Viktor Valentin -:
Will noting with verbs strengthen the illusion of self?
Will noting with nouns more effectively break this illusion?
If every time I hear a sound I note "hear" the word implies that there is someone who hears the sound, while if I use the note "sound" there is no such implication.
So... does the actual word have any impact on your progress of realising anatta? Or are the words simply an aid to keep you from wandering?
Does anyone have any experience of this?
Experiment.
Note seen, instead of seeing. Note heard instead of hearing. Note sensed instead of sensing. Note cognized instead of cognizing. The shift in attention can result in a different result in my experience. Note 'image' instead of 'imagining'. Note 'vibrations' or 'sensations', instead of 'feeling'. Any illusion of 'self', an experience of being some separate 'self', note the actual compounding phenomena that such an supposed experience is made up of...image, sound, seen, vibrations, sensation, pressure, seen, heard, sensed, thought, image, thought, seen, heard, sensed, etc etc.
Re-enforce/train the mind to notice the phenomena as object, as a noun, as opposed to a verb. This will also shed more light on impermanence in my experience. A verb, especially a present particple with -'ing', insinuates continuity more than impermanence. Noting phenomena as a noun may shed more light on how a supposed 'thing' really is inherently empty and transient, as it wont stay around long. Noting with verbs may tinge noticing/perception with the notion of continuity.Verbs, transitive and intransitive, insinuate an inherent subject/agent in English. When we use verbs, the habit of the mind may continue to imply/fabricate a subjective like experience that goes unnoticed. We may carry that subjective tendency into the practice of noting with verbs without questioning what such mental and verbal actions are re-inforcing. Using nouns can avoid this possible inherent problem of the language conditioning the way we act mentally, verbally and physically.
In the following translations of the Bahiya Sutta, the pali scholars have chosen to translate the pali as "in reference to the seen, there will be only the seen." Not "in the seeing , just the seen" as some people like to quote the suttas as saying. The difference in grammar is small, but the effect it has on practice can be quite varied in my experience.
Experiment and see what happens to the 'you' when you either train the mind to experience "in reference to the seen, just the seen" VERSUS "in the seeing, just the seeing/seen"
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."John D. Ireland
A couple of interesting articles discussing on whether language shapes the way we think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://janderson99.hubpages.com/hub/Does-Language-Shape-our-Thoughts-Are-We-what-We-say-we-areExperiment: Start noticing with your eyes open. Where does attention go when you stick to nouns i.e. seen, heard, sensation, pain, pressure, seen, image, seen, heard, thought VERSUS sticking to verbs: seeing, hearing, sensing/feeling, thinking etc. Is there a difference in where attention goes, any subtle difference in how experience plays out? Does attention go to the same place/s when using a noun versus a verb? If so, are you training for a different result?
Disclaimer: When gunning for 1st path, I used a variety of verbs and nouns and I still got to 1st path as talked of here at the DhO. Though i still stand by the notion that there is a difference between using nouns exclusively versus verbs exclusively.
It shifts the focus of attention.
Nick
Edited for clarity