Vipassana is mindfulness?

[Ytrog]

From what

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:
theyre both true in the sense that they both exist. thats why theres two truths.
but conventional truths dont exist in the way that they seem to, therefore theyre deceptive. and only the deceived take the deceptive to be true.
I don't think you are using "conventional truth" the way Buddhists do.

what makes you say that? then what is your usage of conventional truth?
Is ultimate truth "more real" than conventional truth?

From what I understand he means with 'conventional' truth a delusion which some perceive to be true (and in reality is false) as opposed to the 'ultimate' truth, which in Buddhist terms would just be called the truth.

[Shonin]

Any preference or apparent superiority of ultimate truth over conventional truth must be a conventional distinction.

[tiltbillings]

From what I understand he means with 'conventional' truth a delusion which some perceive to be true (and in reality is false) as opposed to the 'ultimate' truth, which in Buddhist terms would just be called the truth.

What 5heaps means is not at all clear.

[Spiny O'Norman]

Hi Jack,

Yes, sorry to drag jhana, etc into it. That wasn't my intention. All I was pointing out is that I don't think that it is accurate say that mindfulness is insight. As I understand it, it's one of the factors for the arising of insight. I think that's an important distinction.

In fact, it could be argued that sati is also not something one can practise in the sense of turning it on. One practises paying attention, which, with luck, leads to the arising of sati itself.

See this thread: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1151#p14424

Mike

That makes sense. Paying attention is the basis for sati which can be the basis for vipassana ( insight ). But is there a fundamental difference between these processes on and off the cushion?

Spiny

[Ben]

Hi Jack,

Yes, sorry to drag jhana, etc into it. That wasn't my intention. All I was pointing out is that I don't think that it is accurate say that mindfulness is insight. As I understand it, it's one of the factors for the arising of insight. I think that's an important distinction.

In fact, it could be argued that sati is also not something one can practise in the sense of turning it on. One practises paying attention, which, with luck, leads to the arising of sati itself.

See this thread: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1151#p14424

Mike

That makes sense. Paying attention is the basis for sati which can be the basis for vipassana ( insight ). But is there a fundamental difference between these processes on and off the cushion?

Spiny

No difference with vipassana on or off the cushion and that is because one's awareness in vipassana is moving with a changing object. Samatha is a bit more difficult to practice in the course of daily life as the practice, from my perspective, is about developing awareness of a discrete obect to the exclusion of other distracting influences. But sati is an essential component of both samatha and vipassana.
kind regards

Ben

[5heaps]

Is ultimate truth "more real" than conventional truth?

from the point of view of simple existence theyre both real. for example both a hand and its deepest nature can rightly be said to exist.
a hand however is totally unreal from the pov of a deceived mind, since its perceived nature is a delusion. seeing a hand by definition obstructs the perception of its real nature. this mind, though, is correct with regard to the simple existence of the hand.

You really did not read what was written. Ultimately there are not indivisible mind moments.

i did. what makes you think there are not indivisible mind moments, from what is said in your quote? im sort of starting to think that by indivisible unit you take it to mean "absolute unity/single reality", which is not at all what i mean by indivisible. what i mean is the deepest characteristic nature at the root of deceptive characteristic natures.

Any preference or apparent superiority of ultimate truth over conventional truth must be a conventional distinction.

how do you understand conventional truths?

[tiltbillings]

Quite honestly in all of what follows, I have not a clue as to what you are talking about.

Is ultimate truth "more real" than conventional truth?

from the point of view of simple existence theyre both real. for example both a hand and its deepest nature can rightly be said to exist.
a hand however is totally unreal from the pov of a deceived mind, since its perceived nature is a delusion. seeing a hand by definition obstructs the perception of its real nature. this mind, though, is correct with regard to the simple existence of the hand.

I am talking about the notion of two truths here. What are you talking about?

You really did not read what was written. Ultimately there are not indivisible mind moments.

i did. what makes you think there are not indivisible mind moments, from what is said in your quote? im sort of starting to think that by indivisible unit you take it to mean "absolute unity/single reality", which is not at all what i mean by indivisible. what i mean is the deepest characteristic nature at the root of deceptive characteristic natures.

Are you talking about "mind moments" as discrete entities, which is what "partless particles" certainly suggests, if not outright indicates? What do you mean? You are using jargon here without defining it, which does not help at all understand what you are saying.

what i mean is the deepest characteristic nature at the root of deceptive characteristic natures

And that means what? So, please explain in clear, lucid English what a "partless particle" is. Are you referring to dhammas as found in the Abhidhamma? Or what?

Any preference or apparent superiority of ultimate truth over conventional truth must be a conventional distinction.

how do you understand conventional truths?

How do you understand the two truths? Is the "conventional truth" you are asking about the same "conventional truth" as found in the two truths?

[Jack]

Hi Jack,

Yes, sorry to drag jhana, etc into it. That wasn't my intention. All I was pointing out is that I don't think that it is accurate say that mindfulness is insight. As I understand it, it's one of the factors for the arising of insight. I think that's an important distinction.

In fact, it could be argued that sati is also not something one can practise in the sense of turning it on. One practises paying attention, which, with luck, leads to the arising of sati itself.
=====
That makes sense. Paying attention is the basis for sati which can be the basis for vipassana ( insight ). But is there a fundamental difference between these processes on and off the cushion?

Spiny

=====
There is is a distinction between insight meditation which is a technique and and insight which is a result that I think is not being made in your above posts.

Also, my previous post said >I think vipassana/insight meditation is a further refinement of mindfulness. Vipassana/insight meditation is specifically looking for the 3 Marks in all phenomena.< This is not saying mindfulness is insight. I was trying to make a distinction between two techniques.

jack

[Spiny O'Norman]

Vipassana/insight meditation is specifically looking for the 3 Marks in all phenomena.
jack

I'm not sure. In insight meditation are we actively looking for the 3 characteristics, or just noticing the way things are?

Spiny

[Sanghamitta]

Vipassana/insight meditation is specifically looking for the 3 Marks in all phenomena.
jack

I'm not sure. In insight meditation are we actively looking for the 3 characteristics, or just noticing the way things are?

Spiny

In general terms that noticing has the effect of confirming that the way things is best desribed by the 3 Marks.

[Shonin]

Vipassana/insight meditation is specifically looking for the 3 Marks in all phenomena.
jack

I'm not sure. In insight meditation are we actively looking for the 3 characteristics, or just noticing the way things are?

Spiny

In general terms that noticing has the effect of confirming that the way things is best desribed by the 3 Marks.

But surely that's an insight as opposed a practice?

[Sanghamitta]

The noticing is part of the practice.

[Jack]

Vipassana/insight meditation is specifically looking for the 3 Marks in all phenomena.
jack

I'm not sure. In insight meditation are we actively looking for the 3 characteristics, or just noticing the way things are?

Spiny

====================================
A friend of mine is a college biology professor and a birder (studies birds). Several years ago I went on a birding trip led by him. We went to an ordinary Midwest grove of trees and found 42 species of birds. He showed us how the birds guarded their territory and many other facets of bird behavior. It was fascinating stuff. Now I have a much richer appreciation and see much more when I go out in nature. I don't actively look for the things that I was shown in that birding trip but I notice them.

My insight practice has gone the same way. For example, several years ago I started doing 4 Material Elements meditations. In one session I might actively look for, for example, the fire element in all phenomena that enters a sense door. After doing this for a month or two, I dropped it. It had become part of me. I went from an actively looking for specific things to just noticing them. Same with the 3 Marks.

jack

[Ben]

Hi Jack
I recommend that you keep it up. Insight meditation is more correctly bhavana (mental cultivation). While one should get to a point where observing the changing nature of phenomena should be relaxed and natural, it shouldn't be dropped if you feel you are doing it unbidden in daily life. Because if you drop it, that is when the mental cultivation stops.
kind regards

Ben

[Spiny O'Norman]

My insight practice has gone the same way. For example, several years ago I started doing 4 Material Elements meditations. In one session I might actively look for, for example, the fire element in all phenomena that enters a sense door. After doing this for a month or two, I dropped it. It had become part of me. I went from an actively looking for specific things to just noticing them. Same with the 3 Marks.

jack

My experience has been similar. It seems as if we gradually develop a familiarity with different aspects of Dhamma so that we do actually notice them.

Spiny

[delora]

couldn't you say that about anything?

eg. if you look for the bad in someone, you will see the bad in them. Soon you will notice it without even looking for it.

if you look for the good, the same would apply.

this may not correspond to the actual levels of good and bad in a person. ie, your desire to look for a particular quality, in a person, may distort your sense of quantity of that quality, compared to other qualities also present.

ie, if you look for goodness in a person, you may later feel that they are more good than bad, when in reality they are more bad than good.

[Spiny O'Norman]

couldn't you say that about anything?

Yes, you could. For me it underlines the need to have an openess of mind rather than to have preconceptions - not always easy to do.

Spiny