Inside and Outside - Duality or Not?

I'm moving a thread of conversation here so as not to ruin a practice diary:

I said:

There are without doubt or question things outside of the body as defined by the boundaries of the skin. But, if you look closely, we do not deal with those objects other than as mental representations. That's all we have, folks. Our brains exist inside a deep, dark skull and have to rely on our senses to interpret anything from "outside," and none of the signals that are being interpreted are real time. If you believe otherwise I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you

So when we see, hear or touch anything, it's a mental model. This is how perception works for us It's physics and biology that describes this as much as anything else, and the whole system can be fooled quite easily; think stage magicians and optical illusions and such. As I watch the process of perception occur any determination (model building) of what is an object and what is a subject is taking place in mind.

So Justin, "all is mind" is a very extreme position and I'm not saying quite that. I'm saying all, everything, is interpreted by mind. We may call something "external" but in our stream of experience is it, really?

And:

So let me ask -- if we always use words like "external" and "internal" to describe these phenomena, how careful do we have to be not to set up a duality? And how long will it be before we can just admit that this is all there is? Just this, where there is nothing "outside," nothing "inside" and where everything just is?

Antero said:

@EndInSight

It makes sense to me that the quality of the attention would be different in those two cases, although investigating a single bounce is beyond my abilities. What I remember of grosser bounces that I experienced previously, they felt like some involuntary contractions of the mind, pulling the attention to the head to reinforce the feeling of a separate observer. Now the oscillation is so fast that it is experienced as a kind of screen or filter on top of the actual sensory experience and I cannot isolate one bounce from another.

@cmarti

Even though I use different terminology to describe this phenomenon, I have reasons to believe that we are talking about the same thing seen from another angle and I think that the whole development of meditation practice could be measured in how much we are changing our modes of perception from mental representations to actual sensory experience.

What makes discussing about this phenomenon difficult is that this process seems to happen on many levels of experience and subtlety and it is hard to tell what pure sensory experience is in the first place, or if it even exists. As the baseline shifts, the perception that at first seemed to be pure and untainted by mental representations will later be seen to be affected by another previously unseen filter that is just one level more subtle.

@EndInSight

That sounds sensible; although it might even be that both cases that you presented are possible.

At times when we are not paying attention to our surroundings, we might just be experiencing our internal model of the outside world without knowing it. According to neurologist David Eagleman, our brain is very skilful in making us to believe that we are experiencing external objects through our senses, when most of the time the brain is only showing internally generated illusion of the outside world.

So what is "inside" and what is "outside?" How do you know and distinguish? And again, how do you distinguish between the two without creating a duality? As far as I can tell everything I experience takes place in what I'd call "nowhere," the empty spaciousness that is the "stuff" from which everything arises. It's not really "out there" any more than it is "in here."

I'm looking at the flat panel display here right now and realizing that the experience of seeing it (all I can ever have is the experience of it, arising and passing away in attention very, very fast) is taking place neither out there or in here, but is some "place" that is both a place and not a place. It's all one experience whether I conceive of it (model it) as being out there or in here, or as happening in both places at once.

Heidegger's word for human being--- which, detached from the anthropocentric context of his philosophy could probably be extended to all sentient beings (and who knows where *they* start or end?)---

dasein

sein = being

da is often mistranslated "there", but it can also be translated "here", and particularly astute translators use t/here or similar constructs. I would say 'being place(d)" or something like that.

Seems like the basic "structure" of experience is this being-placed, from which concepts of "here" and "there" can arise-- but the "place" those concepts arise in is prior to here and there, it's just "place". (everywhere you go, whatever the conditions within or around you, that "within and around" isn't moving in relation to anything else).

This pure place is no-place. "Inner and outer" have obvious pragmatic, phenomenal relevance as descriptions of what's happening within and around "me"-- so obviously that is relative (my "here" is your "there").

One further point in this string of ramblings... experiencing the difference between "within and around" this body in no way implies a separation, quite the opposite. And I don't find insight into nonduality interferes with the pragmatic understanding of that difference, it just means the descriptions aren't being reified in that moment of insight. In other words, insight into nonduality is completely different from, say, psychotic breakdown of that distinction in which parts of the body are experienced as "other" *or* mystical states in which trees and cars and etc are experienced as parts of a Self.

So... I think I'm agreeing with you, more or less

Whattaya think?

"
So what is "inside" and what is "outside?" How do you know and distinguish? And again, how do you distinguish between the two without creating a duality?"

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd say that both "inside" and "outside" are part of the structure of mental representation, and an experience is either a mental representation with such a structure, or isn't.

Representations can continue to arise even if we know better than to produce them, and representations are believed in the exact moment they arise (as that is just the definition of the arising of a mental representation) even if they are rejected a moment later...that's the story of post-technical 4th path.

As for what is "really" inside and outside, that seems besides the point, as it is non-experiential. I took this discussion to be about experiences ("inside" and "outside" as part of the structure of mental representations) rather than metaphysics ("inside" and "outside" being real categories that divide the world from a subjective point of view). To the extent that we're not talking about experiences, then yes, "inside" and "outside" are part of a conceptual structure overlaid onto a world that stands just fine without such an overlay.

With that in mind, Chris, I'd like to ask you again how you see or don't see these representations coming into play in your own experience in relation to the "attention bounce" phenomenon.

I'm a little unclear on the question, EndinSight, but find the discussion interesting. What do you mean by mental representations being inside or outside? Can you give a specific example of something you are perceiving/experiencing? Are you distinguishing between seeing a pen on the desk being seeing something outside, and "seeing" a thought being something seen inside?

"What do you mean by mental representations being inside or outside?"

I meant, according to what I have seen, that mental representations represent an object as "inside" in relation to an implied "outside" (or vice versa)...(EDITED FOR CLARITY:more generally, mental representations represent that there is one phenomenon that is "subject" and another that is "object".)

"Can you give a specific example of something you are perceiving/experiencing?"

A simplified example...in one split-second (during the "on" phase of a vibration) there is an experience of seeing, and in the next (during the "off" phase of the vibration) there is an experience of "seeing-that", where "seeing-that" represents the thing being seen as "outside" and thus implies an "inside" from which the thing is seen.

Approximately the same would hold for any pair of sense-experience and off-phase vibration.

"Are you distinguishing between seeing a pen on the desk being seeing something outside, and "seeing" a thought being something seen inside?"

No...gross forms of dualism such as that (in which the world is divided into "mind"-inside and "senses"-outside) are (generally) done away with by technical 4th path, if not before.

"... an experience is either a mental representation with such a structure, or isn't." -- EndInSight

Can you name or describe anything that isn't a mental representation?

I'll describe the experience one more time: when I perceive the flat panel here, right now, I perceive an object that is neither "inside" or "outside." It arises in a sort of "nothingness" and passes away back into that same "space." There is no specific place in which all this occurs. I can observe the creation of a subject-object duality by watching mind model the flat panel as "out there" with a subject implied "in here" (and bouncing between the two things). But when pressed to really and truly tell you **where** the experience of the flat panel occurs, I cannot do so. Mind represents/models the universe this way and it appears to me to contain everything that does, did or will exist. It is infinite.

And again, this is not to say that there is nothing "out there" whatever that may mean.. It is to say that all experience is mediated by mind.

"This pure place is no-place. "Inner and outer" have obvious pragmatic, phenomenal relevance as descriptions of what's happening within and around "me"-- so obviously that is relative (my "here" is your "there")." -- Jake

Yes! Well said! I agree completely.

"A simplified example...in one split-second (during the "on" phase of a vibration) there is an experience of seeing, and in the next (during the "off" phase of the vibration) there is an experience of "seeing-that", where "seeing-that" represents the thing being seen as "outside" and thus implies an "inside" from which the thing is seen.
"

By this do you mean that you see a pen on the desk and for a moment there is "just seeing" and a moment later you say "I see a pen" and kind of process or label it mentally?

"Can you name or describe anything that isn't a mental representation?"

Experientially, a sense-experience is just a sense-experience. "Created by mind" (as you understand "mind") is not the same as "mental representation". Not every experience is experienced as representational.

"I'll describe the experience one more time: when I perceive the flat panel here, right now, I perceive an object that is neither "inside" or "outside." It arises in a sort of "nothingness" and passes away back into that same "space.""

What is the space?

I perceive an object, and then it is (fairly literally) overlaid by mental representation, which obscures it...the object itself does not seem to go anywhere when I observe carefully.

When I got technical 1st path, I perceived this mental representation as if it was a "nothingness" out of which everything arose and into which everything passed...however, I suspect you are not talking about that.

"But when pressed to really and truly tell you **where** the experience of the flat panel occurs, I cannot do so."

Me neither. It doesn't happen anywhere, though occasionally it is represented as happening somewhere.

"By this do you mean that you see a pen on the desk and for a moment there is "just seeing" and a moment later you say "I see a pen" and kind of process or label it mentally?"

No..."I see a pen" is an extremely high-level thought compared to what I am describing.

I literally mean, if I see a pen in front of me vibrating 10 times per second, that (in this simplified example) there are 10 moments of "seeing-that" interspersed between the moments in which I see the pen. "I see a pen" is too complex to be thought 10 times per second in a normal state of consciousness...but a simpler and more basic form of mental representation, out of which the inside / outside duality springs, is not.

Thanks. I don't do vibrations like that, so no wonder it wasn't making sense. I'll let the rest of ya carry on without me.

"Not every experience is experienced as representational."..... "I perceive an object, and then it is (fairly literally) overlaid by mental representation, which obscures it...the object itself does not seem to go anywhere when I observe carefully." - EndInSight

Your mind sees an object before there is an object? Really?

"if I see a pen in front of me vibrating 10 times per second, ..."

There is no pen that is vibrating. You are assuming a duality, EndInSight. It is your mental representation of the pen (vision, etc) that is causing the vibrating. No wonder we're not quite seeing this eye to eye

"
"Not every experience is experienced as representational."..... "I perceive an object, and then it is (fairly literally) overlaid by mental representation, which obscures it...the object itself does not seem to go anywhere when I observe carefully." - EndInSight

Your mind sees an object before there is an object? Really?

"

Yes this is also my experience. It has been called 'apperception' by some. The experience is a sense impression for example the eyes see what is in front of them. Directly after that there is a sequence of sectioning off 'objects' within the field of sight. Or if I turn my head and the eyes land on the glass before them, there is a moment or two of no classification of the glass as an 'object'. Then the mind will run the sequence of conceptualization: "Ah that is a glass."

So in a sense the glass wasn't an object when presented to sight, but then it became one moments later. At times, depending on certain states one can access post 8th jhana, with the eyes open, everything is seen but there are no 'objects'. It's a themeless type awareness.

"... if I turn my head and the eyes land on the glass before them, there is a moment or two of no classification of the glass as an 'object'. Then the mind will run the sequence of conceptualization: "Ah that is a glass."

Yes, mind is required for any separation to occur. There is no separation, no object, before mind's interpretation, or modeling, or conceptualizing, or whatever we decide to call it.

"
"if I see a pen in front of me vibrating 10 times per second, ..."

There is no pen that is vibrating. You are assuming a duality, EndInSight. It is your mental representation of the pen (vision, etc) that is causing the vibrating. No wonder we're not quite seeing this eye to eye

"

I have been trying to see if I still have these 'mental representations' as in images in the mind's eye that I used to. It seems since the last shift, I do not have a distinct experience of a mental image of that which i am experiencing at a sense door. But there is still a 'knowing', cognizing and conceptualization of the object yet no tangible mental image to see like before that follows the moment of sense impression. Perhaps a very swift blip in the mind but it doesn't take shape like before.

Chris, when you use the term 'mental representation', do you mean an actual mental image in the mind's eye?

A mental image in the mind's eye is a mediated object, as is a pen observed on a desk. All objects are mental models, representations created by mind as a product of the synching up of the senses and other capabilities inherent in the human brain. They are all modeled over and over again with great frequency.

"

"

"There is no pen that is vibrating. You are assuming a duality, EndInSight. It is your mental representation of the pen (vision, etc) that is causing the vibrating."

Indeed, that is what I said in #10.

"Your mind sees an object before there is an object? Really?"

There is a sense-experience (which is colloquially and informally called "an object", but is merely a sense-experience), and then there is a mental representation.

"Object" has two separate contextually-distinguished meanings here:

1) A phenomenon
2) A mentally-classified phenomenon

The difference here seems to lie in the assumption that there is a "real" pen that can be observed somehow prior to it being defined/modeled/represented by mind as a "pen." I get that, and will agree with that only if we can agree that such an assumption is a practical convenience, as Jake has described so well.

And we're getting into very esoteric detail for some folks here. But this is very relevant to an understanding of emptiness.

"...if I turn my head and the eyes land on the glass before them, there is a moment or two of no classification of the glass as an 'object'. Then the mind will run the sequence of conceptualization: "Ah that is a glass."

So in a sense the glass wasn't an object when presented to sight, but then it became one moments later. ..."

But that makes sense. Of course you just see and then afterwards your mind runs it through the database and says "glass on table". Though I'd guess probably many (non-meditator) people don't notice it.

"There is a sense-experience (which is colloquially and informally called "an object", but is merely a sense-experience), and then there is a mental representation."

It would be unwise to call anything that is not an object an object. That will only serve to confuse a lot of people, methinks. If I am attempting to learn vipassana (as many folks here are doing) then to say that an object exists independently of the process of perception can only confuse the issue. Better to stick with a more rigorous formulation. This is a huge issue for many people who are already confused about the process and the phraseology.

"But there is still a 'knowing', cognizing and conceptualization of the object yet no tangible mental image to see like before that follows the moment of sense impression. Perhaps a very swift blip in the mind but it doesn't take shape like before.

Chris, when you use the term 'mental representation', do you mean an actual mental image in the mind's eye?

"

Yes, that is just what I'm referring to. "Seeing-that".

To relate this to things I've said before on KFD, "seeing-that" (the moment of 'knowing') corresponds on my understanding of things to "becoming" in dependent origination, and it can vary in temporal extension as well as in magnitude...the greater the temporal extension, the more salient the 'knowing' is, and the greater the magnitude, the more gross the dualism is (i.e. SELF vs. perceiver vs seeing-that vs. ...)

There is no need to make this complicated and hide it behind esoteric terminology. It's really quite simple for anyone to grok -- mind is what defines objects as objects.