Mindfulness

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

When we say one is practicing mindfulness what is it that is being mindful?

If I want to get rid of a habit I am mindful . . . Just being mindful does not necessarily imply concepts of there someone being who is mindful and there something being the someone is being mindful of. "Thinking about doing" is not the "doing".

Here we have a very different take on "mindfulness" than is usually taught in the Burmese style vipassana traditions.

[ground]

Greetings,

When we say one is practicing mindfulness what is it that is being mindful?

If I want to get rid of a habit I am mindful . . . Just being mindful does not necessarily imply concepts of there someone being who is mindful and there something being the someone is being mindful of. "Thinking about doing" is not the "doing".

Here we have a very different take on "mindfulness" than is usually taught in the Burmese style vipassana traditions.

Interesting. Could anyone explain briefly in other words what "Burmese style vipassana" is?

[mikenz66]

Interesting. Could anyone explain briefly in other words what "Burmese style vipassana" is?

Tilt probably means the Mahasi Sayadaw school, including U Pandita and others:

See, for example:
http://aimwell.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pesala/Pan ... structions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://aimwell.org/Books/Other/Guidelin ... l#Practice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta
Mike

[tiltbillings]

Interesting. Could anyone explain briefly in other words what "Burmese style vipassana" is?

What Mike said.

[jcsuperstar]

i have no idea where this thread just went....

but back to the OP

When we say one is practicing mindfulness what is it that is being mindful?

first off "When we say one is practicing mindfulness" we are at that moment speaking in conventional terms so that we can understand each other.

when we are actually practicing mindfulness there is just mindfulness or at least attempting to be in a state of just mindfulness .

[MayaRefugee]

Is there not an entity/subject/set of conditions that is/are conscious/aware of what is going on in the mind i.e. something like a judge that does the discernment/destroying of unwholesomeness/purification?

[Reductor]

Is there not an entity/subject/set of conditions that is/are conscious/aware of what is going on in the mind i.e. something like a judge that does the discernment/destroying of unwholesomeness/purification?

There is, kind of.

The mind is aware of itself and all those things that enter it via the 5 senses. The mind is actually the result of a large number of conditions and is always changing because of conditions. It is not stable or permanent and is not self, but I suspect you would like to take it as self.

Even the standards that are taken as ideal by which the mind attempts to modify itself, even they are mental constructions which are not permanent. The mind changes under their influence, and they change under the influence of society at large, which is changing under the influence of time and the universe, which is also changing... and so on.

Consciousness lays at the root of the mind. It can be called impermanent because the objects it is aware of are always changing -- so rapidly it is hard to keep track of. If you sit for a little bit and try to see consciousness, you might notice that the consciousness that is evident can only be described in terms of what it is aware of. Unless you describe the object you can't really describe consciousness, except to say that it is aware; but what would it look like, be like, if it was not aware of all these vagrant objects and conditions that come with being alive?

Can you, should you, take an essentially unknown element as your 'self' when you don't really know it? As for everything else that you might call 'self': should you try to identify it as your true 'self' when its existence relies completely upon conditions that change and rest on the world at large, which you have very little input upon and control over?

Now, all this typing but I suspect you will still doubt the absence of an abiding entity. The best course of action, if you want to understand what the Buddha and all these Buddhists are getting at, is to sit quietly and take notice of the thoughts and feeling, memories and labels that flutter through your mind: look to see "Where did it come from - why did I become aware of it" and try to see "where did it go - why am I no longer aware of it" Perhaps you will quickly understand, perhaps not. But are you willing to actually look?

As and aside: weigh yourself in the morning, at noon and then at night. You'll notice that your weight is different each time. Why?

Anyway, I think I'm done.

[PeterB]

Is there not an entity/subject/set of conditions that is/are conscious/aware of what is going on in the mind i.e. something like a judge that does the discernment/destroying of unwholesomeness/purification?

No. Or perhaps Yes.
The only way to understand is to pick a meditation method. Receive instruction in it. Preferably hands on, and pursue it to its end. You can struggle for the rest of your life to pin down five philosophical fleas one under each finger. The trouble is you get the third one pinned and the first escapes. You pin down the first again and number four wriggles free. There is no end to speculation and discursive thought. In the end Buddhism is about bums on cushions.

[MayaRefugee]

thereductor,

Thanks for your informative reply, I apologise if I am irritating you which it seems I am doing -

I have it in my head that it's possible to refine your motivations and mental formations to the point where they reflect rightness. I'm having trouble understanding how there cannot be something that possesses/sustains this rightness for repeated application.

I imagine The Buddha to have refined and maintained an arsenal of rightness enabling him to consistantly profess the specifics of the Dhamma and also teach/give answers/suggestions repeatedly to peoples troubles - I am interested in how he did this - IMO certain cues elicited certain responses and these responses to my way of thinking must of come from an arsenal of rightness.

I wonder what this arsenal of rightness would be?

If I am trying to see something as my "self" it would be this arsenal of rightness.

I guess here I'm moving more toward the nature of insight/wisdom that has been derived from mindfulness and trying to fathom where it is stored/what posseses this insight/wisdom or what allows it to be professed.

peterb,

I don't really want to "know" or practice anything just for my own benefit, I would one-day like to be able to use this "knowing" to help others untangle themselves from distress so formulating a way to communicate what I "know" is pretty important to me at this stage.

Peace.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings MayaRefugee,

I have it in my head that it's possible to refine your motivations and mental formations to the point where they reflect rightness. I'm having trouble understanding how there cannot be something that possesses/sustains this rightness for repeated application.

It's interesting... that's much like the prevailing views in India prior to the Buddha's enlightenment. The problem is though, according to the Buddha, that even this rightness is based on conditions, and thus impermanent. Therefore, it may be wholesome, but it's not going to lead to nibbana.

Metta,
Retro.

[jcsuperstar]

what do you mean by rightness?

[MayaRefugee]

what do you mean by rightness?

Some ideal free from error, total correctness of understanding, irrefutable wisdom....something along those lines.

[jcsuperstar]

good luck with that...

[MayaRefugee]

Are you being sarcastic there? -

Do you know something I don't/should know?

[ground]

I have it in my head that it's possible to refine your motivations and mental formations to the point where they reflect rightness. I'm having trouble understanding how there cannot be something that possesses/sustains this rightness for repeated application.

It may be familiarization with specific thought contents that entail specific experiences, like e.g. in the case of metta meditation. We can however only observe the signs on the surface and try to conclude from these signs the basis. But our conclusion are these of ordinary minds (and we may only speculate how the workings and capacities of ordinary minds differ from those of enlightened minds).

I imagine The Buddha to have refined and maintained an arsenal of rightness enabling him to consistantly profess the specifics of the Dhamma and also teach/give answers/suggestions repeatedly to peoples troubles - I am interested in how he did this - IMO certain cues elicited certain responses and these responses to my way of thinking must of come from an arsenal of rightness.

I wonder what this arsenal of rightness would be?

The "arsenal of rightness (for others)" may be concluded from what he taught and how he taught:
Application of (common) language that his listeners can understand.
Teachings that did not apply logical reasoning as contents and thus did not to stir discursive thought in his listeners althought what he taught may be interpreted to have been based on logical reasoning. The teaching content itself however focused on the crucial and practical points only and avoided speculation: Sort of "if you want to be free of dukkha then practice this and abandon that."

I guess here I'm moving more toward the nature of insight/wisdom that has been derived from mindfulness and trying to fathom where it is stored/what posseses this insight/wisdom or what allows it to be professed.

It is "possessed" by consciousness/mind and its factors. By means of sports you may train specific muscles and by means of mindfulness specific faculties based on consciousness/mind and its factors.
It manifests however as insight/wisdom for oneself and as insight/wisdom for others.


Kind regards