Mindfulness

When I think back about the literary path I travelled on the subject of mindfulness or awareness, I get the feeling that I was never far away from the Church, especially in the sense of “One Church”, although I have always been a border-crosser, geographically, intellectually and spiritually. I started in 2002 with Jörg Zink, a German protestant theologian (of all things) who wrote titles like “Thorns Can Carry Roses” and “Under The Great Arch” (in German), and discovered thereby Meister Eckhardt, Teresa of Ávila, Bernard of Clairvaux, John of the Cross and many more. I learned of the humorous aspects of Awareness (or our rejection of it) in the book of the same title by Anthony de Mello, a Jesuit priest of Indian descent. Discovered Thomas Merton, a trappist monk, the desert Fathers and so the list goes on. Many of these books were of course much older.

My curiosity for other forms of spiritual inquiry had their roots quite early in my life. As a child I lived for nearly three years in Malaysia, was inquisitive (some would say “nosy”) and had the usual childhood experience of “leaving the body” and the adolescent questions of who and what I am in the Far East. I was edged on by my mother to inquire; however, I witnessed a lot more of life than anyone, including my mother, would want an 11 year-old to witness, and the influence of our dear “Alma” Madeleine was slight, but lasting. It led me to follow Anthony de Mello and Thomas Merton (and others) to look at Buddhist spirituality, especially Zen, which made me rethink a lot of what I had taken for granted.

Prior to 2002, I had been more or less very orthodox, had a short but impressionable spell with Evangelicals but moved back to mainline Protestant and Catholic sources (I was a Protestant but worked for the Catholics). I accepted much of what was common teaching, was able to communicate the Christian message to both Protestant and Catholic Christians and actually found recognition by authorities of both churches and some free churches. In all of this time I could feel the ground of the theology I was standing on was shifting and I found myself knowing (experiencing) that truth cannot be conserved, but has to be found each day, otherwise it is an illusion, at best a concept of reality without being reality itself.

It is often very disappointing to carry such an inquiry into the church, as it has been in ILP, since the exchange has mostly been on “canned” theology rather than living Spirit. It has, in my opinion, also lacked the mindfulness that I have come to appreciate as the foundation of spirituality, without which we can only adopt dualistic stances and take pot-shots at the position of others. My life has been an example that exchange is possible, but that a basic mindfulness must be its basis.

I have nowhere found such an inspiring work on mindfulness, albeit based on a Buddhist tradition, than in the book, “Coming To Our Senses” by Jon Kabat Zinn.

Any thoughts?

Shalom

I need a little clarification.

Exchange of what, spiritually?

“basic mindfullness”; can you elaborate on this concept a little for me?

Hello TheStumps,

I have had a great number of exchanges with various people from differing traditions, having been lucky to travel quite a lot, and discovered that on the basis of what we regard our traditional form of spirituality, there are a number of similarities which, if we disregard what we claim to know about God, or Tao, or Brahman, or Nirvana, we find lead us mindfulness, awareness, wakefulness or attentiveness. This, I have discovered, is the central issue. Paul says, “Faith is of hearing and hearing through the word of God.” The question is, whether we can “hear” at all. Sit down and try to just be quiet for a half an hour and you will experience what your mind does with the ensuing silence.

Mindfulness is concentrated awareness of one’s thoughts, actions or motivations. In the Jewish tradition it is the word shâmar, which means to hedge about (as with thorns), which implies to guard; but also to be circumspect, and take heed (to self), as in Deu 4:9:
“… Only, take heed to thyself, and watch thy soul exceedingly …”

Another translation would be, “Be mindful of yourself and be very mindful of your soul” which reminds us of what Jesus says in Mar 13:33 “… Be wakeful and pray! …” I believe that this is something that shouldn’t have to be said, but we are so often “mindless” and caught up in anything but the present time that we are not mindful of ourselves or our soul. We have lost the capacity to just “be”, that is present in the presence of God, and that is the original sin.

Of course mindfulness plays a central role in the teaching of the Buddha where it is stated that ‘right’ mindfulness (Pali:sammā-sati; Sanskrit samyak-smṛti) is an vital factor in the path to enlightenment and liberation. It is the seventh element of the Noble Eightfold Path, the sadhana of which is held in the tradition to bring about “insight” and “wisdom” (Sanskrit: prajñā), but its techniques are being employed in western medicine to help alleviate a variety of conditions, including stress reduction and to aid convalescence after surgery and chemotherapy. This is what the book I spoke of is about.

Shalom

I’ve yet to do a decent study of Buddhism, but Gurdjieff deals with this through what he calls ‘self-remembering.’ I personally think of it in terms of ‘standing outside of myself’. My aim is to constantly be analysing my own thought patterns, behaviour and reactions in an attempt to put the Intellect in control over what I call the ‘Natural Mind’, which may be traditionally associated with the ‘Passions’ or, in more modern terminology, the workings of the ‘Unconscious mind’. I agree with you of it’s importance, and actually believe that this is one of the primary factors of both the Christ principle and the Buddha principle.

OK, so exchange means communion among theologies, even if seemingly opposing.

OK.

So your point then, is that spiritual enrichment arises from communion among theologies, even if seemingly opposing, with a concentrated awareness of one’s thoughts, actions or motivations.

Or basically: interest, respect and integrity.

I agree.

Hi rainshine87,

I think that we agree to a certain degree. My point is though that mindfulness is a prerequisite for serious exchange, but in a playful way. The trap we have to avoid is in “doing” mindfulness instead of just “being” mindful. The beauty of mindfulness meditation is that it is simple, although not easy. If we can escape the “works” mindset by just relaxing and being, we will get further. This is not easy because the conditioning we have received from childhood has leant towards “doing” rather than “being” and we feel good when having done what we consider the right thing, whatever that may be. The problem is that we judge before we have heard or learnt, prejudicially, dualistically or non-holistically and before things are clear.

I think that Gurdjieff did capture the sense of a living universe and our role in that universe and can accept a number of his thoughts, but would have to delve deeper to understand better. However, this seems to me to be very much a common ground of Buddha and Christ.

Hi TheStumps,

Interest, respect and integrity surely are basics of such a communion, but, as I have written above, I consider mindfulness as one of the basic prerequisites, although it is continuously undermined. Once we learn to escape the trappings of modern society and get to basics, it becomes apparent that we live better with less.

The curious thing is that when listening to Ron Paul, he actually voiced this opinion with regard to modern politics. By intervening less the concentration at home grows and the ability to react rationally and responsibly in a positive manner develops – in fact, a positive approach towards the world actually helps security, rather than endanger it. I am reminded by Jesus’ policy of loving one’s enemies.

Shalom

Integrity was being used as a summary of mindfulness, which stated: “concentrated awareness of one’s thoughts, actions or motivations.”

I wasn’t using the three terms as additions but equals.

Chris Panza over at “A Ku Indeed!” wrote this section discussing Kirkegaard and the Dhammapada that I think might be pretinent to what you are talking about:

A regular poster, Peony, had this to say in response:

Another poster, Zensquared, had this to say:

However, I think something important (and something that I believe ties those three posts as well as your own experience together) is that in all cases, the “living in the spirit” as you call it comes later. Could Abraham have become a knight of faith had he not already been devoted to his god? Can a Zen Buddhist manifest mindfulness without being a Zen Buddhist? The techniques and the tools have been provided, so it becomes our job to pick those tools up and make what use of them that we can.

That is why so much of the discussion seems to revolve around canned-ham topics. In the modern there is a strong disconnect between theory and practice, something that does not exist in pre-modern religiophilosophies such as those we are discussing here. So what we, as people very much influenced by and living in the modern experience, have to contend with is that we have a great deal of theory available to us but how we bring that theory into practice is often quite difficult. This is in no small part (and I think you’ll agree with me here) becauce people have the relationship backwards. Proper action leads to proper thought, proper understanding. One cultivates a condition of living in the now not by thinking about and dwelling on the now, but rather by actually going about the business of living in the now! A don’t-know-mind isn’t developed by shouting from the rooftops that you don’t know anything, but rather by applying one’s self to the process of learning.

But then, by their nature, these things are difficult to discuss from a philosophical standpoint because they are actions. It isn’t “I think” it is “I do”. So instead all we can do occasionally is see if the paths we’ve decided to go down have lead us to a good place. That can be checked by comparing one’s conclusions to the conclusions of others traveling along similar paths.

Hi Xunzian,

It is very pertinent indeed, thank you for a valuable contribution to the discussion. Of course, Chris Panza is far more learned, eloquent and prepared for such a discussion than I am, having written a book on the subject, and his comparison of the two sources meet the thoughts I have had on the subject head on.

The idea of “walking betwixt the two worlds” is also something that a movement in 18th century German Protestantism, called the “Pietists”, also had, which in time seems to have been lost to popular evangelical ideas. It is truly a deep insight that can see that the climax of Abrahams trust actually changes him in what is essentially a deep soul-churning conflict and thereby makes him the archetype of faith and embodied divine wisdom.

I think that the process has a number of important lessons along the way which are provoked by conflict situations. It is necessary to be at least so mindful as to take the conflicts as opportunities and learn from them. What is described in the Abraham story as destiny or kismet, leading him into situations in which he must put his whole existence on the line, could be (perhaps mildly) compared to the conflict caused by the koan und the thirty blows from the Master after having answered wrongly. The Dhammapada is a source of inspiration comparable to the Proverbs of the Old Testament, and I find myself continually reminded of my own tradition when reading it – especially those poems quoted - and Jesus is said to have spoken some parables of a similar nature.

Our various traditions give us those techniques and tools, or, as in the case of Christianity, we often discover them by comparison with other traditions. What I call the “Chamber-Experience” for example came from realizing that Jesus’ teaching on prayer is diametrically opposed to what many Christians think of as prayer. Meditation on the “Our Father” over a period of roughly 45 minutes makes one realize that the prayer is more than just a liturgical element, but it was adopting a meditation practice rather than the contemporary “speaking prayer that showed me that.

I think you are right, in the duration of our lives various developments take place (or they don’t) which take us down the roads that lead to the enlightenment that is beyond mindfulness, but the path we need to be on as human-beings, or as Kabat-Zinn says, “Homo sapiens sapiens”, is one of mindfulness. This is something that we have lost to a far larger degree in the modern day than in the pre-technological age. Much of what has survived in western society has been preserved in monasteries, where the modern age wasn’t easily allowed access. That means we need to have been on that road to discover the techniques and methods that are beneficial to us.

Agreed to a certain degree, but it is also that we have difficulty in conceiving a non-doing, which becomes a deed in the moment we turn to it. The concept of simply being in the now, not doing anything but being, which is something our young children are born with, constitutes an effort in adult life. The closest we get to it is sitting on a beach watching the sun go down, or listening to music, which under certain circumstances can even invoke a bad conscience or the hearing of a ticking clock. A daily practice of meditation is “done” for this and that reason, not because we just are, or because it is the flow of the universe and we just want to flow along with it.

There a certain experiences in life in which this flow is sought for convalescence sake when we can’t keep up the action and when we are suddenly hospitalized. I have been fortunate enough to have been made aware that these situations are opportunities, and used them as such to turn away from external life and turn inwards. These circumstances have always been a revelation. Other people, supposedly spiritual people, have surprised me by bouts of panic, confessing that they can’t stand the silence. It is my observation that these people need to be doing something as much as they need to breathe; otherwise they are fearful that they could die. Often they are also very unbalanced, impulsive people, who constantly have to apologize, and suffer with nervous disorders and heart complaints.

However, I agree with you in view of your next point:

The theoretical nature of people’s knowledge, especially here on the Internet, has us discussing things that, from a practical point of view, having no real bearing on lives. I was once asked to speak on prayer in a Christian meeting and suggested that we get down and actually practise what I call a “Chamber-Experience” in which each of us find as space to be alone, closes his eyes and contemplates the “Our Father” for twenty minutes. Many people protested that they were not prepared, despite the fact that they were proud of being “witnessing” Christians (in comparison to the “submarine” Christians of mainline Churches). When I asked whether a Christian needed preparation to be “in the presence of the Lord”, I was met with assumptions that I “wasn’t prepared myself” and was just trying to “pass the time”. That was very revealing. I dare say that other people do the same in their own way, and that it isn’t just a problem of Christians, but that my experiences were mostly among Christians.

As you say, I am here to do exactly what you have described as, “comparing one’s conclusions to the conclusions of others traveling along similar paths.”

Shalom

Bob –

Thank you or starting this thread. I was most helped in the practice of meditation by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hahn who equates mindfulness with spirit. On his website it says “Thich Nhat Hanh’s key teaching is that, through mindfulness, we can learn to live in the present moment instead of in the past and in the future. Dwelling in the present moment is, according to Nhat Hanh, the only way to truly develop peace, both in one’s self and in the world.”

Yes, thanks for an excellent thread Bob. After a brief and superficial catching up with the posts, what jumps out at me is the notion of the disconnect between theory and practice. What I observe in life in general and especially on the internet is not just a gap, but a schism between living life and thinking about it. Buddhism’s key ideas were not just developed intellectually, but also experientially. Mindfulness and awareness are really extraordinarily boring as mere ideas (at least for me), and their fruits generally aren’t experienced after a learn to meditate session and a couple weeks of trying it out. As you and Felix point out, a talented and qualified speaker or author is very important in the beginning, in that they can convey something of the sustained experience of realization to the inexperienced. Once the practitioner begins to experience insights on their own, no matter how seemingly insignificant, the need for an enormous volume of inspirational material begins to lessen, and the desire for more specific and to the point practical instruction increases. I would point out that in the Buddhist tradition mindfulness/awareness practice is utilized as a precursor to the development of special insight into the nature of reality.

I have personally benefitted from Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche’s introductory meditation (i.e. in “Turning the Mind into an Ally”) in terms of its practical clarity, Suzuki Roshi’s “Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind” for sheer inspiration, and Traleg Rinpoche’s writings, especially “The Practice of Lojong” and “Mind at Ease”, for more advanced coordination of theory and practice. I’m less familiar with writings that specifically approach the topic from a cross-religious or whatever viewpoint - I think the fruit of authentic Buddhist practice is in itself the lessening of ideological fixation and opening oneself to reality as it is as opposed to how we think it is, or want it to be.

I find his “Zen Keys” to be especially good.

Hi anon and Felix, welcome to the thread,

Exactly, this problem is something that seems to bite me more than anything else. I have questioned some people on the internet as to their personal practise and found people telling me to mind my own business, but when I speak to people, they are ready to show me their “spot” or shrine and even meditate with me. The most important thing to my mind is also that spiritual practise is something that has to be something regular in our lives to enable us to really hear, see, feel, taste and smell what life is about.

Yes, even what we should regard as “normal” insight into the nature of reality is dependent upon awakening and recognising that we have often been duped by some illusion or conditioning or simply our narrow-mindedness. In the Bible we often read the word “Behold” (אה - râ’âh or הנּה - hinnêh) which means “see!” This is an expression which tries to attract our attention, which is precisely what is lacking.

Yes, quotes from Suzuki Roshi that I have beard from Gil Fronsdal in his talks have left a deep impression on me, which probably gave me an inclination to ask further. Alan Watts speaks highly of him in his books as well, but I have only read D.T. Suzuki, although his Introduction to Zen Buddhism is brilliantly written and his exchange with Thomas Merton impressive. I can see though that there is enough yet to be read – as long as the reading doesn’t take us away from practise.

The most imposing thing I heard about D.T. Suzuki is his understanding of the Old Testament and explanation of Zen using the analogies of Genesis. Roughly speaking he described the intention of mindfulness as a road back to Eden, albeit without ignoring the fact that human beings have the knowledge of good and evil, but it is a road back to a mind state which isn’t disturbed by the illusions of duality and imbalance.

Thanks for the contributions!
Shalom

I feel that the knowledge of old testament or Judaic/Islamic/zen text isn’t always helpful when it comes to many practices on “awareness” are concerned.

People coming from book based religions have generally bad habit of relating anything to a text or two from their book, and often it’s nearly automatic.
I think they do it because of their education and training in their religions, but also referring (connecting) to certain text gives them (false) sense of security.
I mean, by making a connection, they can somewhat feel they know/understand it, although it’s not always true.

Also, in the awareness related practices, any automatic reaction of mind is a chatter noise.

Other than that, trying to fit anything to books is more complicated than trying to see things as they are without preconceived surface knowledge.

On top of that, in a certain state of awareness, perception and especially interpretation (which would happen later) can be contaminated/colored by anything unrelated. I mean, if you have slightest mental expectation for religious element, it may perceived and appear as if it’s real.
It can be seen as a good sign within religious communities since it appears to certify their interpretation, but it’s a kind of self orchestrated delusion. A sort of vicious cycle where you can go deeper and deeper into expectation and (apparent but fake) manifestation.

So, I tend to think it’s better to use only technical (or even mechanical) element out of any cultural/religious junk for purely “awareness” oriented practice.

Other than that, I prefer to use awareness rather than “mindfulness”, because some people can mistake it for mental chanting (such as “OK, I’m doing this, now”, “Oops, I have to be mindful”), although certain school may advocate these for novice.

Hi Nah,

That’s OK, everybody has their approach. Mine is via texts and scriptures because it is what I am used to. Having said that, it is of course necessary to put the book down and engage in life itself, since being aware or mindful is more important that reading and writing about it.

That may be generally true; it may also be that well read people have a habit of remembering and associating just because it is a level of experience that we can’t ignore. I appreciate that there are people who have difficulty in connecting with literature and want the immediate experience rather than reported experiences, it is only that I also find the latter valuable, even if they are not the same.

I agree with you, if such association goes beyond the mantra practise to discipline the mind. However, since we are not all recluses or monks, any regular practise may use various methods and techniques to become mindful – and each of us must decide for him or herself. I am just pleased to find people who practise at all, instead of “babbling vain words” supposedly to be heard. As I have said, I was surprised to find that some supposedly spiritual people couldn’t stand the silence.

I think that you are assuming here – I haven’t read anything to suggest that people here are doing this, or that you are not.

OK, but isn’t interpretation always contaminated? You can always choose to keep silent, but enough wise men and women have attempted to share their experiences. It may be, of course, that silence is the better way. However, if you hope to show people a Way of life, then either you let them go along with you, or you tell them this and that. Whatever, at some stage they will have to go that Way alone. I think that anything we experience will be clothed in the language of the familiar, even our thoughts on the experience, since we try to understand what we experience.

Well, if that isn’t a modern conditioning, I don’t know what is. If there is something that our modern colloquial language lacks, it is the ability to escape mere functional language in favour of experiential terminology. It is one of the reasons truth was transported in a number of literary forms prior to the scientific age. I can’t see that we can give our experiences a better expression today.

I think that mindfulness leads to awareness and I haven’t generally used to terms synonymously, although I am aware that some do. With regard to the novice – I am very unabashed a novice and would never claim otherwise. I suppose that you have past this stage. How would you define yourself – and what leads you to use that definition?

Shalom

Hi Bob,

A good thread that begins to cut away from all the is-isn’t garbage. :slight_smile:

I have said repeatedly that the difference is in being; not being as. I suppose the brevity was a little too little… :unamused:

Yes, simple. But perhaps too simple for minds caught up in the complexity of having to KNOW. Simple, but very difficult. The “betwix two worlds” is very appropriate. Grace is in seeing both and not becoming confused in which our every day experience lies.

I agree that mindfulness creates awareness. We come to awareness when we let go our pre-conceived notions and practice mindfulness. It always amazes me the things I have missed (and am missing) when I stop to practice my meditation.

On Kierkegaard: “Silence is truth.”

I tend to insist on the bad side effect of reading too much because I’ve seen many people who were losing their time/energy due to referencing habit, although it can be helpful in deepening own insight and useful in explaining certain aspect.

Also, in one mode of thinking, our brain tend to go around following any mental links between words, phrases, images, concepts, memories, etc.
But this kind of thinking isn’t very productive in “awareness” oriented thought processes, as the subject matter and point of view can get scattered without any real focus on the subject matter.
Referencing habit has similar potential hazard, too.

Yeah. Some people can’t even stand the external silence.
It’s the internal silence that matters, though.
Outside can be very noisy.

Strangely, our mind can become silent when we are exposed to extremely noisy environment.
I found it out when I was traveling in Thailand. We were dining in a restaurent (very good food) with some Thai dance (beautiful girls) going on. But, somehow, the music was extremely loud. I thought I would loose my hearing capacity. But at the same time, I experienced a bit of shift of awareness, and very silent inner state. :smiley:

So, I can enjoy punk rock concert, although I would be enjoying the silence, instead of focusing on the noise … I mean their music.

I was talking about the tendency of scripture oriented people who have habit of searching appropriate verse to connect when they hear some information.
I mean, categorizing via scripture system can be a lot more complicated than simply qualify the event. It can be an added burden, since we can see the scripture connecting practice as the second interpretation of the event after somewhat ordinary perception based interpretation has occurred.

Yes. And we may always have some expectations, and it’s not always easy to become aware of them.

It’s my observation that religious people tend to get so used to religious mental frame and caught up in it. This make it more difficult to be aware of their expectation, although they might be visible to folks who doesn’t belong to the same system.

In the previous part, I was talking about the danger of creating own reality according own (religious) expectations.
At certain stage of practice, we get what we want, more than average person.
If someone expect to meet an angel, for example, the person will see an angel.
As things like that can be welcomed in average religious mental frame, the person may no realize it’s another illusion reality, again, very easily.

In certain non-religious approach, the danger like this is well explained and anything observed is thrown away as observed/experienced things are separated objects and thus still within “relative” realm.

Actually, I think colloquial language is often enough to convey most of things.
The use of technical term has its share of danger that come with the advantages.
I prefer to use simple ordinary terms because traditional/technical tend to evoke too much junk in the mind of readers.
For example, if I use a word “nirvana”, all sorts of stupid concepts/images can come up in many people.

By using ordinary terms with a bit of precision, we can avoid this type of problem so common among people, especially those who have learned a bit.

Oh, I said novice because when we subscribe to certain school, we are a novice and the school may guide us to do this and thus.

If we are independent, we are always beginners no matter what kind of experience we have. :slight_smile:

I have been interested in the area of awareness since I was a kid.
I have experienced different states of awareness, without much effort, while playing or while doing something (or while watching girls dancing Thais dance), etc.
Later, when I started to read books related to mystic experiences and practices, I found out similarities between what I experienced.
Also, I started to understood why certain shift of awareness has happened.
I’ve visited different traditions and also small less known groups for observing what they are doing. I’ve been to Christian, Islamic (or Sufi), Jewish, Zen, Tibetan, and other group/school/community/etc, and seen different teachings/techniques and people in different state (or different variations) of awareness.

And I have teaching experiences in the industry where “awareness” is a very important factor in surviving and performing efficiently. (Some of colleagues aren’t living, anymore …) So, I know how to train students up to certain degree of awareness (in addition to teaching intellectual and technical part of training).

I can shift my awareness to different state at will, too. And I need no ritual nor special environment/preparation (although it may require a bit of time, like a few minutes, in some case, for certain state of awareness).

So, I’m not talking from surface knowledge.
But I don’t make any silly claim like I’ve been to Nirvana or seen absolute truth, and so on, unlike some other posters, here. :smiley:

My sense of it is that independent/not independent, either/or or not either/or, it simply doesn’t matter. But beginner, now that’s an inspiring idea…at least until it passes on, that is. :slight_smile:

I’ve never seen anyone write here that they’ve experienced nirvana. I can’t recall ever seeing anyone present a workable construct of it. Of course, I’d likely dismiss whatever it is, anyway, so my views aren’t going to take this anywhere, lol.

I once participated in a group that went into prisons so that inmates could have Buddhist ‘services’ (that’s what the prison administrators called it) and, as someone who’d meditated in a relatively silent environment for years, had trouble at first with the constant clamor (loudspeakers and TVs blaring, people yelling, cell doors slamming, etc.). But I soon learned to meditate by incorporating the sound into the experience. And what that’s about isn’t something I can describe well in words, other than to say that direct experience of sound without naming it or attaching to any idea of it is no different than direct experience of silence. It’s just experience.

Well, I made a bit of distinction between independent and dependent (thus following) people because dependent people are graded by their guide or system and they can see themselves as “novice”, “intermediate”, “advanced”, accordingly, while independent person goes without much measuring sticks, making it difficult to evaluate (and/or indulge) upon their position.

And when things are fresh/refreshing, we feel like a beginner, too, even near the end of our life.

“Realunoriginal” a.k.a. “unreasonable” declared he is enlightened, once or twice. :smiley:

I found that I can detach word and meaning(concept) by repeating it many times.
It’s like a mantra, but done in opposite way (since in some mantra practice, you need to keep the concept, image, emotion, or whatever with the phrase).
Any word can be used, but I think it’s easier with a name (I mean nouns) of something familiar and relatively short.
“Banana” might be good. It’s familiar and it can be pronounced in a 4 beat (including one blank) "ba-na-na- ", "ba-na-na- ", "ba-na-na- ", …
After a while, we would get no image, concept, feeling from the sound, and the loss of meanings (not just banana, but other words, too) can be amusing.
I used to do it when I was 6,7 years old, as it was funny. :smiley:

But we can enter into relatively silent state without any techniques when we get used to, although staying there for long time can be another matter.

Well that explains it, because I don’t see either one’s posts anymore, by design. :wink:

That’s been true for me, also, although over the years I’ve found that a degree of the calmness lingers and remains during my daily activities. I still can get heated up, but there has been a noticeable change in how much and for how long. Equanimity, I believe they call it.