Establishing mindfulness
30/September/2008 08:45 AM Filed in: mindfulness
In my last post I looked at the relationship between
mindfulness and memory, and in particular long term
memory, for it is here that we find the development
of “experience” in the sense of learning a skill over
time. In other words, the link between mindfulness
and wisdom. Today I would like to swing across to the
relationship between mindfulness and short term
memory, an association suggested by Ken’s comments.
This relationship is found in the action of getting
mindfulness started. How does the Buddha speak of the
activity of beginning to be mindful? And
what does this tell us about the nature of
mindfulness?
When the Buddha speaks of getting mindfulness
started, he speaks of “establishing” mindfulness. For
example, in Satipatthana Sutta he says:
Mindfulness is something that is “set up, established” (upatthahati, from upa + √stha). The use of the root stha (from which we derive words like “station,” “stand”) implies a firm grounding or stationing of the mind. Not just awareness, but awareness that is firmly fixed - on something, something definite. This is emphasised by the use of the adverb parimukham, from pari + mukha. Mukha means “mouth, face, entrance, in front,” while pari signifies “around, completely, thoroughly.”
Here we have an interesting problem of literary interpretation. What does the Buddha mean by parimukham in this context? In classical Theravada, parimukham here - the mindfulness of breathing - is taken to mean literally “around the face or mouth,” an instruction to place awareness at the place where breath enters and leaves the body. But what if we took this expression as an idiom? Like when we say, “I caught a taxi,” where we do not wish to imply that we ran into the road and seized a passing cab, wrestling it to the ground, but rather we gently waved an inquiring hand at the curb as traffic passed. I take parimukham to mean establishing a “face to face encounter” with the object of experience, conveying a firmness and directness of engagement with the object, whatever it may be. This fits with the Abhidhamma understanding, where mindfulness appears as the state of confronting an object, being face-to-fact with an object. So mindfulness has an earthy quality, a sense of it being tied firmly to something - its object.
Let’s say I’m working on breathing as my meditation object. Meanwhile my mind is preoccupied by some thought-stream, and I’m feeling discontented with the state of my meditation. Clearly, awareness is functioning. If asked later, I could describe this situation. But is there mindfulness? If the mind is wobbling between these three fields of experience, and not directly confronting any of them, it is not fixed, established. Not face-to-face with the situation. But if I focus in on any one of these fields and directly confront it, then awareness would be firmly fixed, face-to-face, and it is in this relationship that I would find mindfulness.
Alternatively, I could find myself in a multiple, even disturbed situation, but while not directly focusing in on any one aspect of it I might be fully engaged with the complete picture, like Ken at St Pancras Station, mind calm, centred, just being there. Again, a face-to-face encounter, where it is the directness of the encounter that indicates the presence of mindfulness as distinct to just awareness.
Ken, this reminds me of your reading regarding the functioning of short term memory. Perhaps the firmness and directness of the initial encounter allows the transfer of the mental image from short term to long term. This does resonate with the Buddha’s understanding of mindfulness, and its link to memory. And here, I don’t think that the crucial issue is whether or not we are “right up close to the object of awareness,” as you ask. We can directly engage a situation from a distance. But perhaps the emphasis meditation teachers place on getting up close to the meditation object is a simple way of helping someone create that firm engagement. Pick something out of the field and focus on it. However, something is lost if we end up thinking that only a close encounter is a mindful encounter. Mindfulness is more subtle than that. Distance is not the central issue. Nor is the object of awareness. Mindfulness is found in the quality of the encounter, whatever the situation or the object may be, and however close or far it may be.
Which brings us back to “awareness.” Ken comments, “If I say I am aware of a sight or sound, I mean something different to what I mean if I say I see or hear something. Being aware of already carries a degree of reflexivity ... an implication of naming ...” And I think this does bring us to an important distinction between awareness and mindfulness. Mindfulness, I think, does contain a degree of reflexivity. It is the difference between seeing (which in a sense just happens to me) and knowing that I am seeing, which has a different feel to it. But I have the feeling that this question could take up an entire post, so let’s take it up next time.
[The meditator] sits down, crosses her legs, straightens her back and establishes her mindfulness directly [parimukham satim upatthapetva].
Mindfulness is something that is “set up, established” (upatthahati, from upa + √stha). The use of the root stha (from which we derive words like “station,” “stand”) implies a firm grounding or stationing of the mind. Not just awareness, but awareness that is firmly fixed - on something, something definite. This is emphasised by the use of the adverb parimukham, from pari + mukha. Mukha means “mouth, face, entrance, in front,” while pari signifies “around, completely, thoroughly.”
Here we have an interesting problem of literary interpretation. What does the Buddha mean by parimukham in this context? In classical Theravada, parimukham here - the mindfulness of breathing - is taken to mean literally “around the face or mouth,” an instruction to place awareness at the place where breath enters and leaves the body. But what if we took this expression as an idiom? Like when we say, “I caught a taxi,” where we do not wish to imply that we ran into the road and seized a passing cab, wrestling it to the ground, but rather we gently waved an inquiring hand at the curb as traffic passed. I take parimukham to mean establishing a “face to face encounter” with the object of experience, conveying a firmness and directness of engagement with the object, whatever it may be. This fits with the Abhidhamma understanding, where mindfulness appears as the state of confronting an object, being face-to-fact with an object. So mindfulness has an earthy quality, a sense of it being tied firmly to something - its object.
Let’s say I’m working on breathing as my meditation object. Meanwhile my mind is preoccupied by some thought-stream, and I’m feeling discontented with the state of my meditation. Clearly, awareness is functioning. If asked later, I could describe this situation. But is there mindfulness? If the mind is wobbling between these three fields of experience, and not directly confronting any of them, it is not fixed, established. Not face-to-face with the situation. But if I focus in on any one of these fields and directly confront it, then awareness would be firmly fixed, face-to-face, and it is in this relationship that I would find mindfulness.
Alternatively, I could find myself in a multiple, even disturbed situation, but while not directly focusing in on any one aspect of it I might be fully engaged with the complete picture, like Ken at St Pancras Station, mind calm, centred, just being there. Again, a face-to-face encounter, where it is the directness of the encounter that indicates the presence of mindfulness as distinct to just awareness.
Ken, this reminds me of your reading regarding the functioning of short term memory. Perhaps the firmness and directness of the initial encounter allows the transfer of the mental image from short term to long term. This does resonate with the Buddha’s understanding of mindfulness, and its link to memory. And here, I don’t think that the crucial issue is whether or not we are “right up close to the object of awareness,” as you ask. We can directly engage a situation from a distance. But perhaps the emphasis meditation teachers place on getting up close to the meditation object is a simple way of helping someone create that firm engagement. Pick something out of the field and focus on it. However, something is lost if we end up thinking that only a close encounter is a mindful encounter. Mindfulness is more subtle than that. Distance is not the central issue. Nor is the object of awareness. Mindfulness is found in the quality of the encounter, whatever the situation or the object may be, and however close or far it may be.
Which brings us back to “awareness.” Ken comments, “If I say I am aware of a sight or sound, I mean something different to what I mean if I say I see or hear something. Being aware of already carries a degree of reflexivity ... an implication of naming ...” And I think this does bring us to an important distinction between awareness and mindfulness. Mindfulness, I think, does contain a degree of reflexivity. It is the difference between seeing (which in a sense just happens to me) and knowing that I am seeing, which has a different feel to it. But I have the feeling that this question could take up an entire post, so let’s take it up next time.
|