Discernment challenge 😎

[karl_lew]

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

1 - How does consciousness become particular when your senses are contacted?

When the birds sing the sutta disappears.
When the sutta is heard the birds disappear.
Simply attending, the birds and sutta appear.

[DCM]

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

Now just try and be more accurate in your description i.e what is exactly is meant by perception of consciousness?
If the aggregates are in the background? Maybe they are not?

I have a mental picture of consciousness which is bubble like, it then seems to split out to each sense when the sense is contacted.
Well, contact, feeling, perception, form are included in namarupa so can be particular with consciousness in the background, determining them.

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

In the suttas, the Buddha describes the aggregates in a particular order, that order is structural.
Form, feeling, perception, determinations, consciousness.
Where are you in this structure? Try to describe where you are in relation to these things…

I don’t know, there seems to be a lot of ME’s, which is nonsensical, as I seem to be any of the aggregates, whichever is particular and prominent in my experience. It’s the sense of self, which is dependent on the aggregates, which means it cannot be some independent, permanent self.

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

What is determining this here your experience of ’ feeling, perceiving, attending, intending’ ?

Consciousness

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

What determines that which determines this here your experience of ‘ feeling, perceiving, attending, intending ’?

Name

[DCM]

@Mat

This is what’s called the ‘ghana sanna’- seeing nama Rupa and vinnana, compounded.

Hi Mat, I haven’t come across the term ‘ghana’ before, could you elaborate more please? Thanks.

[Thaniyo_Bhikkhu]

@karl_lew

When the birds sing the sutta disappears.
When the sutta is heard the birds disappear.
Simply attending, the birds and sutta appear.

I see you are describing certain aspects of attention.
When the bird’s song is heard, that is were your attention is placed, and the sound of the sutta, which is happening at the same time as the birds, is no longer attended to.
And so you can switch from one attended thing to another.
However, if one were to attend to one thing, the birds, then suttasound(if it is present) do not disappear(you might be using this word poetically?), the suttasound is still heard by the ear in the background even though you might be attending the birds in particular.
It is still heard by the ear, and you can know this because there is an option for you to attend the suttasound again.

Sounds are happening and the ear is operating, that sense door is open and I cannot close it, for even if I blocked the ear, I hear silence, the absence of sound but still the ear is operating.

By your placement of the word ‘simply attention’ i would say that you mean to describe attending to a more general phenomenon, which is ‘bird-and-sutta’, not just a more particular thing such as just ‘bird’.
You can then go even further or more general and attend to ‘sound-in-general’, and by doing so the particular sounds will be pushed in the distance, you will still hear them peripherally.
If I were to attend to that more general phenomenon or develop the recognition of it, then I can enter and remain in it while multiple sounds are there in the background.
But if I attend solely on the sound in general, I lose that peripheral awareness of the ‘distant’ particular sounds, and am lost in sound-in-general…which isn’t any use, because as soon as a particular sound which ear wants occurs in the distance, that is what will pull attention away from that more general phenomenon of hearing/sound ie I am overpowered by the ear.

However, if attention is placed on the ‘general hearing’ without losing awareness of that because of which I can even attend to the general hearing in the first place i.e particular sounds;
Then, I can developing the imperturbable, so to speak,
I am not moved or bothered by particular sounds, because I have the general hearing phenomenon developed, through this ‘special’ way of attending i.e attending to a general phenomenon while not losing sight of the particulars in the distance. (yoniso manasikara). MN106
(One is neither too far into the background or the foreground, but instead develops a peripheral awareness which keeps both in view i.e the middle way i.e right view.)

It could be done also in the other way round.
I can attend to a particular sound while not losing awareness(not attention) of that background phenomenon, ‘the-hearing-in-general’. And still, I can develop the imperturbable because no other particular sound will disturb me because this peripheral awareness connects to the larger perspective while I am attending a particular.

Either way, I am connected to the background of whatever is in the foreground of attention. The background can either be the general or particular phenomenon and likewise with the foreground. The foreground is what is being attended to, the background is what I am peripherally aware of.

If this principle is developed, one can see that one can develop/recognise an even more general phenomenon than the previous i.e the phenomenon of perception/sanna, and on account of that, be imperturbable in regards to whatever perception arises on a more particular level.

In that way, one go even higher and higher, or more general, step by step backwards, so to speak.MN111

No matter how high one gets or general one goes, it can only be done on the bases of partcular.
The general is determined by the PARTICULAR;
The particular is determined by the GENERAL.
The BACKGROUND is determined by and determines the foreground;
The foreground is determined by and determines the BACKGROUND.
Developing that ‘special’ attention (yoniso manasikara), one develops/recognises the principle( of paticcasamupada), 'with THIS, this is '…which makes one imperturbable in the most imperturbable imperturbability.

[Viveka]

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

( One is neither too far into the background or the foreground, but instead develops a peripheral awareness which keeps both in view i.e the middle way i.e right view.)

Is this the state of continual mindfulness. Would this be classified as striving, ie is it enough effort to be called constant practice if one does this continually for all 6 senses?

[Thaniyo_Bhikkhu]

@DCM

I have a mental picture of consciousness which is bubble like, it then seems to split out to each sense when the sense is contacted

A mental image is just that. You have an imgination of consciousness…which is determined by consciousness. Is consciousness the mental image?
Is consciousness one thing which then splits up? What position do you take, whereby you can say that that consciousness over there is one and then splits up?
Can you separate yourself from consciousness and analyse it from a position which does not include it?

@DCM

contact, feeling, perception, form are included in namarupa so can be particular with consciousness in the background, determining them.

How do you experience form? Can you experience it without perception?

@DCM

where you are in relation to these things…

I don’t know, there seems to be a lot of ME’s, which is nonsensical, …

You could ask the question " who am I?" or “where is the I?”
But don’t give yourself an answer. Let the question just float there.
Because you cannot find the self in the same way as you find other things.

@DCM

What is determining this here your experience of ’ feeling, perceiving, attending, intending’ ?

Consciousness

And…?

@DCM

What determines that which determines this here your experience of ‘ feeling, perceiving, attending, intending ’?

Name

Name and…? Or nama-……?

[Thaniyo_Bhikkhu]

@Viveka

Is this the state of continual mindfulness

Its the state of right mindfulness.
For as long as that right view is done, to that extent right mindfulness is, to that extent right effort is. (One is then truly striving or actually practising)
By doing it repeatedly, it will take root and become effortless, so to speak, continual, as it were. It takes root and spreads.
The more you dwell on the right view or the more nutrients you give the root, the faster the development (the more of the other factors of the path develop, simultaneously)

@Viveka

is it enough effort to be called constant practice if one does this continually for all 6 senses?

Not exactly sure what you mean.
You can guard all the other senses by guarding one door, the mind, because nothing unwholesome can enter without being welcomed through that door.
Therefore it is essential to be able to discern the sign of the mind (cittanimitta)…because then the work of not doing anything unwholesome is kind of effortless. All one has to do is not do unwholesome or not open the door to the unwholesome. Just sit back relax and don’t open the door.
Of course, it will try all sorts of things to try get in…but it cannot come in unless you open the door and welcome it in. The five sense converge in the mind.

Continually striving means just this, composed/samadhi in guarding the mind. Composed in sammaditthi.

Recognising and developing the right view is the development of sammasamadhi / right composure.
Composed in the right view is right effort.

[Viveka]

Thank you

@Viveka

Would this be classified as striving, ie is it enough effort to be called constant practice if one does this continually for all 6 senses?

Because I don’t have ‘anyone’ to compare to, I wanted to know if this would be thought of as exerting enough effort. I’d hate to be slacking off without being aware of it!

[karl_lew]

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

which makes one imperturbable in the most imperturbable imperturbability.

Yes. And this leads to the fourth line:

Simply attending, emptiness unfolds.

Which is quite difficult, since I am easily distracted.
Well, that’s why we practice.

Thanks for the foreground/background description–it brings to mind the “young woman/old woman” illustration duality. One cannot see both the old woman and the young woman at the same time (i.e., contact is particular). However, with practice one can restrain contact and see just empty black and white shapes.

[Viveka]

You know @Karl I believe that it is possible to see both old woman young woman at the same time… The word “see” is problematic… I believe that what we see is conditioned to such an extent that it actually covers/hides reality. I don’t know how to describe it - sorry.

For your amusement I attach a link to the video of the basketball challenge. This is a decades old psychology experiment - all about discernment Enjoy! though your vision issues may complicate or negate the usual result…

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/tilakkhana-the-3-marks-of-what-exactly/8466/51

[karl_lew]

@Viveka

I believe that it is possible to see both old woman young woman at the same time

Ah! You have greater skill than I!

There is a noticeable “flip” inside my own head.
Yes. I have seen the gorilla/basketball experiment. And I have also noticed just how small my own window of discernment is. There is just so much going on out there that I cannot attend to!

Yet even with my tiny window of contact, of discernment, of attention, I find it useful to meditate “placing the mind”. For example, if I see two people, one more attractive or repulsive than the other, I take the time to glance back and forth and back and forth until equanimity emerges. If I focus on any one person too long, I get caught up in the features and details. But glancing back and forth helps me treat people fairly and with equanimity. All it takes is milliseconds for my mind to get caught, so I glance quickly back and forth.

I heard once the story about how one can keep a bird from flying out of one’s hand by constantly shifting the hand subtly to keep the bird off-balance. This is a bit of like my internal feeling to restrain contact and craving. If the bird flies, I get swept up into existence, lost in features and details.

So I think (?) that I am practicing the first of the three immersions listed in DN33:

• placing the mind and keeping it connected
• not placing the mind, but keeping it connected
• not placing the mind and not keeping it connected

We will see…

[Viveka]

@karl_lew

Ah! You have greater skill than I!

LOL Beware - This is the internet…

I may be hopelessly deluded, only with the gift of words !!

[SarathW1]

@karl_lew

So I think (?) that I am practicing the first of the three immersions listed in DN33:

• placing the mind and keeping it connected
• not placing the mind, but keeping it connected
• not placing the mind and not keeping it connected

Could you explain above?
This is how I understand it

• placing the mind and keeping it connected (Vicara)
• not placing the mind, but keeping it connected ???
  Is this "Placing the mind but not connected. (Vitakka)
• not placing the mind and not keeping it connected (Second Jhana)

[karl_lew]

@SarathW1

Could you explain above?

The Pali in DN33 is:

savitakkasavicāro samādhi, avitakkavicāramatto samādhi, avitakkaavicāro samādhi.

And yes, DN33 and SN43.3 are the only two places for avitakkavicāramatto samādhi
It is unexpected, isn’t it?

I think of the unfamiliar second as just intermediate between the first and the third that we are all used to. What it explains is that in going to second jhana, we slowly relinquish the “placing of the mind” and it stays connected on its own. This is a progression from coarse to fine and simply tells us that “placing” is coarse and will fade first. It’s like stacking rocks. First there is placing, then comes the balancing/connecting. Then there is just connecting/balancing. Then we walk away and the stack stands tall on its own.

What do you think?

[SarathW1]

Interesting.
This is how Abhidhamma five classificaiton of Jhana come from!!

[DCM]

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

A mental image is just that. You have an imgination of consciousness…which is determined by consciousness. Is consciousness the mental image?
Is consciousness one thing which then splits up? What position do you take, whereby you can say that that consciousness over there is one and then splits up?
Can you separate yourself from consciousness and analyse it from a position which does not include it?

Hi Bhante,
No, consciousness is not the mental image, the mental image is a mental image.
My consciousness is the ultimate background, inaccessible, but I cannot separate myself from it, it is already with the sense organs & objects, as I know it must be there for the cognising of sights, smells, taste, etc, it is behind them, mutually determining each other.

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

How do you experience form? Can you experience it without perception?

I cannot experience it directly, only via a perception from touch, sight, smell, etc, it is behind that which informs me it is there. It must be there for me to have the perception, but it is inaccessible.

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

You could ask the question " who am I?" or “where is the I?”
But don’t give yourself an answer. Let the question just float there.
Because you cannot find the self in the same way as you find other things.

I will try.

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

And…?

This body here, without which there would be no experience to talk of.

@Thaniyo_Bhikkhu

Name and…? Or nama-……?

Form, Rupa. Or could even be background intentions?

[Mat]

@DCM

This is what’s called the ‘ghana sanna’- seeing nama Rupa and vinnana, compounded.

Hi Mat, I haven’t come across the term ‘ghana’ before, could you elaborate more

Ghana-sanna refers to an aspect of how we see things, that is, that everything is continuous, and immersive [when it isn’t]. Etymologically the term means solid or in this case compounded, when it is actually made of 6 sense doors, 5 aggregates, 4 elements etc. This suggests that ghana refers to ignorance (avijja) manifesting in the way we see the world as a continuous and immersive and by inference ‘I’ am the person who is being immersed.

It is found in the commentaries, but very useful for explanations of ignorance.

[SarathW1]

@Mat

Ghana-sanna refers to an aspect of how we see things, that is, that everything is continuous, and immersive

Is this the same as Sakkhaya Dithi?

[Mat]

@SarathW1

Ghana-sanna refers to an aspect of how we see things, that is, that everything is continuous, and immersive

Is this the same as Sakkhaya Dithi?

No it’s just a way of expressing the totality of ignorance.

[Thaniyo_Bhikkhu]

@karl_lew

Yes. And this leads to the fourth line:

Simply attending, emptiness unfolds.

Which is quite difficult, since I am easily distracted.
Well, that’s why we practice

Yes, distraction or disturbance will occur if one does not have access to that structural principle that i described above.

@karl_lew

Thanks for the foreground/background description–it brings to mind the “young woman/old woman” illustration duality. One cannot see both the old woman and the young woman at the same time…

I looked up this " old woman/ young women" illustration.
This shows how one can attend to different aspects of perception. So it’s not what i meant by the foreground/background description.
One cannot give direct attention to more than one thing. However, one can still be aware of two things simultaneously, i.e that which you are attending and the background of your attention(which you cannot attend to), or one could attend to sanna in general, but have awareness of the background of that etc

I can attend to the picture, and at the same time, i am aware of the background situation ‘i am attending to a picture’. This dual awareness is not a simple attention if it were, then, ‘emptiness unfolds’ would be a common and easily accessible dwelling.

@karl_lew

However, with practice, one can restrain contact and see just empty black and white shapes

We have a completely different understanding of ‘contact’.
‘Contact’/phassa has already happened, so there is no stepping behind it and restraining it , pausing it or slowing it down. One is ‘contacted’
One’s experiential experience is on the level of phassa, and so you cannot step behind that, and point out its determinations, you can do that in imagination, but that imagination is on the level of phassa. It’s a thought here which is determined by pre-phenomenal elements which one has no direct access to, even in thought, and because one does not know that, that is how those elements are conceived.

You cannot see the ‘coming together of eye and eye-object and the arising of eye-consciousness’ as though you were separated from it. All that one has is the already contacted experience i.e I am seeing. The behind elements which make that possible cannot be attended to, for they are attention’s nutrients/determinations.
All that one must do then, is to not conceive the thoughts ‘about them’ as what they are. One must be able to know them without conceiving them, and that is how they no longer gain a footing, or what is meant by cessation of salayatana, vinnana, and i am contacted/phassa. The conceiving ceases.