Many modern Gurus propagate different techniques which they either call as ‘mindfulness meditation’ or ‘insight meditation’. They make tall claims about what these can really achieve. But actually, these are rehashing of well-known Buddhist meditative techniques. So, it is important to know about these Buddhist meditation techniques, that have a long history and are still being practiced among the Buddhists.
Though the early meditation taught by Buddha was very similar to what Patanjali talked about, later Buddhists talk about many more methods all of which are clubbed together as meditations. Whether Buddha taught them as meditation, or they evolved over a period of time, is difficult to say.
One important Buddhist meditative technique is the so called ‘Anapana sati’ or watching the breath. Modern Gurus translate this as ‘Mindfulness’, though mindfulness has a wider connotation. Originally, this meditation was meant to sharpen the mental focus.
Any prolonged exercise meant to sharpen mental focus, itself can turn out to be meditation, as I have discussed in my book “Ultimate book on Yoga – All that you want to know about Yoga”. So, it is not completely wrong to say that Anapana Sati or Mindfulness is a meditation technique.
Later Buddhists worked on elaborate meditative techniques which they called ‘Vipassana’. Modern Gurus translate it as ‘Insight meditation’. I don’t know what exactly modern Gurus teach as insight meditation, but the original Vipassana techniques were quite elaborate. They involved modulating mental states.
Neither of these techniques fit the definition given by our Swami for meditation, that I discussed in the previous episode. Swami clearly says that these are not meditations since neither of them involves personified God or Saguna Brahma. The swami accepts the former as a useful technique, though not in attaining ultimate realization. He feels that that technique could sharpen mental focus. And surprisingly that was what it was originally meant for.
Swami has no hesitation in rejecting the latter as not a meditative technique. But he also cautions that it could be harmful. I have no idea why he says that. But when I studied these Vipassana techniques from Buddhist texts, I too felt that these techniques can be quite harmful if not done with caution and with full clarity on what one wants to achieve.
Vipassana involves passive observation of mental activities – thoughts, feelings and emotions. The original idea was to understand that not just the body but also the mind is transient and undergoes changes – anicca or impermanent – a fundamental Buddhist concept.
By deeply ingraining the truth of impermanence of body and mind, a Buddhist wants to get disassociated with any bondage to the body and mind. That he believes would free him from the ‘clinging’ to the body/mind, which in turn would put an end to the cycle of births and deaths – the ultimate goal of Buddhist meditation.
A typical Vipassana meditation involves focusing the mind on many temporarily constructed objects called Kasina. The idea is to convince oneself that the body, however attractive it is, is just made up of base elements and is not permanent. They even setup elaborate and aesthetically marvelous designs called Mandalas with great concentration, and wipe them off at the end. This they do to drive home the point that everything, no matter how beautiful, has to perish and nothing is permanent.
Vipassana also has techniques that are supposed to cultivate disgust towards the body and the pleasures it could bestow. It involves meditating on rotten corpses, partially burnt bodies extracted from the funeral pyre, mutilated and partially eaten carcasses in the wild, and so on. Each of these could be abhorring, but Buddhists view them as means to develop detachment towards the body.
These techniques are some kind of forceful modulation of mental functions. I suspect, they even alter certain brain regions in an irreversible way. I have read reports that some of these Vipassana techniques change the structure of some brain areas like amygdala, that play an important role in handling our emotions. That could be quite dangerous, especially given the fact that we are yet to fully understand the functioning of the brain, and what repercussions can result by such forceful manipulations.
So, if the Swami rejects Vipassana as meditation, and even cautions against such practices, I am fully with him. Not because these techniques don’t involve meditation on ‘Saguna Brahma’, but because we are playing with something without sufficient clarity on the results. May be the original Buddhists were justified in doing them, since they were obsessed with somehow getting out of the worldly mire. But, for most ordinary folks, they are not advisable as meditative techniques.
So, next time when some Guru touts his techniques in the name of ‘Vipassana’ or ‘insight meditation’, better ask them what it involves and whether it is proven to be safe. Afterall, brain is the most valuable asset that you have 😉
Our Swami also rejects Kundalini based techniques as ‘not meditation’. That is because these techniques don’t involve any Saguna Brahma as defined by the Swami. I remember watching one video by one of the American disciples of this Swami on Kundalini based meditation. It was a wonderful lecture with lot of clarity. But towards the end, this disciple, who is also a well-known swami, refrains from endorsing Kundalini based meditation, because his Guru had discouraged him from following that path. But he admits that Kundalini based meditation did give him some special experience.
Rejecting Buddhist meditation techniques, rejecting Kundalini based meditation, leaves out vast majority of mediation fans 😉 Especially these days, almost every Guru talks in terms of Kundalini, Chakras and what not! Even the Yoga of Patanjali, which never talks about Kundalini, is presented as if it was based on this mystic concept 😉
I am amazed at the conviction of this swami who has the courage to speak out what he believes as true. Was it just a belief, or did this swami have any strong scriptural basis to come up with such a definition for meditation? As someone rightly said, “all of us are captives of our own belief systems”. May be this swami is no exception.
Or is it that he wanted to push for a more practical way of meditation within the reach of common man? Even Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that “people with strong affinity to their bodies cannot focus their minds on abstract concept of God”. Was that the reason why this scholarly Swami brings his ‘Saguna Brahma’ or personified God in his definition of meditation? Probably, he was just being too practical and wanted to stay away from abstract things which mean nothing to a common man!
Sometimes a real Guru needs to speak a language palatable to his disciples. He has to coax his students towards the right path, while protecting them from going astray. Probably, that is why this great Swami did what he did. I am just trying to find support for whatever is said by this highly respected Swami.
But did the meditation talked about in the Upanishads was also based on Saguna Brahma or personified God? Let us see that in the next episode.
No comments:
Post a Comment