xavoy

That article highlights the need for having a good teacher, and teaching meditation together with ethical guidelines. It also smells very much like someone has something to lose by meditations rising popularity (ie, drug companies pushing the mentioned Prozac). It's full of slimy, non commital wording (like many, a lot and some) and also full of experiences that are made to sound terribly negative but don't really matter at all.

Meditation _can_ make you hallucinate, it _can_ make you burst into tears or fits of laughter, it can do a lot of things (although I've never known meditation to CAUSE seizures?! Come on... Show me some proof of that.) That is why working with a _good_ teacher is very important. In their 40+ years of experience, they've been there. You have to apply to go on our retreats, and if a teacher, for whatever reason, doesn't think it's a good idea that you go, then he or she will encourage you not to and if it was required would prevent you from going, although I've never known it to come to this. There are probably people that need to go to a counselor, therapist or psychologist before sitting with themselves for long periods.

Furthermore (and in my humble opinion) you should get the hell away from any meditation teacher that implies you're channeling a spirit guide or speaking to God. There's some fruity 'Guru's' out there. Do your research. Don't believe or expect miracles. Don't submit to anyone. Act ethically at all times and take some responsibility for your own actions.

I use the iPhone app called 'Soto Timer' when I'm away. It's free and allows you to configure multiple periods (so you can sit, rest or kinhin, sit, rest or kinhin etc)

Sitting every day is most important. There is no substitute for this. A good way to convince yourself of the benefits, and to reinvigorate your practice, is to throw yourself into the deep end and do a retreat. The 'container' of a 'retreat' (retreat is an inadequate word, if you've ever done a proper retreat you'll know why) allows you to sit for extended periods and remain mindful when doing other simple activities like cutting food for your lunch.

As you said though, meditation is a 'practice'. There is no 'attainment' - if you're not practicing, the benefits are basically nil. As such, you need to practice for it to be worthwhile.

The best time to sit is first thing in the morning. Set your alarm, get out of bed (no excuses) and sit down. This is good for two reasons. 1) if you do nothing else all day, at least you've done your meditation and 2) as you've not had a chance to distract yourself yet, you're more likely to remain present. Of course you'll distract yourself with your plans for your day and convince yourself that you don't have time for this, that you're too tired, but these are just stories like all the others you tell yourself. Let them go, and return to your breath, again and again and again.

The ability to communicate as we humans do requires the ability to abstract, be removed from reality and ponder over it, so you can articulate your problems to others. The stories in your head are just that, except you haven't verbalized them yet.

My pleasure :)

Indeed :) I do orientations for friends and occasionally newcomers to the Zendo. I tell them if they can honestly get past five in the first few months they are doing well :)

Also, relaxing is good, but the practice is an attentive awareness of the breath and count. Too relaxed and you'll get sleepy and lose the count, trying too hard makes you tense physically and tires you out mentally. It's about finding that balance again and again and again. Just one. Just two. Just three.

Unfortunately (I'm a kindle lover too!) the best books on Zen are either out of print completely or not available digitally :( Here's a couple of good lists thought:

http://www.sfzc.org/zc/display.asp?catid=1,5,168&pageid=... http://szc.org.au/reading.html

Given the context of this discussion, I would recommend reading Charlotte Joko Beck's books. Specifically Nothing Special, which is available digitally on Amazon :)

Western Zen is very western/scientific/rational. Most of the teachers in the lineage I belong to are also psychologists, psychotherapists or counselors (but your teacher is NOT your therapist). Stephen Bachelor has been a Tibetan AND a Zen monk, but is now neither. He wrote a book called "Buddhism Without Beliefs" which might suit you.

Note though that it is almost impossible to separate meditation as it relates to your mind, and meditation as it relates to your bodily actions. When you start to understand the way your mind works, and how everything fits together, you would have to be pretty ignorant to not alter your actions accordingly. Indeed, using your brain 'more effectively' can only happen by applying what you learn.

(IE, there is no state that you 'attain' and from then on you are 'more effective'. Meditation is a 'practice' and so you must practice it, you don't attain anything at all)

edit: correcting misspelled book title. Should be "Buddhism Without Beliefs" not "Buddhist Without Beliefs".

Totally agree.

Not to dis BrainBot, but the only Zazen tracking tool you need is to sit Zazen every day. I can see how competition and seeing your hours tick over might be encouraging to some degree, and if the site encourages people to sit more then it is worthwhile! But I see enough chest puffing on the 'net as it is with regards to people's meditation, and how amazing they are now because of it or how much they are sitting, and it makes me feel ill. Your practice should be personal, for you (and the big you) and should be a part of your Bodhisattva work, not a device used to enlarge your ego.

If you're aiming for enlightenment, you've missed the mark :)

Alan Watts is great, but he talks too much. It's interesting, and encouraging for those with an already established practice, but people who are new to meditation need to just sit. It's _very_ tempting to read about Zen and think it is nothing but an interesting philosophy.

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind is one of my favorite books, but there's very little actual instruction there and, once again, without an established practice, it would be easy to write it off as beautifully poetic but essentially baseless philosophy. (hehe, essentially baseless. Sorry, that's a bad Zen pun)

I'd say we're half evolved. We have this facility and don't know how to properly control it. It's a byproduct of some other facility (the ability to communicate).

Sit in a comfortable position, if possible on a cushion, on the floor, with three solid points of contact (your butt and your knees). Relax. Pay special attention to your shoulders, neck and throat. Straighten your back, let your stomach and butt hang out. Close your eyes 3/4 and let them go out of focus. Take a deep breath in and let it go. Then breath in again, counting 'one' to yourself, breath out and count 'two'. Keep doing this until you get to ten, then start again. When you get distracted by thoughts, start again at one. If you go past ten, start again at one. If you notice a conversation in your head underneath or behind or above the counting, start again at one. If there is anything other than the counting, start again at one. Just one. Just two. Just three.

Start sitting for five minutes twice a day and build up from there. Longer is better, but only if you stick to it. Don't get annoyed at yourself when you get distracted. Don't get proud if you don't. Don't think you are doing anything special. Just count your breath.

If you would like to learn more, search for 'Taking the path of Zen' where the late Robert Aitken goes into detail about Zen meditation and talks about positions and stretches to help you to comfortably sit in them.

If you are serious about this, find a teacher and a group to sit with. Not only will it make you more likely to sit, a good teacher can offer you advice you'll never find on a message board. Specific advice that is specific to you.

Meditation isn't about tuning OUT, it's about tuning IN.

Also, it's not 'suppressing' anything, it's just not paying the 'me' thoughts the attention you normally would.

Wow there is a lot of misinformation here, especially about Zen.

If making beautiful things is encouraging attachment then I guess all of the Zen poets and painters weren't (and aren't) very Zen either. Nor are the architects, florists or writers.

And to say that he wasn't or couldn't be a Buddhist simply because he had imperfections and flaws? What?!

Also, look up Vimalakirti. You don't need to renounce the world and material possessions to be a 'good' Buddhist, whatever that is.

Everyone is bias. Even if you are an Atheist you are bias. You have a cultural bias, a sexual bias, etc etc. Your everyday experiences condition you to react to particular situations in particular ways.

Obviously sometimes people have a vested interest in the results of a study, but that's something different, and doesn't only apply to people of faith.

I never said you should respect people's personal beliefs. I said you should respect people, irrespective of their beliefs, out of common decency. Simply for being another human being.

And Dawkins carries on like a child when people won't accept his version of events (once again, a version that I believe). Watch any one of his hundreds of interviews or YouTube videos. Specifically, if you like, linked twice on this thread, where he quotes someone else to enable him to tell those who don't believe him to 'f##k off'. Or the innumerable where he calls people idiots for not agreeing with him.

I _never_ stated that Dawkins and someone who circumcises unwilling females should be compared. I never said all fundamentalists are equal. I used the word fundamentalist liberally, as I have explained elsewhere.

The comparison was made because both religious evangelists and Dawkins both believe they know what is best for someone else and would like to force that upon them.

And yes, you should be allowed to hold you own beliefs, no matter how wacky they might be, and still be respected. And you do. They mightn't be as wild or deep rooted as the world being created in six days, but you still have them. You might find that many of your beliefs aren't based on reality, or scientifically provable.

With compassion and respect.

He is an evolutionary biologist, so he should make what he knows about evolutionary biology available. Tell people about it, write books, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about his ideas. But show some respect.

At the end of the day, no matter how loopy or wacky a persons beliefs are, they deserve respect. There is just no need to go around calling people "idiots" or telling them to "fk off" if they don't want to take on his world view.

The specifics of their views are irrelevant, at their core they are identical. They both believe they know best, and they both believe that it is in everyones best interest that they push their view onto others. The fact that Dawkins is 'right' or that a religious fundamentalist's view is dogmatic is irrelevant to my point. (and to clarify again, Dawkins is in my mind, absolutely right)

The doctor analogy is interesting, because my health has been _seriously_ compromised by western medicine. They gave me advice that was based on 'the best information available through examinations and tests' and I'll forever pay the consequences. If they had respected others opinions then I would have never suffered the way I have.

I'm not saying science will tomorrow find evidence of a creator god that made the world in six days, not at all. I'm just saying that we don't always know what is best for others, and should never presume to do so. For some people, living a religious life is the best possible outcome. They have a moral and ethical system they can look towards when they aren't sure how to proceed. They have hope when everything else is falling apart, etc etc.

To you and I, and indeed to Dawkins the idea that some bearded guy in the clouds created the world and the universe, will help you through life and grant you seven virgins when you die is delusional and utterly disproved by science. But if this world view is helping someone respect others and live a happy and fulfilled life, then why does it matter what he or she believes? And more to the point, who does Dawkins think he is going around telling people like this that they are idiots?

Make the information available. Tell people about it, grant interviews, attend conferences and seminars and host talks about your ideas. Just don't be a dick about it.

He is _right_ about evolution, there are no two ways about it and I never said otherwise. If someone tries to tell him that he is wrong about that, he has every right to put them straight. He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist.

My problem isn't this. My problem is his you're wrong, I'm right attitude. There is a place for that, and it is indeed Science. When you're dealing with people though, you should have some respect. If his message is to automatically _deny_ respect to others simply because of a belief they hold, then he's more like a religious fundamentalist than I thought.

Earnest, educated, rational. Yes, these words might describe Dawkins, but well-meaning?

I agree that indoctrination into a fundamentalist religion probably doesn't give a child the best chance at a happy, well balanced life. I think it is important that science continues to be made available, and people like Dawkins make it not only available, but easily digestible and understandable.

But seriously, running around the world, telling people they are "idiots" and to "f*ck off" if they don't see the world the way he does? Doesn't sound very well-meaning to me.

According to Wikipedia, Fundamentalism is the "strict adherence to specific theological doctrines". According to my dictionary, the definition of theological is "Of or relating to or concerning theology". Atheism, according to Wikipedia again, is "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." It seems to me then that I could argue that one could be an "Atheist Fundamentalist" although that wasn't my point. I was using the term liberally, and by way of analogy.

My point was that it is this stubborn adherence to a particular point of view that got Dawkins so fired up in the first place. And, although _I agree_ with Dawkins point of view, traveling the world telling people they are "idiots" for not thinking in a particular way is just as bad, or worse. Even if it is a view backed up by science.

This video posted by Hacker News member 'robertk' gives you a good idea of Dawkins general attitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

I'm not a Christian, Muslim or Jew. I don't believe in God. I find it slightly unnerving that there's still religious fundamentalists out there that flatly refuse to accept scientific evidence of evolution and more, and yet...

I can't stand Richard Dawkins.

I know that there's some dangerous ideas put out there by fundamentalists, but for the most part, if they stick to themselves and are generally good people who don't interfere with others then I don't really care what they believe.

Not necessarily this article, but generally, and especially listening to him talk live (radio, conferences etc) Richard Dawkins is arrogant and pig headed. It's kind of ironic that by dedicating his life to setting them straight, Dawkins has become as much of a fundamentalist evangelist as the religious fundamentalists he spends his time mocking.

To bypass this filter, Google SSH Tunneling. Overseas servers are cheap.

This is the beginning of the end. I'm seriously considering moving overseas.

For the most part I've actually gotten over this problem. Now I actually get stuff done!

If you're forcing anything in meditation, you're doing it wrong.

And of course some people will 'react poorly'. For most people it's the first time in their lives they've actually sat down and looked at themselves. This can be shocking.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away though. That's just 'treating' the symptoms and ignoring the causes, just like we do with modern medicine.

They are called Makyo in Zen (check wiki).

They are just another distraction, like any other thought but visual. Just let them go. The bigger a deal you make of them, the harder that will be. Acknowledge them and let them go.

As you progress in your practice you might have spacial and auditory hallucinations too. The same thing applies here. Just let them go.

A lot of what I'm selling is not given for free. And the point wasn't my lack of success, but the fact that you said you'd give your money to someone who asked for it.

I'm just saying that even if this was true (which, based on what you just said, is not the case) that you would be the minority by a long, long way.

Believe me when I say that you are _by far_ the minority. _By Far_. I run a web site with over 16,000 registered users. They use the web site regularly and I get countless emails from people telling me how much the site has helped them. And yet, less than 2% pay for a cheap upgrade which gives them a access to a heap of new features and some amazing downloads. I've had one donation _ever_ (in over five years) and every time I ask for support or offer membership upgrades I loose massive amounts of email subscribers.

Whilst it's true that my marketing skills (or lack thereof) are partially to blame for these reasonably pathetic results, it's also compelling empirical evidence that you are in the minority (less than 2%).

If it wasn't for the on site advertising, which barely covers hosting costs, I would have shut the site down years ago. It eats up way too much of my time as it is.