Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

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?

robertk wrote: In any kusala mindstate there must be as one of the cetasikas sati. The feeling that also arises at the same time is either pleasant or neutral, never unpleasant.

Can sati be aware of unpleasant feeling?

Yes of course. But at the moment of such awareness the unpleasant feeling has just fallen away. This can still be considered as awareness of the present moment as it is all happening very fast.

This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the four establishments of mindfulness . . .

robertk wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:I have certainly experianced unpleasant feelings when being mindful, or bringing mindfulness to a memory that comes up. how is this explained in the Abhidhamma?

Reading some of the responses again, I am now wondering if I had not misunderstood the OP statement that "According to Abhidhamma it is impossible for any mindstates associated with sati to have unpleasant feeling. It can only come with either pleasant or neutral feeling."
Is this association of sati with particular feelings not part of the object being looked at and actually part of the experience of sati itself?

All cittas arise with associated cetasikas such as vedana, feeling. In any kusala mindstate there must be as one of the cetasikas sati. The feeling that also arises at the same time is either pleasant or neutral, never unpleasamt.
Can sati be aware of unpleasant feeling?
Yes of course. But at the moment of such awareness the unpleasnt feeling has just fallen away. This can atill be considered as awateness of the prsent momnt as it is all happenong very fast
Sorry for all my typos. I am using a mobile phone

robertk wrote:All mind states arise momentarily and fall away immediately. It is like a new being born and dying again and again, even in the space of a second.
But they do arise in processes and each process is conditioned by previous mind states. Thus this continuity is one of the reasons for the illusion of a lasting being.

porpoise wrote:

robertk wrote:All mind states arise momentarily and fall away immediately. It is like a new being born and dying again and again, even in the space of a second.
But they do arise in processes and each process is conditioned by previous mind states. Thus this continuity is one of the reasons for the illusion of a lasting being.

OK, but I'm still not clear how sati is defined in the Abidhamma, or why sati and dosa cannot be present at the same time.

robertk wrote:

porpoise wrote:

robertk wrote:All mind states arise momentarily and fall away immediately. It is like a new being born and dying again and again, even in the space of a second.
But they do arise in processes and each process is conditioned by previous mind states. Thus this continuity is one of the reasons for the illusion of a lasting being.

OK, but I'm still not clear how sati is defined in the Abidhamma, or why sati and dosa cannot be present at the same time.

Why can't dosa arise at the same time as sati?
Can we hate and love at the same instant? They can alternate but not arise together.

robertk wrote:

porpoise wrote:

robertk wrote:All mind states arise momentarily and fall away immediately. It is like a new being born and dying again and again, even in the space of a second.
But they do arise in processes and each process is conditioned by previous mind states. Thus this continuity is one of the reasons for the illusion of a lasting being.

OK, but I'm still not clear how sati is defined in the Abidhamma, or why sati and dosa cannot be present at the same time.

Why can't dosa arise at the same time as sati?
Can we hate and love at the same instant? They can alternate but not arise together.

porpoise wrote:

So sati includes includes love? I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Again, it would be very helpful to know what definition of sati you're using.

beeblebrox wrote:

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?

If we view the boredom as dukkha, then it's also part of our practice to view its cause, then its cessation, and also build our right mindfulness with that kind of knowledge (or panna). All of this is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th noble truth.

While keeping the above in mind... if we noticed that boredom is arising, and we knew its cause, then why would we even allow it to continue?

If we had the right mindfulness, built on the right panna (i.e., we know that it isn't just merely by stopping brushing that we will make this boredom go away) then all of it will fall away, immediately. That seems to be my experience.

robertk wrote:

porpoise wrote:

So sati includes includes love? I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Again, it would be very helpful to know what definition of sati you're using.

Sati has nothing to do with love.
But it is absolutely Kusala. It can
Only arise with kuala cittas and thus it is impossible that it could arise with dosa.

Cittasanto wrote:

robertk wrote:

porpoise wrote:

So sati includes includes love? I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Again, it would be very helpful to know what definition of sati you're using.

Sati has nothing to do with love.
But it is absolutely Kusala. It can
Only arise with kuala cittas and thus it is impossible that it could arise with dosa.

what about micca sati?

robertk wrote:the suttas occasionnally use the term when they are talking about the wrong path : miccha ditthi, miccha samadhi.. miccha sati..
But this 'miccha-sati' is in fact lobha.

Cittasanto wrote:what about micca sati?

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.

Cittasanto wrote:Edit in brackets

robertk wrote:the suttas occasionnally use the term when they are talking about the wrong path : miccha ditthi, miccha samadhi.. miccha sati..
But this 'miccha-sati' is in fact lobha.

so is it not [a form of] sati?