Best way to develop different meditation practices (simultaneously or not)

Having provided a traditional reply to this question, I see a need to address the phrase “the ability to separate my ego and my will.” This phrase is probably a (mistaken) reference to the notions of anatta (no self) in Theravadin and Mahayana Buddhism. Part of the problem of understanding anatta is that the two notions are very different from one another. According to Peter Harvey, in his book, The Selfless Mind, the Self (atman in Sanskrit) was “not a personal ‘self’” and was beyond the experience of an “empirical individuality.” In fact, the experience of this atman could be achieved only through samadhi. The objective of Hindu meditation was to experience this Self. According to Theravadin Buddhism, this experience of Self was an illusion because it was experienced as having no cause. (All objects experienced in the state of samadhi appear to be without cause, an illusion created by the experience of only one object at a time, a property of samadhi.) This experience of Self is not an experience of ego, which is the experience of a personal or empirical self. In order to defeat this notion of atman, the Buddha merely needed to point out that the self experienced in ordinary life, in a state of upacara samadhi, or even through one of the siddhis, was a composite and/or product of interacting factors. In essence, the Buddha was advising people to not bother looking for this Self because it did not exist to begin with.

But this is not the view developed by Nagarjuna of Mahayana Buddhism. For Mahayana Buddhism, the personal or empirical self is a serious problem that can be overcome only by an experience of sunyata (emptiness or absolute truth) while in a state of samadhi. Hence, according to Mahayana Buddhism, the existence of an empirical self or ego is merely a relative truth and not an absolute truth. It is important to observe that the belief in an “ego” or a “will” is in the realm of relative truth and both beliefs are false in the realm of absolute truth. The belief that anyone has “the ability to separate my ego and my will” is therefore not true from the point of view of either Theravadin or Mahayana Buddhism. It is entirely possible, of course, that it may be considered to be true from the point of view of another religion or philosophy. Such a consideration is beyond my expertise.

Just for the record, the concept of ego is a reference to object causality while the concept of will is a reference to process causality. All mental and bodily actions can be viewed from the point of view of either concept of causality. In the case of object causality, we talk about a person as the cause of his or her actions. In the case of process causality, we talk about a sequence of cognitive processes starting with perception, various decision-making processes, the selection of a best action plan, and ending with the performance of a particular action. In essence, object causality (ego) is merely short-hand for process causality (will). Viewed in this way, trying to “separate” the two does not make sense.

The first thing that must be said is that metta, the Brahma-vihara, samadhi, and mindfulness meditation (vipassana) are closely related and are major practices of Theravadin Buddhism. Metta, of course, in one of the four practices of the Brahma-viharas. And the practice of mindfulness meditation has the purpose of bring psychological insight into karma (sankhara), including the sankhara or origins of the Brahma-vihara deep within the unconscious mind. The proper practice of mindfulness meditation requires achieving a state of upacara samadhi. For some people, the practice of samadhi helps a person develop the state of calm needed to achieve upacara samadhi. According to traditional Theravadin Buddhism, the practice of mindfulness meditation is the only practice that facilitates progress towards Enlightenment. Of the four Brahma-viharas, only the contemplation of compassion is directly conducive to gaining insight into the karma of other people, the kind of knowledge needed to help relieve the suffering of others. This is the view of Theravadin Buddhism. Mahayana and Zen Buddhism have different views.