>>41749949
if you dont tackle anapanasati first and master it thoroughly, your ongoing results will be sporadic
as master Nan said, "like a blind cat accidentally bumping into a freshly dead rat"

>>41750065
Is it normal that I found the simple third-eye meditation more enlightening than breat-focused meditation?

I tried all types of breath-focused meditation, focusing the air going in and out, of the pause between each breaths, of the turn of the breath, etc. I figured that this was mostly a Buddhist thing to do these types of meditations, that enlightenment could be achieved through any of the 112 techniques, and it was more "efficient" to find a technique that works and to stick to it.

>>41750123
>than breat-focused meditation
Yes, because water and air worship is polluted in the KaliYuga. Only fire worship is the fastest anf cleanest way. Earth will take you eons but is also a safe way.

>>41750229
Do the 112 techniques have elements attached to them?

>>41749949
Are those for concentration or insight or both? I find that the more progress you make, the less you need techniques, especially with the sort of insight practice that gets you to enlightenment.
Techniques are extremely useful prior to stream entry, but after that, progress just happens on its own, kinda like how the brain naturally wakes up on its own once it detects the sun in the morning.
The one that was most useful to me was "Noting", where you just slap a label on any low-level sensations as they're perceived, while keeping in mind their annica, anatta, and dukkha. I also threw in some rapid pinpoint-style body scan, where my attention darted all over the body while perceiving the 3 characteristics. Also did some self-inquiry, but got stream entry like a month after starting that, so can't say if worked really fast or if I was already almost there.
Using techniques now (except for concentration practice, which could use some more discipline) just feels like using training wheels on a bike I already know how to ride.

>>41750123 NTA. Breath meditation aims to cultivate single-pointed concentration of the mind, a prerequisite for success in other meditation practices because the untrained mind is perpetually scattered. As the simplest and most universally accessible method, it can spontaneously deepen into dhyana. Furthermore, pranayama cannot be practiced effectively without first establishing this foundation of breath awareness.

>>41750634
I would say it's to achieve ego dissolution, to see my true self. This is why I said that I had more success with third-eye meditation. After regular practice I managed to not only clearly see my thoughts, but I was able to detach from them. My consciousness sort of retreated to the back of my skull while my thoughts appeared as movies in the front of my skull. This was mostly occurring during my meditation practices, but I would sometimes be able to carry this detachment during daily life, during which time I was able to see that my thoughts were not my own. They felt like a radio playing in the next room. It gave me a sense of peace and tranquility which I was not able to achieve with breath-only meditation.

File: 6-Tantra-Books-You-Should(...).jpg (65 KB, 1300x817)

65 KB JPG

>>41749949
I don't like Osho, neither his attitude nor his writing style, but the book in the Pic comments on the 112 meditations in a way that I find very valuable. You can find the book very easily.

>>41750123
>Is it normal that I found X more enlightening
its completely normal that you have a bad idea of what enlightenment is
people dont like the conditioning part
but all the top tier folks got mad conditioning
doesnt matter what sport

>>41750730
>My consciousness sort of retreated to the back of my skull while my thoughts appeared as movies in the front of my skull. This was mostly occurring during my meditation practices
deviations from proper practice
all distractions should be ended immediately upon detection

>>41753802
I started reading >>41750763 and it specifically says that every technique can lead to enlightenment. What is "proper" practice?

>>41754030
>every technique can lead to enlightenment
pure unadulterated balderdash
>What is "proper" practice?
daydreaming is not proper practice
letting your thoughts play out while you're watching them like its TV is not proper practice
just focusing on the 3rd eye without its context in an overall paradigm isnt proper practice
the road is narrow my fren
there would be lots more light in the world if enlightenment were that easy

>>41754102
>pure unadulterated balderdash
Why?

>daydreaming is not proper practice
That's not what I meant. I meant that the thoughts were visible from a third person point of view. I was no longer "in" my thoughts, as I am when I daydream. With the TV analogy, regular unconscious daydreaming would be like being glued to the TV, fully engaged in show, reacting to what would be going on the screen. When I was able to achieve detachment, it would be like I was just in the living room, the TV playing in the background, with me not paying attention to it, and if I was curious and wanted to see what's on TV, I wouldn't be totally engaged in it, I would be aware that I am watching TV, I would be aware of my surroundings.

>the road is narrow my fren
Sounds like gatekeeping BS.

>>41754169
>Why?
because quite simply, every practice does not lead to enlightenment
enlightenment is talked about mainly by people that have no real understanding of it
it is literal, one who is enlightened will literally shine, visibly
it is high efficiency
and not all practices qualify
>the TV playing in the background
the TV's gotta be shut off if high efficiency is to be attained
thus it becomes that attenuating the ruminating mind until it stops ruminating is a key thing
because when the spiritual light first manifests, any rumination of the mind destroys the light
this is because thinking and the light share the same source
the arising of the light requires buildup of this source
rumination is a blowoff valve mechanism that balances energy
this balance needs to be achieved via awareness if the spiritual light is to arise
>Sounds like gatekeeping BS
just being real with ya
for the road is indeed narrow
its part of "all practices do not necessarily lead to enlightenment"
just some of them
most are just shaping and enhancing, which doesnt directly lead to enlightenment
the most direct way is to attain absolutely superlative stillness
but even that is just getting one's foot in the door

>>41754169
You have it right, gatekeeping does not correlate with enlightenment.

The one rule which is hardest for the judgmental mind to follow is, "treat everyone as though they are enlightened"
Prevents ego clash which would delay belief propagation

>>41750730
For comparison, a successful buddhist practice will cause your mind to release clinging to all the low-level sensations that make up your experience in real time, causing a euphoric and liberating feeling during insight meditation. If you keep it up, everything will blip out of existence momentarily and when you come back, that sense of liberation will become your new baseline. It sounds like you've made some progress toward that, but you'll get better results trying to perceive no-self rather than true-self.

File: Moksha by Constant Medita(...).png (1004 KB, 660x2094)

1004 KB PNG

>>41754030
>every technique can lead to enlightenment. What is "proper" practice?
Kind of depends on your religion.

In Hindu texts, enlightenment comes from meditating on God, by chanting a mantra continuously. Once you attain enough wisdom and union with the deity, shredding your individual ego and replacing it with divine consciousness, you attain moksha, and go to the heavenly abode of that deity permanently.

In buddhism the goal is different, because they do weird things like denying the important and existence of God/god(s) and the soul.
So you just kinda learn to shut-off your mind and destroy your ego and personality, and eventually your karma burns out, and you just kinda exist as some egoless sorta conscious but not really conscious thing in the afterlife. Some buddhists follow the hindu route by taking up a mantra, so they instead meditate on some aspect of god. But other buddhists just kinda try to shut off their mind and destroy their personality. I dunno this way doesn't really seem appealing to me.
They think all life contains suffering, so even if the ratio of suffering to enjoyment is 100:1, they would still rather off themselves.

File: Moksha.png (59 KB, 853x499)

59 KB PNG

>>41755263
Oh yeah, so just like some buddhists will try a hindu approach to moksha (by meditating on a mantra as their primary practice), the reverse scenario occurs when hindus try the buddhist approach to enlightenment. This is when you get yogic methods like raja yoga. Where somehow meditating with extreme concentration, without having any introspective insights on your personality, is supposed to bring enlightenment.

There's different techniques for different schools of thought.

File: Enemies of the Mind.png (266 KB, 1259x1587)

266 KB PNG

There is also the karmic and moral purity perspective on towards liberation.
In this view, liberation comes when the mind reaches a sufficient level of purity.
The purpose of incarnation into this material world of suffering is only for the purpose of working out karma and purifying the mind.
When the defects of the mind are sufficiently eliminated and replaced with heavenly virtues, you are allowed to permanently stay in heavenly bliss, and no longer forced to incarnate.
Has a strong backing in Vedic Astrology, and the moral writings of many major religions.

One can purify their mind through mundane actions like service to others, rather than requiring esoteric methods.

Their desire for wordly things is totally burn out and replaced with heavenly desires, so they have no more cause to incarnate.

>>41755263
>In Hindu texts, enlightenment
Enlightenment is not a thing in Hinduism. Nor is Hinduism reducible to a single "this is what you do."
Stop mashing things together.
You're that Hindutva faggot that kept hoping for dharma AMAs, arent you?

File: Knowledge of Brahman, Agn(...).png (282 KB, 661x701)

282 KB PNG

>>41755296
>moksha vs enlightenment
Oh well.
Perhaps you realize that OP posted a hindu book, and imediately the buddhist breath guy jumped in saying that only the narrow buddhist path is valid?

>Nor is Hinduism reducible to a single "this is what you do."
Hence why I made three posts in a row from different angles.

>>41755319
>moksha vs enlightenment
Self-realization. Not all Hindus care or strive for moksha.
>You're that Hindutva faggot that kept hoping for dharma AMAs, arent you?
I knew it.
Stop pushing your shitty nationalist take here.

File: Gayatri repetitions.png (143 KB, 1062x702)

143 KB PNG

>>41755414
Uh ok?
Perhaps you need to do some introspective meditation to realize you're still a cunt?

>Stop pushing your shitty nationalist take here.
Never mentioned any politics.
Just mentioned hinduism in a hindu thread.
Despite buddhist posters imediately jumping in saying that only a narrow buddhist path will work, and then proclaiming that enlightenment is the only possible goal in meditation, and that there is no point in doing absolutely anything else for any reason.
But ok.
Have fun with that.

>You're that Hindutva faggot that kept hoping for dharma AMAs, arent you?
I have no idea who that is, since I never post about politics.

scholars shitting up threads about what they read

>>41755263
>like denying the important and existence of God/god(s)
No, Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of gods. It simply states that gods are mundane fucks, even those without a body, like the pure consciousness ones. They are just as unenlightened as humans, despite being infinitely more powerful. Any enlightened human is above the gods.
>soul
The concept of a soul is an ego-construct. In the minds of worldly people, it is tied to their personality, sensations, and other transient phenomena. This very identification with it hinders enlightenment.
>But other buddhists just kinda try to shut off their mind and destroy their personality
You misunderstand the purpose of non-attachment. The goal of Buddhist practice is not to destroy anything, but to completely eliminate the delusions that prevent wisdom from manifesting.

>>41755319
>hindu
I am not into cow shit, jeety saar

>>41749949
>pic is borderline literal hexagram
Jeet shit is demonic

File: Pratyadi Devatas.png (844 KB, 931x479)

844 KB PNG

>>41756995
>Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of gods.
Theraveda denies the importance of God in the spiritual journey.
A spiritual destination that denies the importance of God, cannot have good results.
It turns into a philosophy of death rather than life.

>Any enlightened human is above the gods.
OK. And a screwdriver is better at driving screws than the human hand.

>The concept of a soul is an ego-construct.
Ah so you're following a nihilist philosophy of death.

>This very identification with it hinders enlightenment.
What gets enlightened when the final goal is spiritual death?

>You misunderstand the purpose of non-attachment.
It wasn't about non-attachment.
It was about a death philosophy that buddhists who deny the importance of God get sucked into.

>the delusions that prevent wisdom from manifesting.
The delusions you have about God/god(s) would be a good place to start.

>>41757023
gatekeeping yourself

>>41757124
>A spiritual destination that denies the importance of God, cannot have good results.
The duality between external and internal, man and gods, is primitive and rooted in ignorance.
>Ah so you're following a nihilist philosophy of death
The concept of a soul is a dualistic notion that has no bearing on the reality beyond the ego.
>What gets enlightened when the final goal is spiritual death?
Why did you coin the term "spiritual death"? I will not answer your question by your rules. Your lack of understanding regarding Buddhism is not my problem.
>It was about a death philosophy that buddhists who deny the importance of God get sucked into.
There exists an entire class of gods, the Brahmas, who, wielding immense power, consider themselves creators. They are virtually indistinguishable from the Biblical Elohim and similar deities. They are still deluded beings.
>The delusions you have about God/god(s) would be a good place to start
I will not return to primitive dualism.

>>41749949
#56 worked pretty well for me, but I didn't set out to do it as a meditation, nor had I ever heard of it as a technique of meditation.
#86 also interestes me deeply because I like to attempt to visualize a 5 dimensional reality. My favorite method was to lightly hold the heart rate sensors on the stairmaster, close my eyes, and imagine I am pushing a shipping cart through a 5th dimension market. I did not know it was on the list.
I practiced number 7 after reading it and after a few days I dreamed i was a buddhist monk taking pottery to market over a deep valley in a cable car. I saw a photo of that valley many years later.

>>41754030
Perhaps but not for every person. That's why there's 112 given.

>>41756995
>No, Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of gods.
Yes it does. Devas arent gods. Saying a god is just like a man is saying there are no gods.

>>41757567
>Yes it does
No.
>Devas arent gods
Devas are gods. In Buddhism, however, these samsaric deities are still subject to karma and rebirth. Figuratively speaking, many spiritually developed people can be reborn as a deva. Yet when their good karma expires, a fall from that state is inevitable.

>>41757605
>still subject to karma and rebirth
So not gods.
>many spiritually developed people can be reborn as a deva
Yes. Devas are not Paramatma. Not god.
We have all been devas before.

go argue about buddhism & vedanta in another thread, ffs
and leave your own personal pet theories about muh no soul outta here
you scholars should go cultivate instead of worrying about what the definitions of words are