New Book on Mindfulness by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

[mikenz66]

Greetings Mike,

How about reading what he said and pointing out statements that appear to be inaccurate? That's seems like a quite normal thing to do on a Forum such as this.

Sad if relentless nitpicking, negativity and criticism is now a "normal thing to do on a Forum such as this".

Yes, it would indeed be sad if I had engaged in relentless nitpicking. However making a post pointing out statements that appeared to be inaccurate could hardly be characterised in that way. I suggest we stick to discussing facts, rather than meta-discussion.


Mike

[tiltbillings]

Dear Retro, Tilt, & Mike,
This is making me sad, like when my parents would fight. I'm still young in the Dhamma compared to you guys, and look up to all three of you, so could you all take a breather please?
Best,
Daniel

Thank you for your response. Quite frankly, I am trying not to fight here. As I said, I posted early on Ven Bodhi's discussion of bare attention, which may serve as a basis for a discussion and comnparison.

[piotr]

Hi,

Guys, read the book. An Introduction at least...

Tilt,
I think you have misassigned the above quote to me.
I quoted but did not write the above line, it was piotr post.

Yes, these are actually my words.

[tiltbillings]

Yes, these are actually my words.

Okay. Quotes sometimes get jumbled, but now clarified. Be that as it may, introduction read, responded to. Given that a fair amount of space in the book is devoted to "bare attention," I wonder if that is worth looking at in terms of what Ven T has said in comparison to what others have said.

[piotr]

Hi Tilt,

Thanks for the link to the correspondence between Wallace and Bhikkhu Bodhi. Here's interesting & funny part:

Bhikkhu Bodhi: I recall that when Ven. Nyanaponika would read statements about “bare attention” as interpreted by some of the neo-Vipassana teachers, he would sometimes shake his head and say, in effect, “But that’s not what I meant at all!” I remember many years ago I meditated at the Insight Meditation Society in Barre. At the end of the corridor where I did walking meditation there was a sign that read, “Allow whatever arises.” Whenever I walked towards the sign and it came into my field of vision, I would always think of the Buddha’s saying, “Here, a monk does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensual desire ... ill-will ... cruelty ... or any other arisen unwholesome state, but abandons it, eliminates it, and completely dispels it.” I was tempted to replace the sign there with one that had this saying, but fortunately I resisted the temptation. If I had been discovered, I might have been expelled.

— http://shamatha.org/sites/default/files ... ndence.pdf

So it seems that in some circles there has been some shift in the meaning of “bare attention” as coined by Bhikkhu Ñāṇaponika.

[Sylvester]

I wish I had kept handy a compilation of those sutta passages that support the bare attention approach. Then we can see if Ven T actually addresses the points raised in those suttas. I can only recall offhand his attempts at -

- re-writing the sutta recommending anapanasati to cut off thinking (which he then qualifies to "distractive" thinking)
- re-writing DN 9 which injuncts against thinking and intending in all the Jhanas, by mistranslating the text to limit the injunction to only the Base of Nothingness.

I think the picture that he paints of the establishments of mindfulness has its place, especially when dealing with gross defilements, but there are enough sutta references to point to a silent awareness of states. As MN 125 presents it (in 2 variant readings), what follows from satipatthana is just contemplation, without thoughts about the object of contemplation.

[tiltbillings]

Hi Tilt,

Thanks for the link to the correspondence between Wallace and Bhikkhu Bodhi. Here's interesting & funny part:

[

Bhikkhu Bodhi: I recall that when Ven. Nyanaponika would read statements about “bare attention” as interpreted by some of the neo-Vipassana teachers, he would sometimes shake his head and say, in effect, “But that’s not what I meant at all!” I remember many years ago I meditated at the Insight Meditation Society in Barre. At the end of the corridor where I did walking meditation there was a sign that read, “Allow whatever arises.” Whenever I walked towards the sign and it came into my field of vision, I would always think of the Buddha’s saying, “Here, a monk does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensual desire ... ill-will ... cruelty ... or any other arisen unwholesome state, but abandons it, eliminates it, and completely dispels it.” I was tempted to replace the sign there with one that had this saying, but fortunately I resisted the temptation. If I had been discovered, I might have been expelled.

— http://shamatha.org/sites/default/files ... ndence.pdf

So it seems that in some circles there has been some shift in the meaning of “bare attention” as coined by Bhikkhu Ñāṇaponika.

Shift in meaning? Not in terms of the core teachers at that retreat, such as Goldstein and Munidra-ji. I was at that same 3 month retreat as Ven Bodhi (and served him his meals). Let me make my point a bit clearer. Ven Bodhi on page 16 of the Wallace/Bodhi dialogue:

Mindfulness, as bare attention, however, isn’t just floating loosely in a void. In a
meditative situation it will be anchored in a primary object, such as in-breathing and outbreathing,
or the rise and fall of the abdomen. But whenever some other phenomenon
arises and floats into the field of awareness, the meditator is advised to simply note it,
without reacting to it, and then to bring the mind back to the primary object. If any
reactions take place, such as enjoying the distracting object or feeling irritated by it, one
should note the enjoyment or irritation, and again return to the primary object.

This is the context of practice for "Allow whatever arises," as is:

Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me," or when sense-desire is not present, he knows, "There is no sense-desire in me." He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense-desire comes to be. . . . He lives contemplating origination factors in mental objects, or he lives contemplating dissolution factors in mental objects, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution factors in mental objects. Or his mindfulness is established with the thought, "Mental objects exist," to the extent necessary just for knowledge and mindfulness, and he lives detached, and clings to nothing in the world. Thus also, monks, a monk lives contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances. . -- MN 10.

The point is in "Allow whatever arises" in the context that Ven Bodhi spelled in page 16 quote is that one can start to see how sense-desire arises, one's response to it (which may be grasping after or trying to push it away), and how it falls away. One can sit with sense-desire feeling without getting lost in it, with giving in to it, which is hard work, but possible, and the point of it is to see its arising and falling and the reactions to it without getting lost in it. In other words, to see it as it is.

(I am somewhat pressed for time so I cannot be as expansive as I would like, but this can serve as a basis for further discussion.)

[piotr]

Hi,

Shift in meaning? Not in terms of the core teachers at that retreat, such as Goldstein and Munidra-ji. I was at that same 3 month retreat as Ven Bodhi (and served him his meals).

That's good to hear, but this by no means changes what Bhikkhu Bodhi had written, i.e. Bhikkhu Ñāṇaponika was surprised how his term “bare attention” was used by some “neo-Vipassana teachers”. Therefore I conclude that he saw some shift in meaning which was unwelcome by him.

By no means I suggest it's Goldstein who is hidding behind the label of “neo-Vipassana teacher” — he could be, but I have no idea who is Bhikkhu Bodhi talking about here.

[tiltbillings]

Hi,

Shift in meaning? Not in terms of the core teachers at that retreat, such as Goldstein and Munidra-ji. I was at that same 3 month retreat as Ven Bodhi (and served him his meals).

That's good to hear, but this by no means changes what Bhikkhu Bodhi had written, i.e. Bhikkhu Ñāṇaponika was surprised how his term “bare attention” was used by some “neo-Vipassana teachers”. Therefore I conclude that he saw some shift in meaning which was unwelcome by him.

By no means I suggest it's Goldstein who is hidding behind the label of “neo-Vipassana teacher” — he could be, but I have no idea who is Bhikkhu Bodhi talking about here.

Definitely not Goldstein. I believe it was Christopher Titmus.

[tiltbillings]

Hi,

Shift in meaning? Not in terms of the core teachers at that retreat, such as Goldstein and Munidra-ji. I was at that same 3 month retreat as Ven Bodhi (and served him his meals).

That's good to hear, but this by no means changes what Bhikkhu Bodhi had written, i.e. Bhikkhu Ñāṇaponika was surprised how his term “bare attention” was used by some “neo-Vipassana teachers”. Therefore I conclude that he saw some shift in meaning which was unwelcome by him.

By no means I suggest it's Goldstein who is hidding behind the label of “neo-Vipassana teacher” — he could be, but I have no idea who is Bhikkhu Bodhi talking about here.

Definitely not Goldstein. I believe it was Christopher Titmus.

But I could be wrong about Titmus.

[BuddhaSoup]

To make his point, he must have felt that the segments quoted needed to be "called on the carpet," without naming any of the perceived offenders. I imagine he has sat for many months watching the erosion of the vipassana approach to practice taking place via the so=called 'mindfulness movement', and felt the need to fire away.

While there are things one might want to criticize in the "mindfulness movement," it would seem that his firing away was rather indiscriminate.

Also, keep in mind that Joseph Goldstein, the late Ven Nyanaponika, and Bhante G, who Ven Thanissaro quoted, are also serious, highly learned practitioners, and I am sure they are no less devoted to the Dhamma than Ven Thanissaro. Ven Thanissaro’s approach strikers me as bit unskillful.

Tilt, I do see where you're coming from, and agree with your sentiment here about remaining skillful in our means and speech in these discussions. I read Dhamma articles and listen to podcasts of Joseph Goldstein with great admiration, and highly appreciate as well Bhante G, and some others that have been mentioned. I'm also on the fenct myself as to how far we can stretch Dhamma in order to spread Dhamma and make these teachings accessible to the (sometimes lazy, consumerist) West. It may be that as Vipassana evolves in the west, we will need strict gatekeepers like Ven. Thanissaro to remind those of us who read suttas and vinaya as to what is actually in the Dhamma, and what is not. I also feel that reasonable men and women can disagree on the application and implementation of Dhamma, and that to keep the Dhamma healthy we can disagree, as you have said, without being unskillful.

[tiltbillings]

Tilt, I do see where you're coming from, and agree with your sentiment here about remaining skillful in our means and speech in these discussions. I read Dhamma articles and listen to podcasts of Joseph Goldstein with great admiration, and highly appreciate as well Bhante G, and some others that have been mentioned. I'm also on the fenct myself as to how far we can stretch Dhamma in order to spread Dhamma and make these teachings accessible to the (sometimes lazy, consumerist) West. It may be that as Vipassana evolves in the west, we will need strict gatekeepers like Ven. Thanissaro to remind those of us who read suttas and vinaya as to what is actually in the Dhamma, and what is not. I also feel that reasonable men and women can disagree on the application and implementation of Dhamma, and that to keep the Dhamma healthy we can disagree, as you have said, without being unskillful.

Who gets to elect the gatekeeper? Based upon what? Ven Thanissaro has a voice in this as do any number of others, but like those he opted for whatever reason to criticize, he, himself, is not above criticism.

The exchange between Wallace and Ven Bodhi, that I linked and quoted from, is interesting and useful, though I think it was clearly Ven Bodhi's contributions that made reading that exchange worthwhile, but it was Wallace's not very good understanding that drove Ven Bodhiu to give us the nice, concise synopsis of bare attention that he gave us. A format like that with Ven T and maybe a fisrt class scholar-practitioner such as Ven Analayo might be of keen interest. Where the value in the criticism of Ven T lies is in forcing the vipassana advocates to tighten up how they express what and how vipassana works and its place within the Dhamma. That is not a bad thing, nor would it be a bad thing to highlight the fluffy-bunny approach in contradistinction to the more serious vipassana teachings.

[ancientbuddhism]

There Is certainly is a basis for criticism there, but tar the whole movement based upon the fluffy-bunny approach taken by some?

Fair enough. It wasn’t my intention to be so broad, but mainly to indicate a consensus of opinion, ad-hoc, that seems to have built up over the years.

the point I'm trying to make is that I'm glad that Ajahn Geoff has the gumption to weigh in on difficult issues without worrying that he will offend some folks.

Ṭhānissaro doesn’t have to worry about offending others so long as he congratulates the politics and general consensus of the TFT.

…we will need strict gatekeepers like Ven. Thanissaro to remind those of us who read suttas and vinaya as to what is actually in the Dhamma, and what is not.

Indeed Ṭhānissaro has been very good at presenting a foundational approach of dhammavinaya to support either Ṭhānissaro’s, or his tradition’s, opinions on dhammavinaya. With reference to the topic, the TFT have always nit-picked or outright ridiculed the Western Vipassanā milieu. Chandako and Sujato's writing on topic also defers to this. Which is not a bad thing so long as the reader exercises critical thinking.

[danieLion]

Hi all,
I've been listening to some of the most recently posted Andrea Fella talks at Insight Mediation Center's audiodharma.org and noticed she doesn't seem conflicted in citing Reverend Thanissaro and Joseph Goldstein as two of her teachers.

She's a very intelligent woman and so I'm sure she's noticed differences between these two teachers, yet she speaks very highly of both.

How do you suppose she's managed to learn from both teachers to good effect?

Best,
Daniel

[tiltbillings]

Hi all,
I've been listening to some of the most recently posted Andrea Fella talks at Insight Mediation Center's audiodharma.org and noticed she doesn't seem conflicted in citing Reverend Thanissaro and Joseph Goldstein as two of her teachers.

She's a very intelligent woman and so I'm sure she's noticed differences between these two teachers, yet she speaks very highly of both.

How do you suppose she's managed to learn from both teachers to good effect?

Best,
Daniel

It is the old: You take what works for you and leave the rest.

[Mr Man]

Hi all,
I've been listening to some of the most recently posted Andrea Fella talks at Insight Mediation Center's audiodharma.org and noticed she doesn't seem conflicted in citing Reverend Thanissaro and Joseph Goldstein as two of her teachers.

She's a very intelligent woman and so I'm sure she's noticed differences between these two teachers, yet she speaks very highly of both.

How do you suppose she's managed to learn from both teachers to good effect?

Best,
Daniel

I don't see why it would be a problem. I've learnt from many who have very differing ideas.

[reflection]

It would be highly inaccurate to describe any of the teachers that have been mentioned in this thread as teaching their students no more than "just watch what comes up".

There are quotes in chapter 4, which I think present cartoon versions of teachings:

Joseph Goldstein:

“Mindfulness is the quality of mind that notices what is present, without
judgment, without interference.”

Leaving out the next sentence in the book:
http://dhammanovice.tumblr.com/post/319 ... at-notices

It is like a mirror that clearly reflects what comes before it. Munindraji summed up this quality with one simple expression: knowing things as they are."

And presumably much that is in the rest of the book...

Bhante Gunaratana:

“Mindfulness is mirror-thought. It reflects only what is presently happening
and in exactly the way it is happening. There are no biases...

However, Bhante G observes later in the chapter:
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html

(a) Mindfulness reminds you of what you are supposed to be doing . In meditation, you put your attention on one item. When your mind wanders from this focus, it is Mindfulness that reminds you that your mind is wandering and what you are supposed to be doing. It is Mindfulness that brings your mind back to the object of meditation.

This is difficult for me to reconcile with Thanissaro Bhikkhu statement that these other teachers are claiming that:

... the Buddha, in defining the faculty of mindfulness in SN 48:10,
didn’t actually define it as memory; he defined it as the mental state that allows
memory to happen. In other words, attention lies in the background of the
definition without actually being mentioned in it.

There are certainly some differences between the interpretations of Ven Thanissaro, Bhante G, and Joseph Goldstein. However, when their instructions are taken as a totality the differences seem to me to be often a case of where exactly they choose to classify things amongst right thought, effort, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, etc.

I've found Ven Thanissaro's expositions of Dhamma very useful and thoughtful. But I'm afraid I find the critiques rather shallow, so I generally ignore them. I much prefer the approach of teachers who simply say: "This is how I see it ..." and leave the listeners to do comparisons or ask questions for clarification.


Mike

I like this post.

Without reading the book fully, I think even if one would interpret sati as "just seeing what arises", that already incorporates an amount of memory or recollection. In the end, you have to remind yourself to see things just as they are. It's sati that comes in and says: "Oh wait, I'm getting dragged along here." How is that not memorizing what to do? So while I don't know each and every teachers perspective, from my personal practice, I think this division is generally a lot less present than Thanissaro makes it appear to be.

[ancientbuddhism]

Without reading the book fully, I think even if one would interpret sati as "just seeing what arises", that already incorporates an amount of memory or recollection. In the end, you have to remind yourself to see things just as they are. It's sati that comes in and says: "Oh wait, I'm getting dragged along here." How is that not memorizing what to do? So while I don't know each and every teachers perspective, from my personal practice, I think this division is generally a lot less present than Thanissaro makes it appear to be.

But this is where the whole present moment awareness concept becomes a problem, isn’t it? As one practitioner put it to me “Okay, I get to where I am present with things, now what?” But this is where knowledge of what is arising is to develop discernment of how the mind concocts and ruminates. This is where wisdom comes in.

I think I get some of the intent behind Ṭhānissaro’s critique, if what he is aiming at is the fallacy of taking a trademark phrase and wrapping ones entire practice around it. During retreat, U. Pandita would give rather boilerplate instruction on kaṇika samādhi, which for myself, coming from a long-term Zen practice, was an annoying shift of object. But when I asked the monk during interview about just letting awareness assimilate what is arising without noting, he agreed that the noting & momentary concentration should develop this way. This and other experiences with teachers and traditions have taught me, in a simile of the raft way, that the instructions are not meant to be so rigid.

[cittaanurakkho]

It is easy for those who were not criticized to say “don’t get offended” or “look at the big picture”, so I apologize if I hurt anybody’s feeling in the following post.

As indicated in the Intro of the book (p.7), there are two aspects of “bare attention” (BA) Ven. Thanissaro is criticizing: the expression BA as a synonym for mindfulness and BA as the path leading to the end of suffering. Ven. Thanissaro retained the term mindfulness to render sati (p.15) and I also do. I would like to discuss the first criticism.

Ven. Bodhi pointed out in his correspondence with Alan Wallace that the expression BA “accurately represent ONE aspect of sati” (emphasis is mine). Ven. Bodhi also pointed out that Ven. Nyanaponika himself, the coiner of the term, “did not regard BA as capturing the complete significance of satipaṭṭhāna, but as representing only one phase, the initial phase, in the meditative development of right mindfulness.”

Ven. Thanissaro quotes from the first author (p.59):

“Mindfulness is the quality of mind that notices what is present, without judgment, without interference.”

And according to Mike, the unquoted sentences are:

“It is like a mirror that clearly reflects what comes before it. Munindraji summed up this quality with one simple expression: knowing things as they are.”

But the addition of the second and the third unquoted sentences hardly add new meaning to the quoted first sentence. To me the above sentences describe more what BA is, not mindfulness.

Then Ven. Thanissaro quotes the second author:

“Mindfulness is mirror-thought. It reflects only what is presently happening
and in exactly the way it is happening. There are no biases.… Mindfulness is non-
judgmental observation. It is that ability of the mind to observe without
criticism. With this ability, one sees things without condemnation or judgment.…
One does not decide and does not judge. One just observes… [W]hat we mean is
that the meditator observes experiences very much like a scientist observing an
object under a microscope without any preconceived notions, only to see the
object exactly as it is.… Mindfulness is non-conceptual awareness. Another
English term for Sati is ‘bare attention.’… Mindfulness is present-time
awareness.… It stays forever in the present, perpetually on the crest of the
ongoing wave of passing time.… Mindfulness is non-egotistic alertness. It takes
place without reference to self.”

And again the description of mindfulness above sounds more like BA rather than mindfulness to me. And I think that is the first aspect of what Ven. Thanissaro is criticizing. I cannot see how that could be consider out of context quote, considering that the first part of p.59 concerns criticism of the usage of the term mindfulness and does not concerns criticism of BA as the path (which is taken up subsequently).

Moreover, here is the puzzling part for me regarding the second quote.

The second author explicitly defined sati as BA and effectively equate BA with mindfulness. Ven. Bodhi thinks BA is only one part of sati. Ven. Nyanaponika, the inventor of the term BA, thinks BA contains only part of sati. Then how does it end up that the second author equates sati with BA? My take is that there has been a drift of usage of BA from the time it was invented by Ven. Nyanaponika. Now, as used by both quoted author, BA is mindfulness.

Usage of terms and expressions are notoriously subject to change with time from one generation of writer to another. One may say Ven. Thanissaro is nit-picking. Well, Theravada monks are train to pay attention to detail. Furthermore, isn’t the usage of the word mindfulness precisely what is worthy of nit-picking criticism considering the paramount importance of mindfulness for those who are using it to travel the path to the ending of suffering? If terms and expressions are not important, it would not have ended up as aphorism on somebody’s mom refrigerator door.

[Nyana]

If one wants to be precise "bare attention" is more akin to sampajañña than to sati.