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.
The Meaning of Being Mindful
Can someone please explain to me what it really means to be "mindful"? I am reading a book right now that said "practice being mindful for at least 30-60 minutes every day". What exactly does that mean? Does it mean to meditate that long every day? I think there is mroe to it than that, I am just not sure what!
That's definitely a newbie question, huh? :vimp: (I am not sure what that icon means...I just think it is cute)
That's definitely a newbie question, huh? :vimp: (I am not sure what that icon means...I just think it is cute)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"As you do this, you develop three qualities of mind. One is mindfulness (sati). The term mindfulness means being able to remember, to keep something in mind. In the case of establishing the body as a frame of reference, it means being able to remember where you're supposed to be -- with the body -- and you don't let yourself forget. The second quality, alertness (sampajañña), means being aware of what is actually going on in the present. Are you with the body? Are you with the breath? Is the breath comfortable? Simply notice what's actually happening in the present moment. We tend to confuse mindfulness with alertness, but actually they are two separate things: mindfulness means being able to remember where you want to keep your awareness; alertness means being aware of what's actually happening. The third quality, ardency (atappa), means two things. One, if you realize that the mind has wandered off, you bring it right back. Immediately. You don't let it wander around, sniffing the flowers. Two, when the mind is with its proper frame of reference, ardency means trying to be as sensitive as possible to what's going on -- not just drifting in the present moment, but really trying to penetrate more and more into the subtle details of what's actually happening with the breath or the mind."
Taken from the Path of Concentration http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/concmind.html
Mindfulness is focused attention. For much of our lives, we fly on autopilot, 'multitasking' with no single action fully occupying our attention. There are a number of results of this fracturing of attention. The most serious is that it has become a habit. It is an addiction. When I first started meditation practice, it was as hard as giving up cigarettes to sit for any length of time and keep my attention on a single thing.
The child on the top of the wall has focused all attention on the task in hand; may not even hear the parent voice or notice anything but the wall to be walked. That is mindfulness. IMHO
As long as you are aware and mindful of your multitasking then I believe it is still good practice. The key is to be awake.
At work I am the most unmindful. All I want to do is escape. I am on autopilot while there. When I get behind, which is hardly ever, I switch to mindful mode and I get things done faster. I have been getting better at being mindful while working on my house. I have been getting more done lately. I do sometimes want things to move faster but I have to wait because of my bad back. My back is something I have to be very mindful of. If I do not I might hurt myself again.
:vimp: This is a little pimpdaddy, sucka!!!!!!!!
'Mindfulness' as an outcome is as empty and deceptive as any other 'goal'.
Comic - thanks for telling me what that little icon was, sucka! I pity the fool that don't know what that is! Oh wait, that would be me!
Imagine Huggy Bear from Starsky and Hutch. That's a Pimpdaddy !
That's sooooo funny! Perfect explanation!
being mindful is..
...being aware of the moment... what you are doing... what you are experiencing..
...the use of it is to enable us to... 1. concentrate.. 2. see the truth of reality...
Lineage by Ven. Jinmyo Renge osho
Brigid
As an aside, for me, not yet being transmitted and thus having a considerable amount of leeway I wouldn't otherwise have - it's easy - when people turn up to sit I make them clean, tell them to view the activity of the children as part of their zazen, and that I'm a miserable git who just sits and that's all I offer. So far that's been a resounding success, with only three people sitting here with some dedication, particularly when I remind newcomers that I also sit at 5 am and that they're most welcome to come and sit with me at that time if they feel that any other time is too late for them. I also point out that there's a Zen temple a few miles a way that does all sorts of nice family days and ceremonies for children and what not.
Now, there is a trick to the Kung-an method. Master Thich Duy Luc said that the Kung-an (Koan) is just any words or questions, but the best is to put the Kung-an in term of an "unanswerable" question, like: "what is your face before your great granparent were born?". Or "Before heaven and earth were created, what was I?".
Keep thinking about these "unanswerable" Kung-ans, dont try to visualize or try to answer them..........but let the "doubt" rises.
These questions seem "illogical" but not really..... they are super-logical if you ask me. These questions force a person into a non-referencing mode of mind where "doubt" occupy the thoughts, so the person dont think about mundanities objects....... but only think about the Kung-an.
And in order to practice Buddhism for real, is to see Right View, Right View is the forerunner to all the rest 7 Right Views. Just like if you want to find the elephant you have to know what the elephant look like first, same in Buddhism...................the Kung-an was designed for you to see what Buddhism is in its own Light and that way you can find the Buddhist elephant too..........nothing can decribe it.
Hope I have not wasted any of your time reading this.
regards,
Nam
i noticed that you quote Johan Von Goethe.
Many years ago I went on a cruise down the Rhine with my parents. We visited many towns and cities along the river- one place (maybe Heidleberg????) i stood in the same place where Goethe had stood-i had no fricking idea of who he was but my mother said I should feel priveledged to have stood where he once did-oh well. just thought I'd emphasise my Ignorance.
catch ya
Xrayman
NamThien2006,
I found that to be very helpful and not a waste of my time at all. In fact, I've reread it and will try to keep it in my mind as much as possible. I remember when I was a child I tried to imagine myself before I was born and all I saw was empty blackness. Not a bad blackness, just nothing there. I don't why I did this. It must have been in response to something someone had said, but I don't remember the circumstances. But I used to do this regularly and it made me laugh. I will think of the Original Face more often.
Brigid
I am curently reading "How to Practice" by the Dalai Lama and this idea of mindfulness was part of what I was reading this morning. I guess that it is an essential part of Buddhism. DharmaKitten's words reflected the reading - being aware of the world and making choices about my behaviour, thoughts, and feelings. Even when circumstances seem out of my control, I have choices about how I respond to those circumstances.
Other posts on this site have suggested the importance of a teacher who is challenging, much like how challenging circumstances require us to use our internal resources to get through things. A challenging teacher encourages us to move out of our comfort zone.
The DL states (p. 75): Enemies provide us some of the best opportunities to practice patience, tolerance, and compassion I was comforted to read this this morning as it challenges me to reframe some circumstances at work. There are some challenging personalities who tend to stir the pot and get people feeling insecure, including myself at times. I have been getting caught in this unsettledness. I am going to concentrate on using the experience to practice tolerance, compassion, and patience.
I have found to my cost, the perils and pitfalls of mirroring the words and actions of "my enemies".... (perception perception perception...!)
In contrast, I have also known and experienced the multitude of rewards strewn at my feet, when succesfully embracing hostility, and finding it thus transformed into friendship.
It works.
Hello there Brigid,
The trick as master teach me back in Vietnam years ago about the Kung-an is to raise "doubt". I once had problem like you describe because I relate (link) the Original Face with the present day physical body. For example we believe that before this physical body is born, it was nothing.
I would like to go deeper in theory to explain better to you what I mean about the Original Face.
You know when the mother carry a child, it is growing mass in actuality. We know something is supplying the real "energy" to grow the fetus. A Scottish philosopher whose name is Andrew Baxter theorized that there is "immaterial mover of matters" that is give manifestation of growing mass we human perceive.
In Buddhism, especially in Zen Buddhism, the Lankavatara Sutra profoundedly explain the about this "immaterial mover of matters". It says that all things are born out of this substance, even our thoughts (also the 5 aggregates) are born out of it. And it also says that while this substance give rise to phenomenon, it remain free of the phenomenon destruction.
Think of it as a clear pool of calm water, so clear that you can not see the water. Then the vortex appear in water, then we see the vortex AND we know there is something there called water that support that vortex. Just like the present of gravity, we know it is there because the apple fall from the tree.
So, birth and death, born and decay.......these are like the vortex in the water and Buddhist should be indifferent to them, as our goal is to find the real "substance" (the theorized water) that support it.
Nam
Not all Buddhist traditions would agree with this. I am not simply trying to disagree with you here, but the Pali Canon does not promote any such idea. I feel that it is important to mention the differences merely for the sake clarification. That particular idea, while it may be found in places like the Lankavatara Sutra, is directly contradicted in the Mulapariyaya Sutta. Nibbana is not a "source" or "ground" from which phenomena arise. The Buddha instead points one back to the "root" of ignorance. An excerpt from the translator's introduction states as follows:
Just some food for thought.
Jason
I'm afraid it's still too subtle for me.
It's a higher level of understanding that I haven't reached yet.
But I'll get there someday and, if I can, I'll tell you as soon as I do.
Brigid
The Mulapariyaya Sutta basically says that clinging to wrong views is the major cause of suffering. What is wrong view? it is the view that the 5 aggregates are self, that is all.
Buddha say in Middle Agamas:
"The learned disciple not contemplate form as the self, form as
belonging to the self, and does not attach to form. When form changes,
his consciousness does not turn along and does not stand in adhering to
it [form]. When he does not stand in adhering to it, it does not stand
mastering his mind."
That why there is Noble 8th Fold Path that starts with Right View. What is Right View? it is the view that the Light of Mind is the ultimate leader of all phenomenon, and when it is discovered, one spend his/her whole life in search of it.
That is why the rest 7 Noble Path are there to "enlarge" the first view. Like prying open the gate and let more Light in.
Nibbana, btw, according to the Nirvana Sutra, is the Essence of the Self. Its Essence is tranquil but potent. It is the Dharma-dhatu that many Buddhists are taught. So Nirvana and the Self are quite interchangable. But think of it, once again as a clear pool of water or the ocean where birth and death and all phenomenon are mere waves on the surface. You see ocean never change state, only its modality (the waves) manifests.
Regards,
Uncle Nam
shhhhhhhh
Hey, I could always be wrong about a lot of the things that I say. I am still learning myself, so nothing I say is the absolute authority on what the Buddha actually taught. However, I feel that my understanding is adequate enough to at least post in a Buddhist forum. After all:
Anyway, I guess I simply do not interpret this Sutta the same way that you do. You are certainly correct about one thing--the Mulapariyaya Sutta basically says that clinging to wrong views is the major cause of suffering. However, as far as your previous post is concerned, this line spoken by the Buddha clearly refutes your assertion that this substance [Nirvana] gives rise to phenomena. One free from delusion [arahant] does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding:
He also goes on to say that he himself [Tathagata] does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding:
If this substance really gave rise to phenomenon, I am sure that the Buddha would have mentioned it. I would also have to disagree that Nibbana and the Self are quite interchangable [due to the above quote, as well as other things]. For example, the Buddha taught in the Dhammapada that:
"Sabbe dhamma dukkha" (All conditioned phenomena are unsatisfactory), "Sabbe sankhara anicca" (All conditioned phenomena are impermanent), and "Sabbe dhamma anatta" (All things are not-self). The important part here is that the first two say sankhara (conditioned), which would include things like the five aggregates, but the last one says dhamma, which includes everything, inluding Nibbana [so it is said by some at least] since it is not conditioned. Regardless of what it may say in the Nirvana Sutra, there is also ample evidence to the contrary. I am simply offering that evidence. People may make of it as they wish. What I am positive about, though, is:
May we all experience this unsurpassable freedom.
Jason
Jason, I have to disagree with your interpretation about the quote: "All things are not-self", things in Pali often denote with the little word "dhamma". But Buddhist scholars agree that there is big word "Dhamma" which stands for the Teaching of Buddha.
The word dhamma mean simply "things" which I am sure the Buddha meant "matter". It does not include Nibbana since Nibbana is really Unmade, then how can it be a "thing". It (Nibbana) is not a state of mind (mind modalities) either. This is what I found in the Majjhima Nikaya, (Ariyapariyesana Sutta 26.12):
"And what is the noble search? Here someone being himself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, seeks the unborn supreme security from bondage, Nibbana; being himself subject to aging, having understood the danger in what is subject to aging, he seeks the unageing supreme security from bondage, Nibbana;"
So according to the above quote, one can draw a conclusion that Nibbana is a positive state, and real. Also, when people go for refuge, they really seek refuge in the Buddha-Dharma "body", not the flesh. There is nothing to seek in the flesh but sufferings. But the worst belief of all is the believe in No-self. According to the Alagaddupama Sutta 22.16, it says the No-self is precisely the aggregates!
Regards,
Nambo
No, no, no, no, no! The word 'dhamma' means "truth". In the days when the Buddha was alive, before "Buddhism"; the 'followers' were called 'Dhammists': "followers of truth".
The word "dhamma" is not so limited as to restrict it simply to "matter".
That is precisly why it isn't just the word "sankhara" that is used here.
Jason
Could be, I am not a Pali scholars, what I really should say is "heaps"...or "lumps" instead of matter. But I was told to take the Pali word contextually like you just lump up a group of perceived object and subject and call it "dhamma" (not big "Dhamma"). You got the idea.
Nam
NamThien2006,
One can draw a conclusion that Nibbana is a positive state, but one can also draw a conclusion that Nibbana [lit. to cease blowing, to become extinguished, unbinding] is a negative state as well. It is the absence of avijja after all. But, in truth, it really is neither. It lies beyond range, so to have any idea or position about Nibbana is really missing the point, isn't it?
In my opinion, the worst belief of all is the belief in a "self", no matter how pretty sounding it may be. It is such beliefs that trap beings in the endless rounds of rebirth. To have a view of Nibbana as being a "self" is equally as unskillful as having a view of the aggregates as being a "self". It is such views url=http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sakkaaya_ditthi.htm]sakkaya-ditthi[/url that one must abandon to become a stream-enterer.
Jason
Nam,
Then why wouldn't they have simply used "khandha" (heap, group, aggregate) or "sankhara" (formation, compound, fabrication)?
Jason
I was thinking, we can also use some simple logic to help solve the question of whether or not Nibbana is a self [from a Theravadin standpoint at least]. The word "dhamma" basically means "all things that exist". So, if Nibbana is real in the sense that it is a positive state, it would have to "exist". "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means that "All things that exist are not-self". By this statement, Nibbana would not be a self. If, however, Nibbana is not real in the sense that it is not a positive state, it would not "exist". In that case, how could it be a self if it didn't "exist"? That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So, no matter "what" Nibbana may be, it is not-self.
Jason
I dont want to make the problem complicated. But I think you conceptuallizing "Nibbana" from the standpoint of typical human comprehendion.
Just like one live in the cave and he/she associate everything that is in the cave.....of course if Nibbana is discussed in the cave, then that would be a still a mental image being discussed, then it would be classified as a 'dhamma'.
That is why there is meditation practice in Buddhism, it is a 'neccesity' as without practice we can not test the Buddha theory out. And Buddha had indeed ask us to scrutinize his Teachings wholeheartedly, but he at the same time, ask us to put his theory to the test.
That is why the Zen Buddhism teaching is not so easily grasped. As in order to see 'real' Nibbana, you can not use the aggregates body to find it, because Nibbana is NOT an aggregates. One has to use one own "light" to find it.
That is why one should know the principle that give rise to the matter, it animates their hand and feet and their thoughts too.
Regards,
Namfu
"Now attend and listen:
The senses meet the object and from their contact sensation is born.
Thence results recollection.
Thus, as the sun's power through a burning-glass causes fire to appear,
so through the cognizance born of sense and object,
the mind originates and with it the ego, the thought of self,
whom some Brahman teachers call the lord.
The shoot springs from the seed;
the seed is not the shoot,
both are not one and the same,
but successive phases in a continuous growth. Such is the birth of animated life.
I do not think that the matter is complicated at all. It seems quite simple.
I agree that Nibbana is beyond conceptualization, however, what you have said simply weasels around what the Buddha himself taught in the Suttas. When he said "Sabbe dhamma anatta", he was saying that all things existant are not-self. That is very simple and straightforward. If Nibbana exists, as you have said that it does, then it too would be not-self regardless of whatever the actual experience of it may be. Using the Kalama Sutta in this instance does not change the actual teachings on the matter.
I agree that one should know the principles that give rise to this nama-rupa, which is why I encourage the study of the Buddha's doctrine of paticca-samuppada. The Buddha did explain the process that gives rise to this mentality-materiality, and it has nothing to do with Nibbana. I can see how you view the Buddha's teachings in this way [I too once had similar views], however, from my study of the Canon, along with my meditation practice, I now believe that these ideas are simply another form of wrong view.
I apologize for the terseness, I don't have a great deal of time to respond.
Jason
What is there to be apologetic, I only point out to Buddhists that there is more than one way to skin a cat, as master Minh Kien said. But I definitely oppose the No-self view, that is not what Buddha taught.
Though I dont dis agree with the above sermon. But I would like to explain in deeper details the Heart Sutra so that we can look and see how smart a teacher the Buddha was.
The heart Sutra says that form is emptiness and emptiness is form, the same goes for feeling, perception, mental volition and consciouness.
And it does not says this and end there, it "encourages" the readers to "see" that which is NOT of form, NOT of feeling, NOT of perception, NOT of mental volition and NOT of consciouness. What is that?..........one might says it is none other than the "spirit", or "soul"......there are many words but the meaning is the same, imho.
The "art" of Buddhism is to seperate that of the body from that which NOT of the body. So this is what we should be mindful of, as this is the thread that began when Yogamama asked the question.
To look deeper into ourselves is to investigate thoroughly of what we really are, are we our body?..........are we our mind?...........are we our environment? let go of the body and temporal (psychological and evaluative) mind. Master Hui-neng says forget about subject and object. Master Zheman says kill all fear and anxiety, face the "nakedness face" that is yearning to show itself. That Unborn true person is nothing other than that which moves your body and give rise to your thoughts, how wonderful...............master Lin-chi would be dropping in to see ya'all.
In with the juice,
Namlee
It appears that you are simply clinging to a position of self.
Here is also a Dhamma talk on this Sutta by Ajahn Brahm.
Jason
I would like to point out two things:
ONE:
The original topic of this thread was "The Meaning of being Mindful" so I can't help feeling that all this discussion on Self and Non-Self (or Not-Self - ??
and
TWO:
You both left the majority of the remainder of Forum members behind, on page three.....
at the risk of exposing myself to the accurate accusation of being a veritable Dharma Doofus - I don't have the slightest idea what either of you are talking about.
My apologies.
Jason
Unless of course, 'Brigid' feels that it's too harsh.
Federica,
Yes, the original thread of this topic is "mindfullness" question posed by Yogamama, I think I deserve the credit for bring the forum back on topic. Because It appear that Elohim wants to dis-credit what I posted, so I just only post in reply to his inquiry.
I shows that there is other Sutra teaching, like the Heart Sutra, the Lankavatara Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra..., seem that Elohim shows little interests in what those Sutra say of the SELF.............and he kept on stuffing down my head with his own Nikaya "views"......
Out of my humility, I play along, debate him on his own "preferred" Sutra, and I indeed point out in earlier post that Buddha ONLYsays the Aggregates are not self. That is all, the Buddha never deny the real SELF, which is unmade and unbecoming, undeath, deathless.........birthless, same meaning.
Elohim,
I call old Buddhist friend of mine at university. I shared with him
what you said. He laughed. He said you are using wrong word. He
advised me to tell you to buy Peter Masefield two volume set, "The
Udana Commentary". He said you are mistaking the word anatta.m (mean
no-self) for anata.m meaning 'infinite' or 'uninclined'.
Regards,
Znam
"But now we see the marks of joy and sorrow.
Where is any constancy?
If there is no permanent self that does our deeds,
then there is no self;
there is no actor behind our actions,
no perceiver behind our perception,
no lord behind our deeds.
*Nobody wants to dis-credit you, neither are they attempting to.
now you're just indulging in pointless diatribe.
Your English has degenerated quite remarkably... If I compare it to previous posts you have made, you were either cutting and pasting arguments to illustrate your point, (which is a flawed observation, as just occasionally, you introduced a grammatical 'faux-pas') or you have suddenly lost your ability to write coherently....
This discussion is now going around in circles, and has lost its objective.
I think this would be a good point to close this thread. *