From my own experience, it is not easy to be mindful as a beginner, because of mental activity and lack of calm mind. But once the mental activity has slowed down, or one has established a samadhi mind, then it's so much easier to observe the mind, its reactions and intentions. It takes patience, but it delivers results. Thank you for explaining the Dhamma in such a clear manner! 🙏🙏🙏
Thanks for the wonderful explanation. At 4.34 in the video, it says that in mindfulness we recognize that the mind is no longer here and now its here. could you please explain what is meant by "here" ?Is it the object of meditation which is "loving kindness " or "breath"?,please
It is Mind's attention that moves here and there. One moment you are your object and then you notice the mind is no longer with the object and has wandered off into a hindrance.
Hi Mr. Johnson, one thing I don't quite grasp with the "no-self" concept, such as in your book you state, "When your mind is just barely moving, and you are able to observe with powerful mindfulness, you won’t be able to find such a thing as a self" But the YOUR mind and YOU won't be able to find a self, isn't that the self? I mean, how can one experience no-self, since whatever is experiencing it would be the self. If any experience is being experienced by something, isn't that a Self? Thanks!
Ha ha. There is neither a not-self nor a self. There is a process of 5 aggregates arising and passing with no eternal soul. That which knows is a mental factor. It arises and passes away. There is a ‘you’ for a moment but then it’s gone.
@@davidjohnson8218 Thanks for the response, but I see a flaw in this premise. I purchased your book from Amazon, I have been reading and enjoying Path to Nibbana, but please let me make my question to you clearer: It is impossible for a YOU to experience no-self as an experiencer is a self. If you are claiming what one thinks of as you is just ego, not the real you, ok then. But you went so far in saying, "you won’t be able to find such a thing as a self", but whatever is trying to "find" a self, is a self. Of course we cannot view what is doing the viewing. SO if you seek to find an I, wouldn't the seeker be the I, and if so, how can the seeker find itself? Do you agree with this and see what I am saying? If YOU are experiencing anything at all, the YOU is a self. If there is an experience of seeing Dependent Origination, whatever is actually seeing DO, is a YOU. It doesn't make sense to me that the Buddha was teaching people to get to oblivion as why would anyone want to do that? Robert Thurman said something similar to, "The Void is not nothing, it is just void of all intrinsic reality". In #28 of Middle Discourses notice Buddha talks about the 4 elements and other stuff and says: "what of this body, which is clung to by craving and lasts but a while? There can be no considering that as I‘ or mine‘ or I am.‘" Notice how he states THAT is not I, it does not say here no-self whatsoever but the body is not I. "One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination." It say ONE WHO SEES, therefore, something is seeing it, is it not? Is there an actual quote from the Suttas of Buddha saying there is no-self whatsoever? So when you talk about seeing DO or no-self or seeing YOU as temporary, etc., how do you reconcile that there is an experiencer here? I don't see how one can experience no-self as a self is always what is doing the experiencing.
@@Acujeremy Yes I agree for a moment there is a "you" Then it passes away. The thought her is that there is no ENDURING self but an endless arising moments of cognition which are conditioned by whatever one sees, thinks, sees etc. Again the Buddha never said there was not a self no was there a self. It is just an impersonal process. Don't overthink it too much. Its just being in the present moment with no wandering mind. The meditation will reveal around the 6th jhana the reality of this.
@@davidjohnson8218 Thank you sir for that response, but can we narrow down the concept that anything experiencing a "you" that arises and passes away, or anything seeing Dependent Origination, is in fact, logically, what we can conclude is some type of self? You can't observe no you, because what is observing is a self. How can we say any "witness" of any state, any jhana, any insight or even any nibbana, that witness is not some type of self? Logically, semantically, I don't see how we can ever say an experiencer experiencing anything is not a self. I don't feel this is overthinking, I feel this is the core premise you are making, and I cannot find a logical explanation for it. With respect, thank you for your time!
@@Acujeremy We did not say there is no self. Just that there is no permanent self. Just moments of cognition arising and passing away that we take as a bigger self but is just only a process happening. You can say its a small self if you like as we have to talk about things in a normal way in the world to understand things.
From my own experience, it is not easy to be mindful as a beginner, because of mental activity and lack of calm mind. But once the mental activity has slowed down, or one has established a samadhi mind, then it's so much easier to observe the mind, its reactions and intentions. It takes patience, but it delivers results.
Thank you for explaining the Dhamma in such a clear manner!
🙏🙏🙏
Well, that was straightforward. Thanks.
Satu, satu, satu.😁❤️🙏 I am so very much looking forward to joining some retreats from May 2024 😁 VERY excited to see where this practice leads.
Excited to hear you are interested. Lets stay in touch with your plans.
Very well said. 🙏🙏🙏
🙏🏻
Thanks for the wonderful explanation. At 4.34 in the video, it says that in mindfulness we recognize that the mind is no longer here and now its here. could you please explain what is meant by "here" ?Is it the object of meditation which is "loving kindness " or "breath"?,please
It is Mind's attention that moves here and there. One moment you are your object and then you notice the mind is no longer with the object and has wandered off into a hindrance.
🙏🙏🙏
can you be in the arupa jhanas while doing a walking meditation ?
Yes you can- In the suttas when you are doing walking meditation it is referred to as celestial walking.
Hi Mr. Johnson, one thing I don't quite grasp with the "no-self" concept, such as in your book you state, "When your mind is just barely moving, and you are able to observe with powerful mindfulness, you won’t be able to find such a thing as a self" But the YOUR mind and YOU won't be able to find a self, isn't that the self? I mean, how can one experience no-self, since whatever is experiencing it would be the self. If any experience is being experienced by something, isn't that a Self? Thanks!
Ha ha. There is neither a not-self nor a self. There is a process of 5 aggregates arising and passing with no eternal soul. That which knows is a mental factor. It arises and passes away. There is a ‘you’ for a moment but then it’s gone.
@@davidjohnson8218 Thanks for the response, but I see a flaw in this premise. I purchased your book from Amazon, I have been reading and enjoying Path to Nibbana, but please let me make my question to you clearer: It is impossible for a YOU to experience no-self as an experiencer is a self. If you are claiming what one thinks of as you is just ego, not the real you, ok then. But you went so far in saying, "you won’t be able to find such a thing as a self", but whatever is trying to "find" a self, is a self. Of course we cannot view what is doing the viewing. SO if you seek to find an I, wouldn't the seeker be the I, and if so, how can the seeker find itself? Do you agree with this and see what I am saying? If YOU are experiencing anything at all, the YOU is a self. If there is an experience of seeing Dependent Origination, whatever is actually seeing DO, is a YOU. It doesn't make sense to me that the Buddha was teaching people to get to oblivion as why would anyone want to do that? Robert Thurman said something similar to, "The Void is not nothing, it is just void of all intrinsic reality".
In #28 of Middle Discourses notice Buddha talks about the 4 elements and other stuff and says: "what of this body, which is clung to by craving and lasts but a while? There can be no considering that as I‘ or mine‘ or I am.‘" Notice how he states THAT is not I, it does not say here no-self whatsoever but the body is not I. "One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination." It say ONE WHO SEES, therefore, something is seeing it, is it not? Is there an actual quote from the Suttas of Buddha saying there is no-self whatsoever? So when you talk about seeing DO or no-self or seeing YOU as temporary, etc., how do you reconcile that there is an experiencer here? I don't see how one can experience no-self as a self is always what is doing the experiencing.
@@Acujeremy Yes I agree for a moment there is a "you" Then it passes away. The thought her is that there is no ENDURING self but an endless arising moments of cognition which are conditioned by whatever one sees, thinks, sees etc. Again the Buddha never said there was not a self no was there a self. It is just an impersonal process. Don't overthink it too much. Its just being in the present moment with no wandering mind. The meditation will reveal around the 6th jhana the reality of this.
@@davidjohnson8218 Thank you sir for that response, but can we narrow down the concept that anything experiencing a "you" that arises and passes away, or anything seeing Dependent Origination, is in fact, logically, what we can conclude is some type of self? You can't observe no you, because what is observing is a self. How can we say any "witness" of any state, any jhana, any insight or even any nibbana, that witness is not some type of self? Logically, semantically, I don't see how we can ever say an experiencer experiencing anything is not a self. I don't feel this is overthinking, I feel this is the core premise you are making, and I cannot find a logical explanation for it. With respect, thank you for your time!
@@Acujeremy We did not say there is no self. Just that there is no permanent self. Just moments of cognition arising and passing away that we take as a bigger self but is just only a process happening. You can say its a small self if you like as we have to talk about things in a normal way in the world to understand things.