The causes for wisdom

[kirk5a]

Several definitions of mindfulness have been used in modern psychology. According to various prominent psychological definitions, Mindfulness refers to a psychological quality that involves
bringing one’s complete attention to the present experience on a moment-to-moment basis,[8]
or involves
paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally,[8]
or involves
a kind of nonelaborative, nonjudgmental, present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises in the attentional field is acknowledged and accepted as it is.[9]
Bishop, Lau, and colleagues (2004)[10] offered a two-component model of mindfulness:
The first component [of mindfulness] involves the self-regulation of attention so that it is maintained on immediate experience, thereby allowing for increased recognition of mental events in the present moment. The second component involves adopting a particular orientation toward one’s experiences in the present moment, an orientation that is characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptance.[10]:232

Most modern Buddhists I've met think this is mindfulness - especially that element of being accepting and non-judgmental.

In Mindfulness Defined, Thanissaro Bhikkhu discusses the problems around this term and how it is sometimes used.

I agree that what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focusing on an approximation of the here and now, it is merely concentration.

I don't see where a single one of the descriptions Robert used are justified, even in relation to the (yes, probably incomplete) description of mindfulness above. Namely:
1) tedious
2) approximation of the here and now
3) merely concentration
4) without any sati
5) without any panna
6) wrong path.

The only thing which is reasonably justified is that is how some people understand mindfulness. How "common" it is, is debatable. Majority? Strong minority? Who knows.

[tiltbillings]

I think binocular's point is fair enough... in common parlance, that's precisely how mindfulness is understood.

I am not so much worried about the "common paralance" understanding of mindfulness. That has been debated in a number of different threads. It is, however, the nasty robertk characterization of "tedious focusing" and what follows that that binocular echos: "I agree that what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focusing on an approximation of the here and now, it is merely concentration." Robertk's OP statement: "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path." It is an ungrounded assertion and a wholesale dismissal of a path of practice.

TOS: Please refrain from wholesale dismissal of a particular view, approach, or teaching style.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Robertk's OP statement: "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path." It is an ungrounded assertion and a wholesale dismissal of a path of practice.

TOS: Please refrain from wholesale dismissal of a particular view, approach, or teaching style.

Maybe. Or it could just be saying that CBT (and any retreat-based equivalents) are not Dhamma, because they are not founded in the forerunner of Right View.

You can see back here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p227898 - that it was never intended as a "wholesale dismissal" of Mahasi practice. In that topic it is made quite clear why he says mindfulness cannot be "tedious"... namely because it is kusala.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

Robertk's OP statement: "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path." It is an ungrounded assertion and a wholesale dismissal of a path of practice.

TOS: Please refrain from wholesale dismissal of a particular view, approach, or teaching style.

Maybe. Or it could just be saying that CBT (and any retreat-based equivalents) are not Dhamma, because they are not founded in the forerunner of Right View.

Metta,
Retro.

I don't give a rat's tookus about CBT. No one, until you who just brought it up, has been talking about CBT. And binocular's "Western Psychology," which has not been a topic of discussuion in this thread until now, is also something that is beside the point. CBT and Western Psychology are a smelly red fish to the main topic. I have been quite clearly talking about practice in the context of the Eightfold Path, as has been pretty much everyone else who has been disagreeing with robertk's wholesale dismissal of meditation practice.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

From the aforementioned link... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p227898

But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path.

So, you are saying that -- oh, let us say -- Burmese vipassana practice is "a wrong path?"

I am mystified as to how you could possibly read that onto what I just wrote.
Did you understand that a member thought his mindfulness of brushing his teeth could feel unpleasant. This is an impossibility. According to Abhidhamma.
How does it in anyway bring the Mahasi system into play?

Tilt... what did you find insufficient about Robert's response that led to you grasping onto this quotation for so long?

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

From the aforementioned link...

But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path.

So, you are saying that -- oh, let us say -- Burmese vipassana practice is "a wrong path?"

I am mystified as to how you could possibly read that onto what I just wrote.
Did you understand that a member thought his mindfulness of brushing his teeth could feel unpleasant. This is an impossibility. According to Abhidhamma.
How does it in anyway bring the Mahasi system into play?

Tilt... what did you find insufficient about Robert's response that led to you grasping onto this quotation for so long?

Metta,
Retro.

Let us start with: it is the OP, the basis upon which which set this thread in motion. And it would have seriously helped if you provided links to the other quotes so that they could be seen in their direct contexts.

I have seen nothing, however, in what robertk has said to date that mitigates, repudiates the OP.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Let us start with: it is the OP, the basis upon which which set this thread in motion. And it would have seriously helped if you provided links to the other quotes so that they could be seen in their direct contexts.

I have... twice.

Taken in context, there's no way it could possibly be interpreted as a "wholesale dismissal of a particular view, approach, or teaching style".

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Okay. So, you are quoting stuff from another thread. So, if we are going to appeal to old threads here is robertk being plain spoken: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 210#p16923 and this is consistent this thread's OP:

• The Buddha never taught vipassana as a technique, but sadly ,and I think contributing to the decline of the sasana , in recent times there are groups who have co-opted the word to mean some type of focusing on an object/objects. It is quite easy to fool people as if they quote the satipatthana sutta (which includes countless number of objects) then it is assumed the technique is 'vipassana'. However I believe little can be done to help anyone who thinks they are 'doing' vipassana, the attachment runs too deep usually.

Quite frankly, I think what we see in this thread clearly vitiates any sort of attempt at mitigation of his anti-meditation stance.

[tiltbillings]

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p228510

• It is not that sitting and watching the breath or watching bodily sensations is going to help or hinder the path, anymore than me chosing the Belly Sandwich Shop in preference to Subway. But if one believes that it is these very operations that somehow are key to satisampajanna to arise then one is in the realm of silabataparamasa.

[tiltbillings]

One of robertk's typically snide dismissals of formal sitting practice from this thread:

Robert but how about trying sitting without any thought of I'm doing this "so understanding can grow" maybe you would enjoy it in it's own right (like swimming). Maybe you would see different things.

Why do you open a dhamma book? Is it any different?

Who is judging the quality of the different activities?

Hi mr man,
yes if sitting meditation is done in that way as something to strenghthen posture, or feel relaxed , or to take a breather from the mad pursuit of happiness, then sure it is not silabataparamasa.

For me I have my other hobbies so am not so nterested for now.

[tiltbillings]

And another http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p229309 :

Tilt:

It is hard not to read this as a flat, straight forward dismissal of sitting practice itself. Maybe you were really tired when you wrote this and you really do not mean to dismiss meditation practice as direct away of cultivating the factors giving rise to wisdom/insight

.

Think of all the suttas that say seeing and color must be directly known, must be seen with wisdom. Yet I have even heard of people closing their eyes thinking this is part of 'doing vipasaana". (I realize this is a very extreme case, possibly no Dhammawheel members would think that, but it does show the confusions that exist about what 'meditation' really is in the Buddhist sense).

[cooran]

One of robertk's typically snide dismissals of formal sitting practice from this threads?

Hello Tiltbillings,

I have never found Roberts' replies to be as you describe them above. They have seemed good mannered and equanimous in the face of misunderstanding from another (yourself mainly). Your posts have sometimes seemed rude, especially in the way you referred to a well-respected Teacher, Khun Sujin, but I tried to attribute that to different ways of speech in different countries - those from the USA are often blunt to the point where those in other countries are offended.
Equally, you may be reading into Roberts' posts an emotion that was not intended.

Anyway - helpful discussion is always interesting - but Dhamma chest bumping is a little tiring.....

With metta
Chris

[tiltbillings]

One of robertk's typically snide dismissals of formal sitting practice from this threads?

Hello Tiltbillings,

I have never found Roberts' replies to be as you describe them above. They have seemed good mannered and equanimous in the face of misunderstanding from another (yourself mainly).

To you, but they do seem snide at times to me.

Your posts have sometimes seemed rude, especially in the way you referred to a well-respected Teacher, Khun Sujin, but I tried to attribute that to different ways of speech in different countries - those from the USA are often blunt to the point where those in other countries are offended.

As for Sujin, I find little in her teachings to respect, especially after listening to the linked Q&A in this thread, as she and her student talked about the metta practice of of Buddhists who do not follow her way. It is really sad.

Equally, you may be reading into Roberts' posts an emotion that was not intended.

Maybe, but I do not think so.

Anyway - helpful discussion is always interesting - but Dhamma chest bumping is a little tiring.....

The OP in this thread opened the door for looking at Sujin's teachings, which we have seen as characterizing sitting meditation as naught more than adherence to rules and ritual grounded in lobha by her followers here.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I have never found Roberts' replies to be as you describe them above. They have seemed good mannered and equanimous...

For what it's worth, I concur with this statement from Cooran.

I find the (Dhamma Wheel-era) Robert to be a model of, well... good manners and equanimity!

As such, he is a positive advertisement for the approach to the Dhamma that he presents.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

One of robertk's typically snide dismissals of formal sitting practice from this threads?

Hello Tiltbillings,

I have never found Roberts' replies to be as you describe them above. They have seemed good mannered and equanimous in the face of misunderstanding from another (yourself mainly).

If you are going to accuse me of misunderstanding then show me what it is, exactly, that I am misunderstanding. It does no good, and it means little, making an accusation such as this without actually showing what it is that I am supposedly misunderstanding. Am I misunderstanding his characterization of meditation as a Dhamma practice? Or am I misunderstanding his presentation?

• Hi mr man,
  yes if sitting meditation is done in that way as something to strenghthen posture, or feel relaxed , or to take a breather from the mad pursuit of happiness, then sure it is not silabataparamasa.
  
  For me I have my other hobbies so am not so nterested for now.

Shall we take a careful look at this? You can tell me what I have misunderstood, and I'll tell you why I think it is snide.