The nature of insight

I was about to post this question under Chris' thread "The Most Powerful Insight" then thought it might be a different topic altogether.

My initial understanding was that insight is something that is attained directly by the subconscious. Once we verbalize the direct experience it doesn't become a direct experience anymore. Verbalization always entails abstraction and conceptualization, which we are trying to cut through in the first place.

Wisdom could result from such insights but it happens spontaneously in practical situations, but not deliberately derived from the insights we gain from our direct experience.

This has been my understanding and as a result I've always dismissed my own verbalized conclusions as thoughts and I've seen them as a threat to my direct insights. But now I see many experienced yogis talk about insights gained from their direct experience and I'm questioning my initial understanding.

Any thoughts?

Amr

Hi Amr,
The larger practice skill to be developed in this regard is the ability to switch conceptual thought on-and-off.

When conceptual thought is off (or operating to a minimal degree) we have direct, unmeditated experience. We operate intuitively, sensing and acting without forethought.

When we switch back into conceptual thought, we can recall our direct experiences, ponder their significance, and put them into a larger context, comparing them to what others have reported, what the maps and models show, and so forth.

Enlightenment is an event that occurs beyond concepts and conditions. Spiritual teachings about Enlightenment (including models) are developed afterward.

If we only enjoyed direct Realization without any concomitant and subsequent intellectualization, we could not provide useful communications in written and oral and artistic form to help guide others.

Hi Amr,
I read your posted question earlier today... waited in hope that someone more experienced in answering such questions would kindly post a reply. I'm glad to see that Gozen stepped in here.

Here's a few references that may be additionally helpful:

Excerpt from Dingguan jing (Canon on Concentration and Observation) Sima Chengzhen:

In concentration never actively search insight.
Insight will arise naturally
And only then it is true insight.
Search in a state of stillness and quietness.

Having insight without using it
Is being wise in fact, but ignorant in appearance.
Never allowing any distinctions in the mind is what is meant by "not using insight."


The Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra (Diamond Sutra) not only addresses non duality, and emptiness, but also touches on the need for turning off conceptualizing in order to experience direct insight:
www.sinc.sunysb.edu/clubs/buddhism/sutras/diamond1.html

Thanks Gozen and Khara.

"When we switch back into conceptual thought, we can recall our direct experiences, ponder their significance, and put them into a larger context, comparing them to what others have reported, what the maps and models show, and so forth." -- Gozen

I have no problem with communicating experiences and I think we'll always have some kind of interpretation due the nature of our minds. Even more, I don't see a problem with learning from our experience and our interpretation and integrating that in our daily life. I think this will happen inadvertently anyway.

My question was not a criticism of the idea of intellectualization. It was specifically about the nature of the insight as often talked about here and the DhO.

Is our interpretation what we mean when we mention "insight"? If not, is there a way to know it when we gain an insight? How?

Amr

"
Is our interpretation what we mean when we mention "insight"? If not, is there a way to know it when we gain an insight? How?

Amr

"

Interpretation is not insight.

When we speak of gaining insight into the Three Characteristics, we mean that we have investigated the mechanisms by which, for example, our experience of "things" arises and passes away. We have "seen" the flickering of sensations, noticed the compound nature of conceptions, recognized the arbitrariness of mentations, and witnessed the relativity of self-object consciousness.

These insights are "Aha!" moments of understanding. And they are undoubtable. But until they occur, we can always be dubious and uncertain. After they have occurred, doubt no longer arises.

Once you gain insight, you never lose it. This is a very important point, because it suggests that the final insight to be found or discovered or known or [best word] REALIZED at the end of all our practice is not characertized by the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and emptiness-of-self which define all conditional things.

Begin at the beginning. But never lose sight of the end. This is the direct Zen way.

""My question was not a criticism of the idea of intellectualization. It was specifically about the nature of the insight as often talked about here and the DhO.

Is our interpretation what we mean when we mention "insight"? If not, is there a way to know it when we gain an insight? How? - Amr

"

OK... for clarity purposes, perhaps this calls for a brief look at the word "insight" and in what context is the word being used.

"Insight"
1. The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation; penetration.
2. The act or outcome of grasping the inward or hidden nature of things or of perceiving in an intuitive manner.
[The American Heritage® Dictionary]

"Insight"
3. Psychology.
a. an understanding of relationships that sheds light on or helps solve a problem.
[Random House Dictionary]
dictionary.reference.com/browse/insight

We can safely rule out this last reference since I think we're all on board with the understanding that this is not what we mean by "insight" in most of these discussions.
However, the first two references disclose a more subtle difference in how we use the word "insight."
It seems to me that the first reference is more closely related to what we mean when we speak of (directly experiencing) insight, but it's still a rough description.
The second reference seems to be what happens when we try to use words to describe our (perception of the direct experience) insight. I think the key words here are: "grasping" and "perceiving" - both equate to what occurs when we attempt to interpret the experience. Not that this is bad, it's just no longer the "experience," but rather a conceptualization of the experience.

[ continue -

So, after my verbose rambling of linguistics... Let me see if I can answer your questions in a more direct way:

Q: Is our interpretation what we mean when we mention "insight"?
A: No.

Q: If not, is there a way to know it when we gain an insight? How?
A: Yes.
When you're at a state of awareness whereby you are still and calm... no conceptualizing of this or that... being completely present in the Nowness of the experience, and in this state of clarity you experience a "knowing" that surpasses any cognitive activity. - This is insight.
Later (after the experience), when you try to describe it in words... it becomes a diluted version of what was actually experienced. (Note: I can only speak in regards to my experiences. Perhaps it isn't quite this way for other people).

Addendum:
Oh good, I see while I was busy typing out my lengthy and awkward answer, Gozen posted... He's much more experienced at providing such answers. I'm still learning... practicing... Hopefully, I'll get better at expressing these things into words.
- Tina

Let me attempt a simple example, and by this analogy maybe you can see the difference between insight and conceptual/intellectual activity, Amr:

1. Hold a book up over your head in front of you. Drop it on the floor. What do you experience? That is direct experience. Insight is like that.

2. Explain what happened when the book hit the floor to another person. That's communication and is based on concepts and intellect. Describing insight is like that.

My sense, so far, is that it's not that thoughts (by 'thoughts' I mean higher-level, abstract cognitions) and verbal expressions are incompatible with direct insight. It's that it's just much trickier to get them integrated; because they're so subtle, tricky, and fast. They're also very attractive, convincing, and beguiling.

'Insight', for me, denotes visceral engagement with the fundamental, actual nature of experience. The key word is 'visceral'. A person can think and speak viscerally. And we do it all of the time.

But:
when we speak viscerally, we are often remote from fundamental awareness. (Think, "Dear sir, kindly remove your refrigerator from on top of my feet")

And when we're speaking of fundamental awareness, we are often speaking non-viscerally. ('It is clear that there is no fundamental separateness between the experience of 'refrigerator' and the experience of 'my feet' ')

To me, this is not about any inherent failing in speech or cognition; it is more a matter of whether we have cultivated and practiced the ability to speak from a place of visceral engagement with dharma.

If you want to dive it's easier to start by just standing next to the pool and cannon-balling in; rather than trying to start out with a reverse triple-somersault pike.

I think this is a case like that.

Part of my understanding of gong-an/koan practice is that it is helping the practitioner to integrate visceral engagement with fundamental awareness into higher-level cognitive functions.

As usual, it will probably be useful to bookmark this discussion and to reconvene to compare notes in one or two decades!

As I see it, an insight is a partial recollection of our true self (or no-self).

It is as if we were the spectators of a movie, identified with the film. Through vipassana (1st gear transmission), we might eventually realize that the film is actually a succession of fast images. At this precise moment, we might suddenly realize that we are not the film but the spectator watching the movie.

Insight is this short flash of partial recollection of our true nature (or emptiness, no-self or suchness). It is both marvelous and obvious; visceral and fundamental.

Koans belong to 2nd gear transmission. The all relate to the question "who am I?". The question or great doubt penetrates the subconscious until one day, the spectator realizes that he is not the film (or that there is no film and no spectator, but only images and sounds). When it is only partial it is an insight. When it is definitive it is enlightenment or satori (skt. sambodhi).

"@Gozen: Once you gain insight, you never lose it. This is a very important point, because it suggests that the final insight to be found or discovered or known or [best word] REALIZED at the end of all our practice is not characertized by the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and emptiness-of-self which define all conditional things.
"

Hi Gozen,
With regards to never losing an insight, is this between incarnations? I am trying to understand why never losing an insight suggests the final insight is characterized by the absolute and taking it to it's logical conclusion. It seems the suggestion is insights are always with regards to the deathless and incarnations reflect these insights. Otherwise the insight would have to be lost.

The coolest thing about being human and having a big brain capable of conceptual thinking is that you can do advanced mathematics, write poetry, create paintings, films, write novels, invent iPhones, and stuff like that. The flip side of the big brain/conceptual thinking capability is that you can pretty easily over think things that really aren't as complicated as your big, conceptually adroit brain wants to make them out to be. Sometimes it's right in front of your nose but your mind keeps jumping in the way.

That's kind of cryptic but it's the most direct way I know of saying... well, I'm sure Gozen can articulate it better than me. Anyone, what's that Zen saying about mountains and rivers? I think it's apt here: first mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers, then mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers and then, once again, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. I think it's a sort of process map in Zen.... but I could be wrong.

Edited to add content.

Yes, it comes from a Zen master who described his Zen practice. First everything seemed real and solid. Then everything was seen as a dream. Ultimately everything was again solid but seen from the enlightened point of view.

From a Zen angle, iPhones only exist as dreamlike phenomena perceived by the mind. The are not real and solid and are therefore empty. However, since everything is mind-only (cittamatra) that are also an expression of suchness (tathata).

The way to get there is to turn away from conceptual thinking to recollect that which is prior to thinking, namely primordial awareness. The huatou or koan would be "who is aware of thoughts?"

"@cmarti: The coolest thing about being human and having a big brain capable of conceptual thinking is that you can do advanced mathematics, write poetry, create paintings, films, write novels, invent iPhones, and stuff like that. "

How about the coolest thing from a big brain and being human is that enlightenment can be realized. It is a two edge sword that makes all this possible. There is another saying "do not discount even the world of ideas" (from hsin hsin ming). I think over thinking often comes from a place where the mind tries to answer that which it cannot answer and it this very problem that assists in realising not all is mind. Chris, this you seem to know by experience and the very point you make but without a big brain you would not know this. Although insights are not of mind, without mind there are no insights.

So; not good not bad, how non dual is that? .

"Hi Gozen,
With regards to never losing an insight, is this between incarnations? I am trying to understand why never losing an insight suggests the final insight is characterized by the absolute and taking it to it's logical conclusion. It seems the suggestion is insights are always with regards to the deathless and incarnations reflect these insights. Otherwise the insight would have to be lost.
"

Hi Gary,
Re-birth is a big ball of wax; let's not stick our hands in it just yet

When I wrote the word "insight" without an article before it (such as "an insight" or "the insight") I was speaking globally, or at a high level of abstraction. What is gained by every insight is growing closenss to the Real. When I referred to the final insight, I meant Realization Itself.

Reality IS what is Realized. You (True Identity) Are THAT. No birth, no death for that One. Only bodies and minds are born and come to death.

As for re-birth...after Realization, it is a choice, not a death sentence-life sentence imposed by the mechanics of the universes the way it was before.

I like to think of "me" as a view on the universe from one particular set of senses.

"Chris, this you seem to know by experience and the very point you make but without a big brain you would not know this."

Gary, forgive me my rhetorical flourishes!

It is funny how badly articulated questions start interesting discussions sometimes.

Let me try to clarify my question further. I was talking about insights that are necessary for us to grasp in order to progress in vipassana: nanas. The fact that 'insight' is a translation makes me distrust its definition in the dictionary as the problem could be in the translation to start with where many subtleties are missed

I didn't have any knowledge of maps, nanas or the three characteristics when I went to the 10 days retreat. And during the retreat only one of the three characteristics was emphasized: impermanence. I don't recall having any 'Ah!' moments related to the maps, nanas or the characteristics including anicca.

I was just following the instructions and not sure what to expect. Yet apparently I made it all the way to the dark night during the retreat. Doesn't that mean that I had some of those insights without being aware of it?

Doesn't having an 'Ah!' moment mean that we realize the significance of what we've just observed? And doesn't that mean that we're observing with some cognition that knows how to place the phenomenon we've just observed with a bigger picture that answers certain questions? I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but is this what we mean when talk about the nana? Can I progress all the way to cessation without having an 'Ah!' moment?

(continue...)

The answer I had was that the insights are similar to the insight a 2 years old kid has about the nature of gravity. The child isn't even aware of its existence yet his nervous system is already acquainted with it. The child exhibits the wisdom gained by that insight in his movement and his judgments regarding heights and distances in a spontaneous way.

When we sit in mediation we expose our nervous system to a new experience. Our nervous system learns directly from the experience (first stage nanas), there is some confusion that ensue (dark night nanas) until the new knowledge is finally integrated (11th nana and up).

As a result of that understanding I had a resistance to the idea of consciously observing the three characteristics thinking that this is to my subconscious (nervous system) to take care of.

What do you think?

Hi keeiton

You mentioned reaching dark night by meditating on impermanence only. In one sense the three characteristics are related. If everything is impermanent then there is no permanent self to be found. If nothing stays the same then what lasting substance does it have?

I reached dark night on a number of occasions with only the most cursory overview of buddhist theory (reading wikipedia), next to no understanding of buddhist practices, but in hindsight I was aware of impermanence emptiness and not-self by their effects rather than their names. I think that's the point you were getting at, right?

The risk with the approach would be never getting anywhere because of not knowing where to look. The path of advaita seems to be largely about pointers to discovering reality, and I personally found those pointers very useful in making progress.

Craig
[Edited because I misspelt Amr's username - sorry!]

"Doesn't having an 'Ah!' moment mean that we realize the significance of what we've just observed? And doesn't that mean that we're observing with some cognition that knows how to place the phenomenon we've just observed with a bigger picture that answers certain questions? I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but is this what we mean when talk about the nana? Can I progress all the way to cessation without having an 'Ah!' moment?"


Amr, I think the path is comprised of lots of things, some of them are subconscious and some obvious in conscious awareness. I don't think it's possible to progress to deep realization without the mind participating in its entirety. My experience tells me that stuff happens along the path and that at some point I will become aware of those things consciously, not just subconsciously. I think of your question this way: I have and will always process sounds in the same way. Always. Nothing about vipassana or any kind of meditation can change the basic "sound process" my mind uses. However, after spending some time examining the experiential process of "sound" in meditation I became *consciously* aware of the intricacy of the steps my mind was taking when "hearing" a sound. That was an "Ah!" for me. It's sort of like what people often say about realization -- it's always there, and you are always experiencing it, but you are not aware of the full reality of it for various reasons, be they conditioning, an overlay of conceptual thinking, ignorance, what have you.

In other words, you do need to "get" the dharma in an awake, alert, conscious manner at some point. To do otherwise seems to me to be hiding from the "Ah!" moments you're talking about, and then how will you ever know you're getting anywhere?

Ditto

What Chris wrote.

.

"I don't recall having any 'Ah!' moments related to the maps, nanas or the characteristics including anicca

"

This is a little merky because there are different types of Ah moments. Every day understanding is to think things through or get a significant aquaintence via experience, probably not really Ah!. Then in a thinking mode thoughts can come together and you may say to yourself Ah!, this is where thoughts connect. Then there are moments that come from nowhere and have little or no relation with the conscious thought process and have a perceptual element. This last Ah ha type moment is not of the thinking mind and cannot be compared with the mind type.
This non thinking Ah ha cannot be really explained because of it's perceptual nature. Something other than the thinking mind changes, something in the being of which the mind is a reflection. You definitly know this Ah ha moment.
I don't think all practices are neccesarily the same with regards to this. However this is the way it happens with direct path. Others may know better of indivdual variations.

Hi keeiton,

I think Kenneth could help us: this is taken from Idiot's Guide to Dharma Diagnosis:
Case Study # 4:
Report: I went through the 3rd, 4th, and dukkha ñanas (as described above) and now I feel fine every time I sit.
Diagnosis: 11th ñana, Knowledge of Equanimity.
'But I'm not having any insights.'
Right. Knowledge of Equanimity.

In my understandings, in this case Equanimity is an insight stage, or a strata of mind, and not an insight. Insights could occur in every insight stage, but a person could also travel all the strata of mind without developing insights.
Because in parallel you have a physioenergetic process and a 'wisdom' process.
The first one is mandatory, this is why the insight stages occur always in order, but you don't notice them if you do not develop insights (your question was my question, too...).
I don't know if you could go even to Fruition without insights (in fact, there are people who report that fruition is not such a big thing, maybe because it did not deliver an insight to them).
Insights are those ah! moments and are pretty conscious, this is why they give you wisdom.
And this understanding of the things as they really are is 'permanent'...
In my experience, I was able to understand unmistakably the meaning of the expression "moment by moment" only with the insight on impermanence. The same expression could be judged only as a poetic suggestion (the me before the insight).
Umberto

Hi Geppo,

This thread started when Kenneth was away for two weeks. When he came back he started another thread that, in my opinion, addresses the same question from a different angle:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/32...+View+of+the+Maps%22

Between the two threads I've drawn my own conclusions (which are ever fluid).

I understand nanas now as distinctions. By distinction I mean the separation of something from its background. An example of this is the Necker Cube.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_Cube

To see the cube in the first place, you have to distinguish the white as a background and the black as foreground. Then you distinguish the black lines as a cube. But even then you can distinguish the cube in two different ways.

As you can see, distinctions involve interpretation but no verbalization is necessary. Children who don't speak make distinctions and therefore are able to see objects and manipulate them.

Also distinctions, although interpretations, can not be wrong unless our senses deceive us in the first place. So even though you can see the cube in two exclusive ways, both are possible (right).

Once you make a distinction it becomes a permanent way of seeing things. Sometimes there is an "Ah" moment with a distinction if it address a concern you had. But sometimes you make the distinction and move along without an "Ah". We do that every day as we look around, hear sounds, ...etc.

It's also possible not to make a distinction until someone points it out to you.

Although the word "distinction" might not be a proper translation for nana, I think it fits with what people here are saying about insights.

(Cont...)