Inside and Outside - Duality or Not?

I'm tempted now to think that somehow this actually should make sense, and I'd like to find out how to make sense of it. Because there's not much out there in the world of dharma stuff that doesn't make sense the way most of this conversation is not making sense.

"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. "

Playing around with the glass in front of me, I am able to look at it for several more seconds than usual without it becoming a 'classified object'. But it still is an object in those several seconds of no 'classifying' and conceptualizing. It is just form hitting the eyes giving rise to an unclassified object.

Hmm, this is interesting. When i had a certain shift, I was playing with the arupa jhanas seeing from different angles until the sense of 'being' would collapse and just leave 'space' or 'nothingness' as the experience. But now as I do it again, there are two experiences of 'space' and 'nothingness', one where they are sort of unclassifed formeless objects (with no subject) and in the second experience, the mind will classify them moments later as 'space' and 'nothingness'.

Hmm, End, both my shifts happened when there was no classifying. Maybe it is key.

"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."

It is wise to be maximally clear, so, to clarify my position,

1) Sense-experience (during the "on" phase of the vibration)
2) Mental representation (during the "off" phase of the vibration)

with some stuff interspersed in-between.

Also, for the sake of those looking to apply vipassana to the phenomena under discussion, I claim that

1) there are a large number of mental representations occurring after sense-experience, related to many parts of the experiential field (not just the part that is being actively noticed at the moment).
2) Mental representations are spatiotemporally extended, i.e. the mental representation corresponding to a sensation on the skin produces an experience of tingling which appears to occur at the same location on the skin, i.e. mental representations are not "thoughts" in the standard sense.

@nick - you mean sometimes there's "just seeing"?

www.leighb.com/skarda.htm

"The Perceptual Form of Life"

This is an old article, but I wonder if the more advanced folks on here have seen it? The punch line is first there is the gestalt, then there is "articulation" into component objects.

Seems relevant to this discussion... and about all I can add, given my lack of personal knowledge

@end re:the whole spatiotemporal thingy - you mean sometimes there is a clinging to phenomena, as opposed to "just seeing"?

"I'm tempted now to think that somehow this actually should make sense, and I'd like to find out how to make sense of it. Because there's not much out there in the world of dharma stuff that doesn't make sense the way most of this conversation is not making sense."

AEN seems to have gone fairly far without understanding this stuff (due to a practice style that does not exaggerate vibrations, apparently), so it may not be required (though it seems to help enormously to understand it on some level).

However, if you want to look closer without pursuing a "vibration-oriented" practice style, you can notice

1) that there is tension in various parts of your body, especially along the midline of the body, especially during emotional or excited moments,
2) that when tension is noticed, sense-experience is not noticed,
3) that these moments of not noticing sense-experience are not blank, but include qualities which, pre-path, are often thought to be "self", and, post-path, include a variety of qualities...the grossest of which (during emotional or excited moments) are "feelings / low-level opinions about things"

"@nick - you mean sometimes there's "just seeing"?"

Indeed. Seeing in the seen. Form hitting the eyes to give rise to eye consciousness. Ha! The cognizing in the cognized is separate from the seeing, hearing, tasting etc. If by cognised we mean conceptualize/classify. It occurs after a sense impression. I don't know why I never realized this 'fully' before. But it seems to have hit me in the face right now that the last two shifts occurred when I was just observing formless and form without conceptualizing formless (1st shift-7th jhana) and form (2nd shift-2nd jhana). Why does this insight seem so new?

Gotta love an insight face slap!

"@end re:the whole spatiotemporal thingy - you mean sometimes there is a clinging to phenomena, as opposed to "just seeing"?"

I mean that when there is clinging (and everything related to it), the whole complex of stuff, including the mental representation, is experienced somewhere in the experiential field that relates to the phenomenon one is clinging to.

So, for another example, if one gets cut, the mental representation of it occurs in the same location as the pain does...i.e. it is experienced on the wound.

"Gotta love an insight face slap!"

Indeed.

"... the whole complex of stuff, including the mental representation, is experienced somewhere in the experiential field that relates to the phenomenon one is clinging to."


Meaning, I can only presume, that if one is clinging to an itch in one's leg the clinging will be to a perceived itch in one's leg.

When "clinging" becomes "spatiotemporally extended mental representations" then something is going to get lost the communication. I think we would all do well to simplify and clarify the way we talk about and describe these things. Overly complex descriptions are of little or no help to folks who are trying to learn how to practice.

"However, if you want to look closer without pursuing a "vibration-oriented" practice style, you can notice

1) that there is tension in various parts of your body, especially along the midline of the body, especially during emotional or excited moments,
2) that when tension is noticed, sense-experience is not noticed..."

Just to focus on one thing at a time, are you saying this tension is not a sense-experience, but something different?

"Just to focus on one thing at a time, are you saying this tension is not a sense-experience, but something different? "

As far as I have seen, the tension is *not* a sense-experience and *not* vedana.

The simplest form of evidence is simply to notice that sense-experience is not noticed in the split-second when tension is noticed.

A more complicated way to observe this (but extremely revealing) is to cultivate a great deal of pleasure as preparation for jhana...the pleasure can be quite intense, but it never "overwrites" the tension...the tension will continue to be noticed, a split-second after the pleasure is noticed.

""... the whole complex of stuff, including the mental representation, is experienced somewhere in the experiential field that relates to the phenomenon one is clinging to."


Meaning, I can only presume, that if one is clinging to an itch in one's leg the clinging will be to a perceived itch in one's leg."

The clinging will be *experienced* where the itch is experienced. (In this case, I understand "clinging" to be the sense of attention focused on the itch, which is not the mental representation overlaid on the itch.)

That is why the clause about spatiotemporal extension is important.

Something can be sensed but is not a sense experience? Yet it is "noticed?"

"
Something can be sensed but is not a sense experience? Yet it is "noticed?"

"

To be absolutely clear, I will rephrase:

"The clinging will be *experienced* where the itch is experienced. (In this case, I understand "clinging" to be the experience that is referred to as "attention focused on the itch", which is not the mental representation overlaid on the itch.)"

There are many things that are experienced (and noticed) but are not sense-experiences.

That tension thing I don't get. If there is tension it is a muscular tension or tingling or whatever, therefore simply something sensed through the six senses, no? Is tension the wrong word? Is it a thought?

This is an interesting conversation with implications beyond "mere theory", as Nick's a-ha moment demonstrates, so I hope everyone continues to play this out.

Two suggestions:

One: I think some clarification of terms *is* needed, because, Chris and End, I think you are using the terms representation and mind in two different ways (both legitimate... just more descriptions... but best to line them up).

My paraphrasing my impressions of what you guys mean, please correct or question as you see fit:

Chris: Mind= that which performs the operations which process (X, whatever X is) into *all experiences*--- sights, sounds, smells, textures, thoughts, all of it is represented/mediated. Chris' representation: any mediated phenomena, i.e., all phenomena. (So perhaps only the "nature" of phenomena is unmediated? is there anything unmediated in or about experience in your view chris?)

End: Mind = the sixth sense consciousness Representation = something (the only thing, End?) that this 6th consciousness does, both at extremely subtle levels (perceptual representations, superimposed on the other senses) and at higher levels, up to and including complex "inner" phenomena like linguistic labels and minds-eye images

2nd suggestion: I think the emerging group-recognition that there are radically different5 practice styles resulting in different experiences of the path but generally leading to similar (degrees, if perhaps not kinds) of subjective satisfaction, freedom from suffering, etc) is important here. The hint that certain approaches, perhaps micro-oriented (Vipassana), to *technique* produce a vibraty experience, while more macro-oriented approaches (Zen, Vajrayana) do not tend to produce that vibraty thing in the same way. It's like quantum mechanics VS relativistic astrophysics.

"That tension thing I don't get. If there is tension it is a muscular tension or tingling or whatever, therefore simply something sensed through the six senses, no? Is tension the wrong word? Is it a thought? "

Most of what gets called "muscular tension" is a mental representation overlaid onto sense-experience...a mental representation which is much more compelling than the sense-experience, so the sense-experience is barely noticed, or (frequently) not noticed at all.

In my experience, tingling sensations can be split into two parts: vedana (pleasant / unpleasant neutral), and non-sensory stuff (the most salient component being mental representation). The non-sensory stuff is what tingles, and it is more compelling than the vedana that it is overlaid onto, so the vedana is barely noticed, or (frequently) not noticed at all.

I believe all these things (tensions, tingling, etc.) are considered "fabrications" (sankhara) in Pali Buddhism.

The fact is, though, Jake, that even though you, for example, can get quite geeked-out in your discussions (enough to require several readings on occasion!), I rarely don't understand what you are saying. I have talked to people from a wide variety of backgrounds and practice styles, and rarely do I really not get what they are talking about. But I really, truly, don't understand what EndInSight is saying, and I'd like to figure out if I'm just really dense or it's just so far from my experience I can't grok it or what. And honestly, meditation and awakening and so forth are not benefitted by unnecessary complexity. Actually, maybe that really does benefit people who thrive on complexity, and I am not one of them. So if it comes to that, I'll stop trying to understand and go to bed.

"As far as I have seen, the tension is *not* a sense-experience and *not* vedana."

Yes, this is also what I see. The tension that 'seems' to be vedana is actually mental. I like to call it 'mental wrestling'. One can see vedana in vedana without that tension there. It is due to not seeing vedana in vedana that the mind evaluates the vedana as good, bad, meh! for 'me' and compounds a mood or tension over it. This is how i see it thus far in my experience.

When vedana in the chest which is unpleaant arises, I will become aware of any 'mental wrestling'. This movement to wrestle with the vedana seems like the mind not wanting to look head on at the vedana but it seems to 'turn away' from it. This leads to tension and/or mood forming which overlays the vedana. But one can train the mind to notice this tension and and notice the vedana and notice that vedana is experienced as bare sensation, then overlapped by mental tension, then bare sensation then overlapped with mental tension and so on and on fairly quickly giving the impression that the vedana is the cause of the tension. It is the mental reaction towards the vedana that is at fault. One can train the mind to develop equanimity towards the vedana and tension till it passes due to lack of fuel (ignorance leading to craving the vedana's cessation due to aversion).

Or one can 'hack' the vedana's reading and see it as 'pleasant' as opposed to unpleasant or viceversa, thus changing the 'mood' that spins off of the vedana.

Or one can look at the mental wrestling part instead of the vedana, (or both at the same time) which seems to be linked to the attention bouncing from vedana to middle of the brain back and forth very fast.

These are all my own observations so far.



No absolutes.

A mental representation is sensed just as much as a physical sensation is sensed. See Jake's description of Mind as a sixth sense -- which I agree entirely with, by the way. I also agree with the other definition of Mind, as both are true, thus:

"is there anything unmediated in or about experience in your view chris?"

Anything experienced is mediated by mind.

"End: Mind = the sixth sense consciousness Representation = something (the only thing, End?) that this 6th consciousness does, both at extremely subtle levels (perceptual representations, superimposed on the other senses) and at higher levels, up to and including complex "inner" phenomena like linguistic labels and minds-eye images

2nd suggestion: I think the emerging group-recognition that there are radically different5 practice styles resulting in different experiences of the path but generally leading to similar (degrees, if perhaps not kinds) of subjective satisfaction, freedom from suffering, etc) is important here. The hint that certain approaches, perhaps micro-oriented (Vipassana), to *technique* produce a vibraty experience, while more macro-oriented approaches (Zen, Vajrayana) do not tend to produce that vibraty thing in the same way. It's like quantum mechanics VS relativistic astrophysics. "

In this case, by "mental representation" I mean an experience that has certain cognitive features ("representation") built in, which is specifically not mediated by the sixth sense-consciousness (according to the way that Pali Buddhism defines that sense-consciousness).

By "mind", I am happy to go with Chris' definition.

"The tension that 'seems' to be vedana is actually mental."

This is where the confusion comes in. Anything that can be recognized, felt, experienced, has to be sensed or noticed (to use EIS's term). It cannot be otherwise. The mind is a sense organ as much as it is a processor (referring to Jake's nice post #42), so why are we making a distinction and saying that tension is not sensed when it obviously is? How else would we know it existed?

@Nick So this tension is attraction or aversion to sense-experiences? Same idea as clinging, aversion, grasping, rejection or other terms often used in meditation practice? It's not a physical tension, right?