A No-Nonsense Guide to Meditation: No Gurus and No B.S.

Answers by Rudy Rauben (see here for more info); edited by Clay Collins.

[Editor’s Note: There’s some controversy in the comments about the “No Gurus and No B.S.” statement. For more information about our position, see this comment, and this comment below].

About This Guide

Rudy is a good friend of mine who’s been actively meditating for over 20 years. This guide sprang forth from a series of questions I’ve asked him over the course of several months, which is why we’ve kept the Q & A format. In one case, my question and Rudy’s answer have been placed, verbatim, in the guide. In most cases, however, clusters of answers have been aggregated, spliced together, etc., and questions have been written to address certain themes that arose during our discussions. This guide represents less than a 10th of the edited material culled from our conversations.

Index of questions addressed in this guide:

1. Let’s start out with a basic question. Why meditate?

The simplest answer would be to gain clarity, peace of mind, health and personal development, but I’m not sure these answers necessarily explain a whole lot in and of themselves. We need to discuss what inhibits clarity and what brings discord to our minds, and what promotes well-being.

We begin meditating by learning to "still" our minds, so our thoughts don’t just run amok. Overly rambunctious thoughts cause a lot more stress, tension and deluding impulses than most people commonly realize; and this in turn has a deleterious effect on mental as well as physical health.

The process of calming the mind and allowing our thoughts to settle out is commonly referred to as "centering." We want to be able to consciously "center" ourselves at will, especially in circumstances when we find mental agitations, erroneous preconceptions, stress or volatile emotions beginning to mount– influences that interfere with a clear awareness and realistic understanding of the circumstances we find ourselves in. In light of this, meditation is a training program whose purpose is to recognize the way we comport ourselves "internally" (psychologically, emotionally, creatively). In the service of this "tuning the breath" is a very helpful technique.

2. We’ve talked a little bit about “mind like water” in relation to David Allen and Getting Things Done. Would you say that meditation is a means for getting to mind like water regardless of external circumstances? Or does mind like water enter into the picture?

"The mind like water" is the still, centered mind. All of us have had this experience. It happens quite spontaneously and unexpectedly at times. Being out in Nature often induces this. But what we’re talking about here is having that state of mind more reliably, especially when we’re confronted with troubling circumstances. That kind of willful evocation of "mind like water" needs to be trained for; hence meditation practice. It’s not something that you just get by understanding the concept in theory. And it is not something that suddenly comes on all at once. It happens little by little. Sometimes there are major breakthroughs, but they still only bring partial realizations.

3. I know people who spend hours daily practicing Transcendental Meditation. How much time should be devoted to a regular meditation practice?

More regularity with shorter sessions is better than less regularity with longer sessions. Every day for 5 minutes is better than once a week for an hour, but people do need to find their own rhythm with these things. Just remember that repetition– regular practice– is necessary to entrain or "transform" behavior.

Once you get a taste of the vigor and stability obtainable, it keeps you coming back for more. You naturally figure out how much you need to practice to get that, and how often you need to do it in order maintain those benefits.

As a general rule of thumb, I encourage people to start with 3 minutes at a time and gradually add another minute every week. Shoot for 20 minutes or so, but be flexible about it. Don’t be lazy in your practice, but neither be obsessive or too rigid about the “whens,” “wheres” and “for how longs.”

4. What you’ve talked about, being able to center yourself at will, sounds like a very valuable thing. But if you’ve never tried meditation before how do you start?

Begin by focusing as much attention on your breathing as possible. Bring as much awareness as you can to willing your breathing to slow down, deepen and become more fluid and evenly rhythmic. This then has the effect of causing one’s mental state to become calmer and more lucid.

This kind of focused attention is sometimes referred to as "one pointed-ness": Your mind is not split among multiple concerns or topics, it is wholly placed only on this singular point of focus. You’re not thinking about how to make the car payment, about deadlines, about romantic interests or anything else while your practicing this; rather the entirety of your awareness concentrates on how smoothly the breath flows.

Of course, this does not happen immediately. It takes practice and gradually you get better at it. After a number of months or years of daily training it becomes habituated. Once it does you can then successfully proceed to take on other, more challenging problems or techniques, but first you need the mental stability this basic practice affords. And by then you will be a calmer, more lucid person.

So you train to have nothing in your mind whatsoever (when you consciously want that)–just a clear open, serene place. When a thought arises, you say to it, "go away right now, I’m busy training my mind to be empty (rested); come back later if you’re such an important thought, but give me some peace for a little while please". You just keep on doing that over and over, gently, without ambition or expectation, everyday for 10-20 minute sessions (start with 3 minutes and add a few more as you feel able to without causing too much strain), and eventually you’ll note that those thoughts will go away when you ask them to more and more. This also induces a sense of calm, stimulates creativity and reduces tension. And it strengthens your willpower and ability to concentrate, to stay focused and stay on task (with the things that are truly important to you).

These are the very fundamental procedures that any of the more advanced methods will then always benefit from.

For beginners the simplicity of this can be a big turn-off. Maybe they’d prefer something sexier sounding. This basic practice can seem tedious at first. But it really is key. Maybe we could liken it to practicing musical scales before we can really take on writing or playing music successfully.

5. I’ve looked through meditation guides in the past, and they all seem to mention diaphragmatic breathing. How much importance should a beginner place on this?

Natural, relaxed breathing is more important for the beginner. If " diaphragmatic,” or "abdominal" breathing feels too "forced" or unnatural then it just becomes another obstacle to cross. It’s very helpful at more advanced stages, but best not be pursued too ambitiously.

6. As a beginner, hyper-focusing on diaphragmatic breathing techniques during meditation can stress me out, especially when I’m already anxious. I’ve noticed, however, that a simple but single-minded focus on breath effortlessly brings about diaphragmatic breathing.

Exactly. You just make gentle, minor adjustments little by little. You can’t attempt to get there all at once.

And there are other forms of breathing: reverse abdominal breathing, "tortoise breathing," etc., which require even more concentration, and those need to unfold just as naturally as you just expressed. Then there are these things called "locks" or "bandas" or "pumps" that further refine the effectiveness (in certain applications). These things layer on as one’s experience deepens, much in the same way an artist or musician picks up more nuanced techniques as their experience deepens. There is no benefit in pushing these things before you have enough fundamental experience to really appreciate those nuances. If you do push their implementation too early you just get confused and frustrated, and, perhaps, disenchanted.

[Editor’s Note: For an explanation of diaphragmatic breathing, see

this. The video’s emphasis on counting off breaths probably isn’t necessary for beginners.

7. Should you let your meditation life take on a course of its own, or should it remain a focus on breath?

The breathwork is just the basic training. Its purpose is to help you learn how to concentrate and instill a calm, lucid state of mind at will. Once you have achieved that, the breathwork becomes second nature and you move onto other issues. Things like chi kung, internal kung fu, and I Ching psychotherapy are all more advanced forms of meditation that take your training into areas of increasing subtlety and empowerment.

8. Should meditation be used to focus on goals?

Goals can often be too ego-driven, so a person should just avoid that all together at first, until they get the centering thing down. The central purpose here is to be less ego-driven, so consider how counter-productive a naive focus on a goal can be. But if your goal is to become more relaxed, more sensitive, or more self-aware, then you’re fine.

9. In my experience, a lot of meditation books encourage you to use mantras, light candles, use music, etc. What do you make of these suggestions?

These things are aids to concentration. As such, so long as they don’t prove distracting they can be of help. But even then they can become crutches: use them, experiment with their efficacy, but also bear in mind they will hamstring you if you come to rely on them to the point where you can’t center yourself without them. You’ll want to practice without them at least as often as you use them, if you even want to use them at all. Just make sure they don’t become crutches.

Some meditation teachers are hard-asses about this stuff, but I’m like "relax… just so long as a person realizes that they can’t use training wheels forever" (feeling that this is a more relaxed, and therefore more conducive attitude, than any strict prohibition of supportive tools would be). I use music, earplugs and nothing at all as the mood strikes me. The earplugs are especially good for tuning into one’s breathing (my main purpose in using the plugs is not so much to tune out external sounds).

10. So should beginners use a timer?

Because beginners are more in the basic training mode they require something to help them discipline themselves and gauge their progress against. A timer is one way. The duration of a mellow piece of music might be another. In Zen groups one person may function as a time keeper, banging wooden blocks or a gong of some sort at the set interval. The length of time it takes for a stick of incense to burn down is another. Mantras another. Some of these get rather involved, and I would recommend keeping it as simple as possible.

After a number of years the timing can become almost second nature or instinctive: you get into that "nominded" state, hang out there for a while, take out the trash, tidy up, smell the roses, and then, when you feel like it, you just go "okay, that’s enough for now."

11. So what’s an ideal space for meditation? I feel like most meditation books start out with the obligatory "find a comfortable chair, in a place without disruptions, etc." Is this necessary?

Paraphrasing Lu Tung-pin:

"When you first begin to practice try to do it at times when you don’t have a lot on your mind. All those thoughts are like wild horses; an experienced handler can round them up and get them under control, but they can be an overwhelming challenge for a beginner. So, to start off with, the fewer wild horses you have to deal with the better. A gentle mood and comfortable state of mind are very conducive, whereas volatile emotions are anything but."

During the day, at work, or in dealing with people, whenever, just remember to try and stay centered. If you wobble off center, breath well, calm yourself and find your way back. There’s no need for anyone but you to know that you’re doing this.

12. What are some of the common mistakes made by beginners?

Trying to do it when you’re sleepy is a problem. Hence, mornings are considered a good time– when you’re fresh and have yet to be assailed by the day’s events or demands. It’s not an absolute requirement, but it does tend to work better for most people. You need to be alert when you’re meditating.

Trying to do too much too soon is a big problem. You have to be patient. You need to be gentle about it– let your experience unfold with minimum pushing and maximum relaxation, with all the joy and humor you can possibly bring to it. Try to be better– just a little more disciplined everyday, little by little. Don’t get punitive with yourself.

I think guided imagery techniques, or a focus on supernatural beings is a big mistake, especially for beginners. This can easily introduce fantasy or delusion.

Also, thinking in terms of "spiritual transcendence" is a big problem: thinking that your body is just a vessel for your "soul" or mind. Many crucial aspects of consciousness and personality are intimately associated with physically being alive. This is not something we should ever look askance upon or try to escape via transcendent "spiritual" visions, fantasies or myths. Keep yourself in the here and now. So you might then say that religious, repressive or dogmatic preoccupations are going to interfere terribly with any meaningful meditation program.

13. Do you recommend any particular books?

One of the most concise, no-nonsense set of written instructions on meditation I’ve ever encountered occurs under the Meditation hexagram in Carol Anthony’s and Hanna Moog’s version of The I Ching.

There are other books I have personally found useful, but because they employ metaphors that can prove confusing, and would require lengthy expositions, I hesitate to recommend them to beginners or people unfamiliar with the kind of traditional language they employ. As for more modern books on the subject, many of those have their own pitfalls; problems caused by misreading the metaphors of those older sources they inevitably reference. I’d like to demystify these matters rather than further confound the public.

A favorite author of mine on the subject, Liu I-ming, put it this way in 1808, and I think it is still as terribly relevant as ever– something every student needs to bear in mind:

“People of later times did not search out the meaning of the metaphors of the classics, but just stuck to the symbols: Confucians took them to be superstitious nonsense, while Taoists took them in a superficial manner. Later students did not look into the meanings of the code words and did not figure out the intended principles the symbols were meant to represent. In extreme cases, people fixated on the symbols and arbitrarily invented all sorts of practices, getting caught up in sidetracks and deviant techniques. Misinterpreting the terms caused people to take to chemistry, visualization exercises, sexual yoga, energy circulation exercises and quietism in misguided ways. Seeing talk of cultivating life, some thought it referred to doing physical exercises and became preoccupied with superficial form (at the expense of substance). All these errant schools arose, all taking a deer to be a unicorn, or a crow to be a phoenix; not only without benefit, but actually becoming detrimental. Countless people have harmed themselves mentally and physically in this way. Surely this was not the intent of the ancient sages when they evoked images in symbolic language.”

I have my personal preferences, but everybody will find meaning and insight in their own particular ways and places. Jiddu Krishnamurti said "the Truth is a pathless land." It’s crucially important to realize that there is no one set course that we all can reliably follow– no one size fits all “Truth,” as it were. The developmental life process necessitates that each of us find the confidence and wherewithal to learn how and why we need to find our own way– why we need to stop following those who would claim that they know where everybody SHOULD be going, and how everybody SHOULD get there. That kind of mindless following ultimately proves detrimental. It harms the individual and it harms human society.

14. Should I learn more? Where should I go from here?

What you have here is the core practice. You can build off of it when or if you’d like, but you could also do nothing else and still find it fulfilling and developmental. More complexity is not necessarily better. Just practicing the basic centering meditation technique and breathwork is going to be plenty enough to chew on. You could easily spend a few years just doing that really well.

If you liked this post, then please consider subscribing to The Growing Life. It’s free and good for the soul.

Technorati Tags: meditation, beginners guide to meditation, guide to meditation, meditation guide, why meditate, benefits of meditation, peace of mind, mind like water, centered mind, transcendental meditation, beginning steps, diaphragmatic breathing, breathwork, mantras, timers, I Ching

Posted on 26 Mar, 2008

Did you like this article?

52 Comments so far »

Jonathan Mead said,

Wrote on March 26, 2008 @ 10:51 pm

This is a great guide Clay and a good primer for any beginner. I would also recommend Alan Watts - Teaching Meditation the audiobook. It elucidates many of the principles of meditation fluidly.
Sue Kennedy said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 12:12 am

I absolutely love this guide, I am personally someone that needs to calm and this sounds like the perfect solution as a starting point. Thank you so much. I have also found some great breathing techniques and meditation information at http://www.vitalitybliss.com that you might be interested in, I found it quite useful indeed. Thanks again, I’m off to start calming myself.
Clay Collins said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 1:46 am

@Sue: Glad you liked the guide. I’ve had it on my computer in one form or another and it’s something I turn to myself every once in a while. Rudy’s good at putting things into perspective, and I think that’s what I like about it the most.
Clay Collins said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 1:47 am

@Jonathan: Thanks for the book suggestion. There’s so much confusion out there and it’s nice to get recommendations from people I trust. The signal to noise ratio in the meditation section of the bookstore is quite bad.
Rob said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 5:38 am

Hi, thanks for such informative material, I have great passion for this topic. Cheers Rob
Kelly@ SHE-POWER said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 6:49 am

Was just scanning through this before I closed up the laptop for the night, but you quite hooked me in. So much detail. This looks amazingly helpful. Thank you, Clay. Will have a thorough read in the next couple of days and comment again.

*yawn*

Must get to bed. Am driving son 2 hours to see his friends tomorrow, so it would better if I was rested.

*pats self on back*

I’m such an awesome mother…

Kelly
disinfo.com said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 8:06 am

No gurus and no BS: meditation demystified

Meditation demystified. Concise answers to questions many beginners often have. Direct, effective and free. No gurus. No BS.
Maria - Never the Same River Twice said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 8:40 am

Thanks for sharing this conversation. I have a regular meditation practice and feel much better for it.

If anyone is interested in learning more about mindfulness meditation, Mindfulness in Plain English is a great, free ebook on the subject. It is written from a Buddhist perspective, but a lot of that is easily ignored if that’s not your thing.
caron said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 8:41 am

great post clay. after the posts saying that productivity systems don’t necessarily lead to a mind like water, i was hoping this would be the logical conclusion.
Charlie Gilkey said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 8:50 am

Amazing post, Clay. Detailed but approachable, informative but interesting, and long in length but quick in interest. I’ve tagged this one for reference in some of my future post. I wish this would have come out yesterday, as I would have linked it in yesterday’s post when I referenced meditation. Keep up the great work.
ReddyK - The Atma Jyoti Blog said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 9:03 am

Clay, You have succeeded in your efforts to put forth a good introduction to meditation.

I would like to suggest a resource for learning meditation from a traditional Yoga perspective. The article Introduction To Om Yoga answers a lot of the same questions you have put forth in your article, but from another angle. There are both similarities and differences, as the two methods come from different traditions.

Thanks for your time in making a post which will be useful to a lot of people.
Art Gonzalez said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 9:12 am

Clay, this is my first time here in your page and wanted to congratulate you on your tips and recommendations. I specially agree with doing meditation early in the morning, it does set the tone for the rest of the day specially when the meditation is intended to bring the favor of God over one’s life. Also throughout the day, mini-meditations, a couple of minutes to center one’s mind and spirit I’ve found that works wonders.

Many blessings,

Art Gonzalez
Check my Squidoo Lens at: Quantum Knights
your true friend said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 10:51 am

“Rudy is a good friend and this guide sprang forth from a series of questions I’ve asked him over the course of several months”

so much for no guru, and that in itself is bs.

you fail.
Jack Schmidt said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 10:53 am

All the seeming negativity and troubles in your life are a result of cause and condition. They are not “God given”; they are not in your true nature. Nor do they occur by chance. It is not like you smell dog shit from across the street and out of the blue some appears on your shoe. You have to really step in it. Do you understand what I’m saying? This is actually good news because it means you have the power to manipulate the very causes and conditions that have created your problems. When you eliminate negative causes and conditions, what is left behind is what we call “buddhanature.” The inhibitions that obscure our buddhanature develop because we use external points of reference to define and confirm our own self-identity. The problem with this is that the reference points continually change. As we try to keep up with these varying references, inhibitions build upon themselves and multiply. Our self-consciousness increases, and we experience fear and vulnerability. Reference points are the cause of our hope, fear and inhibitions, and they take us farther and farther from our buddhanature. So you might as well cut inhibitions and go back to what is true- your own basic goodness, your buddhanature.

Khyentse Norbu, Bhutanese (1961-)
Clay Collins said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 11:05 am

@your true friend: There’s a difference between a conversation had with a *friend* and the master/student relationship. Rudy and I frequently kick it over a beer and talk about this stuff: I challenge him and he challenges me. There seem to be a lot of “my master is better than your master” pissing contests going on in the eastern religion section of the bookstore, which is the source of the no gurus comment.

In the interview, Rudy said:

“I have my personal preferences, but everybody will find meaning and insight in their own particular ways and places. Jiddu Krishnamurti said “the Truth is a pathless land.” It’s crucially important to realize that there is no one set course that we all can reliably follow– no one size fits all “Truth,” as it were. The developmental life process necessitates that each of us find the confidence and wherewithal to learn how and why we need to find our own way– why we need to stop following those who would claim that they know where everybody SHOULD be going, and how everybody SHOULD get there.”

These aren’t the words of a guru type, but of someone telling you to question things, and he’s quite open to being questioned himself. If you’re looking to get in a battle of egos, however, then look elsewhere.

–Clay
Rudy Rauben said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 11:20 am

As far as your failure or mine is concerned Clay, I would like to clarify what our “no guru no BS” is meant to suggest:

There is no submission to a supposedly “higher authority” espoused. The teachings are not turned into a commodity to be sold at the expense of a genuine, egalitarian person-to-person relationship. There is no institutionalized hierarchy or status seeking. Everyone is respected as totally equal, and any ego-driven impulse that contends with that basic ethic is to be pointedly addressed, deconstructed and ultimately discarded. No one is encouraged to take on the image of an authority figure, and participants are encouraged to question, think for themselves and respect their own native capacities and self-worth. We make a concerted effort to communicate in clear language, and to avoid dogma or enigmatic terminology.

I heartily endorse the words of Wang Xiangzhai, an older and wiser man than myself; yet I would not kowtow to him, nor would I wantonly allow anyone to kowtow to me.

“This awful, ugly tradition produces basically masters and slaves– ‘my teacher is better than yours, yours is not as good as mine’– kow-towing 3000 times calling the teacher ‘Great Master’ does not make him a teacher, nor does it make the student a student, for that has really nothing to do with teaching or learning. Knowledge is the most sacred thing in the universe. This is the reason I so urgently emphasize breaking down the master-disciple relationship.”

We each have our own array of experiences and strengths. To learn from them is certainly wise. Would you call your guitar teacher “guru” or “master?” There is no need for it. Ever. It is a vestige of feudal times.

Let us move on and speak to each others’ personal empowerment and liberation, and stop playing ego games at other’s expense.
Anne Bower said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 11:57 am

Rudy’s comments are right on; his emphasis on simplicity of practice makes very good sense. Of course, the fact that he practices what he preaches makes him credible too. One thing I’ve found with meditation or t’ai chi (which I think of as meditation in motion) is that stray thoughts are bound to come into one’s mind. It’s what one does with these that makes the difference. I was taught to acknowledge them and let them pass by–like twigs floating in the stream. And if the twig snags you for a moment, acknowledge that and then let it go. Expecting oneself to be perfect–OY–that can be a big hang up.
Thanks, Rudy!
Justin said,

Wrote on March 27, 2008 @ 3:43 pm

Rudy is rad!! Right on. I’ve needed something like this for a long time but alas been ‘too busy’ or had ‘too much on my mind’ to go out looking.

I’m going to start right now.

Cheers,

~ Justin Lake Whedon
http://www.justinwhedon.com
http://www.ebonmusic.com
http://www.thedarknightsky.com <— see one of Rudy’s works of art!!
Cath Lawson said,

Wrote on March 28, 2008 @ 4:21 am

Hi Clay - this was really useful to me. I stopped meditating for a long time, which was a bad move. I’m just getting back into it again and this guide had some helpful reminders.
sterling | bizlift said,

Wrote on March 28, 2008 @ 4:52 pm

This is a good introduction. I met my gal at a Zen workshop 4 years ago and meditation has helped me in MMA fight training. I love that this is written to for the lay person, not monks who already are committed to meditation.

The bit of jealously displayed in the comments is a nice sign of your growth as a blogger. Congratulations on the controversy Clay :-)
Clay Collins said,

Wrote on March 28, 2008 @ 11:28 pm

@ Cath: I’m really glad you enjoyed this. I’m always slipping up on meditation and seem to use it when I’m stressed. What I forget time and time again is that meditation is as preventative as anything else.

@Sterling: MMA? Remind me not to get in a fight with you :-) I’d like to learn more about Bagwazhang, however.
Clay Collins said,

Wrote on March 28, 2008 @ 11:31 pm

@ Kelly: I bet you are such an awesome mother :-).
Shady Character Mark said,

Wrote on March 30, 2008 @ 7:34 am

That was indeed a decent, no-nonsense guide. I appreciate your getting it out here to share with others.

I’ll second Maria’s endorsement above of “Mindfulness in Plain English.” I’ve recommended it to numerous people over the years.

Thanks for pointing me here, Rudy!
Douglas Ridings said,

Wrote on April 1, 2008 @ 10:55 am

I am largely in agreement with your critique of the traditional master/disciple relationship, but I would like to offer some defense of the term guru. In sanksrit gu= darkness, ru=remover. So, etymologically, a guru is anyone or anything that illuminates something for us. I have never had a “meditation guru” per se, but all of my teachers, friends, family, employers, have cast light on things for me. I do not play guitar (very well) but I do play piano and certainly consider my teacher someone who illuminates things for me. I am also a student of classical Indian dance (Orissi) and when I touch the teachers feet at the end of class, it is out of gratitude for the transmission of the Vidya and the very fact that it has survived this long (app 4000 years), not because I percieve myself as being somehow lesser than or inferior to her. Perhaps I should mention that she never told me to touch her feet, I observed the Indian students doing it and recognized it as an oppurtunity to express the gratitude I feel for learning this dance. I studied opera with a great teacher for a number of years and would not hesitate to call her my guru, as what she taught is very much in harmony with the practice of yoga and meditation. I also worked for another woman for 7 years who is “bi-polar” and would frequently pitch the most atrocious emotional tantrums directed at both her employees and at the customers. She is one of my greatest gurus. I learned from her how to stay calm in the midst of someone else’s emotional whirlwind. I know that the kind of relationships I’ve described here are not exactly the traditional relationships you are taking to task. But perhaps my interpretation is in accord with what may be the more positive aspects of that tradition: gratitude and acknowledgement for the transmission of skills and techniques through generations.
Rudy Rauben said,

Wrote on April 1, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

Douglas:

Thanks for shedding light on the word “guru.” The context you place it in frees it from so much of that obscuring darkness that too often enshrouds it. Like many words, operatively in modern public discourse, it has seemingly come to represent something it was never originally intended to. The word “spirituality” has similar baggage.

We live in a culture that is steeped in damaged self-esteem, the cult of celebrity, status-seeking, and the hunger for power; we need a fresh dialogue that removes the “darkness” these problematic self-images have generated.

In a public dialogue, where we can’t assume people will understand Sanskrit as the ancient sages did; and when a word has been so routinely abused– when it has come to routinely cause more harm, confusion and misrepresentation than it dispels, Clay and I opted to just dispense with it entirely in favor of new ways of conveying the originally intended meaning.
Douglas Ridings said,

Wrote on April 1, 2008 @ 10:43 pm

Rudy:

Thanks for your thoughtful respose.
Travis said,

Wrote on April 2, 2008 @ 11:53 am

Good stuff! Thanks for all the work in putting this together.
Tom Stine said,

Wrote on April 2, 2008 @ 6:49 pm

Nice guide. I especially am glad to see someone recommending “start with 3 minutes at a time.” For most people, the mind is off to the races after a few minutes when you first begin. I remember reading years ago a suggestion from the mystic Joel Goldsmith to spend 5 minutes “3, 4, 6 or 12 times a day” meditating. His instructions were very simple, more of them sit down and do it variety. Again, nice work, guys.

Tom | tomstine.com
Damon L. said,

Wrote on April 3, 2008 @ 10:32 pm

I think this is very helpful. I’m a Christian and wanted to mention there is nothing wrong with meditation. The bible even says its a good thing. Of course I’m reading this right before bed, so it’s not a good time to meditate, I’d simply fall asleep, hah!

Thanks so much to Clay and Rudy both!!
Damon L. said,

Wrote on April 4, 2008 @ 1:12 pm

Great post, just linked to it on my new blog as well. Thanks Clay!

treesbend.blogspot.com
Just a small mind said,

Wrote on April 5, 2008 @ 1:02 am

Rudy/Clay,

You have a rock in your shoe. Clay says Rudy was practicing meditation for 20 years. This means that he’s really used to the rock in his shoe and does not notice it. The whole post is peppered with the clues of this rock. I will point out just one clue and leave it at it - “willful”.

P.S. I really didn’t want to post a reply, as I can see the vastness of the chance that you won’t get it; but there is a small chance that you will, and so here it is, because it’s worth trying.
rudy said,

Wrote on April 5, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

There certainly has been a rock in my shoe for a long time: ego.

I’ve been doing my best to unload it for many years now, but it is still here with me, I know; diminished, but still present. I will keep at it.

And you? You’re free of that rock? If so, you have my sincere congratulations. That is not easy to do. I know of no greater challenge in life.

But of course, it’s wise to be suspicious of such claims; in oneself as well as others.

I do consciously entertain a school of thought that advocates willfulness as a person’s natural capacity to assert their own destiny and protect their true self from the influences of ego (false self-images) and collective ego (societal institutions or customs whose function it is to train people to accept ego and domination). The use of force and aggression are strongly discouraged, but not the possession personal will or an organic sense of identity. Now some will argue against this perspective, but I have found it developmental, personally.

Some schools of meditation basically advocate total annihilation of all sense of self, making no distinction between true and false self– it’s all false: it’s all delusional, (physical) Nature too is treated as delusional. So, utter surrender gets called for (usually at the direction of a priesthood of some sort) in order to obtain “spiritual transcendence” or “enlightenment.” Admittedly, I do not fall into this camp, but I am somewhat aware of the tenets involved. So… if “just a small mind” means to point out that I’m willfully defending some sense of self, and willfully resisting that type of surrender, he/she is quite right. Indeed, this blog has been peppered with that, quite purposefully.

This issue of whether you choose to endorse physical life (or any sense of self), or instead seek transcendence of it, is a deeply intimate one that any meditation practice that sincerely seeks to resolve personal conflict inevitably bumps into. A great deal comes down to matters of opinion however. My personal sense of this issue is that people need to do what really feels appropriate in their own heart-of-hearts, to their own commonsense, and act in such a way that others are enabled to do the same. I find sound ethical coherence (harmony) in that. Not that it is an easy row to hoe by any means.

If anyone feels Clay or I have misunderstood some critical aspect of the process, we welcome constructive dialogue regarding how people might proceed more effectively (please be specific). We do our best, but we make no claims on perfection. We try to be open-minded, yet discerning. We look to ancient wisdom, but we don’t feel it is ultimately very developmental to treat it is dogma. We have considerable experience, but not of a kind that trumps all others.

A koan of sorts: A mind may be small, yet somehow it can still obliquely boast of a superior capacity…

http://www.wokendreams.com/WELLcomix/WELL0.html

Live! Love! Create!
Just a small mind said,

Wrote on April 6, 2008 @ 9:26 pm

Rudy,

Can you tell who or what *is* it that asserts and protects, and why does that which you call a “true self” needs protection?
rudy said,

Wrote on April 9, 2008 @ 9:14 am

You may ask, “If I’m not this ego– this false sense of identity– then what the hell am I?!” or “How can a person possibly exist without an ego, surely it is an essential aspect of who I am?”

The “true self” is who we really are. It is who we are when all pretensions are absent. It is all our natural characteristics, talents and inclinations. It was who you were when you were a small child, before anyone began to try to convince you of what you supposedly were supposed to be, or what it supposedly means to be “good” or “bad,” or what your sexual role is meant to entail, or what sort of social status you are being groomed for, or what sort of skills you are expected to have or acquire, etc., etc.

Anyone who has been around a number of animals, and has a healthy respect for them, can tell you that each one always has their own distinct personality, qualities and inclinations, even within a given species. Every dog, cat or horse has its own unique character. The same goes for little children. Even before they begin to be shaped by their environment or parents they have their own distinct personalities. This is the part that is more nature than nurture. This part is the true self. It’s the one and only original you.

In classical Taoist texts the word “ego” was not used as such, but was addressed in a variety of other ways. Sometimes it was referred to as “the human mind” or “human mentality”, as opposed to the more naturalistic and instinctive “Mind of Tao.” This human mentality was regarded as something degenerate– the result of unfortunate “temporal conditioning.” It’s treated as a habituated mindset that’s prone to a lack of perceptual clarity, and therefore chronic error, frustration and conflict; prone to chronic error because it has been saddled with beliefs, behaviors and attitudes that are in conflict with the very nature of Life itself.

The true self is then regarded as being an extension of a totally expansive consciousness that unites all of Life, Nature and Creation, but not ever wholly apart from it.
rudy said,

Wrote on April 9, 2008 @ 10:33 am

When I was a small child, there was this cartoon I used to watch:

There was this young turtle with all these fantastic aspirations to play various “grown up” roles. Every episode he had a new adventure he hoped to live out. Every episode he’d go to this lizard who was a wizard and beg to be transported into his latest fantasy. And every episode the lizard wizard, cautiously complied with the young turtles wishes. Then, in every episode, the fantasy goes wrong at some point and the turtle screams for help, “MR. WIZARD, GET ME OUT OF HERE!!!”

The kindly lizard wizard then returns our hapless turtle to his natural life and suggests that he remember:

“Be what you are, not what you’re not; people who do that are the happiest lot.”

…over and over and over again.
carl jung said,

Wrote on April 9, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

An ancient Chinese adept once said: “if the wrong person uses the right means, the right means work in the wrong way.” This saying, unfortunately all too true, stands in sharp contrast to the Western belief in the “right” method irrespective of the person who uses it. In reality, in such matters everything depends on the person and little or nothing on the method. For the method is merely the path, the direction taken by the person. The way she acts is the true expression of her nature. If it ceases to be this, then the method is nothing more than a pretense, something artificially added, serving only the illegitimate goal of self-deception. This is far removed from the earth-born quality and sincerity of the Chinese thought that originally lay behind these methods. Instead it becomes the denial of one’s being, self-betrayal to strange and unwholesome images of devotion, a cowardly trick for the purpose of usurping psychological superiority, everything in fact which is profoundly contrary to the actual meaning of this yogic method. For Asian yoga’s insights result from a way of life that is complete and genuine, that has grown consistently and coherently from the deepest instincts of humankind; instincts that have become painfully remote to Westerners and impossible to imitate.

Western imitation of Eastern yoga methods is doubly tragic in that it comes from a unpsychological misunderstanding as sterile as modern escapades in other “native” places where “primitivity” is played at while “civilized” Westerners evade more pressing issues at home. It is not a question of imitating, or worse still, becoming missionaries for what is organically foreign, but rather a question of building up a pathological Western culture. The denizen of Western culture needs to address his own problems at home and not attempt to escape them by dodging into exotic foreign landscapes; with his marriage problems, his neuroses, his social and political delusions, and his whole philosophical disorientation.

If Westerners wish to genuinely experience the world as ancient Asian yogis experienced it then they will need to completely accept the instinctive needs of their natures that enabled those yogis to perceive life’s invisible essence. Can it be, perhaps, that the premise of such a way of seeing life is liberation from those ambitions and obsessions which have people’s awareness bound almost exclusively to the visible world; and does not this liberation result from the sensible fulfillment of instinctive needs, rather than from the premature or fear-born repression of them? Anyone who has seriously studied classic Taoist philosophy or its seminal work The I Ching will not dismiss such questions lightly. Moreover, such students will learn that such issues are ultimately psychologically inescapable.

In Western culture, under Judeo-Christian influence, matters of the spirit were for a long time represented to be of paramount importance. Later, in the course of the 19th century, when “matters of spirit” began to be subsumed into “matters of intellect”, a reaction set in against the unbearable dominance of intellectualism. This movement at first committed the pardonable mistake of confusing intellect with spirit, blaming the latter for the misdeeds of the former. Spirit is something that includes not only the intellect, but the feelings as well. One cannot very well dispense with feelings, instinctive needs and intuition when trying to understand the essential nature of the human psyche. Until recent times, the Chinese culture had never gone so far from these central psychological facts as to lose itself in a one-sided over-development and over-valuation of a single psychic function such as the intellect. Therefore they recognized the paradoxes inherent in being alive. Whereas balancing these paradoxes can be viewed as a sign of a mature cultural mindset, one-sidedness, though it does lend momentum, is a sign of cultural immaturity. The reaction in the West against tyrannical intellectual dominance, in favor of restoring some value to feeling or intuition, seems to be sign of genuine cultural maturation– the widening of consciousness beyond limits that are too narrow for people’s psychological wellbeing.

This is not to under-value the mature achievements of the Western intellect. It is sad indeed when Westerners depart from their own achievements to only then be able to poorly imitate those of the East. The possibilities open to Westerners are so much greater if they embrace their own culture’s psychological achievements while also considering those that the East has brought forth from its inner being over the course of so many centuries. However, intellect alone cannot fathom the practical importance of the ideas offered by Eastern yogic philosophy, or what benefit it might have for the Western mind, and that is why Westerners are often tempted to classify these ideas as superstitious or ethnological curiosities and nothing more. The lack of comprehension goes so far that even Western scholars specializing in China’s cultural heritage and history have not understood the practical application of the I Ching but have rather often dismissed it as a collection of abstruse magic spells.
ReddyK - The Atma Jyoti Blog said,

Wrote on April 9, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

Carl Jung’s comments (if indeed it is from the psycologist Jung) come from having read a terrible and misleading translation of some Taoist texts, and do not apply in this context.
Clay Collins said,

Wrote on April 9, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

@ReddyK Would you care to explain further? I’d enjoy hearing your rationale.
ReddyK - The Atma Jyoti Blog said,

Wrote on April 10, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

Clay,

If I understand the import of Jung’s ideas (expressed in my mind in a tangled way) he is saying the the Western and Eastern psyches take different approaches, and should have corresponding practices. I have heard this argument before, and think this is due to an ignorance of the East. A friend of mine recently came across a new translation of some Taoist classics in which the author stated that Jung had based this theory of the difference of the psyches on some terribly translated versions of these books which gave a skewed and incorrect idea of Taoist thought. Therefore, the author said, Jung’s theory was founded on a shaky or false foundation.

Real yoga is scientifically based, that is, is founded on the internal mechanisms of man which are the same in East and West. One can follow the practices and obtain the same results regardless of his cultural upbringing. Which is not to say that a thorough understanding of the principals can be ignored.

Have I understood the import of the quote correctly, and do my ideas make any sense?
Just a small mind said,

Wrote on April 11, 2008 @ 9:24 pm

Rudy,

Thanks for the insightful reply. One thing it fails to deliver though is an answer to the two questions I asked just before it:

- Who asserts and protects - ego or true self?

- Why does true self needs protection?
rudy said,

Wrote on April 13, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

Dear Just A Small Mind:

My apologies. I thought I had answered…

but more directly this time (this dialogue is quite cogent, terribly worthy of you asking):

- Who asserts and protects - ego or true self?

It could be either, but the business of meditation is to give a person a firmer sense of what is the “true self” and what is merely ego– what is natural or organic, and what is merely arbitrary, contrived or pretentious.

- Why does true self needs protection?

Because most people tend to have both this natural sense of self, and then this socially conditioned ego operative in them, and must deal with social pressures to conform to being something they naturally feel in conflict with. It is not so much a matter of protection as it is one of self-awareness and personal integrity, and naturalness.

The ego seeds self-doubt and damages self-esteem, and then promotes fantastical ambitions in order to compensate for that nebulous sense of loss or lack. And there are many social customs, traditions and institutions (often masquerading as potent “ancient wisdom”) in the service of ego– these we need to be wary of.

Regarding the controversy over Carl Jung’s statements:

Jung wrote that commentary for his friend Richard Wilhelm’s translation of an ancient Chinese yoga text called The Secret of the Golden Flower. Wilhelm also translated a version of the I Ching. I personally cannot recommend Wilhelm’s translations (they do seem to confuse classical Taoist philosophy); nonetheless I do largely sympathize with those words quoted from Jung above (not all of Jung, but those insights seem quite sound… to me).
Just a small mind said,

Wrote on April 13, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

Hi Rudy,

Thanks for the answers. Now there are some more questions for you. :)

- By saying “it could be either”, do you mean that both ego and true self can or that you don’t know which one does it?

- What makes you say that feeling in conflict with whatsoever is natural?

- In general, where does this notion of “natural” comes from?

- When saying that ego damages self-esteem, do you mean that a feeling of self-worth is a part of one’s “true-self”?
rudy said,

Wrote on April 14, 2008 @ 8:14 am

- By saying “it could be either”, do you mean that both ego and true self can or that you don’t know which one does it?

Both can/do exist in a person’s psyche, so we need to sort out (on a personal basis) which is doing the talking, so to speak. We need to carefully examine our own thoughts and feelings, and then contemplate what is truly sincere and grounded– what has integrity and coherence, and dispense with what does not. Consider what may be influencing your inner dialogue or filtering perception in a divisive or destructive way. Dispense with what is merely self-flattery, deluding, hateful or arbitrarily rigid. It is a long process wherein layer after layer of “falsity” gets removed, deconstructed or deprogrammed via ongoing meditation/contemplation. A person takes the responsibility to do this for themselves.

- What makes you say that feeling in conflict with whatsoever is natural?

Most people seem to have an uneasy (or dis-easy) sense of being at odds with something, even when there seemingly is no external cause of contention– they’re perpetually looking for the next best thing or magic pill or quick fix. I happen to find it credible to entertain the principle that it is ultimately this problematically habituated mindset called “ego” that lies behind that. And I also find it credible to entertain the idea that ego usually resides in external sources of conflict, needless destruction and social injustice as well. I do not happen to believe that suffering is an unavoidable aspect of Life (in all circumstances) that one should just accept.

As Khyentse Norbu said above: “All the seeming negativity and troubles in your life are a result of cause and condition.” This is just another way of saying basically the same thing, or no?

- In general, where does this notion of “natural” comes from?

In my own experience, that is largely informed by classical Taoist philosophy, though I see close correspondences in other cultures as well– Native American and certain branches of Zen, for instance. It’s the sense of humans as another animal species in the biosphere, and subject to exactly the same “natural” dynamics/principles. However, elaborate language use and mythologies allow human beings to delude themselves and other human beings in a way no other animal on this planet seems able to; hence this “unnatural” imaginary sense of self we’ve been calling “ego” here. By denying or repressing “animal nature” people gravely imbalance their psyches and therefore their lives and environments.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6571339670615446379&q=

- When saying that ego damages self-esteem, do you mean that a feeling of self-worth is a part of one’s “true-self”?

Yes. As ego is discarded self-esteem, confidence, integrity, instinct and “naturalness” are reestablished; the true self then once again reasserts its proper position in the mind, attitudes and behavior.

As is often said, it is not so much about learning new things as it is about “unlearning” erroneous things– it’s about reversing destructive conditioning, in other words.
Just a small mind said,

Wrote on April 14, 2008 @ 9:27 pm

Rudy,

Mind-centric process of ego deconstruction/deprogramming is akin to a person removing the floor around themselves. Everything can be removed except a spot which they have to stand on. Do you really think it is possible to complete such a task?

The sequence of questions about “natural” and “conflict” wasn’t coincidental - on one hand you described “natural” as an intrinsic quality of all living; on the other - you are relating “natural feeling of conflict” to an ego. So, is it natural to be in conflict or not?

You’re saying that the departure of an ego will bring about self-esteem and confidence. If these are “natural” things, surely they would be evident in the rest of the nature - a confident tree; a rock with hight self-esteem, no? Are you sure the “self-worth” is really a part of the “true-self”? Where are your feelings of self-worth and self-esteem, when you are standing awe-struck by a beauty of a sunset or are deep in love?
michael said,

Wrote on April 20, 2008 @ 12:09 pm

Guru - no guru…

I find it so interesting how things can be connected sometimes and always it seems when we follow our curiosity. For me guru is a state of mind, a mind of devotion, a mind that seeks the clarity of enlightenment.

I came to this thread from a post in a ‘meditation’ thread on a social networking site. I was drawn by the title because I have experience with both sides of the ‘guru’ debate.

For 20+ years I followed the no-guru philosophy and though I learned quite a bit piecemeal, it lacked coherence. Then one day I woke up to find myself alone, on a concrete floor, surrounded by dust, without a job, without a wife, with not much of a life. I determined that I was the cause of these conditions and that I needed to find the answers and create the conditions to thrive instead of merely survive. Curiosity led me to a yoga studio where Someone on this very thread was teaching and he became my first guru in the traditional sense of I admired his qualities and his words and actions shed light on the truth of my existence. He did not ask for my devotion, nor was he even aware perhaps that I considered him a guru, he was merely steadfast in his example.

From this experience I later sought out a community of like minded people and happened to find another guru who could show me an actual path to enlightenment. How do I know this? Well, some of it is surely faith, but not the blind faith that we usually associate with that word, rather I like to call it bright faith. It is the kind of faith that arises out of purification, dedication, and awareness of self and other and the interconnectedness of both. How do I know that my guru is enlightened. I don’t, but I do see the causes and conditions that he has manifested in this lifetime and I can rationally ascertain that he has something going on that no-one else I have had the karma to meet does. That, and he showed me the power of faith to heal both a mental continuum, and a broken body. A pure mind of faith can heal even cancer - I am living proof. So yes, it is personal when I hear people equating devotion to a guru, which is devotion to attaining our own enlightenment as Douglas points out, with something as valueless as the excrement of a cow, which might illuminate one dark hour of a night if used properly, or fertilize a tree.

Yes, there are charletons in the world, and you are free to impute whatever qualities you want on persons and phenomena, but please be mindful that your words are magnified a thousand times over in this medium of the internet. Gurus have real and lasting value, whether they take the form of an occasional ‘drinking buddy’, a yoga teacher, or a fully qualified Mahayana Guru. The only source of BS is a cows arse or a deluded mind.

While there is some good advice and techniques given above - mindfulness on the breath is a solid foundation - I do not see a cohesive way to put this into a practice that leads to enlightenment unless you are willing to impute guru on the I Ching. While that is not without some merit, there comes a time in everyones practice where questions may arise for which a guru may have answers. In this light I would say that devotion to a guru represents a complete path to enlightenment - if you follow the examples set out, you can attain the enlightenment or clarity you desire. But, if you stray from the path set out by the guru, your mileage may vary, subject to terms and conditions, all options demonstrated may not be available…
Clay Collins said,

Wrote on April 20, 2008 @ 11:30 pm

Hi Michael,

In a given moment, I can be in the act of teaching, and in another moment, you can be in the act of teaching. But when we take upon ourselves the role of guru, or ascribe the role to someone else, then we are setting them apart. And for what purpose or purposes? To what end is this done? All the teaching that needs to take place can take place without one person being set apart from another. The distinction of “guru” serves no purpose but to give a distinction, and such a distinction does not add to the truth.

In a given moment, the only thing that should set apart a “spiritual teacher” as such (a term I’d rather not use) is the truth they are expressing in a given moment. Not an internally or externally given distinction or role.

So my essential point is this: titles of distinction (whether they are given formally or informally), or roles given for the setting apart of others (whether they are given formally or implicitly), do nothing to further the progress of the giver or receiver of such roles. In fact, the giving and receiving of such roles and dictions (whether given implicitly or explicitly), do no good.
Clay Collins said,

Wrote on April 21, 2008 @ 12:44 am

@Just a small mind:

–I want to respond to this:

————–
“You’re saying that the departure of an ego will bring about self-esteem and confidence. If these are “natural” things, surely they would be evident in the rest of the nature - a confident tree; a rock with hight self-esteem, no? Are you sure the “self-worth” is really a part of the “true-self”? Where are your feelings of self-worth and self-esteem, when you are standing awe-struck by a beauty of a sunset or are deep in love?”
————–

I (Clay) know that not all things “natural” to humans are omnipresent in every facet of nature. A “natural” human has skin cells, but a rock does not. A natural human has toenails, but a tree does not. If we were talking about “life” rather than “self-esteem and confidence,” would you tell me that life isn’t natural because a tree has it and a rock does not? Or that a leaf isn’t natural because rock doesn’t have one?

–I want to respond to this:

————
“The sequence of questions about “natural” and “conflict” wasn’t coincidental - on one hand you described “natural” as an intrinsic quality of all living; on the other - you are relating “natural feeling of conflict” to an ego. So, is it natural to be in conflict or not?”
————

The universe I (Clay) know is not binary. Is it natural to be in conflict with some things some of the time? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Is it not natural to be in conflict with some thing some of the time? Yes. No. You know the drill.
Rudy said,

Wrote on April 26, 2008 @ 8:13 pm

I’m going to take my leave of you good people here with these last few words. I don’t want to engage in debate. That’s not what Clay or I are about. It can too easily lapse into niggling the details of various doctrines.

The “no guru” thing speaks to there being all these different viewpoints. Many gurus will assert: This is the true way, or the best way or the only way. The problem is there are many such gurus with many different assertions that often contradict one another. So, how to know which one to place credence in? Wang Xiangzhai, Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm all eloquently speak to this conundrum at more length than I can here.

The main point is: JUST MEDITATE and tune into your own feelings, free from other’s opinions and social pressures– think and feel for yourself– tune into your own innate capacity to find personal guidance and fulfillment. If you feel a strong resonance with something or another, or a particular point of view, by all means explore that. That is your particular “way.” And that is to be respected.

Don’t bother trying to bore through all these issues intellectually. Don’t bother looking for a formula. Just meditate. Just clear the mind and meditate. Through practice you’ll find your own particular Way– something that feels true to you. It may not be true to everyone, but this is not about establishing orthodoxy.

I realize to some this may be akin to standing up in a church and pointing out that no human being really requires an intermediary (priest of some sort) to communicate with the Divine, and that will draw fire from some quarters; nonetheless, that is basically what I’m saying (though I’m certainly not advocating for any mythology in doing so).

Where are my feelings of self-worth and self-esteem when I’m standing awestruck by a beautiful sunset or deep in love? Why right there with that feeling in that moment. Mind like water. Period.
Two Lovely Brains said,

Wrote on April 28, 2008 @ 12:28 pm

Respected commentator on meditation, Jiddu Krishnamurti, discusses human consciousness and the function of meditation with respected quantum physicist, David Bohm.

It’s a lengthy dialogue presented here in multiple fragments of video. As Krishnamurti ponders at one point, “will anyone have the patience to listen?” A person does have to pay close attention, but the insights are potent.

It is also quite revealing in that it bears witness to how very much care even very intelligent people have to take in order to avoid semantic pitfalls– to properly convey context and meanings. Words shift, but it’s the understanding they’re meant to convey that is really key, right?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knu4ujA1rfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD01Wm7lniQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wUv5oZaeCg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NOOlbY35tw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJjGJbLW-UA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV-fStuo4ss&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGg5l0YrGy0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFX7ZdR1cA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-fJMGASBqE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJVnw_ThuE4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZJmvvKqwas&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8KqsbeGimU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTlNrcg_Qo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVF4EC622I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Cw-hf18×0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUOxy3t4VtM&feature=related
Travis said,

Wrote on April 28, 2008 @ 4:00 pm

@Rudy;

Even though you have taken your leave I felt moved to comment based on your last post.

First, the interesting thing about meditation (or any practice) is how many people make pronouncements and judgments about it without themselves attempting the experiment. It’s really quite simple: Meditators make claims of the efficacy of meditation. To test the truth of their assertions all one needs to do is follow the injunction and meditate. If you don’t attempt to reproduce the results, and either fail or succeed, you don’t get to judge the efficacy. You are not qualified.

Second, most gurus out there, and the ones most loudly responsible for the public image of gurus, aren’t gurus. They’re salesmen. They have a product, and they want to economize on it. There reward can either be in ego gratifying attention or monetarily. They also tend to be of the type that make their disciples feel mostly goey good. A real guru, interested in your growth will constantly push against your limits in a way that should be both nurturing and extremely uncomfortable. In my opinion the whole system is outdated and very culturally specific. It gets very cludgy when you try to glue it into a Western modern (or post-modern) paradigm. I teach Aikido, and the dojo I train at is very conscious that we are not in Japan. You cannot handle American students the way you can handle Japanese students. In fact in my dialogues with Japanese teachers in Japan you increasingly cannot handle Japanese students the way you used to be able to. The whole movie picture Sensei thing is simply inappropriate here. Does that mean I don’t have valuable things to teach about Aikido, no. (You can check that with the proof of coming to one of my classes. ;-) ) What that does mean is that if I start acting like a comic book Sensei I will seriously curtail my own efficiency. The time of the Guru is not only over in this culture, it was never their time here to begin with.
Sabine said,

Wrote on May 5, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

Thank you very much for sharing this information, it’s exactly what I was looking for.
michael said,

Wrote on May 13, 2008 @ 11:32 pm

So you say there is no value in devotion, or in making a distinction that *that* person is a lineage holder. Respectfully, I disagree, my experience has taught me otherwise.