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.
@person said:> Maybe your wondering if mindfulness continues to exist once the conventional self drops away?
I'm saying that intention is necessary to practice mindfulness, and questioning whether there can be intention without self.
I'll go back to my previous example of intention is part of what makes up the self rather than a self owning it, so no self doesn't mean no intention. But since I just used that I'm thinking maybe there is something else about your question that I'm not getting.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
But who is the the "you" that needs to practice mindfulness? Ajahn Chah used to talk about "the one who knows", what do you think he meant by that?
"The one who knows" is nothing more than "I am" conceit(asmi-mana). It isn't something that can be easily uprooted.
I'm pretty sure that isn't what the Ajahn meant, it looks more like a description of the unconditioned, a knowing which is unaffected by conditions.
That almost sounds like a universal awareness. As if the Tao becomes self aware when we see the truth of D.O.
When Taoism and Buddhism formed Zen Buddhism the Tao within us all was viewed the same as Buddhanature.
I still think Carl Segan had it right when he said we are a way the cosmos can know itself.
@person said: I'll go back to my previous example of intention is part of what makes up the self rather than a self owning it, so no self doesn't mean no intention. But since I just used that I'm thinking maybe there is something else about your question that I'm not getting.
Intention is will or desire, so to me it looks very much tied up with self. There can be skillful and unskillful intention of course.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said: I'll go back to my previous example of intention is part of what makes up the self rather than a self owning it, so no self doesn't mean no intention. But since I just used that I'm thinking maybe there is something else about your question that I'm not getting.
Intention is will or desire, so to me it looks very much tied up with self. There can be skillful and unskillful intention of course.
It absolutely is, what I'm reading is that your issue here has to do with your interpretation of no self. It sounds to me like you're saying that if there is no self then intention has no base, that no self means there is nothing at all. The way I understand no self is that there is no core self that has qualities such as intention, but rather certain qualities come together to make up the basis for the illusion of a core self, so not nothing whatsoever just no center that possesses qualities. The qualities make the thing, the thing doesn't have the qualities.
@Shoshin said:> Who or what is desiring the answers ?
I don't know, that's partly why I started the thread!
I suppose "who or what is being mindful" is just the five aggregates and their/its surroundings working in sync ... Going with and not attempting to go against the flow of cause condition & effect...
Resistance comes when aversion & or desire arise and block the natural flow... It's the awareness that weakens/loosens these cravings, allowing the free flowing of self-ing to take place...
Quote: "It's not so much that we have a self , it's that we do self-ing...The self has no inherent unconditional, absolute existence apart from the network of causes it arise from, in and as ! "
This insightful short "clip" may help bring into focus one's awareness of what is...jogs ones memory so to speak ( bearing in mind the self-ing process is also taking place=Stimuli- causes-conditions-effects encompassed by the ever "present" awareness )....
Well if you can make sense out of all this non-sense... you'll have the answer
@person said: The way I understand no self is that there is no core self that has qualities such as intention, but rather certain qualities come together to make up the basis for the illusion of a core self, so not nothing whatsoever just no center that possesses qualities. The qualities make the thing, the thing doesn't have the qualities.
Yes, I get that, but it doesn't really answer the question I posed.
@Shoshin said: I suppose "who or what is being mindful" is just the five aggregates and their/its surroundings working in sync ... Going with and not attempting to go against the flow of cause condition & effect...
So who or what decides to go with the flow? Who or what decides to practice?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Mindfulness is a quality of the mind, so I'd say its the mind that is being mindful
So who or what decides to go with the flow? Who or what decides to practice?
@SpinyNorman it would seem you has created a tread with some interesting and insightful comments which no doubt will help others to help them 'selves' find and lose them 'selves'
However to attempt to give a satisfactory intellectual/verbal answer to a question that requires non verbal experiential understanding, is like a person trying to pull them self up by their own shoe laces...no matter how hard they try..... it an't gonna happen ...
A person might (on more than one occasion) show another person the finger ...that points to the moon, and if the other person want a more satisfactory answer to this type of question, they must look beyond the finger.... meditate for experiential understanding/knowledge...
One can be given the menu, but it's now up to them to order and eat....Others can't eat for them...
@Shoshin said:> @SpinyNorman it would seem you has created a tread with some interesting and insightful comments which no doubt will help others to help them 'selves' find and lose them 'selves'
As usual I'm exploring different ways of looking at things. I've been practising mindfulness for some years now, and the experience has caused me to question some assumptions about Buddhist thought, particularly around the anatta doctrine.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Shoshin said:> @SpinyNorman it would seem you has created a tread with some interesting and insightful comments which no doubt will help others to help them 'selves' find and lose them 'selves'
As usual I'm exploring different ways of looking at things. I've been practising mindfulness for some years now, and the experience has caused me to question some assumptions about Buddhist thought, particularly around the anatta doctrine.
Could you try to explain more what you mean about mindfulness in regards to anatta. My earlier posts were regarding that aspect but didn't seem to address your question, so I'm not getting where you're coming from.
I think mindfulness is smirti and you can info about smirti in the context of the 5 indiryas which are like the 'nature of mind' that dzogchen is talking about.
Here is a presentation in more Theravadin. '5 strenghts' whereas in tantra it's more like 5 natures of mind. Mindfulness is sati in this presentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Strengths rather than smirti.
Look into the awakened mind of your own awareness! It has neither form nor color, neither center nor edge. At first, it has no origin but is empty. Next, it has no dwelling place but is empty. At the end, it has no destination but is empty. This emptiness is not made of anything and is clear and cognizant. When you see this and recognize it, you know your natural face. You understand the nature of things. You have then seen the nature of mind, resolved the basic state of reality and cut through doubts about topics of knowledge.
This awakened mind of awareness is not made out of any material substance; it is self-existing and inherent in yourself. This is the nature of things that is easy to realize because it is not to be sought for elsewhere. This is the nature of mind that does not consist of a concrete perceiver and something perceived to fixate on. It defies the limitations of permanence and annihilation. In it there is no thing to awaken; the awakened state of enlightenment is your own awareness that is naturally awake. In it there is no thing that goes to the hells; awareness is naturally pure. In it there is no practice to carry out; its nature is naturally cognizant. This great view of the natural state is present in yourself: resolve that it is not to be sought for elsewhere.
As usual I'm exploring different ways of looking at things. I've been practising mindfulness for some years now, and the experience has caused me to question some assumptions about Buddhist thought, particularly around the anatta doctrine.
Oh! Now I see where you're coming from @SpinyNorman ...you haven't been feeling your self lately ... "Anatta"
I'm afraid not. How does contact lead to the sustained intention involved in maintaining a mindfulness practice?
One learns from the teachings or teachers or peers or internet forums about the need for sustained effort in being mindful. That's contact.
Imagine if one was brought up to hate and blindly obey orders like blowing up self and others. That too is contact with ideas that lead to suffering for self and others.
If intention was self, it is highly unlikely that one would "willingly" become a human bomb.
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
@person said: Could you try to explain more what you mean about mindfulness in regards to anatta. My earlier posts were regarding that aspect but didn't seem to address your question, so I'm not getting where you're coming from.
For one thing I've found that there is a continuity of knowing involved, this doesn't fit very well with the way consciousness is explained in the suttas. For another thing there is a continuity of intention involved, and again this doesn't fit very well with how things are explained in the suttas.
I've been looking at this from some different angles, I need a framework which makes sense in terms of what I actually experience.
In some ways I find the Advaita model more appealing ( intuitive? ), some schools are quite similar to Buddhism anyway. You could view Atman as equivalent to the Deathless of the suttas I think, or the unconditioned.
Duality is at the core of this question. There is always an aspect of 'I am aware of the awareness quality'. However the deeper we go into 'just awareness', we recognise it is the grasping which is its being. In itself the qualities are increasingly absent or empty.
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said: Could you try to explain more what you mean about mindfulness in regards to anatta. My earlier posts were regarding that aspect but didn't seem to address your question, so I'm not getting where you're coming from.
For one thing I've found that there is a continuity of knowing involved, this doesn't fit very well with the way consciousness is explained in the suttas. For another thing there is a continuity of intention involved, and again this doesn't fit very well with how things are explained in the suttas.
I've been looking at this from some different angles, I need a framework which makes sense in terms of what I actually experience.
In some ways I find the Advaita model more appealing ( intuitive? ), some schools are quite similar to Buddhism anyway. You could view Atman as equivalent to the Deathless of the suttas I think, or the unconditioned.
From what I understand this has been a point of disagreement between the schools of Buddhism itself. The Dzogchen/Mahamudra view like @Jeffrey posted is closer to what you seem to be saying, while the Gelug school I think takes a more negating attitude. The way I've heard HHDL talk about the continuity is more like one moment arising from the previous rather than a sustained core, I assume something like a film appears like a continuity but is in reality a series of distinct occurrences.
One way to maybe square the differing views lies in what Dudjom Rinpoche said regarding them:
"The Madhyamaka of the Prasangika and the Svatantrika is the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka. It should indeed be expressed by those who profess well-informed intelligence during debates with extremist Outsiders, during the composition of great treatises, and while establishing texts which concern supreme reasoning. However, when the subtle, inner Madhyamaka is experientially cultivated, one should meditate on the nature of Yogacara- Madhyamaka."
One way of thinking about it is more of a philosophical one while the other more experiential.
@Shoshin said:> @SpinyNorman it would seem you has created a tread with some interesting and insightful comments which no doubt will help others to help them 'selves' find and lose them 'selves'
As usual I'm exploring different ways of looking at things. I've been practising mindfulness for some years now, and the experience has caused me to question some assumptions about Buddhist thought, particularly around the anatta doctrine.
From what I gather @SpinyNorman, using words ( whose sole purpose is one of representation ) can only take one so far along the path to understanding, after which they more often than not lead to contradiction and confusion...
The paradox of "Anatta" is an interesting one... First off the sense of a self is used to seek out the so called "abiding permanent self" ...by using what we wish to let go of ("the self") to help let go of, itself....What I mean by "let go of", is becoming free of the illusion of a permanently abiding self (mini me) that's in control...
We start to confuse words/symbols that represent, with what "is" .... reality ... confusing the concept with the percept "reality" the actual experience...
Words...they can be put to good use, after which they should be discarded..... just like the raft....
Being with "awareness" or "Buddha nature" or whatever you call it is a good place to be. Most people are not even there. They identify with bodies, feelings, thoughts and ideas as belonging to them. It is good enough for many to be with "awareness".
"Awareness" sits apart from them. This "I am" feeling is a higher fetter that only an arahant is freed from.
Ven Paññavaddho to the Venerable Acharn in Thai:
People in this country understand "Citta" to mean thinking and that the Citta is divided into those forms of the Citta which come from seeing, hearing, & touching; in other words "consciousness" (Viññana).
A:
That aspect of the Citta which arises when something comes into contact with eyes, ears, nose, etc., and which knows and receives that contact is called "consciousness" (Viññana). It arises and ceases together with that contact. As for the Citta which waits and knows these things, it does not cease together with the consciousness when it ceases, it does not cease even though the body ceases, for it will go on and take rebirth in the future. There is no end to it if the "sap of the heart" which is the Kilesas and Ignorance (Avijja) are still in the heart. But when this "sap" which is the Kilesas, has been removed from the heart, there is an end to continual becoming and birth, as happened with the Buddha and his arahant disciples.
Q3 M1:
This "one who knows" which we call our selves, is not this "Atta"? Or is it not-self (Anatta)?
A:
If we compare the "one who knows" with stairs, such as the ones used to reach this room, then we will still have to take hold of them as "self" and let go of each step one after the other until we reach this room, which is our purpose. If at the beginning we do not cling to the self, we can go widely off course because we have not got any basis to hold on to. We have to make use of the self as the way which will lead us to the state of not clinging to self. Therefore, at this stage, we should not go thinking about self and not-self (Atta and Anatta). We must at first make use of self before we can reach our goal. The question of Atta, Anatta, and the Citta will be dropped of itself, just as happened when we climbed the staircase until we reached this room, when the problem of us and the staircase vanished of its own accord
@Shoshin said: From what I gather @SpinyNorman, using words ( whose sole purpose is one of representation ) can only take one so far along the path to understanding, after which they more often than not lead to contradiction and confusion...
The paradox of "Anatta" is an interesting one... First off the sense of a self is used to seek out the so called "abiding permanent self" ...by using what we wish to let go of ("the self") to help let go of, itself....What I mean by "let go of", is becoming free of the illusion of a permanently abiding self (mini me) that's in control...
I think there are different ways of thinking about things, and generally I prefer simple explanations to convoluted ones. Also simple methods work best for me.
@SpinyNorman said:
I think there are different ways of thinking about things, and generally I prefer simple explanations to convoluted ones. Also simple methods work best for me.
You want simple...... Well I'll give you bloody simple @SpinyNorman
There is no permanently abiding self that is in control and in order to gain a clear understanding of what is meant by this.... one must sit and observe and if one is lucky ( perhaps karma best describes ones fortunate position) 'awareness' (which in its natural state is non conceptual) will observe the comings and goings of a mind minding its own business without any involvement of a self ...
Can't get any simpler method and explanation than that @SpinyNorman
@pegembara said:> > Ven Paññavaddho to the Venerable Acharn in Thai:As for the Citta which waits and knows these things, it does not cease together with the consciousness when it ceases, it does not cease even though the body ceases, for it will go on and take rebirth in the future. There is no end to it if the "sap of the heart" which is the Kilesas and Ignorance (Avijja) are still in the heart. But when this "sap" which is the Kilesas, has been removed from the heart, there is an end to continual becoming and birth, as happened with the Buddha and his arahant disciples.The question of Atta, Anatta, and the Citta will be dropped of itself, just as happened when we climbed the staircase until we reached this room, when the problem of us and the staircase vanished of its own accord >
This is an example of what I mean by convoluted explanation.
@Shoshin said:.... one must sit and observe.... without any involvement of a self ...
And who or what sits and observes?
The natural state of Awareness which is non conceptional...This awareness is empty so it can contain everything including 'thought'...and it does not need a permanent self to operate.....
It's the five aggregates (The karmic bundle of vibrating energy flux) working in unison which does the sitting....
Awareness 'is' intrinsically knowing ....
So in a nutshell conventional sense...It is "you" @SpinyNorman who sits and nothing else needs to be done....However due to ones karmic conditioning, thoughts and feelings feeding off a strong sense of self might arise and contaminate the experience..."I am sitting and I am experiencing this etc etc !"
@SpinyNorman When the penny finally does drop, things fall 'out' of place...
@lobster said: No confusion. Awareness is [drumroll] ... aware ...
But we're discussing the practice of mindfulness. Awareness is obviously involved, but there is also the intention to be aware. Where does the intention come from?
There is no intention.
I intend to be aware, leads to a mind condition labled 'awareness'. Pristine awareness does not have an intention behind it, can not be grasped, held on to or let go.
If you just want to practice mind arisings, calm, peace, increased awareness, mindfulness as something etc carry on ... [shrug] ... it is a never ending circle ... (think I read that in a dharma cracker)
Nonsense. There clearly is intention involved in our practice, whether it's making the time to meditate, practising mindfulness, chanting, generosity, whatever we do.
Pristine awareness or pure knowing is a result of practice.
@Shoshin said:> The natural state of Awareness which is non conceptional...This awareness is empty so it can contain everything including 'thought'...and it does not need a permanent self to operate.....
It's the five aggregates (The karmic bundle of vibrating energy flux) working in unison which does the sitting....
But we need to practice to realise this natural state of awareness. So the question remains, who or what is practising, who or what is being mindful?
I think mindfulness could be accurately described as "self-awareness", though of course this implies a separation between self and awareness.
@person said:> From what I understand this has been a point of disagreement between the schools of Buddhism itself. The Dzogchen/Mahamudra view like @Jeffrey posted is closer to what you seem to be saying, while the Gelug school I think takes a more negating attitude. The way I've heard HHDL talk about the continuity is more like one moment arising from the previous rather than a sustained core, I assume something like a film appears like a continuity but is in reality a series of distinct occurrences.
Yes, there are different views across the Buddhist schools, and more widely in the Dharmic traditions. The problem I see with the moment-to-moment approach is the inherent conditionality involved, The problem I see with the moment-to-moment approach is the inherent conditionality involved, it's like trying to see the conditioned with the conditioned, the self with the self. I think there needs to be something different involved, the unconditioned, Buddha Nature, whatever.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
In my view it is the Tao that is being mindful using individuality as a kind of conduit.
There clearly is intention involved in our practice, whether it's making the time to meditate, practising mindfulness, chanting, generosity, whatever we do.
Indeed. Nobody here disagrees.
Pristine awareness or pure knowing is a result of practice.
That is the paradox of why we are going around in circles. Pure awareness is not dependent on intention, practice or anything that we might do. That would make it a result with an origination. My experience is of the unformed, unoriginated, independent of being born, dying, arising, dissipating etc ... which of course sounds like non sense ...
@David said:> In my view it is the Tao that is being mindful using individuality as a kind of conduit.
Do you mean something "outside" the self or the aggregates?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:> In my view it is the Tao that is being mindful using individuality as a kind of conduit.
Do you mean something "outside" the self or the aggregates?
I'm not sure exactly how to answer. Not outside but not completely inside either. Maybe the force within and without the aggregates that brings them together.
@lobster said: That is the paradox of why we are going around in circles. Pure awareness is not dependent on intention, practice or anything that we might do. That would make it a result with an origination. My experience is of the unformed, unoriginated, independent of being born, dying, arising, dissipating etc ... which of course sounds like non sense ...
This comes back to a previous discussion here about the distinction between the conditioned and the unconditioned. You could say that we practice to "see through" the conditioned. The question is whether it is the unconditioned which is doing the seeing, so to speak. http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/23614/what-is-the-unconditioned/p1
But we need to practice to realise this natural state of awareness. So the question remains, who or what is practising, who or what is being mindful?
I think mindfulness could be accurately described as "self-awareness", though of course this implies a separation between self and awareness.
"Knowing" knows @SpinyNorman ....It is either known or it is not known ....and no amount of speculation on the part of the sense of self will help...
Who is it that sees through the eyes positioned in ones head?
And who is it that reads the words that have just been read?
Who is it that smells the sweet scent lingering in the nose ?
Who is it that enjoys the taste of the food the farmer grows?
Who is it that feels the cold on a bleak dark winter’s night?
And who nearly jumps out of their skin when they get a fright ?
What is thinking at this moment-processing sight and sound ?
Whoever it is that does all this, is nowhere to be found.
You may feel that someone lives inside, but can’t figure out just who-
It’s enough to do ones brain in, if one chooses to pursue.
For the self can never be found, like a wanderer it does roam
It’s as if all the lights are left on inside, but no one’s ever home !
0
Fosdickin its eye are mirrored far off mountainsAlaska, USAVeteran
edited March 2016
The centipede was happy, quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg goes after which?"
This worked his mind to such a pitch,
He lay distracted in a ditch,
Considering how to run. (Watts)
I do have a feeling for the one who knows is, its the mind responding and act to the 5 agregates.....its the brain working with the information. There is a sens of self inside there. But this ego/self will fall apart when the conditions are not there any more.
So the one who knows is the brain, without a brain there wouldnt be anything.
I have this book I got at my kid's bookfair, that is one of those "inspirational quote per day" books. It's just a fun and positive way to spark something at the start of our day. (bear with me, I have a point coming up, lol). The author is a teacher who has his students work on an inspirational precept, or a quote that allows them to take action in life. They write essays based on each idea. This is from one young boy's essay, and I thought of this discussion when I read it:
"It's better to ask some really awesome questions than it is to know a lot of dumb answers to stupid stuff. Like, who cares what equals x in an equation? Answers like that don't matter. But the question "What is normal?" does matter! It matters because there's never going to be a right answer. And there's no wrong answer, either. The question is all that matters." (From 365 Days of Wonder: Mr. Browne's Book of Precepts)
I think with some of these questions we go on about here, including this one in this thread, the answer is really that the question is what matters, not the answers. I find that a pretty profound statement to come from a 10 year old child. Wow.
Science is still trying to answer that question. There are indications in physics of a consciousness field, and a non-local quality to consciousness, meaning that it's not tied to, or limited to, individual living beings. At this point in space-time, consciousness is the Great Mystery. Does it separate into our individual selves, or are we all part of some greater Consciousness whole, with only the illusion of an individually-conscious self?
Stay tuned for further developments on the frontiers of science.
@Namada said:
I do have a feeling for the one who knows is, its the mind responding and act to the 5 agregates.....its the brain working with the information. There is a sens of self inside there. But this ego/self will fall apart when the conditions are not there any more.
So the one who knows is the brain, without a brain there wouldnt be anything.
But the brain is merely a collection of parts. There is the cerebral cortex, cerebellum, brainstem, limbic system etc etc. This brain is nothing without its parts.
But all this knowledge is not necessary. The only thing required is to realise that we are not the aggregates. We are not anything.
The relationship of this quality of awareness to the conditioned realm
This is the way it is. You detach. You let go. Whenever there is any feeling of clinging, we detach from it, because we know that that very feeling is just as it is. It didn’t come along especially to annoy us. We might think that it did, but in truth it just is that way. If we start to think and consider it further, that, too, is just as it is. If we let go, then form is merely form, sound is merely sound, odour is merely odour, taste is merely taste, touch is merely touch and the heart is merely the heart. It’s similar to oil and water. If you put the two together in a bottle, they won’t mix because of the difference of their nature.
‘Oil and water are different in the same way that a wise person and an ignorant person are different. The Buddha lived with form, sound, odour, taste, touch and thought. He was an arahant (Enlightened One), so he turned away from rather than toward these things. He turned away and detached little by little since he understood that the heart is just the heart and thought is just thought. He didn’t confuse and mix them together.
‘The heart is just the heart; thoughts and feelings are just thoughts and feelings. Let things be just as they are! Let form be just form, let sound be just sound, let thought be just thought. Why should we bother to attach to them? If we think and feel in this way, then there is detachment and separateness. Our thoughts and feelings will be on one side and our heart will be on the other. Just like oil and water – they are in the same bottle but they are separate.’
@pegembara said: This is the way it is. You detach. You let go. Whenever there is any feeling of clinging, we detach from it, because we know that that very feeling is just as it is. It didn’t come along especially to annoy us. We might think that it did, but in truth it just is that way. If we start to think and consider it further, that, too, is just as it is. If we let go, then form is merely form, sound is merely sound, odour is merely odour, taste is merely taste, touch is merely touch and the heart is merely the heart. It’s similar to oil and water. If you put the two together in a bottle, they won’t mix because of the difference of their nature.
Ajahn Chah
But who or what is letting go, detaching, turning away from, letting be? Who or what is the "you" and "we" referred to here?
Comments
I'll go back to my previous example of intention is part of what makes up the self rather than a self owning it, so no self doesn't mean no intention. But since I just used that I'm thinking maybe there is something else about your question that I'm not getting.
That almost sounds like a universal awareness. As if the Tao becomes self aware when we see the truth of D.O.
When Taoism and Buddhism formed Zen Buddhism the Tao within us all was viewed the same as Buddhanature.
I still think Carl Segan had it right when he said we are a way the cosmos can know itself.
Intention is will or desire, so to me it looks very much tied up with self. There can be skillful and unskillful intention of course.
It absolutely is, what I'm reading is that your issue here has to do with your interpretation of no self. It sounds to me like you're saying that if there is no self then intention has no base, that no self means there is nothing at all. The way I understand no self is that there is no core self that has qualities such as intention, but rather certain qualities come together to make up the basis for the illusion of a core self, so not nothing whatsoever just no center that possesses qualities. The qualities make the thing, the thing doesn't have the qualities.
The Buddha would say "Who intends is not a valid question." Rather one should ask what is the condition for intention to arise.
I suppose "who or what is being mindful" is just the five aggregates and their/its surroundings working in sync ... Going with and not attempting to go against the flow of cause condition & effect...
Resistance comes when aversion & or desire arise and block the natural flow... It's the awareness that weakens/loosens these cravings, allowing the free flowing of self-ing to take place...
Quote:
"It's not so much that we have a self , it's that we do self-ing...The self has no inherent unconditional, absolute existence apart from the network of causes it arise from, in and as ! "
This insightful short "clip" may help bring into focus one's awareness of what is...jogs ones memory so to speak
( bearing in mind the self-ing process is also taking place=Stimuli- causes-conditions-effects encompassed by the ever "present" awareness )....
Well if you can make sense out of all this non-sense... you'll have the answer
Yes, I get that, but it doesn't really answer the question I posed.
So what is the condition for intention to arise?
So who or what decides to go with the flow? Who or what decides to practice?
Mindfulness is a quality of the mind, so I'd say its the mind that is being mindful
'From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.than.html
"Contacted, one feels. Contacted, one intends. Contacted, one perceives. "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.093.than.html
Is that clear?
@SpinyNorman it would seem you has created a tread with some interesting and insightful comments which no doubt will help others to help them 'selves' find and lose them 'selves'
However to attempt to give a satisfactory intellectual/verbal answer to a question that requires non verbal experiential understanding, is like a person trying to pull them self up by their own shoe laces...no matter how hard they try..... it an't gonna happen
...
A person might (on more than one occasion) show another person the finger ...that points to the moon, and if the other person want a more satisfactory answer to this type of question, they must look beyond the finger.... meditate for experiential understanding/knowledge...
One can be given the menu, but it's now up to them to order and eat....Others can't eat for them...
I'm afraid not. How does contact lead to the sustained intention involved in maintaining a mindfulness practice?
As usual I'm exploring different ways of looking at things. I've been practising mindfulness for some years now, and the experience has caused me to question some assumptions about Buddhist thought, particularly around the anatta doctrine.
Could you try to explain more what you mean about mindfulness in regards to anatta. My earlier posts were regarding that aspect but didn't seem to address your question, so I'm not getting where you're coming from.
I think mindfulness is smirti and you can info about smirti in the context of the 5 indiryas which are like the 'nature of mind' that dzogchen is talking about.
Here is a presentation in more Theravadin. '5 strenghts' whereas in tantra it's more like 5 natures of mind. Mindfulness is sati in this presentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Strengths rather than smirti.
Look into the awakened mind of your own awareness! It has neither form nor color, neither center nor edge. At first, it has no origin but is empty. Next, it has no dwelling place but is empty. At the end, it has no destination but is empty. This emptiness is not made of anything and is clear and cognizant. When you see this and recognize it, you know your natural face. You understand the nature of things. You have then seen the nature of mind, resolved the basic state of reality and cut through doubts about topics of knowledge.
This awakened mind of awareness is not made out of any material substance; it is self-existing and inherent in yourself. This is the nature of things that is easy to realize because it is not to be sought for elsewhere. This is the nature of mind that does not consist of a concrete perceiver and something perceived to fixate on. It defies the limitations of permanence and annihilation. In it there is no thing to awaken; the awakened state of enlightenment is your own awareness that is naturally awake. In it there is no thing that goes to the hells; awareness is naturally pure. In it there is no practice to carry out; its nature is naturally cognizant. This great view of the natural state is present in yourself: resolve that it is not to be sought for elsewhere.
~ Guru Rinpoche
Oh! Now I see where you're coming from @SpinyNorman ...you haven't been feeling your self lately ... "Anatta"
One learns from the teachings or teachers or peers or internet forums about the need for sustained effort in being mindful. That's contact.
Imagine if one was brought up to hate and blindly obey orders like blowing up self and others. That too is contact with ideas that lead to suffering for self and others.
If intention was self, it is highly unlikely that one would "willingly" become a human bomb.
For one thing I've found that there is a continuity of knowing involved, this doesn't fit very well with the way consciousness is explained in the suttas. For another thing there is a continuity of intention involved, and again this doesn't fit very well with how things are explained in the suttas.
I've been looking at this from some different angles, I need a framework which makes sense in terms of what I actually experience.
In some ways I find the Advaita model more appealing ( intuitive? ), some schools are quite similar to Buddhism anyway. You could view Atman as equivalent to the Deathless of the suttas I think, or the unconditioned.
Duality is at the core of this question. There is always an aspect of 'I am aware of the awareness quality'. However the deeper we go into 'just awareness', we recognise it is the grasping which is its being. In itself the qualities are increasingly absent or empty.
From what I understand this has been a point of disagreement between the schools of Buddhism itself. The Dzogchen/Mahamudra view like @Jeffrey posted is closer to what you seem to be saying, while the Gelug school I think takes a more negating attitude. The way I've heard HHDL talk about the continuity is more like one moment arising from the previous rather than a sustained core, I assume something like a film appears like a continuity but is in reality a series of distinct occurrences.
One way to maybe square the differing views lies in what Dudjom Rinpoche said regarding them:
One way of thinking about it is more of a philosophical one while the other more experiential.
Riddle me this. To who is mindfulness of use?
It is beneficial for the people we're living with that we become mindful! Or at least that's the aim...
From what I gather @SpinyNorman, using words ( whose sole purpose is one of representation ) can only take one so far along the path to understanding, after which they more often than not lead to contradiction and confusion...
The paradox of "Anatta" is an interesting one... First off the sense of a self is used to seek out the so called "abiding permanent self" ...by using what we wish to let go of ("the self") to help let go of, itself....What I mean by "let go of", is becoming free of the illusion of a permanently abiding self (mini me) that's in control...
We start to confuse words/symbols that represent, with what "is" .... reality ... confusing the concept with the percept "reality" the actual experience...
Words...they can be put to good use, after which they should be discarded..... just like the raft....
Being with "awareness" or "Buddha nature" or whatever you call it is a good place to be. Most people are not even there. They identify with bodies, feelings, thoughts and ideas as belonging to them. It is good enough for many to be with "awareness".
"Awareness" sits apart from them. This "I am" feeling is a higher fetter that only an arahant is freed from.
I think there are different ways of thinking about things, and generally I prefer simple explanations to convoluted ones. Also simple methods work best for me.
You want simple...... Well I'll give you bloody simple @SpinyNorman
There is no permanently abiding self that is in control and in order to gain a clear understanding of what is meant by this.... one must sit and observe and if one is lucky ( perhaps karma best describes ones fortunate position) 'awareness' (which in its natural state is non conceptual) will observe the comings and goings of a mind minding its own business without any involvement of a self ...
Can't get any simpler method and explanation than that @SpinyNorman
And who or what sits and observes?
This is an example of what I mean by convoluted explanation.
The natural state of Awareness which is non conceptional...This awareness is empty so it can contain everything including 'thought'...and it does not need a permanent self to operate.....
It's the five aggregates (The karmic bundle of vibrating energy flux) working in unison which does the sitting....
Awareness 'is' intrinsically knowing ....
So in a nutshell conventional sense...It is "you" @SpinyNorman who sits and nothing else needs to be done....However due to ones karmic conditioning, thoughts and feelings feeding off a strong sense of self might arise and contaminate the experience..."I am sitting and I am experiencing this etc etc !"
@SpinyNorman When the penny finally does drop, things fall 'out' of place...
There is no intention.
I intend to be aware, leads to a mind condition labled 'awareness'. Pristine awareness does not have an intention behind it, can not be grasped, held on to or let go.
If you just want to practice mind arisings, calm, peace, increased awareness, mindfulness as something etc carry on ... [shrug] ... it is a never ending circle ... (think I read that in a dharma cracker)
Nonsense. There clearly is intention involved in our practice, whether it's making the time to meditate, practising mindfulness, chanting, generosity, whatever we do.
Pristine awareness or pure knowing is a result of practice.
But we need to practice to realise this natural state of awareness. So the question remains, who or what is practising, who or what is being mindful?
I think mindfulness could be accurately described as "self-awareness", though of course this implies a separation between self and awareness.
Yes, there are different views across the Buddhist schools, and more widely in the Dharmic traditions. The problem I see with the moment-to-moment approach is the inherent conditionality involved, The problem I see with the moment-to-moment approach is the inherent conditionality involved, it's like trying to see the conditioned with the conditioned, the self with the self. I think there needs to be something different involved, the unconditioned, Buddha Nature, whatever.
In my view it is the Tao that is being mindful using individuality as a kind of conduit.
Indeed. Nobody here disagrees.
That is the paradox of why we are going around in circles. Pure awareness is not dependent on intention, practice or anything that we might do. That would make it a result with an origination. My experience is of the unformed, unoriginated, independent of being born, dying, arising, dissipating etc ... which of course sounds like non sense ...
Do you mean something "outside" the self or the aggregates?
I'm not sure exactly how to answer. Not outside but not completely inside either. Maybe the force within and without the aggregates that brings them together.
This comes back to a previous discussion here about the distinction between the conditioned and the unconditioned. You could say that we practice to "see through" the conditioned. The question is whether it is the unconditioned which is doing the seeing, so to speak.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/23614/what-is-the-unconditioned/p1
Oops. I muddled up "edit" and "quote". A momentary lapse of reason mindfulness.
"Knowing" knows @SpinyNorman ....It is either known or it is not known ....and no amount of speculation on the part of the sense of self will help...
Who is it that sees through the eyes positioned in ones head?
And who is it that reads the words that have just been read?
Who is it that smells the sweet scent lingering in the nose ?
Who is it that enjoys the taste of the food the farmer grows?
Who is it that feels the cold on a bleak dark winter’s night?
And who nearly jumps out of their skin when they get a fright ?
What is thinking at this moment-processing sight and sound ?
Whoever it is that does all this, is nowhere to be found.
You may feel that someone lives inside, but can’t figure out just who-
It’s enough to do ones brain in, if one chooses to pursue.
For the self can never be found, like a wanderer it does roam
It’s as if all the lights are left on inside, but no one’s ever home !
The centipede was happy, quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg goes after which?"
This worked his mind to such a pitch,
He lay distracted in a ditch,
Considering how to run. (Watts)
I do have a feeling for the one who knows is, its the mind responding and act to the 5 agregates.....its the brain working with the information. There is a sens of self inside there. But this ego/self will fall apart when the conditions are not there any more.
So the one who knows is the brain, without a brain there wouldnt be anything.
I have this book I got at my kid's bookfair, that is one of those "inspirational quote per day" books. It's just a fun and positive way to spark something at the start of our day. (bear with me, I have a point coming up, lol). The author is a teacher who has his students work on an inspirational precept, or a quote that allows them to take action in life. They write essays based on each idea. This is from one young boy's essay, and I thought of this discussion when I read it:
"It's better to ask some really awesome questions than it is to know a lot of dumb answers to stupid stuff. Like, who cares what equals x in an equation? Answers like that don't matter. But the question "What is normal?" does matter! It matters because there's never going to be a right answer. And there's no wrong answer, either. The question is all that matters." (From 365 Days of Wonder: Mr. Browne's Book of Precepts)
I think with some of these questions we go on about here, including this one in this thread, the answer is really that the question is what matters, not the answers. I find that a pretty profound statement to come from a 10 year old child. Wow.
@SpinyNorman
It all boils down to sequence of events.... Cause condition effect...with no beginning no ending...
And the sequence of events leading right up to now, reminds 'me' of this quote :
" Religion provides answers that must never be questioned !
Philosophy provides questions that might never be answered !"
...and therein lies the.................................................................
Science is still trying to answer that question. There are indications in physics of a consciousness field, and a non-local quality to consciousness, meaning that it's not tied to, or limited to, individual living beings. At this point in space-time, consciousness is the Great Mystery. Does it separate into our individual selves, or are we all part of some greater Consciousness whole, with only the illusion of an individually-conscious self?
Stay tuned for further developments on the frontiers of science.
But the brain is merely a collection of parts. There is the cerebral cortex, cerebellum, brainstem, limbic system etc etc. This brain is nothing without its parts.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141216-can-you-live-with-half-a-brain
But all this knowledge is not necessary. The only thing required is to realise that we are not the aggregates. We are not anything.
The relationship of this quality of awareness to the conditioned realm
http://www.fsnewsletter.amaravati.org/html/88/the_island_excerpt.htm
My questions don't arise from either, but from the practice of mindfulness.
But who or what is letting go, detaching, turning away from, letting be? Who or what is the "you" and "we" referred to here?