[ovH9wfSJ]

What is the distinction between the 40 objects of meditation and the four foundations of mindfulness? If I take mind as a foundation of mindfulness, is that any different than mind as an object?

[SantaGanstag]

the 40 objects of meditation is a list compiled by the theravada commentators, although most, if not all, come from the teachings of buddha

the four foundations of mindfulness is the primary meditation path where as the other meditations mentioned in the 40 objects generally support the practise of the four foundations of mindfulness

one can certainly take the mind as a foundation of mindfulness. however, when the mind becomes clear, still & quiet, the four foundations of mindfulness (i.e. body/breath, feelings, mental states & dhamma truth) will naturally arise as the objects of meditation

kind regards

[blackjackiisre]

The four foundations of mindfulness are like themes whereas objects are specific items within that theme. So if you take the mind as a foundation of mindfulness then each thoughts mind state etc would be objects within that theme.

That's the way I see it anyway.

[Injurnerona]

If I take mind as a foundation of mindfulness, is that any different than mind as an object?

Hello Fat Daddy

Just to offer a different angle in reply. There isn't a mind. The idea of a mind is itself a mind-object (formation) because we are thinking of an object with properties which we call mind. So to answer your question, there is no difference between trying to take the mind as foundation or the mind as an object because (as you seem to be aware) we are just re-moulding an idea (formation).

Oliver.

[dianakroshXX]

Thank you all for your generous and thoughtful replies. Here is a little more context to my question. As an antidote to my habitual mental restlessness and hyperactive intellectualization, I have developed the practice of trying to watch my thoughts arise and pass away, just like any other sensation. At a more subtle level, I could observe a “thought sensation” arise and pass away before it turned into a fully formed thought. Is this the proper understanding of mind (or consciousness) as a foundation of mindfulness?

I intersperse this with following the breath etc., depending on what is the dominant sensation. In this case, “mind” feels like a specific object. Maybe “mind” as I am using it is a specific object within the broad category of “mind” as a foundation.

Hello Fat Daddy

Just to offer a different angle in reply. There isn't a mind. The idea of a mind is itself a mind-object (formation) because we are thinking of an object with properties which we call mind. So to answer your question, there is no difference between trying to take the mind as foundation or the mind as an object because (as you seem to be aware) we are just re-moulding an idea (formation).

Oliver.

Good point. I may be overthinking it but I am trying to uderstand the intent of the Sutta as it applies to my practice.

[etdgxcnc]

Good point. I may be overthinking it but I am trying to uderstand the intent of the Sutta as it applies to my practice.

Hello
You might find the note in Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous, interesting in respect to your questioning:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....049.than.html

My personal understanding is as follows:
There is no mind, there is consciousness, however consciousness is subject to impermanence and changes. That which modern psychology calls mind may be thoughts or personality. The difficulty for me has been to move from the idea that there is a thing called mind in the body which has its own existence. Rather, from reading the sutta, commentaries and Abhidamma it seems that there is no single mind, but rather a concomitant of observable phenomenon e.g. consciousness, formations and 6 sense-bases etc. This (I feel) is helpful as it implies anatta (no consistent self).

Hope it helps.

[Angry White American]

Hello
You might find the note in Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous, interesting in respect to your questioning:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....049.than.html

Thank you for this link. I was unfamiliar with this Sutta. I find it very meaningful.

My question, however, addresses a more mundane, nuts and bolts level of practice. I found a satisfactory answer in Thanissaro Bikkhu’s Wings to Awakening, Part 2 Chapter B on the Four Frames of Reference:

The four frames of reference (satipatthana) are a set of teachings that show where a meditator should focus attention and how. This dual role — the "where" and the "how" — is reflected in the fact that the term satipatthana can be explained etymologically in two ways.

On the one hand, it can be regarded as a compound of sati (mindfulness, reference, the ability to keep something in mind) and patthana (foundation, condition, source), thus referring to the object kept in mind as a frame of reference for giving context to one's experience. Alternatively, satipatthana can be seen as a compound of sati and upatthana (establishing near, setting near), thus referring to the approach (the how) of keeping something closely in mind, of establishing and maintaining a solid frame of reference. Scholars are divided as to which interpretation is right, but for all practical purposes they both are.

The Buddha was more a poet than a strict etymologist, and he may have deliberately chosen an ambiguous term that would have fruitful meanings on more than one level. In the practice of the frames of reference, both the proper object and the proper approach are crucial for getting the proper results. In fact, as we shall see, the taking of a proper object entails the beginning of the proper approach, and the approach ends by taking as its objects the qualities of mind developed in the course of pursuing the approach itself. In other words, as we mentioned in the Introduction concerning the Buddha's Awakening, the "what" merges with the "how" as the "how" of the investigation ultimately becomes what gets investigated.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...2.html#part2-b

Metta

[mincarlie.frymyer]

Thanks for the feedback and quote Fat Daddy.