Why is Samadhi rare?

[Soren]

I really enjoyed this article:
http://www.lorinroche.com/dangers/homeless.html

And here:
http://www.meditation24-7.com/wildserenity/aboutlorin/lorin.html

Specifically
He made a special effort to seek out people who were meditating on their own, with no teacher and no tradition, just making it up. Lorin asked all these people, "What are you experiencing now?" and took notes as they talked for hours and described their sensations, images, feelings, and auditory perceptions. Listening to all these different kinds of meditators describe their experiences helped Lorin develop his models of individual perception, the way that each individual has her or his own unique style of approaching meditation.

...
"Meditation can feel like it comes from the inside, from your own inner knowing, your inner self, your instincts and body. Instinctive Meditation is based on what works for Westerners, and is for people who embrace the adventure of making it up for themselves."


This seems like exactly like what Jhananda has done too.

[Alexander]

I don't think Jhananda really "made it up for himself," although maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to say. Instead we have to differentiate between "right" (samma) and "wrong" meditation. As that is what the Buddha says you must find - samma sati and samma samadhi. If you do these last two rungs of the eightfold path rightly, then you reap the phala which are the different charisms and the different ranks of the religious experience. Thus we can really say that everyone who "makes it up for himself" is meditating wrongly (sounds harsh, I know) and those few who reap the experiences described here or in the writings of mystics is meditating rightly.

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you friends, Soren, and aglorincz for posting your thoughts, questions and findings to this forum.  We need lots of input from others, or otherwise it just looks like, with most of the posts coming from one marginalized mystic/mendicant, that he is just raving, and making it up as he goes.

First, I do not at all believe that the religious experience (the 8 stages of samadhi) are either rare, nor difficult.  What makes the 8 stages of samadhi seem rare, is most religious professionals (priests/rabbis/lamas, etc) are in the business of religion, and the business of religion is improved if they make it seem hard, difficult and rare.  If the religious experience (the 8 stages of samadhi) were easy, then everyone would go out and do what was necessary to have them on a regular basis, then the religious professionals would be out of business, because none of them seem to have religious experience (the 8 stages of samadhi).  Speaking of which, the link to Soren's evidence starts with a quote from the Dalai Lama, but I have found nothing in his writing to suggest that he has had any religious experience (the 8 stages of samadhi).

Now, it may seem being a marginalized mystic/mendicant, who claims to have found that all religions depend upon deeply flawed translations of their own religious literature, is thus just making it up as he goes.  Well, if that were true, then why have most mystics been marginalized by the religious professionals (priests/rabbis/lamas, etc.) of the religion/culture that they came from?  Well, the reality is mystics are bad for the business of religion, so the religious professionals (priests/rabbis/lamas, etc.) feel they have to demonize them, or otherwise there will be too much lost donation stream, and that is bad for business.

The truth is, my religious experiences are very similar to those of the major mystics; when the documents describing those experiences are properly translated.  This is why I quote from the major mystics on a regular basis.

Now, back to the links of Lorin Roche, Ph.D.  I read through them and found that he has not figured out anything, and he seems to be the one making it up as he goes.  Just read the mystics, meditate a lot, and hone your lifestyle to improve your meditation experiences.  That is it.

[Soren]

I don't think Jhananda really "made it up for himself," although maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

From the website:

Now that 30 years has past, my daily meditation practice has become three one-to-two hour sessions per day. For the practice of meditation I do not follow a devotional practice of any kind.  I do not look at a picture of a religious hero, such as Jesus or the Buddha.  I do not repeat a sacred word or phrase, such as "Our Lady full of grace" or "Om Mane Padme Hum."  I do not kneel or place myself in an uncomfortable position.  I do not move the body about in any ritualized form, such as prostrations or asanas.  I simply sit as comfortably as possible, which in my case happens to be a simple cross-legged position on a thin pillow on the floor.  I close my eyes and I bring my mind to a calm place. I also endeavor to relax the body as much as possible, while maintaining alertness, then I simply observe the rising phenomena that occurs in meditation.  For the most part I have meditated in this style for the last three decades.
...
Within a few minutes of engaging myself in the observation of the breath, the mind begins to settle to stillness.  When this stillness is stable and unmoved by sensory phenomena I bring my awareness to the senses.  It is the senses that become the next object of my contemplative observation without however leaving the breath.

I begin observing the senses with the tactile sense, which begins with a full-body awareness of the surface of the body, which then expands to the internal organ functions, muscles, circulatory system and connective tissue.  I have found, when the mind is still and calm I can observe the tactile field as a totality, because my awareness expands, and my concentration becomes more focused.  Once I'm observing the whole of the tactile field, then a whole-body vibratory sensation soon emerges.

Basically the premise behind the idea is:
"When you approach meditation, you listen to your instincts more than usual – that's why we call our work Instinctive Meditation."

Jeffrey had to have followed his intuition and focus on the charisms - because nobody was telling him to do this.

 

Instead we have to differentiate between "right" (samma) and "wrong" meditation. As that is what the Buddha says you must find - samma sati and samma samadhi. If you do these last two rungs of the eightfold path rightly, then you reap the phala which are the different charisms and the different ranks of the religious experience. Thus we can really say that everyone who "makes it up for himself" is meditating wrongly (sounds harsh, I know) and those few who reap the experiences described here or in the writings of mystics is meditating rightly.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense. You just said: people who make it up are doing it wrongly. In order to do it rightly, you have to reap the charisms.

But the charisms are defined as something that arises - not something that you do. So you have avoided the issue of HOW to meditate correctly.

Let's give examples of people who weren't experiencing the charisms:
 http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/MaryGarden.html
http://www.suggestibility.org/surprise.php

Now of course you might say "dark night of the soul," but the fact that there were people who were stuck in the TM program for 30 years in this depressive state begs to differ.

Your strategy is basically to hope to get lucky. If you weren't born with blue eyes, you aren't experiencing right vision.

Speaking of which, the link to Soren's evidence starts with a quote from the Dalai Lama, but I have found nothing in his writing to suggest that he has had any religious experience (the 8 stages of samadhi).

I would be inclined to agree with you. I don't necessarily agree with all of Lorin's philosophy. I just think that he makes a very good point about listening to the body's instincts. Consider this sutta:

"Contemplatives, suppose a foolish, incompetent, unskillful cook were to present a king or a royal minister with various kinds of curries: sour, butter, pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty and bland.

"The foolish, incompetent unskillful cook does not observe the sign (nimitta) of his master's preference: 'Today this curry pleased my master, or he reached for this one, or he took a lot of this one, or he spoke in praise of this on; or the sour curry pleased my master today, or he reached for the sour one, or he took a lot of the sour one, or he spoke in praise of the sour one; or the bitter curry...or the pungent...or the sweet curry...or the sharp curry...or the mild curry...or the salty curry...or the bland curry pleased my master...or he spoke in praise of the bland one.'

"The foolish, incompetent unskillful cook does not gain gifts of clothing, wages, and bonuses.  For what reason? Because, that foolish, incompetent unskillful cook does not observe the sign (nimitta) of his master's preferences.

"So too, contemplatives, here some foolish, incompetent unskillful contemplative dwells contemplating the physical body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure (dukkha) with respect to the world.  While he dwells contemplating the physical body, his or her mind does not become absorbed (samadhi), his corruptions are not abandoned. She does not observes the sign (jhana-nimitta).  He dwells contemplating physical sensations...the contents of the mind...mental states, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure (dukkha) with respect to the world. While she dwells contemplating phenomena her mind does not become absorbed (samadhi), her corruption are not abandoned, she does not observe the sign (samadhi-nimitta).

"That foolish, incompetent unskillful contemplative does not gain the joyful home of the way (Di.t.thadhammasukhavihaaraa), nor does he gain mindfulness (sati) and clear comprehension.  For what reason?  Because contemplatives, that foolish, incompetent unskillful contemplative does not observe the sign (samadhi-nimitta) of his own mind.

(ii. The competent cook)

 "Suppose, contemplatives, a wise, competent and skillful cook were to present a king or royal minister with various kinds of curries: sour, butter, pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty and bland.

"That wise, competent and skillful cook observes the sign of her master's preferences. 'Today this curry pleased my master...or she spoke in praise of the mild one.'

"That wise, competent and skillful cook gains gifts of clothing, wages, and bonuses.  For what reason? Because, that wise, competent and skillful cook observes the sign (nimitta) of her master's preferences.

 "So too, contemplatives, here some wise, competent, skillful monk dwells contemplating the physical body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure with respect to the world.  While he dwells contemplating the physical body, his mind becomes absorbed (jhana), his corruptions (nivarana) are abandoned, he observes the sign (samadhi-nimitta).  She dwells contemplating sensations (vedana)... perception (sañña)... mental states (sañkhara)... cognition (viññana)... ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure with respect to the world.  While he dwells contemplating phenomena, his mind becomes absorbed (jhana), his corruptions (nivarana) are abandoned he observes the sign (samadhi-nimitta)" of absorption (jhana) (1).

"That wise, competent and skillful contemplative gains the joyful home of the way (Di.t.thadhammasukhavihaaraa), she gains mindfulness (sati) and clear comprehension.  For what reason?  Because contemplatives, that wise, competent and skillful contemplative observes the sign (samadhi-nimitta) of his own mind."[/u][/size]

Here we are being told to observe our own preferences!

[Jhanananda]

It seems to me that you are missing a few points, which you cannot think your way through.  Yes, instinctive meditation is essential to successful meditation practice.  Instinctive meditation is what is called 'vipassana,' or 'insight' in Buddhism. However, Lorin Roche, Ph.D. has not demonstrated that he knows what to look for, because what he seems to be dismissing the very thing to look for.

Your quote of the Competent Cook metaphor is correct here; however, you are still confused about what to look for, so I suggest that until you can still your mind skillfully, you will not know what to look for, and you, like Lorin Roche, Ph.D., will only be confused, and confuse other people.

Since you brought up the dark night of the soul, I do not at all consider the spiritual crisis to be a mistake, or a failure in the spiritual/contemplative journey.  In fact I found it to be essential, and unavoidable on the contemplative journey.  It is just that Lorin Roche, Ph.D. has not figured it out, but it is a good sign he is on to something when he realized (after 30 years) that the so-called MahaRishi was a fraud.  Hopefully it will not take him another 30 years (or lifetimes) to figure out the rest.

My intuition told me the so-called MahaRishi was a fraud from the beginning, so I never waste my money, or time, on him, and many other frauds, like: Rajnish, Choigum Trungpa, Franklin Jones, and many others.