Steve, I agree. Every approach has its own merits. Even the way JMJM keeps lecturing about: sitting cultivating 'chi' in order to be in union with the universe, is useful in its own right. But I don't believe any of them are zen. To be aware and calm is zen. I don't have enough insight to advocate that. But before I am convinced it is wrong, I will continue that way. Anthony
--- On Sun, 10/4/11, SteveW <[email protected]> wrote: From: SteveW <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Re: Buddhist meditation practices To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, 10 April, 2011, 9:58 AM --- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote: > > STeve, > Â > If you say 'insight awareness', vipassana may fall into that category, > doesn't it? > Â > Anthony > > Hi Anthony. Yes. But I have noticed that vipassana can take widely divergent > forms. What I am referring to is any type of open witnessing of phenomena as > they arise and pass away. Single-point concentration, of course, can involve > any number of objects of concentration. IMO, open witnessing forms of > meditation lead to insight, whereas single-point concentration leads to > mental stability. Both are useful in their own right. I don't have much > practical experience with visualization, but I can see where that could be > quite useful. Neurological research has shown that the brain's neurological > wiring will react to a vivid and intense visualization in the same way as it > reacts to an actual experience. IMO. Steve
