Awareness vs Mindfulness?

[DooDoot]

DooDoot post_id=640283 time=1629787564 user_id=14001]
So u claim to understand this book?

Yes, I do.

But the book says samadhi is upon non-attachment to the aggregates. You appear to say the opposite, that samadhi is fixation upon one feature of one aggregate.

[DooDoot]

This book impressed me very much. Of curiosity, do you like this book, DooDoot?

During one meditation retreat, a serious man read the following for the morning reading at 4.30am. Some people were laughing and the man got angry.

Now in the event of accidental death, such as getting run-over by a car, having a building collapse on top of you, being gored in the rear by a bull or getting blown up by an atom bomb, what should you do? If you have a little intelligence you'll see that it's exactly the same. If there is even a tiny amount of awareness left, in that moment resolve on the remainderless extinction. Through having previously developed the feeling that there is nothing worth having or being, until it is completely fluent and natural to you, on reaching the moment of death, you will be able to bring it to mind for a split second before the end. For example, someone run-over by a car doesn't die immediately there is always an interval even if it's only a fraction of a second or a single thought-moment, and for the flash of feeling resolving on remainderless extinction that is plenty of time.

Now suppose that death occurs in an instant with no feeling at all, well that itself is the remainderless extinction! As I have already explained we have already trained in the normal times to keep, this feeling that nothing is worth having or being constantly in the mind, so that when the body meets death with no opportunity to think or feel anything, that awareness being already present there will be remainderless extinction. But if there is even one thought - moment or half a second then we can think comfortably. So don't be cowardly, don't be afraid! Don't let cowardice and fear sap your strength: "please may I go with you doctor", "take me to the hospital" and so on. If, you go you'll die there just the same, it's a waste of time.

Against unnatural death, dying not wanting to die, dying unexpectedly, the sublime Dhamma can not only provide an infallible protection, but can provide Nibbana right there at the wheels of the car, beneath the collapsing building, at the horns of the bull or in the pile of bodies charred by the atomic blast. There is no violent unnatural death, instead there is Nibbana.

Those who have studied little, know little, right down to grandma and granddad who can't read, are all capable of understanding this teaching and should keep training in this correct understanding.

Now as for the death of those of perfect knowledge and truth - discerning awareness, those who have studied sufficiently and are proficient' both in the theory and practice of Dhamma, for such people it doesn't have to be a matter of leaping as they fall from the ladder. They are deathless from the start, from before any illness. Through having attained a high level of Dhamma since long before, they have no death.

[bodom]

* MOD NOTE*

Off topic posts removed. Please refrain from personal attacks.

[Cause_and_Effect]

...

Here:



So consciousness always is, based on this and the video. It exists forever outside of the body and sense experience. This is supposed to be non-metaphysical, but rebirth is?

"In terms of the 5 khandas it's impermanent, but in terms of ultimate reality it is permanent."

07.20 onwards

“Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view—hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought—thus: ‘That which is called “the eye,” “the ear,” “the nose,” “the tongue,” and “the body”—that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called “mind” (citta) or “mentality” (mano) or “consciousness” (viññāṇa)—that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.’

17:15 onwards: "You don't notice it [the permanent consciousness] because you are that"

This sounds familiar

"so 'ham"
"I am that"

Isha Upanishad

Problem is you have wrapped yourself in intellectualizing on a subject, using post canonical and sometimes adhammic literature (abhidhamma) some of which has as little relevance to the Buddha's actual teachings as the Upanishads.

Playing linguistic games and mental gymnastics doesn't get away from the fact that there is subjectivity, there is subjective experience.
That subjectivity, is that which follows the path and that which we are trying to liberate.

We may refer to it as consciousness or knowing or whatever but it is clearly not identical with the aggregates and with simply cognizance, and some distinction is necessary as the Buddha said to contemplate the rise and fall of the aggregates.

If you posit something other or another way of talking about this process, then describe it in your own words from your own experienceinstead of going into the usual Pali commentary thought circles.
I am quite sure you will be unable to without recourse to the terms awareness or consciousness or mind.

[Ceisiwr]

...

Based simply upon the suttas and āgamas, the video is sadly talking nonsense.

[Cause_and_Effect]

...

Based simply upon the suttas and āgamas, the video is sadly talking nonsense.

For someone unable to recognize that words represent concepts and concepts are often an inadequate way to describe experience, maybe.

This is why I asked you to put it into your own words which thus far you have not.

And we have discussed already that there are interpretations based on the suttas in the Nikayas that his views are fully supported.

But let's not go down that again.
So let's see you put my question into your own descriptions and see how it holds up, if you feel able to.

[Ceisiwr]

...

Based simply upon the suttas and āgamas, the video is sadly talking nonsense.

For someone unable to recognize that words represent concepts and concepts are often an inadequate way to describe experience, maybe.

This is why I asked you to put it into your own words which thus far you have not.

And we have discussed already that there are interpretations based on the suttas in the Nikayas that his views are fully supported.

But let's not go down that again.
So let's see you put my question into your own descriptions and see how it holds up, if you feel able to.

I think words are all that can be known and all there is.

[Cause_and_Effect]

I think words are all that can be known and all there is.

Can you elaborate?

[Ceisiwr]

I think words are all that can be known and all there is.

Can you elaborate?

Yes, but for now look at my signature quote.

[Spiny Norman]

I think words are all that can be known and all there is.

Interesting. So how does a young child navigate the world before learning the words?
And do see see naming as an essential basis for the recognition involved in perception?

[Ceisiwr]

I think words are all that can be known and all there is.

Interesting. So how does a young child navigate the world before learning the words?
And do see see naming as an essential basis for the recognition involved in perception?

My comment was supposed to be more epistemological than ontological. Try to prove that there is something to which words refer, and you get yourself into all kinds of contortions. I know, I tried. I now think the Buddha stepped out of all that. What the Buddha taught were useful worldly conventions that help one to awaken, rather than being referents to true existents IMO. Words and concepts can be useful, yes, but ultimately they are all empty.

[Ceisiwr]

I think words are all that can be known and all there is.

Can you elaborate?

See above.