The Natural State Vs. Concentration Practices - Making Sense of It All

 

The Natural State Vs. Concentration Practices

-Making Sense of It All

Ben: One thing I've always had trouble wrapping my mind around in terms of Pemako's practice teachings is the reduced emphasis on concentration meditation. Techniques of gently focusing and resting the attention on the breath or a mantra or the space between eyebrows. These techniques were essential in the first five years of my practice. Awakening experiences, stabilizations, karmic purifications, all of these benefits arose from my concentration meditation practice.

For me, my meditation practice afforded me a stability, peacefulness, and a focus that made my subsequent tantric practice possible.

Then recently I had been listening to a Lion Faced Guru Podcast episode and something Kim Rinpoche said struck me. I have been contemplating it with a kind of marvel since then. To paraphrase him, he said: The tantric teachings of the Pemako lineage substitute the stability from shamatha with the stability of awakening and the natural state.

From a yoga advaita perspective, any stability mistakenly attributed to the ego self is really the misperceived stability of the Self. From the Pemako teaching standpoint, any stability found through concentration practices is not separate from the stability inherent to the natural state. Awakening to and stabilization of the natural state can therefore replace many years of meditation practice.

It was nice to have that discrepancy resolved in such an emphatic way.

Kim: Hi Dr. Ben. How have you been? 　

We do do mantra repetition in gentle manner (don't we?) and it is very important. Though this has changed lately, I churned mantras day and night for years and years, and had "stabilizations, karmic purifications, all of these benefits". Especially guru mantras have a strong pacifying effect but this pacification does not lead to momentarily silenced mind but to gradual recognition of the natural state.

I've talked about the problems of shamatha meditation so much that I think people here are sick of hearing it, ha, but I can't relate to when you say, "stability, peacefulness, and focus". Sure, I developed a lazer like focus but at the same time, even when the mind was quiet, I felt like I was on a ego trip. I didn't feel good or natural at all. I had done lots of drinking in my previous years and shamatha felt similar to that in the sense of bypassing issues and not having real sobriety! That didn't begin to change until I was able to cut through all layers of the mind with tantric practices. During my purification practice I went back to trying shamatha every now and then but it felt as weird as it did in the beginning. The ultimate meaning of shamatha/shi-ne is the natural state. Because it is possible to skip gentle concentration practices that not only are unable to reveal the natural state (because it doesn't cut through the formless mind, the substrate) and are also so time consuming, why not go directly to the bedrock, the ground (bhumi) beyond instability.

>To paraphrase him, he said: The tantric teachings of the Pemako lineage substitute the stability from shamatha with the stability of awakening and the natural state.

- My question is: Why would you spend so much time on gentle concentration practices when it doesn't lead to the recognition of the basic state? Because Shakyamuni is said to have practiced meditative absorptions that he learned from his hindu teacher after he is said to have attained full enlightenment, is probably the reason why there is still lots of confusion about this whole one-pointed concentration/samadhi/jhana/dhyana thing. This in turn makes buddhists unable to see the mistake that golden chains are still chains, whether they are made of negative destructive emotions or subtle states of meditation. I find it extremely weird how most in this religion that is considered a wisdom tradition, make such a drastic mistake. I recall Tenzin Palmo contemplating this aloud in an interview, saying that even Shakyamuni Buddha couldn't help people get awakened. One thing is the ancient influence of hindu meditations and another is the lack of practices that directly generate awakening. There are not many of those but there are some, like the 2PF. Then on the other hand when people think of buddhist practitioners they think of smiling peaceful monks with shaved heads who sit in silent meditation. There has been systematic propaganda of monasticism going on for thousands of years, and now everyone is paying a high price for it because it has such a strong impact on the whole world, wherever buddhism is taught. Buddhism has had 2.5 thousand years to make a difference ad it hasn't even reached step one that you could say that the people of the world can trust the buddhist teaching, that it will help them to remove their self-based suffering, here's how it all works, here's how it is done. Incredibly painful.

Tenzin Palmo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKoIK6pQMzY

Back to concentration practices.

I learned everything from the dynamicity of concentration from a Chinese martial art called yiquan, or yi chuan, lit. intention boxing. See this video. I had done gentle concentration for years in meditation and then, through the three types of intention taught in yiquan, realised that intention can be kept at low volume, which is what is done in shamatha meditation for extended periods of time, but it can also be taken to higher volumes. In yiquan, there is shi li, which means to momentarily increase the intensity of focus, and there is fa li, which is sudden explosive intention or maximum intention in the form of explosion. Now, all of these are different expressions of concentration or intention but the outcome is very different. If we look at this from the perspective of yogic practice, the former leads to mental quiet and ability to focus on one thing, while the latter has the power to shatter the whole construction of the mind, and through doing so reveals that part of the mind that isn't affected or spoiled by self-based beliefs or notions. Yasutani Roshi, Japanese zen master, in his talk about just sitting or shikan taza said that one needs to sit in such an intense way that if someone touches you, sparks will fly. I think he was describing shi li sitting which if done for longer periods is exhausting because you use your vital energy to keep up that heightened intensity. This also misses the point of recognition of the basic state. Explosive type of concentration or shamatha has the power to cut through the whole self-construction to make the original nature appear. This original nature is nothing else than oneself as a buddha, or mahasiddha grounds, bhumis.

Buddhist tradition started with the first awakening experience that Shakyamuni had, that he didn't get from subtle states of meditation. These meditative states neither removed his existential dissatisfaction.

So what we do in Pemako is to put the horse in front of the cart, rather than behind it, and drive like a horse cart should be driven. What we have here is the absence of false or misleading ideas that take practitioners to subtle but strange places that they believe is the true teaching.

As far as I am concerned, the only practice in yoga is to recognise one's basic nature that is fresh, clear, sober, settled and devoid of self-based marks or habits. To me there is no other buddhist dharma practice except to recognise it and to unify our psyche with it, meaning to see the emptiness of all mind phenomena. What is a sign of proper emptiness practice? Awakenings! Bhumi openings! Bhumi perfections!

There is no other solution to suffering and confusion of the unnatural state, than the natural state, and that has nothing to do with being focused or distracted, being in meditation or not.

Modes of Intention, Attention and Awareness

Modes of Intention, Attention

and Awareness

See also in this blog: Practical Note on Intention and Awareness.

Two modes of the natural state

• Child Awareness* (rigpa, zero dimensional)
• Mother Awareness** (rigpa, zero dimensional), Child Awareness united with Mother Awareness

*Child Awareness: State of pure awareness related only with one's personal bodymind. When tapped in full equals with the Open Heart-definition of a fully attained arhat, perfection of bhumis 1-6. Subtly dualistic.

**Mother Awareness: State of pure awareness related with one's personal and the larger energy body, extending beyond one's personal aura. When tapped in full equals with the Open Heart-definition of a buddha, perfection of bhumis 1-10. Nondualistic.

Two modes of mindfulness that disregards the natural state

1. Intention or concentration without Awareness* as the base
2. Attention (three-dimensional) without Awareness** as the base
   *neither Child or Mother Awareness

*Training in one-pointed concentration where an object is used as a support to one's shamatha meditation that simultaneously disregards three-dimensional space and the natural state or awareness. Dualistic.

**Training in effort-based attention applied to three-dimensional space such as in space gazing which disregards the natural state or awareness. Dualistic.

Two modes of mindfulness that takes the smaller natural state into account

3. Intention or concentration with Child Awareness as the base
4. Attention (three-dimensional) with Child Awareness as the base

*Training in one-pointed concentration where an object is used as a support to one's shamatha meditation that simultaneously does not disregard three-dimensional space or the natural state, that is, awareness. Subtly dualistic.

**Training in effort-based attention applied to three-dimensional space such as in space gazing which does not disregard or exclude the natural state, that is, awareness. Subtly dualistic.

Two modes of mindfulness that takes the full natural state into account

5. Intention or concentration with Mother Awareness* as the base
6. Attention (three-dimensional) with Mother Awareness** as the base

*Application of one-pointed concentration from within the fullness of the natural state, or Mother Awareness. Nondualistic.

*Application of three-dimensional attention from within the fullnes of the natural state, or Mother Awareness. Nondualistic.

See also this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg6Xd40a0n4

Posture of Meditation, Part 1: Sitting

Posture of Meditation, Part 1:

Sitting

Posture of Meditation Series:

Posture of Meditation, Part 1: Sitting

Posture of Meditation, Part 2: Standing

Posture of Meditation, Part 3: Eyes

My meditation background is largely buddhist, zen buddhist in particular. In zen buddhism it is common to sit a lot every day either in any of the cross-legged sitting postures or in kneeling posture (seiza). It is common in that school to insist on particular physical form of sitting, despite of physical troubles one may have due to long hours of sittingfor days on end.

One thing that has become obvious to me is that cross-legged posture or even sitting on a meditation cushion, are not essential factors of meditation practice, even though many schools of meditation say just the opposite.

I have found that the most important factors about the physical posture are:

1. erect spine,
2. erect head,
3. overall comfortability of the posture which
4. allows free and relaxed breathing

When these four factors are marked, you can choose to sit in any posture without loosing any of the benefits that perfect full lotus-posture (padmasana) is said to bring. There is no difference whatsoever.

Postures

Here's what Daniel Ingram says on Postures, from Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha:

”The four postures for meditation that are mentioned in traditional

Buddhist practice are those of sitting, walking, standing and reclining.

Each has its own set of benefits and drawbacks, and each may be useful

at one time or another. Looked at another way, this means that we can

meditate in just about any position we find ourselves... Which posture we choose doesn’t really matter from a pure insight point of view, but there are some practical reasons why we might choose one or the other for formal practice. Posture choice is mostly about finding one that works in our current circumstances and which matches our current energy level...

Sitting has the quality of being more energy-producing than reclining

and less energy-producing than walking and standing. It can also be very

stable once we learn to sit well. However, many people find that

learning to sit well is a whole endeavor in and of itself...

Many traditions make a big deal about exactly how you should sit,

with some getting particularly macho or picky about such things, but in

the end it doesn’t matter so much. The things that seem to matter most

are that you can sustain the posture, that your back be fairly straight so

that you can breathe well, and that you are not permanently hurting

yourself. Aches and pains are common in meditation, but if they persist

for a long time after you get up from sitting, particularly in your knees,

seriously consider modifying your sitting posture.

Standing is an even more energy-producing posture than sitting, with

the obvious advantage being that is it even harder to fall asleep when

standing than when sitting. It seems to up the intensity of a meditation

session even more and can be useful when the energy is really low. I

recommend standing with the eyes slightly open to avoid falling over,

though some people can do just fine with their eyes closed. If you are

sitting and finding that you simply cannot stay focused and awake, try

standing.

Walking is the most energetically active of the four postures and

also provides a nice stretch for the joints and back after we have been

doing a lot of sitting. Its strengths are its weaknesses, in that the fact that

one is moving around can make it easier to stay present and also lead to

a lack of stable concentration. Some people consider walking practice to

be very secondary to sitting, but I have learned from experience that

walking meditation should be given just as much respect as sitting

meditation.”

Cross-legs vs. straight legs

I once saw a documentary filmed in a Taoist nunnery in China. In the documentary whenever the nuns were seen meditating they sat on a particular kind of a chair where they had their legs straight (not cross-legged). I thought this was something interesting as their way of practice could well be older than buddhism and therefore might have beneficial time-tested factors to it. Traditionally, buddhist meditation is always encouraged to be practiced cross-legged on a meditation cushion, unless one's body or health doesn't allow it. If a cross-legged posture cannot be practiced, sitting on a chair as a secondary option is used.

I've recently tried to remember to sit down on a chair instead on a cushion to try this out. And everytime I remember to do so, it's much easier than sitting cross-legged with folded legs. Due to my hip bones not being identical, it's pretty much always been challenging for me to sit in one posture, although at some point I was sitting so much daily that it didn't matter. I've always had to shift legs every 20-30-40 minutes. I've done that when it was allowed. Now, I wouldn't join a training session where this was not allowed. Enduring pain and physical discomfort is a big waste of time and energy. It is counter-productive.

So, I've had wonderful sittings when sitting on a chair. I have to admit that I have also become habituated by thinking that ”real meditation” only happens sitting cross-legged. I've told students to use either postures for several years as a teacher but I never tried it myself, until recently. This is a good example of becoming conditioned to a training aspect of an old tradition, just because ”this is the way it always has been done and there is no other way to do it”. So be careful and have common sense of what you are told.

Mindfulness of the body

Obviously mindfulness of the body is a common issue to all styles of buddhist meditation. We work with mind and awareness through the body because body, mind and awareness are interconnected. Body is a good and concretic tool. Imagine how it would be to concentrate or meditate without a physical body. It'd be a different sport.

Comparing cross-legged and chair sitting positions, the biggest difference is in the posture of the legs. In the first legs are folded in a way that the crus and thigh are right next to each other. In the latter legs are also tilted in the knees but the angle is much wider, 90 degrees or more. This allows a lot more openness and relaxalation in the body on purely physical level which cannot but have an effect on the mental and emotional bodies, and in consequence on he recognition of awareness itself. Especially for beginners, the open sky-like mind is easier to find when the body is as relaxed and open as possible. It can be very difficult to be focused or recognise knowing awareness when the body is forcibly put into a posture where it's not used to being in. This is basic logic, right. For this reason, I'd always vote for sitting on a chair over sitting cross-legged.

Energetics

Usually schools of meditation which are unanimous of the sitting posture, it is common for them to prove their point by saying that in full lotus the subtle energies of the bodymind circulate in an ideal way and that this circulation, sometimes called as ”full body seal” (mudra) is what meditation is. In a sense this is correct. It is true in the case of a yogi who 1. can effortlessly sit in this posture for an extended period of time and 2. who needs the support of this mudra for his or her meditation. For those who cannot do it or for those who don't need it as a support, this rationale is entirely irrelevant.

It is also not logical to say that one couldn't be openly aware and meditate without sitting in some particular posture. It doesn't make sense, does it. If this is the view in regards to sitting posture, it is safe to assume that the one who insists on such views is 1. biased to his view perhaps because of his tradition, in a similar way like I was and 2. there is no sufficient understanding what the connection of body and energetics (mind) to open awareness is.

Posture and Tibetan Heart Yoga

Level 4 of Tibetan Heart Yoga concerns tantric (mantra, visualisation and breathing) practice in the subtle centers and channels in all four limbs. This practice can be done in a cross-legged posture, sure. However, in my experience, it is easier to sense the body cavities, the insides of the limbs, when legs are straight. This is a universal notion, of course. For this reason I'd recommend those THY-practitioners who practice this level, to try the practice sitting on a chair.

Conclusion

All in all, nowadays I tend to think that the cross-legged posture is an unstudied habit of the Eastern meditation culture. There is a strong emphasis on cross-legged meditation posture which can be seen everywhere in meditation centers, temples, in paintings and statues both in East and West but ultimately, just as Dan said, it's not a big deal.

Have a nice day,

- Kim Katami,

26.6.2016

Open Heart,

www.openheart.fi