Can Mindfulness be unpleasant?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Can Mindfulness be unpleasant?

Post by tiltbillings »

danieLion wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
danieLion wrote: So, by your view, sati is "neutral" or "dormant" until will and/or intention direct it towards kusala or akusala?
That is probably the Sarvistivadin view, but not the Theravadin, as robertk has pointed out above.
So does this also exclude the initial decision to walk the path (and I'm sorry, Tilt, but could you please point out to me in which post Robert pointed it out above?
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p227895" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 12#p227913" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Can Mindfulness be unpleasant?

Post by robertk »

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:what about micca sati?
Do you mean what Reverend Mahasi wrote?
Wrong mindfulness is the recollection of worldly matters and unwholesome deeds of the past. Some remember the unwholesome things they did when they were young, their companions, the placesthey visited, their happy days, and so forth. They may be likened to cows chewing the cud at night. These recollections are wrong mindfulness. However, it is not wrong mindfulness when one recognises the mistakes of the past, repents, and resolves not to repeat them in future. Such repentance is right mindfulness. Some monks think of their parents, relatives, native places, and the companionsof their childhood. They recall how they spent their days as laymen. They think of what they have to do for so-and-so. All these recollections of the past are wrong mindfulness. Laymen need not reject thoughts about their sons, daughters, etc., for such recollections are natural. However, while meditating, the meditator should note and reject them. As he sits in his retreat at the meditation centre, noteing the rising and falling of the abdomen or his other bodily movements, “sitting”, “touching”, etc., the meditator recalls what he did formerly, his sayings and doings in his youth, his friends, etc. These are wrong mindfulness and have to be noted and rejected. Some old men and women think of their grandchildren. While noteing their thoughts, they have mental visions of the children near them and they fancy they hear the children calling them. All these have to be noted and expelled. Some meditators felt compelled to return home because they could not overcome these unwholesome thoughts. A meditator’s spiritual effort is often thwarted by wrong mindfulness. In the final analysis a wrong recollection is not a distinct element of consciousness. It is a collection of unwholesome elements in the form of memories concerning worldly and unwholesome things of the past.
Which I presume RobertK disagrees with?
as the Sayadaw points out there is no such 'distinct element ' as miccha sati.
why is it given that name in the suttas that talk about the wrong path.
this is because the other factors such as miccha-ditthi , miccha-samadhi, etc are actual realities with their 'opposites' samma-ditthi, samma-sammadhi and so on.It destroys tHE symmetry of the sutta to exclude sati.

In the sallekha sutta commentary (which I think thE sayadaw took some points from)it says about miccha-sati that
In truth, miccha sati is not
specific to a particular dhamma, but it is a name for the 4
akusala khandha, which arises in one who thinks of the
past. When the Buddha said, "Bhikkhu, the Tatagatha
said that there is miccha sati not that there isn't.
There is sati in those who thinks of gaining sons, gaining'"O
The Buddha meant the
arising of the fake (artificial, untrue, etc.) sati..
I toOk this from a ThaI translation so it might be a bit clumsy
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Can Mindfulness be unpleasant?

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Hi DanieLion,
I had just edited that slightly to include [a form of].
But in many respects yes, to me each aspect that makes up the path is by itself, speech, livelihood, perspective, focus, mindfulness... are neutral, and it is only when you are aiming in a particular direction that it becomes skilful or not.
So, by your view, sati is "neutral" or "dormant" until will and/or intention direct it towards kusala or akusala?
I wouldn't say ""neutral" or "dormant" until will and/or intention direct it" but it is effected by our actions so could have a unintended "colouring" based on what one regularly brings to mind.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Can Mindfulness be unpleasant?

Post by Cittasanto »

so is (to borrow the words from the quote) right recollection a distinct element?
robertk wrote:
danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:what about micca sati?
Do you mean what Reverend Mahasi wrote?
Wrong mindfulness is the recollection of worldly matters and unwholesome deeds of the past. Some remember the unwholesome things they did when they were young, their companions, the placesthey visited, their happy days, and so forth. They may be likened to cows chewing the cud at night. These recollections are wrong mindfulness. However, it is not wrong mindfulness when one recognises the mistakes of the past, repents, and resolves not to repeat them in future. Such repentance is right mindfulness. Some monks think of their parents, relatives, native places, and the companionsof their childhood. They recall how they spent their days as laymen. They think of what they have to do for so-and-so. All these recollections of the past are wrong mindfulness. Laymen need not reject thoughts about their sons, daughters, etc., for such recollections are natural. However, while meditating, the meditator should note and reject them. As he sits in his retreat at the meditation centre, noteing the rising and falling of the abdomen or his other bodily movements, “sitting”, “touching”, etc., the meditator recalls what he did formerly, his sayings and doings in his youth, his friends, etc. These are wrong mindfulness and have to be noted and rejected. Some old men and women think of their grandchildren. While noteing their thoughts, they have mental visions of the children near them and they fancy they hear the children calling them. All these have to be noted and expelled. Some meditators felt compelled to return home because they could not overcome these unwholesome thoughts. A meditator’s spiritual effort is often thwarted by wrong mindfulness. In the final analysis a wrong recollection is not a distinct element of consciousness. It is a collection of unwholesome elements in the form of memories concerning worldly and unwholesome things of the past.
Which I presume RobertK disagrees with?
as the Sayadaw points out there is no such 'distinct element ' as miccha sati.
why is it given that name in the suttas that talk about the wrong path.
this is because the other factors such as miccha-ditthi , miccha-samadhi, etc are actual realities with their 'opposites' samma-ditthi, samma-sammadhi and so on.It destroys tHE symmetry of the sutta to exclude sati.

In the sallekha sutta commentary (which I think thE sayadaw took some points from)it says about miccha-sati that
In truth, miccha sati is not
specific to a particular dhamma, but it is a name for the 4
akusala khandha, which arises in one who thinks of the
past. When the Buddha said, "Bhikkhu, the Tatagatha
said that there is miccha sati not that there isn't.
There is sati in those who thinks of gaining sons, gaining'"O
The Buddha meant the
arising of the fake (artificial, untrue, etc.) sati..
I toOk this from a ThaI translation so it might be a bit clumsy
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Can Mindfulness be unpleasant?

Post by robertk »

sorry I didnt see the term right recollection in the Commentary translation?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Can Mindfulness be unpleasant?

Post by Cittasanto »

robertk wrote:sorry I didnt see the term right recollection in the Commentary translation?
if you do happen upon a description which answers this I would be interested.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
auto
Posts: 4579
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Can Mindfulness be unpleasant?

Post by auto »

robertk wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:37 am
Digity wrote: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?
Good question and the reason I started this topic. Mindfulness by definition can never be boring or have even the slightest taste of unpleasantness . 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.
glad to see it.

I agree that mindfulness itself isn't boring but it is related to it through cetana prolly.

awareness of seeing things arise is dependent on seeing nutriment as subject to cease. Thereon the dishwashing, doing some mundane things is tedious as you see these things won't bring any lasting result, you know you have to do it again and again.
Post Reply