Hi Bill, Thank you very much for taking your time, and giving what I said an in-depth read, and for sharing your experience and POV in regards what I wrote. You initial comments as to the lack of clarity, I will definitely address. Your contrasts regarding the differing experience of Japanese Zen, I take interest in as a student of Buddhism, altered states, and a long time yogi. I think this is a good way to try and get some understanding of other people's differing experiences. Obviously, I would not share your conclusions on many of these matters, but I don't think a blow-by-blow discussion would be very profitable for any of us here. By the "intensity" of your remarks, I conclude that you have the answers that you are seeking, and I have no interest in convincing you otherwise. I will continue to give close attention to your remarks during my time here on this board.
Many thanks, Daniel --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > Daniel, My comments are embedded below: > > > > Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > > > > Three myths about mindfulness are frequently found western Theravada > > circles. Beginning to intermediate students will often hold these > > assumptions, sometimes even advanced students, having carried them > over > > from new age culture or watered down versions of culturally popular > > meditation practices. For many aspirants, these beliefs lie unseen > > within the mind, lost in memory, and become unrecognized sources of > > doubt and opinion regarding the practice of satipatthana vipassana. > > > [Bill!] You writing from a perspective (satipatthana vipassana?) and > assuming your understanding of it is 'correct' and that anyone having a > different viewpoint has created a 'myth'. I don't know how you formed > your perspective (teacher/student, reading, etc...), but that really > doesn't matter right now. It's your perspective. This is not good and > not bad, but I cannot comment from the same perspective you have. I > will comment from my perspective which has been built up from my zen > practice. > > > > Choiceless Awareness is the "Purest" Practice of Mindfulness > > Attention is a process entirely conditioned by sensory input and the > > inner forces of desire, fear, restlessness and aversion, no matter now > [how] > > hidden they may seem to be. To accept a myth of choiceless awareness > > indicates that one has not grasped the truths associated with the > second > > stage of vipassana insight, Knowledge of Conditionality. In reality > > choiceless awareness is conditioned attention, whose conditioning is > > goes unoticed. > > [Bill!] 'Choiceless Awareness' is zen. When you start applying > discrimination (categorizing, judging, associating, censoring, > rejecting, augmenting, translating, rationalizing, intellectualizing, > etc...), in other words applying some kind of CHOICE on your sensory > experiences you have entered into the realm of dualism and illusion. > Your choices are the illusions and the myths. > > > Allowing one's attention to float free in this way will make three > > things particularly difficult: the development of concentration, > insight > > into intention, and the development of effort and energy. When > practice > > is mature in Knowledge of Equanimity, a kind of choiceless awareness > > becomes possible, in that the illusion of the one who attends is now > > absent, but at that point the mind is very developed and will not be > > hindered or deluded by its own act of letting go. > > > [Bill!] Here you seem to backtrack. In the paragraph above you > indicate 'choiceless awareness' is a myth, but in this paragraph you > admit in the absence of illusion (duality) it 'becomes possible'. So, > is 'choiceless awareness' a myth or not? Or, is it only a myth for some > and not for others? Or, is it a myth for some and not a myth when no > one (self) exists to make choices? > > > The path along which our mind must evolve to come upon the experience > of > > the Unconditioned is quite narrow and precise. The ability to discover > > this precise point of balance in the development of the mind's > > faculties is what made the Buddha so unique. > > [Bill!] There is nothing unique about Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha), or > Buddha (the direct experience of reality we share with all senient > beings). The very fact of this is essential to zen (and to Buddhism). > Otherwise you are elevating Buddha (Guatama Siddhartha) to some special > state like Christianity has mistakenly elevated Jesus. Both Guatama > Siddhartha and Jesus are men, human beings just like you and me, and > anything they have done or accomplished or realized can be done by us > also. > > >There is no room in this > > process for personal predilections or intellectual prejudice. To be > > successful in this path we must train our attention so as to achieve > the > > necessary balance and development of the faculties. There may indeed > be > > more than one system of practice for achieving this, yet every such > > successful system will be discovered to be balanced within itself. > > However, even then, all practice methods must be regularly > > "tweaked" to insure that progress remains on course. In the end, > > it is not the method itself that achieves the goal, but the carefully > > balanced evolution of the faculties that leads the mind to emergence. > > This precision requires refined tuning, something that does not easily > > evolve from free-floating awareness. > > > [Bill!] I agree there is not one system of teaching. However, the > practice is not to 'develop faculities'. You already have everything > you need. The practice is to dissolve the sense of dualism you have > created which occludes and interfers with your ability to be aware of > direct sensory experience. So practice is a matter of discarding, not > developing or building. > > > Non-conceptual Awareness is the Goal of Mindfulness The conclusion to > > this logic is that the silent witnessing mind is superior to the use > of > > mental notation. For fuller explanation on the benefits of mental > > notation, please refer to my dedicated chapter on this subject. > > > [Bill!] Non-conceptual Awareness (aka Buddha Mind) is zen. I don't > know if it is a 'Goal of Mindfulness' or not. Non-conceptual Awareness > is non-dualistic so is not subject to judgement (choices) such as > 'superior'. Mental notation (I think this is the same as I call > discrimnation or using the discriminating mind) is not good and not bad. > It is used to form dualistic concepts. The only caveat here is to be > aware that these concepts, these 'mental notations' are not real but > illusory. > > > > Conception and preception are so intimately merged that we cannot > > separate them, although we can come to distinguish them. Those who > > pretend that awareness is non-conceptual are lost in their own > concepts > > about practice and are far from seeing the present reality of their > > minds. > > [Bill!] Both 'conception' and 'preception' pre-suppose a discriminating > self. Both are interpretations (post-processing) of sensory experience. > They are illusions created by the discriminating mind which are tagged > to experiences, and often obsure experience to the point of replacing > them as percieved 'reality'. 'Conceptions' and 'preceptions' are part > of the dualistic baggage of the discriminating mind that must be > discarded (or at least suspended) to directly experience reality. > > In ordinary life, the closest we come to non-conceptual awareness > > is in deep sleep, or when we see something in the distance that we do > > not recognize, or when we encounter some new object completely unknown > > and mysterious to us. However, even those last two examples, the mind > is > > busily applying the closest approximate concepts to try and "figure > > it out." > > [Bill!] This is absolutely wrong. There is no awareness in dreamless > sleep, and dreams are all illusions. Intellectual activity as you > describe above is just juggling illusions to try to find one > characterize the sensory experience. Non-conceptual awareness happens > when your teacher slaps your face. It is the awareness of that slap you > have BEFORE you think 'Pain!' or 'Bad'' or 'Embarassed!'. > > Additionally, yogis can experience non-conceptual awareness > > during their practice in that tiny space between sensory impingement > and > > mental recognition. Concepts are not the enemy. The enemy is that > > confusion of mind that cannot distinguish between the two dimensions > of > > conception and perception present in our moment-to-moment cognition. > It > > is this confusion that hides the true nature of both, and not the > > presence of concepts in the mind, which are inevitable and almost > > constantly present. > > > [Bill] We agree on something! - almost. I'd remove 'yogis' from the > first sentence above. It's not just yogis that can experience this, > it's everyone - all sentient beings. Concepts are not exactly the > enemy, it's the ATTACHMENT to concepts that is the 'enemy'. Concepts > will arise and dissapear. They are illusions. As long as you can > recognize this, concepts are not the 'enemy'; but anything that gives > rise to dualities (the most insiduous being the duality of self/other) > is an 'enemy' to direct awareness (Buddha Mind). > > > Mindfulness Only Reveals What Is > > A common mistake made by many dedicated practitioners of satipathana > or > > other forms of mindfulness as found in various schools of Buddhism, is > > to believe that mindfulness only reveals what is without altering how > > things appear to consciousness. Mindfulness is not a passive process. > It > > radically changes the way the mind experiences its reality. We cannot > > claim therefore that we are merely allowing reality to reveal itself. > > Because the perceptions, insights and states of consciousness that > arise > > in practice are conditioned by the development of the five controlling > > faculties, the jhana factors and the seven factors of enlightenment, > we > > cannot say that we are accessing the reality of the five aggregates as > > they really are in their own objective sphere or even as they would > > appear in some hypothetical state of subjective super clarity. > > Satipathana practice is definitely a system of mental development > > engaging and affecting the mind in many ways and on many levels. All > we > > can say is that mindfulness reveals reality as experienced by a mind > > properly developed in such a way as to experience freedom from greed, > > hatred and delusion. The absence of delusion means something very > > precise: the successful oppositing of the four vipalasas, or > distortions > > of subjective perception. There are the vipalasa that sees the > > impermanent as permanent, the vipalasa that sees the dissatisfactory > as > > satisfactory, the vipalasa that sees a self in what which is no-self, > > and the vipalasa that sees the repulsive as delightful. > > > [Bill!] I could not disagree more. I want to reiterate that I'm not > saying your paragraph above is not correct in pointing out what > 'Mindfulness' is and is not. My thoughts below are not from a > 'satipathana perspective. They are from my own zen practice > perspective. > > Zen is awareness of only what is. All else is illusory. All > intellectualizations (post-processing) are illusions. And I say again > it is not the illusions that occlude Buddha Mind, it is ATTACHMENT to > illusions that occlude Buddha Mind and that must be dissoved or at least > suspended. > > Clean your bowls! > > ...Bill! > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
