McMindfulness meditation dangers

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

There is no Buddhist meditation without Right View.

Beyond that to "McMindfulness", I'm not qualified, nor particularly interested to speculate.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

There is no Buddhist meditation without Right View.

Are you sure? Sounds like a speculation to me.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

Are you sure? Sounds like a speculation to me.

Sounds like sutta to me.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

That's the interesting point. Where does this "right view" come from, how unique is it, how much do you need, and at what point does lack of instruction in it block progress?

In the Canon it is said that some attained stream entry with very little instruction
Sariputta for example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... saristream" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Though the meditation techniques being taught are not taught with any formal Buddhist explanation, they are Bhuddist-derived teachings, and seem to be bringing up at least some of the same things you'd expect in a Buddhist context (insight into anatta, etc...).


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

I think the "run & circle" indicates mutual reinforcement and iterative development of those components, where Right View is the central anchor.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

Are you sure? Sounds like a speculation to me.

Sounds like sutta to me.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."

Metta,
Retro.

Actually, that does not support your speculation.

[retrofuturist]

OK Tilt, fine.



Metta,
Retro.

[daverupa]

seem to be bringing up at least some of the same things you'd expect in a Buddhist context (insight into anatta, etc...).

I wonder if the spectrum of these spontaneous insights, when recorded, would in any way map onto the mistaken "insights" recorded in the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1)... it might be where Right View comes in as an essential component of Buddhist bhavana, as retro suggests, since meditation was an extant practice in the Buddha's day.

Otherwise, what else differentiates the Buddha's bhavana teachings from others of his milieu? Rupajhana?

[tiltbillings]

OK Tilt, fine.

Of course it is fine.

For Bahiya, a non-followwer of the Buddha, the Buddha did not lecture him on Right View. He gave him a very basic, stripped down practice, which was enough for him to gain awakening:

Ud 1.10 PTS: Ud 6
Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya
translated from the Pali by
John D. Ireland
© 1998–2009
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

…

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Now through this brief Dhamma teaching of the Lord the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was immediately freed from the taints without grasping. Then the Lord, having instructed Bahiya with this brief instruction, went away…
..

"Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was a wise man. He practiced according to Dhamma and did not trouble me by disputing about Dhamma. Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth has attained final Nibbana."

Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:

Where neither water nor yet earth
Nor fire nor air gain a foothold,
There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light,
There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns.

When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this
For himself through his own wisdom,
Then he is freed from form and formless.
Freed from pleasure and from pain.
This inspired utterance was spoken by the Lord also, so I did hear.

Fine, indeed.

[mikenz66]

Hi Dave,

seem to be bringing up at least some of the same things you'd expect in a Buddhist context (insight into anatta, etc...).

I wonder if the spectrum of these spontaneous insights, when recorded, would in any way map onto the mistaken "insights" recorded in the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1)... it might be where Right View comes in as an essential component of Buddhist bhavana, as retro suggests, since meditation was an extant practice in the Buddha's day.

Otherwise, what else differentiates the Buddha's bhavana teachings from others of his milieu? Rupajhana?

Yes, that would be interesting. What seems to be clear is that it is possible to get to this "dissolution of self" stage without knowing any "theory". What Kelly seemed to be saying in her interview was that her students are then lost as to how to interpret those glimses of insight. And presumably, left to their own devices, they would come up with all kinds of views that were "wrong view" from a Buddhist standpoint.


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

Who says "Right View" necessitates being lectured?

The Buddha's instruction to Bahiya was based on Right View, namely,

"When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Now through this brief Dhamma teaching of the Lord the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was immediately freed from the taints without grasping.

Note, Dhamma teaching (i.e. based in Right View), not McMindfulness.

There is no Buddhist meditation without Right View.

Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

Hi Dave,
I think a modicum of right view exists when there is awareness of one's own suffering and that engaging in practice may be of benefit.
Hence, those people engaging in Dr McGonigal's programs were experiencing some benefit and some reported insights. How one progresses on the path from then on, I think, will depend on how attuned the program is with the Dhamma and traditional Dhammic practices. Though I am sure Dr McGonigal is well aware f those issues.
kind regards

Ben

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

Who says "Right View" necessitates being lectured?

The Buddha's instruction to Bahiya was based on Right View, namely,

"When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Now through this brief Dhamma teaching of the Lord the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was immediately freed from the taints without grasping.

Note, Dhamma teaching (i.e. based in Right View), not McMindfulness.

There is no Buddhist meditation without Right View.

Metta,
Retro.

Uh huh. What is interesting here is that you seem to be arguing that conceptual thought is a(n absolute?) necessity for awakening. What the Buddha is telling Bahiya is what will happen "when in the seen just the seen." "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that. . . . .' If the practice -- "when in the seen just the seen" -- is efficacious, whether or not the Buddha tells one what will happen as a result of doing the practice, doing the practice should lead to the result the Buddha described.

Now, if the instructions are given (that are consistent with the Dhamma), followed carefully, and the person has insight, is it Dhamma teaching or McMindfulness? Is the insight into anicca, dukkha, and anatta valid or a great big phony bunch of baloney?

[mikenz66]

What is interesting here is that you seem to be arguing that conceptual thought is a(n absolute?) necessity for awakening.

Yes, that is, in part, the issue I was trying to get at with the topic:
Are suttas necessary to practice meditation? http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=10071" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the Buddha is telling Bahiya is what will happen "when in the seen just the seen." "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that. . . . .' If the practice -- "when in the seen just the seen" -- is efficacious, whether or not the Buddha tells one what will happen as a result of doing the practice, doing the practice should lead to the result the Buddha described.

And, in fact, that's the way most Buddhist teachers I know of approach Dhamma. They give instructions and then give guidance based on what the students experience.

Now, if the instructions are given (that are consistent with the Dhamma), followed carefully, and the person has insight, is it Dhamma teaching or McMindfulness? Is the insight into anicca, dukkha, and anatta valid or a great big phony bunch of baloney?

Cleary it's Dhamma teaching if it results in Right View.
But that may well not happen without follow-up support, as discussed in the talk.


Mike

[tiltbillings]

Cleary it's Dhamma teaching if it results in Right View.
But that may well not happen without follow-up support, as discussed in the talk.

That raises an interesting question. Does the insight one has have to be bottled in the proper container for it to Dhamma?