Is the experience of the mind continuous or discontinuous?

Phenomena appear to rise and pass and other than voids of consciousness appear to continuously be present. Rapid fire noting may create a flipbook type effect, but is it actually discontinuous? Does anyone have clear insight or pointers to references on this topic?

I think it is perceived that way at times, and that perception is a natural part of the process of unfolding insight and there's nothing wrong with it as such. However ultimately that proposes a duality: "phenomena" vs "the void", no?

At the moment I think I'd say rather that "voidness/emptiness of intrinsic essence" is simply a quality of experience/phenomena, not a thing in itself from which phenomena arise or a space in between phenomena. If one is "experiencing a void between phenomena" that is also a phenomenon and is also empty of intrinsic essence.

Thoughts?

I have to agree with giragirasol on this one. Though not exactly 'quality' but the 'nature'. Emptiness should not be understood as some substratum of things.

If you don't already know, this one is great (and similar to how my insights unfold): awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/...s-of-experience.html

I think AlexWeith's Bahiya Sutta thread here is also very good: kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/47...+of+the+Bahiya+Sutta

I see that this line of questioning is very similar to not realizing that "the mirror is nothing more than an arising thought" to quote "Thusness's Seven Stages of Experience".

I wanted to pose it in case there was some aspect of experience I was missing. A clear continuous vs discontinuous experience of the mind might point to a sort of essence that is non-conceptual and could be directly experienced.

By the way, I find this to be a much more useful map than the MCTB paths. Thanks for the link!

Folks get confused between the *experience* of reality and what they believe to be some underlying *real* reality. The process we do here, our practice, is solely about the experience. That's all we've got to work with

Different people progress differently owing to different forms of practice. Because I did not practice noting or mctb style vipassana, the 16 nanas and 4 paths don't apply to me and Thusness, I do not see much correlation with my experience. And the "I AM" and so on may not apply to Daniel's map. However Daniel's 4th path may be related to Thusness's 1st stanza of anatta (see latter link), while he later entered into AF because AF emphasizes the 2nd stanza of anatta, however AF does not teach 1st stanza. On the other hand, I and Thusness enter through 2nd stanza then later discover the 1st, so it is a different path. Therefore we should not assume that every map lines up with one another, what I have found is that all maps are actually very different even though there are overlapping areas. While one map may resonate with ourself, it may not resonate with another, and vice versa. That doesn't mean however that there won't be overlapping areas or some fundamental insights that are essential.

Next. Although there is non-duality in Advaita Vedanta, and no-self in Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta rest in an 'Ultimate Background' (making it dualistic - I AM phase) - even if Awareness is seen as inseparable from the known (substantial non-duality, Thusness Stage 4), there is still this distinction between substraum (unchanging) and phenomenon (discontinuous), whereas Buddhism eliminates the background completely and rest in the emptiness nature of phenomena; arising and ceasing is where pristine awareness is. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change. There is nothing unchanging, everything is disjoint but there is a causal continuity - owing to previous causes the current manifestation appears, and there is no agent or linking self behind manifestation. And there must be this realization of anatta (especially the first stanza - awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/...and-spontaneous.html ) to see this disjoint, unsupported, insubstantial, bubble-like and groundless aspect of phenomena, without a linking self. This is not just an experience from noting but a permanent realization of the way things are.

Lastly emptiness has twofold. One is emptiness of self (I call it anatta), related to Thusness Stage 5, "mirror is no other than an arising thought", or Alex Weith's thread on Bahiya Sutta, or Kenneth's Seveth Stage of Enligthenment. The other is emptiness of objects.

Although the Buddha taught emptiness of objects in a number of suttas like Phena Sutta, the Theravadin commentarial tradition did not teach about this, instead they teach anatta while retaining the view of dharmas as having some intrinsic existence. The Mahayana teachings however emphasize both emptiness. We teach that Arhats having mastered the anatta (emptiness of self) realization and experience can attain nirvana, freedom from suffering and afflictions. However, a Bodhisattva and a Buddha must also perfect realization of both emptinesses, in order to not only remove afflictive obscurations (resulting in arhatship) but also knowledge obscurations that prevent omniscience. Realization of both emptiness also presents a deeper degree of freedom and liberation.

In regard to "two kinds:" of emptiness, they appear the same to me as self is just another object. If one can see the emptiness in self one can see the emptiness of all objects, and vice versa. Maybe the difference lies in the "specialness" that human beings seem to assign to the sense of having a self at the center of experience, and that this innate assumption requires a different "oomph" to realize.