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.
Mindfulness...
buddhafoot
Veteran
Name one thing you did today that you were honestly and truly mindful of doing.
-bf
-bf
0
Comments
As long as you were truly and honestly mindful when doing them.
-bf
But... I did take the time and spent some time thinking about people that I truly care about today... and some time to think good thoughts about people that I don't like. In fact, I really f*#king hate them sometimes.
But... there is a passage in the Dhammapada that goes:
Which is how I find myself at times, I am ashamed to say. So, I spend time wishing good things on these people (person) trying to be heedful.
-bf
.....Makes a change from the cold-chisel and the 5lb club-hammer....
I was Mindful today whilst, of all things, I washed up.
If fifteen minutes of housework could have been described as sporadically blissful (intespersed with Bringing the Mind Home) these fifteen minutes were it.
Hot water...
Soapy...
Skin slick and clean
Oh crap... why is Nick walking into my fantasy of you in the shower!?!?! It ain't pretty!!!!!!
Ahhhh! My eyes are burning!!!!!
200 lbs!!!!!!
The hamster!?!?!?!!
-bf
Stoodoverasinkofhotosapywaterwashingplatescutlerandfilthygreasysaucepansandcussingintheendbecausemyrubberglovehadaholeinit.....
cleaning the house comes in June.
Maybe.
If I feel like it.
Brigid
i thoroughly enjoy that!
walkin up the stairs- mindfully is being aware of my feet being placed on the step,my legs moving and feeling the muscles in my body as they move ( one never trips this way )lol
eating mindfully-chewing, tasting,swallowing, not talking while im eating and the job done
very slowly and enjoyable to the max ( one never chokes this way )lol
talkin to people-listening,watching their smiles ,( smiles can be sarcastic, sad, heartful etc. )looking in their eyes, watching expressions, feeling where they are coming from ,enjoying their words( one gets a real sense for someone )
when outside walking.. im aware of my body moving and feet etc. but as a whole
im mindful of my surroundings.. the birds, the lawnmowers, the colour of the grass etc.
surroundings are secondary , im more mindful of me taking steps.
We're all working on it Simon...I think that only an Enlightened mind can be as aware as you describe...But occasionally, for a fleeting, momentary glimpse, on that rare occasion, something of the kind shimmers in me, and I catch a barely discernible glimpse into the Natural Great Perfection.
Thank you for the reminder.
Actually... what happened to me during my response to this question was:
When I was thinking of those that I care about - and those that I don't - I was evaluating myself to see if what I was doing actually fell in step with what Buddha taught. I was thinking of the teachings of the Dhammapada. I was wondering if I do show compassion like we talk about here. I was thinking of my interaction with people and how anger affects me. Are my actions truly practicing the teachings of Buddha? Taking the time to really think about, be mindful of and evaluate.
The state of my body was really not my concern at that point. I was focused on something else. Now I just have to learn to be able to do all of these things simultaneously. Or did Buddha do that? Was he concerned about glands and skin cells and the growth of flowers when teaching his fellow man?
Good questions.
-bf
For some of us, the descriptions of perfection that are attributed to the Father are our own inheritance to come into.
So usually after he slept, I would kiss him on his cheek several time. Today though, as I kissed him, I somehow recalled reading Yogamama mindfully snuggling her daughter in bed, I then slowed myself down and kissed him mindfully. For that moment, I knew that I’m mindful and I was feeling the love for him. So I wanted to share my experience to this thread. Though, after that, I said to myself I want to mindfully kiss him again, I then got that self-conscious started. I realized that this was what happened to me when I tried to be mindful before, I was telling myself I GOTTA be mindful doing this and that, in fact those thoughts lead me to being self-conscious when I’m doing this and that, I was judging myself during the process.
So mindfulness comes naturally when I don’t try?
It is my opinion that 'mindfulness' is the natural state which is obscured by the process of living and the resistance of the ego to what seems to be melting into the universe and a passing-away of self.
YES!! You did it!!
:cheer: :woowoo: :woowoo:
Beautiful post, Andy!! Just beautiful! Your nephew is a very lucky little boy to have such a wonderful, caring and loving uncle.
You not only succeeded in practicing mindfulness but you also practiced compassion and it all came naturally because that's what's inside you to begin with. The outer layers peeled away in the presence of your nephew and your inner wisdom and loving heart shone through. That's what it's all about!! Peeling back the outer layers we've developed over our lifetimes and getting to the Buddhanature inside us and letting it shine like a warm and loving light.
I felt great joy reading your post, Andy. You made my day.
Thank you.
Brigid
Simon , I’m sorry but I’m not quite catching what you’ve said.
I am still confused over the whole mindfulness issue. So here are some of what I understand of mindfulness through reading, please feel free to criticize, fix my view as I’m trying to learn. Thank you!
1) Mindfulness let you live in the present and experience life in the moment, there is no past or future. A mindful person wouldn’t recall any memory in the past, even if it’s a pleasant one. He also doesn’t dwell ahead into the future.
2) Mindfulness in daily life should come naturally with little effort and need a firm formal meditation background to back it up, trying too much to be mindful causes self-conscious which is the opposite of being mindful.
3) Mindfulness is not just knowing what you’re doing, but started with a good intention. For example, if a robber is robbing the bank but he knows what he’s doing, he was not mindful. A person helping other and putting his whole heart into it, he is mindful in the process.
4) Mindfulness let you look at the self objectively without judgement, like a scientist. That way insight is achieved.
Are those view correspond to Right Mindfulness in the Noble Eightfold Path?
The reason I wanted to practice mindfulness is to gain insight, to improve myself. Though as much as I want to be mindful and gain insight, I am being self-conscious when trying to be mindful. In fact, yesterday I was thinking about mindfulness again, and then got insecure for a little while. So I tried to apply compassion to myself, my speech was like: This will change, my wrong perspective will also change, be gentle to myself; it does help a little and later on when I chatted and had a good time with a friend, I felt good again.
So my yesterday thoughts that lead to insecurity were some like this: “Compassion is good, that is when genuinely caring for others, there is less focus in one own self and one feel more blessed. But compassion is taught in all other religions whereas meditation and mindfulness are Buddhism unique and it is the ultimate path to wisdom. I need wisdom do direct my compassion in the right way. Mindfulness is something I have to master, sooner or later”
Right now though, I just free myself, then I’m good. That is I eat and watch TV at the same time, drink beer with friends, enjoy a good movie, have a good time, recall some good memory, etc. Though I wish to pay attention more to people around me and apply compassion when I can. I tried also to have 10 minutes sitting meditation at night and afterward wish for my mother recent constant coughing to be better, and everyone peace of mind, and finally for myself to have right knowledge.
What do you think? Feel free to give me any advice. Thanks.
~Andy
Can mindfulness mean different things in different scenarios?
As I am reading these posts from the beginning, I can relate to Yogamama and Bf's trying to think of loving-kind thoughts to someone whom I REALLY do not care for. I am trying REALLY hard to not let this person aggrevate me and understand his actions, speech, and intention. This is conscious mindfulness for me.
I can also relate to Andy's natural mindfulness as I have 6 nieces and nephews that I have similar experiences with...mindfulness and loving-kindness come so natural.
Both degrees of mindfulness are positive ones...but are either of them the closer one to
Right Mindfulness?
I am not sure if I understand your questions as well as I think I do, but I would like to try and answer them anyway. If my answers seem helpful, then please keep them in mind. If, however, my answers do not seem helpful, then please forget about them. I think that you have raised some very important question, and I would like to offer my perspective.
1.) The Buddha generally defines sati (mindfulness) as "keeping something in mind". That is all it really means. So, when we are being mindful of the body, we are simply remembering to keep the body in mind. Now, sampajañña (alertness, presensce of mind) is the alertness of an experience. We can combine these two to create sati-sampajañña, which is "mindfulness and clarity of consciousness". These two terms often go hand in hand in the Suttas.
2.) Meditation strengthens mindfulness. The more you practice mindfulness, such as anapanasati (mindfulness of breathing), the easier it will be to maintain. Mindfulness doesn't really "happen" naturally because our defilements actually prevent it.
3.) Sati (mindfulness) is simply keeping something in mind. Samma-sati (Right Mindfulness) is mindfulness that is based upon Right View, Right Intentions, Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood, etc. A robber can be mindful of "robbing", however, that is not Right Mindfulness. A person helping others and putting his whole heart into it is doing much more than being mindful. They are also cultivating things like effort, alertness, various intentions, etc.
4.) Not exactly. Sati (mindfulness) doesn't judge, but it does make being judicious possible. We certainly don't want to be judgmental in our practice, but we do want to make careful observation and judicious decisions. Being judgmental means that you make a decision without any really insight in the matter, whereas being judicious means that you really make an informed decision based upon all the facts. To really use mindfulness properly, we have to frame our experience within the framework of the Four Noble Truths. Not only do we have to pay attention to our experience, but we also have to use what we learn skillfully for the purpose of ending suffering.
Let me use anapanasati for an example. To develop jhana (meditative absorption), we not only need sati-sampajañña (mindfulness and clarity of consciousness), but we need to have vitakka (directed thought) and vicara (evaluation) as well. If we notice that the breath is restricted or tight, we don't just want to be mindful and aware of that. We also want to make changes to the breath, to make it more comfortable. In that way our mind settles down and becomes absorbed within its object (i.e. the breath). The role of sati (mindfulness) is to remind us to stick with the breath, to keep it in mind so that we are able to evaluate it, and make it more comfortable.
The more we practice mindfulness, the stronger it becomes. Soon it will begin show its benefits. One of those benefits is being more aware of our intentions before we act upon them. This helps us to make better and better decisions. We also will begin to have better progress in our meditations. We will gain more samantha (tranquility) and develop more panna (wisdom) by having a strong, calm, penetrating mind. Mindfulness isn't just an end in itself, it is a tool that we must utilize if we are to further our practice.
I would like to stress that one should never feel insecure, or worry about their initial lack of mindfulness. We all start out that way. Even the Buddha had to develop his practice of mindfulness before his profound Awakening. That is why we must also cultivate khanti (patience), and karuna (compassion) for ourselves. We all want to be happy, and this practice takes time. So, we endure what we can endure, forgive where we are able to forgive, relinquish what we are ready to relinquish, realize that there is work to be done, and motivate ourselves to begin this amazing journey of discovery.
Those are my thoughts about it anyway.
Sincerely,
Jason
I think that, as in many other areas, we need to be careful to distinguish between mindfulness as part of the practice of the Noble Eighfold Path and mundane 'paying attention'. It is far wider and more counter-intuitive.
As an example: imagine that you decide to engage in helping to feed the homeless. From my own experience of the St Mungo soup runs in London, you will meet some pretty 'unpleasant' people: they swear at you, they smell bad and they are aggressive. Only by application of the principles of Right Mindfulness and compassion can you continue to embrace the 'ungrateful'. This takes you far beyond simply paying attention.
For those who are not yet ready to put the Buddhist principle of interbeing into practice, the poet Rilke shows us the way in which we can begin to praise the 'unpraiseworthy' which is yet another way into the state where loving-kindness is shared not only with those who are easy to love.
The exact defintion that the Buddha gives for the word sati (mindfulness) is:
This leads us into the teachings on satipatthana (foundations of mindfulness):
While these terms are all interrelated, "sati" itself is actually quite simplistic.
Regards,
Jason
P.S. It is good to see you again.
Andy,
I sincerely hope my comments can help you in your efforts and don't overly confuse you due to a dissimilarity of view. On your first point, I think in some ways you have it actually backwards. The word we refer to as mindfulness here is "sati" and as Elohim well pointed out, it means generally holding something in mind, or attention. It also carries the meaning of memory and recollection. So, not only is memory not excluded from the meaning of sati, but to my sense it refers to a practice of paying attention to something that is not necessarily immediately apparent to your normal consciousness, or bringing the mind back away from its current habitual tendency to go out and form itself to the senses and khandhas. .
"Recollection" here is an excellent approximate word for sati because it carries several useful layers of meaning, among them a basic sense of "bringing back together" which provides the key link between sati and samadhi. Of interest to me is that in the Catholic contemplative tradition, they use the word "Recollection" to indicate a practice of keeping awareness of the presence of God within amidst all experiences. Though we don't necessarily believe in the catholic God, it is possible to see a striking parallel in the Buddha's teaching on mindfulness.
On your second point, I can partly agree, and I feel that one practices formal meditation as a way of creating an insular situation for you to familiarize yourself with sati. It is like a tree growing in your backyard. At first it is a tiny seedling, and it takes care and attention to make it grow and avoid trampling it. This means it affects and distracts from your daily activities (by analogy, mowing the lawn, you have to be carefully aware of where the seedling is). So, it is true, the distraction required will cause you to be divided in daily life when sati is not sufficiently strong but you attempt to practice it, so it is better to strengthen it in formal practice and allow it to be present in a more natural way as it grows. As you develop sati, it becomes like an internal presence that is almost tangible in a difficult to describe way. It becomes like a sapling, which still requires care but is a stronger and more evident presence in the backyard, and can stand a little better on its own without constant attention, but still requires some care. Further development of sati becomes like a strong fully grown tree that will provide shade (in your day to day activities it becomes a cooling refuge that is always there for you) and even, if you so desire, a sturdy structure to climb to get a higher perspective on things (this means the development of jhana).
Your third point, I think, I am sorry to contradict you but I think both cases are not necessarily Buddhist mindfulness in the strictest sense (that is to say "right mindfulness") because they are what you could call extroverted (kammic) activities. In other words, I think you are actually partly right, but we have to redefine "good intention" as not just kammic good (following rules of moral right and wrong) but the kind of good that is solely conducive to the culmination of the eightfold path, samma samadhi, in other words the "highest good". So in this way "samma" means "right" but only in the highest way possible, more "in accordance with the ultimate goal" rather than "kammically good". This is a point that is difficult to communicate, I hope you can understand my clumsy attempt to explain.
Your fourth point sounds fairly true, except that we become involved in intricacies of philosophy on what self is. Because I believe truthfully you cannot look at the self, and this is part of the meaning of non-self. What you can look at is non-self, so what mindfulness does is be able to be aware of non-self (in other words the khandhas, the senses) without disturbing the activity of recollection, which is a kind of rebounding and holding at center the mind's habitual tendency to go out away from center. To be completely without judgement is to have equanimity, which is a stability of mind which is quite beyond the stage of only developing sati and is part of jhana. So sati does imply a kind of judgement which means you are valuing one kind of activity (centering) over another (extroversion), as a practice aspiring to higher learning (insight).
It is also worthwhile to know of the "ten recollections" because, though mindfulness of breath (which is only one of them) is much talked about, these others are also valid meditation practices, and do count legitimately as sati. All these things have the flavor of not being things you normally pay attention to in everyday awareness, in other words they are not always immediately apparent but rather are wholesome things to use as tools of recollecting the mind. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recollections.html
In short, I would answer the original question to say that I did not do anything mindfully.
(but rather was mindful in spite of doing things)
in friendliness,
V
And here I thought I knew what "being mindful" really meant. Boy, do I have a lot to learn.
Anyways...thanks for the above post, Jason. Very helpful. You all have given me lots of great information regarding "mindfulness".
I would also like to point out the reason for practicing mindfulness in the first place. I did not really touch upon this in my first post, but I think that it is worth elaborating. Mindfulness is really about establishing our awareness in the present, not because the present is some magical place or necessarily wonderful, but because that is where there is work to be done. If we have an unskillful intention, it arises in the present. If we act upon an unskillful intention, we act upon it in the present. If we have a skillful intention, it arises in the present. If we act upon a skillful intention, we act upon it in the present. Mindfulness keeps us centered right here, right on the object of our awareness in the present moment. In this way we can observe our actions, and evaluate them accordingly. The more we refine this mindfulness to subtler and subtler levels of consciousness, the more skillful we become. This is very important in the beginning stages of our practice all the way through to Nibbana (Liberation, Unbinding). That is why the Path is sometimes called the kamma (intentional actions) leading to the ending of kamma, because we intentional shape our experience. Without mindfulness, we would simply be at the mercy of our defilements (i.e. greed, hatred, and delusion).
Jason
You're welcome. I am glad that you found something helpful. But don't forget to compare what I've said to the Buddha's own words, and test it our for yourself first. Don't just take my word for it, because I could always be wrong. I am still learning as well.
Jason
Whenever I discuss mindfulness practice or meditation, I always try to encourage a consistent effort, even if it's only for a few minutes a day.
The mind is generally weak, unattentive, and easily distracted because we often do not practice basic mindfulness. Especially in our modern society, where everything is expected to be fast, faster, or light-speed. In our "civilized" culture, we have been actively cultivating shorter and shorter attention spans. As an example, the "MTV style of editing" has really taken hold in American television and cinema these days. We have quick, fast-paced images and dialogues strung together in such rapid succession that it doesn't even give the viewer enough time to take in all that they are experiencing. The mind can become so agitated that waiting through even a minute of commercials can seem unbearable. This is just the thing for a mind fermenting with greed, hatred, and delusion.
Instead of promoting a judicious approach to our daily lives, this approach promotes a more judgmental "first impression" attitude towards our experience. Problems, and hence suffering, then begin to arise because quite often those judgments are wrong. But, we never really stick with anything long enough to notice and really let it sink in (i.e. insight). As a result, the five hindrances gain strength because we are increasingly more impatient, restless, and mentally agitated. This is exactly the kind of environment where they thrive. That is why the jhanas temporarily subdue the hindrances, because the hindrances are temporarily deprived of their sustenance. They are unable to arise for as long as the mind is calm, concentrated, and free from agitation.
Is it really any wonder that we have some trouble keeping sustained attention on the breath, or anything else for that matter? Mindfulness is just like a muscle in that it will grow stronger the more it is used, and it will grow weaker the more it is neglected. The initial stages of mindfulness practice are often the hardest for most people. Just as when you first begin to work out your muscles at the gym, it's difficult, it can hurt, it doesn't seem like very much fun, and the benefits are not immediately apparent. However, it does get easier, and the benefits do become more apparent as time goes on. As the mind gets used to this new regimen of being continuously aware of its object (physical or mental), it will gradually adjust, and if consistently practiced, becomes almost effortless.
Basically, the moral of this little tangent is to really keep a consistent practice, because mindfulness is an invaluable part of the Buddha's Path.
Sincerely,
Jason
Here’s my situation. I don’t know if I’ll be able to clearly describe it. But here goes. For a while, I have always tried to practice daily mindfulness. I actually tried to be aware of EVERYTHING I do for EVERY single moment through out the day. Sometime I think it’s good, like walking alone the distance from the house to the car, paying attention to the surroundings and feeling the fresh air was good. Though sometime, I just felt like a robot, so mechanical. For example, when I was trying to staying focus on something, then I noticed I want to know the time, I refocused my mind into watching my hand raise up and look at the time on the watch. I felt restricted. I also feel some funs I used to had were gone, I mentioned before I didn’t feel the excitation and fun that I used to have with my nephew when I persisted keeping awareness of what I’m doing.
I’ve been pointed out that I was just being self-conscious, continue doing so would result in being neurotic. So currently I stopped practice daily mindfulness. In my previous post, I described what I’m doing as of recent. Though I feel free now, as opposed to the restricted, controlled feeling I had when trying to pratice daily mindfulness, reading some of the post here get me to want to start the practice again. But I’m too afraid that I will waste my time going on the wrong path again. Should I wait until some basic foundation is developed? What is that foundation? When is the approriate time? I don’t know what to do. I need some practical advice of what I should do, baby step? Thanks.
~Andy
Jason
Baby steps:
Jason
For some 14 years, I practised fencing (my weapon of choice was foil). I can assure you that mindfulness is essential in every bout. When I am writing, particularly poetry, mind and body are both engaged in the single task of 'getting it down on paper'. A practice of focus on breath is simply, as Elohim says, a way of training but training for what? It is this question which brings intention into the equation - but that's another kettle of bodhisattvas.
For some people, the Buddhist terminology is just too strange but mindfulness in itself remains important. If there are readers here who prefer to consider the matter through another language, here are a couple of books which might help:
"The Practice of the Presence of God"
and
"Turtles All The Way Down"
I didn't get this part, isn't changing the breath to short, fast, slow, etc... the same as controlling the breath?
Interesting, Simon.
Epee was my weapon of choice when I did fencing.
-bf
Mindfulness is not a 'Buddhist' thing per se, but most Buddhists have faith in the idea that the Buddha was the only one who used mindfulness in a way that lead to the complete cessation of suffering. I think that explaining these things via "Buddhist terminology" is actually more helpful for serious practitioners (of Buddhism anyway) because quite often the way the Buddha defined and used certain terms was very specific. Everything that he taught was intricately tied together like the threads of a spider's web, and even though certain points may seem independent of others, in reality they are all interconnected. When taken out of context, the translations of these terms will often take on meanings of their own--meanings quite independent of how the Buddha actually used them. But, those are just my thoughts about it. Everyone probably just thinks I'm being supercilious anyway.
Jason
There is an element of control involved, but only enough to bring the breath to a comfortable level. You don't want to force the breath as much as you want to allow it the chance to regulate itself. You see, if the breath is uncomfortable, it will cause distress with in the body. It will prevent the mind from settling down on the object, because the bodily distress will cause agitation in the mind, and visversa. So, the first step is really making the breath comfortable. You also need directed thought and evaluation to attain full mediative absorption. The directed thought would be focusing on the breath, and the evaluation would be making it comfortable. However, since this appears to be quite new to you, I would advised not worrying too much about any of this right now. Simply do what you can to breathe in a comfortable way, and try to maintain that feeling as long as you can without letting your mindfulness wander off. If you notice that your mind has wandered off, simply bring it back to the breath. This will help to strengthen your mindfuless so that it will be ready for whatever arises. I hope this answers your question.
Jason
Sincerely,
Brigid
I think that the article you quoted was simply saying to try different lengths of breath to see which is the most natural for you. I would imagine that this will vary from sitting to sitting. Also, you will probably find you breath lengthening as you become more relaxed and concentrated.
_/\_
metta
Not supercilious but, unwittingly perhaps, elitist. What you suggest is also what I term "faith-specific fascism". I know that the term is strong but I feel strongly about it.
The logical outcome of your position is to create a hierarchy of practitioners where the old arguments between Pali Canon and the rest of the scriptures become battlegrounds of academic argument. At the bottom of this pyramid will. once again, be the unlettered, the anawim. It will recreate aristocracy.
The Dharma is not the possession of any single language because language is no more than a sketch-map of an interpretation of deep structures. These deep structure can only manifest through 'imageries' among which are the arts and language.
Your suggestion that Pali has a special place ressembles the Islamic attitude to Quranic Arabic, with the belief that only in this language is it truly the Holy Quran.
At the same time, your well-researched and extremely informative posts demonstrate that, at bottom, you believe that the Dharma can - and, I would suggest - must be expounded in English. All your efforts suggest that this is very important to you. If Pali were the only 'code' in which to express the teachings of the Buddha and the Sangha, why take all the trouble that you do?
It is an accident of history that the Buddha Shakyamuni's words were remembered in Pali, although some historians dispute whether he actually spoke it. Why sanctify it?
For beings so compassionate, omnipotent or enlightened - one would think that they would be a little more far seeing than simply sharing teachings that only had a shelf-life of 500 years or so...
-bf
I can understand your point that simple mindfulness is not only not a Buddhist thing but is a basic requirement for success if not basic functioning in all kinds of fields. Just crossing a street successfully requires mindfulness, little to speak of an advanced discipline like flying a fighter jet or practicing surgery. At least, that's the way I think of it.
However, I think it is safe to assume that this discussion is framed in the context of the Buddha's teaching on mindfulness, which is not just ordinary functional mindfulness but it is what he called "right mindfulness". This word samma ("right") goes a long way in distinguishing between ordinary mindfulness and mindfulness connected with the holy life. when the Buddha speaks of "samma sati" ("right mindfulness"), he does so in fairly specific context of the spiritual path he is teaching and does not refer generally to the kind of mindfulness we are all already familiar with in our various functions and disciplines of worldly life. It might help to refigure "samma" or "right" as "in accordance with" (which is a good translation of meaning but clumsier in usage than the simple "right") and our natural next question becomes "in accordance with what?" The easiest answer to that question is "in accordance with the goal". In other words, we are talking about sati that is in accordance with the goal of bringing all eight path factors into alignment with Nibbana, not talking about sati that helps you remember your grocery list or stay finely tuned enough to be a good fencer. That's the distinction. We call it Buddhist not because the idea can't have parallels in other traditions but rather because as Buddhists we have a faith that the Buddha taught this systematic way.
I am glad you recommend a book on the practice of the presence of God, since, though I am not familiar with that particular book, I have been struck by the strength of the parallel to sammasati in this Christian notion of "recollection of the presence of God" (active recollection). I am more familiar with this idea through some of the writings of the late Thomas Merton, who as a Christian monk had an avid interest in Buddhism and Asian religion in general. There's some brief introductory material available on what we could call "Christian Sati" here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12676b.htm
in friendliness,
V.
I wasn't speaking literally of a "shelf-life" - perhaps my slang was innapropriate.
Ultimately, my point is:
These beings or deities that people worship speak of their "truths" being truths. Many stories, tales and parables were designed to match the IQ of the audience - some far surpassed the abilities of even Apostles.
But, I firmly believe that these beings - given that they had something to teach - had the forethought to ensure that their teachings wouldn't die because of something as simple as a language dying.
-bf
P.S. Twinkies probably have the shelf life of nuclear waste! So put that in yer pipe an' smoke it!
An unwitting elitist who promotes faith-specific fascism? I honestly had no idea that you held such a high opinion of me. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just for reference, however, I never said that we should only use Pali. I have stated often enough that Pali is simply what I know in greater detail because the Pali Canon is where I have focused my studies, therefore it is what I use when discussing Buddhism. One could use Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, English, Arabic, Finnish, or anything else for that matter. The language itself was not the point of my posts, it was the meaning behind the terms that what I was referring to.
The point that I was trying to communicate was that whatever language is used, the terminology must carry the same meaning or essence as it does in the various scriptures (Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, etc.). Otherwise, what you are discussing is not Buddhism. Mindfulness in the Buddhist context (whether it is the Pali "sati", Sanskrit "smrti", or whatever) should be defined as how the Buddha used it in reference to the Noble Eightfold Path, not how a certain person feels that it should be defined. If I am not mistaken here, this is a "Buddhist" forum first and foremost.
You consistently misrepresent me by saying I hold Pali in some special place where it is beyond reproach, as if I study and accept nothing else. What you apparently do not understand is that Buddhist terms carry their own meanings, meanings that the Buddha specifically dictated to make them distinct from other sects. Many of the key Buddhist terms that we use today, terms such as Nibbana/Nirvana, kamma/karma, etc., were also used by other teachers in other sects—the difference being the implied meaning and context. The teachings on kamma/karma are one good example. Other sects had their own teachings on kamma/karma, especially the Buddha's contemporary Nigantha Nataputta/Mahavira (founder of the Jains). The Buddha used that term differently than Nigantha Nataputta, which is made clear in the Upali Sutta (MN 56). The Buddha simply showed Upali why the other teaching was incorrect, and why it would not lead to the end of suffering.
Why do I use Pali in my posts? Is it because I think that Pali is a magic language that must remain pure and untouched? No, of course not. I simply feel that using a variety of different languages in my posts would unnecessarily confuse things. I also do not know all the Sanskrit, Chinese, Arabic, or Finnish equivalents for all of the Pali terms that I use to be more "politically correct". My use of Pali is simply to help people reference what I am talking about. Sometimes the Pali/Sanskrit terms do not translate very well into English, so it helps to use them just to let people know what you are referring to so they are able to look them up if they wish. Quite often, the detailed definition really puts the term into perspective, but it might be too long to make it practical to post.
How do I feel about the Pali Canon? I believe that from my personal studies, as well as the work of scholars, the Pali Nikayas are very close to what the Buddha himself taught. Does that mean that the language of Pali is somehow superior? No, because the exact same literature can be found in both Sanskrit and Chinese. Why? Because it was translated into all these various dialects before the major schisms that occured. So, regardless of what language the texts were originally spoken in, they were written down and translated into at least these three separate languages. This is very important because it shows that at one time, these were accepted as being actual teachings of the Buddha (minus the Vinaya and Abhidhamma which is another discussion altogether). There has been a fascinating, yet little know, study of this for some time by various monastics and scholars alike (some of which are Ajahn Sujato, M. Anesaki, Samuel Beal, Bhiksu Thich Minh Chau, etc.). I never said that Pali should be sanctified, nor implied that it should be. What I have always said is that, the Pali Canon is what I have chosen to focus my studies on.
I do not understand why you have such an issue with my study and usage of Pali, but I think that you are completely mistaken in your assumptions. By your logic, you should then fault the Venerable Palzang for studying the various teachings of the Palyul Nyingma school, which are probably in Tibetan and/or Sanskrit. It would also follow that I could accuse you of being elitest because you speak English on this forum, instead of Finnish or Thai. If you weren't previously aware, I have a limited vocabulary, and I simply do not have enough room in my brain for much more than what I currently have. It has taken me years just to remember the few Pali words that I do know.
In light of all this, I think that perhaps it would be better if I were to refrain from commenting on any more threads which you are currently participating on. I do not believe that any further interaction between us would be skillful. I honestly do not know how to relate to a person who feels that my views are elitist, suggesting faith-specific fascism, and will evetually lead to aristocracy. If my usage of Pali is really all that upsetting, I can always share my thoughts elsewhere. I am deeply hurt by your words, as I am simply trying to be helpful. There is only one thing that I can sympathize with: Why do I take all the trouble that I do?
Sincerely,
Jason
So, that’s what I’ve been doing. I been focusing my mind off the activity that I should keep in mind of. I think the reason I did that was I think I got a misunderstood of the mindfulness concept, it was back a long time when I read the four focus of the mind: body, feeling, mind and mental qualities. I cited the suttat that I read and tried to practice below.
The full link to this sutta is http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut004.htm
So, there was a time I practiced this. I tried to focus on every detail action that I did like described above. I remember I walked to the refrigerator to get food, the distance from the room to the kitchen I focus on how I walked, then when I got the refrigerator I just opened the door and stare at it, my mind was blank, don’t know what I wanted to get in the first place. Now I figures it was these concept of mindfulness that I’ve been having in my mind, whenever I tried daily mindfulness, I somehow did tried to watch myself like that. So I think I must have misunderstood this sutta somehow, why would it teaches mindfulness that lead one to being self-conscious?
Today, by keeping the right activity in mind, I feel I was on my way to daily mindfulness. Though sometime I still got that watching over myself that made me feel restricted, but I was able to pull my mind back to the main activity. I feel great!
~Andy
That's wonderful! And now you know how each feels differently so you can tell them apart.
Well done.
Jason,
I must say here that I do not agree with Simon's assessment at all and that all your effort has not been in vain. I really don't know how to tell you how much you've taught me and how much your words stick in my brain. I can recall full sentences that you've written. I don't know why. Perhaps it's the way you express your thoughts. I find your writing to be crystal clear, fair, balanced, and always presented gently and without a trace of arrogance, a trait you have every right to possess but the wisdom not to.
I really have no idea what Simon is trying to say nor why he is trying to say it. I really don't. I find this conflict to be completely unnecessary.
Simon,
I don't, for the life of me, understand how you can accuse Jason, of all people, of elitism and "faith-specific fascism". I repeat your words in order that you may reread them. I fear that you're lashing out. I will try to put this as gently as I can, Simon, because I have no wish to harm you in any way and all I wish for is your continued good health and happiness but your position is one of hypocrisy and I think you're calling the kettle black. I strongly disagree with your assessment of Jason's posts and if my words seem strong, it's because I feel strongly about this. This is so unlike you, gentle pilgrim. What has happened? I'm bewildered and confused by your position.
Brigid