I've just finished reading MCTB and it left me with some confused questions. I'm not really sure what I want to ask, but here it goes:

1. There is the Six Sense Doors, including the five conventional senses plus those mysterious "thoughts". Now, if any thought I have I precieve as a speaking voice, visuals, feeling, etc., isn't there is only five doors?

2. Can I trace down any conceptual thought (whatever that is) into a bare sensation? If so, can we say that all thoughts begin with sensual/physical sensations? or maybe it can also go the other way around?

3. can I distinguish between gross sensations arising clearly from an external stimulation and more subtle sensations that are more doing with some more subtle processes of the mind and have nothing to do with my physical body?

Daniel writes: Coming directly after a physical sensation arises and passes is a separate pulse of reality that is the mental knowing of that physical sensation

4. I've tried to precive this second pulse but I'm not sure if did. Is this statement meant to be a hard fact or like a conceptual guideline?

5. Does "directly after" mean there is no possibility of sensation B arise before the mental knowing of sensation A?

6. Is it possible I perceive the mental knowing in my subtle body before the arising of the physical sensation?

7. If the physical sensation have a clear emotional content, or I'm dealing with something that is in between a thought and a sensations, does it still have a mental knowing? I mean, does everything arise in the mind can have this mental knowing?

8. Is it that the mental knowing is a separate mind, usually busy with memories, fantasies and planing, and that mindfulness means the working together of the knowing mind and the perceiving mind?

9. maybe the mental knowing come when the sensation meets it's higher fractal?

10. A sensation can be visual, auditory, etc. It can be something in between, like hearing my finger, all kind of synesthesia. sensation can also be hot, cold, dry, wet, seeming close or far, big or small, strong and weak. it can be moving, even moving while staying in place or be a movement. It may have verbal quality, like a word or syllable, isn't it? It can also be happy, angry, blueish, dark...the mind is really crazy! does all those changing, not-me qualities are content? isn't so is space, awareness, existence and being? can we put all those qualities in some kind a hierachical model, something like the five aggregates, the five elements, the abhidharma?

10. When noting sensations, do I coercing on the mental knowing a certain tempo and emphasis? when naming the sensations, do I freezing them with a cetrain relation to "myself"?

11. Sometimes I find myself looking frenzely for more sensations, with the eyes going everywhere. I thing I'm using all my ammo without targeting. should I ambush for the next sensation, go looking for it, or disintegrate the current one for smaller particles? any tips for accelerating the rate?

12. when contemplating on the Three Characteristics or whatever I choose to contemplate on, should I do it from time to time, generating a certain spirit for the investigation, or should I really intentionaly contemplate with each arising sensation, 10 time in a second all three together?

that's all for now

Hi and welcome to the DhO,



Whether thinking is a "sense" depends on how you define a "sense," I guess. There are certain modes of existing that allow one to see that thoughts are a unique phenomena (in both phenomenalogical presentation and in function) and that they are not simply some mimicry of sight/sound. The reason for confusion / lack of clarity is that the imagination often layers "voice, visuals, feeling" on top of thoughts. Thus, to see the nature of thoughts as thoughts-only, one must be in either a PCE or an actual freedom.



Thoughts themselves (with no imagined component) are extremely light, airy, elegant, brief / ephemeral...I am hard pressed to say that there is any sensation at all that would be coarse enough to be recognized as what I think you imply by the words "bare sensation," especially if one is trying to do so with the imagination in situ.



I don't know if you can do it ("can I?"), but doing so is entirely possible (indeed, a primary aim of insight meditation in general).

I will answer the rest in a bit.

Trent

You will likely need strong concentration to notice this "echo." I recommend listening to a clock tick-- or something else consistent and simple-- trying to catch "two clicks" per the single physical click of a clock. As an anecdote, I no longer experience that echo, so I think it has something to do with the thinking self (who 'I' think 'I' am) and therefore noticing this "split" is a noticing of a split which is indicative of a self.



I'm not sure I follow your "A" and "B" example, but perhaps this answers this question: The "mental knowing of that physical sensation" is an echo that occurs "directly after" the "physical sensation." The thinking self mimics the actual world in this way. As such, the echo cannot occur before the sensation.



I don't understand your question. Perhaps you could reword, clarify, or provide examples.




It is not a "separate mind," but could conceptually be thought of in such a way. There are perceived "splits" between selves; "who I think I am" perceives a split between itself and "who I feel I am" and "who I feel I am" perceives a split between itself and actual physical sensations ("what I am"). Does that resolve your question? If not, perhaps reword or clarify further.



I do not know what you mean here...perhaps you could reword, clarify, or provide examples.



I do not know what you mean here...perhaps you could reword, clarify, or provide examples.



I do not know what you mean here...perhaps you could reword, clarify, or provide examples.



Regarding the "should I:" try doing both. Try testing one or the other...identify which one seems the most interesting / telling / revealing. Note that when meditating, everything is to be considered a sensation, including sensations that imply space and other subtleties.



I recommend the former...some people have an easier time understanding certain characteristics at some times more so than others at other times. Perhaps just do what seems natural for you. For instance, 'I' was always very keen to the 'no-self' characteristic and looked for it often, whereas 'I' did not pick up on the 'suffering' characteristic very well and often excluded it entirely compared to my investigation into the other two. Also, try to understand how each relates to the other, such as how suffering is related to impermanence, how no-self is related to impermanence, and so on; a lot of this can be intellectual and then meditated on later to confirm / deny one's intellectual suspicions.

Trent

Quick question, not meant to derail the main discussion here. Couldn't phenomena like deja-vu, the feeling of knowing, taking the process of attention itself as the object of meditation, or other mental "feelings" be considered to reveal the existence of experiences that aren't directly related to the 5 bodily sense doors?

In fact, even vedana itself is a mental phenomena arising to the mind and being perceived by the mind, because the same bodily sensation (such as the taste of food) could be totally different if, for example, one person was not doing insight practice, and another person exposed to the same stimulus were in Misery or Disgust, and a third person were in Equanimity. One could imagine the first person experiencing liking, the second experiencing dislike, and the third person experiencing equanimity for that sense input.

My inclination is to say that a person can see the mind sense even without actual freedom or a PCE, even though I won't argue that actual freedom or a PCE would make it much easier to see an actual thought. I'm reminded of the time in early A&P when I noticed a thought that was about a sense input, but did not itself contain any verbal or other 5-sense component.

Thoughts?

Hi Adam,



Yeah, I think so. The mind does a lot more than just consciously think and sense, as you seem to allude to. I'm not sure I would say so for the examples you provide, but there are certainly things going on regarding the mind (and "not directly related to the 5 bodily sense doors") that can be known and that I would not call thoughts. For example, I can look at my monitor and measure the dimensions with my eyes... I am aware that as I look from one corner of the top of the monitor to the other corner that there is some sort of cognizance going on, but there is (in this example) absolutely no thoughts going on as in the sense I spoke regarding the PCE / AF (the section you quoted).

To clarify, perhaps it is possible to be clearly aware of an "actual thought" (only) without the identity otherwise distorting it, but I do not recollect ever having done so outside of a PCE / AF. Thoughts are extremely subtle, and the identity and all of its distortions are quite coarse...I suspect it would be like trying to clearly see all of the edges / dimensions and textures of a needle that was thrown on top of a ragged pile of hay, while standing a few feet from the pile, while chickens were running all over the place kicking up dust and otherwise raising hell in the general vicinity. [Edit] And your glasses' lenses are cracked!

Best,
Trent

I would like further elaboration regarding the mental echo following physical sensations. After reading daniels book I was also unsure about whether this was meant to be interpreted literally or in a more abstract way. I understand that for any sensation to occur there must be a stimulus, a cause and effect. So for example when you touch something with your finger, the nerves in your finger are stimulated and a signal is sent to your brain. It is impossible to actually percieve that initial stimulus. What we percieve is consciousness, which is the mental representation of the initial touch, and which occurs after that touch is relayed to the brain.

So, I was unsure whether the initial "sensation", followed by the "mental impression or echo", were what I described above, or, after actual consciousness of a sensation, there is another "echo". Trent's comments above say that there is an actual echo, and to focus on a clock or something else steady. But Trent, you then say you can no longer percieve the echo. I am confused.

I was also wondering if the echo referred to one's awareness of the sensation. So if you are doing insight practice, you must note the initial sensation, as well as note the sensation of noting. If anyone can help clarify this topic it would be a big help to my insight practice. Thanks,

Spencer

When 'I' read the MCTB section you guys are referring to, 'I' meditated that night and was able to find both the sensation and the echo, and was able to successfully find it on other attempts and did so until 'I' decided that there was nothing left to learn from that. Perhaps stating it that way clarifies things?



It is entirely possible to actually perceive the initial stimulus, as well as the mental echo (if the self which would echo the sensation is extant in you). When you say "what we percieve is consciousness..." you seem to be alluding to the "echo" and not the actual sensation. To elaborate slightly: pure consciousness is not perceived, it is the raw perceiving of actual sensations ("apperception" is a term found in the Oxford dictionary which is defined as "the mind perceiving itself"). And so, it is most likely that what you are calling "consciousness" is the self, and in that mode of being, your otherwise pure / bare consciousness is perceiving the self and erroneously calling the self "consciousness." But don't take my word for it...try for yourself and see if you can identify the echo when it happens. It is very subtle, so you'll need to power up your concentration and look very closely.



It is as you say here: "after actual consciousness of a sensation, there is another 'echo.'" It is not an "actual" echo... if you are noticing the "mental echo" of a sound, the "mental echo" is not actually a sound-wave being sensed by the ear, it is a sort of imagined / delusional echo (albeit a reliable one because it a function or a part of the self). And so it follows, as I have no self at all and am only ever apperceptively conscious of actual sensations, I do not have the "software" (the self) which produces the "echo" in question.



I'm not entirely sure if I follow, but I have an inkling that you are on the right track. What it seems like, experientially, is that there is a sensation and then an instant later, "I" become aware of it. (Like the first sensation was not "me" even though "my body" clearly was what sensed it). To say it another way: the body, which is not separate from the universe, picks up a sound wave in the room and directly perceives that sensation. A very, very brief moment after the original, actual sensation, the self usurps this bare sensation, identifies with it, applies a filter to it, becomes aware of it, watches it, or however you would like to think about it... The echo is the moment the self "claims" the world for its' own, or perhaps another way of saying it is that it is the moment when the "outside world" enters into your "inside world" and so seeing this "split" occurring in real time, especially at rapid speed, can be very insightful.

Best,
Trent

Trent:


Thanks

Trent:


This could be like the Hindu concept of the mental body. I have read a book called "The Mental Body", which have a lot of weird Theosophist "clairvoyance findings" but is quiet interesting nonetheless. He talks there about seeing the creation of a "mental form" as something very subtle and beautiful, and goes on to describe with visual metaphors how mental forms vibrate and acts one on its other and on the grosser bodies.

Trent:


I feel sensation A, then sensation B, then a mental note of sensation A, then a mental note of sensation B. could be?

Spencer:


But then you can also note of noting and then the noting of the noting. This kind of loop happens to me a lot, especially when I decide to do a very formless practice of nothing but speechless noting. Then I note an anxious thought says "oh, not again" and something else comes. The loop is like a growing tension and release. I thinks we unenlightened people get into this kind of loops whenever being "self-aware".

Trent:


Ok, when doing bodyscan the procedure gets inertia of it own - which is good in case I want to calm my mind, but if I want to get new insight I try to be mindful of the scanning and of the sensations as well. For example, I can fill a sensation of my toe, then I see the awareness I shifting to my ankle, and I fill pleasant yellow energy growing there. Then I see a thought who says the sensation is clear enough and I go to scan another part. So, Isn't it that there are sensation who are created by my self/ego, and so I know them before they arise? On a second though, maybe I'm just aware for the shifting of awareness or the intention to do it.

Spencer:


I think there is a misunderstanding here between Trent and Spencer. In the mind, "the brain" is just a concept, or better, a bunch of incoherent rumors. Some of us believe nonetheless that when the brain die the mind will stop to exist, and that there is some ultimate reality which is outside the limits of the mind. This, in my opinion, is a purely philosophical subject, not related to spiritual practice.

Thanks for the replies Trent and Yair. Regarding Yair's last point, I think there was a misunderstanding about what I was saying because of my wording. I was trying to explain how the brain can only percieve the signal of touch from the nerves, after it has actually happened in objective reality. But I got what I needed to know from Trent regardless. My understanding is that with touch, there is contact with nerves which creates the signals to the brain. The initial contact I don't percieve, what I percieve is the signal of the contact. This signal is the bare sensation. Then, there is a metal echo of the bare sensation, that is more of an imagining by the self, and is different from the bare sensation, but is still very reliable as it is a function of the self. So I can only actually percieve two sensations. The bare and the echo. Correct? I think I got it.

It is interesting how this works --- it seems like a positive feedback loop.

Hello,



The actual mind is not a "place" for which there are only concepts about everything else, nor it is not a super-space where things actually exist, nor do any answers ever occur to one as a result of it's existence. This "mind" is, in essence, the "self" in its totality; a separate world only aware to itself. These kind of confusions about the "body / mind" stem from the delusional sense of having a "mind's eye" / a self and the lack of perspective that engenders. When the mind perceives itself (and in so doing is unaware of a "mind" / "mind's eye" in the sense that I suspect you are familiar with and using above) the brain is known to be much more than simply a concept.

Not only will the "mind" stop existing when the brain dies, but it can (in the sense that the word "mind" is being used above) "die" before physical death as well. Then one is the doing of what is happening, alive in the world as it is, intimate and aware of one's physical surroundings and with not a blip of suffering in sight. This will show one, intimately, undeniably, and matter-of-factly, that there is an "ultimate reality" which only seemed to be "outside the limits" of the personal "mind," and one will know that the only thing that kept one from experiencing that "ultimate reality" (this physical universe) was "me" and "my mind." Without "me" in the way, I am in this world here and now, perceiving it directly with an apperceptive mind, and it is so perfect as to be called magical (and so much more). I kid you not.



I think you've almost got it (I would have thought you understood completely if not for the first sentence of the quoted section). The "initial contact" and the "signal of contact" should be treated as the same phenomena (because that is the case). Treating the nerve / signal as separate things is not necessary, because your awareness of a sensation is a direct function of your brain, and your brain is part of the nervous system. Being aware of a sensation, then, is a function of the nervous system in its totality, and so breaking up the parts of the system into things like the "signal," nerve, "mind," and or anything else is not necessary. Said another way: because the brain and the nerves in your finger (for example) are part of the same system, the touch and the awareness of the touch are actually the same thing; it is only the "mind's eye" or the "self" or the thing that "echo's" the sensation that masks this direct sensory awareness.

One way to approach this meditation exercise is to try to sense a sensation on both the "outside" and on the "inside" (a split instant later). If you were tapping your finger on the desk, it's like you feel the "initial contact" at your finger, and then there's an impression in your head when "you know it happened." It may be useful just to try tapping your finger like that while trying only to notice the "outside" sensation. When you're familiar with that sensation, continue to tap your finger while only trying to be aware of the "knowing of it" on the "inside." When familiar with both, try to catch the "echo" in action, by being aware of both the "outside" of the sensation and the "inside" ("echo") of the same sensation.

Best,
Trent

Thanks Trent. I agree, what I was asking was unnecessary. I've been practicing noting for the past week now with special attention to the echo. Now I clearly notice that there is the bare sensation, as well as an awareness of the sense of self. The echo is very interesting. So far it has appeared as this feeling of attachment to the sensations, as if my mind when observing a sensation goes "okay, that sensation is over there, and it is happening to "me" over here." It appears as this awareness that the sensation just happened, and that "I" observed it. I wasn't sure whether this is what I was supposed to be looking for, or if there was some kind of imagined replica of the sensation that your mind creates right after the real one. Most of the time I was noticing the former qualities of the echo, but on occasion it seemed like my mind made an actual replica of the sensation right after the real one. I wasn't sure if this was my own doing though, due to being unsure of whether that replica was what I was supposed to be seeing. Is there an actual replica? Or just a sense of awareness of the bare sensation, a sense of self? Or both?

Or is there an actual sensation only, followed by a persistent delusion thus far referred to as an "echo?"

These are the questions to ask when you are doing the practice itself, which is one way to figure out these matters in a way that allows one to be one's own "guru." Draw on all of your knowledge: think about what you've read (try to prove something you read correct / incorrect), think about your past, think about yourself in relation to others, think about things from a common sense view and abstract views, think about things as if they're only objective or only subjective, think about things from a standpoint of empirical science, think about what a fact is and is not...and on and on while observing the phenomena in question (whether the "echo" in this case or "something else" in another).

If you do this investigation through to the end-- genuinely leaving no stone unturned-- you will eventually arrive where there are no more questions to ask, because you will have uncovered the perfection that is always already available. From that point onward, the universe is simple and the facts immanent, and in an every-day, down-to-earth sort of way.

Enjoy,
Trent

Two points of view:

From an AF point of view, which Trent advocates, follow his advice and see things as they are and the distortion created by the sense of a knower.

From an insight point of view, the particular importance of the echo makes itself clear at various points along the stages of insight, particularly the second insight stage, Cause and Effect, but at some other places as well. However, once it is seen in some basic way one can move on to deeper insight points, such as the Three Characteristics at a fine level, which will, by simply trying to see them, reveal things about the echoing mental impressions and the intentions that precede actions.

Daniel