Daniel: What do you mean by saying that mindfulness is a mental factor?. My understanding about mindfulness is that is awareness of all what is going on in body, mind, within and around. According to my direct experience practicing mindfulness in the way I've been given description over my posting is not what you are explaining here. During retreats this practice in togetherness with all the other things it did lead me to Buddha Nature. There is not duality when I practice mindfulness. There is no understanding either. There is only the present moment and the objects of body, mind mindfulness is addressed. I don't know, It's kind of confusing now with your saying and other previous sayings from other practicioners. If it was not mindfulness what it was I was practicing then?. Whatever it is....It works!! Thank you Mayka
--- On Thu, 19/5/11, empty0grace <[email protected]> wrote: From: empty0grace <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Re: Three Western Myths About Mindfulness To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 17:45 Dear Mayka, Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply to my question. You have put a lot out there, and I will try to respond as succinctly as I can, although if brevity is the soul of wit, as they say, then I am surely a dullard J You spoke of your experience of awareness and then asked me of mine, and then you gave me your hit on understanding. I would say that for me awareness by itself is a purely sensory phenomenon (six sense model) that may or may not be attended to with understanding. But I think you might have misunderstood me when you equated understanding with thinking. The word understanding as used in Theravada circles is a translation for the word pañña, which can also be translated as wisdom. It is the Pali cognate to the Sanskrit word "prajña". It is that quality in the mind that opposes deludedness. It is actually obscured by thinking. The difference between awareness with understanding and without understanding is the difference between simply staring at our experience, and actually noticing impermanence, cling, suffering etc. It is also, in the Pali tradition, the difference between samma-sati, right mindfulness and miccha-sati, or wrong mindfulness. If we learn something from our sitting, such as where to let go, or how to better settle in to the moment, then there is understanding present. It is a quality that the Buddha, in the Pali suttas always conjoined to mindfulness in the phrase sati-sampjañña, mindfulness-and-clear-comprehension. Without this quality there is no insight, vipassana, and without insight the mind cannot be freed from the three unwholesome roots of greed, hatred and delusion. In this respect, my experience agrees with the classical teaching. In the Vedanta tradition, this function pertains to the Buddhi, or intelligence. When the Buddhi is fully awakened, one becomes Buddha, or awake. In this tradition it is the buddhi that become capable of reflecting reality correctly. The mind is a series of memories and has no capacity for understanding. Consciousness by itself has no problem. It is this aspect of Buddhi that gets things confused, and needs to be corrected. I think in some ways this model works a bit better than the Theravada one. However, because of the nature of concepts and words, and the obligation we have to communicate about absolute reality by means of relative reality, no model is ever perfect. As to your question on mindfulness and if we naturally possess Buddha nature: Mindfulness is simply a cetasika or mental factor. Mental here does not mean thinking; it pertains to all the aggregates that are non-material. Mindfulness is a quality of consciousness that is naturally present, like heat or light are parts of flame. However, it is considered to be weak and needs to be developed along with concentration and understanding. In this model the mind is developed according to these wholesome factors, as taught in the Pali suttas, and the result is a mind that is capable of recognizing its own fundamental Reality. So the reality is always there, but the capacity to "return to it" needs to be developed. Theravada is absolutely a developmental model. If by Buddha nature you mean reality, the answer is yes. If by Buddha nature you mean the individual's ability to come into harmony with reality, the answer would be no. Thank you for your remarks on scholarship. Many schools of Buddhism hold as a kind of ideal: the yogi who is also a scholar, both learned and realized. The strongest exceptions would be Japanese Zen and some schools of Chan that have an anti-intellectual culture. However, there are schools of Chan that respect the study of the Tripitika and the commentaries. The forest monastery traditions of Southeast Asia will usually emphasize practice and denigrate study as well. However, even in these forest traditions, regular Dharma talks are given to inculcate right understanding, the first step of the Noble Eightfold Path. Mayka, thank you for your gentleness and sincerity, Namasté, Daniel --- In [email protected], Maria Lopez <flordeloto@...> wrote: > > Daniel: > > ....And as for the question about if awareness has the quality of > understanding the present experience or is just bare sensory awareness. > > Awareness is not a mental process. It's directly in action. One can't be > aware about something and at the same time thinking. If there is thinking > taking place then there is no awareness. There is nothing to understand. > "What a beautiful sunrise!. There are colouring reds, oranges, > yellows....spreading in the sky...." Do you need to have any understanding > here in order to be fully aware of what you are experiencing?...If you would, > you would be missing out the whole direct experience with the sunrise, you'll > be losing that precious moment. There is no understanding in awareness. > There is only awareness of something. > > Mayka > > --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Maria Lopez flordeloto@... wrote: > > From: Maria Lopez flordeloto@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 10:36 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Hi Daniel: > > Awareness means to me to be conscious of all activities in body and mind > taking place at the present moment. In order to do this conscious breathing > is essential over this process. Conscious breathing is what it makes these > processes not to be mental processes. Through awareness slowly and > gradually an energy of awakening starts to be generated. It's and endless > process of awakening. At this point one realises that there is no > enlightenment that enlightenment is the way. And that way is the continuous > present moment living in awareness. > >  Perhaps because I received the teaching of Mindfulness directly by Ven. > Thich Nhat Hanh I don't like to separate the words "mindfulness and > awareness". Nonetheless many people who are not familiar with the > practice they get better the concept of mindfulness when the word mindfulness > is changed for awareness. In fact you can read in a moment all the > different things we have already written about mindfulness. And that is > great as each of them is based in the personal experience from each of us > over mindfulness or awareness. And what is not based in the individuals of > the forum then is based in the scriptures written by those ones who are the > same time had their own personal experience. > >  When a concept of mindfulness or awareness is created out of the direct > personal experience had with mindfulness, awareness is not right or wrong, > correct or incorrect. > > What is your experience with awareness? > > Really great to have you here. > Mayka > > > . > > --- On Thu, 19/5/11, Daniel Fernandez empty0grace@... wrote: > > From: Daniel Fernandez empty0grace@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 0:54 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > Dear Mayka, >  </div> > Thank you for taking the time to share with me your direct experience. Much > of what you say coincides with my own experience as well. Only I would ask > you, what do you mean when you say awareness? Is this simply attention? Does > it have within it the quality of understanding the present experience? Or is > just bare sensory awareness as Bill was speaking of? Daniel > > --- On Wed, 5/18/11, Maria Lopez flordeloto@... wrote: > > > From: Maria Lopez flordeloto@... > Subject: Re: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2011, 12:22 AM > > >  > > > > > > Dear Daniel: > > The subject of mindfulness has been often brought into discussion in all > forums I've participated. It keeps calling my attention the many > multi-concepts that the simplicity of this practice has given rise to. And > before go on here I'd just like to point it out that anything I could say > over this subject is just my personal experience with it and nothing else. > > My concept about mindfulness: > Mindfulness is equal to awareness. Awareness of what is going on in body, > mind, within and around. The tool that is used to bring that awareness is > conscious breathing. I breathe in and I follow my breathe all the way in. > I breathe out and I follow the breath all the way out. The breath is used > as the bridge that unites body and mind. Through conscious breathing there > is not separation. In this way the mind doesn't dissipate in > the > thought somewhere else far away of the body. > > The practice of mindfulness allows one to keep practicing zazen away of the > cushion and through all daily ordinary activities one wants. > > The Experience Of Mindfulness. > Form and no form are not separated. They interact with each other. > They're one. as the experience occur in the continuos present moment one > becomes the present moment itself. There is no above or below while in the > flow of mindfulness. There are no levels either. There is no attachement > to any object of body and mind. There is no attachement either to the > experience as one doesn't feel as having an experience.  There is no life > or death even when there is. > > Basically having a headache in mindfulness means that one is not the > headache. It also means being entirely with the headache. Just to give an > ordinary exemple of basic mindfulness (understood by Mayka > personal experience and not necessarily anyone else). > > Mayka > > > > > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, empty0grace empty0grace@... wrote: > > > From: empty0grace empty0grace@... > Subject: [Zen] Three Western Myths About Mindfulness > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 3:03 > > >  > > > Dear Friends, > I thought it would be interesting to post here a brief excerp from a book I > am currently working on. I am interested because this is for the most part a > non-Theravada group. You reactions would be of interest to me. So don't hold > back. I don't promise I will agree with you, but I am interested in what you > think, or more precisely, how what I say here corresponds to my own > experience. Thanks, Daniel > 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. >  > 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 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. >  > 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. >  > 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. 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. >  > 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. >  > 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. 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." 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. >  > 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. >  >  >  >
