I'm writing with my scholar hat on. For the last ten years I've studied and published on the history, text, and philosophy of the Heart Sutra. I'd like to get some pracitioner input on a question that has come up recently. I've been reading Grzegorz Polak's recent articles on the philosophy of cessation. 

Especially: Can Cessation be a Cognitive State? Philosophical Implications of the Apophatic Teachings of the Early Buddhist Nikāyas​​​​​​​

I think Polak, like many scholars, may see cessation and insight as occuring together. At least reading his articles has made me think about this issue. However, he also acknowledges that following cessation there is a period of "contentless awareness" (what I think of as śūnyatā: the absence of sensory experience). As Daniel Ingram describes it, "'Reality' stops cold and then reappears." It seems to me that insight can only arise after "reality" (whatever that may mean) reappears, i.e. after the period of contentless awareness is finished. So it seems to me that there must be a sequence like: cessation > emptiness > re-arising > insight. 

Can those who have experienced the ceasing of experience and the arising of insight comment on this? Does it make sense to think of the process in the way I've described? Or does insight arise during the absence of sensory experience (as a kind of extra-sensory experience)? 

For me it is utterly mysterious in it's origin, and the trying to define it leads nowhere. The defining itself is a non starter. It is before thoughts and concepts. Other people like Daniel seem to be able to map it and play with it in a way I can't. 

if I got on TV somehow and explained it or pointed at it in words, they'd probably lock me up in a mental institute, and yet I am more clear and sane than I've ever been. 

Ugh, this seems like a reasonable question but the mind isn't so mechanical. The reality of these sloppy meat machines means that there will be variations in how it occurs and presents -- giving scholars job security because it can be endlessly debated which variation and what presentation is "right"

There can be a lot of near misses that can happen before cessation, so there is the whole debate about "well, was it really a cessation?". And there can be some delay/partiallity to the insight until insights are really established, so there is a whole debate about "when an insight occurs?".  Furthermore, the kind of insight that happens with cessation isn't usally a completely novel insight. Usually there is already a deep intuition in the days and months prior to the experince... so the "insight" is more like a confirmation of an intuition, rather than a totally novel insight and there is a whole debate around "was it really an insight?".

And that's the sloppy reality of it.

This is one example of the whole "the priests argue but the monks agree" saying. The priests argue because all they have are the words and so they endlessly debate the meaning/logic of the words. But words are not experience. The monks agree because not only do they have their own experiences, but they have also seen/heard their fellow monk's experiences and so their "map" is much more expansive and flexible to allow for all the variations. 

EDIT: I'm not saying that this applies to you, that you are a priest and not a monk metaphorically --- just taking in generalities. I definitely don't know your experience/views and I'm just a dumb guy on the internet.

Hope this is helpful in some way, definitely feel free to ignore.

Yeah, so the term Insight gets thrown a lot around and has different meanings from different teachers. The way I think about it is, there are "mundane Insights" where through practice you start to develop an intellectual understanding of things. So, an example might be, "try to spend 1 hour when you don't think a single thought. And then try to spend 1 hour when you are only thinking thoughts continuously" and if you do an experiment you will quickly find that "you" can't control your thoughts! The second level is more "supramundane Insights", and this is where how phenomena appear permanently shift, and this happens all the way up to Enlightenment, and cessation itself does cause more Insights to happen, but you've already had Insights to get there. A good example of an Insight of this nature is the first stage of Theravada maps called mind and body and here is the mctb2 description

But this sudden shift can be viewed under a dependent origination lens, where some amount of attachment to thoughts/emotions/body gets permanently released, and because that release your mind can't identify itself with thoughts/emotion/body as well as it used to, and that deidentification is what creates this sense of being different from thoughts/emotions/body.

It's also worth saying, Insights of this type just kinda happen randomly (usually through solid dedicated practice), but when you're going through them, it feels like a huge shift that happens generally in a very short time frame (like the span of a few moments), and then a bit of a settling in period where your mind recalibrates to its new mode of experience.

Instead of quoting others with various undefined definitions, define your terms and ask your question.
​​​​​​Much easier to answer that way.

Insite practice - vipassana - noticing the present moment experience and investigation of the 3 delusions
So insite PRACTICE leads to a non experience termed cessation.
Depending on your definitions.

​​​​​​​~D


​​​​

I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by insight. What is the word in the original language? Is it vipassana or another word that also means insight? ​​​​​​​

​​​​​​​Thanks

• PSYCHIATRY
  awareness by a mentally ill person that their mental experiences are not based in external reality.

noun

1. the capacity to gain an accurate and deep understanding of someone or something.

Insight is the understanding of a specific cause and effect within a particular context.

Insigh - In Sight (as in not hidden anymore, not ignored but seen). 

P.s. quoted from various sources who use non-original language (I guess). 

​​​​​​​ 

@Shagrol Thanks. It is helpful to be reminded that I'm not thinking about a simple process. That people are involved, so it's messy. For example, I have previously argued that the interpretation of insight (whatever it is) is at least partially determined by how one has been indoctrinated. 

The trick is to simplify the discussion enough to obtain some useful generalisations without over simplifying it. This them allows for variations and exceptions but allows us to think more clearly about it at the same time. 

In defence of scholarship, the lack of progress is not built in. I think Buddhist Studies is plagued by religious writers with academic credentials pursuing apologetic agendas. When I apply my scientific training, I believe I can and do make progress in understanding. And the aim is to find a way of talking about this that is both informative and clear. I admit that this may not be possible, but I'd still like to try. 

@Geoffrey B.

​​​​​​​I agree that terms are used too loosely and I'm guilty of that to some extent. To be honest, although I think cessation is relatively easy to understand, the term "insight" (I'm back-translating to prajñā in my mind) is often ill-defined or defined in sectarian Buddhist terms. I note that the neuroscientists who have begun to study this phenomenon have yet to settle on a term for cessation, let alone insight.  You seem to be saying that insight (that shift in perspective on experience) occurs independently of cessation. That would certainly be consistent with some strands of Buddhist thought, especially those that effectively abandoned meditation as a means to liberation from rebirth.  My sense from Buddhist texts is that they put a very high value, even the highest possible value, on the cessation of sensory experience. I suppose I'm trying to get a sense of why that was, while also processing the new article by Polak. 

@dreamwalker ​​​​​​​I suppose the take away here is that even the most commonly used English terms are vague and do not have agreed on definitions. 

I don't think about this in English terms that much unless I'm talking to non-specialists. What I'm interested in are more specifically: anupalambhayoga, nirodha, śūnyatā, and prajñā; and those mainly in a Prajñāpāramitā context (and definitely not Madhyamaka). My definitions of these terms are: the practice of non-apprehension of sensory experience, the cessation of sensory experience, the absence of sensory experience, and the knowledge that depends on the previous three. The first three form a natural sequence (this is a generalisation that allows for variantion without breaking). What I'd like to so is get a better understanding of how prajñā fits into this sequence. 

Prajñāpāramitā clearly places the highest value on cessation and absence of sensory experience. Maybe that was simply sectarian exceptionalism. But I want to try to understand it on it's own terms. 

@Jim Smith. "not clear on exactly what you mean by insight. What is the word in the original language? Is it vipassana or another word that also means insight? ​​​​​​​"

​​​​​​​The word I'm thinking of is prajñā, specifically as it is used in Prajñāpāramitā literature (and not with the usual Madhyamaka overlay). 

Cessation is not the only way to gain insight. It can also come gradually from observing the three characteristics as they apply to the mind, and by interrupting dependent origination. Observing the activity of the mind, acknowleding emotions and the sensation in the body that accompany them, noticing aspects of "self" all originate in the five aggregates which are impersonal, noticing impermanence of mental formations, noticing arising and fading of dukkha, noticing how the ego involved in dukkha arising, noticing how the sense of self changes from situation to situation, learning to let go by practicing relaxed mindfulness, being relaxed in the present moment interrupts the sequence of dependent origination.


https://inquiringmind.com/article/2701_w_kornfield-enlightenments/

"Cessation is not the only way to gain insight."

Sure. But I'm asking about the relationship between nirodha  and prajñā.