agree... Also remember noting itself is not mindfulness, but a tool to help aid in mindfulness
billymac you are right (i think) - i just want to add i read somewhere a monk said that if you label you have mindfulness at that moment - that once you label something you cannot be unmindful at that time
thanks purple.. do you recall the book or the bhikkhu?
with metta
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"
I am pretty sure its yuttadhammo but im not sure where i saw it - he has a website http://ask.sirimangalo.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to ask him questions
put in the search "labeling" ect and you can find his answers- he also have lots of youtube videos
purple planet wrote:I am pretty sure its yuttadhammo but im not sure where i saw it - he has a website http://ask.sirimangalo.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to ask him questions
put in the search "labeling" ect and you can find his answers- he also have lots of youtube videos
Sorry purple, that video is of vimalaramsi and I do not follow his teachings nor believe anything he says... In my eyes he tells false truths..
Thanks for the input though
With metta
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"
purple planet wrote:I am pretty sure its yuttadhammo but im not sure where i saw it - he has a website http://ask.sirimangalo.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to ask him questions
put in the search "labeling" ect and you can find his answers- he also have lots of youtube videos
purple planet wrote:I am pretty sure its yuttadhammo but im not sure where i saw it - he has a website http://ask.sirimangalo.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to ask him questions
put in the search "labeling" ect and you can find his answers- he also have lots of youtube videos
Yes bhante yuttadhammo is from the ajahn tong lineage... They teach to continue the la
beling throughout the practice... I have talked personally with bhante yuttadhammo about this and he firmly believes in keeping up with the labeling and not letting it drop off.. I believe people have had successful benefits both in keeping up the labeling or letting drop off at the right time..
As yuttadhammo says "try the labeling and try without and see which one works better for you..
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"
Billymac29 wrote:Quick question:
Why are there so many criticisms about the Mahasi technique out there?
Which parts of the technique are based off the suttas? And which part is based off of the commentaries? Can anyone help with this question?
With metta
The big reason why people criticize is that it ties into a huge debate about the role of the Jhanas in meditation. For those who emphasize the importance of Jhana, the Mahasi technique is criticized as not leading to Jhana.
Personally I find such criticism to be rather misplaced. Although I practice Anapanasati according to the Thai forest tradition, I also study many works which are important to the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition and have found that my understanding of the whole issue is much more nuanced now, and the whole debate is a matter of semantics from my perspective and I think both methods are valid and I have come to appreciate the Mahasi method although I myself don't practice it.
I plan on someday trying it out, but only when I have the time and money to go off to Sri Lanka and practice under the Ven. Yuttadhammo.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
Billymac29 wrote:Quick question:
Why are there so many criticisms about the Mahasi technique out there?
Which parts of the technique are based off the suttas? And which part is based off of the commentaries? Can anyone help with this question?
With metta
The big reason why people criticize is that it ties into a huge debate about the role of the Jhanas in meditation. For those who emphasize the importance of Jhana, the Mahasi technique is criticized as not leading to Jhana.
Personally I find such criticism to be rather misplaced. Although I practice Anapanasati according to the Thai forest tradition, I also study many works which are important to the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition and have found that my understanding of the whole issue is much more nuanced now, and the whole debate is a matter of semantics from my perspective and I think both methods are valid and I have come to appreciate the Mahasi method although I myself don't practice it.
Yes that seems like a logical reason, thanks
Are you saying that the Mahasi technique can lead to the jhanas or cannot lead to the jhanas??
I plan on someday trying it out, but only when I have the time and money to go off to Sri Lanka and practice under the Ven. Yuttadhammo.
Actually, the last I talked to him, I think he's moving to Canada in the near future if he is not already there now..
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"
Billymac29 wrote:Quick question:
Why are there so many criticisms about the Mahasi technique out there?
Which parts of the technique are based off the suttas? And which part is based off of the commentaries? Can anyone help with this question?
With metta
The big reason why people criticize is that it ties into a huge debate about the role of the Jhanas in meditation. For those who emphasize the importance of Jhana, the Mahasi technique is criticized as not leading to Jhana.
Personally I find such criticism to be rather misplaced. Although I practice Anapanasati according to the Thai forest tradition, I also study many works which are important to the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition and have found that my understanding of the whole issue is much more nuanced now, and the whole debate is a matter of semantics from my perspective and I think both methods are valid and I have come to appreciate the Mahasi method although I myself don't practice it.
Yes that seems like a logical reason, thanks
Are you saying that the Mahasi technique can lead to the jhanas or cannot lead to the jhanas??
I plan on someday trying it out, but only when I have the time and money to go off to Sri Lanka and practice under the Ven. Yuttadhammo.
Actually, the last I talked to him, I think he's moving to Canada in the near future if he is not already there now..
I am not sure, as I have not practiced the Mahasi technique as I want to practice it under a qualified teacher (I have a lot of faith in the Ven. Yuttadhammo) but it seems sensible that it can lead to jhana. I mean Vipassana Jhana by that, which I see as being a perfectly coherent concept.
I would be very happy to find out that the Ven. Yuttadhammo is relocating to Canada as that is much closer to me and he will be able to spread the Dhamma to the western world more easily. I hope things go well.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
Bringing this post back to life because I just received Ven Analayo's book Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization after a suggestion from tilt. This book is probably the most thorough, scholarly, well researched book I have read on the satipatthana sutta and on the term sati in general. IMO it is the book to read if one wants to understand the practice of sati and satipatthana. It definitely answered a lot of questions I was carrying with me.
Thanks Tilt
"whatever one frequently thinks and ponders upon will be the inclination of one's mind"
the noting and what not is straight out of the satipatthana sutta.
"when walking he understands 'i am walking'. "
sounds like noting too me. i don't see much at all that is not directly from the suttas as far as his practice instructions are concerned. they seem to be right in line with the suttas. his sitting meditation instructions are kind of a stretch at points but for the most part they're from the suttas as well, it's about interpretation.
the other instructions and what not about insight knowledges and stuff may be commentary but i don't know. what's more important though? that practical methods are canonical or that higher definitions and structure are?