Hey all,In the  a&p a sort of stroboscopic experience is often reported. Are these stroboscopic experiences related to the brains' or the sense organs’ perceptual sampling rate? And if so, does that mean that what we perceive as arising and passing away (in insight meditation) is a reflection of how the mind constructs experience — rather than a direct perception of impermanence as it exists in “reality”?
Thanks for your clarification

​​​​​​​Hi Peter,

This is an interesting question.  I had the impression of falling into a tunnel of vibrating light, which seems to be a classic A&P experience (see Daniel's notes on "vortex-like phenomena" here).  This experience was intense, immersive, and weird, and it involved flashing light, but it wasn't stroboscopic in a technical sense (there were no aliasing effects).  I don't think my perception was synchronized to the frequency of the light pattern, because I perceived the tunnel as a cohesive visual structure, not as a distinct series of individual light and dark frames.  I didn't experience what (for example) Daniel describes in this interview (tag: "On Meditation creating a high speed camera to watch reality").

My answer would be: both and... you have to, or you will see both of these things in impermanence. I can't speak to the actual sampling rate of the mind or the body, but a lot of people can and do.
depending on your style and or disposition, you may or may not be able to either. Daniel speaks about vibrations in ranges of hz, etc, something that would never occur or even be possible for my pea brain to do. 

All we have is the experience of meditation during meditation. Sometimes it seems digital (discrete mind moments) and sometimes it seems analog (timeless sense of continuous presence).  It's hard to say what reality "is". 

Any particular reason why you're curious about this?

Hello Shargol, 
A characteristic of ultimate reality is impermanence. In deep vipassana meditation this shows up as e.g. stroboscopic effects and is seen as proof of impermanence. But if it is ‘just’ the sample rate of our senses that we start to experience (because our mind gets really fast) then for me it is more like an interesting effect instead of insight into impermanence. 
Please let me know your thoughts on this,
Peter

There's a way of looking at this, and it requires that we use some definitions purely for this conversation. If you dont like these definitions you can definitely set them aside, but I find them helpful

Sunnata - The construct nature of experience. There is no inherent value or meaning to experience, value and meaning are also a component of this construction

Anicca - The unreliable nature of experience

So as we go about our lives we live in a constructed or assembled world. A world assembled by our minds. But this constructed or assembled nature isnt visible to us. Its through meditation practice that we can see the construction or the assembly. We may first start seeing it in one particular aspect like sounds vibrating or views or ditthis breaking down or thoughts vibrating.

The mind engages with the 'mark' of sunnata for some time and then it cottons on to anicca. This is more about our relationship with experience/experiencing. We want it to be reliable, predictable, understandable ... and ... it isnt! 

So Sunnata feels like - WOWZA!!
Anicca feels like - Oh dear lord No!!
Dukkha feels like - Somebody please save me!!
Anatta feels like - aaaaaahhhhhh!!

does that mean that what we perceive as arising and passing away (in insight meditation) is a reflection of how the mind constructs experience — rather than a direct perception of impermanence as it exists in “reality”?

Yes. Except the knowledge of arising and passing away is a knowledge it is not an experience. We 'know' that stuff is assembled when we get the udayavaya nyana. This knowing isnt idea or concept based, nor does it come along with any specific language. We 'know' this experientially.

And ... it doesnt necessarily come with any amazeballs experience. It can happen without any great affective exhilaration or high.

Thanks all for your reflections,
thanks Adi for emphasizing the knowledge aspect. That point of will keep me meditating.

"Is seen as proof of impermanence" by who?  By you?  Why do you think that?

What do you mean by 'sample rate of our senses'?  
What do you mean by "because our mind gets really fast"?

One could say that insight into impermanence has an interesting effect on the way things are perceived and understood.  
.
.

Hope you don't mind my in-line comments like this, just trying to get to the bottom of what you are asking

And, to echo Adi's point earlier... and 'insight into something' is a knowledge about the nature of something... in this case, we're talking about (I think) the impermanant nature of all phenomena.  All sensations rise and pass (the A&P).  Are visual representations of the rising and passing of phenomena the same thing as an insight into the impermanent nature of things, is I think what you are asking.  I guess the answer would be no, if I'm understanding the question correctly. 

I guess it would be like asking, is 'proof of' something the same as the thing itself?  Well, no.  But if you have proof of something, that can lead to 'the thing itself', which is why I'm asking these questions