense longing for God and by total purification. The sign of the first is that the intellect, abandoning all conceptual images of the world, concentrates itself and prays without distraction or disturbance as if God Himself were present, as indeed He is. The sign of the second is that at the very onset of prayer the intellect is so ravished by the divine and infinite light that it is aware neither of itself nor of any other created thing, but only of Him who through love has activated such radiance in it. It is then that, being made aware of God’s qualities, it receives clear and distinct reflections of him…All the virtues co-operate with the intellect to produce this intense longing for God, pure prayer above all. For by soaring towards God through this prayer the intellect rises above the realm of created beings…It is said that the highest state of prayer is reached when the intellect goes beyond the flesh and the world, and while praying is utterly free from matter and form. He who maintains this state has truly attained unceasing prayer…”

***- Saint Maximos the Confessor (ca. 580-662), early Church Father & Catholic mystic ***

“…In prayer come empty, do nothing…The reason is that now in this state of contemplation, the soul has left discursive meditation and entered the state of proficients…At this time God does not communicate Himself through the senses as He did before, by means of the discursive analysis and synthesis of ideas, but begins to communicate Himself through pure spirit by an act of simple contemplation, in which there is no discursive succession of thought. The exterior and interior senses of the lower part of the soul cannot attain to this contemplation. As a result, the imaginative power and phantasy can no longer rest in any consideration nor find support in it…Since God introduces a person into this night to purge his senses, and accommodate, subject, and unite the lower part of his soul to the spiritual part by darkening it and causing a cessation of discursive meditation, this person gains so many benefits-- though at the time this may not be apparent to him–that he considers his departure from the fetters and straits of the senses a sheer grace…Thus, no one … can disturb the mind that is liberated and purged of all things and united with God. She enjoys now in this state a habitual sweetness and tranquility which is never lost or lacking to her…A question may arise about our teaching. Are proficients (those whom God begins to place in this supernatural knowledge of contemplation) because they are beginning to experience contemplation never again to practise discursive meditation and work with natural forms…”

***- Saint John of the Cross (1542 – 1591), Catholic mystic & Doctor of the Church ***

"…Sometimes those who live the interior life turn in within themselves in a simple manner following their inclination to delight, and there, beyond all activities and virtues, they look with a simple and inward gaze upon blissful love. Here they meet God without intermediary.

And there shines upon them from the depths of Gods unity an undifferentiated light, which shows them darkness, bareness and nothingness. Such people are enveloped in the darkness and fall in modelessness as if they were quite lost. In the bareness they lose the perception and distinction of all things and are transformed and permeated by a simple radiance.

In the nothingness all their works fail them, for they are overwhelmed by the activity of the love of God that is deep without end. And in the inclination towards delight of their spirit, they overcome God and become one spirit with him. And in this union in the spirit of God they savour an ecstatic delight, and possess the divine essence…

There we will abide—unified, empty, and imageless—raised up through love to the open bareness of our mind, for when we transcend all things in love and die to all rational observations in a dark state of unknowing, we become transformed through the working of the eternal Word, who is an image of the Father. In the empty being of our spirit we receive an incomprehensible resplendence which envelops and pervades us in the same way that the air is pervaded by the light of the sun. This resplendence is nothing other than an act of gazing and seeing which has no ground: What we are is what we see, and what we see is what we are, for our mind, our life, and our very being are raised up in a state of oneness and united with the truth that is God himself. In this simple act of seeing we are therefore one life and one spirit with God. This is what I call a contemplative life. When we cleave to God in love we are practicing what is called the better part, but when we gaze at our superessential being in the way just described we possess God whole and entire…"

- Blessed John Ruysbroeck (1294-1381), Catholic Rhineland mystic

“…If the intellect has become so closely attached to worldly thoughts through its inveterate involvement with them, how intimate would it not become if prayer was made
unceasingly? It is said that the intellect will flourish in whatever it makes its constant
occupation. Because of its long absence from its true home the intellect has forgotten the luminosity it enjoyed there, hence it must become once more oblivious to things of this world, and hasten back to its true home through prayer…Evidence of an intellect devoted to God is its absorption in the single-phrased Jesus Prayer; of an adroit intelligence, opportune speech; of a non-attached sense perception, simplicity in taste…He who is distracted during prayer stands outside the first veil. He who undistractedly offers the single-phrased Jesus Prayer is within the veil. But he alone has glimpsed the Holy of Holies who, with his natural thoughts at rest, contemplates that which transcends every intellect, and who has in this way been granted to some extent a vision of the divine light…”

- Ilias the Presbyter (11th-12th century) “Gnomic Anthology” Lawyer then priest, Orthodox Church

BTW I just noticed your edits

 

[Bakmoon]

I’m curious if there is something similar in the Buddhist faith to the examination of conscience if one ends up at the end of the day feeling like they’ve not done as well as they could with the eightfold path. Thank you for taking the time to read-blessings to all.

We do have such a practice. In the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta, the Buddha gives an exhortation to do the following:

"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any verbal action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

"Whenever you want to do a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then any mental action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful mental action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any mental action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it. Feeling distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it, you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful mental action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

The Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html

 

[Bakmoon]

My dear brother Bakmoon

Its been a little while since we discussed contemplative/meditative practices so I thought that I would raise a new one (please sister Notself chip in if you know any parrallels from the Tipitaka) so I thought that I would focus on two:

1. Navel-gazing
2. Prayer phrases (similar to the sacred word in the *Cloud *but with a therepeutic element I will explain)

In this post I will tackle navel-gazing.

Saint Symeon the New Theologian, one of the last mystics of the united East/West Catholic Church of the late first millenium (before the Great Schism which formed the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches) and thus an important authority, explained how one “navel-gazes” and what it is used for in his writings and I will quote it here for you.

It is from his work on contemplation known as, “The Three Methods of Prayer”. He notes:

The first two “methods of prayer”, one of which is called the “way of imagination” (ie discursive, through images, concepts and “divine” thoughts), are condemned. The central theme in “The Three Methods” is the need to guard the heart. The first two methods of prayer described by the author are in his view defective, and indeed potentially dangerous, precisely because they neglect the need for such guarding.

The third method is the prayer of the Heart for which Saint Symeon suggests the technique of “navel-gazing”:

"…Above all else you should strive to acquire three things, and so begin to attain what you seek.

Yes, there are very clear parallels. An important form of meditation in Theravada Buddhism is called Anapanasati, which means “mindfulness of breathing.” It is given sixteen steps of instructions in the Suttas, and in a very important work written on meditation known as the Visuddhimagga, the method is described as working by placing one’s attention on one of several locations such as the nostril tip, the nasal cavity, etc… but one of them is the solar plexus located just above the navel. It is a legitimate technique of meditation, although this method has been subject to some practical criticism for technical reasons which aren’t relevant right here.

St. Symeon’s description also has strong paralells with the Buddhist tradition of meditation. Just as how he describes the part prior to happiness as darkness, Buddhist meditators are often reminded that the journey can be rough and rocky in the beginning stages before one is able to cause the arising of Piti, and then it becomes a much more bearable and pleasant experience.

Thanks for bringing up again the subject of comparative mysticism. It’s my favorite topic.

 

[chataranga]

Thank you all for your kind words of encouragement,the links suggested and the quotes. I’ll read through all of these and possibly add something to my practice or if not certainly viewing the practice differently than I have.
The examination practice has been helpful as a way of slowing down before going to bed in the evening and simply trying to see things from a point of “hindsight” I suppose. My dilema is that I have the best of intentions in the morning and can’t seem to follow through as I would like. Usually it is with the thoughts that I have and sometimes to words I use, rarely with the actual actions, but sometimes even there I could do better. Thank you again. Back to page 5!

 

[Lodro]

Based on the readers of our brother Vouthon above, I wonder if the following description may seem a contrast or if there are some aspects that might be consistent? The whole question of what we mean by “worship” is very rich and fraught with potential for confusion across faiths.

This is of course coming from the Vajrayana tradition, which emphasizes devotion to one’s Guru above everything else. It might be surprising for some to learn that devotion is the central principal of Tibetan Buddhist practice and life. This passage describes how that works in a non-theistic religion:

In guru-yoga, the practitioner begins to realize the non-dual nature of devotion: there is no separation between the lineage and oneself and, in fact, the vajra being of the guru is a reflection of one’s own nature. In the way, the practice of ngöndro, culminating in guru-yoga, helps to overcome theistic notions about the teacher or about vajrayana itself. One realizes that the lineage is not an entity outside of oneself: one is not worshipping the teacher or his ancestors as gods. Rather, one if connecting with vajra sanity, which is so powerful because of its nonexistence – its utter egolessness.

-THE HEART OF THE BUDDHA, Venerable Chögyam Trungpa R(name removed by moderator)oche

 

[Lodro]

Thank you all for your kind words of encouragement,the links suggested and the quotes. I’ll read through all of these and possibly add something to my practice or if not certainly viewing the practice differently than I have.
The examination practice has been helpful as a way of slowing down before going to bed in the evening and simply trying to see things from a point of “hindsight” I suppose. My dilema is that I have the best of intentions in the morning and can’t seem to follow through as I would like. Usually it is with the thoughts that I have and sometimes to words I use, rarely with the actual actions, but sometimes even there I could do better. Thank you again. Back to page 5!

A favorite story of ours goes something like this:

A monk is walking in the forest. Along the path there is a large depression in the ground. The monk, not seeing the hole, trips over it and falls. On subsequent walks, he keeps forgetting the hole and keeps tripping in to it. (Perhaps he remembers the experience at night time and vows to remember about the hole the next day. I just added that part. ) Eventually, he begins to remember that the hole is there, but because his habits are so strong, he still walks in to it and stumbles. Finally, after doing that a number of times, he sees the hole, and chooses to walk around it.

There are very specific teachings on this. We must be able to recognize our faults before we can abandon them. We are taught that first we have to slow our minds down and nurture enough awareness to notice what we’re doing. Reviewing our actions definitely helps here. But the most important thing is to try to cultivate awareness all of the time. Then we can see our actions as they happen. That alone is very difficult to achieve, and we should be happy about our progress if we are able to do just that. Note that that does not mean that we will not perform the same actions again! In fact, habits are very difficult to break.

(edit) The pattern goes something like this: First, we’re entirely ignorant of the action. Second, we recognize the action, but don’t remember it when we need to. Third, we recognize the action, remember it, but then indulge it any way. Finally, we recognize the action, remember it, and choose not to indulge in it.

If we don’t realize this, we can use our growing recognition of our faults as an excuse to simply be harder on ourselves. We might feel that we are even more to blame because we are now beginning to see how much harm we cause. But in fact, our practice is actually progressing and maturing.

That is why it is so important to be kind to yourself when engaging in these practices.

 

[notself]

It is not necessary to sit in the full lotus position in order to meditate. I have had interesting experiences while setting on a low bench. The Buddha talks about 4 positions for meditation; sitting, standing, walking, and lying down. One can change positions, mindfully, in order to maintain awareness through long periods of meditation. Or one can use a specific position based on preference.

Here are the 16 steps mentioned by Bakmoon. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html The numbers not in bold are foot notes that can be found in the link.

"In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.

"Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination.

Mindfulness of In-&-Out Breathing

"Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?

"There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.[1] Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.

"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, ‘I am breathing in long’; or breathing out long, he discerns, ‘I am breathing out long.’ [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, ‘I am breathing in short’; or breathing out short, he discerns, ‘I am breathing out short.’** [3]** He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.’[2] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.’ [4] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.’[3] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.’

"[5] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.’ [6] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.’ [7] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.’[4] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.’** [8]** He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.’

"[9] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.’ [10] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in satisfying the mind.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out satisfying the mind.’** [11]** He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in steadying the mind.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out steadying the mind.’ **12] **He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in releasing the mind.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out releasing the mind.’[5]

"[13] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.’ [14] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally, fading].’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.’ [15] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in focusing on cessation.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out focusing on cessation.’ [16] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.’

"This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit.

Vouthon, do you remember the discussion on jhana? One can experience jhana (bliss, brightness) through breath meditation as one becomes more skilled in concentration. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html

To attain the jhanas, the meditator must begin by eliminating the unwholesome mental states obstructing inner collectedness, generally grouped together as the five hindrances (pañcanivarana): sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry and doubt.[2] The mind’s absorption on its object is brought about by five opposing mental states — applied thought, sustained thought, rapture, happiness and one pointedness[3] — called the jhana factors (jhanangani) because they lift the mind to the level of the first jhana and remain there as its defining components.

After reaching the first jhana the ardent meditator can go on to reach the higher jhanas, which is done by eliminating the coarser factors in each jhana. Beyond the four jhanas lies another fourfold set of higher meditative states which deepen still further the element of serenity. These attainments (aruppa), are the base of boundless space, the base of boundless consciousness, the base of nothingness, and the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.[4] In the Pali commentaries these come to be called the four immaterial jhanas (arupajhana), the four preceding states being renamed for the sake of clarity, the four fine-material jhanas (rupajhana). Often the two sets are joined together under the collective title of the eight jhanas or the eight attainments (atthasamapattiyo).

The four jhanas and the four immaterial attainments appear initially as mundane states of deep serenity pertaining to the preliminary stage of the Buddhist path, and on this level they help provide the base of concentration needed for wisdom to arise. But the four jhanas again reappear in a later stage in the development of the path, in direct association with liberating wisdom, and they are then designated the supramundane (lokuttara) jhanas. These supramundane jhanas are the levels of concentration pertaining to the four degrees of enlightenment experience called the supramundane paths (magga) and the stages of liberation resulting from them, the four fruits (phala).

Finally, even after full liberation is achieved, the mundane jhanas can still remain as attainments available to the fully liberated person, part of his untrammeled contemplative experience.

 

[Lodro]

Based on the readers of our brother Vouthon above, I wonder if the following description may seem a contrast or if there are some aspects that might be consistent?

I’m thinking specifically of this one:

“…And there shines upon them from the depths of Gods unity an undifferentiated light, which shows them darkness, bareness and nothingness. Such people are enveloped in the darkness and fall in modelessness as if they were quite lost. In the bareness they lose the perception and distinction of all things and are transformed and permeated by a simple radiance…In the nothingness all their works fail them…they overcome God and become one spirit with him… they savour an ecstatic delight, and possess the divine essence…There we will abide—unified, empty, and imageless—raised up through love to the open bareness of our mind…This resplendence is nothing other than an act of gazing and seeing which has no groundWhen we cleave to God in love we are practicing what is called the better part, but when we gaze at our superessential being in the way just described we possess God whole and entire…”

• Blessed John Ruysbroeck (1294-1381), Catholic Rhineland mystic

I mean, wow. In answer to the whole issue of emptiness and God that I brought up in the other thread, he seems to be saying that you can’t have that fullness (which Vajrayanists might equate with “luminosity”) without the bareness and nothingness (which we might call “emptiness”.

Is this bareness seen to be an essential part of the experience of oneness with God or is instead a stage that is passed through, i.e. during the “dark night of the soul”?

 

[Lodro]

It is not necessary to sit in the full lotus position in order to meditate.

There are definitely postures that are conducive to certain forms of meditation, but we are never hindered by physical limitations. Personally I can’t imagine sitting for any length of time in a full-lotus. I don’t think I can even get into one!

In many of the “Western” Tibetan (I know, awkward phrase) practices as well as Zen, we have some kind of formal walking meditation. We also might do aimless wandering. There are practices we do lying down. Then of course there are the “post-meditation” practices where you could be doing anything but with a mind of awareness.

 

[notself]

There are definitely postures that are conducive to certain forms of meditation, but we are never hindered by physical limitations. Personally I can’t imagine sitting for any length of time in a full-lotus. I don’t think I can even get into one!

In many of the “Western” Tibetan (I know, awkward phrase) practices as well as Zen, we have some kind of formal walking meditation. We also might do aimless wandering. There are practices we do lying down. Then of course there are the “post-meditation” practices where you could be doing anything but with a mind of awareness.

I think westerners new to Buddhist practice are way too caught up in how to sit. They forget that the half Lotus or full Lotus is the common form of sitting in Asia. Just note how the Dalai Lama always curls up when giving a talk even when provided a western chair. If one were raised to sit in the Lotus position, one would find it the most comfortable way to sit. The important thing about the sitting position is to sit with the back straight and the head balanced on the neck. Eyes can be closed, half closed or open but one should relax the muscles around the eye area of the face.

In walking meditation, of course the eyes are open. Bumping into walls or trees do not lead to awakening. Here are instructions for walking meditation. The word yogis in this instance refers to the mediator. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/silananda/bl137.html

Let us now talk specifically about the practice of walking meditation. If you are a complete beginner, the teacher may instruct you to be mindful of only one thing during walking meditation: to be mindful of the act of stepping while you make a note silently in the mind, “stepping, stepping, stepping,” or “left, right, left, right.” You may walk at a slower speed than normal during this practice.

After a few hours, or after a day or two of meditation, you may be instructed to be mindful of two occurrences: (i) stepping, and (ii) putting down the foot, while making the mental note “stepping, putting down.” You will try to be mindful of two stages in the step: “stepping, putting down; stepping, putting down.” Later, you may be instructed to be mindful of three stages: (i) lifting the foot; (ii) moving or pushing the foot forward; and (iii) putting the foot down. Still later, you would be instructed to be mindful of four stages in each step: (i) lifting the foot; (ii) moving it forward; (iii) putting it down; and (iv) touching or pressing the foot on the ground. You would be instructed to be completely mindful and to make a mental note of these four stages of the foot’s movement: “lifting, moving forward, putting down, pressing the ground.”

At first yogis may find it difficult to slow down, but as they are instructed to pay close attention to all of the movements involved, and as they actually pay closer and closer attention, they will automatically slow down. They do not have to slow down deliberately, but as they pay closer attention, slowing down comes to them automatically. When driving on the freeway, one may be driving at sixty or seventy or even eighty miles per hour. Driving at that speed, one will not be able to read some of the signs on the road. If one wants to read those signs, it is necessary to slow down. Nobody has to say, “Slow down!” but the driver will automatically slow down in order to see the signs. In the same way, if yogis want to pay closer attention to the movements of lifting, moving forward, putting down, and pressing the ground, they will automatically slow down. Only when they slow down can they be truly mindful and fully aware of these movements.

Although yogis pay close attention and slow down, they may not see all of the movements and stages clearly. The stages may not yet be well-defined in the mind, and they may seem to constitute only one continuous movement. As concentration grows stronger, yogis will observe more and more clearly these different stages in one step; the four stages at least will be easier to distinguish. Yogis will know distinctly that the lifting movement is not mixed with the moving forward movement, and they will know that the moving forward movement is not mixed with either the lifting movement or the putting down movement. They will understand all movements clearly and distinctly. Whatever they are mindful and aware of will be very clear in their minds.

As yogis carry on the practice, they will observe much more. When they lift their foot, they will experience the lightness of the foot. When they push the foot forward, they will notice the movement from one place to another. When they put the foot down, they will feel the heaviness of the foot, because the foot becomes heavier and heavier as it descends. When they put the foot on the ground, they will feel the touch of the heel of the foot on the ground. Therefore, along with observing lifting, moving forward, putting down, and pressing the ground, yogis will also perceive the lightness of the rising foot, the motion of the foot, the heaviness of the descending foot, and then the touching of the foot, which is the hardness or softness of the foot on the ground. When yogis perceive these processes, they are perceiving the four essential elements (in Pali, dhatu). The four essential elements are: the element of earth, the element of water, the element of fire, and the element of air. By paying close attention to these four stages of walking meditation, the four elements in their true essence are perceived, not merely as concepts, but as actual processes, as ultimate realities.

 

[Vouthon]

I’m thinking specifically of this one:

I mean, wow. In answer to the whole issue of emptiness and God that I brought up in the other thread, he seems to be saying that you can’t have that fullness (which Vajrayanists might equate with “luminosity”) without the bareness and nothingness (which we might call “emptiness”.

Is this bareness seen to be an essential part of the experience of oneness with God or is instead a stage that is passed through, i.e. during the “dark night of the soul”?

It is an essential part of union with God

Ruysbroeck repeatedly turned to this idea of “inner emptiness” or “bareness”. The goal of this process, perfect emptiness of self in union with God, is the major corollary of Thomas Merton’s understanding of mystical union. It is mystical union. As Ruysbroeck says we will remain in this state of bareness of mind, raised up through love, for all eternity beholding the Beatific Vision - and seeing no difference between ourselves and God because we have become God by grace.

Ruysbroeck distinguished between a purely natural state of imageless emptiness, which, although it is accompanied by a sense of peace and rest, can be reached by anyone without the grace of God, and the true supernatural union of the kind described in that marvellous quote above. He discerned a “natural” emptiness that anyone could attain and which was deep and satisfying and one which came only through the grace of God.

Grace, he taught, is given to all equally so all can attain to “supernatural emptiness”.

The word “God” is used for our concepts of the essence and attributes of God while the word “Godhead” refers to the ineffability of God which Ruysbroeck calls “essential nakedness.” It is this “essential nakedness” which Thomas Merton perceived may correspond to Zen “emptiness” or “suchness” as spoken of by D. T. Suzuki.

Read this passage by Evelyn Underhill (the early 20th century mystic scholar) on Ruysbroeck and emptiness:

The true emptiness and idleness of which Ruysbroeck
speaks as an essential preparation of the contemplative state, is a
condition of meek and passive attentiveness to God, which excludes
consciousness of the ordinary objects of perception and thought; sweeps
and garnishes the interior castle. Here the virtue is not in the
emptiness and idleness, but in the humble and eager yielding of
ourselves. Although man cannot by his own effort reach God, yet without
such deliberate loving effort we shall never possess Him. [25]

Beyond even the highest point of this interior life, in which the
contemplative feels himself to be living “in God,” [26] is that
transfigured or deified life, as the Platonic mystics named it, which
Ruysbroeck calls overwesen–superessential–the life of the “God-seeing
man” (Book III). Whereas in the interior life we may be said to
re-discover the lost inheritance of our spirit, in this life there is a
genuine transcendence, a passing beyond that spirit’s created being:
for the Being of God, in which this consummation is found, is “more
than being” to us. It abides beyond all the concepts of reason, beyond
anything that we can name or describe, outside Time, in the bosom of
Divine Reality: that deep Quiet of the Godhead which cannot be moved.
Those who ascend thereto have passed from the state of “secret friends”
to that of the “hidden sons” of God, and completed the soul’s journey
to its home. [27] Then they find themselves, so far as their separate
consciousness persists, in a place that is placeless and a way that is
wayless: in the abysmal Onwise of God, a word for which we have no
exact equivalent, but which embodies one of Ruysbroeck’s most important
conceptions, and is the occasion of some of his most mysterious
utterances. It represents that world of spiritual reality which is
beyond all attributes and conditions; which is neither This nor That,
which is “in no wise”–the Absolute wherein all ways and modes of
being, all wise, are swallowed up, and all our finite perceptions die
into ignorance and darkness (cap. 4). [28] Ruysbroeck writes:

"The splendour of That which is in no wise is as a fair mirror

Wherein shines the everlasting light of God:

It has no attributes,

And in it all the activities of reason fail.

It is not God

But it is the light whereby we see Him:

Those who walk in the divine light thereof

Discover in themselves the Unwalled." [29]

Seen from the synthetic and spiritual point of view, this supernal
world of experience is the Essential Unity, wherein the richness of
Eternal Life consists, and where the surrendered soul enjoys the
peaceful fruition of God. But seen from the analytic and intellectual
point of view it is the Essential Nudity, the “nought” or “divine dark”
of Dionysius the Areopagite: for it has been stripped of every
character of which we can think. [30] Here the mystic feels himself, as
regards his essential being, to be poured out into God, melted and
merged in Him as a river in the sea: and, as regards his own separate
consciousness, apprehends Him in one simple act of absorbed attention
“seeing and staring” with wide-open eyes. It is in this one act,
sometimes felt by us as a passing beyond ourselves, sometimes as a
fixed ecstatic vision, “beholding that which we are, and becoming that
which we behold” that the self at last knows itself to be one life and
one spirit with God. [31]

God can only come in when “we” are not there, Meister Eckhart said

 

[Vouthon]

Based on the readers of our brother Vouthon above, I wonder if the following description may seem a contrast or if there are some aspects that might be consistent? The whole question of what we mean by “worship” is very rich and fraught with potential for confusion across faiths.

This is of course coming from the Vajrayana tradition, which emphasizes devotion to one’s Guru above everything else. It might be surprising for some to learn that devotion is the central principal of Tibetan Buddhist practice and life. This passage describes how that works in a non-theistic religion:

A wonderful passage brother Lodro! I really appreciate you sharing it with us!

The passage as you quoted it goes:

In guru-yoga, the practitioner begins to realize the non-dual nature of devotion: there is no separation between the lineage and oneself and, in fact, the vajra being of the guru is a reflection of one’s own nature. In the way, the practice of ngöndro, culminating in guru-yoga, helps to overcome theistic notions about the teacher or about vajrayana itself. One realizes that the lineage is not an entity outside of oneself: one is not worshipping the teacher or his ancestors as gods. Rather, one if connecting with vajra sanity, which is so powerful because of its nonexistence – its utter egolessness.

-THE HEART OF THE BUDDHA, Venerable Chögyam Trungpa R(name removed by moderator)oche

Compare:

“…To guage the soul we must guage it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge. You must love God as not-God, not-Spirit, not-person, not-image, but as He is - sheer, pure absolute Oneness, without any duality, sundered from all twoness, and in whom we must eternally sink from nothingness to nothingness. Separate yourself from all twoness. Be one in one, one with one, one from one. When is a man in mere understanding? When a man sees one thing separated from another. And when is a man above mere understanding? When a man sees All in all, then a man stands beyond mere understanding…When the soul enters the light that is pure, she falls so far from her own created somethingness into her nothingness that in this nothingness she can no longer return to that created somethingness by her own power…The Ground is inexpressible…For though she sink all sinking in the oneness of divinity, she never touches bottom. For it is of the very essence…that she is powerless to plumb the depths…And here one cannot speak of the soul anymore, for she has lost her nature yonder in the oneness of divine essence. When the soul has lost her nature in the Oneness, we can no longer speak of a ‘soul’ - but of immeasurable Being…Your very something must become nothing, drive all something, all nothing away! Leave place, leave time, and images as well! Go without way on the narrow path, thus you will come to the desert…into the nothing, sink into the bottomless swell…”

***- Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1327), Catholic Mystic & priest ***

 

[Vouthon]

Read this brother Lodro by Eugene Thacker on “Wayless Abyss: Mysticism, Mediation, and Divine Nothingness”:

In his mystical writings, the Flemish mystic John Ruusbroec outlines a mystical itinerary that passes through several phases: an active life, in which union with the divine is achieved via an intermediary; an interior life, in which union with the divine is achieved without intermediary; and a contemplative life, where divine unity paradoxically exists “without distinction or difference.” In discussing this final stage of mystical practice, Ruusbroec refers to a form of contemplation “above reason and without reason,” which he describes in the following way:

…a fruitive tendency which pierces through every condition and all being, and through which they [mystics] immerse themselves in a wayless abyss of fathomless beatitude, where the Trinity of the Divine Persons possess Their Nature in the essential Unity…this beatitude is so onefold and so wayless that in it every essential gazing, tendency, and creaturely distinction cease and pass away. [1]

Ruusbroec continues in this vein, emphasizing the characteristics of mystical indistinction and indifference, noting that in the final, contemplative stage, the mystics “fall from themselves into a solitude and an ignorance which are fathomless; there all light is turned to darkness; there the three Persons give place to the Essential Unity, and abide without distinction…” [2]

[2] Such a union, in which the divine exists indistinctly with the human, would seem to entail the negation of the basic philosophical relation between subject and object that conditions the very possibility of any experience, mystical or otherwise: “To comprehend and understand God as he is in himself, above and beyond all likenesses, is to be God with God, without intermediary or any element of otherness which could constitute an obstacle or impediment.” [3] To reach this state of contemplation, one must lose oneself “in a state devoid of particular form or measure, a state of darkness in which all contemplatives blissfully lose their way and are never again able to find themselves in a creaturely way.” [4] Ruusbroec seems to sense the paradox inherent in such a situation – “to contemplate God with God without intermediary.” [5] For Ruusbroec, the mediation that is the condition of mysticism also has as its goal the negation of all mediation – a strange mediation “without intermediary.

…

Following in the apophatic tradition, Ruusbroec frequently describes this mystical mediation in negative terms: the mystical subject goes out of itself “into a state of darkness devoid of particular form,” [8] it enters a “state of essential bareness…a fathomless abyss of simplicity,” [9] goes into “inaccessible height and unfathomable depth…a dark stillness and a wild desert,” [10] and meets the “wild darkness of the Godhead.” [11] All distinctions fade away, all differences are emptied of their content, and, in a moment of divine self-abnegation, the mystical subject enters “that dark stillness in which all lovers lose their way.” [12]

A central feature of Ruusbroec’s mystical vocabulary is the combination of a strange non-space of indistinction (the abyss, the fathomless, the depth, and other quasi-spatial tropes) with an assertion of orientation or direction (a way that is “wayless,” an itinerary that leads to self-negation). This combination is best encapsulated in Ruusbroec’s phrase “the wayless abyss.” In this “wayless abyss,” where divine beatitude is also divine darkness, “all uplighted spirits are melted and noughted"

…

the wayless abyss is not simply this sense of being-lost (whether of the existential or apophatic type), but it is expressed by Ruusbroec as being a wayless abyss or fathomless depth. It is as if Ruusbroec not only wanted to convey the sense of wandering and being lost, but that this waylessness paradoxically orients itself or “leads” to a negative region, a region without attributes or properties, an “empty” region without substance

Here’s a link to the full article: postmedievalcrowdreview.wordpress.com/papers/thacker/

 

[Vouthon]

I think westerners new to Buddhist practice are way too caught up in how to sit. They forget that the half Lotus or full Lotus is the common form of sitting in Asia. Just note how the Dalai Lama always curls up when giving a talk even when provided a western chair. If one were raised to sit in the Lotus position, one would find it the most comfortable way to sit. The important thing about the sitting position is to sit with the back straight and the head balanced on the neck. Eyes can be closed, half closed or open but one should relax the muscles around the eye area of the face.

In walking meditation, of course the eyes are open. Bumping into walls or trees do not lead to awakening. Here are instructions for walking meditation. The word yogis in this instance refers to the mediator. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/silananda/bl137.html

I agree that we should not get caught up in postures

“Posture” is more important in Hesychasm (Eastern Catholic mysticism) than in Western mysticism. They have various teachings on posture.

I find that sitting on a chair with eyes alternatively open or closed and with a straight back is the most condusive to physical stillness; for me at least on a personal level. I sit a little forward on the chair, with a straight back but not leaning back on the chair, so that I am relaxed and comfortable but not in a “lazy” position where I could lose my focus and get easily distracted.

When I am engaging not in prayer of quietude (stillness) but in more discursive prayer (ie meditation, using images etc.) I tend to sometimes do what Hesychasts call zemnoy poklon (prostrations).

When I was around 14 or 15 I went through a “Zen” phase where my parents would walk in and find me sitting full lotus I have rather flexible joint muscles, ankles and knees so it didn’t hurt me at all but I wouldn’t recommend it to the average Westerner, in hindsight.

Martin Laird, the modern contemplative I mentioned earlier, spoke thus about posture in his book “Into the Silent Land”:

“…There is an ancient Christian awareness that physical stillness facilitates interior stillness. Evagrius says, ‘Let us sit still and keep our attention fixed within ourselves, so that we advance in holiness and resist vice more strongly’. Evagrius is aware that the simple act of sitting still is an effective aid in the practice of vigilance and in keeping the attention from being stolen by thoughts. St Gregory of Sinai and St Gregory of Palamas both thought that sitting still and close to the floor could be of great assistance. Gregory of Sinai recommended sitting on a small stool, low to the ground. Today we call this a prayer bench. Many of the old monks spoke of a rather odd posture that involved sitting on a low stool and bending the head down towards the navel (this is the likely origin of the term ‘navel gazers’)…While it is important to remember that we can pray in any position, certain positions are more suited to still prayer, and many Christian contemplatives have come to see the benefits of an erect and stable sitting posture. Largely through a sustained dialogue with Hindu and Buddhist monasticism begun in earnest by Pope Paul VI, many Christian contemplatives have seen the benefits of the classic lotus, half lotus etc. All things being equal, they are well worth learning…Most Western Christian contemplatives, however, sit on a chair or prayer bench. In any case there is nothing magical or esoteric about learning proper posture…”

***- Father Martin Laird OSB, Augustinian priest & contemplation director, Into the Silent Land ***

So I’m with Saint Gregory of Sinai on this one

 

[notself]

I agree that we should not get caught up in postures

“Posture” is more important in Hesychasm (Eastern Catholic mysticism) than in Western mysticism. They have various teachings on posture.

I find that sitting on a chair with eyes alternatively open or closed and with a straight back is the most condusive to physical stillness; for me at least on a personal level. I sit a little forward on the chair, with a straight back but not leaning back on the chair, so that I am relaxed and comfortable but not in a “lazy” position where I could lose my focus and get easily distracted.

When I am engaging not in prayer of quietude (stillness) but in more discursive prayer (ie meditation, using images etc.) I tend to sometimes do what Hesychasts call zemnoy poklon (prostrations).

When I was around 14 or 15 I went through a “Zen” phase where my parents would walk in and find me sitting full lotus I have rather flexible joint muscles, ankles and knees so it didn’t hurt me at all but I wouldn’t recommend it to the average Westerner, in hindsight.

Martin Laird, the modern contemplative I mentioned earlier, spoke thus about posture in his book “Into the Silent Land”:
So I’m with Saint Gregory of Sinai on this one

All forms of Buddhism do some sort of prostration. Certainly Tibetan Buddhists are the kings and queens of prostrations. Really impressive!

One important thing about sitting meditation is no movement. After sufficient length of time, no matter how comfortable the position to begin with, discomfort will settle in. Movement makes things worse because once one moves the first time, the urge to move the second time comes and pretty soon one falls out of concentration. It is recommended that if one becomes uncomfortable, one switches the focus of the breath around the body. It is also possible to focus on discomfort and watch it change in intensity, rising and falling. One should recognize the difference between the pain that comes from sitting in one position and the pain that comes from too much stress on the back or joints. It was the latter that moved me from the floor to a chair. Meditation should not result in physical damage.

 

[Vouthon]

I read a little further into that book by Fr Laird (I never really read all of the section on posture before now) and here is what he continues to say:

"…If you sit in a chair, better to use a simple flat-seated desk or kitchen chair rather than an arm chair more suited to knitting, reading, or nodding off. The idea is that the knees and the buttocks form a tripod that serves as a solid support for the body. Because most of us are so accustomed to slouching, this takes some attention.

Sit on the front portion of the seat. Don’t lean back. Instead, keep the back straight; shoulders back but not rigid. Depending on your height, a lot of desk chairs leave your knees about even with your hips. If possible place a cushion under you to elevate the buttocks so that the hips are slightly above the knees. The elevation of the hips above the knees opens up the abdomen for proper breathing. Feet are flat on the floor. There should be a sense of being solid, a sense of not having to expend energy to sit up. Many people never know what to do with their hands. Just lay them palms down on the knees or gently cupped in the lap. Some find they struggle less with distractions if they keep their eyes closed. Others find that closed eyes increase distractions and so keep them slightly open but without focusing on any particular object. With time you discover what is best for you…"

***- Father Martin Laird OSB, Augustinian priest & contemplation director, Into the Silent Land ***

So he suggests much the same thing as my personal practice which I have done since my mid-teens - back sraight but sitting on the front portion of the seat, not leaning back.

That seems to be the preferred posture of Christian contemplatives.

 

[Vouthon]

All forms of Buddhism do some sort of prostration. Certainly Tibetan Buddhists are the kings and queens of prostrations. Really impressive!

One important thing about sitting meditation is no movement. After sufficient length of time, no matter how comfortable the position to begin with, discomfort will settle in. Movement makes things worse because once one moves the first time, the urge to move the second time comes and pretty soon one falls out of concentration. It is recommended that if one becomes uncomfortable, one switches the focus of the breath around the body. It is also possible to focus on discomfort and watch it change in intensity, rising and falling. One should recognize the difference between the pain that comes from sitting in one position and the pain that comes from too much stress on the back or joints. It was the latter that moved me from the floor to a chair. Meditation should not result in physical damage.

Thanks for the great advice sister Notself

Your advice is so very sound and pastoral if you don’t mind me saying!

I wasn’t aware that Buddhists did prostrations! (I assumed it was a theist thing that the likes of only Christians and Muslims do )

How wrong I obviousdly am!

Sikhs do similar prostrations which they call Matha Tekking.

In Orthodox Christianity - that is Eastern Catholicism - they call it Zemnoy poklon (“great bow” literally ground bow) as I already explained and here is an illustration of six different types of Zemnoy Poklon:

http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/d/di/different_kinds_of_bows_in_eo.gif

These different bows are done at different times during the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox liturgy, especially at the mention of the Name of Jesus and I believe the Holy Trinity.

In the West, Roman Catholics do not do the full Zemnoy Poklon but rather we do what Hesychasts would call Poyasny (“little bow”, literally belt bow) which is the first bow of only the head that you see in the image, and we also genuflect (bending at least one knee to the ground along with little bow of head as in above picture 1) whenever we enter or leave a Church before the Altar, that is the Tabernacle, where the Blessed Sacrament is kept, as in this picture:



The custom of bowing the head at the mention of the Name of Jesus was formally written into law at the Second Council of Lyons, A.D. 1274, convened by Pope Gregory X: “Those who assemble in church should extol with an act of special reverence that Name which is above every Name, than which no other under Heaven has been given to people, in which believers must be saved, the Name of Jesus…Each should fulfil in himself that which is written for all, that at the Name every knee should bow; whenever that glorious Name is recalled, especially during the sacred Mysteries of the Mass, everyone should bow the knees of his heart, which he can do even by a bow of his head”.

In the West, Catholics used to do the full ground bows - the “full whammie” so to speak - until 1502, when genuflection became standardized. Also in Eastern Catholic Churches there are no seats but just a floor where everyone stands and of course bows at the appropriate times, whereas in western Catholic Churches there are seats - called pews - which is why we stopped doing the full one and instead brought in genuflection when entering Church, just before you sit down on the seat, and when leaving, always facing the altar.

We also still kneel down in our seats, putting our legs onto a kind of comfy cushion in front of us during the Eucharistic part of the mass, so we do bowing that way as well, and our head is of course bowed.

It kind of became difficult to do all that bowing in Churches along with seats which is why we had the change in 1502 But as I say in Eastern Catholic Churches they still do the full thing.

Just some trivia

Please share some Buddhists bows (and especially you brother Lodro, I hope that you Tibetan Buddhists live up to your names as the kings and queens of prostrations!!!)

 

[Lodro]

All forms of Buddhism do some sort of prostration. Certainly Tibetan Buddhists are the kings and queens of prostrations.

Yeah… :bowdown: I’d like to do it again sometime (we don’t do the full counts they do in the monastic tradition as I guess teachers were seeing that it just took western lay people too long to get through them…) – but it is such a powerful way of working with your ego and surrendering.

When does your tradition do prostrations?

One important thing about sitting meditation is no movement.

The Zen tradition seems to emphasize no movement as well. The two traditions I’m closest to are a bit more relaxed. (The Buddha said that we should always strive to be between the extremes of too tight and too loose!) We should work with the distraction and discursiveness of our body. If your nose itches or a fly lands on your arm or whatever, you don’t have to do anything about that. And some physical pain is part of that. Pain isn’t a problem necessarily. We’ll experience a lot worse and it’s not a bad idea to make friends with it. But still, if your foot is falling asleep or whatever, you should feel free to just move it. Sometimes it is helpful to just take a fresh start as well.

There are some interesting things that come up in working with your body and mind together, that’s for sure!

My guess is that on the ascetic front we’ve got nothing on the Christian Monastic traditions. I haven’t heard of any practices involving hair shirts.

 

[Vouthon]

My guess is that on the ascetic front we’ve got nothing on the Christian Monastic traditions. I haven’t heard of any practices involving hair shirts.

Oh boy

I am guessing you have never read Blessed Henry Suso’s autobiographical account of his bizare and extreme experiences with hair-shirts!!!

I was really like reading it.

Suso started out as a full-blown ascetic, punishing his body. He then had a vision in which God told him to pursue the “higher school” which was a path Suso later called, “the Middle Way”, in which he gave up his austerities for a more moderate prayer life (after a short excursion into laziness, sloth and bodily comforts).

Its a fascinating journey into the less appealing realms of one man’s attempt to attain theosis

I’ll quote some portions from his Exemplar if you like on this progression he went through. You might find interesting parrallels to the Buddha’s life.