Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Phenomenology

What is phenomenology (as used here)

Threads [ Previous | Next ]
What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/17/14 5:07 AM
The term 'phenomenology' is used a lot, especially by psychologists, with seemingly informal meaning.

Is there any discussion here of what it might mean, e.g. how it's used here? Different takes on it and/or formal definitions, traditions?

Having studied a couple of related forms (GFW Hegel's 'Die Phaenomenologie des Geistes', and a couple of key works by Edmund Husserl), I often don't get a firm idea of what others mean when they use the term -- it seems really fuzzy.

The only place in dhamma-studies I've found a note-worthy application of what I recognize as phenomenology is in Alexander Piatigorsky's 'The Philosophy of Buddhist Thought'. -- anyone else delved into that work (it's not easy).

Chris Macie

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/17/14 9:52 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.
In terms of the practical use of the term to assist with actual meditation practice, phenominology is used to describe the four aspects of mind: sensations, feelings, emotions, and thoughts. This is specific to understanding and performing good noting practice.

Sensations are body sensations (warmth, tingling, aches, pressure, etc.), feeling is the nature of the "pull" of something (attraction, aversion, neutral), emotions have more meaning than feeling (happiness, anticipation, joy, bliss, terror, fear, openness, clarity), and thoughts are the bundles of different kinds of thinking (relationship thoughts, business thoughts, practicing thoughts, judging thoughts, analyzing thoughts, etc.). The point here is to get familiar with all of these aspects of experience in a very direct way. 

If people want to get the most out of mediation advice, practice journals, diagnosis of where they are on the maps, then the only reliable way to get that kind of feedback is to describe their practice in phenominological terms. Most of the time people will present their own analyses, rationales, etc. but to get clear feedback, the person needs to describe what happens to them as they sit (over time if relevant) in terms of what arises as sensations, feeling, emotions, and thoughts.

Hope that helps in a practical way. 

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/17/14 1:28 PM as a reply to x x.
I don't have a sophisticated definition - basically just first "person" experience of phenomenon. 

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/18/14 12:22 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.
I tend to use it to mean the sensations themselves, the colors, the textures, the sounds, as well as things like the energetic aspects, the vibrations, the frequencies of sensations, as well as things like the patterns of those sensations, such as a pulse followed by a mental impression, that sort of thing, as well as things related to the stages of insight and the standard criteria for those and jhanas, as well as things like the set up to things, the entrance and exit experiences that relate to events that are hard to comprehend, and the like. That helpful? It is the raw data that we use to create maps and interpretations of our experiences.

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/18/14 2:46 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
I tend to use it to mean the sensations themselves, the colors, the textures, the sounds, as well as things like the energetic aspects, the vibrations, the frequencies of sensations, as well as things like the patterns of those sensations, such as a pulse followed by a mental impression, that sort of thing, as well as things related to the stages of insight and the standard criteria for those and jhanas, as well as things like the set up to things, the entrance and exit experiences that relate to events that are hard to comprehend, and the like. That helpful? It is the raw data that we use to create maps and interpretations of our experiences.
Hi Daniel, how do qualia fit in with that ?

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/19/14 2:55 AM as a reply to Mark.
Qualia, as in individual blips of sensation: that's the stuff.

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/20/14 5:43 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
Qualia, as in individual blips of sensation: that's the stuff.
When reading your descriptions of the individual blips (in your book) it was qualia that came to mind for me. The "hard" problem of consciousness from the scientific perspective largely comes down to explaining how qualia arise. Potentially leading to "artificial qualia" e.g. qualia experienced by a man made machine (which may not be possible, may not be realized etc).

I'm not expecting to solve that problem in this thread emoticon I'm not expecting to solve it at all. But the "blip" aspect of qualia seems insightful. It indicates that the continuous nature of qualia is an illusion.

I've been thinking of qualia as a type of "abstraction" something that allows the brain to compress the raw sense data into a form that is much less energy hungry. 

In your BATGAP interview you mention how the perception of an object has changed for you. So the qualia seem to be associated with the object rather than as "in here" or your subjective experience. That was the first time I'd heard that presentation.

Intellectually do you think the blips are actually part of the object or do you think the blips are created by your brain ? Do you think reality is made up of these blips or are the blips just subjective experience and the non-dual perception another way of perceiving a dual world (by dual I mean the reality and the blips being two different things) ? 

I'm struggling to put this in writing, sorry. Still fun to think about - it is a distraction so please don't worry about replying if it is not a distraction you enjoy too!  

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/22/14 7:08 AM as a reply to Mark.
1) Verbal description (e.g. 'noting') at the level of phenomena -- as distinct from proliferating with associations, memories, abstractions, etc. -- is less phenomenology, per se, and rather a, perhaps more honest, form of documentation; phenomenalist data gathering, if you will.

2) Phenomenology implies a degree of analysis of structure / meaning (logos). For instance: of the interaction, interdependence, and distinction between the words used to document phenomenal experience (vacca-sankara / verbal fabrications), and the sensation-level experience in vivo. Words have a slippery dual role of a) naming ('nama' and subtype 'sanna') or symbolizing ('nimitta'), and b) fabricating and conceptualizing (subtypes 'sankara', 'vinnana').

3) The Abhidhamma (and it's roots in certain Sutta passages, especially those attributed to Sariputta) can be considered more in the direction of a genuine phenomenological approach. Abhidhamma is given short-shrift in Western Buddhism, even dismissed or disparged, if not totally ignored. It is true, trying to read the primary texts can be immensely boring, even soporific. Check out Nyanaponika's "Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time" for a much livelier introduction and some fascinating insights. Don't forget, too, that the root motivation of the Abhidhamma authors, for all their excesses, was to deepen practice of the Dhamma!

4) Consider also the masterful and very readable "Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Mind", by Antonio Damasio. He's a scientific 'arahat', so to speak, in the field of neuro-science, combining the perspectives of introspection (e.g. phenomenology), behavioral experimentation, neurological decoding, and evolutionary history (kamma?) to shape and explore sophisticated 'testable hypotheses' for possible mechanisms of the 'implementation' of consciousness, self, etc. Back in the 1970's, he proposed that feeling (at the 'vedana' level) was in some important way a basis of consciousness, and was ridiculed in scientific circles – until his hypothesis was experimentally and theoretically validated in the 1990s. Reading this book (twice), after reading the Visudhimagga (and other various texts of the PaliCanon), I was floored by the correspondences with Abhidhamma (and parts of the Suttanta), which has been characterized as 'Deconstructing the Conscious Mind'. AND Damasio has no significant knowledge of Buddhism, per se; just a high attainment of (mundane, if you will) insight. (He's in a different class than that crowd of popular writers self-styled as both neuroscientists and dharma-teachers.)

5) Towards the end of his book, Damasio surveys the scientific debate concerning 'qualia', and comes down on the side of considering it a valid model. (I had some hesitation in introducing his book here, until noting the introduction of this concept in this discussion.)

[6) And then there's Alexander Piatigorsky's "The Buddhist Philosophy of Thought," which is the 'real McCoy.' He applies industrial-strength phenomenology to key aspects of the Abhidhamma (e.g. what-the-hell is a 'dhamma,' after-all?), the Bodhisattva ideal, and parts of the Sutta Nipata (real "early Buddhism"). But the book is rare, expensive, and a rather intense read. BTW, Piatigorsky, not unlike Daniel Ingram, along the way manages to effectively 'deconstruct' the authority of virtually the whole range of Western scholarly expertise (up to his writing, ca. 1980) with respect to understanding Buddhist thought and the Abhidhamma, by demonstrating how their theories crucially failed to see through the conceptual frameworks of their own Western translated notions to the fact that the Abhidhamma (etc) is expressly about seeing through any and all such mental fabrication to ultimate realities (rupa, citta, cestasika, Nibbana). ]

Hope this all is halfway intelligble.

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/22/14 3:48 PM as a reply to Chris J Macie.
Hi Chris,

That is quite a download emoticon Thanks. I'll comment but I'm not familiar with those works.

Hopefully others will explain more about noting. You are probably right that initially it is like phenomenalist data gathering but it should lead to insights and some of those may be much closer to phenomenology.

Noting as I understand it is more than just naming, there is the idea of being with the object rather than only observing it. But there are probably many approaches and I'm as far from an expert as you can get while still knowing the label.

I just had a couple of people on another forum encouraging me to read the Abhidhamma. It does seem quite an intellectual exercise and I suspect the benefits may be somewhat lost on someone who does not have a very advanced practice. It might be that the Therevada community are more interested, depending on where you are in the west you may not get much exposure to Therevada ?

Antonio Damasio - really amazing bio. I wonder if he has anything to say about the biology of enlightenment ? 

There seem to be some big strides being made in connecting conscious experience to biology (impressed by an interview of the author of Consciousness and the Social Brain).

Would be great to hear your thoughts on qualia. While consciousness itself seems to have slipped into the realm of scientific hypothesis qualia seem to be a solid wall !

I have another question for you too. Maybe it deserves another thread, but I'll try my luck emoticon I don't want to hi-jack your thread but I see a connection with the "unconscious" and that was at the heart of the thoughts that follow. 

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... .-piya.pdf "When we understand our latent tendencies, we begin to work at radically healing ourselves: we get to the roots of our personality." That seems a fairly strong link of the latent tendencies to personality but I suspect character would be a better choice than personality. The connection from the latent tendencies to nonvirtuous behaviour (or character) seems more direct than personality (which seems to include more superficial behaviours). That document links the reduction of those latent tendencies to insight practises.

I wonder if the idea of character and virtues are too connected to the self to get a lot of air time in Buddhism. But if the character is seen to be the latent tendencies then it could be seen as not self.

The idea of developing the virtues through acting/speaking in the world does not seem to be a major theme in buddhism. I can see that for a monk a lot of these issues are simplified and maybe that is why they don't get so much attention. 

Positive psychology seems to have jumped on the virtue ethics bandwagon. From 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_ ... nd_Virtues The Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV) handbook of human strengths and virtues, by Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman, represents the first attempt on the part of the research community to identify and classify the positive psychological traits of human beings

It leads to 24 traits Creativity, Curiosity, Open-mindedness, Love of learning, Perspective and wisdom, Bravery, Persistence, Integrity, Vitality, Love, Kindness, Social intelligence, Active citizenship, Fairness, Leadership, Forgiveness, Humility, Prudence, Self control, Appreciation of beauty, Gratitude, Hope, Humor, Spirituality.

Those traits can be grouped into categories Wisdom, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, Transcendence.

I wonder whether this is more useful for the layperson. Mind you I've not had a lot of luck finding practises that are aimed at helping adults improve these virtues (which I assume is like reducing the latent tendencies). There is a lot of material on imparting these virtues in children. Social service stands out as an action that can help strengthen a bunch of those traits but that does not seem to be a major axe of development in buddhism (not to say it is something that is ignored by buddhists either).

There seems to be plenty of overlap but a few of the traits that don't seem to be emphasised in the dhamma might be: Creativity, Social intelligence, Active citizenship, Leadership, Appreciation of beauty, Humor. I'm not implying these virtues are not held by buddhists or ignored in the dhamma, just that these don't seem to be valued so highly in the dhamma (maybe for good reason).

I think it could be valuable to use right action, right speech and right livelihood to address the latent tendencies, while of course still meditating and improving insight. I'm somewhat surprised it does not seem to be a big part of the few buddhist communities I've seen (mainly online and western).

With your familiarity in the Abhidhamma I'd be fascinated to hear if this connection between latent tendencies and virtues is making any sense!

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/23/14 5:54 AM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:

-- "Hopefully others will explain more about noting. You are probably right that initially it is like phenomenalist data gathering but it should lead to insights and some of those may be much closer to phenomenology."

As it strikes me, a rough cut, "(a) vision and (b) knowledge" (a phrase heavily used in the Visudhimagga) may correspond to a) the unfiltered observation and b) a solid comprehension of how it (process, not content) works.


-- "Noting as I understand it is more than just naming, there is the idea of being with the object rather than only observing it. But there are probably many approaches and I'm as far from an expert as you can get while still knowing the label."

Somewhere – maybe in MCTB, or maybe a dhamma-talk by the Mahasi-lineage monks at the Tathagate Meditation Center (San Jose) – I came across the notion that noting can reach a stage where a kind of mental feeling or impulse is recognized that precedes nailing it with words, and this may be sufficient -- one can drop the extra effort of shaping a verbalization around it. That might have the advantage of avoiding the danger of words as substitute for, having a life of their own, the experience itself. But, similar to your stance, I've not thoroughly explored it. Perhaps someone at the level of Daniel could ellucidate (or debunk) this.


-- Abdhidhamma...:

Nyanaponika helpfully points out that Abhidhamma know-how ("Mastery of the Matrices", as Pa Auk Sayadow puts it) is of great value for teachers, giving them a depth and precision of understanding to be able to explain Dhamma (not Abhidhamma itself) to others, especially lay students / practitioners, and by being able to perceive and shape to the listeners' level of understanding (like G. Buddha was famous for). He states that 20-years or so of Abhidhamma study is prerequisite to authorization as a teacher (Sayadaw) in (some) Burmese tradition(s).

A teacher I've contact with (Ven. U. Jagara, Canadian born, inspired by Kornfield, ordained by Mahasi, long study with Goenke and then Pa Auk) confides that the degree of rigor Nyanaponika indicates is not really applied most of the time. Maybe that's what differentiates a 'Thera' ('elder'), or 'Mahathera' ('great elder') from just a 'Sayadow'.

The lineage – Nyanatiloka --> Nyanaponika (--> Bhikku Bodhi ) – has been called 'Abhidhamma reciters,' i.e. a sort
of speciality. The continuation (Bhikku Bodhi --> Ven. Analalyo) appears to slacken-off that emphasis.


-- "Antonio Damasio - really amazing bio. I wonder if he has anything to say about the biology of enlightenment ?"

Not directly, as I recall. But he does carefully point out that, in his neurological model, the potential capabilities of mental cultivation – into more and more refined levels of reflective analysis and realization – do not appear to have any inherent limitations.


-- "Would be great to hear your thoughts on qualia…."

Damasio's usage was my first contact with this idea. I looked it up (Wikipedia), but not to any depth. Daniel's cryptic comment (above) suggests that it might be worthwhile to try and tease more out of him on this topic.

Here are my notes on the passages dealing with qualia in Damasio's book. The sections are my gloss, usually in
reference to Dhamma/Abhidhamma parallels, though the language my notes use to summarize Damasio's statements might also be tinged in that direction:

"p.253  {he distinguishes two areas of meaning for qualia}
Qualia I: feelings in anysubjective experience – pleasure, pain, or none ;
Qualia II: why shouldconstruction of perceptual maps feel like something?
p.254
all conscious images have emotions and consequent feelings; arise, persist with object in sight, or as long as “my reflections keep them in some sort of reverberation”.
As if music accompanying mental process, which are also within the process; also with music, itself and the music-like feeling track; = qualia I for musical performance; [= the inspiration for polyphonic music?].
p.255
reduced by drugs, or depression; how? Brain has structures that respond to signals from maps, as emotions [for Damasio primitive reactions, 'moving-out' as in the Latin root word parts], out of which come feelings; image-making regions can trigger emotion-triggering regions (amygdala, prefontal ventromedialsector, nuclei in basal forebrain and stem); if fits a pattern ("emotionally competent stimulus") triggers events elsewhere in brain and body = emotion; perceptual readout = feeling; brain responds to same content at different sites in parallel;
p.256
conscious states usually have multiple objects, treated integratedly, but not democratically; different values of objects--> uneven object enhancement --> ordering of images, spontaneous editing; this process relies on the emotions provoked, feelings in background; i.e. qualia are of mind, not consciousness; not a mystery (to Damasio).
Qualia II: feelings describe state of organisms interior; accompany all perceptual maps [= sense + stim + activation , i.e. the 18 'ayatana', not perception/naming'sanna']
Feeling states from brain-stem nuclei, highly interconnected, receive signals from organism’s interior; in life-regulation, nuclei transform signals, looping-back; functional fusion of body states and perceptual states;
neurons are about and extensions of flesh, become one with it, i.e. “feel” of body states; neurons are special forms of other living cells; cells have “feeling” function,  as in 1-cell organisms “sensitive” to intrusions; called “attitudes”, as no consciousness there;
p.258
response to changed internal state; so in neurons response/change in larger circuits yield “protofeeling”, like proto-cognition at some level. Neuron “sensitivity”,“irritability”; summing up of cellular contributions, like muscle cells, also excitable; permeability, opening of membrane violation of protection of interior life of cell, maybe creation of moment of protofeeling; worth pursuing.
p.259
evolution – states ought to feel, to lead towards or away from stimuli; adding nervous system with means of portraying such states in neural-body bond;
smooth life-managing states vs problematic states – each releases different chemical molecules --> body and brain – should feel differently; chemical molecules from body (blood) touch brain parts outside the blood-brain barrier: stem area postrema, and “circumventicular organs”; tranmitters/modulators, hormones,…; neural projections --> NTS, other stem nuclei, hypothalamus, thalamus and cortex.
Sensory portal changes build perspective and perceptual quality; hearing is not just cochlea, also skin, ear bones, even head & neck movements; simile eyeball & muscles in sight;
p.261
and feedback from brain influencessensory portals;
p.262
3 kinds of maps brought together: (1) of particular sense device (2) of sensory portal around the device; (3) of emotional-feeling reaction to (1) + (2) i.e. qualia [aka the 18 ayatana?] brought together in stem or cortex. Qualia are also part of contents in the self-process; provides brain with felt perceptions, pure experience; adding a protagonist, experience claimed by newly minted owner – self. [Damasio distinguishes, decodes neurologically 3 levels of self-process: proto-self, core self, and autobiographical self, the latter being the one used in common parlance]
p.263
underestimations: (1) wealth of detail, organization of body, processes, some yet unknown, may influence conscious experience at many levels; (2) yet so little known about the brain. Mysterious, hard problems likely amenable to biological account, eventually.

<end of quoted notes>

-- "I have another question for you too…"

That area is a big one, relatively new to me – the latent tendencies ('anuseti') and where that fits into practice.
Work in progress, both study and practice…

Actually, one of the most impressive clues I've found to date is Daniel's characterization (in the BATGAP interview: Reader's Digest summary of the 4 paths, at 1hr:55min to about 2:12) of the various 'axes' of experiential development – the one that gets finalized at Stream-Entry, and the rest that go on as long as there is breath to observe. Working with latent tendencies seems to have something to do with the latter group.

Another perspective that holds promise is the traditional notion (albeit perhaps one of those idealized ones) that arahantship brings an end to the forming of new kamma (karma), at least in terms of 'intention', but the on-going lifetime of an arahant is still subject to the workings-out of previous threads of kamma that bear on it.

Another recent clue is an elluciation of the mysterious 'bhavanga' notion -- the rebirthed kammic background of a lifetime that the mind rests in between moments of active engagement with sensations --, as in Rupert Gethin's analysis ("Bhavanga and Rebirth According to the Abhidhamma", 1994).-- "

-- "The idea of developing the virtues through acting/speaking in the world does not seem to be a major theme in buddhism."

Than-Geof (Thanissaro Bhikku) thinks it is, spends a lot of time teaching it. Often uses the instructions to Rahula (G. Buddha's son): evalute kusala (skillfulness) before acting, during, and in the results; and it plays a role in the classic definition of 'right effort': uproot and prevent reoccurence of the akusala (unskillful), hold to and practice (condition) towards recurrence of the kusala.

Notes:

1) Lots of good stuff can be found free on the internet, e.g. the Gethin article just cited, and the Nyanponika book mentioned above. One can 'buy' the books on-line, but often find sites where they can be freely downloaded. Not hard to find, but I can supply these links if needed.

2) Obviously my mind likes to swim in an ocean of traditional maps and a scholarly engagement with them. But is does happen that, having investigated and internalized models from tradition, e.g. elaborate matrices of Abhidhamma analysis, there are moments when direct experience
suddenly lines-up with one of those structures and it 'comes to life,' like turning on the Christmass-tree lights after all the set-up work. Then one can see an orientation, a confirmation, that helps transform the experience into useful and reusable 'knowledge,' and can suggest additional relationships to explore in the immediate experience. Could be a trap, delusion substituting abstraction for observation, but those traditional structures were developmentally abstracted out of experiential investigation. May involve faith, too.

3) Other than a pretty good grasp of the 'rupa' jhanas, I haven't noted much else in terms of substantial attainments, other than a sense of growing
momentum, and the occasional subtle sense of proximity…

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/23/14 6:58 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
I tend to use it to mean the sensations themselves, the colors, the textures, the sounds, as well as things like the energetic aspects, the vibrations, the frequencies of sensations, as well as things like the patterns of those sensations, such as a pulse followed by a mental impression, that sort of thing, as well as things related to the stages of insight and the standard criteria for those and jhanas, as well as things like the set up to things, the entrance and exit experiences that relate to events that are hard to comprehend, and the like. That helpful? It is the raw data that we use to create maps and interpretations of our experiences.
I am not sure if that is a deliberately idiosyncratic explanation of your take on "phenomenology", but it seems like you might want to say:

"the study of the sensations themselves, the colors, the textures etc..."

Given the conventional meaning of phenomenology [wikipedia: from Greek: phainómenon "that which appears" and lógos "study")]

Mark, I personally don't see qualia as being noteworthy or special (or outside them realm of science) - you could just see them as the "stuff" of consciousness - "the sensations themselves, the colors etc..."
Daniel:
Qualia, as in individual blips of sensation: that's the stuff.

Mark:
I'm not expecting to solve that problem in this thread emoticon I'm not expecting to solve it at all. But the "blip" aspect of qualia seems insightful. It indicates that the continuous nature of qualia is an illusion.

It may indicate that the continuous nature of qualia is an illusion for Daniel if you accept the conclusions of his phenomenological investigation (though the term "illusion" seems quite problematic). But I am not sure what it indicates for anyone else. 

So Daniel's belief that experience of sensation is made of blips is a theoretical description and interpretation of his experience given the way he conducts his phenomenology and what he brings to bear to it. But the inherent assumption in the quote from Daniel is that we can use phenomenology to get access to the "raw data" and we use to create interpretations, that somehow the "raw data" stands apart from our investigation of it.

There is a nice discussion of the issues with that view in this interview I posted about on this thread (if you are interested in buddhism and phenomonology you should check it out) 

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5571449

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/23/14 11:04 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.
Hi Chris,

Thanks for sharing your notes!

Qualia not being consciousness is something I'm buying into. I suspect consciousness will be deconstructed by science in a similar way the self was deconstructed by buddhism. Whether there is a path to "experiencing" consciousness as an illusion in the same way there is a path to experiencing self as an illusion is another story. That may run into the limmitations of the human brain - similar to how we can't experience what it would be to be like a bat, we may not experience what it would be to "know" consciousness is an illusion.

The idea that qualia are of mind is where things seem to get very tricky. One "trap" (I've fallen into) when discussing qualia and scientific undestanding is to confuse the "what" with the "how". Science does not explain "what" things are it explains how they arise. For example we can explain how waves arise with formulas, simulations etc but none of that captures what a wave is. In a similar way it seems a reasonable hope that neuroscience can make serious progress on how qualia arise. Asking science to explain "what" something is leads to something like a huge russian doll - it just keeps explaining in ever more detail how various aspects of the object arise.

A litmus test for science's understanding of qualia would be creating artificial qualia. At the moment qualia seem to be solidly in the realm of mystery.

I will research on Thanissaro Bhikku. I don't deny there is plenty of "sila" in the teachings but it does not seem to be developed anywhere near to the extent meditation and insight are. A comparison might be Confucius who seems to have a lot more to say on the topic. From the little you wrote I suspect Thanissaro Bhikku is leveraging off the Sabbāsava Sutta or similar. A lot of the strategies seem to be dealing with unskillful states e.g. seeing, guarding, bearing, avoiding, abandoning. The idea of performing some action to strengthen a virtue seems like another way of addressing the latent tendencies before they become states.

I just came across Ken Wilber's Fourth Turning in Buddhism mentioned at http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/5572455 where I've added a brutal summary. He identifies the "structures" as a concept that is largely missing from the buddhist works.
So the first point about a possible Fourth (or Fifth) Turning is that, unknown to humans generally, everybody has up to a dozen types of intelligence that appear to have evolved over the centuries to deal with different fundamental issues and problems
I try not to be a Wilber fan boy emoticon But he often has an interesting angle on things.

There seems to be some interesting work in the revival of virtue ethics: Practical Intelligence and the Virtues by Daniel C. Russell which might help make the connection from anuseti to virtues.

Like yourself I'm scratching the surface of these topics. But there seems to be something there whereby developing the virtues and pulling mindfulness into everyday life can integrate the insights from the cushion more effectively and at the same time the daily activity brings grist to the mill on the cushion. It seems to make serious progress as a layperson it would be wise to leverage the time off the cushion. I suspect the buddhist teachings don't have so much to offer there because the focus was a monastic setting.

An experienced teacher told me that if he could guide someone early in their practise it would be to establish solid concentration and metta before jumping into mindfulness. My practise is largely focused on the concentrative at the moment.

There is a huge focus on personal liberation in buddhism. There are plenty of powerful techniques too. I do get a feeling there is something "wrong" with the bigger picture. The self is certainly there for some good reasons and I can also see lots of good reasons for stepping out of it after it has largely done it's job. I do suspect that the latent tendencies are still a motor for enlightened people (some discussions between enlightened people on the web are really instructive in this regard). I like the idea of "build the character you want because that is the one you will wake up to".

There is a risk that some enlightened laypeople spent enormous amounts of energy pursuing enlightenment to the detriment of building a virtuous character. After enlightenment a lot of the mechanisms society provides for developing virtues are no longer applicable so they could be perceived to be handicapped in some ways. Obviously enlightenment may bring a raft of benefits that largely outweigh that.

One very big alarm bell is the lack of cooperation between enlightened people. They seem to avoid much collaboration and focus more on their differences in opinion/experience than the similarities. Often proposing to transmit a particular path. For example it would be great to see enlightened people going off and pursuing another path and reaching enlightenment in another tradition. 

In enlightened circles there is also a lot of talk about absolute and universal things and truths. To someone familiar with evolution and a little bit of history that all sounds like anthropocentric projections. I don't doubt that more sophisticated brains are possible and the experiences of those brains could encompass our own while discovering many things we can't (I think of a comparisons between monkeys and men today). I'm also not implying that the experience is just the brain (there are the 4 quadrants of wilber's model)

There seems to be a human tendency to want to explain everything. It seems almost comical, as soon as someone gets their hands on a new piece of knowledge we try to stretch it to fit as much as possible (sometimes everything). A good example is how quantum physics is used to explain many things when quantum physicists don't seem to understand it too well yet. I've listened to an enlightened person explaining their ease with quantum mechanics due to their enlightened perspective, I wonder how they will integrate into their universal truth the next scientific theory that invalidates aspects of quantum physics. I'd be more reassured by an enlightened person who told me they don't understand anything and are at peace with that emoticon

Anyway enough ranting. I'm still very interested in getting rid of the self, I'd just like to do it for a reason that does not feel too selfish emoticon

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/23/14 12:03 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
Hi Sawfoot,
I can understand you would accept the notion of qualia. Science is having a hard time with it, I've not seen any hypothesis as to how qualia are caused. For example can artificial qualia exist or not is still an unknown. It might be comparable to a lot of earlier concepts, it makes intuitive sense and then science (or buddhism in the case of the self) goes and rips the rug out from under our feet.
Daniel gives some instructive guidelines for experiencing the discontinuous nature of phenomenon. If I remember, you can try to perceive two phenomenon at the same time and you may see that while being aware of one the other one "disappears". 
That might not mean the qualia actually disappear, it could be a function of conscious awareness. But I guess phenomenology is concerned about the perception.
I don't think Daniel was inventing any of these techniques as far as I understand it is an expected result in Mahasi style noting.
I agree with you that there seems to be some overly ambitious claims in regards to whether a non-dual perspective has a priveledge on the "truth". We can see with the diverse experiences of enlightenment and the diverse behaviors of enlightened people that there is a huge amount of conditioning (and maybe genetics)  influencing the experience and resulting conclusions. 
By illusion I mean that our experience deceives us - we experience something as true/correct/real because of the way we perceive it. Change perspective and it is no longer true (like an optical illusion). 
I just read over your other thread, it is very relavent. When first being introduced to Vipassana I could not help but have similar concerns. The advice of "trust your own experience" to validate the techniques, while the techniques are specifically intended to influence your perception of experience, raised alarm bells! In the end I decided that the best measure is behavior - if the techniques make me behave more virtuosly then they are "good".
A lot of people turn to religions when they are having existential crises or are suffering immensely - how many of todays leading western buddhist instructors were running away from society when they discovered buddhism in the east... Someone with a well rounded charcater is probably less likely to get into a situation where those sorts of radical desires emerge. One could even argue that a virtuous character may never reach enlightenment and mainly because they don't need or want to escape from their reality.
Another (possibly) interesting point is the way the notion of freewill impacts those with a non-dual perspective. I, like lots of people with a dual perspective, don't believe in a notion of objective freewill but it does not make me believe my subjective experience does not impact the world.  It seems some enlightened people are amazed to discover they have no freewill but instead of getting on with influencing things they "let things unfold". As if the latent tendencies (like short term reward vs long term reward i.e. laziness) don't need to be kept in check. Taking on a guru position and surrounding oneself with approval seems to be the antithesis of what someone who can withstand virtually any hardship could achieve in impacting the system they are a part of. Why not a reaction of - now I can go and learn rather than teach. One enlightened person who could make a major positive impact in the world and have people realize that was due to their enlightenment would do more for the spiritual development of humanity than most teachers combined.
I'm really in a mood to rant it seems, sorry about that!





RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/24/14 3:24 AM as a reply to Mark.
Hi Mark, 

If you can't have a rant on the DhO, where can you! 

"Science is having a hard time with it, I've not seen any hypothesis as to how qualia are caused. "

You talked earlier about the scientific answer to the hard problem of consciousness - I would say the hard problem is a philosophical problem not a scientific problem. And current work in consciosuness studies is making a lot of headway into understand how qualia work - by my taking an identity theory approach - such that any state of qualia is a brain state, and if you can understand those brain states you understand how qualia operate. 

"I can also see lots of good reasons for stepping out of it after it has largely done it's job."
"I'm still very interested in getting rid of the self"

This might be an overly ambitious goal! I think at best you can get a better insight into some of its "modes of operation". Some spiritual perspectives take the position that you can get rid of the self (and perhaps access some "higher self"?) but it seems like a mistake to me. 

"Daniel gives some instructive guidelines for experiencing the discontinuous nature of phenomenon. If I remember, you can try to perceive two phenomenon at the same time and you may see that while being aware of one the other one "disappears". 

That might not mean the qualia actually disappear, it could be a function of conscious awareness. But I guessphenomenology is concerned about the perception.
I don't think Daniel was inventing any of these techniques as far as I understand it is an expected result in Mahasi style noting."

Sure - just the point I am highlighted is exactly that - expected results of a particular technique, i.e. the tools you use to introspect influence the contents of introspection, which is why you probably can't see into the nature of "Ultimate Reality" - thinking you can is more than approach of the mystic than the
phenomenologist.

"In the end I decided that the best measure is behavior - if the techniques make me behave more virtuosly then they are "good"."

This seems pretty wise to me - techiques to bring about goals - and I am sure that particular one is a goal "The Buddha" would approve of. 


RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/24/14 4:03 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
Technique: plenty of people see things pulsing, vibrating, shifting, oscillating back and forth, etc. without any technique at all, as did I the first time I saw them, so it is not technique dependent.

Remember, we take qualia and from them and by pattern recognition create all the rest: the notion of brains, the notion of some permanent reality, all extrapolated, none of it verifiable except by inference and speculation. The qualia are the foundation of it all, the first basis of it all.

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/24/14 4:31 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
Technique: plenty of people see things pulsing, vibrating, shifting, oscillating back and forth, etc. without any technique at all, as did I the first time I saw them, so it is not technique dependent.

Remember, we take qualia and from them and by pattern recognition create all the rest: the notion of brains, the notion of some permanent reality, all extrapolated, none of it verifiable except by inference and speculation. The qualia are the foundation of it all, the first basis of it all.
Technique: yep, I had quite a bit of that when I dropped acid! And Jen has written about her migraine auras which made her visual experience pulse and vibrate. So you could see these kinds of phenomena are somehow underlying our ordinary states of consciousness as the "raw data", or you could see them as just one of the many possible states of consciousness we can experience. 

Ultimate Reality: I understand the rationale you have that gives you licence to use phrases like "ultimate reality", and I think its an interesting perspective to take.  

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/24/14 9:13 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
Technique: plenty of people see things pulsing, vibrating, shifting, oscillating back and forth, etc. without any technique at all, as did I the first time I saw them, so it is not technique dependent.

Remember, we take qualia and from them and by pattern recognition create all the rest: the notion of brains, the notion of some permanent reality, all extrapolated, none of it verifiable except by inference and speculation. The qualia are the foundation of it all, the first basis of it all.
Considering vision, I think it is fair to say that we know the qualia are arising after significant processing of raw input to the brain. It does not make sense to me that one could access the raw data of, for example, a single photoreceptor. We also know that qualia can include "side-effects" of that processing, a number of optical illusions rely on this.

If qualia are an abstraction of the raw sense data then we could verifiably prove they are not the foundataion of it all. But they could be seen as the foundation of our consciousness (I like this idea of the "experience" of consciousness being another type of qualia, this allows for the idea of changes in qualia/consciousness along the path in relation to changes in the brain's makeup)

Technology also seems to give us techniques to verify some things from a third person persective, for example we can test that things can be observed using sensors (senses) that we don't have. That is somewhat a proof that we experience a "map" but the map is of a terrain that exists independently of the map.

I suspect I'm over analyzing what you wrote and, my interpretation of what you wrote is a general idea that our experience is of a map and all notions are built on top of that map with inherent distortions. Intellectually we can only offer metaphors.

In regards to Sawfoot's remark, I don't think you claim some universal truth but present your experience, or am I making an assumption ?

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/24/14 9:35 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
Hi Mark, 

If you can't have a rant on the DhO, where can you! 



I need some sort of "relieved" emoticon !



"Science is having a hard time with it, I've not seen any hypothesis as to how qualia are caused. "

You talked earlier about the scientific answer to the hard problem of consciousness - I would say the hard problem is a philosophical problem not a scientific problem.



Largely I agree but science is starting to take on aspects of the debate, at least some good progress on the notion of awareness, there is also the start of work in artificial qualia. If we are lucky we are/will witness the hand-over from philosophy to science.



And current work in consciosuness studies is making a lot of headway into understand how qualia work - by my taking an identity theory approach - such that any state of qualia is a brain state, and if you can understand those brain states you understand how qualia operate. 



The association of state to qualia is tempting but I think it misses the point that the brain is "processing" information, I suspect there needs to be a notion of temporality in there. Something more akin to the description of a process.

From a process perspective it is perhaps more likely to be a "system" i.e. multiple processes interacting. But the state based analysis should give an answer or enough clues to some of the processes involved.




"I can also see lots of good reasons for stepping out of it after it has largely done it's job."
"I'm still very interested in getting rid of the self"

This might be an overly ambitious goal! I think at best you can get a better insight into some of its "modes of operation". Some spiritual perspectives take the position that you can get rid of the self (and perhaps access some "higher self"?) but it seems like a mistake to me. 



I think "getting rid of self" is a bit over-dramatic, I mean the idea of non-dual experience. In some ways it means the self is gone but there will be plenty left over in terms of behaviours.



"Daniel gives some instructive guidelines for experiencing the discontinuous nature of phenomenon. If I remember, you can try to perceive two phenomenon at the same time and you may see that while being aware of one the other one "disappears". 
That might not mean the qualia actually disappear, it could be a function of conscious awareness. But I guessphenomenology is concerned about the perception.
I don't think Daniel was inventing any of these techniques as far as I understand it is an expected result in Mahasi style noting."

Sure - just the point I am highlighted is exactly that - expected results of a particular technique, i.e. the tools you use to introspect influence the contents of introspection, which is why you probably can't see into the nature of "Ultimate Reality" - thinking you can is more than approach of the mystic than the
phenomenologist.



I've asked the question of Daniel, there is certainly a tendency for people who have achieved a non-dual perspective to talk as if they know some ultimate truth. But Daniel wrote "notion of some permanent reality" and I think that is already an admission that when he writes about some "reality" it is not an absolute although it may "feel" like an absolute. I may be misunderstanding too!



"In the end I decided that the best measure is behavior - if the techniques make me behave more virtuosly then they are "good"."

This seems pretty wise to me - techiques to bring about goals - and I am sure that particular one is a goal "The Buddha" would approve of. 



It unfortunately opens up a can of worms about what the big goal is, the goal I mentioned was more like a sanity check for the initial Vipassana "investigation". There is the notion of bodhisattva. But I wonder why we don't for example find bodhisattva solving problems like environmentally friendly energy generation (or maybe they are doing this quietly...)

RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/24/14 2:01 PM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:
sawfoot _:
Hi Mark, 

If you can't have a rant on the DhO, where can you! 

I need some sort of "relieved" emoticon !

Well, you have my permission, but I have a low hardcore-o-meter rating. 



"Science is having a hard time with it, I've not seen any hypothesis as to how qualia are caused. "

You talked earlier about the scientific answer to the hard problem of consciousness - I would say the hard problem is a philosophical problem not a scientific problem.


Largely I agree but science is starting to take on aspects of the debate, at least some good progress on the notion of awareness, there is also the start of work in artificial qualia. If we are lucky we are/will witness the hand-over from philosophy to science.

You mention the artificial qualia thing a few times -  I don't know much about it myself - my assumption is that its philosophically interesting to think about it, but engineering wise, we are long long way from it





And current work in consciosuness studies is making a lot of headway into understand how qualia work - by my taking an identity theory approach - such that any state of qualia is a brain state, and if you can understand those brain states you understand how qualia operate. 



The association of state to qualia is tempting but I think it misses the point that the brain is "processing" information, I suspect there needs to be a notion of temporality in there. Something more akin to the description of a process.

From a process perspective it is perhaps more likely to be a "system" i.e. multiple processes interacting. But the state based analysis should give an answer or enough clues to some of the processes involved.

Right - I sometimes like to think about it as a traversal through a multi-dimensional state space




"I can also see lots of good reasons for stepping out of it after it has largely done it's job."
"I'm still very interested in getting rid of the self"

This might be an overly ambitious goal! I think at best you can get a better insight into some of its "modes of operation". Some spiritual perspectives take the position that you can get rid of the self (and perhaps access some "higher self"?) but it seems like a mistake to me. 


I think "getting rid of self" is a bit over-dramatic, I mean the idea of non-dual experience. In some ways it means the self is gone but there will be plenty left over in terms of behaviours.

But, of course, there is no self to get rid of in the first place! Taking a process perspective, as you mention above, you can talk about "selving" or "egoing". When I think about non-dual experience, then selving is potentially absent, but that is at a particular point in time, and it can come back again!



"Daniel gives some instructive guidelines for experiencing the discontinuous nature of phenomenon. If I remember, you can try to perceive two phenomenon at the same time and you may see that while being aware of one the other one "disappears". 
That might not mean the qualia actually disappear, it could be a function of conscious awareness. But I guessphenomenology is concerned about the perception.
I don't think Daniel was inventing any of these techniques as far as I understand it is an expected result in Mahasi style noting."

Sure - just the point I am highlighted is exactly that - expected results of a particular technique, i.e. the tools you use to introspect influence the contents of introspection, which is why you probably can't see into the nature of "Ultimate Reality" - thinking you can is more than approach of the mystic than the
phenomenologist.



I've asked the question of Daniel, there is certainly a tendency for people who have achieved a non-dual perspective to talk as if they know some ultimate truth. But Daniel wrote "notion of some permanent reality" and I think that is already an admission that when he writes about some "reality" it is not an absolute although it may "feel" like an absolute. I may be misunderstanding too!

Well, have a read through MCTB - "Ultimate Reality" ™ comes up a lot...It has a massive allure for the mystic.




"In the end I decided that the best measure is behavior - if the techniques make me behave more virtuosly then they are "good"."

This seems pretty wise to me - techiques to bring about goals - and I am sure that particular one is a goal "The Buddha" would approve of. 



It unfortunately opens up a can of worms about what the big goal is, the goal I mentioned was more like a sanity check for the initial Vipassana "investigation". There is the notion of bodhisattva. But I wonder why we don't for example find bodhisattva solving problems like environmentally friendly energy generation (or maybe they are doing this quietly...)

I don't know if there any "truly realised" beings out there, but I imagine if they did exist, they wouldn't want to go around proclaiming how enlightened or compassionate they were - they would just get on with solving problems quietly.



RE: What is phenomenology (as used here)
Answer
8/24/14 4:27 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
Mark:


Largely I agree but science is starting to take on aspects of the debate, at least some good progress on the notion of awareness, there is also the start of work in artificial qualia. If we are lucky we are/will witness the hand-over from philosophy to science


You mention the artificial qualia thing a few times -  I don't know much about it myself - my assumption is that its philosophically interesting to think about it, but engineering wise, we are long long way from it



Mainly because I think it shows engineers are exploring these topics. Some are perhaps overly ambitious but for example there is an annual AGI conference since 2008 http://agi-conference.org


I think "getting rid of self" is a bit over-dramatic, I mean the idea of non-dual experience. In some ways it means the self is gone but there will be plenty left over in terms of behaviours.

But, of course, there is no self to get rid of in the first place! Taking a process perspective, as you mention above, you can talk about "selving" or "egoing". When I think about non-dual experience, then selving is potentially absent, but that is at a particular point in time, and it can come back again!



Something unique enlightened people often claim is a non-reversible non-dual perspective. I doubt many have tried to get back to a dual perspective for fear of loosing the non-dual! But still I think it shows there can be a permanent change in experience. The intellectual acceptance of no self does not seem to change the experience of reality as dual (I just know I'm being tricked!). Your also right that I'm more concerned about ditching the ego than the self - I mean I don't mind being associated with this mind/body I'd just like be at peace and the ego seems intent on crashing the party.

If the dual view comes back again then in Daniel's maps the it means the person has not reached "4th path".



I've asked the question of Daniel, there is certainly a tendency for people who have achieved a non-dual perspective to talk as if they know some ultimate truth. But Daniel wrote "notion of some permanent reality" and I think that is already an admission that when he writes about some "reality" it is not an absolute although it may "feel" like an absolute. I may be misunderstanding too!

Well, have a read through MCTB - "Ultimate Reality" ™ comes up a lot...It has a massive allure for the mystic.




Agreed and I hope he answers.


I don't know if there any "truly realised" beings out there, but I imagine if they did exist, they wouldn't want to go around proclaiming how enlightened or compassionate they were - they would just get on with solving problems quietly.



If "truly realised" means perfect then I don't think they do exist. Enlightened is such a charged word. I focus on "non-dual perspective" as this seems to fit with more of the characters we see. Obviously there is a lot more to it e.g. many insights into the path of how to get there.

I suspect we will see many more people reaching those sorts of insights who came to spiritualty with a goal of impacting society. The current generations were probably much more motivated by personal suffering. I just started watching Shinzen Young presenting at Google in 2010, early in he is explaining how beneficial meditation is to creative work and productivity. That type of pitch will attract a whole different crowd and I have some hopes they will be more inspirational in terms of impacting society.

Without believing everything Freud proposed, if the ego is minimised the id does not have much influence so if people were working or contributing for reasons that were related to the ego or id then they will probably move toward teaching or basking upon "enlightenment". If the drive to impact society positively was well established and relevant expertise already developed then those people may just accelerate their efforts. For example Daniel still seems to be very committed to the ER, if he had been a researcher I imagine he would have kept that up too. Would be interesting to know if he considers himself a much better doctor for having followed the path.