Mindfulness

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Mindfulness

Post by jcsuperstar »

what do you mean by rightness?
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
MayaRefugee
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:15 am

Re: Mindfulness

Post by MayaRefugee »

jcsuperstar wrote:what do you mean by rightness?


Some ideal free from error, total correctness of understanding, irrefutable wisdom....something along those lines.
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Mindfulness

Post by jcsuperstar »

good luck with that...
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
MayaRefugee
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:15 am

Re: Mindfulness

Post by MayaRefugee »

Are you being sarcastic there? - :roll:

Do you know something I don't/should know?
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Mindfulness

Post by ground »

MayaRefugee wrote: 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).
MayaRefugee wrote: 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."
MayaRefugee wrote: 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
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Mindfulness

Post by Reductor »

MayaRefugee wrote:thereductor,

Thanks for your informative reply, I apologise if I am irritating you which it seems I am doing - :?
I'm not irritated so much as I am trying to challenge you.

As to your motive of disentangling others: first you need to disentangle yourself, then it is right and proper to help another.

Now, the Buddha's 'rightness' was not a permanent thing that passed away into Nibbana with him. It was a conditioned thing that made up his being (as part of his nervous system and physical body), and all conditioned things change and pass away. When he passed away into Nibbana we mean that all that was 'him' was left behind, cold as a lump of clay (the 'rightness' included), but that there was the releasing of consciousness from the shackles of samsara. What that consciousness can be called in only 'released', as there are no descriptions that even approach it.

Why is it that he had all this 'rightness'? The answer was that he really looked at reality, with an unwavering eye. You and I need to do the same. So, for now, just suppose that Buddha was telling us that there is no lasting and true self because there really is no lasting and true self -- then look long and hard, as he directed, at those things right in the present moment. Only when you see the truth will you know for yourself, and that is just what he was instructing everyone that came across his path to do.

Even though I seem to have been hard on you in my posts, I don't want you to think that you should keep these inquiries to yourself. Don't. But also remember that hard words are not necessarily your enemy, but might be there for your benefit.

Take care.
MayaRefugee
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:15 am

Re: Mindfulness

Post by MayaRefugee »

Thanks reductor, I just got the impression I might have been out of line or not up to par, I'm only scraping the surface of Buddhism and this lead me to think maybe my questions are too basic - :shrug:

I appreciate hard words if they're well intended and not used to "take the piss" so to speak, if you're guiding me in a positive direction (which you seem to be) please keep up the hard words.

Peace.
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Mindfulness

Post by Reductor »

MayaRefugee wrote:Thanks reductor, I just got the impression I might have been out of line or not up to par, I'm only scraping the surface of Buddhism and this lead me to think maybe my questions are too basic - :shrug:

I appreciate hard words if they're well intended and not used to "take the piss" so to speak, if you're guiding me in a positive direction (which you seem to be) please keep up the hard words.

Peace.
I tend to over do my explanations at times and get, uhm, overly elaborate in my posts. :thinking: I will try to be more considerate of the fact that some posters are only beginning to scrape the surface of Buddhism. But I will still tell you what I think, to be sure :smile:

Have a good day.
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Mindfulness

Post by rowyourboat »

'This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the four foundations of mindfulness. What are the four...?

...Verily, monks, whosoever practices these four foundations of mindfulness in this manner for seven years, then one of these two fruits may be expected by him: highest knowledge (arahantship) here and now, or if some remainder of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nysa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good luck!

with metta

RYB
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Mindfulness

Post by Myotai »

Interesting thread. However, what I see is a Theravada perspective struggling in terms of describing what it is that experiences or maybe mnore to the point what is it that is aware.

I think the Prasangikas' have this sorted (sorry Tilt)!

Two levels of reality. Conventional and Ultimate.

Ultimately there is no self. Utterly unfinable wither within aggregates or externally from them.

However, it appears conventionally as an appearance to mind in dependence upon those very aggregates. Just like a rainbow appears in dependence upon causes and conditions. But we also know its not really there...but there it is....ad infinitum!

Also just a small point, someone mentioned that "Mind can know itself". I think that logic falls down. Mind knowing itself is like saying a knife can cut itself. Mind is not a singularity, its another appearance in dependence upon a stream of thoughts, a narrative of sorts.

Knowing is a thought, awareness is an implication of a meeting between subject and object. Awareness is not a thing either.

Just my thoughts.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mindfulness

Post by tiltbillings »

Myotai wrote:Interesting thread. However, what I see is a Theravada perspective struggling in terms of describing what it is that experiences or maybe mnore to the point what is it that is aware.

I think the Prasangikas' have this sorted (sorry Tilt)!

Two levels of reality. Conventional and Ultimate.

Ultimately there is no self. Utterly unfinable wither within aggregates or externally from them.

However, it appears conventionally as an appearance to mind in dependence upon those very aggregates. Just like a rainbow appears in dependence upon causes and conditions. But we also know its not really there...but there it is....ad infinitum!

Also just a small point, someone mentioned that "Mind can know itself". I think that logic falls down. Mind knowing itself is like saying a knife can cut itself. Mind is not a singularity, its another appearance in dependence upon a stream of thoughts, a narrative of sorts.

Knowing is a thought, awareness is an implication of a meeting between subject and object. Awareness is not a thing either.

Just my thoughts.
And if one takes Nagarjuna seriously, and there is no reason not to, "conventional" reality is no less real than "ultimate" reality. When Nagarjuna talks about two truths, sometime referred to as the "relative" and the "absolute," it is misleading, however, to make a neo-platonistic assumption here that one is "merely relative" and the other a higher, an absolute truly true truth. Both are true. The one is the truth that things exist as the result of causes and conditions, i.e., relatively, and the other is that things do not exist in any absolute sense, i.e., they are empty of any permanent, absolute, unchanging reality.
When we say one is practicing mindfulness what is it that is being mindful?

If the goal is to eventually eliminate the notion of an "I" and you actually do eliminate the notion of an "I" how could you say "I" is being mindful?
The only real question here is what is being eliminated?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Mindfulness

Post by Myotai »

The only real question here is what is being eliminated?
Maybe just the notion of an inherently existent 'I'...?
User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Mindfulness

Post by Myotai »

Also I agree that an undue emphasis on one of the Two Truths is skewed.

Thing is though that most people will agree with convention, by impliation, things do exist.

Problem is that when we only see conventional truth its massively one sided and produces suffering.

Seeing Ultimate Truth reveals the wiring behind the board and insight into phenomena (including mind, thought and stuff :quote: )

Its not that things exist or don't exist. Its more to do with their mode of existence and how we experience that.

Things do exist, their appearance however is deceptive.

What do you think? (no pun intended!)
rohana
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: Mindfulness

Post by rohana »

Dan74 wrote:As far as I can tell awareness is the fundamental, it defies description.

Is this really contentious?
It could be contentious, if you're implying that viññāna is not dependently arisen.

In this excellent talk by Bhikkhu Anālayo he points out that it's very important to proceed to a stage where one realizes that 'that which is aware' is also arising and passing away, to prevent one from holding onto viññāna as a substantial entity.

From the talk:
    • "Udayabbhaya ñāna - rise and fall. That's a key experience. Experiencing 'myself' - body and mind, without any exception as something that is impermanent. Something that arises and passes away. And this is the main working ground for vipassanā meditation. And it's not that easy because they often have it that meditators do experience body passing away and part of the mind, but there's somehow that feeling of that which knows impermanence being a cozy little stable thing. So everything's passing away, passing away... but there's this very nice thing - I'm sitting back, and that experience of knowing that change. And it's very very important to catch out that part. Because when that moves, things really are moving. Then really vipassanā starts."
      - Bhikkhu Anālayo
"Delighting in existence, O monks, are gods and men; they are attached to existence, they revel in existence. When the Dhamma for the cessation of existence is being preached to them, their minds do not leap towards it, do not get pleased with it, do not get settled in it, do not find confidence in it. That is how, monks, some lag behind."
- It. p 43
rohana
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: Mindfulness

Post by rohana »

tiltbillings wrote:And if one takes Nagarjuna seriously, and there is no reason not to, "conventional" reality is no less real than "ultimate" reality. When Nagarjuna talks about two truths, sometime referred to as the "relative" and the "absolute," it is misleading, however, to make a neo-platonistic assumption here that one is "merely relative" and the other a higher, an absolute truly true truth. Both are true. The one is the truth that things exist as the result of causes and conditions, i.e., relatively, and the other is that things do not exist in any absolute sense, i.e., they are empty of any permanent, absolute, unchanging reality.
I think Ven. Ñānānanda's discussion of the Madhyāmika system can be relevant here:
  • Thus the main prong of attack is levelled at the concept of the soul as the controlling agent who is capable of experiencing happiness, which necessarily has to be permanent in order to be perfect. It is true that what gives rise to this notion is the idea of permanence or substantiality, but this latter is sufficiently rendered by the term 'nicca'. The illusion of substantiality is linked with the psychological impulse for happiness (sukha), which in its turn sustains the illusion of the ego (attà). Now, the Mâdhyamika system often seems to stress this notion of substantiality underlying the illusion of an 'âtman', thereby giving an objective twist to that word. As already indicated, the word 'nicca' by itself does sufficient justice to this primary notion of substantiality which originates at the cognitive level. In 'sukha' and 'attà' we have the affective and conative reactions to the illusion of permanence. Hence selfhood is to be found at the innermost conative impulses within the mind. It is not something out there in the material objects or in concepts, for that matter. It is what we attribute to them or superimpose on them. Therefore, to believe that by merely demolishing concepts or theories one can rise above them is to stop at the fringe of the problem. In coining the two expressions, 'pudgala nairâtmya' and 'dharmanairâtmya', the Mâdhyamikas seem to have ignored the original significance of the term 'anattà’. According to the early Buddhist point of view, there can be no basis for such a distinction since the dharmas or elements, when they are regarded as being one's self or as belonging to one's self, would thereby become objects of his mind and part of his five aggregates. When it was said that one should look upon all dhammas as anattâ, it only meant that one has to regard them as not being one's own self or a part thereof. Perhaps a better way to bring out the crux of the present argument would be to pose the question whether there will be any dharma-nairâtmya left over to be realised, when one has realised the so-called pudgala-nairâtmya.

    - Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought, Bhikkhu Ñānānanda
"Delighting in existence, O monks, are gods and men; they are attached to existence, they revel in existence. When the Dhamma for the cessation of existence is being preached to them, their minds do not leap towards it, do not get pleased with it, do not get settled in it, do not find confidence in it. That is how, monks, some lag behind."
- It. p 43
Post Reply