I continue to meditate daily, which continues to astound me, on some level. Perhaps it does because I am basically a lazy person. For that reason, I am impressed by meditators that adhere to a somewhat dogmatic, pragmatic, goal driven ethos. I continue to admire many such practitioners. And I tend to shy away from those with a more “Let It Be” approach.
We are so often attracted to our polar opposite, our opposite charge. It’s helpful for me to approach meditation with discipline, but let’s face it it would also be beneficial for me to do many hours of Lovingkindness meditation, which I naturally avoid (though do do from time to time).
I found a passage in Kornfield’s Living Dharma that articulates some of these thoughts, for instance:
Choosing an approach is a much a matter of one’s personal style and karma. For some, a strict teacher, rigorous discipline, and goal-oriented practice are right. Often this approach balances with their own internal lack of discipline. For others, particularly goal-oriented individuals whose predominant expression is attainment in the world, the practices of letting go, just sitting, just watching, are a balance for their habitual striving.
Bringing the mind into balance is the essence of meditation. Striving, not striving: Both can bring balance. Eventually, whatever practice one follows must be let go of, even the practice of letting go.
I have only lazily dipped into this book, put off in parts by some of the very traditional views of the meditation teachers profiled (karma is a sticking point for me), but again I am struck by the wisdom and eloquence of Jack Kornfield. Though I’ve not really read it yet, recommended!