Awareness vs Mindfulness?

[Coëmgenu]

Mahayana C wrote

Go back and read. Cause_and_Effect did not post about mindfulness of the Buddha.

I don't have to back and read Cause_and_Effect, I figure he has not understood the five aggregates as taught by Buddha, based on his thread on the "Recollection of Gods"
Neither does he have the ability to differentiate between consciousness as taught by Buddha, and consciounesss as taught in Hinduistic traditions.

You don't "have" to. No one is here forcing you. But you "ought to." Your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of ability to follow the thread and read what the people in it have said, so you ought to go back and read the context of "Recollection of the Tathagata is not the same as recollecting the Dhamma." It is a non-sequitur, contextualized. You don't have it contextualized. Your assertions as usual are odd speculations on people's internal realizations and personal interpretations based on whatever material from them that you have misread.

The rest of your "you say you say" post isn't worth my addressing of it.

[Pulsar]

Cool, now we replace Buddha with Maha Boowa, Cause_and _effect writes

Some thoughts of the Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa from the book The path to Arahantship

I find it pointless to repeat Maha Boowa's thoughts, but thank you.
But we should not be surprised, many replaced Buddha with Buddhaghosa.
These things happen as the world goes around.
Have you read "Retrofuturit's Brief Sutta Based Refutation of Abhidhamma?"
The most thoughtful post on DW ever.
Now I could create a post like "Pulsar's Sutta Based Refutation of Maha Boowa's Path to Arahantship"
Not just now however. But also since something similar is already found on DW, why waste everybody's time?
Thank you Retro, of course I could never thank you enough for that difficult task, where you ran the risk of
offending many good friends. But I guess, opening the "Dhamma eye" is more important.
With love

[dreicht]

DooDoot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:48 am
Recollection of the Tathagata is not the same as recollecting the Dhamma. They are not done at the same time nor is their object the same.

Brilliant my Dearest DooDoot. Let us look at the definition of Dhamma.
Dhamma is about the
Beneficial elements, 18.
The aggregates which are all components of mentality. (Some misinterpret rupa aggregate to be physical).
The sense fields i.e. 12 ayatanas
The 4 Noble Truths,
Dependent origination.

I don't see Thathagata included in the above list, unless the Mahayanists have a separate list on Dhamma that includes Tathagata.
When Buddha was asked "Does Tathagata exist?" his response was "Tathagata neither exists, nor not exist"
Dhamma cannot be defined in the above manner. Whether a Tathagata appears or not, it matters little
to the Dhamma defined in the above way.
If there is one person on DW, whose company I enjoy, that is DooDoot's. He says outrageous things at time, who does not? Even the celebrated monks do.
With love

Everyone is fighting but I’ve actually found this thread very helpful.
...

Indeed. The Dhamma has been made clear in many ways by DooDoot and nirodh27, as though they were righting what was overthrown, revealing what was hidden, showing the way to those who were lost, holding up a lamp in the dark for those with eyes to see visible forms.

Not sure where all this patting each other on the back glorification is coming from...
Many of comments made earlier by this poster are not aligned with what is found in the canon or how mindfulness is practiced.

Mindfulness - keeping something in mind with clear comprehension, is simply the starting point.
Too much is made of semantics as though studying shades of meaning of Pali terms will suddenly make the teaching fall into place and come to life. As evident it frequently has the opposite effect and promotes agitation and restlessness because ironically this study is often done lacking in mindfulness.

More should be said on the subject from people who genuinely live the Dhamma, from the experiential perspective.

Some thoughts of the Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa from the book The path to Arahantship

(p10)
"In essence, earnest effort is synonymous with a meditator’s endeavor to maintain steady and continuous mindful awareness, always striving to keep a constant watch on the mind. When mindfulness oversees all our mental and emotional activities, at all times in all postures, this is called “right effort”.
Whether we’re engaged in formal meditation practice or not, if we earnestly endeavor to keep our minds firmly focused in the present moment, we constantly offset the threat posed by the kilesas. The kilesas work tirelessly to churn out thoughts of the past and the future. This distracts the mind, drawing it away from the present moment, and from the mindful awareness that maintains our effort."


(p37)
"Each time you investigate with mindfulness and wisdom, the investigation should be carried out in the present moment. To be fully effective, each new investigation must be fresh and spontaneous. Don’t allow them to become carbon copies of previous ones. An immediacy, of being exclusively in the present moment, must be maintained at all times....
Ultimately, this is what it means to be mindful. Mindfulness fixes the mind in the present, allowing wisdom to focus sharply."

This is helpful. What exactly is the disagreement in this thread over...? It sounds to me like both sides are largely saying something similar - that present awareness is important but insufficient without keeping the Dhamma in mind? I must not be understanding.

[Ceisiwr]

I admire DD because he understands aggregates to mean mental phenomena, and he appears to have a good handle on suttas. Not many do.

You sure about DD taking rupa to be immaterial? Pretty sure he argues the opposite, in that he takes rupa in the 5 aggregates to be matter.

Besides whatever you say sometimes, he leaps up and agrees with it, saying , right below your post, which I find very annoying.

I put when someone make a good point, regardless of who they are. Why you find that annoying when I do it (but apparently not when others do) is beyond me.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Some thoughts of the Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa from the book The path to Arahantship

(p10)
"In essence, earnest effort is synonymous with a meditator’s endeavor to maintain steady and continuous mindful awareness, always striving to keep a constant watch on the mind. When mindfulness oversees all our mental and emotional activities, at all times in all postures, this is called “right effort”.
Whether we’re engaged in formal meditation practice or not, if we earnestly endeavor to keep our minds firmly focused in the present moment, we constantly offset the threat posed by the kilesas. The kilesas work tirelessly to churn out thoughts of the past and the future. This distracts the mind, drawing it away from the present moment, and from the mindful awareness that maintains our effort."


(p37)
"Each time you investigate with mindfulness and wisdom, the investigation should be carried out in the present moment. To be fully effective, each new investigation must be fresh and spontaneous. Don’t allow them to become carbon copies of previous ones. An immediacy, of being exclusively in the present moment, must be maintained at all times....
Ultimately, this is what it means to be mindful. Mindfulness fixes the mind in the present, allowing wisdom to focus sharply."

This is helpful. What exactly is the disagreement in this thread over...? It sounds to me like both sides are largely saying something similar - that present awareness is important but insufficient without keeping the Dhamma in mind? I must not be understanding.

There is little point trying to follow the arguing because mainly it seems to me just arguing for it's own sake and misreading of suttas.
I am giving it no attention.

If we look at the vid in the OP again by Bhikkhu Sarana

He describes two levels of mindfulness in the suttas

1/. Awareness of the present - i.e. when standing you know "standing" , when talking you know you are talking, awareness of the meditation object etc

2/. Awareness of the awareness of the present - I.e. Knowing that you are aware of the meditation theme in the present.

So you can be aware of an action, and also aware that you are aware of an action.

He defines the second form of mindfulness as 'clarity' and that which aids subsequent recall.

So the amount of that second aspect of mindfulness may vary.

This is akin to various Forest monks descriptions I have also heard: "Be aware to watch the breath. Even better is if you can also be aware that you are aware of watching the breath".

The second aspect is seen also as protecting the first and aiding the continuity of mindfulness.

[dreicht]

Some thoughts of the Ven. Acariya Maha Boowa from the book The path to Arahantship

(p10)
"In essence, earnest effort is synonymous with a meditator’s endeavor to maintain steady and continuous mindful awareness, always striving to keep a constant watch on the mind. When mindfulness oversees all our mental and emotional activities, at all times in all postures, this is called “right effort”.
Whether we’re engaged in formal meditation practice or not, if we earnestly endeavor to keep our minds firmly focused in the present moment, we constantly offset the threat posed by the kilesas. The kilesas work tirelessly to churn out thoughts of the past and the future. This distracts the mind, drawing it away from the present moment, and from the mindful awareness that maintains our effort."


(p37)
"Each time you investigate with mindfulness and wisdom, the investigation should be carried out in the present moment. To be fully effective, each new investigation must be fresh and spontaneous. Don’t allow them to become carbon copies of previous ones. An immediacy, of being exclusively in the present moment, must be maintained at all times....
Ultimately, this is what it means to be mindful. Mindfulness fixes the mind in the present, allowing wisdom to focus sharply."

This is helpful. What exactly is the disagreement in this thread over...? It sounds to me like both sides are largely saying something similar - that present awareness is important but insufficient without keeping the Dhamma in mind? I must not be understanding.

There is little point trying to follow the arguing because mainly it seems to me just arguing for it's own sake and misreading of suttas.
I am giving it no attention.

If we look at the vid in the OP again by Bhikkhu Sarana

He describes two levels of mindfulness in the suttas

1/. Awareness of the present - i.e. when standing you know "standing" , when talking you know you are talking, awareness of the meditation object etc

2/. Awareness of the awareness of the present - I.e. Knowing that you are aware of the meditation theme in the present.

So you can be aware of an action, and also aware that you are aware of an action.

He defines the second form of mindfulness as 'clarity' and that which aids subsequent recall.

So the amount of that second aspect of mindfulness may vary.

This is akin to various Forest monks descriptions I have also heard: "Be aware to watch the breath. Even better is if you can also be aware that you are aware of watching the breath".

The second aspect is seen also as protecting the first and aiding the continuity of mindfulness.

This is very helpful. Are there suttas or dhamma talks on generating that second level of awareness? I've been able to do it intuitively during Bhikkhu Analayo's guided satipatthana meditations but I'd like to generate it more consciously if possible.

[DooDoot]

You sure about DD taking rupa to be immaterial?

Rupa is well described in MN 62.

[Pulsar]

dreicht wrote

This is very helpful. Are there suttas or dhamma talks on generating that second level of awareness?

Second level of awareness in suttas is news to me. Where did you read it? Or is that something V. Sarana
made up?

I've been able to do it intuitively during Bhikkhu Analayo's guided satipatthana meditations

You must be brilliant, I could never follow him...towards the end of suffering...I got lost somewhere, and could not figure out where he was leading us to. Do you mind explaining how you succeeded?

but I'd like to generate it more consciously if possible.

More consciously? what do you mean? were you less conscious when you were following Analayo?
You also wrote earlier ...

What exactly is the disagreement in this thread over...? It sounds to me like both sides are largely saying something similar - that present awareness is important but insufficient without keeping the Dhamma in mind? I must not be understanding.

It is very hard to explain the difference. People engage in wrong mindfulness more often than not. It is hard to differentiate between the two, unless you are very familiar with the canon. Are you?
One requires a sound grounding as regards aggregates, elements, sense bases, DO etc. to make sense of mindfulness, as Buddha intended. Buddha's intent was to remove the mind from the sensory world.

Cause_and _affect wrote

The second aspect is seen also as protecting the first and aiding the continuity of mindfulness.

What is the point of this continuity of mindfulness? that V. Sarana describes? Mindfulness in Buddha's teaching? is it not about Samma sati? One has to be careful not to do wrong sati, writes MN 117. Right mindfulness is framed by the 8-fold path.
Regards

[Cause_and_Effect]

[DooDoot]

....

I recall we already ran our rulers over this video recently on the forum.

Possibly this video could have been placed on the topic, here.

Very dangerous looking video, where the monk denounces: "making value judgments". It was already posted, as taught in AN 10.58: "all dhamma practices are governed by mindfulness"; which means mindfulness remembers the sampajanna of what is right & wrong. The whole Buddhist Path is about the value judgment of what is "right & wrong".

This monk appears very virtuous & gentle in his behaviour (morality) but also appears to think like a Zen Buddhist in Theravada robes.

30 years ago, I was forced to listen to this monk's ramblings on cassette tapes from Wat Pananachat. It appears this monk has been teaching the same ramblings for decades; where as at least my personal views about Dhamma have changed so much since those ancient times.

This monk appears to say: "awareness is consciousness; awareness is mindfulness; thus consciousness is mindfulness".

[nirodh27]

....

Very dangerous looking video, where the monk denounces: "making value judgments". It was already posted, as taught in AN 10.58: "all dhamma practices are governed by mindfulness"; which means mindfulness remembers the sampajanna of what is right & wrong. The whole Buddhist Path is about the value judgment of what is "right & wrong".

This monk appears very virtuous & gentle in his behaviour (morality) but also appears to think like a Zen Buddhist in Theravada robes.

Hi DooDoot,

First, thank you for the PDF you sent me.

As for Ajahn Sumedho, actually the fact that Sati is memory, recollection and value judgement (we 100% agree on this) is not a diffused knowledge and the a different meaning is engrained in almost every Dhamma Teacher that I've read, lay or monk. It is in those years that I've seen, after discovering this myself, you, Frankk (yes, you almost agree with him too on this issuee, because if you careful read the suttas this is a thing that cannot possibly be missed or misinterpret), I've seen Levman raise the question about the meaning of Sati in a paper and Analayo trying to defend the bare awareness and present-moment definition with poor arguments in a response paper. I've seen Thanissaro say something very similar in the present moment is not the goal. STOP. So this Sati misrepresentation is so engrained in every buddhist that It is the de facto standard for everyone.

Edit: I would have to say that actually the first time I've read about sati= remembering is thanks to Analayo in "Satipatthana", even if his conclusion that "Sati enhances memory" was very disapponting.

What is important btw is that Sumedho in other words many times suggest that you have to make value judgements. His words:

When you are meditating and letting go of everything, your feelings calm down, and what is left is that there are no thoughts and feeling dominating consciousness".

"When we really contemplate suffering, we no longer incline towards grasping hold of desire, because it hurts, is painful, there is no point in doing it. So, from that time on, we understand, ‘Oh! That’s why I’m suffering; that’s its origin. Ah! now I understand. It’s that grasping hold of desire that causes me all this misery and suffering, all this fear, worry, expectation, despair, hatred, greed, delusion. All the problems of life come from grasping and clinging to the fire of desire."

Allure, Dangers, Drawbacks, Disenchantment, Dispassion.

Sumedho uses "value judgement" most of the time in the sense that you don't have to react "i like it" "i don't like it", "I'm bad because I like it" that is a very common western reaction from one that comes from Christian background. But it is clear, especially from his 4 noble truths booklet, that the value judgement "letting go of sensual pleasure is good" is there and that his mind is infused about this value judgement all the time, that the value judgement "aversion is to be abandoned" is there. The suggestion to really look, to really examine the five aggregates and their nature of anicca is, especially on the "I AM" construct, are there. He uses a different language because almost everyone in the world gives sati that meaning, but all the true 7 factors are there in Sumedho, even the Sutta's Sati.

This is a testimony of the greatness of the Teaching of the Buddha. You can totally misinterpret a word, but there are mechanism that can still bring you forward because the Dhamma is exposed in many ways with many strategies.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Very dangerous looking video, where the monk denounces: "making value judgments". It was already posted, as taught in AN 10.58: "all dhamma practices are governed by mindfulness"; which means mindfulness remembers the sampajanna of what is right & wrong. The whole Buddhist Path is about the value judgment of what is "right & wrong".

This monk appears very virtuous & gentle in his behaviour (morality) but also appears to think like a Zen Buddhist in Theravada robes.

30 years ago, I was forced to listen to this monk's ramblings on cassette tapes from Wat Pananachat. It appears this monk has been teaching the same ramblings for decades; where as at least my personal views about Dhamma have changed so much since those ancient times.

This monk appears to say: "awareness is consciousness; awareness is mindfulness; thus consciousness is mindfulness".

No, that is wrong as has been explained many times in this thread.

You would do well to study Ven. Sumedho again, his descriptions of mindfulness are absolutely correct as per the suttas.

One would also wonder how one could maintain strict monastic discipline for 40 years without a sense of judgement???
This basic question should expose your very flawed thinking on the subject, and your relentless attempts to misrepresent members of the Noble Sangha on the subject, and therebye accumulate a mass of demerit.

As always it seems people on the internet love to boost egos with wrong views about dhamma, instead of learning from eminent monastics who actually live the teachings.

[DooDoot]

You would do well to study Ven. Sumedho again, his descriptions of mindfulness are absolutely correct as per the suttas.

Please quote the sutta paragraphs u are relying on for the above assertion? Thanks

And please quote the exact correlating phrases spoken by the Venerable Ajahn.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Explain first how one can maintain the 227 precepts without any sense of judgement, then we can see if there is any purpose in explaining things further to you.

Waiting....

[Tennok]

This monk appears very virtuous & gentle in his behaviour (morality) but also appears to think like a Zen Buddhist in Theravada robes.

Same could be said about Ajahn Chah...He used Zen stories in his teachings. And he focused on experiencing & living the Dhamma , while being sceptical about sutta studies.

Perhaps Zen and Theravada - especially the Thai Forrest Tradition - are not so different in the end?

Btw., I 've always thought Ajahn Sumedho has some Puritan tendency in his teachings. I like his books, they are real and down to the earth. But their tone baffled me. According to what I ve read about him, He didn't like formal jhana practice in his monasteries, which he saw as easily becoming tanha based.

Still, he lived almost 60 years in robes. Trained lot of monks, established Sangha in the U.K. Ajahn Chah considered him to be his succesor. I wouldn't dare to look down on his experience and wisdom, from the confort of my lay man's chair, in front of the computer screen...

Or perhas you just don't like any popular teachers, except of Buddhadasa, DooDoot?