hugh@chook.ua.oz.au (Hugh Garsden) (10/31/90)
I have read that there are two kinds of Buddhist meditation, one where you focus the mind on the breath, the other where you don't concentrate on anything, but empty the mind (that right?). So, to put it bluntly: which is better? Does one provide faster progress than the other? Are there even any criteria that can be used to claim that one is "better" than the other? So do they have a different function? ----- Hugh Garsden University of Adelaide hugh@cs.adelaide.edu.au
pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct31.063824.13640@nas.nasa.gov> hugh@chook.ua.oz.au (Hugh Garsden) writes: > >I have read that there are two kinds of Buddhist meditation, one where >you focus the mind on the breath, the other where you don't concentrate >on anything, but empty the mind (that right?). > All meditation is one of two types - Awareness meditation or Concentration meditation. The distinction between them can be very subtle at times. In awareness meditation, close attention is given to whatever is present in the moment in an open and spacious way. In concentration meditation, *exclusive* attention is paid to a primary object of meditation. But awareness requires concentration and concentration requires attention. The mind being what it is, most people require a primary object of attention to return to- even while practising awareness meditation. The breath can be used in *both* ways. It can be used as a tether to the present moment in awareness meditation. It then becomes an object to *return* to as we acknowledge the presence of other sensations as well. Else, it can be used as an exclusive object to enter into various states of jhanic concentration. Any number of other objects of attention exist in Buddhism - particularly in the Vajrayana (Tibetan) tradition. >So, to put it bluntly: which is better? >Does one provide faster progress than the other? >Are there even any criteria that can be used to claim that one is >"better" than the other? So do they have a different function? The traditional Theravada view is that, while both types are extremely useful, it is awareness (mindfulness) that leads to seeing things as they really are. The seeing of truth is what sets us free. The central work of the Pali Canon is the "Maha Satipatthana Sutta" (Smriti Upasthana Sutra in Sanskrit). This is a part of the long discourses of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya) and is the "Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness". In this Sutta, the Buddha teaches *how* meditation is to be done. Both Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration are part of the Eightfold Path. -- Sridhar Pingali
tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.063824.13640@nas.nasa.gov> hugh@chook.ua.oz.au (Hugh Garsden) writes: > >I have read that there are two kinds of Buddhist meditation, one where >you focus the mind on the breath, the other where you don't concentrate >on anything, but empty the mind (that right?). There are Godzillion kinds of Buddhist meditation. But these are two and two that I use. I start with the first. Then move to the second. > >So, to put it bluntly: which is better? >Does one provide faster progress than the other? >Are there even any criteria that can be used to claim that one is >"better" than the other? So do they have a different function? > >----- >Hugh Garsden >University of Adelaide >hugh@cs.adelaide.edu.au Dave -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Dave Tilley cs.rochester.edu
mayne@vsserv.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.063824.13640@nas.nasa.gov> hugh@chook.ua.oz.au (Hugh Garsden) writes: > >I have read that there are two kinds of Buddhist meditation, one where >you focus the mind on the breath, the other where you don't concentrate >on anything, but empty the mind (that right?). The usual distinction of two types of meditation in Buddhism is "samatha" (concentration) and "vipassana" (insight). The breath can be an object of concentration or attention in either type. I don't know of any Buddhist meditation practices where you simply empty the mind. But this could be a matter of description rather than a substantive difference. Or else it may refer to some practice I don't know. (The Zen practice of "shikan tasa" (sp?) may be what is described as emptying the mind. I'll leave any description of that to those more qualitified.) The breath, though a very common object of meditation in Buddhism (as well as other traditions) in not so important as to define a whole type of meditation. Many other objects are also used. The difference between samatha and vipassana is sometimes subtle, since a certain amount of concentration is needed for vipassana. Some teach cultivating samatha first, then using concentration as a tool to develop insight. Some teach development of both together. And some teach vipassana right away, claiming to by-pass samatha practice. The latter description is a little misleading, though, since some concentration is necessary. In fact the most common vipassana practice is observation of the breath, but without excluding other thoughts or sensations. Samatha may likewise center on the breath. Do you see the subtle difference? Unless the meditator is quite advanced he or she won't be able to completely exclude other thoughts even if attempting samatha. And the vipassana meditator does apply effort not to just let the mind wander, using the breath as a home base. The thing that everyone agrees on is that the goal of Buddhist meditation (short of the ultimate goal of enlightenment) is insight, literally clearly seeing the nature of things as unsatisfactory (dukkha), impermanent (anicca), and without soul or self (anatta). Theravada teachers in modern times tend to emphasize vipassana, partly because it is very difficult for anyone with the distractions of lay life to develop samatha fully. But I know that some Tibetan schools recognize the same distinction of samatha and vipassana and teach both. Zen Buddhists don't use the terms samatha and vipassana. It is not clear to me if they make a distinction using different descriptions or not. A Zen monk familiar with Theravada teaching described his zazen practice as being closer to vipassana. But they tend to be less concerned with any theory or description of practice. >So, to put it bluntly: which is better? >Does one provide faster progress than the other? >Are there even any criteria that can be used to claim that one is >"better" than the other? So do they have a different function? That's a very hard and subjective question. The best thing is to find a teacher you trust and get some individual guidance. Both are good. My own feeling is that some mix is needed, with the exact mix depending on the individual and to some extentent on the availability of teaching and support. Unless it is firmly embedded in some spiritual framework concentration is just a mental skill which can be used for good or bad. Insight on the other hand is the really important and beneficial thing. >Hugh Garsden >University of Adelaide >hugh@cs.adelaide.edu.au Bill Mayne Florida State University mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu