Is mindfulness just another qualifier? It is as long as one holds it in dualistic thinking, and there is nothing particularly wrong with that. As any dualistic concept, any description of what is ‘mindfulness’ is a map, not the experience. In this sense, one could say that there is no such question as what is life lived to the fullest part. Each and everyone is already doing that within the limits of their experience.
Thank you for pointing out the pointlessness of dualistic thinking when speaking of ‘mindfulness’. We can speak of being in a state of mindfulness (dualistically) but to be IN a state of mindfulness is to forget that and just be. It isn’t why that, but THAT.
i resent the phrase - it makes me feel as if my present life is somehow inadequate - or that i am not living it properly, without defining what living properly would entail.
i’m inclined to agree that the whole concept is bullshit, probably a form of marketing. life doesn’t need to be about being happy all the time. it doesn’t need to be about inner contentment - humans are not designed to feel that way.
I think the question is related to one of the root questions of philosophy - what is a good life? Once you have a working definition, it’s then living as closely in tune with that as you can.
It may be working for a better society, as Aristotle thought. Or avoiding “inauthenticity”, if you’re feeling Continental. I think in any case it’s deeply dependent on the life that you have, the context in which you are living. But at root, at least for me, it’s working out your values, finding some certainty or peace in them, and then putting them into practice. Nothing to do with happiness, per se.
And that seems like a good starting point. Rather than taking it as a judgment of what one has done, see it as an incitement to potentially choose differently. It is not to go back and blame your younger self - look, you were not living fully - but to feel into if one wants to continue with what one has been doing now.
Mindfulness suggestions, coming from masters or peers, have the same potential problem/resolution. Whatever paradoxes there are around being mindful while at the same time not having a dualism, masters and peers are suggesting a possible way of living that is different. (even if it is really the same, blah, blah.) Otherwise they might as well just keep quite, not write books with minfulness in the title, give no workshops and have no practice themselves.
Well, I’m not really in the mindfulness camp, though it may be that that metaphor doesn’t work for me as well as others.
Yes, it’s the reason that eastern thinking seems so confused and confusing. I am always amused that the Dao de Ching proclaims that the Dao that can be named is not the Dao. Lau Tzu wrote this, and then proceeded to write another 80 chapters. But it is the same dilemma for all eastern masters. The Zen koans are a dualistic convention that simply tries to point a direction - without providing a destination. It is the same in all eastern disciplines.
There is nothing particularly wrong with dualism just as long as you remain aware of the difference. Again, the map is not the territory.
I only responded to this thread because I saw what is mindfulness and dualism being talked about as if they were one and the same. Its an easy error to make because we are rarely free of dualism. you are right. Mindfulness is silence…
I’m sorry, could you explain how you feel koans are dualistic - do you mean that they often deliberately present the student with a dualistic situation or problem that can only ultimately be resolved by abandoning dualism and seeing the unity of all things?
And you lost me again - do you feel a dualistic view is valid?
Because koans are made of language, they are necessarily part of dualism. Please understand that I’m trying to say that there is a difference between being, and being as - and trying not to say that directly. Onlt the individual can experience that difference. Yes, I believe in the interconnectedness of all things, but koans don’t necessarily entail that over-arching perspective. Sometimes, a koan is meant to lead one out of a particular illusion. Again, the finger pointing is not the destination.
Of course dualism is valid. We couldn’t survive without it. It is simply knowing that there is a difference and talking about mindfulness isn’t the same as being IN mindfulness.
For some, what I have said is gobblygook. For others, it is boringly simple stuff. I would apologize if I seem obscure, but I haven’t any other way to say it.
It’s not necessarily about inner contentment - I’m asking about how you value how to live - how one values the experience of living. I mean, you might value certain kinds of actions over others for various reasons. If you’re a highly moral person you value upright living. If you’re a hedonist, you value actions that bring instant or near-instant pleasure. But that phrase “living life to the fullest”, no matter how much of a cliche, not matter how annoying it sounds coming from certain people, suggests that we value the quality of how we experience life in different ways. I’d suggest that maybe if you are living life to the fullest, you never feel as if you have wasted your time. But not because of ignorance or stupidity…
Anyway, it’s not about how others perceive you, it’s about how you perceive yourself. I’m asking people to discuss that a bit, that’s all.
right, right. i think the questions you pose in the OP are perfectly valid ones. i’m just noting my gut reaction to the phrase, and echoing your uncertainty about what (if anything) it means. i suppose if it means anything for me, it would be just taking every experience - positive, negative, and nuetral - as it comes, and not letting them defeat me, so to speak. just keep on keeping on - rolling my boulder up and down the hillside . . .
I wish you would bring this insight into a number of other discussions. So many of the ‘science crew’ here seem to think language can be simply literal and representational of things in themselves. So the criticize ‘woo woo’ people for using language in inexact ways as if they themselves were being literal and not fuzzy - rather than simply speaking in a code using dead metaphors that work well with those on their crew. The naivte about the philosophy of language around here is, frankly, incredible. IOW they don’t realize they have a particular philosophy of language, one tied in with realism and representationalism (language as mirror), conduit/container theories of language, and so on. So when they encounter language in a form they do not use, they assume the other people are wrong and also they are unaware of all the philosophical problems of their own unconscious view of language and communication.
Yeah, that’s pretty much the bottom line. I HAVE made this statement so many times that I get sick of saying it, and for the most part, I might as well be talking to the wall. Everything we think, write, or say is a CONSTRUCT. It may or may not be a reflection of reality. Its as if people have never read Hume or have chosen to ignore the conclusions. Some constructs may be ‘better’ than others (define better), but all are built on shifting sands. You say you’re not of the mindful group, but I disagree. You know the difference between being and being as, and its just that simple.
There is nothing wrong with discussing or arguing any construct you care to mention, but all constructs are but a fuzzy map and not reality - whatever the hell that is. This is why people like Faust or several others (including myself) are hard to understand. We have no problem discussing the merits or frailties of any perspective (construct) but we don’t substitute words for actual reality.
OK. I think I’m starting to get you - I definitely agree with this. Anything we think, any recursive thought, from a Buddhist persective, is just a representation of the world, it is not the world. And I don’t doubt that this holds for any thought, even if it is not expressed as language. I wouldn’t say that koans are dualistic - they “point” to the unity of all - even though thought is not the universe, it is part of the universe.
Yes, it is the folding of layers - is-isn’t, me-not me, the constant vibration of dualism and transcendance. That is why I say that ‘mindfulness’ is hard to hold. Letting go of ego doesn’t last for long periods of time, but it is wonderful in those few minutes.
And the way I see it, the “duality” is also a construct, it is a false interpretation. The apparent “poles” lie on a continuum. And even this reinterpretation is ultimately empty.
But it is the same dilemma for all eastern masters. The Zen koans are a dualistic convention that simply tries to point a direction - without providing a destination. It is the same in all eastern disciplines.
Nameste…