Inquiring into subtle and very subtle mind objects during Vipassana

Doing Vipassana, the instructions often tell the meditator to notice objects of the senses, like hearing, seeing, tasting etc. However, as I've found out in my own practice, for more advanced meditators, there is a certain challenge also deeply inquiring into more subtle or even very subtle mind objects. In the mind there appear and disappear of course lots of objects, like emotions and visual or verbal thoughts. But besides these rather coarse thoughts, there are many much more subtle objects appearing in the mind that can be accessed like any other objects. This means, independent of the kind of object, they finally all arise and disappear. So they're impermanent like everything else.

Such subtle and very subtle objects include of course all states of mind accessible in the Jhanas, like endless space, boundless light, visual appearances connected to energy patterns etc. Then there is a very subtle movement of the attention that underlies EVERY thought and is itself without any further quality except that it is a movement in the mind. All kind of thoughts kind of ride on some sort of blank movement in the mind. This can be observed. Furthermore, there is the feeling of "I", which appears just as some very subtle contraction in the otherwise boundless awareness (often coinciding with the whole body feeling or also sometimes with the central channel) and is closely connected to the subtle contraction of consciousness appearing in awareness. Then there is consciousness itself which is absent e.g. during deep sleep or fainting and present (but fluctuating) during waking states.

Whatever subtle level, all of those things can be made the object of one's meditation. It might be really helpful to also scan all of those subtle mind objects for a self-existing, unchangeable I personality. Which, of course, will not be found.

Yes, everything in experience is an object to be explored, gross and subtle alike. Your ability to notice subtle objects is a good sign. Just be careful not to get attached to subtlety. All objects, whether gross or subtle, have equal status.

"Then there is a very subtle movement of the attention that underlies EVERY thought and is itself without any further quality except that it is a movement in the mind."-fckw

Yes, this too is an object, no better, worse, no more important than any other. Good that you can see it. Notice that it is composed of physical sensations and or mental impressions, just like every thing else. The trick here is to notice the temptation to privilege some objects over others and call them "I".

"All kind of thoughts kind of ride on some sort of blank movement in the mind."-fckw

Find out whether this "blank movement in the mind," which is ultimately subtle is composed of anything other than mind and body. (It is not.)

"Then there is consciousness itself which is absent e.g. during deep sleep or fainting and present (but fluctuating) during waking states."-fckw

Find out if this "consciousness itself" is composed of anything other than body and mind. (It is not.) Watch the tendency to think of it as somehow privileged over "gross" phenomena. This is where the "I" thought can hide with impunity; if we think there is some special consciousness that is outside of mind and body, we are embedded in a thought. "Consciousness" is an idea, an inference. Like the self, it can never be found. It can only be inferred.

"Find out if this "consciousness itself" is composed of anything other than body and mind. (It is not.) Watch the tendency to think of it as somehow privileged over "gross" phenomena. This is where the "I" thought can hide with impunity; if we think there is some special consciousness that is outside of mind and body, we are embedded in a thought. "Consciousness" is an idea, an inference. Like the self, it can never be found. It can only be inferred."

Yeah, this is a very tricky one. I needed a lot of time to come to a full understanding that the energetic feeling of "I" basically can or should not be given any precedence over other objects. Having read a lot of talks from Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta, this was a specially hard one, because in Buddhist philosophy they either even don't mention this or don't care at all about it. And I think that neither Ramana nor Nisargadatta are too clear concerning the exact importance of the "I-feeling". (Nisargadatta recommends concentration on it as a vehicle to finally go beyond it. This is very helpful up to this exact point, since the I-feeling is so much more subtle than all the other mind stuff, but he says little about how to leave the I-feeling behind which is even more important or fundamental.)

It also took me some time to understand that consciousness really is nothing special. Usually, we believe it must be of such a higher importance than the body, but it's not. Respectively, as you say: It is to be doubted if it exists after all. It might be a helpful concept in the beginning, but if penetrated by Vipassana meditation, it actually cannot really be found.

Hm, thinking about it, I recognize that I don't have full clarity here. There is not fully developed insight into what appears and disappears is just bodily sensations or mind stuff or consciousness. I will have to meditate on this...

I love what you are doing here, F. Please keep us posted. I also agree with you that the Advaitists have not been clear about this. It is not clear from reading Ramana that one must go beyond any identification with the Self. Nisargadatta does a better job of pointing to this, but still does not clarify to my satisfaction. This is why I like to triangulate across the traditions; looking at the various understandings put forth in Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Advaita allows us to see this from multiple angles. And finally, just as you are doing now, each of us must find out for him or herself. Assuming nothing, challenging every cherished notion, we can find out what is really going on. And just when you think it can't possibly go any deeper... it does.

Cheers to you for your courage in challenging your own assumptions. Keep on keepin' on.

-Kenneth

Hi there
Wonderful inquiry and discussion!
I stumbled upon this thread while researching articles on mindfulness for my research. Frkw, like you, through my meditation practice and reading mindfulness psychology, osho, krishnamurti, bohm, buddhist lit and other including Ramana, I have expereince subtle nature of mind and have been pondering over the nature of the subtle mind. I am pleased to know that this is your expereince; gives some sort of validation to my inquiry. Beyond this point I rely upon the literature, which I will share with you.

I look at mind from a psychological prespective. I see mind being both conditioning and pure awreness (what you call consciousness). Subtle mind is part of conditioning (conditioned mind), thoughts and beliefs being the coarse part of the conditioned mind. feeling of I is as much present in subtle mind as it is in coarse mind. Beyond these two states lies observing mind (nearly pure awareness). I think observing mind is also subtly conditioned because the I is also present in observing mind. Why I say that because if there was no I in the observing mind, the pure awareness will stay in its pure and unconditioned state (the oberver will become observed).

I am not sure what is right or if its helpful to you or not . I thought I will share this with you as my gratitude to your wonderful post!

Love