Inside and Outside - Duality or Not?

I think it is appropriate and necessary to use specific terms to make these fine distinctions as Nick, EIS, and others are doing, and not simply generalize them all together as "experience".

Maybe it's useful to say some people aren't trying to be this precise in their practice, but I think it eventually is necessary in vipassana to be this precise.

Maybe these distinctions are mainly useful for people working on higher paths, and may not be immediately noticeable or useful for those pre-path. I think it's useful to make a distinction between the eight particular consciousnesses, especially if we are getting into the fine points of dependent origination.

( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses )

When I saw the first page of this thread, I was going to mention that we should make a distinction between sems and the manas consciousness because it seemed that they were being confused / muddled. But, someone pointed that out already, thanks! =]

I don't think this is adding unnecessary complexity, I think that the language just needs to be very precise to remove ambiguity, dependent origination is a complex process involving many factors. For those who are able to discern these fine points, these precise discussions can be very useful, and even for those who can't can lead them to looking into the terms and studying some finer points that will become useful later for them.

If we generalize this stuff too much, then our descriptions eventually lose coherency, and logical conflict appears in our "map". So for the sake of coherency and clarity, I think using specialized terms is appropriate, even if people who aren't familiar with the terms end up looking them up. If the teaching is being directed at a beginner, then maybe things should be initially simplified!

metta!

Justin

(edited to add link)

"Please don't take this the wrong way but this may be putting the cart before the horse. From observing all the conversations here over time is it possible their unwillingness to participate is caused by the daunting and often confusing language you tend to use, EndInSight? I would suggest that you consider the possibility. Engaging with you tends to lead to a lot of... complexity, let's say. Most people here probably aren't willing to bring an electron microscope to the conversation

"

These guys got me to look more closely in my practice by being very specific and precise, and asking me to do the same. [=

Again, this might not be suitable for everyone's temperament, or style of practice, but I think there's some place on the forums for these types of discussions.

"re: #1, if I notice tension it is merely sense-experience - some kind of body sensation. I don't notice sense-experience not being noticed when tension is noticed, because I can't differentiate tension from sense-experience. "

You may need to invest a bit of time in trying to see this.

Have you read MCTB? What do you think of Daniel's claim in it that after every moment of sense-experience, the sense-experience completely disappears, and then there is a moment of mental knowing? He is pointing at this (minus the specific details about tension etc.).

"If i redefine tension as attraction-aversion, as might possibly be what is meant by "tension","

I actually use language that is as literal as I can make it..."tension" means "tension".

"For the sake of argument, I just stomped on my arthritic left toe as hard as I could. My eyes squeezed shut for a moment, I exhaled sharply, and then I began laughing. "

Were you able to distinguish the sensation of pain (vedana on the toe) from the mental overlay (tingling vibratory unpleasant stuff on the toe)?

""If i redefine tension as attraction-aversion, as might possibly be what is meant by "tension",""

Another comment...Kenneth's stage 6 (and Kenneth's Direct Mode practice) made it very clear to me that a great deal of what I previously considered "attraction-aversion" was some kind of experience tied in with my body rather than some kind of mental disposition.

With that in mind, I would highly recommend Direct Mode as a foundation for seeing what I'm talking about regarding tension.

"EDIT: Do you think that the experience of the snapshots, in itself, in the very moment a snapshot is experienced, is different between a person who is "awake" and a person who is not?"

Well, yes, it would have to be I guess! There seems to be (at least) two ways this can be different:

1) Due to having developed the habit (of noticing/discerning the phenomenal difference between re-presentation and presentation), eventually when the snapshot is taken, after an (eventually) infinitesimal gap, the discernment kicks in and sort of neutralizes it, by disbelieving it or de-reifying it.

2) in the moment of arising, it arises without bamboozling pure consciousness or what have you at all... it's not reified at all... it's just part of the live feed, and never presents as if it were the context for the live feed.

People who practice more micro-oriented seem to go with 1) and often report things like: everything is rapidly vibrating in and out of existence, experience is made of discrete moments occurring very rapidly, etc. I have a *bit* of experience with this, and I'm inclined to think things appear this way due to a certain way of looking, because I see that "flickering" more as characterizing representations than presentations, which seem quite stable if utterly insubstantial

more macro-oriented practice seems conducive to 2), based on the insight that the basic nature of experience and consciousness is the same in both presentation and representation (because r-p's *are* merely presented). All experiences are equal, and in light of this insight there's no problem to be solved, as without reifying representations (i.e., ignorance), there's no reactive emotions (although there can still be imagination, for instance).

(con't)

(con't)
Also, I think both approaches are like the yin-yang: to be effective, they have to include a "dot" of their opposite. Otherwise the danger is 1) can become an endless process of "cutting suffering/ignorance in half"-- discernment without nonduality/no-problem view becomes like Zeno's paradox. You can cut suffering and ignorance in half for a long time, maybe for ever. Perhaps at some point one following this path just needs to *let it go* and see that all phenomena have the same taste--- there's literally nothing but actuality, suchness, and all supposed affect or shadow-affect or whatever has that same taste (although it can seem not to, because it *imagines it has another taste*-- that of ignorance, what have you) [just speculating here, but I wonder what you and Nick think about this? For instance, is shadow-felicity possible?]

The danger with 2) is, lacking discernment, one can fail to develop the momentum in practice needed for breaking free (to whatever degree) from the habitual reification of representations. At least a *dot* of discernment is necessary to really begin authentic practice, in the sense that authentic practice is *based on* an initial awakening, and cultivates what was seen therein. Otherwise a person inclined to 2) can totally *not get* the need for practice... at least, until the discrepancy between their moments of clarity and their baseline doofus "self" becomes an issue for discernment

In my "micro-oriented practice", I found that instances where things appeared to be as you say about 2), were actually instances of 1), where the snapshots are considered "non-reified" after the fact, except this is not noticed at the time. Investigating further, I found that this was because the snapshots are self-reifying (they are dualistic cognition in themselves...dualistic cognition is not produced as a further reaction to them).

The remedy for this that I found was a) remove the snapshots for a while and use that experience as a standard to judge future purported instances of 2) by, and / or b) more micro-oriented discernment.

As you claim that things are otherwise, I would be interested in asking about the details.

"Perhaps at some point one following this path just needs to *let it go* and see that all phenomena have the same taste--- there's literally nothing but actuality, suchness, and all supposed affect or shadow-affect or whatever has that same taste (although it can seem not to, because it *imagines it has another taste*-- that of ignorance, what have you)"

Actually, this is something that I thought was true in the past (before adopting a serious meditation practice), but at this point I am inclined to think this impression (that snapshots and suchness are fundamentally the same) is an impression that the snapshots, in their dualistic way, are responsible for creating...and the impression of what the one taste that everything shares is, is quite different when there are no snapshots.

"For instance, is shadow-felicity possible?"

In my best estimation, felicity is just piti / sukha + a non-aggravated attention wave...Richard says that felicity leads to PCEs, the suttas say that the jhana factors lead to an experience in which sensuality does not arise, and I confirm that the jhana factors make it possible to reduce the attention wave.

"All experiences are equal, and in light of this insight there's no problem to be solved, as without reifying representations (i.e., ignorance), there's no reactive emotions (although there can still be imagination, for instance)."

Well, as I have seen it, the representations / snapshots are, in their gross forms, reactive emotions, and in their subtle forms, some kind of generic unpleasantness, so I personally don't see that "reifying representations" as a further step beyond experiencing them has anything to do with reactive emotions (though actively believing the representations tends to exaggerate the reactive emotions).

And this is despite the technical 4th path "all experiences are equal" insight. They are all equal. They're just experiences. And yet, some can be classified, for ease of understanding, as defilements.

Hmm, interesting!

Well, I certainly don't claim to know all and everything about my own or anyone else's practice. The notion that there is an actual ontological duality between two kinds of experiences simply doesn't gain any traction for me, but if that's what your investigations show you, then so be it! Every time I've thought I understood the "two kinds of experience" wherein one was good/right/true and the other was bad/wrong/untrue turned out to be itself an instance of a reified dualism. But I'm not done cookin', so I'm not closing any doors or making any absolute claims.

Two different definitions of 'duality' seem to be occurring here. We probably won't and don't need to resolve the debate between Theravada and Mahayana in this thread. I suspect they represent two valid but radically different ways of approaching things, and am willing to grant that your way of going about it and the things you discover are completely valid, although I seem to see things differently!

"The notion that there is an actual ontological duality between two kinds of experiences simply doesn't gain any traction for me, but if that's what your investigations show you, then so be it!"

I am not talking about an ontological duality (it is generally the Mahayana perspective that is interested in the question of ontology in the first place, and I don't indulge that perspective very often), but a duality in terms of quality...some experiences are inherently unpleasant and linked to dualistic cognition, whereas others are not, and the category of unpleasant experiences under discussion include the impression "all experiences are all ontologically the same, and their sameness is in their all being X"...hence, my claim that, without them, the way in which experiences are seen to be the same is quite different.

"Two different definitions of 'duality' seem to be occurring here."

Yes, there is experiential dualism (dualistic cognition) and something that might be called "classification dualism". The former is what I've said is problematic, and the latter (the view that some experiences are inherently dualistic forms of cognition) is something I endorse...not as an ontological position, but simply as an observation about the qualities of experiences.

" (it is generally the Mahayana perspective that is interested in the question of ontology in the first place, and I don't indulge that perspective very often),"

Too many preconceived notions... if you had actually practiced in a Mahayana lineage for a significant amount of time, I would be more inclined to discuss this with you.

We could go back and forth saying "no 2) is really a failure to understand 1)" and "no 1) is really a failure to understand 2)" but that would be boring!

Take care

"Too many preconceived notions... if you had actually practiced in a Mahayana lineage for a significant amount of time, I would be more inclined to discuss this with you."

You (the Mahayana-influenced practitioner) brought up ontology, whereas I (the Pali sutta-oriented practitioner) was not thinking about it in those terms prior to that point.

"Take care "

You too! I find these discussions very interesting, despite some kind of apparent divide that seems difficult to surmount.

Jake, your distinction of two forms of practice makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

"Jake, your distinction of two forms of practice makes a lot of sense. Thanks."

You're welcome, and I see no reason even to limit it to two

""Too many preconceived notions... if you had actually practiced in a Mahayana lineage for a significant amount of time, I would be more inclined to discuss this with you."

You (the Mahayana-influenced practitioner) brought up ontology, whereas I (the Pali sutta-oriented practitioner) was not thinking about it in those terms prior to that point.

"Take care "

You too! I find these discussions very interesting, despite some kind of apparent divide that seems difficult to surmount."

I find it interesting too, which is why I engage. Maybe after I have some breakfast I'll come back to it... maybe not!

BTW, what I meant by "too many preconceived..." was just that, I'm not sure we are using the word "ontological" in the same way. But NVM for now

"I find it interesting too, which is why I engage. Maybe after I have some breakfast I'll come back to it... maybe not!"

We could move to a more practice-oriented level, if you like...if you are able to cultivate a lot of pleasure while sitting, and then notice a sensory experience (such as the anapana spot), you may find that sensory experiences becomes "clearer" and dualistic cognition lessens. There are many levels of this, and with some practice, you can go back and forth between less / more dualistic cognition...you can examine how the perception of "One Taste" changes (likely gets stronger) as dualistic cognition is lessened, but also how the impression of what that "One Taste" *is* changes or doesn't change in relation to the magnitude of dualistic cognition as well.

"BTW, what I meant by "too many preconceived..." was just that, I'm not sure we are using the word "ontological" in the same way."

My use of the word "inherent" (which may be responsible for any miscommunication) was meant like this: if you see a white object, the perception of whiteness does not require any further thing for it to be white...the color white (as a sense-experience) is inherently white. Similarly, if you have a moment of dualistic cognition, there is no further thing required for it to be dualistic...dualistic cognition is inherently dualistic cognition. (EDIT: i.e. "inherent" simply means "it is precisely what it is". It is not about the "nature" of the thing, but simply a restatement that it has whatever experiential qualities that it has.)

read over thread again, after sitting for an hour investigating some of this stuff. thanks chris, and everyone, for the inspiration and clarity! *gratitude* ^__^

Justin

"... you can examine how the perception of "One Taste" changes (likely gets stronger) as dualistic cognition is lessened, but also how the impression of what that "One Taste" *is* changes or doesn't change in relation to the magnitude of dualistic cognition as well."

In simpler terms, as a dualistic (relative) experience fades your non-dual (absolute) experience may strengthen, or vice versa.

"if you see a white object, the perception of whiteness does not require any further thing for it to be white...the color white (as a sense-experience) is inherently white. Similarly, if you have a moment of dualistic cognition, there is no further thing required for it to be dualistic...dualistic cognition is inherently dualistic cognition. (EDIT: i.e. "inherent" simply means "it is precisely what it is". It is not about the "nature" of the thing, but simply a restatement that it has whatever experiential qualities that it has.)"

In simpler terms, the experience of the color white is the experience of the color white, just as a dualistic experience is a dualistic experience.

"read over thread again, after sitting for an hour investigating some of this stuff. thanks chris, and everyone, for the inspiration and clarity! *gratitude* -- Justin

What did you learn, Justin? I'm really very curious about how this conversation plays in Peoria

Thanks!

"Also, I think both approaches are like the yin-yang: to be effective, they have to include a "dot" of their opposite. Otherwise the danger is 1) can become an endless process of "cutting suffering/ignorance in half"-- discernment without nonduality/no-problem view becomes like Zeno's paradox. You can cut suffering and ignorance in half for a long time, maybe for ever. Perhaps at some point one following this path just needs to *let it go* and see that all phenomena have the same taste--- there's literally nothing but actuality, suchness, and all supposed affect or shadow-affect or whatever has that same taste (although it can seem not to, because it *imagines it has another taste*-- that of ignorance, what have you) [just speculating here, but I wonder what you and Nick think about this? For instance, is shadow-felicity possible?]"


Jake, this is a very good issue to raise. I had almost exactly this conversation with Kenneth Folk just a few days ago. There is a tendency for folks who get deeply into practice to make very stark distinctions (is/is not, self/no self, suffering/no suffering) but in practice the universe does not present that way. Without revealing too much I will say that Kenneth has come to this same realization -- that shades of grey predominate and yet we tend to default to the stark language to make our points. Thus we can continue the confusion.

You can chase minute phenomena into oblivion but the returns are not there after a certain point. They are diminishing returns. And yes, all experience is of the same taste, which is both relative and absolute. Unless we can just let go of the investigating after a certain juncture, we can miss the larger point, the macro point. People can use both types of practice and do not need to chose one over the other. In fact, I suspect those who have some experience of both are likely to see this.

" People can use both types of practice and do not need to chose one over the other. In fact, I suspect those who have some experience of both are likely to see this.

"

Yes, it seems that this boils down to personal experience and inclination. I'm not discounting the possibility that some people can go "all the way" in one of these directions, but I do doubt that this can be done without at some point shifting to allow the "seed" of the other perspective to fertilize the practice. I really think these are poles of a spectrum, and neither extreme actually exists.

Descriptions tend to focus on one side or the other for practical reasons and due to the very nature of descriptions, which is to leave a lot out. What is left out-- and thus what any given description emphasizes-- depends on the context, the practical or poetic purpose of the description.

When reified descriptions become dogmatic, which is the same in my view as reifying a representation. In my view, a representation or description needn't include a "visual" or "image" component either. Simply verbally describing "there is a glass" without any images is also a description, representation, and can be reified or not. If it is, one actually believes "there is a glass". If it's not, one doesn't believe it, and still remains sensitive to the nameless, naked phenomena that is uncategorized. And one can drink from the glass or wash it without ever describing these acts or the glass; these descriptions, reified or not, are not strictly necessary for functioning. Likewise, eliminating all representation is not necessary for becoming free. That's my current take on it!

Yes, inclination and personal experience. There are many different practices that lead to different results. Experience talking to others, reading about their experiences and their practices, watching other traditions with respect -- this all makes it very clear that we have our choices to make and those choices should be respected.

"What did you learn, Justin? I'm really very curious about how this conversation plays in Peoria

Thanks!

"

Hey Chris!

Peoria? I'm from Pittsburgh! [=

It's hard for me to pin down in words, at the moment, but several things in this thread have struck a chord for me.

First off, recognizing that cognition is non-local, neither here nor there, and how the sense of time / location of certain perceptions dependently originates, as a mental overlay struck me in a way it hadn't before today for some reason.

Both your description, as well as Nick's and EIS's very detailed descriptions, together directed me to put together previous insights in a way I haven't before.

Nicks post #26 directs me to recalling what in hindsight appears to be some pivotal insight in my practice. I was outside practicing staring at the grass / sidewalk while counting breaths in May, when my attention went through various focuses, finally the whole sense field appeared holographic, and there was no imputing of space, no overlaying / dualistic splitting of separate self, just direct sense impression of the entire sense field.

"Hmm, End, both my shifts happened when there was no classifying. Maybe it is key." +1 there for me!

Since then I seem to be cycling and have access to jhana that I didn't have access to previously. I haven't been practicing noting formally very often since then, yet this hasn't left me. I have mostly been doing direct mode since then, and some samatha.

This thread sort of brings together insights from direct mode and filtered mode in a novel way for me.

It also makes me realize how much room for improvement I have when it comes to clarity and precision in noting and so inspires me to pick that back up with more frequency.

Thanks guys!

metta!

Justin

That's good to know! Thanks, Justin.

I do agree that at some point in our practice we don't gain much more from investigating the minutia, and must learn to integrate and abide with reality directly as it is, once we reach that point, not that I am at that point personally...

It just follows naturally that filtered mode necessarily includes suffering to some degree, and that after a certain point one would naturally incline to rest in the natural state ( rigpa ) once that has been stabilized / recognized.

It also appears clear that for me there need not be any conflict between recognizing each mode or perspective as valid and useful. I think in a book focusing on non-dual practice I was reading recently, it said something along the lines that sems ( dualistic mind ) is eventually dissolved in rigpa. :]

But for me I feel fortunate to be able to do all of these practices, whether it be getting into the nuts and bolts of dependent origination, or non-dual practice whatever axis we want to work on is valid for us!

^__^

edited ( clarity ) =x