The nature of vedana

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

Hi all,

Sorry if this is really obvious, but I'm still a relative novice to vipassana meditation and your help would be appreciated!

I'm trying to understand vedana, which is usually translated as "feeling" or "sensation" (one of the five aggregates). I understand that it involves body sensation (which may be pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant nor unpleasant). In my meditation practice I experience the unpleasant sensations as pain or itching/prickling, and the pleasant sensations as a gentle tingling in the skin. These sensations seem to mainly occur in the skin but also within the body.

The main view (though some writers disagree) seems to be that vedana is the third of several "processing" steps in the mind. The first step is vinnana, or sense consciousness (when our sense organs come into contact with external sense objects). The second is sanna, when an unconscious part of our mind recognises and evaluates these objects as "good", "bad", or "neutral". Then comes vedana, then finally (in the untrained mind at least), vedana is followed by sankhara, or reaction to sensations. Is this correct?

What I'm confused about is this: Is vedana always a sensation in the body? For example, if I see something unpleasant, the unpleasant sensation isn't in my eyes, right? Or if I hear something pleasant, I don't get a pleasant sensation in my ears. So is it the case that input from any sensory modality is somehow translated to a sensation in my body - trunk, arms, legs, etc?

The quote below from S. N. Goenka seems to imply that pleasant/unpleasant sensations are generally bodily, rather than being tied to the sense door that cognised the object:

"When one looks within, one finds that the moment a sound touches the ear sense door, there is a vibration, a neutral vibration. If the sanna (perception) says that it is bad, this vibration changes into an unpleasant physical sensations or vibration. If the sanna says, "Oh, this is a word of praise; ah, wonderful!", then immediately this neutral vibration becomes very pleasant. These sensations comprise the third part of the mind: vedana. In India today the word vedana has only one meaning: misery, unhappiness, pain or sorrow. Twenty-five centuries ago vedana referred to any sensation--pleasant, unpleasant or neutral."

Thanks!

[Andrew]

Hmmm, what do you think? 

When you sit and notice stuff, what actually happens? My opinion is that as interesting as this stuff can get, (Dependant Origination they call it), the more you read / learn, the less you will actually know that you have seen it for yourself. I'm currently 'resetting' my mind by letting all of this sort of thing just fall away, because the more you look into it, the more it reveals how thoroughly we want to 'get it right' and past some imaginary test.

Analyse afterwards, in retrospect, if you go looking for a particular thing how will you be able to know that it was actually already there?

If you are asking what to call particular parts of what you are noticing in your sits, then ignore me, if you are trying to get the 'techincal lingo' right before noticing it for yourself, then how will you know that you didn't just make it up? You want to see is as it is, not as the books say it is. Maybe they are wrong? ! 

that is just an opinion of course, I am not experienced at all in Goenka's instructions, I choose to keep things much more freestyle with a close eye on how much influence is shaping what I find.

This isn't to shut you query down by the way; let me put it this way; the itching feelings, how much detail can you notice in them? Does noticing them increase/decrease them? Why are they the way they are? How much is physical/mental? What actually happens in your practice and then perhaps the more advanced people can point out how they see your experience lining up with the traditions, rather than learning about it first, then looking for it.

always keeping in mind though that this path (insight) goes somewhere, make sure you have some idea what can happen without scripting it. Difficult balance, can't say I've got it right, or will, but I know it is both a help and hindrance to 'know all the right words' sometimes.







 

[Andrew]

then perhaps the more advanced people can point out how they see your experience lining up with the traditions

that is a reference to others, not me. I am talking from experience of learning all the words too fast though. (Hence now having to 'reset' my brain!)

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

When you sit and notice stuff, what actually happens? My opinion is that as interesting as this stuff can get, (Dependant Origination they call it), the more you read / learn, the less you will actually know that you have seen it for yourself. I'm currently 'resetting' my mind by letting all of this sort of thing just fall away, because the more you look into it, the more it reveals how thoroughly we want to 'get it right' and past some imaginary test.

Analyse afterwards, in retrospect, if you go looking for a particular thing how will you be able to know that it was actually already there?

Hey Andrew, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your sentiments; I agree it's important not to over-analyse things and begin a meditation practice with particular preconceptions or expectations. Actually when I first signed up for a 10-day retreat, I had absolutely no idea what to expect - I just went along because a friend recommended it and I had some spare time.

With regard to my own experience of sensations; well, for example, I live in a city full of awful drivers, and I sometimes find myself getting angry and driving aggressively myself in response to being tail-gated or cut off dangerously. Since learning vipassana, I'm now aware of an irritating prickling sensation in my arms and legs when something unpleasant happens, and sometimes I manage to pick up on this and prevent an angry emotional reaction. So it seems that seeing something aversive (e.g., a big 4x4 two feet from my back bumper at 110 km/h) leads directly to bodily sensations, which then often lead to an emotional reaction.

To add a bit more background to my initial post, my first retreat sparked a keen interest in the "Buddhist psychology" underlying my experiences, and in fact it's motivated me to return to university to try and study it. So the main reason I've posted this question is because I'm studying toward a masters in neuroscience this year, and I'm considering measuring some of the neurophysiological processes underlying somatic sensations, as well as examining how these bodily sensations may affect the reward circuitry of the brain and give rise to emotional reactivity. So I want to be sure I've properly understood the intellectual aspects of the five aggregates and how they link together in order to plan my research.

[Vivek]

What I'm confused about is this: Is vedana always a sensation in the body?

Yes. Goenkaji's tradition places the utmost importance to observing the natural body sensations, which are experienced throughout the whole body, both on the surface as well as inside the body.

For example, if I see something unpleasant, the unpleasant sensation isn't in my eyes, right?

Not necessarily. The core process is that, any sensory input, after passing through our mental evaluative filters (Sannya) results in a sensation in the body. Now, whether in the case of a visual input, the sensation is experienced in the eye or not, cannot be definitively said. It may be experienced, it may not. Sometimes, it may be experienced in the eyes only, sometimes, in the eyes and some other parts of body, sometimes, in other parts of the body but not in the eyes etc etc. The experiencing of a sensation is not dependent on the quality/quantity of the sensory input, but depends entirely on how your Sannya interprets the input.

So is it the case that input from any sensory modality is somehow translated to a sensation in my body - trunk, arms, legs, etc?

Yes. It is not necessary to understand how exactly the sensation is created, or which sensory input creates what sensation, for how long etc. That does not serve any purpose. The important thing is to understand the impermanent nature of whatever sensation that is experienced. I cannot emphasize this point enough, but unfortunately, so many practitioners miss it.

[siddharthgode]

Hey Andrew, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your sentiments; I agree it's important not to over-analyse things and begin a meditation practice with particular preconceptions or expectations. Actually when I first signed up for a 10-day retreat, I had absolutely no idea what to expect - I just went along because a friend recommended it and I had some spare time.

With regard to my own experience of sensations; well, for example, I live in a city full of awful drivers, and I sometimes find myself getting angry and driving aggressively myself in response to being tail-gated or cut off dangerously. Since learning vipassana, I'm now aware of an irritating prickling sensation in my arms and legs when something unpleasant happens, and sometimes I manage to pick up on this and prevent an angry emotional reaction. So it seems that seeing something aversive (e.g., a big 4x4 two feet from my back bumper at 110 km/h) leads directly to bodily sensations, which then often lead to an emotional reaction.

I dont know if i will be much use to you but i would like to share my experience with this.
if i take the same example , everytime i drive if i am aware of the sanghara that rises at the moment of irritation and remain equanimus then it disintigrates after sometime. similarly in all activities, i keep removing sangaras and my reactions to similar experience will be far lesser even if i forget to be aware of the sensation for some reason.
so the goal should be to just remove the sangaras. understanding the mind is not possible at this stage is my view...

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

The core process is that, any sensory input, after passing through our mental evaluative filters (Sannya) results in a sensation in the body. Now, whether in the case of a visual input, the sensation is experienced in the eye or not, cannot be definitively said. It may be experienced, it may not. Sometimes, it may be experienced in the eyes only, sometimes, in the eyes and some other parts of body, sometimes, in other parts of the body but not in the eyes etc etc. The experiencing of a sensation is not dependent on the quality/quantity of the sensory input, but depends entirely on how your Sannya interprets the input.

Thanks Vivek, that is very helpful. So sanna is the process that evaluates bare sensation and determines the form of the somatic sensation, presumably based on past experience in similar situations with similar sensory input.

It is not necessary to understand how exactly the sensation is created, or which sensory input creates what sensation, for how long etc. That does not serve any purpose. The important thing is to understand the impermanent nature of whatever sensation that is experienced. I cannot emphasize this point enough, but unfortunately, so many practitioners miss it.

I do appreciate that it is not necessary to understand the details of the process in order to practice the technique, and I'm striving to keep my practice separate from my quest to understand the psychological and neurological processes occurring. My motivation for the latter is that mindfulness meditation might find a wider audience if its biological underpinnings can be established scientifically. That is, those from secular backgrounds or various religions who might otherwise benefit from such a practice may currently reject it out of hand.

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

I dont know if i will be much use to you but i would like to share my experience with this.
if i take the same example , everytime i drive if i am aware of the sanghara that rises at the moment of irritation and remain equanimus then it disintigrates after sometime. similarly in all activities, i keep removing sangaras and my reactions to similar experience will be far lesser even if i forget to be aware of the sensation for some reason.
so the goal should be to just remove the sangaras. understanding the mind is not possible at this stage is my view...

Thanks Siddharthgode, yes I probably used the wrong language when I said I that sometimes I manage to "prevent an angry emotional reaction". It's not really a matter of controlling, more of observing the feeling, remaining equanimous, and allowing it to pass away naturally, as all things do. And as you point out, over time, the habit of not creating new sankharas, plus removing old ones through vipassana, should eventually lead to lowered emotional reactivity. Personally I have a long way to go with this!

[Matthew]

....understanding the mind is not possible at this stage is my view...

This is right view. This is why we anchor practice in bodily sensations and relaxed awake awareness: to dissociate enough from mind contents to see them from a distance. Then come the "AHA!" monents of realisation that strip away the layers of the onion.

[Vivek]

So sanna is the process that evaluates bare sensation and determines the form of the somatic sensation, presumably based on past experience in similar situations with similar sensory input.

Sannya does not evaluate sensations, but the sensory inputs (it is also to be noted that mind is also considered as one sense-door). Sensations are the result of Sannya's activity. How Sannya evaluates is based on past experiences.

My motivation for the latter is that mindfulness meditation might find a wider audience if its biological underpinnings can be established scientifically.

I understand your motivations, but I would still suggest to hold your quest in this direction for the time being. Once you have matured in your practice enough, you will gain enough insights and clarity and answers would start coming to you. Also, then you will be far more clearer on what exactly your mode of investigation should be, which would result in the utmost benefit to yourself as well as others to whom you want the message of Vipassana to reach to.

Another fact is that there has been a lot of research on Vipassana over the past decades which substantiate the scientific basis of Vipassana quite strongly. So, I hardly think you will have to strive too much to establish it yourself.

Again, how the Enlightened One established this path during his time is also worth noting. He did not try to create multiple perspectives to the path for others, to help them make their own conclusions about the technique intellectually. Instead, the most important yard-stick to realize the benefit of practising Vipassana is one's own direct experience, which is what the Buddha always stressed on.
 

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

Sannya does not evaluate sensations, but the sensory inputs (it is also to be noted that mind is also considered as one sense-door). Sensations are the result of Sannya's activity. How Sannya evaluates is based on past experiences.

Ah yes, of course, thanks for pointing out my mistake! I'm in the habit of using the word "sensation" to mean bare sensory input, as this is its usual meaning in cognitive neuroscience. I must be more precise with my language.

I understand your motivations, but I would still suggest to hold your quest in this direction for the time being. Once you have matured in your practice enough, you will gain enough insights and clarity and answers would start coming to you.

An excellent point, but sadly, maturing in practice seems to take time - I've been told it could take perhaps a whole lifetime, or several, depending on one's past kamma! Admittedly I haven't been practicing for long (four retreats since 2006 and only patchy daily practice in between), but I can't afford to put off my research for another 20 years to wait for more direct experiential insights - especially as I'm already in my 40s!

Another fact is that there has been a lot of research on Vipassana over the past decades which substantiate the scientific basis of Vipassana quite strongly. So, I hardly think you will have to strive too much to establish it yourself.

I do take issue with this point, as I've chosen a career as a scientist. Should myself and other scientists cease studying this area now because the scientific basis has already been soundly established?

Regarding previous scientific research on vipassana and other meditation techniques, I've become fairly well acquainted with it over the past few years. And I agree that there have been some very interesting findings, especially in neuroscience. For example, an ancient region of the brain called the insula (which processes bodily sensation) is significantly larger in long-term meditators. There has also been active development and promotion of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) by many scientists, based on an earlier approach by Jon Kabat-Zinn.

However, to my knowlege nobody has yet studied the physiological basis of "sensations" in long-term vipassana practitioners and measured them objectively. (Of course, I'd be thrilled if you can point me to some research that has!) In addition, only a minority of neuroscientists currently hold the view that sensations CAUSE reactions (where "reaction" refers to thoughts, speech, and physical behaviour). Most still believe that sensations are merely a side-effect of emotion and are not causal in behaviour and decision making. The four-part model of the mind presented by the Buddha is far from being adopted (or even recognised) by mainstream cognitive neuroscience.

Again, how the Enlightened One established this path during his time is also worth noting. He did not try to create multiple perspectives to the path for others, to help them make their own conclusions about the technique intellectually. Instead, the most important yard-stick to realize the benefit of practising Vipassana is one's own direct experience, which is what the Buddha always stressed on. 

I do realise that to advance on the path, an intellectual understanding is secondary to practice and direct experience, and I'll continue to work on my own practice. However, I think that in the 21st century it is also critical to understand the underlying psychological processes from a scientific perspective, and this can only promote further interest and respect toward the teachings. I know that His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama believes that Buddhism is fully compatible with science; in fact, HH takes a keen interest in neuroscience.

I've chosen to study some aspects of dependent origination from a neuroscientific perspective in an attempt to establish "right livelihood" and with the motivation to help others (particularly those individuals for whom meditation and retreats are out of the question). That is why I am endeavouring to learn as much as possible about the intellectual rationale behind vipassana practice, and I feel fortunate to have found a forum with knowledgeable people who are happy to help.

I thank you for your feedback and advice, and look forward to learning more. 

[Andrew]

I appreciate your approach here, there is plenty of use for good science in helping people get a perspective on what is going on when someone 'meditates'. I think your efforts will definitely help people. I'm all for it actually, my earlier comments are more directed to the assumption I made about where you were coming from, now I know you are not trying to 'get it right' but simply see how (and if) science lines up with certain terms, I'm all for geeking it up. though in the spirit of true science, I would put forward that the best results would still come from someone doing the practice, without really knowing the official goenka theory.

The practice you have done so far would have had plenty of data for you to research, yeah? Still, do it in retrospect, I wouldn't go looking for this sensation or that sensation, you may just find it! And then what? Buddha is right? Goenka is right? Who cares, faith has a funny (maybe wrong word there)  way of blinding people. A little bit of confidence goes along way, faith is a trap though.

But, yeah, science. Got to love it.

[Andrew]

You may enjoy this paper that one the forum members (Nick -screen name 'nibs') participated in.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B9IyLjPYAVCYMzQ3MTUwYjUtZjQyNy00OGIyLTg5NTUtZDkyYWQxN2JmZThh&hl=en_US&pli=1

[Vivek]

Hello DNONS,

 Firstly, your spirit and enthusiasm in Vipassana is certainly laudable.

...but I can't afford to put off my research for another 20 years to wait for more direct experiential insights - especially as I'm already in my 40s!

Let me clear up some assumptions here:

1. I did not say that you wait 20 years to begin your investigation. I said, let your practice (and by that, I meant daily, consistent practice; attending few retreats and then a rudimentary practice off-retreat won't do) take you to a level of maturity wherein you will realize what exactly the mode of your investigation should be, which would benefit both yourself and others. However, that would be applicable to you, if you consider yourself a practitioner, a traveller on the path of Dhamma, first, and then a scientist, investigator etc (and this is meant in a secular sense; to walk on the path of Dhamma, one certainly needs to be a scientist who observes and studies one's own subjective world). I now feel that you are more inclined towards investigation to get the benefits of Vipassana across to the whole world, rather than fructifying your own practice first.

2. It is certainly not necessary that you SHOULD take 20 years or a whole lifetime, to get well-established in Dhamma. Also, it is not necessary that you should wait to get thoroughly established in Dhamma first (although it is preferable), and then start giving full justice to your spirit of inquiry and the want to approach Vipassana scientifically. Your own insights on the path will help you realize what you should do and when. So, my suggestion is to let go of such limiting assumptions and gear up for a committed, persistent practice, if you are really determined to make your life beneficial to the whole mankind through Dhamma.     

I do take issue with this point, as I've chosen a career as a scientist. Should myself and other scientists cease studying this area now because the scientific basis has already been soundly established?

See what I have written above. The spirit of investigation, analysis etc are certainly admirable and worth cherishing, but first, they should be directed to studying your own inner-world, before it can be of any benefit to others. And for that to happen, sit, observe within, undertand.

However, to my knowlege nobody has yet studied the physiological basis of "sensations" in long-term vipassana practitioners and measured them objectively.

I agree, there has not been any research towards scientifically (secular sense) establishing the four major categories of the mind (Vinnyana, Sannya etc) and their interactions. However, your phrase "measured them objectively" is where I have an issue with. Can you let me know what objective methodology would you use to measure something objectively, that is fully pertaining to the subjective world? I am yet to come across a convincing study that has successfully used methods applicable only in the domain-of-objects, to the domain-of-the-subject. This is where all attempts to scientifically establish concepts/methodologies in fields like traditional psychology etc, break down. And this is one of the main reasons why psychology (which is a modern version of a subjective science, similar to what Buddha introduced 2500 years ago: the applications, purpose etc are widely different though) is still not regarded as a branch of science. This is also why, in my previous post, I stressed on personal, direct experience as the most important yard-stick to measure effectiveness of Vippasana, for oneself and for others, no exceptions. So, even though four categories of mind etc are mostly unknown to the secular science community, I wouldn't be much bothered about it, because the basis of such ignorance, is inherent in the very modes on which the modern, scientific domain operates. Any way, I wouldn't want to discourage you in your attempts and I may not be totally right also. You have to decide for yourself what you want to do and how you want to do it. What I have said, are my own conclusions arrived at through mine, as well as many other practitioners' experiences.

...Of course, I'd be thrilled if you can point me to some research that has!...

Check out the DVD "Mindfulness and the Brain" by Jack Kornfield. The program is a conversation between Jack Kornfield and the renowned neuro-scientist, Dr. Daniel Siegel. You may find a lot of useful information therein, about the latest researsh. However, as I know it, Dr. Siegel does not touch upon the four categories of the mind.

The four-part model of the mind presented by the Buddha is far from being adopted (or even recognised) by mainstream cognitive neuroscience.

Yes, and I encourage you to pursue further in this direction, if you really feel passionate about it. The approach to bring this about successfully, is what we need to think about.

That is why I am endeavouring to learn as much as possible about the intellectual rationale behind vipassana practice, and I feel fortunate to have found a forum with knowledgeable people who are happy to help.

Glad to know that. Throw in more questions when you get some, we will discuss.

After all, who knows, things may not be the way I think they are, and you may just surprise all of us!

[siddharthgode]

hi,
i would like to add this,
a eager mind will find very less compared to a calm, tranquil mind.
i like to do any work with maximum efficiency. so i do preparations, i collect all the things i need before starting.
so if i were you i would start with getting a calm mind first. 

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

Thank-you all once again for your awesome comments!  The general message I'm hearing is that getting properly established in dhamma and thus achieving a calm, tranquil mind will be of considerable help in achieving insights that can assist with the scientific study of the mind. Progress is otherwise likely to be uncertain and inefficient.

This makes a lot of sense, but I still can help feeling there's a practical issue with this approach. My (possibly mistaken!) view is that even once one has established a regular and serious practice, progress on the path (and I'm assuming this includes any insights that may occur) tends to be quite slow. This view is based on information I've gleaned from retreats, talking to other vipassana practitioners, reading books, and also my own personal experience. Regarding the latter, I've experienced many difficulties with my practice (which I hope to ask your advice about in another thread). Because of these difficulties, I've had limited success at sustaining daily meditation for extended periods of time. The best I've managed was a daily two-hour practice over a period of 6 months between two retreats in 2008, which I ceased because I felt I was deriving no benefit from it. It may well be this failure to maintain daily practice for at least a year that has led me to think real benefits and insights are very slow to come - or maybe I've made the mistake of craving for the calmness, peace, and other good things that I've been told about!

My point is, if progress is indeed slow, then it follows that I must, in parallel, pursue a purely academic and intellectual approach based on the information handed down in the suttas. In an ideal world, I would first devote two or three years to full-time meditative practice, but unfortunately I have a real-world need to be in the position to earn money again one day and not remain a postgrad student forever!

In reply to some of your other interesting comments:

Vivek, with regard to measuring the subjective events of the mind, I guess it depends on what one believes about the mind. If the mind is a metaphysical entity, and if "sensations" are something non-material, then they're probaby non-measurable, as you suggest. But I have to work under the assumptions that we are beings of matter, and that the mind emerges from the activity of the material brain - these assumptions are required for a science of the mind. If the assumptions are correct, then neuroscience is developing many methods (e.g., various types of neuroimaging) for measuring events in the brain/mind and body. "Sensations" such as tingling, itching, tickling, sensual touch, heat, pain, visceral sensations etc arise in nerve endings throughout the body and are transmitted to the brain via the lamina I spinothalamocortical and other pathways, where they are somatotopically mapped onto the insula. These sensations are quite amenable to measurement (e.g., via EEG, SSNA, fMRI), and can even be induced by electrical stimulation of the insula.

With regard to your comments about psychology - I agree that psychology as a whole is often perceived as a "soft science" or even pseudoscience; however, there are numerous sub-disciplines of psychology, some of which (e.g., operant behaviour, psychophysics, and behavioural neuroscience) are actually extremely rigorous and do indeed count as "real science". Other areas try to use scientific techniques but are often plagued by speculation and non-falsifiable theories (e.g., social psychology, personality psychology, "qualitative" psychology).

More generally Vivek, I get the sense you are not enamoured of science in general (and fair enough, this is not a science forum!), preferring instead to trust personal, direct experience as the enlightened one instructed. But one thing that neuroscience really has made clear is how vulnerable the brain/mind is to illusions and how it constructs experience rather than directly perceiving events. Simply stimulating various parts of the brain can lead to sensations, lights, sounds, hallucinations, even religious experiences, as can many drugs - so can we really trust our experiences? An assumption we must make when commencing a technique such as vipassana is that the experiences are "real" and not just due to food/sleep deprivation and sitting for long periods! (I don't necessarily subscribe to this view, but I think it's an interesting point for discussion!)

Andrew, thanks for your encouraging words and for the link to the paper by Brewer et al. - a nice approach to measuring the "monkey mind" using neuroimaging, which found an apparent reduction in this agitation in experienced meditators, pretty cool. Regarding sensations, if science finds support for the causal involvement of sensations in emotions and decision making, I think it's possible for this to lead to increased confidence in the Buddhist model of the mind without necessarily leading to faith, which I agree is dangerous.

Once again, really appreciate the stimulating and thought-provoking replies!

[Andrew]

Well I would say that your experience is as valid as anyone elses then. The 'slow progress' angle is one that I would like to see some hard facts about! Is it actually lack of progress, or infact something that varies based on other factors. I know I would put myself in a similar catagory; no big shilfts in perception, not permanent anyway, but rather a gradual opening of the understanding and relaxing of the extremist I grew up as.

There is a mechanistic assumption in meditation circles sometimes, that x+y=z all the time.... I would say that people are starting out from so many varied places that comparisons of what is 'fast and slow' become murky.

Perhaps it is your path to really dive into this science angle, it certainly is very interesting and encouraging every time I read a new study, and heck, they don't fal out of the sky! More power to you mate.

[Vivek]

Hello again!

 I see that you have come with more thoughtful comments.

My (possibly mistaken!) view is that even once one has established a regular and serious practice, progress on the path (and I'm assuming this includes any insights that may occur) tends to be quite slow.

I would rather not argue about the time taken to accomplish the Final goal. Some practitioners may take just 2 years, others may take 20 years, still others may take many life times. There is nothing set in stone about this. That is the way these things are. The other reason is that, one way, it is absurd to talk about time required to realize that you are indeed Timeless! To realize that there was no struggle, and no one struggling, is real enlightenment. Also, I sense some limiting beliefs in your statements, which keep you in certain, specific limiting patterns with regard to your practice. I would surely question such beliefs if I were you. Beliefs are just beliefs, not absolute truths. They are part of our mental maps.

Also, if you feel that you need to educate yourself on the Suttas, I would definitely encourage you to do so. But, you should also try to maintain some practice. Attending Goenkaji's Satipatthana course may be very useful to you. They do deal with the theory aspect in depth, in such courses. However, it would be difficult to get inputs from a neuro-science perspctive. Still, you would benefit from the course.

But I have to work under the assumptions that we are beings of matter, and that the mind emerges from the activity of the material brain - these assumptions are required for a science of the mind.

Thanks for this clarification. I understand that science will have to work under this assumption, but I highly doubt if it will meet with any success. You see, the Enlightened One has placed mind and matter in seperate categories. The four categories belong to the mind, or the domain-of-the-subject. The kalapas (sub-atomic "particles") belong to the category of matter, the domain-of-objects. Together they form the Five aggregates. So, from Buddha's perspective, all attempts of science would fall in the realm of matter, which means, a concrete objective proof of the four categories etc would be a thing hard to come by from science. But again, I cannot and don't want to prove this. I am just talking in the lines of the many teachers who attained to full fruition through Dhamma.

"Sensations" such as tingling, itching, tickling, sensual touch, heat, pain, visceral sensations etc arise in nerve endings throughout the body and are transmitted to the brain via the lamina I spinothalamocortical and other pathways, where they are somatotopically mapped onto the insula. These sensations are quite amenable to measurement (e.g., via EEG, SSNA, fMRI), and can even be induced by electrical stimulation of the insula.

Sensations are composed of Kalapas, they are part of matter. I find it hard to think what benefit measuring sensations would make to understanding the structure of the mind.

Simply stimulating various parts of the brain can lead to sensations, lights, sounds, hallucinations, even religious experiences, as can many drugs - so can we really trust our experiences?

As you wold be knowing that sensations etc created due to external stimulation do not come under Vipassana practice. The practitioner is simply asked to sit and observe the natural sensations that arise in the body. Agreed that there may be senstions created due to sitting in one posture, old diseases etc. But with continued practice, the Vipassi understands that there are indeed sensations which do not fall under any of the normal categories. This understanding takes committed practice as well as a spirit of investigation of that of a scientist. Also, in order to avoid pitfalls of getting deluded with experiences, the Arhants have set out something called Vipassana jhanas, which are stages in the progress of Insight. You may want to check them out. And also, no experiences comprising of created sights, sounds, smells etc are given any value in Vipassana. ALL experiences obey the Three Characteristics. And, this is the foundation on which a Vipassi would ALWAYS work. More precisely, whether created or otherwise, a Vipassi does not look for experiences as such, but the UNDERLYING CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL EXPERIENCES, which is the same throughout. So, external stimulation etc do not make much of a difference.

An assumption we must make when commencing a technique such as vipassana is that the experiences are "real" and not just due to food/sleep deprivation and sitting for long periods!

Not sue why you say that sensations caused by food/sleep deprivation, sitting for long periods etc are NOT real. They are also as a real as other sensations. The practitioner has to deal with them, just as he does with those caused by the deep tendencies of the mind. The practice covers the entire realm of experiences, both of the mind and the matter. There is no room for anything unreal/imagined in Vipassana.


I have been fascinated with science and scientific methodologies since I was a kid. And to this day, I follow up on the latest researches in many fields as best as I can. But, when navigating the terrain of subjective in general, and Vipassana in particular, I use my skills in science with caution.

[Matthew]

Progress does not have to be slow. Morality is the base. Lack of it the greatest cause of slowness.

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

Vivek, I thank you once again for your detailed and thoughtful reply. I take your advice about limiting beliefs, and will try to dispense with any such beliefs when it comes to my practice. My approach will be simply to maintain my daily meditation without any expectations - particularly regarding perceived "progress" on the path and "benefits" of practice! Shortly I intend to post another thread with some further questions specific to meditation practice, to ensure I am at least going about it in the right way with the right attitude.

I also appreciate your suggestion about Goenka's course on the satipatthana sutta; indeed, on my last retreat in January another attendee recommended it to me. I plan to attend the course around this time next year after I complete my masters thesis.

Regarding your other comments, I'm starting to see the traps that one can fall into when attempting to study vipassana from a scientific viewpoint! The objective, assumption-based, goal-driven scientific approach seems almost directly incompatible with that of the subjective, experience-based approach of the meditation practitioner. Keeping the two separate is tricky, and my main challenge.

Nevertheless, I still think there is enormous importance in studying vipassana scientifically, and I think it may well be possible to translate the insights of 2,500 years ago into modern terms. For example, the immaterial nature of mind is compatible with mind being a process that arises from the operation of the material brain (similar perhaps to a program running on a computer). Kalapas ("tiny subatomic particles" in Goenka's words) could correspond to the electrons and ions involved in action potentials in nerve cells. I think measuring sensation is important because it is the first step to discovering how sensation may affect the reward circuitry of the brain, and how malfunctions may lead to common mental afflictions such as anxiety, depression, aggression, addiction, etc. Neuroscience already has a good understanding of the specific brain areas that process the input from the different sensory organs (perhaps corresponding to the sensory vinnanas) and with the neural structures (amygdala, hippocampus) that are involved in translating bare sensory input into autonomic outflow to skin and viscera. The intensity of this outflow encodes the importance of the sensory input based on previous experience - this seems to correspond to the idea that sanna evaluates sensory input to produce bodily sensations. You must admit, that's kind of exciting!

Also, IMHO vipassana in its current form will never reach more than a very small proportion of the population due to its perceived association with the "religion" of Buddhism and the high levels of self-discipline required. (BTW, of the numerous people to whom I've recommended Goenka's course over the years, only one has attended, and she only managed two days.) A scientific approach might uncover ways in which modern technology could be used to enhance or facilitate the techniques developed all those centuries ago by the enlightened one. Now, based on the comments on this thread, as I progress in my practice I may well come to the realisation that this view is naive or incorrect. But for now I must move forward with it, having abandoned my previous career and subsequently invested considerable time and expense on my university education.

I do see the wisdom in your words. I think through this thread I've managed to gain a slightly better appreciation of the intellectual aspects of the Buddha's teachings, such as the 4-part model of the mind. And if you don't object too much, I may post a few more questions along these lines in the future. But more importantly I've gained a renewed motivation to maintain my meditation practice over the long term. So thanks! 

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

Progress does not have to be slow. Morality is the base. Lack of it the greatest cause of slowness.

Matthew, thanks for your comment. It's prompted me to re-evaluate my sila over the last few years! I think I've made a reasonable effort so far - perhaps I deserve a B-? No alcohol or other intoxicants for more than four years, celibate and vegetarian for at least three years, I do not intentionally kill animals (though on occasion I've unintentionally killed bugs!), and I do my best not to lie or exaggerate, though I need to work on this more. Also, I must admit that I do listen to music sometimes, I do eat after noon, and perhaps my queen-size bed could be counted as "high and luxurious"! 

[rob]

celibate and vegetarian

Lost me.

 

[Andrew]

Hi DNONS,

A book I've had in rotation for a while now is by a man called Lawrence Leshan. He talks about psychic research and the scientific concept of 'realms' or descrete areas of study. His point is that consciousness cannot and should not be squeezed into the nomenclature of quantum physics. or newtonian physics, or electromagnetic field theory or any such thing.

He points out that we would never speak of the weight of electricity for example, as we know that it has no weight. We would not talk about the colour or sound of an electron, as this is nonsense. In the same way we should not talk about the mind in terms that do not arise out of the study of the mind itself.

Examples would be people trying to work out how clairvoyance works at a distance. The simple fact is distance is not a property of mind, mind does not have dimension (we don't measure thoughts in millimetres for example) so why do we try and start imposing length measurements on it otherwise?

i would be surprised for example, as a builder, that a piece of timber i measured at 1200mm suddenly spanned a gap of 3000mm. That would be impossible. Impossible things don't happen. So when we study mind and observe meaningful interactions at distance, we then, as good scientist should conclude that this is a property of mind and not be surprised. In the same way I am not surprised when I switch on my phone and receive a phone call that it didn't get heavier; the properties dealt with in electromagnetic field theory have no problem with this otherwise strange thing.

I just thought these ideas would be interesting to you, not really addressing anything you have said so much.

A

Edit: these are actually my own examples, I can't quite remember his specifically, they were something along these lines.

[Vivek]

Hey there, Dark Night! Glad to know that you find some of my ramblings helpful. I also find that while I write, many things become more clearer to me. I must say that I am enjoying our discussion here.

The objective, assumption-based, goal-driven scientific approach seems almost directly incompatible with that of the subjective, experience-based approach of the meditation practitioner.

I concur. It is this contradiction and incompatibility that makes applying most of the scientific methods irrelevant to understanding the structure and basis of the mind, and also what could be beyond the mind. I was taught that all experiences comprises of three aspects, experiencer (the subject), experiencing (the process/mode/instrument used) and the experienced (the object). This is the basis of all duality we experience in the phenomenal universe. If we take vision as an example, then there is the seer, the seeing and what is seen. I think, when we are trying to use methods useful in one aspect (the objects) in another aspect (the subject), we are attempting to question and even break through the very foundation of duality, which inevitably leads to dead-ends or even more confusion. It is as if nature won't allow us to go beyond a certain point. Am I going too far with this conjecture? I don't think so. Let me cite an analogy from Physics to explain my point of view: if you are familiar with Einstein's theory of relativity, you would be knowing that it is impossible to cross the velocity of light (of course, there are some unconfirmed reports of some sub-atomic particles crossing the limit during experiments conducted in CERN last year, but that is still subject to more investigation). (UPDATE 03/19/12: It has been confirmed that the findings reported from CERN were indeed false. The particles did not travel faster than the speed of light: http://www.universetoday.com/94203/neutrinos-obey-the-speed-limit-after-all/#more-94203) If, supposing that we try to cross the speed limit, then nature will slow down time, so that our speed is always maintained within the limit (speed equals distance traveled divided by time, so if time increases, correspondingly speed decreases). So, no matter how fast we try to go, time will slow down even more, keeping us always within the speed limit (I am explaining even the basics so that even readers who are not from a science background can understand). There are some boundaries that just cannot be crossed. The main problem here which causes us to fail, according to me, is that all our actions, experiences, even we ourselves, are all time-bound (kaala-bandhita, as Buddha used to say). So, we would fail because we are time-bound, and because our attempts to cross speed of light (of course, this is just a thought experiment, one day humans may be able to prove it in reality) are all dictated by time. Hence, even within the domain of science, we find that we would reach dead-ends with the knowledge and methods we use. Here we are talking about using methods to cross-over from one domain to another. That would only compound our difficulties.

For example, the immaterial nature of mind is compatible with mind being a process that arises from the operation of the material brain (similar perhaps to a program running on a computer).

And I think that is the primary basis on which Neuroscientific research is based on, the software-hardware example in computers, is a frequently used example in this context . But, I think there are some practical considerations that we miss in the example. One question is, is hardware the actual cause of software? In Indian philosophical systems like Vedanta and Samkhya, they study causation in great detail: there are primary causes as well as instrumental causes for all effects. For example, for the effect called mud-pot, mud is the primary cause while the potter, potter's wheel etc are all instrumental causes. The instrumental causes are secondary to the primary cause, and are even replaceable to an extent. Similarly, when we think about it, isn't hardware the instrumental cause of software? Of course, hardware is required for the storage as well as processing of software but that doesn't make it the primary cause. For one, hardware is replaceable, we can replace one type of hardware with another type. What is the primary cause then? Could be energy. Are not energy and matter two different things? (Come to think of it, some latest theories in Physics state that matter itself arises from energy. Then there is Einstein's famous equation, E=M*(C squared). So, it appears, everything is some form of energy manifestations, but that is the topic for another discussion) What I am trying to hint at, is that I don't think brain is the primary cause of mind. I am refraining from placing any further arguments/explanations on this topic, as I feel that that would prove counter-productive. My intention here is to help you think further on these lines, and reach your own conclusions.   

Kalapas ("tiny subatomic particles" in Goenka's words) could correspond to the electrons and ions involved in action potentials in nerve cells.

Buddha explained kalapas as the basis of all material manifestations, including those at the sub-atomic level. So, kalapas are not electrons or ions, they comprise the basic structure of even those particles. They are the subtler than subtlest of all matter. (Actually, I find it hard to call kalapas sub-atomic "particles", even electrons have dual nature and follow Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. So, kalapas as "particles" is incorrect).

Also, IMHO vipassana in its current form will never reach more than a very small proportion of the population due to its perceived association with the "religion" of Buddhism and the high levels of self-discipline required. (BTW, of the numerous people to whom I've recommended Goenka's course over the years, only one has attended, and she only managed two days.) A scientific approach might uncover ways in which modern technology could be used to enhance or facilitate the techniques developed all those centuries ago by the enlightened one.

I wholeheartedly appreciate your desire to bring the technique to an even more wider public. Even though Goenkaji has made all efforts to keep the technique free of all cult influences, dogmas etc, people still find it quite hard to give the technique a fair trial and benefit from its practice. In courses, he himself encourages everyone to sincerely work to make the path available to everyone, in whatever way we can.

Now, based on the comments on this thread, as I progress in my practice I may well come to the realisation that this view is naive or incorrect.

What I think is that as you progress in your practice, your approach will get greatly refined in such a way as to benefit everyone, including yourself. That's because your intention is pure and wholesome, and Dhamma would surely take you step by step so that your knowledge would fructify greatly and benefit everyone. 

There is one important thing that I wanted to bring to your notice, and I was saving for the last. I think you could be a little too fixated on the technique of Vipassana. You see, Vipassana is one aspect of the path. You should give the utmost importane to Dhamma as a whole, not just Vipassana. All three: Sila, Samadhi and Pannya are equally important. As Goenkaji says, they are like the stands of a tripod, all three are equally significant. In order that you and all mankind through you would benefit the most, Dhamma should be the focus of your study, not just Vipassana.

You may keep this thread to discuss further on the intellectual aspects of Dhamma. For practice-oriented questions, you may start separate threads. Starting a practice journal in the forum, could also prove helpful to you.

May you progress well on the path.

[DarkNightOfNoSoul]

Andrew and Vivek, thanks once again for your thought-provoking replies, and for your great metaphors and analogies. I guess I could accept that mind may be a metaphysical entity or energy which is not subject to measurement with physical instruments. After all, scientists only really know about ordinary matter, which makes up about 5% of the universe - the rest is dark matter and dark energy. "Dark" because science knows stuff-all about it, aside from its gravitational influence on ordinary matter!

Andrew, you point out that we simply don't have the appropriate tools or units of measure for consciousness. Vivek, if I've understood correctly, you make similar points and suggest it is impossible to understand "experiencing" objectively, in a similar way that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light. I concede that in psychology, attempts to study "consciousness" and "the mind" typically run up against a raft of philosophical objections. Part of the problem is that everyone has different ideas about how to define "consciousness". And philosophers of mind also raise the question of "qualia" - can we ever know what somebody else's experience "feels like"? For example, how can we know that other people see the colour blue in the same way we do? What does it feel like to be a cat? What does the conscious experience of a flea feel like?

This stuff has practical implications too - how can we determine whether someone in a coma (vegetative state) is actually conscious? With our current medical technology, it's becoming quite common for people who've sustained a serious brain injury (say, in a car accident) to survive, but to end up in a "locked in" state. This is where they can't move a muscle, yet they're actually fully conscious of their surroundings. Philosophers say that we can't ever deduce consciousness in another being; we can only infer it by observing their behaviour and making a subjective judgement based on our own experience. (This is the basis of the Turing Test of whether an intelligent computer can be considered "conscious".) But if a comatose patient doesn't emit any behaviour, what do you do to figure out if they're conscious? Recent tests of vegetative patients aim to identify consciousness by measuring brain activity in response to stimuli, and comparing it with the brain activity of a normal, awake person. But is the brain activity we see in such a patient just  an automatic response, or are they really aware?

On the other hand, studying consciousness and the mind is the domain mainly of cognitive science, which is only one subdiscipline of psychology. Cognitive science is responsible for positing that the brain is the cause of behaviour, and for the old "brain as computer" metaphor (I'm not actually fond of this, so I probably shouldn't have mentioned it!). But other areas of psychology, such as behaviour analysis, see things quite differently - our behaviour (strictly this means observable behaviour such as speech and actions, but I'll also include thoughts as "pre-behaviour") is not caused by the brain, but by an interaction between events in our environment and our previous learning history (stored in our brain). This previous learning history includes not only the events of our own lifetime, but the lifetime of our species (via genetic inheritance), and all the species that came before our species. So our current behaviour is effectively the result of a vast, almost timeless cause-and-effect chain (sounds kind of familiar really!). Behaviour analysis has done a pretty good job of developing mathematical models over the years that can model both animal and human behaviour quite well (e.g., the matching law). If we can extend these models to the internal neurological and physiological processes that accompany sensory processing and behavioural output, we potentially can come up with pretty powerful explanations for why people think and behave as they do.

So even if we're not capable of measuring the "mind", we can understand a lot of human behaviour by understanding a person's history and the measurable events of their nervous system. This is all sounding a bit like strict determinism, which holds that we're slaves of our conditioning and have no "free will". But perhaps we can have degrees of free will - since we are human, and we have the potential to be aware of such processes and understand them intellectually, maybe this potentially allows us to break free of our conditioning and start making more conscious choices? Isn't this one of the roles of dhamma, to help us "awaken" and free ourselves of our conditioning?

OK, this is all a bit of a rant and pretty out there, and most people object to the view of human beings as deterministic machines (though people usually don't mind applying this interpretation to other animals). And I guess Goenka would classify this sort of speculation as "intellectual entertainment", but I find this stuff fascinating! Vivek, I'm glad you also find such topics interesting, and that they stimulate new insights and ideas. Thanks very much for your encouragement and your acknowledgement that my motivation to study vipassana from a scientific viewpoint is at least well-intentioned - if misguided! I hope that dhamma will indeed assist as I work on consolidating my practice. At present, I have an intellectual respect for the technique, but harbour lingering doubts as to my own practice of it. I'm preparing some questions regarding the latter, which I hope to post tomorrow.

Finally, you make the all-important point that right morality and right wisdom are as essential as right concentration. Even if in the distant future, science was able to somehow make meditation more accessible to the masses, I agree it would certainly fail without the other two bases. Again, I have some speculative, neurosciency ideas about why morality and wisdom based on experience are also essential to happiness, but I'm shelving those for now in the hope that further insights will come later!

All the best.