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.
@silver said: 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'm not a medical professional, what best describes my skill-set is "Systems Analyst".
I'm not sure if BuddhaDharma counts as a system though.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@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.
Why not? If the argument is that mindfulness arises due to conditions why can't those conditions be sustained? I guess to me sustained intention seems compatible with anatta and I don't understand why it wouldn't be. Maybe you have reasons why but either I missed them or haven't been convinced in this thread.
I don't know the answer to this question, but whatever that thing is, it's what we have to work with in this lifetime. It's all we have to get us from here to liberation. That is all that's really important.
To name it, to isolate it or discern its phenomenological nature, is not really a useful exercise because it's essentially playing the selfsame deictic game that keeps us trapped in the realm of bhava, or "becoming" or "identification." We are constantly establishing deictic relations: what is "me/here/now" in relation to the world. "Me/here/now" as opposed to "me/there/then" or "them/here/now" or "you/there/then", etc. This is a game of orientation we play to maintain coherence. To be socially accountable and to make sense in a social context.
There is no such imperative in the Eightfold Path. No need to maintain an orientation or a coherence. No one in your life is going to come and ask where "you" went in jhana. Asking "who" you were when you were mindful is never going to happen except on an internet forum or in some contrived settings like a meditation group. The Buddha is not going to descend upon you in the last moments of your life and ask you some inane riddle that you can't possibly know the answer to. Life does not ask that question of you. To the extent that life asks any questions of you, it asks for an answer given in karma, not in words.
The Buddha didn't posit anatta as something to be believed, but a tool to be used. He didn't say there was no self. For all we know, there may be something there. But it's like an eye straining to see itself, and isn't really relevant to the actions of Buddhism. It's not relevant to living an ethical life, or to letting go enough to end the suffering of yourself or those around you.
@SpinyNorman said:
"Inner stillness" is the best I can do..
I don't see stillness, I see vibrations of different frequency. Expansion and contraction. Awake and fall asleep, breath in and breath out. This space is alive, full of stuff, and it is the first thing that arises.
Indeed. Do - come. Don't do - goes.
So intention is behind a practice of achievement.
In the higher sense that the exhausting Professor Thurman described, intention is no part of mindfulness. There are no arisings or fallings as distinct, no intentions or unintended arisings or fillings.
What is the intention behind not practicing? There is none.
Emptiness is form but so is form emptiness. Never mind the bollocks. Sex Pistols
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
This thread seems to be coming at the dharma in a few different ways.
I can get behind anatta because it's really about a (seemingly ironic) permanent lack of permanence. It isn't that I do not exist but rather that I am in constant change so no label can stick.
It doesn't make a lick of sense to have the illusion of existence. That which does not exist can hardly be fooled into thinking anything.
In my opinion, our sense of individuality is a tool of self exploration and a vehicle to other perspectives for the Tao or whatever we label we use. In that case it is nothing but us being mindful but in two ways. As a piece of the puzzle and (through connectedness and perhaps vicariously) as the ever growing puzzle.
@SpinyNorman said: In the higher sense that the exhausting Professor Thurman described, intention is no part of mindfulness. There are no arisings or fallings as distinct, no intentions or unintended arisings or fillings.
He was talking about stages of awakening, not the practice of mindfulness. Like most of the responses on this thread it doesn't actually address the OP question. It doesn't address the paradox of the sustained intention involved in mindfulness practice.
@Barah said: I don't see stillness, I see vibrations of different frequency. Expansion and contraction. Awake and fall asleep, breath in and breath out. This space is alive, full of stuff, and it is the first thing that arises.
But who is the "I"? Space is just space, an absence of stuff, it cannot be mindful. One can be mindful of space, but that is something different.
@Barah said: I don't see stillness, I see vibrations of different frequency. Expansion and contraction. Awake and fall asleep, breath in and breath out. This space is alive, full of stuff, and it is the first thing that arises.
But who is the "I"? Space is just space, an absence of stuff, it cannot be mindful. One can be mindful of space, but that is something different.
Maybe there is no I, maybe it is just convention.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
But who is the "I"? Space is just space, an absence of stuff, it cannot be mindful. One can be mindful of space, but that is something different.
From what I understand, space actually has properties. In vacuum creation science or particle physics we see virtual particles get pulled from space itself.
But who is the "I"? Space is just space, an absence of stuff, it cannot be mindful. One can be mindful of space, but that is something different.
From what I understand, space actually has properties. In vacuum creation science or particle physics we see virtual particles get pulled from space itself.
Sure, but here we're talking about space in a Buddhist context, which is basically anywhere not occupied by the elements of form, ie space is just the absence of form.
@techie said: There is mindfulness, the 'I' comes later.
I don't think that really answers the question. The fact remains that there is sustained intention involved in maintaining mindfulness, it doesn't really matter whether you call it "I" or not.
@techie said: There is mindfulness, the 'I' comes later.
I don't think that really answers the question. The fact remains that there is sustained intention involved in maintaining mindfulness, it doesn't really matter whether you call it "I" or not.
So why not just call it I? Me? Merely me, that's like every other experience and object of experience, empty and ephemeral.
What is it that tells you that there is something more there than merely I?
Seems like being stuck at " there is no mountain".
Is there a point where it moves on from needing that sustained intention/attention? For most of us I think that is the case. But is it the case for the more advanced practitioners? TNH always comes to mind, especially as he deals with his stroke and its aftermath. It seems like he stuck with the intention for so long that that is now his default operational mode and it would be more work for him to get out of being mindful than it is for him to be so. I think it can become just what we operate out of, when your mind is trained to that degree. But I think few of us have the wherewithal to get to that point.
It would seem once someone is awakened/enlightened, at the very least, mindfulness would always be present without intent and attention and effort. But I never get the sense that Tolle is that way, yet I get the sense TNH and others like him, are. Yet they never claim to be enlightened. So it's an interesting thing to observe on my part. Obviously, we are limited to books and videos. But our sangha leader has studied and done several retreats with TNH and he says the same thing. That his practice is so advanced that it maintains itself and that is his default mode now, versus the rest of us who have to work so hard to maintain it even for 10 minutes.
@robot said: Seems like being stuck at " there is no mountain".
Sorry but you've lost me here - how does this relate to mindfulness practice?
Perhaps @robot is referring to the Zen saying "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is a mountain" it possible one could become stuck on the no mountain/non self ie, Who or what is being mindful finding it hard to find the sense of self 'involvement' ie, the mountain/self again... So I'm guessing in this sense, it has a lot to do with mindfulness But "I" could be wrong.....
"Intention" does not exist in and of itself. It's an inexact appellation that describes many different phenomena converging all at once: our biological drives and genetic predispositions, our social conditioning (and the agendas that emerge out of that), and the here-and-now contingencies we are faced with at any given time. We can see intention as a very elaborated manifestation of cause-and-effect, or (more precisely) stimulus-response. "Mindfulness" as a behavior engaged in by an organism is a phenomenon that has causes and conditions, without which it would not exist. Any "intending" going on during the "practice" of mindfulness exists as a function of these causes and conditions, not independent of it.
We are taught to "look inside" for the answers on our spiritual path. In this case, it may be better to work from the outside-in. There are many things that had to happen in the world for "mindfulness" to happen in an individual at any given time.
@Glow said: Any "intending" going on during the "practice" of mindfulness exists as a function of these causes and conditions, not independent of it.
I agree, but does this help to answer the question?
Yes.
I may have confused the issue by trotting out the old Buddhist warhorse "causes and conditions." Ignore the two sentences in which I use that phrase. Focus on the rest.
@Namada said: What are you actualy asking for @SpinyNorman You know you have self awarness, but you want to know where it is located or?
As per the OP question. As usual I'm exploring questions arising from personal experience. As usual I'm being a little provocative because most forum users have no idea how to start an interesting thread.
Intersthing thread, but Not so easy to answer, its in the same category as asking who am I?
Asking this kind of questions can also help to trancend suffering, dont you think?
Who or what is being mindfull? Its the observing mind, the one who knows, or pure awareness..
Diffrence between consciousness and awareness:
Consciousness is awareness of your body and your environment; self-awareness is recognition of that consciousness—not only understanding that you exist but further comprehending that you are aware of your existence. Another way of considering it: to be conscious is to think; to be self-aware is to realize that you are a thinking being and to think about your thoughts.
What is the Noble Truth of Suffering? Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering: in short the five categories affected by clinging are suffering.
@Namada said:
Intersthing thread, but Not so easy to answer, its in the same category as asking who am I?
Asking this kind of questions can also help to trancend suffering, dont you think?
Who or what is being mindfull? Its the observing mind, the one who knows, or pure awareness..
Diffrence between consciousness and awareness:
Consciousness is awareness of your body and your environment; self-awareness is recognition of that consciousness—not only understanding that you exist but further comprehending that you are aware of your existence. Another way of considering it: to be conscious is to think; to be self-aware is to realize that you are a thinking being and to think about your thoughts.
-You know, I believe the answer to this specific question is straight-forward: Based on the science I have spoken to earlier in this thread, it seems to me self-reflective awareness is the "I". Evidently, when our brains "model" "attention" the output is self-reflective consciousness capable of making "what is and what ought to be" determinations (read: among other things, intention). However, to my mind, the implications which flow from this reality is where it get's tricky...
@Barah said: I don't see stillness, I see vibrations of different frequency. Expansion and contraction. Awake and fall asleep, breath in and breath out. This space is alive, full of stuff, and it is the first thing that arises.
But who is the "I"? Space is just space, an absence of stuff, it cannot be mindful. One can be mindful of space, but that is something different.
This space is not just space, it's a projection, and there is no technical difference between the inner and outer space.
"I' is something that manifests later, when memory gathers enough data.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Comments
I'm not a medical professional, what best describes my skill-set is "Systems Analyst".
I'm not sure if BuddhaDharma counts as a system though.
Why not? If the argument is that mindfulness arises due to conditions why can't those conditions be sustained? I guess to me sustained intention seems compatible with anatta and I don't understand why it wouldn't be. Maybe you have reasons why but either I missed them or haven't been convinced in this thread.
I don't know the answer to this question, but whatever that thing is, it's what we have to work with in this lifetime. It's all we have to get us from here to liberation. That is all that's really important.
To name it, to isolate it or discern its phenomenological nature, is not really a useful exercise because it's essentially playing the selfsame deictic game that keeps us trapped in the realm of bhava, or "becoming" or "identification." We are constantly establishing deictic relations: what is "me/here/now" in relation to the world. "Me/here/now" as opposed to "me/there/then" or "them/here/now" or "you/there/then", etc. This is a game of orientation we play to maintain coherence. To be socially accountable and to make sense in a social context.
There is no such imperative in the Eightfold Path. No need to maintain an orientation or a coherence. No one in your life is going to come and ask where "you" went in jhana. Asking "who" you were when you were mindful is never going to happen except on an internet forum or in some contrived settings like a meditation group. The Buddha is not going to descend upon you in the last moments of your life and ask you some inane riddle that you can't possibly know the answer to. Life does not ask that question of you. To the extent that life asks any questions of you, it asks for an answer given in karma, not in words.
The Buddha didn't posit anatta as something to be believed, but a tool to be used. He didn't say there was no self. For all we know, there may be something there. But it's like an eye straining to see itself, and isn't really relevant to the actions of Buddhism. It's not relevant to living an ethical life, or to letting go enough to end the suffering of yourself or those around you.
The best answer yet.
"Inner stillness" is the best I can do.
References to "anatta" are pretentious bollocks, by the way.
I don't see stillness, I see vibrations of different frequency. Expansion and contraction. Awake and fall asleep, breath in and breath out. This space is alive, full of stuff, and it is the first thing that arises.
Indeed. Do - come. Don't do - goes.
So intention is behind a practice of achievement.
In the higher sense that the exhausting Professor Thurman described, intention is no part of mindfulness. There are no arisings or fallings as distinct, no intentions or unintended arisings or fillings.
What is the intention behind not practicing? There is none.
Emptiness is form but so is form emptiness.
Never mind the bollocks. Sex Pistols
This thread seems to be coming at the dharma in a few different ways.
I can get behind anatta because it's really about a (seemingly ironic) permanent lack of permanence. It isn't that I do not exist but rather that I am in constant change so no label can stick.
It doesn't make a lick of sense to have the illusion of existence. That which does not exist can hardly be fooled into thinking anything.
In my opinion, our sense of individuality is a tool of self exploration and a vehicle to other perspectives for the Tao or whatever we label we use. In that case it is nothing but us being mindful but in two ways. As a piece of the puzzle and (through connectedness and perhaps vicariously) as the ever growing puzzle.
He was talking about stages of awakening, not the practice of mindfulness. Like most of the responses on this thread it doesn't actually address the OP question. It doesn't address the paradox of the sustained intention involved in mindfulness practice.
But who is the "I"? Space is just space, an absence of stuff, it cannot be mindful. One can be mindful of space, but that is something different.
Maybe there is no I, maybe it is just convention.
From what I understand, space actually has properties. In vacuum creation science or particle physics we see virtual particles get pulled from space itself.
Sure, but here we're talking about space in a Buddhist context, which is basically anywhere not occupied by the elements of form, ie space is just the absence of form.
That doesn't answer the OP question.
There is mindfulness, the 'I' comes later.
I don't think that really answers the question. The fact remains that there is sustained intention involved in maintaining mindfulness, it doesn't really matter whether you call it "I" or not.
maybe it has been said before...
attentive, clear, observing instead of judging
So why not just call it I? Me? Merely me, that's like every other experience and object of experience, empty and ephemeral.
What is it that tells you that there is something more there than merely I?
Seems like being stuck at " there is no mountain".
Sorry but you've lost me here - how does this relate to mindfulness practice?
Is there a point where it moves on from needing that sustained intention/attention? For most of us I think that is the case. But is it the case for the more advanced practitioners? TNH always comes to mind, especially as he deals with his stroke and its aftermath. It seems like he stuck with the intention for so long that that is now his default operational mode and it would be more work for him to get out of being mindful than it is for him to be so. I think it can become just what we operate out of, when your mind is trained to that degree. But I think few of us have the wherewithal to get to that point.
It would seem once someone is awakened/enlightened, at the very least, mindfulness would always be present without intent and attention and effort. But I never get the sense that Tolle is that way, yet I get the sense TNH and others like him, are. Yet they never claim to be enlightened. So it's an interesting thing to observe on my part. Obviously, we are limited to books and videos. But our sangha leader has studied and done several retreats with TNH and he says the same thing. That his practice is so advanced that it maintains itself and that is his default mode now, versus the rest of us who have to work so hard to maintain it even for 10 minutes.
Perhaps @robot is referring to the Zen saying "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is a mountain" it possible one could become stuck on the no mountain/non self ie, Who or what is being mindful finding it hard to find the sense of self 'involvement' ie, the mountain/self again... So I'm guessing in this sense, it has a lot to do with mindfulness
But "I" could be wrong.....
"Intention" does not exist in and of itself. It's an inexact appellation that describes many different phenomena converging all at once: our biological drives and genetic predispositions, our social conditioning (and the agendas that emerge out of that), and the here-and-now contingencies we are faced with at any given time. We can see intention as a very elaborated manifestation of cause-and-effect, or (more precisely) stimulus-response. "Mindfulness" as a behavior engaged in by an organism is a phenomenon that has causes and conditions, without which it would not exist. Any "intending" going on during the "practice" of mindfulness exists as a function of these causes and conditions, not independent of it.
We are taught to "look inside" for the answers on our spiritual path. In this case, it may be better to work from the outside-in. There are many things that had to happen in the world for "mindfulness" to happen in an individual at any given time.
I agree, but does this help to answer the question?
Yes.
I may have confused the issue by trotting out the old Buddhist warhorse "causes and conditions." Ignore the two sentences in which I use that phrase. Focus on the rest.
I found this article where neuro sicentists try to locat self-awarness in the brain..
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/self-awareness-new-insights-into-how-human-brain-constructs-of-sense-of-self.html
But they didnt really find it out:
"Clearly, neuroscience is only beginning to understand how the human brain can generate a phenomenon as complex as self-awareness."
What are you actualy asking for @SpinyNorman You know you have self awarness, but you want to know where it is located or?
As per the OP question. As usual I'm exploring questions arising from personal experience. As usual I'm being a little provocative because most forum users have no idea how to start an interesting thread.
Intersthing thread, but Not so easy to answer, its in the same category as asking who am I?
Asking this kind of questions can also help to trancend suffering, dont you think?
Who or what is being mindfull? Its the observing mind, the one who knows, or pure awareness..
Diffrence between consciousness and awareness:
Consciousness is awareness of your body and your environment; self-awareness is recognition of that consciousness—not only understanding that you exist but further comprehending that you are aware of your existence. Another way of considering it: to be conscious is to think; to be self-aware is to realize that you are a thinking being and to think about your thoughts.
At the risk of being heretical, it's never been about about suffering for me, I just want to know.
Tee Hee! Gnosis above suffering and the ennobled 4 Truth Fairy.
Punk Dharma.
I am gonna sit outside the temple, awaiting someone, preferably not me or a monk with a Mohican ...
So who wants to know @SpinyNorman ?
I just want to know.
What is the Noble Truth of Suffering? Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering: in short the five categories affected by clinging are suffering.
-You know, I believe the answer to this specific question is straight-forward: Based on the science I have spoken to earlier in this thread, it seems to me self-reflective awareness is the "I". Evidently, when our brains "model" "attention" the output is self-reflective consciousness capable of making "what is and what ought to be" determinations (read: among other things, intention). However, to my mind, the implications which flow from this reality is where it get's tricky...
This space is not just space, it's a projection, and there is no technical difference between the inner and outer space.
"I' is something that manifests later, when memory gathers enough data.
What is being mindful?
Information.
@SpinyNorman
As a Tibetan Buddhist Master once said :
The "Mind's Eye" ( "I" )....Mind turned inwards recognising its true nature
Inside outside one can't escape the mind's eye