Blimey, ballistic commentating.

Here's a Mark Epstein joke: "What is the difference between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist? A non-Buddhist thinks there's a difference."

Here's my version of the Epstein joke: "What is the difference between a Buddhist and a Christian-Buddhist? A Christian-Buddhist *believes* there's a difference."

Fascinating stuff. I agree with Mr Siff that perhaps the intention to meditate is in and of itself an adequate frame, but at the same time, I do think that some sort of discipline (not necessarily including beds of nails and thrashing oneself with birch) has a value that goes beyond rule-making.

For example: I didn't realise how much time I spent in my daily practice in a kind of dissociated, quite unmindful state until I started counting breaths; the revelation being how infrequently I made it to ten before mind flitted off on its own little merry jaunt. I didn't have a problem with the merry jaunt, but I wouldn't have noticed it if I hadn't been counting.

“Meditation instructions that disallow thinking, reflection, or being open to the full range of experience, usually imply a distrust of the mind.”

Hang on a second, isn't that a *good* thing? Again: not in a heavy-handed way, but I thought the whole shtick was kinda about learning that the mind and all its shenaniganery needs to be taken with a hefty dose of salt. Thoughts aren't facts, etc.

Goddammit, this is Dharma Gold! Why has no-one commented on this post yet?

(I am listening to the wonderful and erudite VH and HS (VHS, ah the 80s) whilst ironing some shirts for work and wondering whether I should eat a salad for dinner or the remains of the Kidney Bean curry.)