| | Hi all - from reflecting on simplicity vs. complexity in itself as being more/less conducive to practicing mindfulness, it becomes obvious we're sliding into a rather constricted definition of mindfulness, namely, as attention focused on very simple events, which definition itself stems from the emphasis on "bare phenomena" or fundamental dharmas. I don't contest the usefulness of such definition within limits of specific techniques, but mindfulness can and should be allowed and trained and even challenged to take anything as its basis - much more complex qualities, including the totality or the whole experiential range at once (when I say "experiential", I don't mean just sensations but also abstract thinking, imagination, the whole range of will, but most importanlty the very quality of awareness with or without the separate-sense contraction), and not just self but also others and the environment. Such mindfulness, and such real-time discernment (or samprajanya/sampajanna), based on fluid awareness (i.e. unfastened attention), should be a match for any sort of comlexity, if developed properly, including maniacal multi-tasking. Within that practice, then, focus and panorama arise of their own accord depending on a number of conditions.
The widespread idea that mindfulness is "attending at one thing at a time", makes sense only in ultra-time (10 or more cycles per second). But it should never mean that we need to slow down to a zombie pace in order to live a conscious life, or even in order to train mindfulness. In fact, one of most effective forms of training presence and clarity is to speed up, and maintain speed thereof until subduing the laziness of attention. To relax and be alert has nothing to do with slowing down. Any thoughts? |