Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Shoshin said:
This theory will give you @SpinyNorman something to think about and perhaps put you on the right track...
Thought itself is the thinker which takes on an identity of its own ( ."Who asked the original question???" A thought identifying as @SpinyNorman the questioner did ! ) ...
So knowing in the ultimate sense, is just the all encompassing awareness, sans thought the thinker ... However back in the conventional everyday, run of the mill world, self-sense, we are just a thought that composes one of many identities from which the self either thinks it's aware of being aware of the altered state of awareness, or it thinks it does not...It's as simple as that
Food for thought (Or, perhaps who would have thought )
Now if this doesn't confuse the self out of you , then "I" give up
This supports my suspicion that the Universal Consciousness Field is the thinker, manifesting within any one of the over 1 billion individual constructs we identify as humans. To say nothing of all the other sentient beings.
3
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Let me raise this question @SpinyNorman, how certain are you of your perception of awareness? I've heard from several teachers of deep stages of meditation that seem profound, but as they are acclimated to aren't so much of an end point but rather act as a base or 'jumping off' point for the ultimate experience.
So I'm just saying be sure to ask yourself if your assessment is in fact correct or complete.
@person said:
Let me raise this question @SpinyNorman, how certain are you of your perception of awareness? I've heard from several teachers of deep stages of meditation that seem profound, but as they are acclimated to aren't so much of an end point but rather act as a base or 'jumping off' point for the ultimate experience.
So I'm just saying be sure to ask yourself if your assessment is in fact correct or complete.
Does it feel authentic? It does, and that's all I can really go by.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
You're the ultimate arbiter of what you experience. But I'll just say that in the same way that a young child learns how to identify their emotions (by adults who have previous experience with the emotions identifying them for the children) we usually need those who have solid experience with these states to help us sort them out. Maybe the written explanations are enough though, I don't really have any deep experiences to say for myself or not.
@littlestudent While I certainly love and appreciate science, myself (and probably a lot of people here) believe there is more to the experience of life than science has even touched the tip of the ice berg on. It is not, to me, merely connections of chemicals and biological processes. You speak about the article posted as if "this is what is happening in mindfulness, so that is that." Science is only just starting to look at meditative practices to see how they impact the brain and the body. JUST starting. There is no definitive conclusion even within science right now, and there are certainly myriad experiences people around the world, all through time, have shared and science cannot explain.
Science has limits because it requires the aggregates to observe and perceive and conclude. And with that, comes all the causes and conditions of every human involved in science, including their biases, no matter how unbiased they are trying to be. You have talked a lot about science, but what is your practice? Do you meditate? What has it taught you so far? Science most certainly can't explain the things Buddha talks about. Or Jesus, or anyone of similar caliber. The whole end-game of Buddhist practice is to become like them, and I think if you are going into it with an idea that science can explain it all, you are going to run into a lot of issues because science isn't remotely close yet. Obviously, like all of us, you are learning and growing in many ways. But if you reduce everything to mere biological/physiological/chemical processes your progress on the Buddhist path is probably going to be stunted.
You should look into some of the stuff the HHDL writes. He is very logical and science minded, yet has a firm grasp on the experiences of meditation and other contemplative practices.
But there is non-conceptual awareness without thought. It seems that there is a deeper knowing which "sees through" this identification with thoughts, and with the aggregates generally. Mindfulness practice is one way to access it. https://suttacentral.net/en/sn43.5
Everything we do here regarding questions and answers, is in the realm of "thoughts"...
Thoughts/concepts being express in the written word...How can thought provide an answer to such a question ? ( knowing that the answer can not be found in another thought/concept ? )
@SpinyNorman ...It leads back to the ol' question of "Who wants to know!" if you can answer this then you have your answer, and if you can't answer this then you also have your answer...
@karasti said: But if you reduce everything to mere biological/physiological/chemical processes your progress on the Buddhist path is probably going to be stunted.
I've found that an open-mind is very helpful, allowing for possibilities. Coming at experience with a head full of beliefs or disbeliefs isn't very productive.
I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings, as that was never my intention.
I’ve started meditating in 1999 in a small group, 3 x /week, after having taken a course. Two years ago I’ve set up my own daily meditation. It is clear that I’ve less experience than you do, but I feel I have enough to know what it is about.
I also have a scientific education at postgraduate level, and I have been involved in clinical research (oncology) en education for most of my professional life.
Science has allowed me to admire and marvel more about the natural world than I’d have done otherwise.
Does a bit of knowledge about metabolism and exercise physiology make you admire top athletes more? In my case it does.
Physiology and pathophysiology make you treasure life as never before, even though it is all about chemicals.
The knowledge that behaviour depends on chemicals and neurons firing together has made me much more compassionate to all sentient beings.
Putting everything in a cloud of mystery is counterproductive for me. “Don’t know” is perfectly fine, “needs further research” is exciting, but “can’t be explained” is unsatisfactory and “you can’t understand” is depressing.
Let us not confuse experience with understanding. Take hunger as an example: we all know the experience, but how many of us know what is happening in our bodies when we feel it? Tons of articles have been written to try to understand it. Same is true for pain. Likewise, it is not because you know awareness by experience that you know what exactly it is. Maybe you do maybe you don’t.
Concerning pain or hunger however, most of us would be happy to accept that chemicals play a major role in it. (They do – has been proven.) Why is it then sacrilege to suggest that chemicals could be important in awareness?
The good thing is that we learn and evolve and, as I’ve already said a few times, our opinions can change. This implies that we have an open mind and that we dare to say “I don’t know anything more than that and everything else is therefore speculation”.
there are things that can't be explained. At least not yet. There's nothing wrong or bad about that. We discover new things every day. And sometimes science seems to say something and we run with it and find that oops, science was wrong (ie that fat is what causes all of our health problems when we now know the main study that we based our entire societal change about food on was not a good study). Science is good. But there is more to human existence than science can prove, at least yet. Because science is dependent on the limits of human beings to make sense of it. We have a lot of limits. Especially that it may be that reality itself is changed by our observation of it. If reality changes based on us interacting with it, that makes it pretty hard to pin anything down for sure.
maybe animals are the ones that have it right. We always consider them a step backwards, but perhaps they are not. No one is more able to stay in the moment than animals, afterall. Only we make it so complex to have to think about it all the time. Maybe we're at the bottom of the mindfulness chain, lol.
@littlestudent said:
That is true.
Let's keep asking though.
Maybe that's what makes us human? Animals seem to be happy with what they know(?)
-It seems to me, in order to be awake, we must ask questions. As a related aside, I believe science and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive. For example, as regards some of the comments in this thread, in the event the mind is nothing more than the brain running an Attention Model called Reflective Consciousness, it seems to me this is not necessarily incompatible with the ideas around no-self...
The Buddha was approached and asked by a person named Bahiya to reveal the insight necessary to realize enlightenment:
"Teach me the Dhamma (supreme truth), O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare and bliss.”
The Buddha responded:
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus:
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.
That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no ‘you’ in terms of that. When there is no ‘you’ in terms of that, there is no ‘you’ there.
When there is no ‘you’ there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of samsara (suffering).”
Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma (supreme truth) from the Blessed One, the mind of Bahiya right then was liberated. Having shared this teaching with Bahiya, the Blessed One left.
Who or what is being mindful? To whom does the aggregates belong to?
One time, Zen Master Seung Sahn said:
I don't teach Korean or Mahayana or Zen. I don't even teach Buddhism. I only teach don't know. Fifty years here and there teaching only don't know. So only don't know, okay?
I hope from moment to moment you only go straight, don't know, which is clear like space, try, try, try for ten thousand years, non-stop, get enlightenment, and save all beings from suffering.
Instead, he pointed to direct knowing of conditions that change, that which we can know through our own experience at this moment. This is not a matter of believing anyone else. Its a matter of knowing at this present moment that whatever arises passes away.
So we put forth that kind of attention in our lives - to be attentive and notice that whatever arises passes away; that whatever condition of your mind or body - whether it is a sensation of pleasure or pain, feeling or memory, sight, sound, smell, taste or touch, inside or outside - is just a condition.
As you look carefully, very patiently and humbly, you begin to see that the created arises out of the Uncreated and goes back to the Uncreated, it disappears and there is nothing left. And if it was really you and really yours, it would stay, wouldnt it? If it was really yours where would it go, to some kind of storehouse of personality? But that concept and whatever you conceive, is a condition that arises and passes away. Any time you try to conceive yourself, any concept or memory of yourself as this or that is only a condition of your mind. Its not what you are - youre not a condition of your mind. So, sorrow, despair, love and happiness, are all conditions of mind and they are not all not self.
@Jeffrey said:> "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus:
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.
The training referred to here is the bare attention of mindfulness. But practising mindfulness involves intention, so we are back to the original paradox.
@pegembara said: As you look carefully, very patiently and humbly, you begin to see that the created arises out of the Uncreated and goes back to the Uncreated, it disappears and there is nothing left.
Who or what is doing the looking? Who or what is the "you" referred to here? There is something observing conditions of mind, and the act of observing involves intention. So?......
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Intention is a craving of a sort.
The trick is to exercise mindfulness without necessarily wanting to.
I think you're still glossing over an important distinction here. "Just knowing" makes sense because it's passive. "Just mindfulness" doesn't make sense because it's active, a deliberate activity involved intention.
It's like the difference between "seeing" ( passive ) and "looking" ( active ).
Practice is active, the result of practice is passive.
In the sense of cause and effect, no doubt.
However passive and active are qualities. Mindfulness/bare attention does not arise or leave with brush strokes. It is pristine. Timeless. Different shades arise and fall.
... and now back to the glossing ...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
Intention is a craving of a sort.
The trick is to exercise mindfulness without necessarily wanting to.
That sounds right but it seems like something that would come in time with practice. It could be stumbled upon I guess but to stay mindful all the time without any effort or practice would be sweet.
@pegembara said: As you look carefully, very patiently and humbly, you begin to see that the created arises out of the Uncreated and goes back to the Uncreated, it disappears and there is nothing left.
Who or what is doing the looking? Who or what is the "you" referred to here? There is something observing conditions of mind, and the act of observing involves intention. So?......
That's just a convention of speech. When I say that I am breathing, is it true that "I" am breathing? What breathes? Without the eye can I see? So is it I see or eye see?
@pegembara said:> That's just a convention of speech. When I say that I am breathing, is it true that "I" am breathing? What breathes? Without the eye can I see? So is it I see or eye see?
Not a valid comparison because these are "automatic" functions which don't involve intention. Mindfulness practice involves intention.
@David said: That sounds right but it seems like something that would come in time with practice. It could be stumbled upon I guess but to stay mindful all the time without any effort or practice would be sweet.
I've found that it does get easier with practice, more natural, but there is still intention involved, at least in terms of remembering to be mindful.
@pegembara said:> That's just a convention of speech. When I say that I am breathing, is it true that "I" am breathing? What breathes? Without the eye can I see? So is it I see or eye see?
Not a valid comparison because these are "automatic" functions which don't involve intention. Mindfulness practice involves intention.
Are you saying that intention is self? So you intend to scratch an itch rather than the intention arises because of an itch. You intend to eat rather than intention arises because of hunger. You can of course also intend not to scratch or eat because it may be inconvenient to do so.
Could also be that the intention not to act arises because of another cause eg. knowing that scratching will make the itch worse?
It could be that Intention is not something one 'has'...it's what one 'is' at the intended time
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited March 2016
So you're saying that intention is an integral part of awareness? or mindfulness? Because these two terms are being used interchangeably but I don't think within the lists of Buddhism they are considered the same thing.
In the lists of mental factors intention is distinct as well as mindfulness, I think the term awareness refers more to the ideas of Dzogchen/Mahamudra, correct me if I'm wrong though.
So I'm not sure the question who or what is mindful is a correct question. It sounds like you are saying that there is a watcher outside of our mind and its qualities, why isn't the mind watching itself? Like a lamp lights up not only the room but itself as well.
Overall, I just think this is a subtle question and could use some more clarity to distinguish what we exactly are talking about.
In a sense @SpinyNorman what you are getting at is, you think there must be a first cause which from my humble understanding of the Dharma, there is no first cause...Ie, something which set the ball rolling ...Search as one may, one will never find what never was...
So
Who or what is being mindful?
...........cause condition effect continues ad infinitum .... Karmic sequence of events, interrupts the normal flow pattern, propelling the five aggregates onto a different path so to speak...
Perhaps the so called illusory 'first cause' ("Observer") in this case is the ignorant/not knowing 'ego' that grasps at nothing with the desire to make something, which in effect just leads to the ongoing production line of phenomena rising and departing...
Or perhaps my thoughts are not worth the neurons they are fired up on
@pegembara said: Are you saying that intention is self? So you intend to scratch an itch rather than the intention arises because of an itch.
Again this is not really a good comparison, it's reactive behaviour. There is a sustained intention involved in practising mindfulness, a remembering to observe.
It's more subtle than the self v. not-self argument, that's why I said "who or what".
@person said: So you're saying that intention is an integral part of awareness? or mindfulness? Because these two terms are being used interchangeably but I don't think within the lists of Buddhism they are considered the same thing.
I'm saying that sustained intention is integral to practising mindfulness. "Awareness" sounds more passive, so it's not the same thing.
Yes, it is quite subtle, I'm not suggesting a separate watcher, more like an ongoing separate function with intention behind it.
That's quite a long article, could you post the relevant passage?
Better to read the entire article. Picking one part doesn't do justice to what is being said. Mindfulness is involved in deliberately not taking a small section out.
That's quite a long article, could you post the relevant passage?
Better to read the entire article. Picking one part doesn't do justice to what is being said. Mindfulness is involved in deliberately not taking a small section out.
I've had a look and can't see anything directly relevant to this topic.
@person said:
Overall, I just think this is a subtle question and could use some more clarity to distinguish what we exactly are talking about.
Here is a more subtle answer with reference to sati: While the Buddha explained this pretty clearly he also said that there can be something called “wrong sati” or miccha sati (wrong attention) – So, quite contrary to popular belief, mindfulness per se is not “inherently good” – if it does not go to the root of the experience it might easily turn into some form of … shall we say Tantrism? http://www.theravadin.org/2009/02/13/mindfulness-is-not-sati/
I still do not feel that exploration is subtle enough but it may be useful ...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Who or what is being mindful.
'What' implies an essence with no inherent ability to do its own thing.
More of an object, that a subject.
I would use the term 'what' to denote something that does not do anything for itself, but requires stimulation or propulsion from a separate party or source.
A "What" is not a sentient compound.
A "Who" - is.
So what about narrowing it down to "Who" is being Mindful?
I mean, is this even a necessary investigation?
Seriously, I'm asking - is there a point to this kind of in-depth understanding or knowledge?
Does it actually really matter?
AS I'm so fond of asking:
"How conducive is receiving an answer, how relevant is this investigation, to the quality of my practice?"
How is pulling this to pieces and dissecting every definition, going to make Mindfulness any better?
We all do what we do with the tools we got - right?
If after 4 pages, we're no nearer to a satisfactory conclusion - how far are we getting with this?
I included "what" because I didn't want to get bogged down in a discussion about anatta, though that is what seems to have happened. "What" would be more like a function of mind.
The discussion here is relevant to my practice, other members can decide for themselves.
@pegembara said: As you look carefully, very patiently and humbly, you begin to see that the created arises out of the Uncreated and goes back to the Uncreated, it disappears and there is nothing left.
Who or what is doing the looking? Who or what is the "you" referred to here? There is something observing conditions of mind, and the act of observing involves intention. So?......
-Among other things, our brains can focus attention and contruct models. It is beleived by some in the scientific community, that when the brain combines these two things, the result is what is referred to as consciousness (Read: the "You" in your question).
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited March 2016
Researchers have identified the areas in the brain correlated with introspection and metacognition.
So can we say its the brain or the mind that is mindful? Or at least this one area?
-In my opinion, the brain is the hardware, and at the moment, the mind is "running" on it. And I'll stipulate, this view is most probably, best case only partially hitting the mark...
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@littlestudent said:>
I think if you strip down anything completely, you'll find a combination and interaction of chemicals.
That's true, I think, for anything in life, including life itself and consciousness. The only problem is we don't know the exact formula. However, that might be a good thing!
I think you need to start practising mindfulness, here and now. What you find might not be what you actually expect, so keep an open mind. If it helps to know, I am not some new-age air-head, I have a science degree and I'm an amateur naturalist and astronomer. I used to work as an Information Analyst for the Health Service in the UK and made a significant contribution to outcomes for heart attack patients.
Whoah, Norman! Why didn't you tell me?! That is way cool. (All of it, but especially the 'significant contribution to outcomes for heart attack patients.')
I would need to sit and observe the observer. If we try to describe it in words There are no words to describe "the watcher" However if we go beyond words we go to the don't know mind and go beyond mind.
Many thanks @Shoshin I feel it does.
That is an excellent explanation/understanding/perfect/spot on. Bravo.
As ever with Robert Thurman, I feel he should give up the cocaine Buddhism, what is he on? Running on emptiness? Calm down dear, take up meditation perhaps. Maybe he has a medical condition? [Lobster goes to sit in the naughty judgemental corner]
Here is a mainstream chat about the self with Christians and others. The second monk who mentions the four elements, seems to add nothing but confusion. May be of interest. So much great stuff on youtube.
@lobster said:> As ever with Robert Thurman, I feel he should give up the cocaine Buddhism, what is he on? Running on emptiness? Calm down dear, take up meditation perhaps.
@shanyin said:
Did the Buddha say anything on this topic? (suttas)
The self does not exist, nor is it nonexistent.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited March 2016
@SpinyNorman I've suggested twice in this thread that the mind or the brain is being mindful but you haven't responded. Since you responded to most other arguments can I assume you don't have any objection. Also though, you haven't agreed either so maybe you don't agree, do you have a different point of view then?
@person said:> @SpinyNorman I've suggested twice in this thread that the mind or the brain is being mindful but you haven't responded. Since you responded to most other arguments can I assume you don't have any objection. Also though, you haven't agreed either so maybe you don't agree, do you have a different point of view then?
I think you can look at mindfulness as a function of mind, or reflexive awareness. I'm not sure that really answers the question though. Practically speaking I've found that mindfulness involves sustained intention, this is something which the anatta groupies can't really explain.
Comments
This supports my suspicion that the Universal Consciousness Field is the thinker, manifesting within any one of the over 1 billion individual constructs we identify as humans. To say nothing of all the other sentient beings.
Let me raise this question @SpinyNorman, how certain are you of your perception of awareness? I've heard from several teachers of deep stages of meditation that seem profound, but as they are acclimated to aren't so much of an end point but rather act as a base or 'jumping off' point for the ultimate experience.
So I'm just saying be sure to ask yourself if your assessment is in fact correct or complete.
Does it feel authentic? It does, and that's all I can really go by.
You're the ultimate arbiter of what you experience. But I'll just say that in the same way that a young child learns how to identify their emotions (by adults who have previous experience with the emotions identifying them for the children) we usually need those who have solid experience with these states to help us sort them out. Maybe the written explanations are enough though, I don't really have any deep experiences to say for myself or not.
@littlestudent While I certainly love and appreciate science, myself (and probably a lot of people here) believe there is more to the experience of life than science has even touched the tip of the ice berg on. It is not, to me, merely connections of chemicals and biological processes. You speak about the article posted as if "this is what is happening in mindfulness, so that is that." Science is only just starting to look at meditative practices to see how they impact the brain and the body. JUST starting. There is no definitive conclusion even within science right now, and there are certainly myriad experiences people around the world, all through time, have shared and science cannot explain.
Science has limits because it requires the aggregates to observe and perceive and conclude. And with that, comes all the causes and conditions of every human involved in science, including their biases, no matter how unbiased they are trying to be. You have talked a lot about science, but what is your practice? Do you meditate? What has it taught you so far? Science most certainly can't explain the things Buddha talks about. Or Jesus, or anyone of similar caliber. The whole end-game of Buddhist practice is to become like them, and I think if you are going into it with an idea that science can explain it all, you are going to run into a lot of issues because science isn't remotely close yet. Obviously, like all of us, you are learning and growing in many ways. But if you reduce everything to mere biological/physiological/chemical processes your progress on the Buddhist path is probably going to be stunted.
You should look into some of the stuff the HHDL writes. He is very logical and science minded, yet has a firm grasp on the experiences of meditation and other contemplative practices.
Everything we do here regarding questions and answers, is in the realm of "thoughts"...
Thoughts/concepts being express in the written word...How can thought provide an answer to such a question ? ( knowing that the answer can not be found in another thought/concept ? )
@SpinyNorman ...It leads back to the ol' question of "Who wants to know!" if you can answer this then you have your answer, and if you can't answer this then you also have your answer...
I've found that an open-mind is very helpful, allowing for possibilities. Coming at experience with a head full of beliefs or disbeliefs isn't very productive.
I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings, as that was never my intention.
I’ve started meditating in 1999 in a small group, 3 x /week, after having taken a course. Two years ago I’ve set up my own daily meditation. It is clear that I’ve less experience than you do, but I feel I have enough to know what it is about.
I also have a scientific education at postgraduate level, and I have been involved in clinical research (oncology) en education for most of my professional life.
Science has allowed me to admire and marvel more about the natural world than I’d have done otherwise.
Does a bit of knowledge about metabolism and exercise physiology make you admire top athletes more? In my case it does.
Physiology and pathophysiology make you treasure life as never before, even though it is all about chemicals.
The knowledge that behaviour depends on chemicals and neurons firing together has made me much more compassionate to all sentient beings.
Putting everything in a cloud of mystery is counterproductive for me. “Don’t know” is perfectly fine, “needs further research” is exciting, but “can’t be explained” is unsatisfactory and “you can’t understand” is depressing.
Let us not confuse experience with understanding. Take hunger as an example: we all know the experience, but how many of us know what is happening in our bodies when we feel it? Tons of articles have been written to try to understand it. Same is true for pain. Likewise, it is not because you know awareness by experience that you know what exactly it is. Maybe you do maybe you don’t.
Concerning pain or hunger however, most of us would be happy to accept that chemicals play a major role in it. (They do – has been proven.) Why is it then sacrilege to suggest that chemicals could be important in awareness?
The good thing is that we learn and evolve and, as I’ve already said a few times, our opinions can change. This implies that we have an open mind and that we dare to say “I don’t know anything more than that and everything else is therefore speculation”.
Good luck to everybody!
there are things that can't be explained. At least not yet. There's nothing wrong or bad about that. We discover new things every day. And sometimes science seems to say something and we run with it and find that oops, science was wrong (ie that fat is what causes all of our health problems when we now know the main study that we based our entire societal change about food on was not a good study). Science is good. But there is more to human existence than science can prove, at least yet. Because science is dependent on the limits of human beings to make sense of it. We have a lot of limits. Especially that it may be that reality itself is changed by our observation of it. If reality changes based on us interacting with it, that makes it pretty hard to pin anything down for sure.
That is true.
Let's keep asking though.
Maybe that's what makes us human? Animals seem to be happy with what they know(?)
maybe animals are the ones that have it right. We always consider them a step backwards, but perhaps they are not. No one is more able to stay in the moment than animals, afterall. Only we make it so complex to have to think about it all the time. Maybe we're at the bottom of the mindfulness chain, lol.
-It seems to me, in order to be awake, we must ask questions. As a related aside, I believe science and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive. For example, as regards some of the comments in this thread, in the event the mind is nothing more than the brain running an Attention Model called Reflective Consciousness, it seems to me this is not necessarily incompatible with the ideas around no-self...
The Buddha was approached and asked by a person named Bahiya to reveal the insight necessary to realize enlightenment:
"Teach me the Dhamma (supreme truth), O Blessed One! Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term welfare and bliss.”
The Buddha responded:
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus:
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.
That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no ‘you’ in terms of that. When there is no ‘you’ in terms of that, there is no ‘you’ there.
When there is no ‘you’ there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of samsara (suffering).”
Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma (supreme truth) from the Blessed One, the mind of Bahiya right then was liberated. Having shared this teaching with Bahiya, the Blessed One left.
Who or what is being mindful? To whom does the aggregates belong to?
Instead, he pointed to direct knowing of conditions that change, that which we can know through our own experience at this moment. This is not a matter of believing anyone else. Its a matter of knowing at this present moment that whatever arises passes away.
So we put forth that kind of attention in our lives - to be attentive and notice that whatever arises passes away; that whatever condition of your mind or body - whether it is a sensation of pleasure or pain, feeling or memory, sight, sound, smell, taste or touch, inside or outside - is just a condition.
As you look carefully, very patiently and humbly, you begin to see that the created arises out of the Uncreated and goes back to the Uncreated, it disappears and there is nothing left. And if it was really you and really yours, it would stay, wouldnt it? If it was really yours where would it go, to some kind of storehouse of personality? But that concept and whatever you conceive, is a condition that arises and passes away. Any time you try to conceive yourself, any concept or memory of yourself as this or that is only a condition of your mind. Its not what you are - youre not a condition of your mind. So, sorrow, despair, love and happiness, are all conditions of mind and they are not all not self.
http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/essay/everything-that-arises-passes-away/d/doc2266.html
The training referred to here is the bare attention of mindfulness. But practising mindfulness involves intention, so we are back to the original paradox.
Who or what is doing the looking? Who or what is the "you" referred to here? There is something observing conditions of mind, and the act of observing involves intention. So?......
Intention is a craving of a sort.
The trick is to exercise mindfulness without necessarily wanting to.
In the sense of cause and effect, no doubt.
However passive and active are qualities. Mindfulness/bare attention does not arise or leave with brush strokes. It is pristine. Timeless. Different shades arise and fall.
... and now back to the glossing ...
That sounds right but it seems like something that would come in time with practice. It could be stumbled upon I guess but to stay mindful all the time without any effort or practice would be sweet.
That's just a convention of speech. When I say that I am breathing, is it true that "I" am breathing? What breathes? Without the eye can I see? So is it I see or eye see?
So who is the I referred to here?
Not a valid comparison because these are "automatic" functions which don't involve intention. Mindfulness practice involves intention.
That's the paradox, because it does seem that the practice of mindfulness involves intention. Skillful intention, but intention none-the-less.
I've found that it does get easier with practice, more natural, but there is still intention involved, at least in terms of remembering to be mindful.
Are you saying that intention is self? So you intend to scratch an itch rather than the intention arises because of an itch. You intend to eat rather than intention arises because of hunger. You can of course also intend not to scratch or eat because it may be inconvenient to do so.
Could also be that the intention not to act arises because of another cause eg. knowing that scratching will make the itch worse?
It could be that Intention is not something one 'has'...it's what one 'is' at the intended time
So you're saying that intention is an integral part of awareness? or mindfulness? Because these two terms are being used interchangeably but I don't think within the lists of Buddhism they are considered the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_factors_(Buddhism)
In the lists of mental factors intention is distinct as well as mindfulness, I think the term awareness refers more to the ideas of Dzogchen/Mahamudra, correct me if I'm wrong though.
So I'm not sure the question who or what is mindful is a correct question. It sounds like you are saying that there is a watcher outside of our mind and its qualities, why isn't the mind watching itself? Like a lamp lights up not only the room but itself as well.
Overall, I just think this is a subtle question and could use some more clarity to distinguish what we exactly are talking about.
There is intention followed by action, the "doer".
And then there is the "knower".
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajahn_Brahm_ANATTA.htm
In a sense @SpinyNorman what you are getting at is, you think there must be a first cause which from my humble understanding of the Dharma, there is no first cause...Ie, something which set the ball rolling ...Search as one may, one will never find what never was...
So
...........cause condition effect continues ad infinitum .... Karmic sequence of events, interrupts the normal flow pattern, propelling the five aggregates onto a different path so to speak...
Perhaps the so called illusory 'first cause' ("Observer") in this case is the ignorant/not knowing 'ego' that grasps at nothing with the desire to make something, which in effect just leads to the ongoing production line of phenomena rising and departing...
Or perhaps my thoughts are not worth the neurons they are fired up on
Again this is not really a good comparison, it's reactive behaviour. There is a sustained intention involved in practising mindfulness, a remembering to observe.
It's more subtle than the self v. not-self argument, that's why I said "who or what".
I'm saying that sustained intention is integral to practising mindfulness. "Awareness" sounds more passive, so it's not the same thing.
Yes, it is quite subtle, I'm not suggesting a separate watcher, more like an ongoing separate function with intention behind it.
That's quite a long article, could you post the relevant passage?
Better to read the entire article. Picking one part doesn't do justice to what is being said. Mindfulness is involved in deliberately not taking a small section out.
I've had a look and can't see anything directly relevant to this topic.
Here is a more subtle answer with reference to sati:
While the Buddha explained this pretty clearly he also said that there can be something called “wrong sati” or miccha sati (wrong attention) – So, quite contrary to popular belief, mindfulness per se is not “inherently good” – if it does not go to the root of the experience it might easily turn into some form of … shall we say Tantrism?
http://www.theravadin.org/2009/02/13/mindfulness-is-not-sati/
I still do not feel that exploration is subtle enough but it may be useful ...
Who or what is being mindful.
'What' implies an essence with no inherent ability to do its own thing.
More of an object, that a subject.
I would use the term 'what' to denote something that does not do anything for itself, but requires stimulation or propulsion from a separate party or source.
A "What" is not a sentient compound.
A "Who" - is.
So what about narrowing it down to "Who" is being Mindful?
I mean, is this even a necessary investigation?
Seriously, I'm asking - is there a point to this kind of in-depth understanding or knowledge?
Does it actually really matter?
AS I'm so fond of asking:
"How conducive is receiving an answer, how relevant is this investigation, to the quality of my practice?"
How is pulling this to pieces and dissecting every definition, going to make Mindfulness any better?
We all do what we do with the tools we got - right?
If after 4 pages, we're no nearer to a satisfactory conclusion - how far are we getting with this?
I included "what" because I didn't want to get bogged down in a discussion about anatta, though that is what seems to have happened. "What" would be more like a function of mind.
The discussion here is relevant to my practice, other members can decide for themselves.
-Among other things, our brains can focus attention and contruct models. It is beleived by some in the scientific community, that when the brain combines these two things, the result is what is referred to as consciousness (Read: the "You" in your question).
Researchers have identified the areas in the brain correlated with introspection and metacognition.
http://phys.org/news/2010-09-introspection-linked-gray-brain.html
So can we say its the brain or the mind that is mindful? Or at least this one area?
-In my opinion, the brain is the hardware, and at the moment, the mind is "running" on it. And I'll stipulate, this view is most probably, best case only partially hitting the mark...
Whoah, Norman! Why didn't you tell me?! That is way cool. (All of it, but especially the 'significant contribution to outcomes for heart attack patients.')
This short clip by Robert Thurman may shed some Buddhist light on the matter at hand :
"Reflections on the nature of the self" approx 9 minutes
Inner space.
I would need to sit and observe the observer. If we try to describe it in words There are no words to describe "the watcher" However if we go beyond words we go to the don't know mind and go beyond mind.
Many thanks @Shoshin I feel it does.
That is an excellent explanation/understanding/perfect/spot on. Bravo.
As ever with Robert Thurman, I feel he should give up the cocaine Buddhism, what is he on? Running on emptiness? Calm down dear, take up meditation perhaps. Maybe he has a medical condition?
[Lobster goes to sit in the naughty judgemental corner]
Here is a mainstream chat about the self with Christians and others. The second monk who mentions the four elements, seems to add nothing but confusion. May be of interest. So much great stuff on youtube.
I felt tired after trying to keep up with him.
Did the Buddha say anything on this topic? (suttas)
The self does not exist, nor is it nonexistent.
@SpinyNorman I've suggested twice in this thread that the mind or the brain is being mindful but you haven't responded. Since you responded to most other arguments can I assume you don't have any objection. Also though, you haven't agreed either so maybe you don't agree, do you have a different point of view then?
I think you can look at mindfulness as a function of mind, or reflexive awareness. I'm not sure that really answers the question though. Practically speaking I've found that mindfulness involves sustained intention, this is something which the anatta groupies can't really explain.
There is lots of stuff on how the aggregates are not-self, but as far as I know nothing which directly addresses the OP question.