Mindfulness: working on spiritual level

[lolly]

Mindfulness uses observation of subtle phenomena to hone the perceptive ability, thus enabling conscious awareness at subtler and subtler levels of experience, and hence, deeper purification of the life-form.

The subject is simple in principle, but complex in nuance, and it requires close attention which is best achieved through dedicated practice. The practice naysayers should be aware at this stage of the way their mind fabricates argument, and if so, recognise that the essence of the practice is to know just what you do. Similarly, people who agree can be aware of how the mind leaps to to hope of being right.

This implies that the practice does not involve ignoring thought. It is the art of being conscious; not the art of being oblivious. For example, if the mind is getting agitated, leaping to disagreement and agreement, or whatever is the case, then know this is what you are doing. Being mindful is observing objectively and knowing what is going on with yourself.

That's all for the OP.

[amit]

Characters vary. What works for one will not work for another and there is nothing to say that one is better than another. For example some have been practising for years and feel the have got nowhere and turn to nonduality. Others are dissatisfied with the nondual approach and turn to practise.

[andrew]

A few days ago, i went to spiritualforums specifically to read a bit of Gem. First time there in a long time. I guess many benefit from a bit of Gem/lolly in their lives. Kind of like eating avocado.

[lolly]

The notion that it works implies the desire for something which is not currently being experienced, but mindfulness is being aware of things as they are now, including such desires if that's the case. The difference is using full attention to examine the observable phenomena very closely, and noticing the subtler details of it.

When people start breath meditation they are usually motivated by a desire for some kind of special experience, so they overlook what they can already feel as irrelevant, so don't really try to examine what they can feel and penetrate reality as it presents itself.

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 6, 2020 1:53:30 GMT -5 lolly said:

The notion that it works implies the desire for something which is not currently being experienced, but mindfulness is being aware of things as they are now, including such desires if that's the case. The difference is using full attention to examine the observable phenomena very closely, and noticing the subtler details of it.

When people start breath meditation they are usually motivated by a desire for some kind of special experience, so they overlook what they can already feel as irrelevant, so don't really try to examine what they can feel and penetrate reality as it presents itself.

I'd say mindfulness is difficult for the ND people to get a handle on. It would seem like a kind of split mind. But zd's ATA-T is in actuality mindfulness. A name is just a name, a label. But the word is not the thing. The word is never the thing. The word is just a concept.

So in ND, there is one, whole, single. If you are thinking, there is just thinking. If you are chopping wood, just chopping wood. But lolly gives the key (as does zd). We almost do not know what full attention actually is. But a very good place to practice is in a movie theater (but which we can't do these days), so can do with TV. (But it is better in a dark theater with nothing else to occupy the senses). Watching a movie, most of the time your full attention is taken by the film, everything else disappears. But this is not the full attention lolly is talking about. In a very real sense in mindfulness you are ~separating out~ attention from the object of attention. ~You~ become aware that ~you~ are attending. I say ~you~, because you is absent, there is just attention. So if there is just being absorbed in the film, there is no mindfulness. If there is just chopping wood, there is no mindfulness. But these words are just words. You have to explore, play with this. Maybe you come to it, maybe you don't. It is actually not so easy to come to. ATA-T is actually a very good way to come to this. Mindfulness is maybe not really the best word to describe it, if we consider mind to be *full of words*. But the mind in mindfulness is previous to any words. Find the thing that is previous to words. Live there. Not so easy to do, words try to jump up, and take your attention. Now, it is possible to be mindful, of words, thinking, but I'd say this is the last thing one would wish to do (the most difficult). ATA-T, easier. A, things, objects, nature, bodily actions.

[Deleted]

Apr 6, 2020 5:05:42 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Apr 6, 2020 1:53:30 GMT -5 lolly said:

The notion that it works implies the desire for something which is not currently being experienced, but mindfulness is being aware of things as they are now, including such desires if that's the case. The difference is using full attention to examine the observable phenomena very closely, and noticing the subtler details of it.

When people start breath meditation they are usually motivated by a desire for some kind of special experience, so they overlook what they can already feel as irrelevant, so don't really try to examine what they can feel and penetrate reality as it presents itself.

I'd say mindfulness is difficult for the ND people to get a handle on. It would seem like a kind of split mind. But zd's ATA-T is in actuality mindfulness. A name is just a name, a label. But the word is not the thing. The word is never the thing. The word is just a concept.

So in ND, there is one, whole, single. If you are thinking, there is just thinking. If you are chopping wood, just chopping wood. But lolly gives the key (as does zd). We almost do not know what full attention actually is. But a very good place to practice is in a movie theater (but which we can't do these days), so can do with TV. (But it is better in a dark theater with nothing else to occupy the senses). Watching a movie, most of the time your full attention is taken by the film, everything else disappears. But this is not the full attention lolly is talking about. In a very real sense in mindfulness you are ~separating out~ attention from the object of attention. ~You~ become aware that ~you~ are attending. I say ~you~, because you is absent, there is just attention. So if there is just being absorbed in the film, there is no mindfulness. If there is just chopping wood, there is no mindfulness. But these words are just words. You have to explore, play with this. Maybe you come to it, maybe you don't. It is actually not so easy to come to. ATA-T is actually a very good way to come to this. Mindfulness is maybe not really the best word to describe it, if we consider mind to be *full of words*. But the mind in mindfulness is previous to any words. Find the thing that is previous to words. Live there. Not so easy to do, words try to jump up, and take your attention. Now, it is possible to be mindful, of words, thinking, but I'd say this is the last thing one would wish to do (the most difficult). ATA-T, easier. A, things, objects, nature, bodily actions.

Isn't self-enquiry the same thing? The Self/self model presented to sift out the permanent. Apparently some folks get it immediately, others require practice, and some are duped by their own ego. You hold on to the I-thought so the mind subsides and eventually the I-thought disappears. It seems that split is temporary, then it resolves. There's the end of separation. But talking about it is like talking about bike-riding so far removed from the actual experience.

[zendancer]

Apr 6, 2020 5:05:42 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Apr 6, 2020 1:53:30 GMT -5 lolly said:

The notion that it works implies the desire for something which is not currently being experienced, but mindfulness is being aware of things as they are now, including such desires if that's the case. The difference is using full attention to examine the observable phenomena very closely, and noticing the subtler details of it.

When people start breath meditation they are usually motivated by a desire for some kind of special experience, so they overlook what they can already feel as irrelevant, so don't really try to examine what they can feel and penetrate reality as it presents itself.

I'd say mindfulness is difficult for the ND people to get a handle on. It would seem like a kind of split mind. But zd's ATA-T is in actuality mindfulness. A name is just a name, a label. But the word is not the thing. The word is never the thing. The word is just a concept.

So in ND, there is one, whole, single. If you are thinking, there is just thinking. If you are chopping wood, just chopping wood. But lolly gives the key (as does zd). We almost do not know what full attention actually is. But a very good place to practice is in a movie theater (but which we can't do these days), so can do with TV. (But it is better in a dark theater with nothing else to occupy the senses). Watching a movie, most of the time your full attention is taken by the film, everything else disappears. But this is not the full attention lolly is talking about. In a very real sense in mindfulness you are ~separating out~ attention from the object of attention. ~You~ become aware that ~you~ are attending. I say ~you~, because you is absent, there is just attention. So if there is just being absorbed in the film, there is no mindfulness. If there is just chopping wood, there is no mindfulness. But these words are just words. You have to explore, play with this. Maybe you come to it, maybe you don't. It is actually not so easy to come to. ATA-T is actually a very good way to come to this. Mindfulness is maybe not really the best word to describe it, if we consider mind to be *full of words*. But the mind in mindfulness is previous to any words. Find the thing that is previous to words. Live there. Not so easy to do, words try to jump up, and take your attention. Now, it is possible to be mindful, of words, thinking, but I'd say this is the last thing one would wish to do (the most difficult). ATA-T, easier. A, things, objects, nature, bodily actions.

ATA-T is not mindfulness in the usual sense of the word. Mindfulness is ATA+T. IOW, people practicing mindfulness make an effort to be aware of everything that is happening--both what's happening "inside" (thoughts, feelings, sensations) as well as what can be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled--direct sensory perception. ATA-T focuses on everything EXCEPT thoughts. Any thought (and particularly any self-referential thought) is used as a dharma bell reminder to shift attention back to direct sensory perception. It's a form of reverse engineering the process of cultural indoctrination that initially led to the sense of being separate from "what is."

Breath awareness meditation is a form of ATA-T as is attention to anything other than thoughts. Thinking is treated as a reflexive habit that creates what some neuroscientists call "the default mode network"--circuits in an area of the brain that light up when self-referential thinking occurs. Most people who do ATA-T also contemplate existential questions, so it's a pathway that probably appeals mostly to people who are driven by existential curiosity rather than suffering.

A question that arose for me as a result of attending Zen retreats and doing Zen forms of meditation was, "How long are these practices going to be necessary?" It seemed a bit strange to me to think that sitting on a cushion for the rest of my life might be necessary. After I realized that informal ATA-T was just as effective for generating mental silence (which seemed to trigger realizations) as formal sitting meditation, I began pursuing that activity far more often because I could do it throughout the day rather than only during predetermined sitting sessions.

To me ATA-T seemed like a logical way to reverse the process that leads to the consensus trance state of most adults. IOW, I began spending more and more time doing what little children do throughout the day (looking, listening, smelling, tasting, feeling, etc) and less and less time doing what adults do throughout the day (thinking thinking thinking).

[justlikeyou]

Each of us has had a first conscious moment in existence sometime at the start of this adventure in form we call our life. Whether we remember that moment or not, it was the same for all of us. It was as if the light of perception suddenly came online and we found ourselves in this strange new world for the very first time. Only the circumstances of the sudden awakening in the world are different. It is a primal, wordless experience, and because it is a wordless experience, being yet too young to have learned words, it is a purely felt experience. And that very same wordless felt sense of being alive is still here, now, deep within each us, to this very moment. It is a place of stillness, or rest, as Adya says in the video below, but it is also who and what we are; pure perception, wordless awareness. Others call it by different names; beingness, I am-ness, the kingdom of God, the witness, soul, spirit, call it what you will, but know that it is the very ground of your being. It's the realist thing about you, your only "capital" as Nisargadatta says of it. Be still and know this to be true for yourself.

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 6, 2020 10:12:53 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

Apr 6, 2020 5:05:42 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I'd say mindfulness is difficult for the ND people to get a handle on. It would seem like a kind of split mind. But zd's ATA-T is in actuality mindfulness. A name is just a name, a label. But the word is not the thing. The word is never the thing. The word is just a concept.

So in ND, there is one, whole, single. If you are thinking, there is just thinking. If you are chopping wood, just chopping wood. But lolly gives the key (as does zd). We almost do not know what full attention actually is. But a very good place to practice is in a movie theater (but which we can't do these days), so can do with TV. (But it is better in a dark theater with nothing else to occupy the senses). Watching a movie, most of the time your full attention is taken by the film, everything else disappears. But this is not the full attention lolly is talking about. In a very real sense in mindfulness you are ~separating out~ attention from the object of attention. ~You~ become aware that ~you~ are attending. I say ~you~, because you is absent, there is just attention. So if there is just being absorbed in the film, there is no mindfulness. If there is just chopping wood, there is no mindfulness. But these words are just words. You have to explore, play with this. Maybe you come to it, maybe you don't. It is actually not so easy to come to. ATA-T is actually a very good way to come to this. Mindfulness is maybe not really the best word to describe it, if we consider mind to be *full of words*. But the mind in mindfulness is previous to any words. Find the thing that is previous to words. Live there. Not so easy to do, words try to jump up, and take your attention. Now, it is possible to be mindful, of words, thinking, but I'd say this is the last thing one would wish to do (the most difficult). ATA-T, easier. A, things, objects, nature, bodily actions.

Isn't self-enquiry the same thing? The Self/self model presented to sift out the permanent. Apparently some folks get it immediately, others require practice, and some are duped by their own ego. You hold on to the I-thought so the mind subsides and eventually the I-thought disappears. It seems that split is temporary, then it resolves. There's the end of separation. But talking about it is like talking about bike-riding so far removed from the actual experience.

I would say Self-inquiry is not the same thing. However, the two lead to the same ~place~. It seems Self-inquiry is a way to FIND that ~place~. Self-inquiry is a kind of backing up and backing up etc., to cut through the crap to get to the ~beginning~, source, origin. My "path" went about it differently, a way to go directly to the beginning/foundation. But it is/was a learning process. It's kind of like learning to cook, bake a cake for example. First time, you have a recipe, follow recipe, and first cake probably tastes like crap. That's an analogy of course. But the more you try, the process begins to make more sense. You come to a tacit knowing. You know, but the knowing can't be put into words. (I consider this "transmission outside the scriptures").
I think Jed's spiritual autolysis is a kind of Self-inquiry. Madame de Saltzman had an expression: "You have to get in front of yourself". I think Self-inquiry also leads to this.

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 6, 2020 12:26:18 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Apr 6, 2020 5:05:42 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I'd say mindfulness is difficult for the ND people to get a handle on. It would seem like a kind of split mind. But zd's ATA-T is in actuality mindfulness. A name is just a name, a label. But the word is not the thing. The word is never the thing. The word is just a concept.

So in ND, there is one, whole, single. If you are thinking, there is just thinking. If you are chopping wood, just chopping wood. But lolly gives the key (as does zd). We almost do not know what full attention actually is. But a very good place to practice is in a movie theater (but which we can't do these days), so can do with TV. (But it is better in a dark theater with nothing else to occupy the senses). Watching a movie, most of the time your full attention is taken by the film, everything else disappears. But this is not the full attention lolly is talking about. In a very real sense in mindfulness you are ~separating out~ attention from the object of attention. ~You~ become aware that ~you~ are attending. I say ~you~, because you is absent, there is just attention. So if there is just being absorbed in the film, there is no mindfulness. If there is just chopping wood, there is no mindfulness. But these words are just words. You have to explore, play with this. Maybe you come to it, maybe you don't. It is actually not so easy to come to. ATA-T is actually a very good way to come to this. Mindfulness is maybe not really the best word to describe it, if we consider mind to be *full of words*. But the mind in mindfulness is previous to any words. Find the thing that is previous to words. Live there. Not so easy to do, words try to jump up, and take your attention. Now, it is possible to be mindful, of words, thinking, but I'd say this is the last thing one would wish to do (the most difficult). ATA-T, easier. A, things, objects, nature, bodily actions.

ATA-T is not mindfulness in the usual sense of the word. Mindfulness is ATA+T. IOW, people practicing mindfulness make an effort to be aware of everything that is happening--both what's happening "inside" (thoughts, feelings, sensations) as well as what can be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled--direct sensory perception. ATA-T focuses on everything EXCEPT thoughts. Any thought (and particularly any self-referential thought) is used as a dharma bell reminder to shift attention back to direct sensory perception. It's a form of reverse engineering the process of cultural indoctrination that initially led to the sense of being separate from "what is."

Breath awareness meditation is a form of ATA-T as is attention to anything other than thoughts. Thinking is treated as a reflexive habit that creates what some neuroscientists call "the default mode network"--circuits in an area of the brain that light up when self-referential thinking occurs. Most people who do ATA-T also contemplate existential questions, so it's a pathway that probably appeals mostly to people who are driven by existential curiosity rather than suffering.

A question that arose for me as a result of attending Zen retreats and doing Zen forms of meditation was, "How long are these practices going to be necessary?" It seemed a bit strange to me to think that sitting on a cushion for the rest of my life might be necessary. After I realized that informal ATA-T was just as effective for generating mental silence (which seemed to trigger realizations) as formal sitting meditation, I began pursuing that activity far more often because I could do it throughout the day rather than only during predetermined sitting sessions.

To me ATA-T seemed like a logical way to reverse the process that leads to the consensus trance state of most adults. IOW, I began spending more and more time doing what little children do throughout the day (looking, listening, smelling, tasting, feeling, etc) and less and less time doing what adults do throughout the day (thinking thinking thinking).

I consider the kind of mindfulness you describe as ATA+T, is not really mindfulness. That is really one part of the mind trying to watch another part of the mind. IOW, it's a kind of thinking about thinking, that's not mindfulness. But I'm saying that to say I think you are correct. And I like the way you put ATA-T is a kind of reverse engineering of how ego formed, how small s self was formed as a young child. PRECISELY. It's a finding of the ~place~ of origin, source, beginning (further described somewhat in response to zazeniac). This is also the meaning of self-remembering (as a beginning anyway). But ~what-it-is~ cannot be put into words.

"How long are the practices necessary"? (I see) the purpose of the practices is to (temporarily) take ~you~ (~you~ meaning not the small s self, as the small s self can NEVER go ~there~) to that, yes, that ~place~ the small/little child lives/lived, before cultural indoctrination. I have previously given the image of a see-saw/teeter-totter. In practice ~you~ go back and forth between small s self and (we say) essence. Eventually, ~you~ ("A man is unable to say what he himself really is") come to BE this ~whatever it is~ and ceases (in our language) to say "I" to the culturally conditioned/small s self. When this is reached, ~you~ BECOME the practice.

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 6, 2020 15:36:18 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Each of us has had a first conscious moment in existence sometime at the start of this adventure in form we call our life. Whether we remember that moment or not, it was the same for all of us. It was as if the light of perception suddenly came online and we found ourselves in this strange new world for the very first time. Only the circumstances of the sudden awakening in the world are different. It is a primal, wordless experience, and because it is a wordless experience, being yet too young to have learned words, it is a purely felt experience. And that very same wordless felt sense of being alive is still here, now, deep within each us, to this very moment. It is a place of stillness, or rest, as Adya says in the video below, but it is also who and what we are; pure perception, wordless awareness. Others call it by different names; beingness, I am-ness, the kingdom of God, the witness, soul, spirit, call it what you will, but know that it is the very ground of your being. It's the realist thing about you, your only "capital" as Nisargadatta says of it. Be still and know this to be true for yourself.

Without saying more, I think the last two posts speaks to this. (Have not watched video yet).

[lolly]

Mindfulness is the practice of being conscious of what is. The Buddhist texts categorise 4 mindfulness objects: body, sensation, mind and mental contents. People have interpreted this to mean observe body and the mind, but body and mind are abstract notions which are not in themselves observable. The body is the collective term for sensation, and mind the collective term for thought. The only observable objects, therefore, are sensations and thoughts.

The intended object of mindfulness is sensations, not thoughts, but you inevitably become conscious of mind's doings when you observe the feelings. The feelings are observed in particular, rather than other senses, for the following two reasons: 1) All of the senses which seem separate from each other (including thought) activate the nervous system and thus produce sensations throughout the body and; 2) From the feelings craving arises.

This second reason is important because craving is the cause of suffering. This accords with the four noble truths. The outcome of mindfulness is to discover for yourself what these truths are, namely: 1) There is suffering and; 2) suffering has a cause and; 3) suffering can end and; 4) there is a way to end suffering. The purpose of being mindful is to resolve suffering, purify the lifeform, follow the path of truth, and attain the highest wisdom, nirvana.

Just as ATA was earlier described, mindfulness is the observation of nature as it is without an imaginary overlay. It similarly begins with breath observation, which is more specifically, awareness of the sensation of breathing. The breath is utilised for for two main reasons: 1) To quieten the mind from overly incessant thought and; 2) To hone the mind into a sharply sensitive perceptive instrument.

To calm the mind you need only be aware of the feeling of breathing. You'll wander off with the mind, but each time you remember you'll come back to the actuality of your breathing sensation. You will notice that the incessant noise fades somewhat because you persist in paying no heed to it while remaining intent on feeling the breath.

That calming practice is not the real objective however. It's just that we need to subdue the mental racket so we can start honing the mind into a more acute perceptive instrument. To do this you have not only to remain aware of the breathing sensation, but also try your best to feel the subtle details of that feeling. With proper practice, after some weeks of a properly practicing, you will be able to feel very fine nuances of the breath feeling quite clearly and distinctly. This indicates that the mind is acute enough to detect the subtler aspects of feelings and you can turn attention to the rest of the body with the same approach of trying to feel the subtlest aspects of feeling as you can.

When you start observing the breath, you start to realise just how distracted your mind really is (a lot more distracted than you think). You won't last a minute before you wander off, and you might be wandering for 5,10 minutes or more before you remember your breath again - and a minute later, gone again. This will probably incite your frustration, impatience and so forth. In the meantime, due to sitting there for so long to meditate, aches and pains start happening, and you start reacting adversely to your discomfort, and realise - "this is suffering".

In the way above described, you cannot be conscious of feeling without also becoming aware of the doings of your mind. The thoughts are not the intended object of meditation, but through your objective to feel the finest subtlety of feeling as you possibly can, the mind is inevitably revealed as an aside.

[lolly]

Practicality. Knowing what is going on at the moment is the key and when you notice the mind has been swept off by reactivity and ingrained tendencies you know what is going on.

To suggest we have control over where the mind wanders and what it does is over simplifed to a degree of being dubious. For example, when meditating, the mind wanders off unintended, and suddenly you notice mind has wandered away without first intending to remember that. It is only because of the original intent to feel the air that we notice it at all, but at the moment we do notice it against the original intention, we become conscious of what the mind is doing. At such time it is not necessary to bring your attention back because you realise the mind has wanders by comparison with the original intent, and therefore, the moment at which you notice the wandering mind, you are also aware of your breathing. In terms of quazi-control, you can only be conscious of this process.

The problem we have in meditation is the notion that we made the mind wander off and we make it come back, but of course we did not intend the mind to wander away at all. Quite the contrary. We did not intend to notice it wandered away. And we do not even intentionally bring it back. All we do is set an original intent by thinking 'I shall observe the breath', and even that seems to occur randomly, or set according to a daily meditation schedule.

I watch. It's my breath, and so on, fabrices an enduring entity regarded as 'myself'. The Buddha used to say 'mere awareness with mere understanding' to indicate there is no thing at the core to make it me, my, mine or I. This brings us to the mere knowing 'this is what is going on at the moment', expressed by Buddha as 'mere awareness with mere understanding'. 'Understanding' pertains to the immediacy of perception as well as the underling nature of phenomena - Anicca, impermanence, momentariness. Because this regards body/mind or mind and matter, self-knowing is knowing what the mind is doing (as opposed to 'know not what you do').

Ramana took a practical approach, too. He said keep the attention on that one who regards itself as I. Hence, if one has the notion  'my breath', Ramana would query what 'me' refers to, and investigate the place 'I' am located. Buddha took a similar approach by investigating every detail of mind and body to see if there was any quality of self anywhere. Buddha simply took a more detailed approach to include physicality, psychology and the social milieu, and entailed the purification processes that Ramana seemed disinterested in.

Either way, mindfulness itself is identical according to the mentioned masters. There is no imagination, visualisation, verbalisation, mantra or iconography involved. IOW, there is no volition. There is 'mere awareness' as Buddha put it. J Krishnamurti described it as 'choiceless observation'. It is to set an intention to investigate very deeply and find out the true nature of 'this'. Buddha was through the body to mind. JK was more psychlogical. Ramana neglected both to regard the 'I thought', but essence of ardent awareness is common across the board.

By such ardency, the tendency to wander unawares is diminished. Attention lasts longer and the duration of distraction diminishes, and after a while, attentive periods become extensive and you know what is going on most of the time.

[lolly]

PS. Lockdown left me with idle time and I've taken to ranting in long posts on the internet.

[stardustpilgrim]

Apr 26, 2020 20:39:12 GMT -5 lolly said:

Practicality. Knowing what is going on at the moment is the key and when you notice the mind has been swept off by reactivity and ingrained tendencies you know what is going on.

To suggest we have control over where the mind wanders and what it does is over simplifed to a degree of being dubious. For example, when meditating, the mind wanders off unintended, and suddenly you notice mind has wandered away without first intending to remember that. It is only because of the original intent to feel the air that we notice it at all, but at the moment we do notice it against the original intention, we become conscious of what the mind is doing. At such time it is not necessary to bring your attention back because you realise the mind has wanders by comparison with the original intent, and therefore, the moment at which you notice the wandering mind, you are also aware of your breathing. In terms of quazi-control, you edit: one can only be conscious of this process.

The problem we have in meditation is the notion that we made the mind wander off and we make it come back, but of course we did not intend the mind to wander away at all. Quite the contrary. We did not intend to notice it wandered away. And we do not even intentionally bring it back. All we do is set an original intent by thinking 'I shall observe the breath', and even that seems to occur randomly, or set according to a daily meditation schedule.

I watch. It's my breath, and so on, fabrices an enduring entity regarded as 'myself'. The Buddha used to say 'mere awareness with mere understanding' to indicate there is no thing at the core to make it me, my, mine or I. This brings us to the mere knowing 'this is what is going on at the moment', expressed by Buddha as 'mere awareness with mere understanding'. 'Understanding' pertains to the immediacy of perception as well as the underling nature of phenomena - Anicca, impermanence, momentariness. Because this regards body/mind or mind and matter, self-knowing is knowing what the mind is doing (as opposed to 'know not what you do').

Ramana took a practical approach, too. He said keep the attention on that one who regards itself as I. Hence, if one has the notion  'my breath', Ramana would query what 'me' refers to, and investigate the place 'I' am located. Buddha took a similar approach by investigating every detail of mind and body to see if there was any quality of self anywhere. Buddha simply took a more detailed approach to include physicality, psychology and the social milieu, and entailed the purification processes that seemed disinterested in.

Either way, mindfulness itself is identical according to the mentioned masters. There is no imagination, visualisation, verbalisation, mantra or iconography involved. IOW, there is no volition. observation'. It is to set an intention to investigate very deeply and find out the true nature of 'this'. Buddha was through the body to mind. JK was more psychlogical. (edit: Not really. I read over 20 books by JK in my teens and '20's. His purpose was always to lead beyond psychology. Heard him in person for 3 weeks in April, May 1980, Ojai.). Ramana neglected both to regard the 'I thought', but essence of ardent awareness is common across the board.

By such ardency, the tendency to wander unawares is diminished. Attention lasts longer and the duration of distraction diminishes, and after a while, attentive periods become extensive and you know what is going on most of the time.

If there is looking at the statements in your post (experiment with, not merely read), there is a ~dividing line~ in each of the collective statements of the "persons" ("lolly", Buddha, Ramana, J Krishnamurti). For Gurdjieff this ~dividing line~ is between what's mechanical (happens by itself), and what's not mechanical (never happens by itself).