Awareness vs Mindfulness?

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

one_awakening wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:54 pm
Tennok wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 1:59 am It's like Westerners had created somethind new and based on their own culture, instead of simply translating. Buddha's humble sati was lost in this glorious translation, you could say
Correct. Westerners have changed mindfulness so much that it can longer be regarded as mindfulness, and what's worse is they then claim it to be a Buddhist teaching.
It's a mixed bag....surprisingly a lot of it uses genuine Buddhist sources. Like the secular mindfulness instructions I linked are by Thich Nacht Han.
Others are not so good.

There was also a MBCT (Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy) course teaching about the Four Noble Truths so it varies.
https://www.levenindemaalstroom.be/nl/b ... s-training

Overall it's a very positive thing as it enables basic mindfulness teachings of being in the present and non -distracted, body awareness and watching the arising and passing of thoughts to reach a wider audience and is a path for the Buddha's teachings to bring benefit in a secular context.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
one_awakening
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:04 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by one_awakening »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm If thoughts come in…as they always do… acknowledge the thoughts, without judgment, and let them go…
Mindfulness practice involves judgement. If something unpleasant has arisen in the mind you need to first judge it to be unpleasant, then you can enquire and investigate why it arose, why it is unpleasant and why it led to suffering. By doing this you gain wisdom and it's this wisdom which allows you to let go.

How are you going to gain an understanding of how you create suffering if you just watch things come and go?
“You only lose what you cling to”
User avatar
Tennok
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 2:02 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by Tennok »

Overall it's a very positive thing as it enables basic mindfulness teachings of being in the present and non -distracted, body awareness and watching the arising and passing of thoughts to reach a wider audience and is a path for the Buddha's teachings to bring benefit in a secular context.

You say it's a mixed bag...well, I've stumbled upon different data. But I'm a "glass is half empty" kind of guy.

Secular contecst is a problem. Such Mindfulness is like a chopped off limb, often without crucial component of the Buddhistic ethics. Like distrust toward senses...toward pleasure. Toward any form of becoming. Those are not the truths you can use during corpo briefings, when motivating your team. So I doubt Mc Mindfulness even touchess it.

Of course there is a question, how to preach Dhamma in the West, without enough monasteries and supporting lay people, etc. But I doubt making it a succesfull bussines branch is a best idea. I don't like tons of people selling some twisted echoes of Dhamma, meditation apps and such. It encourages greed and it's often driven by greed. Buddha really insisted, that Dhamma is not a product and a source of income.

Here goes my personal example. My zen teacher's teacher. He got greedy and started to sell his luxury meditation workshops, in various versions, including special offer for millionaires. He made this neo Dharma sound pretty secular, too. And as he lacked basic sila, he got involved into sex scandals, of course. It killed my sangha.

And then goes economic aspect of Mc Mindfulnes. People often do those butchered practices as a part of some corporation policy, instead of asking for a rise, ot better working conditions. Some even start to hate it. Or they buy pointless apps - which cost - instead of learning how to give up uselesss, material things, be more free. Or they join intense Goenka retreats without establishing Right View, and get nuts.

I must add, that I'm not a big fan of a vipassana brand per se. I believe it's a modern reinterpretation of Dhamma, but it helps many people - including me at some point :smile: - so okay. But secular mindfulness just sucks. It's like a new version of a difficult, classical novel, rewritten by censors, with simple vocabulary and without any disturbing images and thoughts.

Why not read the original instead? Why not look for a real Dhamma? I don't percieve a twisted, fragmentated, greed driven shadow of Dhamma being present everywhere, as a good thing. Bad money pushes away the good money.

Plus, there is lot of data about secular mindfulness actually hurting people...including it's teachers. Broken Bones showed some interesting link about that recently. They sell mindfulness as an universal medicine, but it's not. I found this lady, Willoughby Britton, medical expert on the subject. According to her, noticing too much sensations may overstimulate parts of your brain and make it anxious.

https://www.brown.edu/research/labs/bri ... 0thing.pdf

Actually, it would be interesting to know, if the modern monastics are also suffering becouse of the vipassana overdose. Perhaps it could be an interesting new topic.
User avatar
Tennok
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 2:02 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by Tennok »

There was also a MBCT (Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy) course teaching about the Four Noble Truths so it varies.
https://www.levenindemaalstroom.be/nl/b ... s-training
Yeah, it seems to be a decent thing. I still don't agree with the idea that "secular" means "better", but for those guys probably help people.

metta & good luck
Tennok
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

one_awakening wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:49 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm If thoughts come in…as they always do… acknowledge the thoughts, without judgment, and let them go…
Mindfulness practice involves judgement. If something unpleasant has arisen in the mind you need to first judge it to be unpleasant, then you can enquire and investigate why it arose, why it is unpleasant and why it led to suffering. By doing this you gain wisdom and it's this wisdom which allows you to let go.

How are you going to gain an understanding of how you create suffering if you just watch things come and go?
Yes you are not wrong but there are levels to the practice.

As a preliminary meditation it is in line with the Buddha's teaching to practice in this way with non-judgemental awareness of thoughts as the first stage. As in, do not judge oneself for having such thoughts but see them as passing events in the mind with mindfulness (sati-sampajjana).

Without this preliminary practice one would get caught up in reactions and mental proliferation.

One can apply more discernment as to whether thoughts are beneficial or not later, but the attitude of non-judgemental awareness comes first.

The instructions are consistent with this:

"Rahula, develop the meditation like earth. For when you are developing the meditation like earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind. Just as when people throw what is clean or unclean on the earth — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the earth is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation like earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The Buddha gives this as a preliminary meditation before giving the more detailed instructions on Anapanasati which is consistent with this interpretation.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
one_awakening
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:04 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by one_awakening »

Tennok wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:04 am Secular contecst is a problem. Such Mindfulness is like a chopped off limb, often without crucial component of the Buddhistic ethics.
I agree with everything you said particularly the above because ethics, like you said, is a crucial part of mindfulness practice. Mindfulness without ethics is not mindfulness. But in secular mindfulness they don't want to practice morality so they just get rid of it along with many other aspects of mindfulness practice.

Secular mindfulness may bring some benefit to people, that's fine, but I don't like how they misrepresent The Buddha's teachings.
“You only lose what you cling to”
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by Aloka »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:09 am
Often I post this video for beginners. :smile:

Excellent video series from Ven. Ajahn Jayasaro :goodpost:


:anjali:
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:09 am
Often I post this video for beginners. :smile:

Yes, good video. Although as it supports what I was saying it seems you would do well to watch it yourself also.

The one point I would not quite agree with is as explained, the term 'mindfulness' in popular usage is sati-sampajjana although it is frequent to use it to translate sati alone.
As the Ven. Bhikkhu explains the two should go together. Thus translating mindfulness as only sati would miss this other important attribute. It would also mean we would need to start saying 'mindfulness - clear comprehension' as a phrase which is too long-winded for popular usage. Thus it is better that the term mindfulness as it has become known in the West encompasses both. Sati can be left translated as 'keeping in mind'.

Keeping something in mind with clear comprehension = mindfulness
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
one_awakening
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:04 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by one_awakening »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 am Keeping something in mind with clear comprehension = mindfulness
I like it
“You only lose what you cling to”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by DooDoot »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 am Yes, good video. Although as it supports what I was saying it seems you would do well to watch it yourself also.
It doesn't support what you said. Also, I have watched it countless times.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 amThe one point I would not quite agree with is as explained, the term 'mindfulness' in popular usage is sati-sampajjana although it is frequent to use it to translate sati alone.
Naturally you disagree. In Buddhism, samma sati is always cojoined with sampajjana.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 amAs the Ven. Bhikkhu explains the two should go together. Thus translating mindfulness as only sati would miss this other important attribute.
No. The two should go together but they are not the same thing. For example, if you are a capitalist, right sati is to always be aware of opportunities & methods to make money. Thus, capitalists, for example, don't have Buddhist sati-sampajanna.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 amIt would also mean we would need to start saying 'mindfulness - clear comprehension' as a phrase which is too long-winded for popular usage.
Its irrelevant. There is no samma sati without sampajanna. Mindfulness must recollect something. In Buddhism, mindfulness recollects sampajanna.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 am Thus it is better that the term mindfulness as it has become known in the West encompasses both. Sati can be left translated as 'keeping in mind'.
No. In the West, sati often means to suspend judgment, including moral judgment. This is why corporations, for example, teach it to employees. This is not Buddhist sati. Buddhist sati, per the suttas, recollects right view, right thought, right speech, right action & right livelihood.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 amKeeping something in mind with clear comprehension = mindfulness
Clear comprehension is merely a translation. Comprehension in Buddhism means to understand the spiritual & moral significance of something, such as does it lead to suffering, does it lead to Nibbana, does it lead to harm, does it lead to non-harm, what is its attraction or benefit, what is its danger, what is its purpose, etc. This is the meaning of clear comprehension. Clear comprehension does not mean to have a clear consciousness or clear mirror.

:smile:
Last edited by DooDoot on Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by DooDoot »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm The term 'mindfulness' in popular discourse
Buddha-Dhamma is not "popular discourse". The above is a non-sequitur.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmencompasses more than simply sati or 'keeping something in mind'. It also involves awareness of ones purpose.
Knowledge of right "purpose" is one of many types of sampajanna (situational wisdom). You appear to be contradicting what you previously wrote and appear to strangely be using my view in an attempt to refute my view. :roll:

"Purpose" is a type of remembered (sati) wisdom (sampajana). Right purpose has been taught to us by the Buddha. This is a type of wisdom or knowledge. Then mindfulness remembers to keep that purpose in mind.

For example, you are observing breathing then think: "I can tell girls in nightclubs I reached jhana so i can seduce them". But if mindfulness is operating, it recollects the purpose of meditation, which is Nibbana. Knowing Nibbana is purpose of meditation is a knowledge or wisdom learned from the Buddha.

In short, all sampajanna is pre-learned knowledge. Sampajanna is not present moment insight.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmIn the context of sati-sampajjana the compound term means to keep an object in mind
No. Sampajanna is not keeping the object in the mind :lol: Samajana is understanding how to relate to the object properly so to not give rise to evil defilements that lead to rebirth in hell. :x
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmand also to evaluate that one is maintaining ones attention there and evaluate the appropriate task at hand.
The above is gibberish. Sampajjana is the knowledge of the quality of attention required, namely, an undefiled attention that does not lead to rebirth in hell.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmIt seems you have based most of your entire response as a copy pasta of this post. Maybe credit it?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... sampajanna
It seems like the above is an example of false speech. For example, in Buddhism, arahants have the same knowledge. Possibly myself good self and the poster at the link possess the same knowledge & mind.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmThe discussion is not simply about the Pali term 'sati'. It is about 'mindfulness', a western term that has gained significant popularity and clearly does not translate as simply sati now, even if perhaps at the very earliest usage that was an intention.
Mindfulness always means to keep in mind or to bear in mind, such as in the Biblical verse: "what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor".

In popular discourse, mindfulness means to maintain non-judgment awareness, such as when your company behaves in immoral ways. You should not judge your company. You should suspend moral judgment.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmMindfulness as a popular word is synonymous with mindfulness practice.
ftw? no
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmAnd that clearly is more than simply 'sati practice' or holding an object in mind which would be a mere concentration task.
The object held in mind in Buddhist practise is Nibbana or non-attachment.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmOne is also taught to observe thoughts coming and going and see their transience in basic mindfulness instructions. This is consistent with sati-sampajjana.
No. Thinking & concentration are antagonistic. Satipatthana does not involve observing thoughts.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmSee here in popular mindfulness instruction
Really.

:popcorn:
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm "Keeping your awareness lightly and gently on your breath… breathing mindfully in the present moment.

“Breathing in, I know I am breathing in… Breathing out, I know I am breathing out.”

The above does not mention "thoughts".

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm If thoughts come in…as they always do…
But thoughts do not always come. The Buddha said in MN 118:
MN 118 wrote:I don't say that there is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing in one of lapsed mindfulness and no clear comprehension.

:alien:
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmacknowledge the thoughts, without judgment

The Buddha did not teach the above. When distracting thoughts arise, the Buddha taught to judge those thoughts. Possibly you should read MN 19 & MN 20, rather than post New Age Secular Foo Foo.

In MN 118, Anapanasati, the Buddha taught each of final 14 steps possesses the Three Trainings of Higher Morality, Higher Mind and Higher Wisdom. Satipatthana or Anapanasati is not about non-judging any distracting thoughts or, otherwise, deliberate thoughts. It is about judging thoughts, as wholesome, unwholesome, impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self, etc.

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm let them drift away like clouds floating across the sky…
The above sounds like nonsense. Thoughts arise from underlying tendencies. If thoughts are somehow ;) allowed to simply float away, wisdom is never applied to those thoughts. Thus, due to being products of ignorant underlying tendencies, they will return.

In MN 19, the Bodhisatta Gotama wiped out thoughts using wisdom or wise consideration. :jedi:

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmWith regard to the suttas

It is unlikely the suttas are understood accurately.

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm"And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are comprehended as they arise, comprehended as they remain present, comprehended as they pass away. Thoughts are comprehended as they arise, comprehended as they remain present, comprehended as they pass away. Perceptions are comprehended as they arise, comprehended as they remain present, comprehended as they pass away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear comprehension".

I already mentioned the above. Obviously you did not comprehend what I wrote. The translation of "comprehended" above is misleading. The more accurate translation is "understood" (per Bhikkhu Bodhi). I already posted about the meaning of "vidata" here.

Please use mindfulness to recollect my previous post. "Vidata" means to "understand". It does not mean to be "conscious" or "aware".
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmThe above popular mindfulness instruction is consistent with the fundamentals here.

No. I have shown above what you wrote is not Buddhist. It sounds like Secular New Age Foo Foo.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm If one were to popularize the practice with one word,

Buddhist sati-sampajana cannot be "popularized". The Buddha clearly said only "a few" possess insight (Dhammapada Lokavagga). You ideas sound like, yes, :lol: ,... Mahayana. :embarassed:
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm it certainly makes sense to make that word represent not simply sati but the compound term sati-sampajjana which is what it has become.

sati-sampajjana means to recollect the factors of the noble path, which are based in right view. It appears not possible, in this defiled world, to popularize right view, right thought, right speech, right action & right livelihood. The suttas clearly say most human beings will be reborn into hell (SN 56.102)

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmI also did not say sampajjana equates to 'bare awareness'. It equates to a clear comprehension of what one is doing and why in the present, combined with sati to keep the mind on the present object.
The above is wrong. If i am aware i am taking drugs in the present because i enjoy getting high & listening to Jimi Hendrix play Purple Haze, this is not sati-sampajjana.

Sati-sampajana means to keep right view in the mind, including right view of the other Path factors, as explained in MN 117.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmThis is entirely consistent with the way mindfulness is usually taught and understood in secular practice.

No. Its not. For example, mindfulness includes remembering & maintaining right speech, right livelihood & right action, including right sexual conduct. This is not taught in the Secular world. Again, refer to MN 117.
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pmIt will only lead to confusion to try to appropriate the term mindfulness as meaning only sati by itself, especially as sati usually does not appear by itself in the suttas but in various contexts the most significant being the compound term sati-sampajjana.
The above appears irrelevant and mere gibberish & baseless rhetoric. I have already posted enough addressing the confusions.

In summary:

1. Mindfulness does not include imagined awareness of thoughts. Per MN 19 & MN 20, mindfulness dispels thoughts.

2. Per MN 10 and MN 118, mindfulness & clear comprehension are used to establish the mind in "anupassi", which means "observing". "Observing" is not thinking.

3. Mindfulness in Buddhism recollects the Path factors. The secular world does not teach the Path factors.

:smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:01 pm

It seems you have based most of your entire response as a copy pasta of this post. Maybe credit it?
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... sampajanna
They are the same person.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by robertk »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:34 am

For example, you are observing breathing then think: "I can tell girls in nightclubs I reached jhana so i can seduce them".
I must be out of touch with the ways of young people. When I went to nightclubs, many years back, telling girls you had reached jhana probably wouldn’t have been a successful strategy.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by DooDoot »

robertk wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:48 am I must be out of touch with the ways of young people. When I went to nightclubs, many years back, telling girls you had reached jhana probably wouldn’t have been a successful strategy.
I do recall reading at least one individual on Reddit with the above strategy. :tongue:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Awareness vs Mindfulness?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:34 am In summary:

1. Mindfulness does not include imagined awareness of thoughts. Per MN 19 & MN 20, mindfulness dispels thoughts.

2. Per MN 10 and MN 118, mindfulness & clear comprehension are used to establish the mind in "anupassi", which means "observing". "Observing" is not thinking.

3. Mindfulness in Buddhism recollects the Path factors. The secular world does not teach the Path factors.

:smile:
Unnecessarily long-winded mental agitation put down into typed form (seems to be a theme I've noticed with your posts, which is why although new to this site I have made a note already not to entertain you too often and be infected by this dis-ease).

You are also fond of quoting me halfway then applying a wrong misinterpretation to represent what I was saying and then using somewhat idiotic emojis as though you had made some profound point :lol:
Another deceptive and childish habit to fuel ego gratification

I have also nowhere said mindfulness is 'thoughts', rather it is awareness of them and of the attention.

Yes, he is supporting what I was saying very clearly. The only point of difference is that I say that the word mindfulness clearly best represents the compound term sati-sampajjana and not merely sati.

The very idea of teaching mindfulness in a secular form precludes it involving detailed Buddhist wisdom practices. Therefore your argument that it does not involve this is tautalogical and invalid.

Sampajjana means awareness and clear comprehension of the purpose of ones present action and what one is doing.

This is clearly a part of the meaning of the western term mindfulness.

Sati by itself , 'keeping something in mind' is not a meaningful instruction to represent the use of the word mindfulness.

If ones object is the breath, then sati means keeping the breath in mind and sampajanna means evaluating the breath and that the mind is not straying, and the quality of attention directed there.

Also, what you fail to to realise (common of semantic nerds and not experiential learner's) is that there is not a clear and exact distinction as they overlap. For evaluating and maintaining ones purpose and the instructions (sampajjana) is part of keeping something in mind (sati). Thus any attempt to fully separate them leads to circular arguments and mental agitation, as you kindly display.
Thus in reality there is only sati-sampajjana which is mindfulness.
And the term mindfulness in the western secular context is as I describe it.
Last edited by Cause_and_Effect on Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Post Reply