Master of mindfulness, Jon Kabat-Zinn

[Spiny Norman]

I am curious as to whether those who are critical of MBSR actually have any experience of it?

"I tried it, but didn't find it satisfactory because...( insert reasons )" seems like a more credible response than "I just don't like the sound of it".

[ToVincent]

I think I understand. But remembering some of the secular mindfulness literature I have read, its generally emphasized that enjoyment is not the point, but awareness is.

And that has to be debunked and clarified once and for all.
Mindfullness' purpose is, before anything else, "recollection".
Science tells us that the best way to "recollect" is to play the DMN & the EAS in unisson, in cooperation.

Note that the external attention does not have to be "external" - that is to say towards the external ayatanāni.
In Ānāpānasati, focusing with the EAS on breath, while resting your body and mind with DMN, does not require to focus on any external ayatanāni.

[robertk]

I would say any phenomena which arises only for an instant , then ceases immediately- as all dhammas do- is insignificant and if seen as such wouldn't even need to be dismissed.

But there are moods and states of mind which persist over time, hence the need for Right Effort.

Until moha, lobha and dosa are eradicated then unwholesome states will keep rearising, that is the nature of samsara.
the right effort is already there if there is any understanding of the present moment.
But what often happens is that we resist what is arising and try to change it to what we wish would arise. Dosa about the dosa. And that is because of not understanding the conditioned nature of each moment.

[ToVincent]

But what often happens is that we resist what is arising and try to change it to what we wish would arise. Dosa about the dosa. And that is because of not understanding the conditioned nature of each moment.

Another debunking is needed here about not being able to change things.
I have shown in an above post, that science has proven that mindfulness is not just sheer "awareness".
Now, what is necessary also, is to prove that things can be changed at the "I" level (internal ayatanāni).
https://justpaste.it/1dlfh

Note that, it also shows that classical physics is debunking the myth of the making and unmaking of dhammas in a jiffy.

It is about time to see that science meets Buddha's views; and that they should be considered as such (viz. scientifically wise).

---

"Present moment", as in seeing a feeling being born from the mindfulness of breath (in doing ānāpānasati) - then seeing that feeling decay. That I do agree with.
No big deal, I suppose.

[binocular]

So thoughts are thoughts, feelings are feelings, etc. -- and then what?

Let go of.

"The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Ideas are not yours... Intellect-consciousness is not yours... Intellect-contact is not yours... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Why doesn't the Buddha give this advice to Rahula when he advises him to reflect on the consequences of his actions?

[mikenz66]

Why doesn't the Buddha give this advice to Rahula when he advises him to reflect on the consequences of his actions?

I think because they belong to different levels of development of the gradual path. Good sila is required to develop the calm and insight enabling the letting go...


Mike

[binocular]

I am curious as to whether those who are critical of MBSR actually have any experience of it?

"I tried it, but didn't find it satisfactory because...( insert reasons )" seems like a more credible response than "I just don't like the sound of it".

I can't do it, because I have no idea how to be "nonjudgmentally aware", and nobody wants to/can teach me that.
I listen to JKZ giving instructions on how to be "nonjudgmentally aware" and he might as well be speaking Chinese (of which I don't understand a word).

- - -

On the other hand, there is an approach both in psychology as well as in popular Buddhism that has a practice of considering thoughts, feelings, etc. as "just thoughts, just feelings," etc. with the implication that this somehow makes them eminently dismissable. It's this practice that trivializes thoughts, feelings, etc. -- and it is this trivialization that I have been fighting all along (although it seems unsuccessfully).

I would say any phenomena which arises only for an instant , then ceases immediately- as all dhammas do- is insignificant and if seen as such wouldn't even need to be dismissed.

And then what?

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

[binocular]

Why doesn't the Buddha give this advice to Rahula when he advises him to reflect on the consequences of his actions?

I think because they belong to different levels of development of the gradual path. Good sila is required to develop the calm and insight enabling the letting go...

And JKZ, for example, is advanced in sila like that?

[mikenz66]

And JKZ, for example, is advanced in sila like that?

I've no idea. But I think you may be identifying a problem that some of these secular techniques seem to jump immediately to a rather advanced form of practice.

Of course, there are different levels of "letting go". I think what Spiney quoted was quite advanced.


Mike

[Dhammanando]

Why doesn't the Buddha give this advice to Rahula when he advises him to reflect on the consequences of his actions?

Rāhula was only seven and newly ordained, so the Buddha gave him an exhortation on sīla. It's in the Cūḷarāhulovāda Sutta that he is given an insight-related discourse that leads him to arahatta.

http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle-l ... vada-sutta

[Kim OHara]

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.

One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?


Kim

[Saengnapha]

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

Of course it's not right. You cannot separate the seen from the seer. It is one activity that your mind has divided into two parts. You cannot be 'non judgmentally aware'. All perception is judgemental at this stage. Stop fighting it and trying to lead it somewhere. This is the activity that is disturbing you. The kind of relaxation and withdrawal from focusing on mental and emotional disturbances needs to happen first. This is done with calming/tranquility practice. The attention withdraws from this activity of thoughts and feelings and you might find yourself feeling blissful. Nothing wrong with that. It is just a stage, an effect. Vipassana, insight, can happen then, but only if the other conditions are present.

[robertk]

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.


Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.




Kim

Exactly right.

All of that *trying* to observe etc is based around a subtle belief that there is someone who can make things occur.

[Crazy cloud]

In my experience, when I try to let in the seen be only the seen etc., I end up in a kind of anomic, zoned-out state, like a blissed-out zombie. That can't be right!

It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.

One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?


Kim

Hi, maybe this can be of some help - if not, sorry ..

The point that includes everything - Ajahn sumedho:
https://www.amaravati.org/audio/the-poi ... ction-198/

[binocular]

I've no idea. But I think you may be identifying a problem that some of these secular techniques seem to jump immediately to a rather advanced form of practice.

I suppose this guy, for example, has considerable meditation attainment too ... (Now how's that for provoking prejudices about spiritual attainment?)

Anyway, my point is that the suttas are anything but shy when it comes to straightforwardly talking about morality, while the secular mindfulness folks seem to shun it. Maybe they are deliberately trying to be neutral, or they take it for granted (and see no need to talk about it explicitly), or they are just so advanced that I cannot even begin to comprehend them.

- - -

It isn't right, but it's a fairly common 'wrong turning' for people to take. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference in any understandable way, though.

One approach is to liken it to the difference between observing the breath in meditation, and controlling the breath - another common 'wrong turning.' When we are trying to simply observe the breath, we can slip into controlling it instead, without even noticing that's what we're doing, and that can lead to all sorts of unwanted tension and discomfort.
Similarly, when we are trying to simply observe the seen, we can slip into trying to actively shut down our thoughts and judgements, rather than letting them float away.

I'm not sure that will make sense, but it's the best I can do. Maybe someone else can do better?

What you're describing is something awfully advanced, namely, direct perception, ie. a perception that is not conditioned.
I find it hard to believe that all those masses of folks doing mindfulness meditation have attained to direct perception.