I'm planning to do samatha in the morning for energy during the day.
Right.
And in the evening, balance with vipassana.
Is that OK, or should I do it always in combination or completely apart?
Oh, that's interesting, no?
Well, power to you.
I mean, jeez, the Buddha said samatha and vipassana are the two greatest, or just the greatest benefit, the most wonderful thing.
So if you're doing both of them, wow.
It's like, good for you.
I can think of far worse things you could be doing.
But there are issues with doing two different techniques.
If you're doing one technique in the morning and one technique in the evening, then you've got twice as much to train your mind in, because your mind has to become accustomed to the practice.
So why not do something that has both Samatha and Vipassana together?
Why not practice both of them together?
You say Samatha brings you energy.
Well, that's interesting.
That's a good reason, I suppose.
I never found the need to practice Samatha for energy.
I remember doing tree planting.
Spent a month doing tree planting.
And here, look, I was not much bigger than I am now.
A little bit more muscular.
And I just did Vipassana, and it was incredible for energy.
It was amazing that I was able to keep up with...
some of the best planters out there, because I just had such dedication.
You know, the Vipassana gives you such ability to do without feeling, without flagging, to push yourself physically, without worrying, without stopping, without giving in.
I don't know.
I'm not keen on the whole Samatha in the morning for energy thing.
I think Samatha is something that you should do in the forest or in some sort of seclusion because if you can't get free from the... Ajahn Chah even said Samatha is based on craving.
I don't know if I'd go so far, but he said this.
Or based on clinging.
One or the other, it's either based on craving or clinging.
if you're only practicing it for energy well then it might actually be detrimental because it'll create a sort of addiction to it almost if you don't get into the jhanas where you're free from that and you know even if you do there is an argument to be made for it the intellectual or the abstract clinging to the jhanas when you come out of them then your craving comes back you can
actually pray for them, or become addicted, or even give rise to views.
I would say vipassana is of much more potential value to someone who has to go to work, someone who's not a monk, because it relates directly to your experience.
Samatha is an escape from your experience.
I think that's valid.
Anybody?
Anybody else?
Who's here?
Owen disappeared.
Yeah, I started off meditating doing Samatha and then I moved over to Insight Meditation later.
I think they both have their benefits.
I mean, I don't do Samatha at the moment, but it can be very good for quieting down the mind, you know, Samatha, giving you a kind of calmness which you can build on.
Yeah.
What if you were to use the abdomen in a way for Samatha, for your Samatha practice?
That's difficult because the abdomen is impermanent, it's changing.
In Samatha you need an object that is stable, that you can rely upon.
The abdomen can't be relied upon.
If you do some Samatha it's not really bad.
The bigger problem I think is with having two techniques.
For me it seems too much, too much trouble.
See, we always want to make things more complicated than they need be.
So having two different meditation techniques, think of what that's doing to your poor brain that has to now grapple with two different modes of mental behavior.
Maybe that's unfair because it's actually maybe good for the brain to have to work out.
But if you're working, if you have to work during the day, it just seems better to keep it simple.
I don't know.
Nothing wrong with either of those things.
If it gets to be a routine where you do one every morning, one in the evening, sure.
Why not?