"Wise" Attention | Misunderstanding of 'Yoniso Manasikara'

If you wish to gift your support to life at the Hillside you can do so by donating at:
www.hillsidehe...
____________________________________
For other forms of Dhamma Teachings see:
www.hillsidehe...

[@theinngu5560]

Since reading‘Dhamma within Reach’ I can follow these excellent talks much better and am watching my intentions and increasing sense restraint. Huge gratitude to Ajahn and all involved in uploading these.

[@jks8241]

Thank you Bhante for all your teachings and for your compassion to those dogs. Thank you for your presence and your wisdom. You are truly loved.

[@hermitagemeditation8304]

Bhantes, thank you for these talks, there are many very useful points in them. I have to admit that time you start to talk about ‘peripheral awareness’ or ‘perspective on attention’ it’s never quite clear for me what is meant. Because the words that are used could be interpreted in different ways, I might interpret it wrongly. I would like to ask you about this, if ever you have time to consider this (apologies in advance, it's a really long 'question.') If I can paraphrase the overall point more or less, it is that correct mindfulness is not to focus all one’s attention on some object or other, but to be able to remain aware of the underlying background or foundation of one’s activity - for example, while sitting here typing this comment and continuing to have my main focus on how to formulate my question properly, I should maintain awareness of the fact that ‘I am sitting’ (for example) as a reference point, but not as a new object of attention. But, what does the awareness of ‘I am sitting’ (for example) consist of? From what I can see, it must consist of a) bodily sensations, (which you say should not become one’s concern, and indeed I agree and do not see how simply being aware of physical sensations could result in any wisdom) - and/or an idea, the idea of ‘sitting,’ which, though more general than sensation, is divorced from the reality of the experience of sitting (since one can perfectly well have the idea of ‘sitting’ while standing, walking or lying down.) I conclude that the correct kind of awareness must consist of neither of these aspects, but then what does it consist of? Maybe you will tell me that to ask such a question is already becoming overly concerned with the thing that is supposed to be the background, but it still seems to me that even if one’s awareness of 'sitting' is not focused on as the foreground of experience, still it must consist of either or both of these aspects, and not to ask the question risks either falling into either misinterpretation, or the mental laziness of just hoping it will be okay by not thinking about it. Now I did end up going into the content of the ‘background’ a bit, which is forbidden territory. From your talks and essay I understand that the specific content of one’s awareness is not so important, as the correct way of paying attention. If this is so, then I try to understand exactly what is the aim of the correct way of paying attention, which in simple language appears to be (and please correct me if I interpret wrongly) to basically *avoid becoming absorbed in anything* while at the same time *not being unaware*. If this is accurately understood, it would make pretty good sense for me, because I do see that as soon as the mind is absorbed in some thought, idea, task, or whatever, one ‘becomes’ the object of one’s attention, for example as soon as I become absorbed in writing this, then immediately nothing but 'I' is writing; thus, there’s nothing but wrong view that can arise from that kind of attention. At the same time, if there is no awareness, for example one’s thoughts just rolling on about this or that, unacknowledged and unseen, then there’s nothing but ignorance there. You also mention that the base for correct mindfulness can be other reference points besides body postures; intentions, for example. This seems easier for me to understand, and your point about taking up responsibility makes very good sense as a starting point. However, I am not so sure to understand this as a kind of ‘general background’ of one’s experience, because from what I can see, while one’s overarching choices or decisions may persist as a general background to one’s activities, intentions cannot be taken as a general background because the 'domain' of intentions is much more particular. For example, one makes the choice to do the dishes, being conscious of deciding to do so, but then each movement that one makes as part of the task of doing the dishes is also intentional, so we can and should remain aware of these specific intentions as well, no? Not to make it into a mantra of ‘reaching for the soap, reaching for the soap’ (it would thus take me all day to do the dishes, besides being just me talking to myself) but simply to know that the intention is there to reach for soap, and carry out the action normally. Correct me if I misunderstood this point. On top of this awareness preventing one from getting too absorbed and ‘becoming the task' of, let's say, washing the dishes, I can see that without any awareness of one’s intentions, one will end up being driven automatically by moha-dosa-lobha, because even the most innocuous intentions are always normally driven by unwholesomeness. Even scratching one’s head, for example, is an intention driven by craving (to get rid of the unpleasant itchy sensation). As soon as I find myself scratching my head without having known the intention to do so, I was already driven by this craving without knowing. Or talking, for example, even saying relatively neutral words, can often be driven by unwholesome intentions like the desire to show off, or desire for somebody else’s attention. Without being able to be aware of these intentions as they arise, there is no possibility for restraint, because even you knows you are not supposed to talk to show off, you will only realise that you have done so afterwards, when it is too late. If I am able to be aware of the intention beforehand, only then can I properly take responsibility for what I do. I can still choose to scratch the head, or not, I can still choose to speak, or not, but now there will be no room for the automatic craving to drive.

[@srimathisamarakone8535]

Sadu Sadu Sadu for enlighting us in the right direction and explaining it so well

[@cbo765]

Much merit to you Bhante we are very grateful for your insights on the dhamma. A discussion on the Bahiya Sutta would be wonderful whenever possible.

[@ThaniyoThero]

We have recorded a discussion on the "bahiya sutta", it will be uploaded in the next few weeks.

[@cbo765]

@@ThaniyoTheroThank you venerable thero! looking forward to it.

[@ThaniyoThero]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKGTiKd8hJqko5I

[@cbo765]

@@ThaniyoThero Thank you Venerable Thero. The discussion is so insightful very grateful. May triple gems blessings be with you all.

[@googleuser9624]

"Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye - experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain - that too is to be abandoned. "The ear is to be abandoned. Sounds are to be abandoned... "The nose is to be abandoned. Aromas are to be abandoned... "The tongue is to be abandoned. Flavors are to be abandoned... "The body is to be abandoned. Tactile sensations are to be abandoned... "The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the intellect is to be abandoned. Contact at the intellect is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect - experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain - that too is to be abandoned. "This is called the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned." www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.024.than.html

[@chadkline4268]

One of my favorites 👍

[@elielsandoval.author]

🙏☸️🙏 thank you Bhante

[@idpaydolr]

Thanks for this. Just commenting to let you know I’m still tuning in. Oftentimes I listen to the podcasts on Telegraph but there’s no place to comment there (express gratitude for the talk).

[@hariharry391]

🙏

[@sumedhaindika9277]

Theruwan Sarai sadhu.

[@lovethenaturedeepani4315]

🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@DelRealSergio]

Bhante, what would be the relation between yoniso manasikara and sati? Thank you for everything you do.

[@theinngu5560]

🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

[@ThaniyoThero]

www.hillsidehermitage.org/bhikkhu-anighas-writings/

[@light1518]

Of great importance, of supreme importance, I feel, is this wisdom, this understanding, the discernment of exactly what sensuality truly is, even as according to the Buddha: *not* pretty things, but greedy intention. AN 6.63: "‘Sensual pleasures should be known. And their source, diversity, result, cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation should be known.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? There are these five kinds of sensual stimulation. Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. Sounds known by the ear … Smells known by the nose … Tastes known by the tongue … Touches known by the body that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. However, these are not sensual pleasures. In the training of the Noble One they’re called ‘kinds of sensual stimulation’. *** *Greedy intention* is a person’s sensual pleasure. The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.*** Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure. The world’s pretty things stay just as they are, but a wise one removes desire for them."