Unlearning Meditation - Jason Siff

Earlier this year, a generous person purchased a book from my Amazon.com wishlist and had it mailed to my home. I tried to track the person down using their name and address, so I could thank them, but alas - I could not. In hindsight, I should sent a thank you letter via snail mail. Doh!

Anyway, the book he purchased for me was Jason Siff's Unlearning Meditation: What to Do When the Instructions Get In the Way . I just got around to reading it, and I really, really like it.

I first heard about the book from the Buddhist Geeks podcast episodes featuring Siff:

BG 185: Unlearning Meditation and BG 186: A Different Way of Approaching Meditation

It's hard to put into words what I find so remarkable about this book. I'll just mention one...

Siff writes that most technical and traditional instructions for meditation imply a generative process where, "the student is instructed to generate particular experiences or states of mind," via the technique. It's fair to say that the majority of the techniques practiced in the pragmatic/hardcore dharma movement are of this type. It's mostly a lot of rigid "doing". And, as I implied in a post on another thread, it implies a certain distrust of the mind, as though it will lead one straight to hell if one doesn't reign it in and control it.

The generative process and its associated practices are not bad, but the assumptions that often come along with them are very limiting. What seems to go unacknowledged is the fact that the mind will often drift its way into states of calm if one allows it to do what it does. And that includes participation in the process.

For example, I may sit down to practice and allow myself to think about what I feel like doing after the timer goes off. Usually, after some amount of time, thoughts start to get disorganized. I may enter what I sometimes call a "dreamscape", where thoughts and images just do what they do, and I may be rather caught up in the whole thing. But as I pay attention, a transition may naturally bring consciousness to a calm and naturally alert state. I may be able to rest there, or inquire into its qualities. It may go any direction from here, but there's also the possibility that accessing this place a few times allows me to access more quickly in the future, via the same means (i.e. allowing the mind to wander).

These sorts of calm states are not unlike what occurs when one drifts off into dullness, but then is startled by a noise, or even by the feeling of their head dropping due to falling asleep. The sudden wakefulness and calm that shows up is not to be taken for granted, and it's not unlike states accessed through the deliberate application of a technique like watching the breath or repeating a mantra.

The descriptions Siff gives in his book, both from his experience and that of his students (through their journal entries), resonate strongly with what I experience when I just sit and allow the mind to do what it does.

There's much more to the book than just this point, of course. I highly recommend it.

"...most technical and traditional instructions for meditation imply a
generative process where, "the student is instructed to generate
particular experiences or states of mind," via the technique. It's fair
to say that the majority of the techniques practiced in the
pragmatic/hardcore dharma movement are of this type. It's mostly a lot
of rigid "doing". And, as I implied in a post on another thread, it
implies a certain distrust of the mind, as though it will lead one
straight to hell if one doesn't rein it in and control it."

Again, this is an observation that is as crucial as it is astute: the logic that seems not to occur to hardline 'control enthusiasts' is that if the premise of all that rigorous directive practice is that you can't let the mind just BE for a moment-- you will be stuck in a new, improved hamster wheel, 'doing what you always do, getting what you always got.' Cranking out increasingly familiar states of mind-- preferable to uncontrolled rage or depression, but still-- limited.

You can't get to 'original nature/nature of Mind/natural state' without some confidence, or trust, or respect for what mind IS-- mistakes notwithstanding. The 'highest' teachings and practices [that is, the most demanding, subtle, and most resonant with realization] direct us to 'rest in the Nature of Mind,' and caution us NOT to add anything extraneous, not to construct, contrive, prefer or reject any of what our mere attention reveals about what we always are and have been.

This is an abrupt 180-degree reversal from the introductory practices, and it's no wonder it's hard to credit, and hard to practice; I'm thinking that the difficulty is what inspired all those hero/deity visualization practices. THIS timid little schlub might have a problem 'going for it'-- but a larger-than-life figure from a semi-mythological past: no problemo, the yidam is armed and dangerous! And for the moment, that's who I'm being.

Thanks for this, guys. I've sometimes wondered at the way some practitioners seem able to really direct their mind in certain ways to generate experiences, whether of a more jhannic or nyanic or other kind of experience. It's an impressive capacity but not one I'm inclined to by nature.

One of the most important shifts which occurred for me while traversing my first complete cycle of insight a la MCTB was recognizing and accepting that my natural inclination is very different. In fact, I found that by giving up any manipulative strategizing and just allowing mind to do its thing without interference there would arise a natural rhythm of deepening. Mind would wander where it would, and at some point, that would just fall away revealing a deeper peace and clarity. Then another wave of mind wandering, more subtle and dreamlike, would arise and pass without struggle and when it left yet deeper peace, clarity and concentration.

In some ways that pre-SE insight into the self-organizing nature of the path has been the greatest insight so far (that clarity and peacefulness and openness and attentiveness don't need to be forced, but arise spontaneously when and as the split into a bossy "practitioner" and a wayward "monkey mind" is seen through and let go of). Thinking back to earlier attempts at meditation, and how hit or miss they were, this inner split into a serious practitioner who knows how mind SHOULD be functioning and the rebellious misbehaving monkey mind was sooo painful and unnecessary.

That monkey mind has so much verve, energy and vivacity! It really goes after what it wants with enthusiasm and directness. Without that energy, why would we practice at all? And that practitioner-mind has something to offer too: a vision of life that goes beyond what is liked and disliked in this moment, that can bring in a "long view" and a sense that beyond the low hanging fruits of passing conditioned pleasures there may be more significant fruits possible through practice.

Though practice can easily become a struggle between these aspects of our nature rather than an increasingly more intimate friendship, this very cooperation and integration of facets of our nature IS the heart of the Path, in my experience.

"That monkey mind has so much verve, energy and vivacity! It really goes
after what it wants with enthusiasm and directness. Without that energy,
why would we practice at all? And that practitioner-mind has something
to offer too: a vision of life that goes beyond what is liked and
disliked in this moment, that can bring in a "long view" and a sense
that beyond the low hanging fruits of passing conditioned pleasures
there may be more significant fruits possible through practice."

-- sounds like the dragon having a good ol' time to me, Jake! Yee-ha!

Ha! Yep I've been thinking about pulling that book out again lately and seeing what leaps out at me THIS time. Always something fresh in there!

It looks like the Tricycle Book Club is featuring Unlearning Meditation for the month of December.



http://www.tricycle.com/community/unlearning-meditation-what-do-when-instructions-get-way

Jason Siff is actually taking the time to dialog with the Tricycle Community members who have posted comments. So far it's been fun to read.

Thanks, the article and the comments are very interesting.
"true meditation" -- I'm really hoping the commenter replies with what his definition of this is. What Siff described seemed like a very effective type of meditation to me.
Does meditation know what your intent or goal is when you do it? Does "true meditation" depend on one's agenda for the meditation?
Maybe it's better to just do a technique with the willingness to find out what will happen.

"Maybe it's better to just do a technique with the willingness to find out what will happen." -MM



That's an interesting point.



In fact, it points to something I've been thinking about for a while now. I think it's helpful to practice meditating with lots of intent, and also with a little conscious intent as possible. I think both are useful to try, because there's a lot to learn about how the mind works in both cases.



And, I think that depending on one's views about meditation, people can feel guilty, or shameful, or fearful when they attempt the other kind of practice, as though they are "bad" meditators. These kinds of reactions are really interesting to look into, and a lot of relief can be come through their dismantling.



So, it's just like you said, Mike. It's often a really good idea just to try a practice to see what happens. There's a lot to learn about how the mind works. And, when we discover things on our own there's a sense of freshness, you know? A certain aliveness comes that you just can get when you're looking around for only those experiences which fit into some predefined and rigidly held system.

My feeling is that meditation is anytime someone is intentionally doing something specific with their awareness. This could be a firm concentration on the breath, or, watching where the mind goes, or, noticing thoughts and sensations as they arises, or, "thinking non-thinking" while staying aware of and correcting one's posture, etc.

Here are various Krishnamurti definitions of meditation, more specific and strict than mine:

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Meditation/Jiddu-Krishnamurti/Meditation-Quotes.htm

Ooh, I like this one…

“Surely, meditation is to understand every thought that comes into being, and not to dwell upon one particular thought; it is to invite all thoughts so that you understand the whole process of thinking.” –J. Krishnamurti

That resonates with me, in that I find that process incredibly useful a lot of the time.

Though, I can’t say that dwelling up on a particular thought is somehow not meditation as well. Such a slippery concept to pin down, isn’t it?

If one invites all thoughts with openness it might be possible to not just understand the thoughts, but all the stuff behind the thoughts, motivating the thoughts, driving the thoughts.

...

Though, I can’t say that dwelling up on a particular thought is somehow not meditation as well. Such a slippery concept to pin down, isn’t it?



-awouldbehipster

Wow. It is. I hadn't really thought about it. Would it be simple enough to say meditating is paying close attention to what's going on in the moment? The ability to actually pay attention to the moment gets better with practice and all the various techniques tend to help develop that ability, and some of them also have additional effects (altered states like jhanas, or esoteric practices like visualizations) which can assist practice in various ways. I think that having a lot of props/things to do can be very helpful in the beginning especially, to help develop concentration. For example reciting things, doing prostrations, chanting, counting, noting outloud and so forth all help keep your attention on the present moment (in addition to any other effects they might have).

Thoughts?

I would say that meditating is paying close attention to something, a kasina object, visualizations, the breath, the "moment" (a sort of openness to whatever is happening), sensations, touch, thoughts, etc., some kind of training of the mind to do something specific in order to have greater concentration or become more open and aware. I think being aware of the "moment" is just one of many kinds of meditations and not, maybe, a blanket definition.

I guess I see 'the moment' as an overarching thing, inclusive of the other stuff, and the other stuff is in part a prop to get you to pay attention to "now". Whatever the object (or non object) you are paying attention to, if you pay attention to a kasina, the breath, whatever, you can't really help but be paying attention to it in this moment. See what I mean?

I guess we see it differently.

To me, paying attention to the "moment" is a specific type of meditation, a paying open attention to WHATEVER comes up with no preconceived ideas.

Paying attention to specific things such as the breath or a kasina, or a candle, or on bowing, is a different type. Sure, you are watching the candle NOW, in the moment, but the object is the candle, not an openness to now. It's a specific focus on one certain, separated thing -- breath, kasina, sensation, movement, image.

See the difference?

Choiceless awareness of the moment is the kind of thing that Krishnamurti thought of as "meditation," what he was always teaching. He strongly believed that any concentration style meditation, or any meditations on specific objects was a waste of time and actually created a "dull mind." I don't exactly agree, but I like the technique he did teach. A lot.

Yes, I see how you are distinguishing it. I also agree that meditation on specific objects can be a useful tool at times, too.

that's right, baby

So Krishnamurti couldn't really say much more than give advice on how to look. Any codified concepts, dogmas, or ideas wouldn't work with his teachings because those things would be bound up in time and thus inevitably create conflict.

The challenge, though, is after reading some of this material, to then jump in and figure out for oneself how to look. I think we all want clear instructions of not only how to look, but what to look for, what it will be like when we've seen it, and how our lives will change once we've practiced the proper way. But Krishnamurti is saying to drop all that and to look with no choice. And what does that mean?

It sounds a lot like Shikantaza to me.

-cmarti

I agree with that.

However, K wasn't limiting his "meditation" to sitting in a specific posture. And, once one is in the world of zen and doing a specific technique like shikantaza one is going to be more likely to be wrapped up in some dogma/expectation/concepts.

However, I imagine that many well-trained and talented zen students have and do get to this place:

When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence.

"... once one is in the world of zen and doing a specific technique like shikantaza one is going to be more likely to be wrapped up in some dogma/expectation/concepts."That's what mind does. It's not endemic to any one tradition or technique -- and I seriously doubt Krishnamurti's students are any more adept at avoiding those traps than Zen students.

-cmarti

Right, exactly, but I think that was one of K's talents, his basic message, to expose those traps and point to a way around them. His students could be just as smart or has dumb as anyone else for sure.

I also think that what K is often describing something just like the vipassana stage of equanimity and the moment of the "observer becoming the observed" is the same as a fruition.

"... once one is in the world of zen and doing a specific technique like shikantaza one is going to be more likely to be wrapped up in some dogma/expectation/concepts."

That's what mind does. It's not endemic to any one tradition or technique -- and I seriously doubt Krishnamurti's students are any more adept at avoiding those traps than Zen students.




-cmarti

I am pretty sure given the human propensity for clinging, that one could cling to just about any teaching or (non)method at all. Even choiceless awareness. I don't think it's about being dumb, it's just the nature of the mind.