I am not sure there can be such a thing as a wrong mindfulness, so any mindfulness is the right mindfulness. The flavor of mindfulness is unmistakable, it is non-discriminating, doesn't ignore anything, doesn't favor anything, it's curious, it's light, mindful mind is acutely aware of everything around it, without attaching to anything.
As far as I can tell mindfulness can only be of one kind the right one.
Right Mindfulness.
Re: Right Mindfulness.
lonewolf wrote:I am not sure there can be such a thing as a wrong mindfulness, so any mindfulness is the right mindfulness. The flavor of mindfulness is unmistakable, it is non-discriminating, doesn't ignore anything, doesn't favor anything, it's curious, it's light, mindful mind is acutely aware of everything around it, without attaching to anything.
As far as I can tell mindfulness can only be of one kind the right one.
SN 45.1: Avijjā Sutta wrote: The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.
MN 117: Mahācattārīsaka Sutta wrote: In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong mindfulness as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right mindfulness as their condition go to the culmination of their development.
Re: Right Mindfulness.
Ok. Not sure where the disconnect is, so let's get a bit deeper. Wrong mindfulness, what it is exactly? The lack of mindfulness? If there is a wrong mindfulness, what are its characteristics?culaavuso wrote:SN 45.1: Avijjā Sutta wrote: The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.MN 117: Mahācattārīsaka Sutta wrote: In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong mindfulness as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right mindfulness as their condition go to the culmination of their development.
As far as I can tell when mind is mindful the greed, hate, & ignorance are absent, the moment mindfulness slips away they are back, so how can mindfulness be wrong? What am I missing here?
Re: Right Mindfulness.
Mindfulness doesn't exist by itself. When one is mindful, what is it that one is "mindful of"? A very common example, seeing a beautiful voluptuous woman, if one is "mindful" solely of her curves, that's wrong mindfulness. If one is mindful of the origin, disappearance, gratification, danger, and escape from those curves (MN 11), now that's right mindfulness.lonewolf wrote:Ok. Not sure where the disconnect is, so let's get a bit deeper. Wrong mindfulness, what it is exactly? The lack of mindfulness? If there is a wrong mindfulness, what are its characteristics?
As far as I can tell when mind is mindful the greed, hate, & ignorance are absent, the moment mindfulness slips away they are back, so how can mindfulness be wrong? What am I missing here?
Re: Right Mindfulness.
Hi lonewolf,
Mike
The disconnect is a matter of definition. It's possible to define "wrong mindfulness" as "lack of mindfulness". This appears to be the stance that the Theravada Abdhidhamma and Commentaries take, so it's certainly perfectly defensible. As I recall other early sects had a different opinion. I can't fine a definitive comment about it right now but I'm sure that another knowledgeable member will be able to.lonewolf wrote: Ok. Not sure where the disconnect is, so let's get a bit deeper. Wrong mindfulness, what it is exactly? The lack of mindfulness? If there is a wrong mindfulness, what are its characteristics?
As far as I can tell when mind is mindful the greed, hate, & ignorance are absent, the moment mindfulness slips away they are back, so how can mindfulness be wrong? What am I missing here?
Mike
Re: Right Mindfulness.
These Suttas may be relevant.
Micchatta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Bija Sutta: The Seed
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
With metta,
Chris
Micchatta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Bija Sutta: The Seed
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Re: Right Mindfulness.
In simple terms I like to say that right mindfulness is remaining focused on the four frames of reference. The emphasize is not so much on a specific technique but on recollection, not loosing focus, being mindful, not being heedless, not getting entangled in a thicket of views. It's not about samadhi or vipassana it's about keeping in mind, remembering oneself to be focused on what's happening right now, not to be distracted by desire, not allowing effluents to become hindrances.
At least that's how I see it...
best wishes, acinteyyo
At least that's how I see it...
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Re: Right Mindfulness.
Some later Theravāda commentarial works also appear to discuss "wrong mindfulness" (micchāsati) in terms other than simply a lack of mindfulness.mikenz66 wrote: The disconnect is a matter of definition. It's possible to define "wrong mindfulness" as "lack of mindfulness". This appears to be the stance that the Theravada Abdhidhamma and Commentaries take, so it's certainly perfectly defensible. As I recall other early sects had a different opinion. I can't fine a definitive comment about it right now but I'm sure that another knowledgeable member will be able to.
Another more modern discussion of the topic by Ven. U Sīlānanda:Sāmaññaphalasuttavaṇṇanā wrote: Micchāsati santiṭṭhatīti ‘‘karoto na karīyati pāpa’’ntiādivasena anussavūpaladdhe atthe tadākāraparivitakkanehi saviggahe viya sarūpato cittassa paccupaṭṭhite cirakālaparicayena evametanti nijjhānakkhamabhāvūpagamanena nijjhānakkhantiyā tathāgahite punappunaṃ tatheva āsevantassa bahulīkarontassa micchāvitakkena samādiyamānā micchāvāyāmūpatthambhitā ataṃsabhāvaṃ ‘‘taṃsabhāva’’nti gaṇhantī micchāsatīti laddhanāmā taṃladdhisahagatā taṇhā santiṭṭhati.
[A translation can be found here which is attributed to The Discourse on the Fruit of Recluseship (The Samannaphala Sutta and Its Commentaries) by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi]
'Wrong mindfulness becomes established' (micchaasati
santi.t.thati): wrong mindfulness is the craving associated with the
theory, and it is this which becomes established. For through oral
tradition one first apprehends the general meaning of the view 'by doing
so there is no evil,' etc. One then ponders that meaning with various
reasons until it appears as cogent to the mind as if it possessed concrete
form.
By becoming accustomed to such a view over a long period of time, one
arrives as a reflective acquiescence in it, thinking 'It is true.' When,
again and again, one habitually indulges in and cultivates the view that
has been accepted as true through reflective acquiescence, wrong thought
directs craving to that view, with wrong effort reinforcing the craving;
thus one apprehends things as having a nature which they do not really
have. Thence it is the craving associated with the theory that is called
wrong mindfulness.
There is a thread titled Pali Term: Sati which discusses various perspectives on the term as well.[url=http://www.theravada-dhamma.org/pdf/e/Silananda_Silavanta%20sutta.pdf]Sīlavanta Sutta[/url] (p. 103) by Ven. U Sīlānanda wrote: Strictly according to Abhidhamma there is no wrong sati, because it is always wholesome. But here we find the word micchāsati, wrong sati. The commentary says that there really is no such thing as wrong sati, but that here remembrance of past akusala is wrong sati. So if you remember killing or stealing in the past, that is called wrong sati. But if you remember to kill or steal, that is called wrong mindfulness. So sometimes words are used in different senses.
Right sati is to be understood according to Abhidhamma, which says that sati is always wholesome, sati is always good, there can be no unwholesome sati, and there is no such thing as wrong sati. The idea of wrong sati is to be understood according to Suttanta.
Re: Right Mindfulness.
I don't think that mind that's under the infuence of lust is mindful. Mindfulness is pure, and I can't see how it can be used as a tool by greed, hate, or ignorance. To my mind mindfulness has to absent for the mind to slip into the unwholesome states. Concentration, I can see how it can be used by unwholesome states of mind, but I fail to see, how it can be done with mindfulness. Mindfulness, and equanimity are skillful states of mind as far I can tell, I can't see any drawbacks to either one.santa100 wrote:Mindfulness doesn't exist by itself. When one is mindful, what is it that one is "mindful of"? A very common example, seeing a beautiful voluptuous woman, if one is "mindful" solely of her curves, that's wrong mindfulness. If one is mindful of the origin, disappearance, gratification, danger, and escape from those curves (MN 11), now that's right mindfulness.lonewolf wrote:Ok. Not sure where the disconnect is, so let's get a bit deeper. Wrong mindfulness, what it is exactly? The lack of mindfulness? If there is a wrong mindfulness, what are its characteristics?
As far as I can tell when mind is mindful the greed, hate, & ignorance are absent, the moment mindfulness slips away they are back, so how can mindfulness be wrong? What am I missing here?
Re: Right Mindfulness.
Hi Mike,mikenz66 wrote:Hi lonewolf,The disconnect is a matter of definition. It's possible to define "wrong mindfulness" as "lack of mindfulness". This appears to be the stance that the Theravada Abdhidhamma and Commentaries take, so it's certainly perfectly defensible. As I recall other early sects had a different opinion. I can't fine a definitive comment about it right now but I'm sure that another knowledgeable member will be able to.lonewolf wrote: Ok. Not sure where the disconnect is, so let's get a bit deeper. Wrong mindfulness, what it is exactly? The lack of mindfulness? If there is a wrong mindfulness, what are its characteristics?
As far as I can tell when mind is mindful the greed, hate, & ignorance are absent, the moment mindfulness slips away they are back, so how can mindfulness be wrong? What am I missing here?
Mike
I think you are right, it's a matter of definition, translation, stance, understanding. I would agree, lack of mindfulness is definitely the wrong mindfulness.
Re: Right Mindfulness.
There is right mindfulness and there is wrong mindfulness, so I don't think it's correct to say mindfulness is always pure. Please see Culaavuso's excellent references above. Here's one more source from Dr. Alan Wallace on wrong mindfulness:lonewolf wrote:I don't think that mind that's under the infuence of lust is mindful. Mindfulness is pure, and I can't see how it can be used as a tool by greed, hate, or ignorance. To my mind mindfulness has to absent for the mind to slip into the unwholesome states. Concentration, I can see how it can be used by unwholesome states of mind, but I fail to see, how it can be done with mindfulness. Mindfulness, and equanimity are skillful states of mind as far I can tell, I can't see any drawbacks to either one.
A Mindful Balance wrote:A sniper hiding in the grass, waiting to shoot his enemy, may be quiely aware of whatever arises with each passing moment. But because he is intent on killing, he is practicing wrong mindfulness.
Re: Right Mindfulness.
I did read the references, they refer to wrong view, to craving etc. This is not what I understand as mindfulness. The mind in a mindful state, does not ponder, or craves for anything, it just observes. It is clear, curious, and radiant, but takes no position on anything, it just watches what goes on inside, and outside, it is aware of everything, but does not play favorites.santa100 wrote: There is right mindfulness and there is wrong mindfulness, so I don't think it's correct to say mindfulness is always pure. Please see Culaavuso's excellent references above. Here's one more source from Dr. Alan Wallace on wrong mindfulness:A Mindful Balance wrote:A sniper hiding in the grass, waiting to shoot his enemy, may be quiely aware of whatever arises with each passing moment. But because he is intent on killing, he is practicing wrong mindfulness.
I know what this state of mind is from experience, and I thought it was mindfulness. If it is not, than what is it called, and what exactly is mindfulness?
Re: Right Mindfulness.
The state of mind (citta) that is described above sounds like a reference to a cluster of various mental factors (cetasika) and not just a single factor. The description may be interpreted as referencing equanimity (upekkha) together with mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati sampajañña) along with investigation (vicāra) and a lack of greed (alobha). Possibly a level of concentration (samādhi) is implied as well. A systematic discussion of various terms that may be applicable to describe such states of mind can be found in the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma translated and edited by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.lonewolf wrote: I did read the references, they refer to wrong view, to craving etc. This is not what I understand as mindfulness. The mind in a mindful state, does not ponder, or craves for anything, it just observes. It is clear, curious, and radiant, but takes no position on anything, it just watches what goes on inside, and outside, it is aware of everything, but does not play favorites.
I know what this state of mind is from experience, and I thought it was mindfulness. If it is not, than what is it called, and what exactly is mindfulness?
Regarding what exactly is mindfulness, the word "mindfulness" is generally a reference to the Pāḷi word sati.
Translator for the Buddha: An Interview with Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: Even the word sati, rendered mindfulness, isn’t unproblematic. The word derives from a verb, sarati, meaning “to remember,” and occasionally in Pali sati is still explained in a way that connects it with the idea of memory. But when it is used in relation to meditation practice, we have no word in English that precisely captures what it refers to. An early translator cleverly drew upon the word mindfulness, which is not even in my dictionary. This has served its role admirably, but it does not preserve the connection with memory, sometimes needed to make sense of a passage.
Re: Right Mindfulness.
[quote="SarathW"]
This has been an interesting question.
However, further detailed discussion about interpretations of mindfulness belongs elsewhere. I think that the question has been explored enough in the context of the Discovering Theravada Forum.
Mike
This has been an interesting question.
However, further detailed discussion about interpretations of mindfulness belongs elsewhere. I think that the question has been explored enough in the context of the Discovering Theravada Forum.
Mike