Mayka, I always used to think 'mindfulness' was the same as 'Buddha Nature', but after reading a lot of the definitions here I now think it is not.
Your definition is the same, but most of the others are not. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > Bill, Daniel, JMJM and all: > Mike and myself wrote something like this: "Mindfulness is the technique one > uses to experience buddha nature". And there was this debate about: "Is > mindfulness buddha nature?". What do you have to say about this Daniel?. > Mayka > > > --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > From: Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 12:40 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Bill: > I've found very pleasant reading Daniel posting. I envy the same in him as > you your both art writing skills. And as for your question I think that > Daniel was explaining mindfulness according to the way in his own tradition > is transmited. My saying here is only my personal experience with > mindfulness. Daniel sayings may go in line with the way his tradition may > transmit the teaching of mindfulness.   Have to say that in the TNH > tradition there is also the Scholar side of mindfulness. So far haven't > gone much into it because I found all what I need in the very first key: > "Mindfulness is to be aware of what is going on in body, mind, within and > around ".  And you won't ever believe how huge is the implications of just > such a simple key!. > > Mayka > > --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Bill! <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 2:13 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > Mayka, Thanks for your explanation. > > > > Is this the same concept as others, specifically Beveverley, have of > 'mindfulness'? > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill: > > > The use of the tool called "mindfulness" is not buddha nature.àBut the > > energy, theàexperience one hasàout by using the tool might beàin > > Buddha Nature. àasàmindfulness generates a continuous energy of > > enhanced attention, awareness, concentration, sensitivity, a general > > incremented enhancement of all senses, .àthe form and the non form > > interact with each other in such a way that they are not separated.à> > Here the experience the form is in the non form and the non form is in the > > form gets clear. .àA bit as saying the physical act of sitting down > > zazen is not buddha nature, but what you experience while you are sitting > > down is buddha nature (provided that while sitting down one only sits down > > and nothing else).àIn both cases the form and the non form interact > > with each other.àWithout the physical body, form, àwouldn't be > > possible to experience the non form.à> The physical body is the vehicle to experience the non form.àSo it's the > action of > > > mindfulness.à> > > Mayka > > > à> > > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 8:52 > > > > > > > > > à> > > > > > > > > > > > Mayka, > > > > > > Our agreement does not surprise me. > > > > > > As I've said before I very seldom use the term 'mindfulness', although when > > others use it I assume they are talking about the same thing as I call > > 'Buddha Mind' or 'direct experience of reality'. > > > > > > What I was describing was 'Buddha Mind'. If that's the same as the term > > 'mindfulness' is for you, then good! That does not surprise me either. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill: > > > > I've just opened your posting given a response to Daniel posting about > > > mindfulness and found that your way of understanding mindfulness is alike > > > myself.ÃâàThere is only the concept of mindfulness as a meanings > > > of given the map to produce the energy of mindfulness which is > > > equalÃâàmeaning as to awareness. You're right and there are no > > > distinctions or any dualism while practising > > > mindfulness.ÃâàÃâàThis is also my personal experience > > > too.Ãâà> > > > Mayka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Bill! <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@> > > > > Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 4:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel, ÃâàMy 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 aÃâàperspective (satipatthana vipassana?) > > > and assuming your understanding of it is 'correct' and that anyone having > > > a different viewpointÃâàhasÃâàcreated a 'myth'.ÃâàI > > > don't know how you formed your perspective (teacher/student, reading, > > > etc...), but that really doesn't matter right now.ÃâàIt's your > > > perspective. ÃâàThis is not good and not bad, but I cannot comment > > > from the same perspective you have.ÃâàI will comment from my > > > perspective whichÃâàhas been builtÃâàup from my zen practice. > > > > Ãâà> > > > > 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!]Ãâà'Choiceless Awareness' is zen.ÃâàWhen you > > > startÃâàapplying discrimination (categorizing, judging, > > > associating, censoring, rejecting, > > > augmenting,Ãâàtranslating,Ãâàrationalizing, > > > intellectualizing, etc...), in other words applying some kind > > > ofÃâàCHOICE onÃâàyour sensory experiences you have entered > > > into the realm of dualism and illusion.ÃâàYour choices are the > > > illusions and the myths. > > > > Ãâà> > > > > 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!]ÃâàHere you seem to backtrack.ÃâàIn the paragraph > > > above you indicate 'choiceless awareness' is a myth, but in this > > > paragraph youÃâàadmit in the absence of illusion (duality) it > > > 'becomes possible'.ÃâàSo, is 'choiceless awareness' a myth or > > > not?ÃâàOr, is it only a myth for some and not for others?Ãâà> > > Or, Ãâàis it a myth for some and not a myth whenÃâàno 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!]ÃâàThere is nothing unique about Buddha (Guatama > > > Siddhartha), or Buddha (the direct experience of reality we share with > > > all senient beings).ÃâàThe very fact of this is essential to zen > > > (and to Buddhism).ÃâàOtherwise you are elevating Buddha (Guatama > > > Siddhartha) to some special state like Christianity has mistakenly > > > elevated Jesus.ÃâàBoth 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!]ÃâàI agree there is not one system of teaching.Ãâà> > > However, the practice is not to 'developÃâàfaculities'.Ãâà> > > You already have everything you need.ÃâàThe practice is to > > > dissolve the sense of dualism you have created whichÃâàoccludes and > > > interfers with your ability to be aware of direct > > > sensoryÃâàexperience.ÃâàSo practice is a matter of > > > discarding, not developing or building. > > > > Ãâà> 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!]ÃâàNon-conceptual Awareness (aka Buddha Mind)Ãâàis > > > zen.ÃâàI don't know if it is a 'Goal of Mindfulness' or > > > not.ÃâàNon-conceptual Awareness is non-dualistic so is not subject > > > to judgement (choices) such as 'superior'.ÃâàMental notation (I > > > think this is the same as I call discrimnation or using the > > > discriminating mind) is not good and not bad.ÃâàIt is used to form > > > dualistic concepts.ÃâàThe only caveat here is to be aware that > > > these concepts, these 'mental notations' are not real but illusory. > > > > Ãâà> > > > > 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.ÃâàBoth are interpretations (post-processing) of sensory > > > experience.ÃâàThey 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'.Ãâà'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. > > > > ÃâàIn 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!]ÃâàThis is absolutely wrong.ÃâàThere is no awareness > > > in dreamless sleep, and dreams are all illusions.ÃâàIntellectual > > > activity as you describe above is just juggling illusions to try to find > > > one characterize the sensory experience.ÃâàNon-conceptual > > > awareness happens when your teacher slaps your face.ÃâàIt is the > > > awareness of that slapÃâàyou have BEFORE you think 'Pain!' or > > > 'Bad'' or 'Embarassed!'. > > > > ÃâàAdditionally, 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]ÃâàWe agree on something! - almost.ÃâàI'd remove > > > 'yogis' from the first sentence above.ÃâàIt's not just yogis that > > > can experience this, it's everyone - all sentient beings.Ãâà> > > Concepts are not exactly the enemy,Ãâàit's the ATTACHMENT to > > > concepts that is the 'enemy'.ÃâàConcepts will arise and > > > dissapear.ÃâàThey are illusions.ÃâàAs 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!]ÃâàI could not disagree more.ÃâàI want to reiterate > > > that I'm not saying your paragraph above is not correct in pointing > > > outÃâàwhat 'Mindfulness' is and is > > > not.ÃâàÃâàMyÃâàthoughts below are not from a > > > 'satipathana perspective.ÃâàThey are from my own zen practice > > > perspective. > > > > Zen is awareness of only what is.ÃâàAllÃâàelse is illusory. > > > ÃâàAll intellectualizations (post-processing) are > > > illusions.ÃâàÃâàAnd I say again itÃâàis not the > > > illusions that occlude Buddha Mind,Ãâàit 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/
