The full quote of the OP, not edited version below: "But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now. This is merely concentration, without any sati or panna, and is a wrong path.
" A wrong path.
i think you may have forgotten how and why this thread began. i started a couple of threads at the same time after seeing comments by members showing what i considered to be quite common misunderstandins about satipatthana.
in fact on the first page of this thread you asked me about the postby robertk » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:33
But what is thought to be mindfulness in common parlance is often some type of tedious focussing on an approximation of the here and now.
tilt:Okay. Examples of this. Who teaches such a thing?
and i replied:
In this thread we have someone saying:
My biggest issue with mindfulness is boredom. It's often boring to be mindful when I'm washing my teeth or doing the dishes. Does it ever become enjoyable to do all these things mindfully
on the other hand it is one of my beliefs that the development of vipassana is not a technique, so if you feel strongly that it is then you will probably never any sense in most of my posts.
I understand why you started this thread, but what is interesting is, as you are again displaying in this msg, is that you do not listen to what others have been repeatedly saying to you over and over again in this thread and elsewhere.
The problem is not with your understanding of satipatthana (though I do not particularly share your understanding), but it is with your pointed dismissal and strawman and potentially damaging characterizations of other forms of practice. The Sujin method may, indeed, work, but it is not the only way of practice and understanding of the Dhamma that does. Likely, had you started this thread with out the attack on mindfulness practice, I would have ignored it. But, unfortunately, you choose to do your usual negative take on other forms of practice of which Sujin does not approve, and that is worth responding to.
I know full well that vipassana is not a technique, but I also know full well that the causes and conditions for vipassana, insight, can be, as the Buddha taught, cultivated, and the differences between your position and that of those who see meditation practice of value has been drawn out by me and others at great length. But again, despite that significant difference between your mode of practice and the mode of practice that involves directly putting the teachings into practice, I would not say that what you are advocating does not work. Again, the problem is your dismissal of other ways of understanding and putting the Dhamma into practice.
As for poor Digity's boredom, as a meditative experience it may not be so bereft of sati or paññā. There is always something to see in what one looks at.