Okay, and the technique you teach, Pantech, it's based on mindfulness of the breath, or the abdomen.
The question is, would you agree that the more advanced technique would be to be mindful of thought?
The idea is that
The mind tends to see the five senses as external, and it's easier for the mind to not identify with them, so you can be mindful of the movements of your abdomen, for example.
I'm not identified with them, but it's more difficult to be mindful of your thoughts and not identify with them, because a mind tends to think that thoughts are more like its nature, its inner characteristic.
It depends on the person, but advanced might not quite be the word that I would use, but it's getting there.
the point of putting the body first is that it's more obvious the Visuddhimagga does a really good job of summing this up by saying that you don't have to go and you don't have to pay any attention or to trying to be mindful of the mind because the more clear the body becomes
or as the body becomes clear to an equal degree the mind becomes clear by focusing on the body the mind becomes clear because what is it that's focusing on the body but the mind so as you're watching the abdomen you're in the best position to catch the mind to catch your thoughts so that's the reason for starting there but as to
thinking that the mind is self or that thoughts are self, the theory of it is that it depends on the person.
Some people are more attached to the mind, some people are more attached to the body.
I mean, I'm just going by theory.
I know what I teach and I know how I teach.
And I don't put emphasis on any one of the four Satipatthanas.
Mostly because I'm
obviously not qualified to say which person has which tendency.
Is this person more likely to attach to the body or more likely to attach to the mind?
Are they more of a passionate person or are they more of a views-based person?
I was just editing one of my talks and it reminds me of... I'm reminded of it where I was talking about how
a person can change quite quickly from one day to the next, or from one course to the next at least.
So to say that at one point they'll be passionate, at another point they'll be intellectual.
And a person may be outwardly intellectual, but inside be very passionate and so on.
So to focus on one or the other of the Satipatthana
You don't see that in the Buddhist teaching.
You don't see any emphasis being placed in that regard.
So starting with the body, what you can see is that there's a lot more in the Satipatthana Sutta on the body.
So you could say, well, in that case, focusing on the body, for example, the breath,
is probably the best place to start.
The Buddha said by practicing anapanasati, you're actually practicing the four foundations, all four of the foundations of mindfulness, for example.
But beyond that, the feelings, the mind, and the dhammas, I would say I wouldn't have any reason to put one of them ahead of the other.
You see how it goes.
There's a teacher, a very famous teacher in the world, who focuses on Vedana, and he comes up with all these quotes from the Buddha's teaching about how Vedana, the second Satipatthani, is the most important.
There's a teacher in Burma who practices Jitanupasana, and he's famous for being a master in practicing Jitanupasana.
And I don't buy this, really.
I mean, their arguments are sound, but it seems to be like the Titya Sutta,
These blind men and the elephant, I think that's maybe pushing it too far and I don't want to really criticize.
But it's in danger of that and it doesn't seem to be a particularly, it doesn't seem to be the perfect way to focus on any one of the four, to focus on anything.
I mean, take the general and try to be as flexible as possible.
I think the four satipatthana, if you look at what the Buddha said about it as being like the four posts of a corral to keep the mind in check.
Like the four trees that this monkey is going through.
The four satipatthana as being the monks or the meditators gochara, their resort, their pastures.
and not to go outside of the four satipatthana.
So I really push the four satipatthana.
My teacher really pushes the four satipatthana, and that's one of the great reasons why I have such faith and respect in him, because through his teachings I've come to see how much I agree with that.
The four satipatthana are not too much and not too little.
So I stick by that, all four.
So I guess it depends a lot on the meditator, on each case in particular.
Who's going to say what the meditator needs to focus on in a moment besides what is there?
If there's thought there, of course they should focus on thought.
If there's Vedana there at that moment, they should focus on Vedana.
But if the meditator is the one who says, I should focus on this or this, then
99% of the time, they're just following their own bias, and it's not what they should be doing.
I thought that your practice, the one that you teach, was based on focusing always on your abdomen, regardless of what's happening.
Definitely not.
If something pops up, you notice it, and then go back to breath.
That's right.
Go back to it, but only because it's a base.
There's nothing else.
When there's nothing else there, well, something comes up.
There are all these things.
Even during a single in-breath or out-breath, there are lots of things happening at the same time.
Well, not in the beginning, maybe, but not when you get quieted down.
They're not really happening at the same time, but
yeah you can you can go back and forth there's there's no reason to stay with the abdomen per se except that it's easy to find that it helps you calm down and helps keep you focused so you don't get too carried away with you know you can get easily get overwhelmed by thoughts and so on and very easy to get get carried away and no longer be mindful
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I find it more useful, because it's more transferable to normal life, where you have lots of thoughts, and it's easier to get lost in that event.
So maybe we should practice, do a formal practice, if you're capable of
following the thoughts without getting lost in them, being just aware and mindful of them, it's easier to keep that practice during daily life.
Could be.
But you may not be progressing as a result.
In the daily life, why is it not easier to focus on the body?
It's easier to get lost in the thoughts and easier to stop being objective and start being
giving rise to the ego, the I. I am thinking.
But no, it's certainly possible.
There's nothing wrong with it, per se.
I guess all I would say, rather than argue one way or the other, very, very much recommend to keep in mind all four of the Satipatthana.
And of course, to use the mantra as I teach it.
If you're not using the mantra, then it's actually a different...
tradition and I don't have a lot to say well I have a question about mantras and it relates to a question there is now I think in the chat someone asked about about other languages we don't use English and we have a problem finding the right words to use in each case something simple the word's not important the word's just a tool to remind you
Whatever is going to remind you of the object as it is.
What about the object?
What about the consciousness of the object itself?
That's a reminder of the object.
The reminder of the nature of the object.
The consciousness is all over the place.
Consciousness is aware of the object as being good, as being bad, as being me, as being mine.
Consciousness is not pure.
all the time.
You need a consciousness that is clearly aware, ah, this is just what it is.
So this is what mindfulness is, that grasps the true nature of the object without grasping the characteristics or the particulars or judging it at all.
So you don't have to use the word, but it's far preferable according to our tradition.
But try to find a word that is simple.
Instead of writing, you may use, for example, expansion or attach the app and then start attaching your accounts.
For example, you may go into more details of what sensation is present in each moment.
I'm sorry.
I don't get it.
Can you ask it again?
Because rising sounds like a concept.
There's not really a feeling of rising.
It's more like a sensation.
It's more like an expansion or the rubbing against your pores.
Yeah, well, as a non... Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, and the word could be like a concept, misleading.
Yeah.
See, the thing is, that's really funny.
The thing is, in English, we know quite clearly that it's rising and that it's falling.
But if you're not a native English speaker, it doesn't seem like it's rising at all.
For native English speakers, I think it's quite clear that this is a rising motion.
But it's not a rising motion.
It has nothing to do with the word rising at all.
It's just that that's what we call that in English.
That's what it reminds us of.
But, you know, in French they say gonfler, dégonfler, which is much more technically correct.
Because, in fact, when you're standing vertically, your abdomen is not rising up.
I know, but in English it's a different kind of rising.
The rising is the inflation.
It's just an English idiom.
That's something that we should keep in mind to let people know because there's a lot of non-Natives.
Even here, I get a lot of non-native English speakers, and I still tell them to use rising and falling.
But it's funny and interesting that we could maybe have better words.
Because in Thai, it's .
is the inflating thus, and is deflating, inflating, deflating, which is very correct.
It's just that in English, we do understand it to be rising and falling for some reason.