somlor
03-29-2006, 06:47 PM
Mushtaq made a great post from this thread (http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10040&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15) that I wanted to draw attention to and respond.
As to the talk of "Chi channels" and their importance to "meditation", I tend to rely on Occam's razor, (which is, for anyone unfamilier with it, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" Plurality should not be posited without necessity)
Every observable effect that is called "chi" in the west can be described with existent scientific knowledge quite adequately, so there is really no need to posit unobservable "chi channels" in the human body or unknown "energies" that work through them.
Personally I find this a lot simpler.
More interesting to me is the discussion on meditation.
I have a few thoughts I would like to add to the mix here (and hopefully not make more of a mess)
First, the Latin word "meditation" is so general in its meaning as to cause great confusion in conversations such as this.
If you look at the dictionary definitions you get things like
Quote:
"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Meditation \Med`i*ta"tion\, n. [OE. meditacioun, F.
m['e]ditation, fr. L. meditatio.]
1. The act of meditating; close or continued thought; the
turning or revolving of a subject in the mind; serious
contemplation; reflection; musing.
[1913 Webster]
2. Thought; -- without regard to kind. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]
"WordNet (r) 2.0"
meditation
n 1: continuous and profound contemplation or musing on a subject
or series of subjects of a deep or abstruse nature; "the
habit of meditation is the basis for all real knowledge"
[syn: speculation]
2: (religion) contemplation of spiritual matters (usually on
religious or philosophical subjects)
My Etymology dictionary tells me that the root of the word is connected to "healing".
Quote:
c.1225, "discourse on a subject," from L. meditationem (nom. meditatio), from meditatus, pp. of meditari "to meditate, to think over, consider," from PIE base *med- "to measure, limit, consider, advise" (cf. Gk. medesthai "think about," medon "ruler," L. modus "measure, manner," modestus "moderate," modernus "modern," mederi "to heal," medicus "physician," Skt. midiur "I judge, estimate," Welsh meddwl "mind, thinking," Goth. miton, O.E. metan "to measure"). Meaning "act of meditating, continuous calm thought upon some subject" is from 1390.
None of these definitions really approach the ideas meant by the "Eastern" texts. The problem here is that when people start talking about things like "sitting meditation" or "moving meditation" they are missing the point.
These, and everything like them are at the level of "technique" rather than process. In this sense a "mediation technique" should be viewed at about the same level as a "martial arts technique"
To be able to understand what the experts mean when they talk about what we translate as "meditation" I will offer you Patanjali's definition.
The first four lines of the Samadhi Pada (the first section of the Yoga Sutras) are:
atha yoga-anusanam
yogas citta-vrtti-nirodhah
tada drastuh sva rupe'vasthanam
avidya ksetram uttaresam prasupta-tanu-vicchina-udaranam
Now the teaching of Yoga*
Yoga is the stilling of the twisting and turning** of cognitive thought***
When cognitive thought is still, that which perceives is in its true function as observer of that which is experienced****
Otherwise that which perceives is caught up and identified with the turning and twisting of cognitive thought.
(Translation mine)
* Yoga in its base meaning is “to yoke”, from this we get the idea of “union”. In Patanjali’s usage I believe that it is synonymous with “meditation”.
**Vritti, which I translate as “twisting and turning”, has a feeling of movement without stillness, or agitation to it.
***Citta is often translated as mind, but I do not think that this is accurate. Manas is a better word for mind, or the organ of perception, whereas citta would be the undisciplined body of “thought content” which includes, but is not limited to verbal though, visual images and feelings.Heuristic assumptions will be found here.
****This is a hard verse to translate into English, but is central to the idea. I translate drastua as “that which perceives” to try to avoid unnecessary mysticism. This word refers to the essential part of the being which when citta is stilled, perceives what is given in the most objective way possible for a biological organism.
What we see here is that Patanjali views the process of what we call "meditation" to be one of creating an "awake state" through the stilling of "cognitive thought" and the disidentification with "thought objects".
I would like to suggest that RMAX contains a (more or less) complete "Yoga" in the sense that Patanjali uses the word.
If we start with “Flow-State Peak Performance Spiral” we have a very accurate and useful description of the "awake state", which Scott calls "Flow" and Patanjali calls "Samadhi", furthermore there is a step by step process that offers the tools to access this state.
If we go next to "Body-Flow™", Scott goes deeply into citta-vrtti, which he identifies with "fear-reactivity". The book and DVD combination provide a "road map" that is more useful than any I know of for modern Western English speakers. This goes towards removing the obstacles to Samadhi.
With Prasara and Intu-Flow™ (to name just a couple of things) we have a concise methodology for preparing oneself to be able to access the "awake state" in a healthy manner.
But if you are stuck at the level of "technique", sitting, standing, moving or whatever, you will not get the benefits that you are looking for.
We are, in my opinion, at a rather interesting point in our development as a culture. We are developing our own expression of the Yoga Sutras, a body of knowledge that is expressly useful for us, today. The older expressions from other cultures are so loaded down with after market pseudo-spiritual "ka-ka del toro" as to be functionally useless for most people, so we despratly need to have something without all the excess baggage.
There is one defining element I look for in a teacher, can he or she reproduce their skills in others effectively and efficiently?
I notice that Scott has a proven track record here.
On the other hand, the people who go around telling you that it's all about you opening your "chi channels" not only cannot produce the skills they claim in others in any timely fashion, but a good number of them will be actively threatened by anyone, including their own students who do begin to evolve in their own process.
My first "meditation" teacher once said to me "In life you often have to make the choice between being "right" and being awake."
There has always been a lot of truth for me in this statement, and I equate being "right" with identification with technique (this usually devolves into "my death touch is better than yours because my big toe is crossed over my lung meridian") Being awake means understanding that all this is process, and with right knowledge we can create technique as needed in the moment.
Great post Mushtaq. I want to say just a few things.
You said:
"Every observable effect that is called "chi" in the west can be described with existent scientific knowledge quite adequately, so there is really no need to posit unobservable "chi channels" in the human body or unknown "energies" that work through them.
Personally I find this a lot simpler."
I believe you are quite possibly right about this. I recall you writing similar assertions before and my assumption is that this is a belief that is fairly common in the CST community, and also in most rational systems of martial arts IMO. This is what I was referring to when I said that talk of chi and channels is considered irrelevant to the CST system. It's not a criticism of CST. It's just an observation. And it is something I give a lot of thought to in my own practice as I move toward sophistication, as opposed to mere simplification. It's an area the modern mind is still feeling through and IMO there is not a definitive answer yet. Is a language of the subtle body necessary? Can we do away with referring to chakras and prana? I often wish. It's almost embarrassing to use these words. Hell if I got caught using the word "chi" in my BJJ academy I'd get arm barred on the spot. ;) There is even an ongoing debate in more overtly spiritual communities about a similar issue. Wether to just do pure meditation or to bring in and try to work with a subtle body cosmology. Alchemical schools of Chi Kung jump right into speaking of channels and chi and cauldrons and you work primarily with the gross and subtle bodies and hope the drastuh, the causal witness emerges. Most Zen teachers typically don't speak of the subtle body at all. Just meditate in the causal and the rest will take care of itself. The Tibetans make you wait. You meditate for a few years and after you've established the proper ground of inner silence, you can move on to learning about and working more directly with the subtle energy. The Kundalini Yoga path that I currently follow says both are important and gives you both at once. I see CST as being almost an upside down Zen, gross body as a primary vehicle to causal flow, cut directly working with the subtle body it's a can of worms and can't even be shown to exist.
You wrote:
"None of these definitions really approach the ideas meant by the "Eastern" texts. The problem here is that when people start talking about things like "sitting meditation" or "moving meditation" they are missing the point.
These, and everything like them are at the level of "technique" rather than process. In this sense a "mediation technique" should be viewed at about the same level as a "martial arts technique"
I couldn't agree more. IMO Prasara BodyFlow definitely is a meditation. When done with mindfulness. And so is anything. Cooking can be a meditation. Sex can be a great meditation. Writing a post on a forum can be a meditation. In the Pali sutras, the earliest Buddhist texts considered most authentically linked with what the Buddha actually taught, Buddha laid down instructions for sitting, lying and walking meditations. In Yoga, the original Indian tradition of the Buddha, any asana can be a posture for meditation, and each is often associated with different benefits. The stereotypical seated "lotus position" is the most easily recognizable as "oh, that person is meditating", yet many Chi Kung practioners meditate standing with their arms raised and eyes open, in "embrace the tree" posture for example.
The existence of movement in a meditative technique has also long been an issue for debate. Some schools believe that since most people's minds are so overactive, so stressed out and dense, that handing them a sitting practice right off the bat is counterproductive. So movement practices are often given to beginners as a way to taste this blissfull witness state without having to be pissed off sitting on a cushion for three months with little results. The other side of the coin is the idea that it's better to just do the stillness first, otherwise there can be a misidentification with the movement, particularly the chemical endorphins also released during strenuous movement, with samadhi. Samadhi is not just a release of brain chemicals and to avoid this confusion is probably why most moving meditations are traditionally very slow and gentle. Yet on the same token, and I think this is what is so essential about the point you are making here, is that sitting in stillness meditation postures are also a technique. I think it's easy to forget this and it's great to have such intelligent moving meditators as yourself around to remind the hardcore sitters of such an important truth.
One of the questions I have, and it's a great question that is very much on the cutting edge of what modern contemplatives are still feeling through, is can you go "all the way" to enlightenment without a stillness practice? The answer is most likely yes. Actually there are examples of saints who've awoken to the truth of being without any sort of "practice" at all. They just woke up one day. Still, in my experience it wasn't until I began a consistent sitting practice that I really began to plumb the incredible depths of samadhi. And this samadhi spills out into my life. It touches everything I do now. I've explored dozens of forms of movement meditations ... various styles of chi kung, hatha yoga for about 10 years now, the CST system for almost three years, an entire year of which I did Warrior Wellness every day. I've gotten into some pretty powerful places. Yet nothing has come close in the cultivation and stabilization of samadhi as a comfortable, still, seated position (in a chair or with legs easily crossed). That's not to say that movement meditations don't have their particular strengths though.
In my personal practice, one of the daily meditations I do is a sitting practice in which I move my mind with my breath up and down my spinal column while dropping into samadhi, or flow as CST would say. When I do this meditation I feel the most incredible, cool, tingly, blissful light moving up and down my spine, from my third eye to my perineum. Both my third eye and my perineum often pulse with pleasure and I've had experiences where it felt like there was a warm fire dancing in my heart in which I felt I deeply understood all of the sacred heart imagery in the Christian tradition. Now, I could care less wether As a (more or less) complete system of Yoga, how would CST address my experiences. From a CST perspective, what would you say is my diagnosis? Am I delusional? Am I exploring an unnecessary plurality that I should take to Dr. Occam? Does my experience contain a claim about subtle body energy that this system can't tolerate? Is my experience too messy, strange, personal or unproveable to bring to this CST dialogue? It's ok if the answer is yes. Like I said before, I don't believe any system can ever claim to be complete, or all things to all people. Perhaps CST does not have a place for people like me.
Sincerely,
Sean
As to the talk of "Chi channels" and their importance to "meditation", I tend to rely on Occam's razor, (which is, for anyone unfamilier with it, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" Plurality should not be posited without necessity)
Every observable effect that is called "chi" in the west can be described with existent scientific knowledge quite adequately, so there is really no need to posit unobservable "chi channels" in the human body or unknown "energies" that work through them.
Personally I find this a lot simpler.
More interesting to me is the discussion on meditation.
I have a few thoughts I would like to add to the mix here (and hopefully not make more of a mess)
First, the Latin word "meditation" is so general in its meaning as to cause great confusion in conversations such as this.
If you look at the dictionary definitions you get things like
Quote:
"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Meditation \Med`i*ta"tion\, n. [OE. meditacioun, F.
m['e]ditation, fr. L. meditatio.]
1. The act of meditating; close or continued thought; the
turning or revolving of a subject in the mind; serious
contemplation; reflection; musing.
[1913 Webster]
2. Thought; -- without regard to kind. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]
"WordNet (r) 2.0"
meditation
n 1: continuous and profound contemplation or musing on a subject
or series of subjects of a deep or abstruse nature; "the
habit of meditation is the basis for all real knowledge"
[syn: speculation]
2: (religion) contemplation of spiritual matters (usually on
religious or philosophical subjects)
My Etymology dictionary tells me that the root of the word is connected to "healing".
Quote:
c.1225, "discourse on a subject," from L. meditationem (nom. meditatio), from meditatus, pp. of meditari "to meditate, to think over, consider," from PIE base *med- "to measure, limit, consider, advise" (cf. Gk. medesthai "think about," medon "ruler," L. modus "measure, manner," modestus "moderate," modernus "modern," mederi "to heal," medicus "physician," Skt. midiur "I judge, estimate," Welsh meddwl "mind, thinking," Goth. miton, O.E. metan "to measure"). Meaning "act of meditating, continuous calm thought upon some subject" is from 1390.
None of these definitions really approach the ideas meant by the "Eastern" texts. The problem here is that when people start talking about things like "sitting meditation" or "moving meditation" they are missing the point.
These, and everything like them are at the level of "technique" rather than process. In this sense a "mediation technique" should be viewed at about the same level as a "martial arts technique"
To be able to understand what the experts mean when they talk about what we translate as "meditation" I will offer you Patanjali's definition.
The first four lines of the Samadhi Pada (the first section of the Yoga Sutras) are:
atha yoga-anusanam
yogas citta-vrtti-nirodhah
tada drastuh sva rupe'vasthanam
avidya ksetram uttaresam prasupta-tanu-vicchina-udaranam
Now the teaching of Yoga*
Yoga is the stilling of the twisting and turning** of cognitive thought***
When cognitive thought is still, that which perceives is in its true function as observer of that which is experienced****
Otherwise that which perceives is caught up and identified with the turning and twisting of cognitive thought.
(Translation mine)
* Yoga in its base meaning is “to yoke”, from this we get the idea of “union”. In Patanjali’s usage I believe that it is synonymous with “meditation”.
**Vritti, which I translate as “twisting and turning”, has a feeling of movement without stillness, or agitation to it.
***Citta is often translated as mind, but I do not think that this is accurate. Manas is a better word for mind, or the organ of perception, whereas citta would be the undisciplined body of “thought content” which includes, but is not limited to verbal though, visual images and feelings.Heuristic assumptions will be found here.
****This is a hard verse to translate into English, but is central to the idea. I translate drastua as “that which perceives” to try to avoid unnecessary mysticism. This word refers to the essential part of the being which when citta is stilled, perceives what is given in the most objective way possible for a biological organism.
What we see here is that Patanjali views the process of what we call "meditation" to be one of creating an "awake state" through the stilling of "cognitive thought" and the disidentification with "thought objects".
I would like to suggest that RMAX contains a (more or less) complete "Yoga" in the sense that Patanjali uses the word.
If we start with “Flow-State Peak Performance Spiral” we have a very accurate and useful description of the "awake state", which Scott calls "Flow" and Patanjali calls "Samadhi", furthermore there is a step by step process that offers the tools to access this state.
If we go next to "Body-Flow™", Scott goes deeply into citta-vrtti, which he identifies with "fear-reactivity". The book and DVD combination provide a "road map" that is more useful than any I know of for modern Western English speakers. This goes towards removing the obstacles to Samadhi.
With Prasara and Intu-Flow™ (to name just a couple of things) we have a concise methodology for preparing oneself to be able to access the "awake state" in a healthy manner.
But if you are stuck at the level of "technique", sitting, standing, moving or whatever, you will not get the benefits that you are looking for.
We are, in my opinion, at a rather interesting point in our development as a culture. We are developing our own expression of the Yoga Sutras, a body of knowledge that is expressly useful for us, today. The older expressions from other cultures are so loaded down with after market pseudo-spiritual "ka-ka del toro" as to be functionally useless for most people, so we despratly need to have something without all the excess baggage.
There is one defining element I look for in a teacher, can he or she reproduce their skills in others effectively and efficiently?
I notice that Scott has a proven track record here.
On the other hand, the people who go around telling you that it's all about you opening your "chi channels" not only cannot produce the skills they claim in others in any timely fashion, but a good number of them will be actively threatened by anyone, including their own students who do begin to evolve in their own process.
My first "meditation" teacher once said to me "In life you often have to make the choice between being "right" and being awake."
There has always been a lot of truth for me in this statement, and I equate being "right" with identification with technique (this usually devolves into "my death touch is better than yours because my big toe is crossed over my lung meridian") Being awake means understanding that all this is process, and with right knowledge we can create technique as needed in the moment.
Great post Mushtaq. I want to say just a few things.
You said:
"Every observable effect that is called "chi" in the west can be described with existent scientific knowledge quite adequately, so there is really no need to posit unobservable "chi channels" in the human body or unknown "energies" that work through them.
Personally I find this a lot simpler."
I believe you are quite possibly right about this. I recall you writing similar assertions before and my assumption is that this is a belief that is fairly common in the CST community, and also in most rational systems of martial arts IMO. This is what I was referring to when I said that talk of chi and channels is considered irrelevant to the CST system. It's not a criticism of CST. It's just an observation. And it is something I give a lot of thought to in my own practice as I move toward sophistication, as opposed to mere simplification. It's an area the modern mind is still feeling through and IMO there is not a definitive answer yet. Is a language of the subtle body necessary? Can we do away with referring to chakras and prana? I often wish. It's almost embarrassing to use these words. Hell if I got caught using the word "chi" in my BJJ academy I'd get arm barred on the spot. ;) There is even an ongoing debate in more overtly spiritual communities about a similar issue. Wether to just do pure meditation or to bring in and try to work with a subtle body cosmology. Alchemical schools of Chi Kung jump right into speaking of channels and chi and cauldrons and you work primarily with the gross and subtle bodies and hope the drastuh, the causal witness emerges. Most Zen teachers typically don't speak of the subtle body at all. Just meditate in the causal and the rest will take care of itself. The Tibetans make you wait. You meditate for a few years and after you've established the proper ground of inner silence, you can move on to learning about and working more directly with the subtle energy. The Kundalini Yoga path that I currently follow says both are important and gives you both at once. I see CST as being almost an upside down Zen, gross body as a primary vehicle to causal flow, cut directly working with the subtle body it's a can of worms and can't even be shown to exist.
You wrote:
"None of these definitions really approach the ideas meant by the "Eastern" texts. The problem here is that when people start talking about things like "sitting meditation" or "moving meditation" they are missing the point.
These, and everything like them are at the level of "technique" rather than process. In this sense a "mediation technique" should be viewed at about the same level as a "martial arts technique"
I couldn't agree more. IMO Prasara BodyFlow definitely is a meditation. When done with mindfulness. And so is anything. Cooking can be a meditation. Sex can be a great meditation. Writing a post on a forum can be a meditation. In the Pali sutras, the earliest Buddhist texts considered most authentically linked with what the Buddha actually taught, Buddha laid down instructions for sitting, lying and walking meditations. In Yoga, the original Indian tradition of the Buddha, any asana can be a posture for meditation, and each is often associated with different benefits. The stereotypical seated "lotus position" is the most easily recognizable as "oh, that person is meditating", yet many Chi Kung practioners meditate standing with their arms raised and eyes open, in "embrace the tree" posture for example.
The existence of movement in a meditative technique has also long been an issue for debate. Some schools believe that since most people's minds are so overactive, so stressed out and dense, that handing them a sitting practice right off the bat is counterproductive. So movement practices are often given to beginners as a way to taste this blissfull witness state without having to be pissed off sitting on a cushion for three months with little results. The other side of the coin is the idea that it's better to just do the stillness first, otherwise there can be a misidentification with the movement, particularly the chemical endorphins also released during strenuous movement, with samadhi. Samadhi is not just a release of brain chemicals and to avoid this confusion is probably why most moving meditations are traditionally very slow and gentle. Yet on the same token, and I think this is what is so essential about the point you are making here, is that sitting in stillness meditation postures are also a technique. I think it's easy to forget this and it's great to have such intelligent moving meditators as yourself around to remind the hardcore sitters of such an important truth.
One of the questions I have, and it's a great question that is very much on the cutting edge of what modern contemplatives are still feeling through, is can you go "all the way" to enlightenment without a stillness practice? The answer is most likely yes. Actually there are examples of saints who've awoken to the truth of being without any sort of "practice" at all. They just woke up one day. Still, in my experience it wasn't until I began a consistent sitting practice that I really began to plumb the incredible depths of samadhi. And this samadhi spills out into my life. It touches everything I do now. I've explored dozens of forms of movement meditations ... various styles of chi kung, hatha yoga for about 10 years now, the CST system for almost three years, an entire year of which I did Warrior Wellness every day. I've gotten into some pretty powerful places. Yet nothing has come close in the cultivation and stabilization of samadhi as a comfortable, still, seated position (in a chair or with legs easily crossed). That's not to say that movement meditations don't have their particular strengths though.
In my personal practice, one of the daily meditations I do is a sitting practice in which I move my mind with my breath up and down my spinal column while dropping into samadhi, or flow as CST would say. When I do this meditation I feel the most incredible, cool, tingly, blissful light moving up and down my spine, from my third eye to my perineum. Both my third eye and my perineum often pulse with pleasure and I've had experiences where it felt like there was a warm fire dancing in my heart in which I felt I deeply understood all of the sacred heart imagery in the Christian tradition. Now, I could care less wether As a (more or less) complete system of Yoga, how would CST address my experiences. From a CST perspective, what would you say is my diagnosis? Am I delusional? Am I exploring an unnecessary plurality that I should take to Dr. Occam? Does my experience contain a claim about subtle body energy that this system can't tolerate? Is my experience too messy, strange, personal or unproveable to bring to this CST dialogue? It's ok if the answer is yes. Like I said before, I don't believe any system can ever claim to be complete, or all things to all people. Perhaps CST does not have a place for people like me.
Sincerely,
Sean