Perceiving constancy in the inconstant, pleasure in the stressful, self in what's not-self, attractiveness in the unattractive, beings, destroyed by wrong-view, go mad, out of their minds. Bound to Mara's yoke, from the yoke they find no rest. Beings go on to the wandering-on, leading to birth & death. But when Awakened Ones arise in the world, bringing light to the world, they proclaim the Dhamma leading to the stilling of stress. When those with discernment listen (sutvāna sappaññā), they regain their senses, seeing the inconstant as inconstant, the stressful as stressful, what's not-self as not-self, the unattractive as unattractive. Undertaking right view (Sammādiṭṭhisamādānā), they transcend all stress & suffering.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
2. In a person who possesses [right] view [by his being a stream enterer] are these four perversions abandoned or unabandoned?
Some are abandoned, and some are unabandoned. The perversion of perception, perversion of cognizance, and perversion of view, [that see]
what is impermanent as permanent are abandoned in him. The perception [that sees] what is painful as pleasant arises, and so does the cognizance,
but such perversion of view is abandoned in him. The perversion of perception, perversion of cognizance, and perversion of view, [that see] what is
not self as self are abandoned in him. The perception [that sees] the foul as beautiful arises, and so does the cognizance, but such perversion of
view is abandoned in him.
Ptsm TREATISE VIII. — ON PERVERSIONS
You are coming across here as looking for some basis for dumping on "bare attention." Problem is that what you quote really does not address bare attention when seen in the context as describe by Ven Bodhi and Ven Nyanaponika.Alex123 wrote:A person must be careful with bare attention. According to the suttas it is a given that a worldling will mispercieve the perception.
porpoise wrote:. . . but I'm still not really clear. To use an analogy, is the difference like that between data and information? With bare attention we see the bare "facts", then with clear comprehension we apply wisdom to "make sense" of these facts?
porpoise wrote:I'm not getting the difference between these two aspects of mindfulness. Can anyone explain it simply?
Freawaru wrote:porpoise wrote:I'm not getting the difference between these two aspects of mindfulness. Can anyone explain it simply?
I agree to everything tilt and IanAnd said on this thread.
To elaborate further so you can recognise "bare attention" when it happens (or maybe it already has): it is not something humans normally experience. When it happens first time it is possible that it happens naturally (due to the usual reason: extended practice during previous lives), it can happen during states of concentration - one of the reasons we practice concentration, and it can be developed by "noting" as in the Mahasi teachings. . . .
So the appearance of sati-sampajanna separates the mind into two parts: the normal mind stream of whatever state one is in and the monitoring awareness.
IanAnd wrote:With all due respect, Freawaru, I think you have just succeeded in complicating this process even more than it needs to be complicated with your attempt to add clarification.
And that's all this is: it is an insight into how your mind works to influence the way you think about a subject or topic. And anyone at any time has the ability to gain insight into this process.
The ability to pay "bare" attention to an object or subject is an internal decision that one becomes aware of. It is not something that just "happens" mysteriously out of the blue. You choose to do it, and to be aware of the movements of the mind. Period.
I recall times being aware of making these choices when I was a child, way before I ever became involved in meditation practice at all. What happened between the time when I was younger and later on when my mind was coming to knee-jerk reactions not based on the reality in its actuality was the conditioning of the mind to give more credence to the knee-jerk reaction, rather than to consider the actual facts involved. In those later years, it was a matter of simply becoming unconscious of these moments when they were occurring. Meditation practice helps you to regain a "presence of mind" so that you do not let the subconscious mind transact its conditioned reaction pattern. Which means becoming aware of the pattern itself and subduing the mind from reacting. (Actually, just becoming aware of how the mind is processing the information in a moment like this will subdue it naturally. You really don't have to make an effort to subdue it.)
I read through your description of what you think "bare attention" is. You are describing a type of concentration experience, but you are not describing bare attention. Bare attention was an expression coined by Ven Nyanaponika. I do not think he would recognize it from your description.Freawaru wrote:. . . .
Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu Pesala, Bing [Bot] and 10 guests